Quote from Domri »Hi guys! It's know that the rules text in a magic card is an impediment that limit the complexity of a card, and even dont let a card to be printed unless it cutted. Over the years, Wizards made changes to reduce card's text (like create) , but thats doesnt be enough.
Today, I bring you some changes that Magic should make. Lets start
No uh... thanks. But I'll give you a listen and see what you have to say.
1. New Keyword: Fury
This would replace the ability "This creature must attack if able". Why?, because this ability was in Magic since its born, and is used very often in all sets. Keyworded the ability would safe space in texts.
Potential keywords need to see a lot of use across a lot of cards in order to be... well, keywirded. I see less than a dozen? Maybe? Am I missing something here? Are there more?
2. New rule term: Revive
In the same way of die, this would replace phrases like "Put one creature card from your graveyard onto the battlefield" with "Revive your target creature card".
A little better but I don't really care for this one either. This sort of concept has so many conditions or exceptions that it ends up there are very few cards that really work well with keywording. The cards that really need it have such a long wall of text that keywording it isn't going to change much.
In essence, keywording won't help when there is so much additional text involving exceptions or special conditions.
3. Name cards by its types, no by its names,
Instead of putting rhe complete name of a card in its rules text, it's better to put its permanent type only. For example, "Tin Street Assassin can block an additional..." to "This creature can block an additional...". This change should let to put long names on cards and should reduce rules text from older cards with long names. Legendary cards and planedwalkers should not be affected, for flavor reasons only.
I'm actually quite content when they name the specific card instead of using the "creature" template. Believe it or not, I find it easier to parse for negative conditions when playing cards. But I digress, changing the existing template to allow for longer names is not a good enough reason for this change IMHO. YU-GI-OH has many of the longest names found in a game and it's absolutely absurd. Seriously, Magic needs to stay far far away from absurd garbage like Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Evening Twilight.
Eliminate the word "owner". Cards like Unsummon, for 3xample would only reads "Return target creature to the hand", instead of "its owner's hand". That the current rules text clarify that the permanent return to its owners hand sounds redundant and unnecesary.
It's not redundant. There is actually a bit of history as to why this is. But in a nut shell, it boils down to who is casting Unsummon and whose hand said card returns to. Rules Lawyers love this sort of inane crap and I don't want to give them more ammo. So no.
5. Cast X spell
In Magic, the only thing you can cast is a spell, so write "artifact spells" or "instant spells" is unnecesary too. Saying "You can cast artifacts as though they have flash..." (without using the word "spell") is enough for me.
This on also has history though I'm not as intimately familiar with it. Very old cards actually did read this way, such as Metamorphosis. However, over time, I believe there was a number of clarifications as to what, exactly, a spell means. So many cards now have this templating for this reason. For instance, the previous mentioned Metamorphosis received errata to read "cast creature spell" instead of "summon creature". At this point, I think there has to be a very compelling reason to go back and, more importantly, to make it worth errata a bunch of cards again. Something I really have no interest in if the reason you gave is the only one.
6. Attacks or blocks
They need to create a unique word that binds both the axtion of attack and block. Since "fight" is already use, I would use words like battle. "Target creature can't attack or block" to "Target creature can't battle", for example.
There are 69 cards that have the phrase "attack or block" in its text. I do not believe that is enough cards to really justify such a keyword. Especially if said keyword is going to have reminder text anyways.
7. Activated and triggered abilities
The phrase "activated abilities can't be activated" sounds redundant. Its better to say only "Abiities can't be activated"
For 24 cards? Why??
Besides, "Activated Ability" has a very specific rules definition (602.1). Ability is a bit more general encompassing four different types of abilities. I suspect removing "activated" would add a layer of potential ambiguity that's just not worth dealing with.