Unrivaled InstinctsG Sorcery
Untap up to two lands you control. Each opponent exiles half of his or her hand at random, rounded up, until end of turn. Humans like to think of themselves as the greatest apex predators. And it might be true, if only all humans were created equal.
Alt. Flavor Text
I've never seen such a blend of reflex and patience. It knew how to push their every button. Every opportunity they thought they beheld became their tomb.
Asking me to jump through hoops because you can't admit that you (or they) were wrong, and didn't think through all the possible applications.
Awww, you think you understand the most successful game in the world better that the people who actually make it? That’s so precious! You just keep on pluggin there little guy.
Certainly, and I've proven this.
This is seriously on some "I am God's gift to code" mentality. And yet, I am the one with the neat functional code. And you are the ones writing entire paragraphs of unnecessary context to preserve and quarter the context of a term as though it aids the grand codex in some way it doesn't, and was totally under-thought in the first place.
Do you not realize the reduction of the product to a functional disasterpiece. An aesthetic disaster. Like only a picture book remains. Wuuuuuu, look at the pretty pictures. That's it. That's the product.
Let us all recognize a mistake when we see it. Let us not repeat the mistakes of others if we can help it.
Maybe you should all start having legitimate arguments and not ones that are baseless and/or involve things like unjust deprivation and unjust quartering.
The authoritarian gig you're always trying to pull on me is really cringe.
Ah yeahmakes sense since without paying is lit. without paying missed that
You're trying to unjustly quarter the term to a specific context, but it's not supported by the coherence that it lacks in other adaptations.
For example, if it was to say "Whenever a player spends one mana or less" that is actually more concise to the act of using mana to pay for the casting a spell. Whereas, the term "paid" or "pays" is a more general term. Because there are many costs that can be "paid" to cast a spell, with mana being one of them. However, there are not many costs that can be "spent" to cast a spell. That doesn't make any sense. That is more specific to act of mana as a cost.
I'm afraid it's not as lit as you'd like to think.
Using the term "pays" is more inclusive to cover the act of all costs possibly involved in the act of casting a spell, counting that when only 1 or less mana is among them, the player loses 2 life.
That's a great cope. Trying to rewrite the wording composure to suggest that it means something different.
However, the nature of the effect is still doing the same thing.
It's checking to see if mana was paid when a spell was cast, and if 1 mana or less was paid, then that player loses 2 life.
You way isn't even more coherent of this fact, you're totally on a baseless claim here, by simply using additional descriptors. They add no additional context to the nature of the effect though, as they both still function as mentioned. Nothing added or lost except unnecessary descriptors.
Well, this doesn't have to say, if a spell was cast but 1 mana or less was paid to cast it.
It has the same meaning as it's written currently.
If it didn't, then it would want additional context or wording composure (in the form of an additional clause) to explain that spells cast by alternative costs doesn't constitute for the effect. That's what it would have if it meant that. This is what it means without that additional context.
Yes, but you're forgetting there is no means to prohibit the use of [As] in this context. Nor is there means to quarter the use of [As] as an exclusive.
It says that it's used, not that it's exclusive. Nor could it—or should it be.
You would be arrested if you ever made an officer repeat themselves to you like this.
As per, your [police tropes] interests.
Do not forget, it's already used for effects within the on-off stack time-frame: Declaration of Naught
Although I would imagine the original Pillar was intended to target that in the first place.
I honestly don't think the contradictory nature of some copies "casting" and others "not casting" is really odd, especially with all the arguing that goes on against me for suggestions of this very nature, here in black and white and living testament.
Not paying any mana to cast a spell does mean that you paid 0 mana to cast it. Thus, it does count for the effect.
A spell was cast. A player paid 0 mana to cast it. They lose 2 life.
It's not necessarily less powerful, because it also includes when spells with higherCMCare castfor free.
I didn't think the effect was healthy to allow stacking so easily.
Considering you would be able to run it together in a split with Pyrostatic Pillar, that alone makes it still far more powerful than is being suggested.
Anti Æther1U Legendary Enchantment
Whenever a player pays one or less mana to cast a spell, that player loses 2 life. Ræ Chu Drut made it through, but sadly his heart did not. It speaks volumes of the little cretin.
Originally was worded including, "whenever a player casts a spell with a converted mana cost 1 or less". I think in summary, that clause is redundant and unnecessary.
It's too solid for a Deus Ex Machina, but I think it could still have Cycling or a Cantrip of some kind.
"When Anti Æther is put into a graveyard or exiled, you may draw a card."
It wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but it wouldn't be as organized.
Thus, even though it could that doesn't mean it's best. I think honestly it would be best to create a new ability type for this, so that it doesn't get jumbled up, being so different from typical State-Based Actions, and thus preventing confusion with other a-like abilities/effects.
Sorcery
Untap up to two lands you control. Each opponent exiles half of his or her hand at random, rounded up, until end of turn.
Humans like to think of themselves as the greatest apex predators. And it might be true, if only all humans were created equal.
Alt. Flavor Text
I've never seen such a blend of reflex and patience. It knew how to push their every button. Every opportunity they thought they beheld became their tomb.
Certainly, and I've proven this.
This is seriously on some "I am God's gift to code" mentality. And yet, I am the one with the neat functional code. And you are the ones writing entire paragraphs of unnecessary context to preserve and quarter the context of a term as though it aids the grand codex in some way it doesn't, and was totally under-thought in the first place.
Do you not realize the reduction of the product to a functional disasterpiece. An aesthetic disaster. Like only a picture book remains. Wuuuuuu, look at the pretty pictures. That's it. That's the product.
Let us all recognize a mistake when we see it. Let us not repeat the mistakes of others if we can help it.
The authoritarian gig you're always trying to pull on me is really cringe.
Asking me to jump through hoops because you can't admit that you (or they) were wrong, and didn't think through all the possible applications.
Such as the one in the opening post.
It simply doesn't make sense that way, and by nature suggests the exact opposite of what we are trying to say and do.
You're trying to unjustly quarter the term to a specific context, but it's not supported by the coherence that it lacks in other adaptations.
For example, if it was to say "Whenever a player spends one mana or less" that is actually more concise to the act of using mana to pay for the casting a spell. Whereas, the term "paid" or "pays" is a more general term. Because there are many costs that can be "paid" to cast a spell, with mana being one of them. However, there are not many costs that can be "spent" to cast a spell. That doesn't make any sense. That is more specific to act of mana as a cost.
I'm afraid it's not as lit as you'd like to think.
Using the term "pays" is more inclusive to cover the act of all costs possibly involved in the act of casting a spell, counting that when only 1 or less mana is among them, the player loses 2 life.
The way it would be worked into Replacement effect would be that the replacement effect triggers twice, and checks twice the option that was chosen.
If when on the stack, effect
If yes, then when off the stack no
If when on the stack no, then when off the stack yes
Look, a perfectly functional singular option.
And if it wanted to be multifaceted, it would say [AND/OR].
However, the nature of the effect is still doing the same thing.
It's checking to see if mana was paid when a spell was cast, and if 1 mana or less was paid, then that player loses 2 life.
You way isn't even more coherent of this fact, you're totally on a baseless claim here, by simply using additional descriptors. They add no additional context to the nature of the effect though, as they both still function as mentioned. Nothing added or lost except unnecessary descriptors.
It has the same meaning as it's written currently.
If it didn't, then it would want additional context or wording composure (in the form of an additional clause) to explain that spells cast by alternative costs doesn't constitute for the effect. That's what it would have if it meant that. This is what it means without that additional context.
That's kind of the end of the story.
It says that it's used, not that it's exclusive. Nor could it—or should it be.
You would be arrested if you ever made an officer repeat themselves to you like this.
As per, your [police tropes] interests.
Do not forget, it's already used for effects within the on-off stack time-frame: Declaration of Naught
Isochron Scepter
Although I would imagine the original Pillar was intended to target that in the first place.
I honestly don't think the contradictory nature of some copies "casting" and others "not casting" is really odd, especially with all the arguing that goes on against me for suggestions of this very nature, here in black and white and living testament.
Not paying any mana to cast a spell does mean that you paid 0 mana to cast it. Thus, it does count for the effect.
A spell was cast. A player paid 0 mana to cast it. They lose 2 life.
I didn't think the effect was healthy to allow stacking so easily.
Considering you would be able to run it together in a split with Pyrostatic Pillar, that alone makes it still far more powerful than is being suggested.
Legendary Enchantment
Whenever a player pays one or less mana to cast a spell, that player loses 2 life.
Ræ Chu Drut made it through, but sadly his heart did not. It speaks volumes of the little cretin.
Originally was worded including, "whenever a player casts a spell with a converted mana cost 1 or less". I think in summary, that clause is redundant and unnecessary.
It's too solid for a Deus Ex Machina, but I think it could still have Cycling or a Cantrip of some kind.
"When Anti Æther is put into a graveyard or exiled, you may draw a card."
Would also consider a cost of UR instead.
Darksteel Colossus
It wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but it wouldn't be as organized.
Thus, even though it could that doesn't mean it's best. I think honestly it would be best to create a new ability type for this, so that it doesn't get jumbled up, being so different from typical State-Based Actions, and thus preventing confusion with other a-like abilities/effects.