Change the Formality Instant
If it's any player's first turn of the game, you may cast Change the Formality without paying its mana cost.
Change the text of target spell or ability by replacing all instances of the word "target" with "each". You make all choices for effects extended to opponents and sources your opponents control this way if possible. "One day you may learn that everything you do gives way to cause. And this into an effect—that may well match its severity. Hopefully that day is today."
Originally, I wanted to do this as:
Change any number of targets of target spell or ability that targets you or a permanent you control to an opponent or a source an opponent controls.
But then I had the above idea. Even despite the haunting notice that it would look like a cheap mock-up on overload, I felt like everything about the design in this form was superior and healthier. I'd like to add a clause something along the lines of.
Final clause added to enable logical control in the event of effects like Blackmail.
The final card is much better than your informal initial idea and shows you can design a normal card that works within the rules. I'm sure giving Overload to random spells and abilities is broken with something, though. Still, a good card that works.
This sounded like a neat concept. Until you realize that it causes things like "~ deals 3 damage to any each." Also its vauge how you resolve "do X to each enchantment or artifact." While the correct answer can be found its best to avoid any vagueness. Then there is the oddity of "up to two each creatures..." logically you would assume you ignore the fact that it says two but the rules have to actually handle such an action and spelling out every eventuality is a nightmare.
Attempting to solve this problem you unfortunately end up with Radiate. Which I assume doesn't fit the goal of this design. I'm not sure if there is a way to salvage the design such that it works on cards with multiple targets.
Sadly, Radiate was very over-costed. That's probably where they came up with Double Vision.
This is closer to Twincast or Reverberate in essence. Mirror Sheen even. If you can copy a spell for 2, then you can extend the effect of a spell for 2, plus the occupancy of the card in the deck; and the inability to run it in a split to increase a deck's percentile clench (but now we're getting deep into professional, responsible development).
This is closer to Twincast or Reverberate in essence. Mirror Sheen even. If you can copy a spell for 2, then you can extend the effect of a spell for 2, plus the occupancy of the card in the deck; and the inability to run it in a split to increase a deck's percentile clench (but now we're getting deep into professional, responsible development).
You don't need to announce that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules and effects as well as their strengths. You've already made this perfectly clear.
A card with multiple lines of text denoting a single target would see the effect tripled with "each".
I am however shocked to see you misuse the phrase "multiple lines of text" so masterfully. Did you mean "words" not "lines of text" I know you do your best to be superfluous with your words but this time you've completely botched the meaning.
Also how do you reach the conclusion that it is "tripled"? Did you mean "doubled for each extra word"? That wouldn't make sense in the rules but it would flow logically.
This is closer to Twincast or Reverberate in essence. Mirror Sheen even. If you can copy a spell for 2, then you can extend the effect of a spell for 2, plus the occupancy of the card in the deck; and the inability to run it in a split to increase a deck's percentile clench (but now we're getting deep into professional, responsible development).
You don't need to announce that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules and effects as well as their strengths. You've already made this perfectly clear.
A card with multiple lines of text denoting a single target would see the effect tripled with "each".
I am however shocked to see you misuse the phrase "multiple lines of text" so masterfully. Did you mean "words" not "lines of text" I know you do your best to be superfluous with your words but this time you've completely botched the meaning.
Also how do you reach the conclusion that it is "tripled"? Did you mean "doubled for each extra word"? That wouldn't make sense in the rules but it would flow logically.
I updated the context before you posted, but you quoted the un-updated text. Was this an attempt to discredit me by some means?
Such as, nitpicking of trivialities in attempts to entirely discredit someone.
I updated the context before you posted, but you quoted the un-updated text. Was this an attempt to discredit me by some means?
Such as, nitpicking of trivialities in attempts to entirely discredit someone.
multiple instances of an effect
There is no difference between your existing text and my quoted text. In this post you've insinuated that you meant "multiple instance of an effect" instead of "multiple lines of text". I know from experience you aren't using this in the accepted use so I'll gloss over than and assume you were competent and said the words you wanted to.
Why is it tripled? How are you reaching that conclusion. You didn't address this part. If you means as I said "doubled for each additional instance" then I understand the thought process but other than the specific card you quoted it makes no sense for an effect that is "up to two (each)targets..." is somehow tripled.
Don't address the nitpick of improper terminology and ignore the actually spelled out question. Oh wait. I'm sorry I once again assumed I was speaking to a fellow adult interested in opening a discussion on theoretical cards and effects. This is my fault.
Reap, no one is trying to discredit you. We aren't attacking you. We want to understand what you mean. We want to be friendly. Could you do this Reap? We all just want to help.
Why is it tripled? How are you reaching that conclusion. You didn't address this part. If you means as I said "doubled for each additional instance" then I understand the thought process but other than the specific card you quoted it makes no sense for an effect that is "up to two (each)targets..." is somehow tripled.
Don't address the nitpick of improper terminology and ignore the actually spelled out question. Oh wait. I'm sorry I once again assumed I was speaking to a fellow adult interested in opening a discussion on theoretical cards and effects. This is my fault.
Reap, no one is trying to discredit you. We aren't attacking you. We want to understand what you mean. We want to be friendly. Could you do this Reap? We all just want to help.
Sure, blame it on your browser cache. Try reloading the page.
Instant
If it's any player's first turn of the game, you may cast Change the Formality without paying its mana cost.
Change the text of target spell or ability by replacing all instances of the word "target" with "each". You make all choices for effects extended to opponents and sources your opponents control this way if possible.
"One day you may learn that everything you do gives way to cause. And this into an effect—that may well match its severity. Hopefully that day is today."
Originally, I wanted to do this as:
Change any number of targets of target spell or ability that targets you or a permanent you control to an opponent or a source an opponent controls.
But then I had the above idea. Even despite the haunting notice that it would look like a cheap mock-up on overload, I felt like everything about the design in this form was superior and healthier. I'd like to add a clause something along the lines of.
Final clause added to enable logical control in the event of effects like Blackmail.
Attempting to solve this problem you unfortunately end up with Radiate. Which I assume doesn't fit the goal of this design. I'm not sure if there is a way to salvage the design such that it works on cards with multiple targets.
This is closer to Twincast or Reverberate in essence. Mirror Sheen even. If you can copy a spell for 2, then you can extend the effect of a spell for 2, plus the occupancy of the card in the deck; and the inability to run it in a split to increase a deck's percentile clench (but now we're getting deep into professional, responsible development).
A card with multiple lines of text denoting a single target would see the effect multiplied that many times with "each".
I am however shocked to see you misuse the phrase "multiple lines of text" so masterfully. Did you mean "words" not "lines of text" I know you do your best to be superfluous with your words but this time you've completely botched the meaning.
Also how do you reach the conclusion that it is "tripled"? Did you mean "doubled for each extra word"? That wouldn't make sense in the rules but it would flow logically.
I updated the context before you posted, but you quoted the un-updated text. Was this an attempt to discredit me by some means?
Such as, nitpicking of trivialities in attempts to entirely discredit someone.
multiple instances of an effect
Why is it tripled? How are you reaching that conclusion. You didn't address this part. If you means as I said "doubled for each additional instance" then I understand the thought process but other than the specific card you quoted it makes no sense for an effect that is "up to two (each)targets..." is somehow tripled.
Don't address the nitpick of improper terminology and ignore the actually spelled out question. Oh wait. I'm sorry I once again assumed I was speaking to a fellow adult interested in opening a discussion on theoretical cards and effects. This is my fault.
Reap, no one is trying to discredit you. We aren't attacking you. We want to understand what you mean. We want to be friendly. Could you do this Reap? We all just want to help.
Sure, blame it on your browser cache. Try reloading the page.