If you want to break iron-clad conventions in your own set, you can do it. But then why are you asking here for "the right way to do it?" There isn't one.
Okay. So nobody can get past this no-instants-or-sorceries-in-play thing, no matter what wording I put on the card.
Well, I'd put it "some can't get past the fact that they can't do everything they want."
Bob the Idiot 0
Legendary Creature
Morph 0
When ~ is turned face up, play this without paying its mana cost.
1/1
I have the same card, but face down. I turn it face up. The trigger goes on the stack, state-based effects are checked, and both Bobs die horrible deaths. Does the ability triggered by mine being turned face up go off, though?
Resolve? Yes. Let you play a card? No. Is it really possible to play a card that is already in play? I don't know. Is it a good idea to try? No - what happens if you can't play it?"
Or to play the spell, does it have to be "As ~ is turned face up..."?
Again, timing is not defined well enough to let you do this. As I said before.
people keep harping on me in this thread about then not being able to be in play. So now, it doesn't stay in play.
"Stay" isn't the issue. It can't ever BE in play.
Now, will someone answer the question I'm really asking and stop hassling me? Please? Will "When ~ is turned face up..." work, or does it have to be "As ~ is turned face up..."?
Will you accept the answer, even if you don't like it? "Neither, really."
I am fairly certain my "as" wording is a sure fix:
"As ~ is turned face up, remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost."
And how do you make it change zones "as" it is doing something in one zone? You can't. "As" kinda requires that it stay in play. You can't word it this way. And, you can't make it a straight replacement, either, for reasons similar to...
"As" replacements really don't work, anyway; that's why rule 419.6i exists. But the necessary rule that would allow "as ~ is turned face up" to work doesn't exist (yet?). The ability needs to exist before the event it replaces, and by definition that one can't. So it's a complete rules kludge that Vesuvan Shapeshifter works at all. I can't tell you how "playing" a card in such a kludged timing system would work. In my very knowlegeable opinion, it simply can't.
[Edit]
I am pretty sure this wording does work, and its much more elegant than mine. GJ. (though there is no examples to show the proper wording of something like this, it works within the rules as far as i can tell)
No, it doesn't. A "card" can only become a "spell" through the process of "playing" it. That means choosing targets, modes, options, paying costs, etc.
There is a reason you found no examples: it is impossible, so there are none. To validate that, look for effects that create copy spells. Either they copy a "spell" (and all its choices) originally, and you don't "play" it; or they copy a "card" that is not a spell yet, and you have to "play" it (to make those choices).
All right:
"If ~ would be turned face up, instead remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost."
Wording from Lotus Vale
Better?
Now there is no "as..." being in play for any length of time. If it where to almost come into play, it does not. I felt "as..." was all-right because the instant would not be in play when priority was given, this wording fixes that problem.
Quote from Condor »
Your suggestion allows it to happen. Meddling Mage naming your card, and Break Open.
I am hoping your not referring to MY suggestion.
Quote from Condor »
No, it doesn't. A "card" can only become a "spell" through the process of "playing" it. That means choosing targets, modes, options, paying costs, etc.
Right... Sorry.... I have just finished making a batch of cards that jump to the stack, but since they do not have targets or modes, etc. I have forgotten all of this. I will make a tread where people can rip said cards apart....
All right:
"If ~ would be turned face up, instead remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost."
Wording from Lotus Vale
Better?
Nope. Where is the ability, in the moment just before you would turn the card face up? That is to say, at the exact moment it needs to "exist" so that you can apply it?
Rule 419.6i makes "as comes into play" get around this problem. No rule makes "as turn face up" get around it, but it is assumed it does. "If... would...instead" does not, and can not, replace anything if the ability doesn't exist in the moment just before the event it wants to replace would happen.
I felt "as..." was all-right because the instant would not be in play when priority was given, this wording fixes that problem.
Um.... what? Priority is not involved in thsi card, unless it uses "when." That's whay you tried to use replacements.
Nope. Where is the ability, in the moment just before you would turn the card face up? That is to say, at the exact moment it needs to "exist" so that you can apply it?
Well then, reading rule 212.6a I am quite befuddled as to how Lotus Vale works.
Lotus Vale doesn't (often) have the problem of having its abilities removed before you put it into play. Face-down permanents do.
But lotus Vales ability is used before it comes into play. But it should not even be "revealed" before it comes into play, as far as I know(being a land it just goes from hand to play). So when does that "if it would..." be used
Quote from condor »
in the moment just before you would turn the card face up? That is to say, at the exact moment it needs to "exist" so that you can apply it?
But lotus Vales ability is used before it comes into play. But it should not even be "revealed" before it comes into play, as far as I know(being a land it just goes from hand to play).
The charactersitics of cards in your hand exist, the the game sense. Charactistics printed on a face-down creature do not.
The player whose hand the Lotus Vale comes from can see that the ability is there, that it "exists", and apply it just before the card comes into play. In fact, any method of putting a card into play requires that somebody look at it before it moves. Just to make sure it can come into play (remember "design constraints" about instants?). So you will never see an ability like "Put the top card of your library into play." It will be "Reveal the top card of your library. If it is a <list types here>, put it into play."
The charactersitics of cards in your hand exist, the the game sense. Charactistics printed on a face-down creature do not.
Ok, now I am going to ask a stupid question. Assuming this, should sudden spoiling NOT removed the "if ~ would be turned..." Since its some "Charactistics printed on a face-down" card?
With Yixlid Jailer in play, a Lotus Vale can be played from the graveyard without sacrificing lands. Because it doesn't have the "If...would...instead" ability at the time it needs to be applied.
But Coastal Tower would come into play tapped. This is because 419.6i makes "As ~ comes into play" a special class of replacement effect. What's even weirder, is that Coastal Tower comes into play tapped even if Nature's Revolt and Humility are in play as well (um, assume something is making Yixlid Jailer keep its ability).
The Lotus Vale requires that its ability exist just before it comes into play, and after all continuous effects are applied. But Coastal Tower needs the ability to exist as a copiable value on the permanent you are going to put into play.
That result is necessary, in order to make copy cards copy similar "As ~ would come into play" effects. They all work at the "copy level" of effects, far below the layer where Yixlid Jailer and Humility apply. And, they work based upon the "copiable values" the card would have once it is in play. This is all very unorthodox, but it is described in 419.6i.
But "As ~ is turned face up" has no similar rule, and it does not work in the copy layer. The "special case" that it gets applied based upon having the ability face-up is just assumed; but Humility will still remove it. (And the answer you found has no bearing on this. Break Open can make the card turn up, but it still lacks the "As ~ is turned face up" ability.)
The answer I found proved me "more" wrong.
Ok condor i think your going to really have to beat this into my thick skull. (or some one else if you have other things to do) would this wording prevent sudden spoiling from keeping it in play:
"If ~ would be turned face up or is in play, instead remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost."
Since it would go bye bye as soon as it stopped being a 0/2
So what your saying is if you cast sudden spoiling and then break open on a Vesuvan Shapeshifter, it would just die at end of turn. As it would if someone broke it open with a humility in play and then disenchanted the humility.
Every day in every way i wish they had never printed break open.
The answer I found proved me "more" wrong.
Ok condor i think your going to really have to beat this into my thick skull. (or some one else if you have other things to do) would this wording prevent sudden spoiling from keeping it in play:
No. I didn't read it yet. If a card is in play, and has to use its own ability in any wa, sudden spoiling will stop it from working. The only ways around this fact is how rule 419.6i makes "As ~this~ comes into play" abilities special, and abilties like Mistform Ultimus which just set other characteristics.
"If ~ would be turned face up or is in play, instead remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost."
Since it would go bye bye as soon as it stopped being a 0/2
Only if it has its abilities. That, and the fact that "is in play" is not an event so it can't be replaced, make this not work.
So what your saying is if you cast sudden spoiling and then break open on a Vesuvan Shapeshifter, it would just die at end of turn.
I am not trying to cause trouble, but I really do feel there is some wording that will allow an instant to be a morph, I am aware that just making a card like : Cannon Fodder1R
Creature - Lemming
Flash
When Cannon Fodder comes into play or is turned face up, it deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Morph R
0/0
Would be MUCH less of a head ack, but would:
"If ~ would be turned face up, instead remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost.
If ~ is in play, put it in your graveyard."
Work then? Sudden spoiling would keep it a creature until it got its abilities back (this is wrong isn't it?). Or is it more of the same?
If they had never printed break open, this would not even really be a issue. Why could they have not made it playable if they where going to do that?
I am not trying to cause trouble, but I really do feel there is some wording that will allow an instant to be a morph, I am aware that just making a card like
Read my lips: "Any ability that it could have, that could/would cause it to avoid being an instant in play, can be removed by any of a number of effects." Meaning it will then become an instant in play.
would:
"If ~ would be turned face up,...
Anything starting this way can not work. The face-down creature has no abilities, and this can never (and I really mean "never") be applied.
If ~ is in play, put it in your graveyard."
This would have to be a (state-based) trigger, "When ~ is in play, put it in your graveyard." And even if it could be a pseudo-replacement you seem to intend, it would be an instant in play for a short while.
If they had never printed break open, this would not even really be a issue.
Sure it would. It would just be harder to show it to you. By Cytoshaping it into another form with morph, you can turn it up for that morph cost. When Cytoshape wears off, there's your instant in play.
There are certain basic assumptions that go into making the game. The more complex the game is, to more of these are needed. Complex effects have been created that inherently assume a card in play will be either creature, artifact, enchantment, or land card. Some will get broken if they find that assumption is wrong.
[Edit]
Soron, have you ever heard of Godel's Theorem? It's a math theorem, and it is about math theorems. It essentially says (paraphrased to be most appropriate here) that within any system of rules, that either you will not able to describe all statements that are true within that system, or else there will be some statements that you can make that you cannot prove are true or false.
A superficial example is a language like English. I think you will agree that it should be possible, in theory, to state any "truth" in English. So, there are some English statements you can't prove are true or false. Here's one:
"This statement is false."
(And in fact, it was a statement like that that Godel used to prove all this.)
I think you are working from the assumption that Magic's vocabulary must be able to 1) Do anything you want it to, and 2) Not create undeterminible situations like that example. I'm nott going to claim that Godel's theorem really applies to Magic; but that doesn't mean that there aren't similarities. I think you will agree that "create an undeterminible situation" would be a bad thing.
So, that probably means there are some things you just cannot do.
Soron, have you ever heard of Godel's Theorem? It's a math theorem, and it is about math theorems. It essentially says (paraphrased to be most appropriate here) that within any system of rules, that either you will not able to describe all statements that are true within that system, or else there will be some statements that you can make that you cannot prove are true or false.
A superficial example is a language like English. I think you will agree that it should be possible, in theory, to state any "truth" in English. So, there are some English statements you can't prove are true or false. Here's one:
"This statement is false."
(And in fact, it was a statement like that that Godel used to prove all this.)
I think you are working from the assumption that Magic's vocabulary must be able to 1) Do anything you want it to, and 2) Not create undeterminible situations like that example. It has been proven, by Godel, that you can't do both. And I think you will agree that "create an undeterminible situation" would be a bad thing.
So, there are some things you just cannot do.
That is not a good example of Godel's Theorem (are we speaking of his incompleteness theorem?) If i recall his theorem is basically just a logical proof that all logic systems need to be built on base assumptions and that those assumptions with in that system cannot be prove, but need to be excepted as truth. In this cause you are saying "an instant card cannot be in play" is simply something that needs to be excepted in magic, but this is not the case. You have proven using the rules that this cannot happen, thus it is not a base assumption because you where able to prove it.
I think you will agree that it should be possible, in theory, to state any "truth" in English.
I am afraid i do not. There are many "truths" that cannot be written in english. (my Chinese friends agree) But if you do believe that, and you feel in the magic system you can make statements like "this statement is false" THEN you will be "able to describe all statements that are true within that system." So that there would be a way of wording an instant with morph, since nothing in the rules prevents a "creature" from being in play. (or a 'nothing' or a planeswalker)
If i recall his theorem is basically just a logical proof that all logic systems need to be built on base assumptions and that those assumptions with in that system cannot be prove, but need to be excepted as truth.
Not at all. A closer statement is that any system of rules must be either incomplete (cannot express a truth) or inconsistent (the truth of a statement cannot be determined). And my example was good, since it is essentially the proof - any system that tries to attain a certian level of completeness will, by necessity, contain a Godel Sentence (which is what that statement is called.)
My point above is that you are assuming that Magic must be "complete" enough for its rules to allow an instant to be in play. I'm saying that if it could be made that complete, you will get inconsistencies.
My point above is that you are assuming that Magic must be "complete" enough for its rules to allow an instant to be in play. I'm saying that if it could be made that complete, you will get inconsistencies.
This is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is a way for an instant to be in play while its a creature and not an instant. Which would not require magic to be any more complete then it already is. How ever if there is a way for it to be in play as an instant not a creature, then its "wrong," as you have been pointing out.
English isn't the kind of system Godel's theorem applies to, and neither is Magic's vocabulary. I quote:
For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.
This only applies to 'languages' (axioms and rules for manipulating them) which describe arithmetic, and in which it's impossible to 'prove' a contradiction. Here, 'proof' is a sequence of applications of the axioms and rules for manipulation. In other words, we have a system of symbols and rules for symbol manipulation ('language' or 'field), and also a way of interpereting alist of symbols that arises from this manipulation as a statement about arithmetic. Godel's theorem says that there's no language/field that can be used to form (prove) every true statement about arithmetic unless it can also form (prove) contradictions (meaning, both a statement and its opposite).
None of this applies to magic or english. It has extensions that apply to other areas of formal theory, as you can see in the link above, but still not to english or the magic rules. Magic simply doesn't make descriptive statements about something - it makes defining statments, or definitions. A definition isn't incomplete or wrong; only a description can be either. Also, English language construction doesn't proceed from a set of axioms. You could call the basic rules of grammar the axioms, but then it becomes obviously possible to construct ('prove') contradictions, simply because they're grammatically correct. ("The sky is blue. The sky is red"). Simply constructing these statements within the rules of the 'language' is proof, if you're treating English as a Godel field.
Godel's incompleteness theorem is the most-misquoted theorem in math. It's very abstruse, and its application is much narrower than it seems. However, since it sounds to laypeople like a promise that "logic can't describe everything," people with no math background love quoting it everywhere, usually when it doesn't apply.
Ok Condor is going to kill me, but this instant with morph thing is killing me. What about:
Bridge from BeyondGGG
Enchantment
Suspend X-X X can't be 0.
While ~ is removed from the game cards you own have morph and face down cards can't be turned face up.
If ~ would leave the removed from game zone, instead remove all face down cards from the game and then put ~ in its owners graveyard.
Bridge from BeyondGGG
Enchantment
Suspend X-X X can't be 0.
While ~ is removed from the game cards you own have morph and face down cards can't be turned face up.
If ~ would leave the removed from game zone, instead remove all face down cards from the game and then put ~ in its owners graveyard.
Oh, let's say Ignorant Bliss while this is in your hand. It gets removed. Can you, or can you not, turn morphs face up? Does it return to your hand?
RFG cards can't really have abilities that work only because they are removed from the game. That's why suspend uses counters.
Besides, it you want to go the "other-card-to-make-it-work" route, just say "All instant cards in all zones are creature cards. This ability works in all zones." It really isn't making a instant card that has morph.
Bridge from BeyondGGG
Enchantment
Suspend X-X X can't be 0.
While ~ is removed from the game and is face up cards you own have morph and face down cards can't be turned face up.
If ~ would leave the removed from game zone and is face up, instead remove all face down cards from the game and then put ~ in its owners graveyard.
or are you going to tell me i should just make a "All instant cards in all zones are creature cards. This ability works in all zones." My intent was more or less to make a card that aloud for an instant to be in play as a creature. if the wording is hammered out then one could start adding lines that has them to be removed from the game and played. Pichoro was the one that wanted instant that would be morphing up in play.
"Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Don't do that."
I'm not trying to be flip. This is one reason why it's a design constraint to not do it.
Neurok Transmuter and March of the Machines can make a permanent that has no type.
Well, I'd put it "some can't get past the fact that they can't do everything they want."
Resolve? Yes. Let you play a card? No. Is it really possible to play a card that is already in play? I don't know. Is it a good idea to try? No - what happens if you can't play it?"
Again, timing is not defined well enough to let you do this. As I said before.
"Stay" isn't the issue. It can't ever BE in play.
Will you accept the answer, even if you don't like it? "Neither, really."
And how do you make it change zones "as" it is doing something in one zone? You can't. "As" kinda requires that it stay in play. You can't word it this way. And, you can't make it a straight replacement, either, for reasons similar to...
"As" replacements really don't work, anyway; that's why rule 419.6i exists. But the necessary rule that would allow "as ~ is turned face up" to work doesn't exist (yet?). The ability needs to exist before the event it replaces, and by definition that one can't. So it's a complete rules kludge that Vesuvan Shapeshifter works at all. I can't tell you how "playing" a card in such a kludged timing system would work. In my very knowlegeable opinion, it simply can't.
[Edit]
No, it doesn't. A "card" can only become a "spell" through the process of "playing" it. That means choosing targets, modes, options, paying costs, etc.
There is a reason you found no examples: it is impossible, so there are none. To validate that, look for effects that create copy spells. Either they copy a "spell" (and all its choices) originally, and you don't "play" it; or they copy a "card" that is not a spell yet, and you have to "play" it (to make those choices).
"If ~ would be turned face up, instead remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost."
Wording from Lotus Vale
Better?
Now there is no "as..." being in play for any length of time. If it where to almost come into play, it does not. I felt "as..." was all-right because the instant would not be in play when priority was given, this wording fixes that problem.
I am hoping your not referring to MY suggestion.
Right... Sorry.... I have just finished making a batch of cards that jump to the stack, but since they do not have targets or modes, etc. I have forgotten all of this. I will make a tread where people can rip said cards apart....
Nope. Where is the ability, in the moment just before you would turn the card face up? That is to say, at the exact moment it needs to "exist" so that you can apply it?
Rule 419.6i makes "as comes into play" get around this problem. No rule makes "as turn face up" get around it, but it is assumed it does. "If... would...instead" does not, and can not, replace anything if the ability doesn't exist in the moment just before the event it wants to replace would happen.
Um.... what? Priority is not involved in thsi card, unless it uses "when." That's whay you tried to use replacements.
Any ability on the card can be removed. You can't let an instant be in play, no matter how you hide it.
Can't happen.
The charactersitics of cards in your hand exist, the the game sense. Charactistics printed on a face-down creature do not.
The player whose hand the Lotus Vale comes from can see that the ability is there, that it "exists", and apply it just before the card comes into play. In fact, any method of putting a card into play requires that somebody look at it before it moves. Just to make sure it can come into play (remember "design constraints" about instants?). So you will never see an ability like "Put the top card of your library into play." It will be "Reveal the top card of your library. If it is a <list types here>, put it into play."
NVM some one already asked this:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=68098&highlight=sudden+spoiling
With Yixlid Jailer in play, a Lotus Vale can be played from the graveyard without sacrificing lands. Because it doesn't have the "If...would...instead" ability at the time it needs to be applied.
But Coastal Tower would come into play tapped. This is because 419.6i makes "As ~ comes into play" a special class of replacement effect. What's even weirder, is that Coastal Tower comes into play tapped even if Nature's Revolt and Humility are in play as well (um, assume something is making Yixlid Jailer keep its ability).
The Lotus Vale requires that its ability exist just before it comes into play, and after all continuous effects are applied. But Coastal Tower needs the ability to exist as a copiable value on the permanent you are going to put into play.
That result is necessary, in order to make copy cards copy similar "As ~ would come into play" effects. They all work at the "copy level" of effects, far below the layer where Yixlid Jailer and Humility apply. And, they work based upon the "copiable values" the card would have once it is in play. This is all very unorthodox, but it is described in 419.6i.
But "As ~ is turned face up" has no similar rule, and it does not work in the copy layer. The "special case" that it gets applied based upon having the ability face-up is just assumed; but Humility will still remove it. (And the answer you found has no bearing on this. Break Open can make the card turn up, but it still lacks the "As ~ is turned face up" ability.)
Ok condor i think your going to really have to beat this into my thick skull. (or some one else if you have other things to do) would this wording prevent sudden spoiling from keeping it in play:
"If ~ would be turned face up or is in play, instead remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost."
Since it would go bye bye as soon as it stopped being a 0/2
So what your saying is if you cast sudden spoiling and then break open on a Vesuvan Shapeshifter, it would just die at end of turn. As it would if someone broke it open with a humility in play and then disenchanted the humility.
Every day in every way i wish they had never printed break open.
No. I didn't read it yet. If a card is in play, and has to use its own ability in any wa, sudden spoiling will stop it from working. The only ways around this fact is how rule 419.6i makes "As ~this~ comes into play" abilities special, and abilties like Mistform Ultimus which just set other characteristics.
Only if it has its abilities. That, and the fact that "is in play" is not an event so it can't be replaced, make this not work.
Yep.
Cannon Fodder 1R
Creature - Lemming
Flash
When Cannon Fodder comes into play or is turned face up, it deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Morph R
0/0
Would be MUCH less of a head ack, but would:
"If ~ would be turned face up, instead remove it from the game. Until end of turn, you may play ~ without paying its mana cost.
If ~ is in play, put it in your graveyard."
Work then? Sudden spoiling would keep it a creature until it got its abilities back (this is wrong isn't it?). Or is it more of the same?
If they had never printed break open, this would not even really be a issue. Why could they have not made it playable if they where going to do that?
Read my lips: "Any ability that it could have, that could/would cause it to avoid being an instant in play, can be removed by any of a number of effects." Meaning it will then become an instant in play.
Anything starting this way can not work. The face-down creature has no abilities, and this can never (and I really mean "never") be applied.
This would have to be a (state-based) trigger, "When ~ is in play, put it in your graveyard." And even if it could be a pseudo-replacement you seem to intend, it would be an instant in play for a short while.
Sure it would. It would just be harder to show it to you. By Cytoshaping it into another form with morph, you can turn it up for that morph cost. When Cytoshape wears off, there's your instant in play.
There are certain basic assumptions that go into making the game. The more complex the game is, to more of these are needed. Complex effects have been created that inherently assume a card in play will be either creature, artifact, enchantment, or land card. Some will get broken if they find that assumption is wrong.
[Edit]
Soron, have you ever heard of Godel's Theorem? It's a math theorem, and it is about math theorems. It essentially says (paraphrased to be most appropriate here) that within any system of rules, that either you will not able to describe all statements that are true within that system, or else there will be some statements that you can make that you cannot prove are true or false.
A superficial example is a language like English. I think you will agree that it should be possible, in theory, to state any "truth" in English. So, there are some English statements you can't prove are true or false. Here's one: (And in fact, it was a statement like that that Godel used to prove all this.)
I think you are working from the assumption that Magic's vocabulary must be able to 1) Do anything you want it to, and 2) Not create undeterminible situations like that example. I'm nott going to claim that Godel's theorem really applies to Magic; but that doesn't mean that there aren't similarities. I think you will agree that "create an undeterminible situation" would be a bad thing.
So, that probably means there are some things you just cannot do.
That is not a good example of Godel's Theorem (are we speaking of his incompleteness theorem?) If i recall his theorem is basically just a logical proof that all logic systems need to be built on base assumptions and that those assumptions with in that system cannot be prove, but need to be excepted as truth. In this cause you are saying "an instant card cannot be in play" is simply something that needs to be excepted in magic, but this is not the case. You have proven using the rules that this cannot happen, thus it is not a base assumption because you where able to prove it.
I am afraid i do not. There are many "truths" that cannot be written in english. (my Chinese friends agree) But if you do believe that, and you feel in the magic system you can make statements like "this statement is false" THEN you will be "able to describe all statements that are true within that system." So that there would be a way of wording an instant with morph, since nothing in the rules prevents a "creature" from being in play. (or a 'nothing' or a planeswalker)
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Not at all. A closer statement is that any system of rules must be either incomplete (cannot express a truth) or inconsistent (the truth of a statement cannot be determined). And my example was good, since it is essentially the proof - any system that tries to attain a certian level of completeness will, by necessity, contain a Godel Sentence (which is what that statement is called.)
My point above is that you are assuming that Magic must be "complete" enough for its rules to allow an instant to be in play. I'm saying that if it could be made that complete, you will get inconsistencies.
But this has gone far enough.
Canon Fodder 1R
Instant
~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Morph R, Put this card on the stack.
Let me see a "this statement is false." magic statement...
"As ~ comes into play, it is nether tapped nor untapped."
"This creature is not a creature"
Any way, in magic you can't "do whatever you want" and you can "create undeterminible situations" like if you http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=85839
But i still hold fast that there is a way to make a morphing instant work with the current rules.
This is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is a way for an instant to be in play while its a creature and not an instant. Which would not require magic to be any more complete then it already is. How ever if there is a way for it to be in play as an instant not a creature, then its "wrong," as you have been pointing out.
This statement could be true.
This statement is not, please read the other posts.
For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.
This only applies to 'languages' (axioms and rules for manipulating them) which describe arithmetic, and in which it's impossible to 'prove' a contradiction. Here, 'proof' is a sequence of applications of the axioms and rules for manipulation. In other words, we have a system of symbols and rules for symbol manipulation ('language' or 'field), and also a way of interpereting alist of symbols that arises from this manipulation as a statement about arithmetic. Godel's theorem says that there's no language/field that can be used to form (prove) every true statement about arithmetic unless it can also form (prove) contradictions (meaning, both a statement and its opposite).
None of this applies to magic or english. It has extensions that apply to other areas of formal theory, as you can see in the link above, but still not to english or the magic rules. Magic simply doesn't make descriptive statements about something - it makes defining statments, or definitions. A definition isn't incomplete or wrong; only a description can be either. Also, English language construction doesn't proceed from a set of axioms. You could call the basic rules of grammar the axioms, but then it becomes obviously possible to construct ('prove') contradictions, simply because they're grammatically correct. ("The sky is blue. The sky is red"). Simply constructing these statements within the rules of the 'language' is proof, if you're treating English as a Godel field.
Godel's incompleteness theorem is the most-misquoted theorem in math. It's very abstruse, and its application is much narrower than it seems. However, since it sounds to laypeople like a promise that "logic can't describe everything," people with no math background love quoting it everywhere, usually when it doesn't apply.
Bridge from Beyond GGG
Enchantment
Suspend X-X X can't be 0.
While ~ is removed from the game cards you own have morph and face down cards can't be turned face up.
If ~ would leave the removed from game zone, instead remove all face down cards from the game and then put ~ in its owners graveyard.
Ready!
It works...
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
SUCCESS!
:banana::dance::bunny:
A card that allows an instant to have morph!
Oh, let's say Ignorant Bliss while this is in your hand. It gets removed. Can you, or can you not, turn morphs face up? Does it return to your hand?
RFG cards can't really have abilities that work only because they are removed from the game. That's why suspend uses counters.
Besides, it you want to go the "other-card-to-make-it-work" route, just say "All instant cards in all zones are creature cards. This ability works in all zones." It really isn't making a instant card that has morph.
Bridge from Beyond GGG
Enchantment
Suspend X-X X can't be 0.
While ~ is removed from the game and is face up cards you own have morph and face down cards can't be turned face up.
If ~ would leave the removed from game zone and is face up, instead remove all face down cards from the game and then put ~ in its owners graveyard.
or are you going to tell me i should just make a "All instant cards in all zones are creature cards. This ability works in all zones." My intent was more or less to make a card that aloud for an instant to be in play as a creature. if the wording is hammered out then one could start adding lines that has them to be removed from the game and played. Pichoro was the one that wanted instant that would be morphing up in play.
While that morph is on the stack, I Pull from Eternity the Enchantment.
My morph resolves.
I use Ixidron, Reality Sculptor to turn the morph face up.
Tada! Lightning Bolt in play.