Community

You may cast permanent cards that are in your opponent's graveyards. You may spend or to pay their costs.

The problem is that you're not very technical when it comes to English. Here JM. I highlighted the keywords in the sentence and I'm going to explain the context of the sentence structure.

The word cast sets the foundation. It lets you know that we are initially going to cast spells, but spend is the word that should be all the clarity you need. It lets you know that this ability is going to be affecting the process of spending mana. In this composition, it only denotes that a change of the types of mana you can use (due to the sentence structure). When spend is before the mana colors like that, it literally means we are only effecting the types of mana you can spend. The word pay is supplementary to this in the sentence, and is the word that supplies this meaning.

The combination of the word spend and pay lets you know that we are only changing the types of mana you can spend to pay for the costs. We are not changing the amount of mana you have to pay, just the colored requirements. If we changing the amount of mana you pay, the word pay would be before the mana symbols in the sentence structure. For example, "You may pay or to cast them instead of paying their mana cost.".

Finally, the word costs extends the ability to all the colored requirements of the permanent card's abilities. It connects to the first sentence (which defines what we are working with), then in the phrase "pay their costs", let's you know this effect will carry over on the card once you've successfully cast it and it hits the battlefield, and you can pay any mana costs of that card with or .


Fallingman, Spellshape just got a wording update for simplification. Before it was an activated ability with its own cost. I found this wording composition much better. At the end of the sentence, in the reminder text, it references the card as a spell to denote that you will copy it as though the card is a spell on the stack. This was never an original ability, it was like a stay cat that wandered onto my veranda and I decided to keep it after awhile. In the set it acts like a catalyst providing strong utility for dead draws and wasted cards in your hand.

Buyback was terrible, never bring it up. I understand the measure of thought that went into it; everyone was trying hard to keep it fair and balanced, but in all truth, it's too limited and nearly useless. If this could be an improved buyback, so be it. I certainly don't mind the update. It was never meant to be such a thing, but I welcome the likeness given its individuality and historic flavor (of spellshapers ). It's very different. I believe that only people looking to belittle the keyword as unoriginal or plagiarism would compare like this.

Nice stuff GM, if you're looking for feedback, here's a few things I've noticed.

Lilith:
I think the ability should be worded like this:
'[4] You may cast permanent cards from your opponent's graveyard. You may spend red and black mana as though it were mana of any color to cast these spells.'
Like Celestial Dawn . I don't suggest you allow mana to be spent on their activated abilities or whatever as that causes some memory issues.

Kami of Death's Shadow:
This appears to be a strictly better Raging Goblin , I'm not sure why it's hybrid not mono-red like Raging Goblin .

Slaughter Oni:
Creatures don't have 'Regenerate' so I think a wording you could use:
'Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn, that creature can't be regenerated this turn.'

Killing Fields:
It will always enter untapped because it itself is a Demon. Adding 'another' would fix this.

Sep 19, 2012 -- 3:08PM, GM_Champion wrote:

You may cast permanent cards that are in your opponent's graveyards. You may spend or to pay their costs.

The problem is that you're not very technical when it comes to English. Here JM. I highlighted the keywords in the sentence and I'm going to explain the context of the sentence structure.

The word cast sets the foundation. It lets you know that we are initially going to cast spells, but spend is the word that should be all the clarity you need. It lets you know that this ability is going to be affecting the process of spending mana. In this composition, it only denotes that a change of the types of mana you can use (due to the sentence structure). When spend is before the mana colors like that, it literally means we are only effecting the types of mana you can spend. The word pay is supplementary to this in the sentence, and is the word that supplies this meaning.

The combination of the word spend and pay lets you know that we are only changing the types of mana you can spend to pay for the costs. We are not changing the amount of mana you have to pay, just the colored requirements. If we changing the amount of mana you pay, the word pay would be before the mana symbols in the sentence structure. For example, "You may pay or to cast them instead of paying their mana cost.".

Finally, the word costs extends the ability to all the colored requirements of the permanent card's abilities. It connects to the first sentence (which defines what we are working with), then in the phrase "pay their costs", let's you know this effect will carry over on the card once you've successfully cast it and it hits the battlefield, and you can pay any mana costs of that card with or .


Fallingman, Spellshape just got a wording update for simplification. Before it was an activated ability with its own cost. I found this wording composition much better. At the end of the sentence, in the reminder text, it references the card as a spell to denote that you will copy it as though the card is a spell on the stack. This was never an original ability, it was like a stay cat that wandered onto my veranda and I decided to keep it after awhile. In the set it acts like a catalyst providing strong utility for dead draws and wasted cards in your hand.

Buyback was terrible, never bring it up. I understand the measure of thought that went into it; everyone was trying hard to keep it fair and balanced, but in all truth, it's too limited and nearly useless. If this could be an improved buyback, so be it. I certainly don't mind the update. It was never meant to be such a thing, but I welcome the likeness given its individuality and historic flavor (of spellshapers ). It's very different. I believe that only people looking to belittle the keyword as unoriginal or plagiarism would compare like this.

The problem is that you're not writing common English, as any lawyer or programmer can tell you technical languages don't always follow common English syntax. Your card is ambiguous and technical languages don't like ambiguity; therefore, you should reword the card so that it isn't ambiguous. You were told the correct templating of the ability, and you have no good reason not to use it.

Killing Field ETB ability checks the battlefield as it is entering. If you don't control a Demon while it's on the stack, it enters the battlefield tapped. I already explained that the phrase "as though it were colorless mana" is obsolete. At least, not in my best interests here as it serves no identifying purpose. I've used perfect English despite what Kunou denies. Rage all you want, but the difference in our power, Kunou, is fathoms.

Slaughter Oni is referring to regenerate as a keyword. The operation of regeneration is a replacement effect guys. Things are very specific. Slaughter Oni's ability denotes any creatures with the ability to regenerate itself and any creature with a regeneration shield on it. If it can regenerate itself the ability has to permanent, meaning it has to be triggered or an activated ability with a cost. I've covered things like, Daru Mender under regeneration shields. It can give itself a regeneration shield to temporarily protect it from Slaughter Oni, but one the shield wears off, it will be a legal target.

Further more, if a creature is given -1/-1, and then later gains a regeneration shield, it retains the -1/-1 because the effect has already resolved. It just can't be given an additional -1/-1 by Slaughter Oni as long as it has a regeneration shield on it.

Sep 19, 2012 -- 3:08PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Fallingman, Spellshape just got a wording update for simplification. Before it was an activated ability with its own cost. I found this wording composition much better. At the end of the sentence, in the reminder text, it references the card as a spell to denote that you will copy it as though the card is a spell on the stack. This was never an original ability, it was like a stay cat that wandered onto my veranda and I decided to keep it after awhile. In the set it acts like a catalyst providing strong utility for dead draws and wasted cards in your hand.

Buyback was terrible, never bring it up. I understand the measure of thought that went into it; everyone was trying hard to keep it fair and balanced, but in all truth, it's too limited and nearly useless. If this could be an improved buyback, so be it. I certainly don't mind the update. It was never meant to be such a thing, but I welcome the likeness given its individuality and historic flavor (of spellshapers ). It's very different. I believe that only people looking to belittle the keyword as unoriginal or plagiarism would compare like this.

1) I wouldn't use a card critique to belittle someone.  Good design is a skill that can be learned, and good critiques on individual details of design are the best teaching tool.  Using a critique to make someone feel bad would be pointless.

2) I wouldn't belittle you for being unoriginal.  Originality is one of your stronger points as a designer, and I'm not going to lie about that just to make you feel bad.

3) I wouldn't try to use subtlety, you ungrateful, offensive little dust speck.