Community

Dec 29, 2012 -- 4:55PM, PirateAmmo wrote:

Dec 29, 2012 -- 12:12PM, niheloim wrote:

But... being silly isn't a reason to remove the rule. So I'm with evouga, make use of the design space and justify the rule.

It is a pretty good reason for removing a rule. That is how you refine and improve a game: by removing rules that are silly and do not add anything. It does not make any sense to make more bad cards that rely on a bad rule.

You'd have to define silly for me. As I use it, its more of a "not the best way to have been done, but its a little late now" not mana burn silly.

Targeting zones is an inconsequential rule in 99% of all games ever played. Taking it away, however, has a greater impact than leaving it in, so why not make use of the rule and have it pull its weight.

Dec 30, 2012 -- 2:05PM, niheloim wrote:

So? Having it not target has just as much merit. It creates interesting decisions for multiplayer when people are playing stifle... Targeting has its place I think, when it directly affects the board state (though an untargeted Edict effect that had you choose upon resolution might be fun), but exiling the top card of a library is either going to be obvious or inconsequential to the board state so I see little need to have it target.

What I was trying to say is that I wouldn't go as far as calling it "a failing of design". It's not that I'm against it not targeting in the first place. They probably considered both, and preferred the benefits of targeting.

While a case with a " stifle " wouldn't matter much most of the time, I can see a situation where several players have arranged their decks with Ponder , or a case where the Circu player also controls a Wizened Snitches . Target redirection effects would also be very effective in these particular cases.

Dec 30, 2012 -- 1:55PM, niheloim wrote:

Targeting zones is an inconsequential rule in 99% of all games ever played. Taking it away, however, has a greater impact than leaving it in, so why not make use of the rule and have it pull its weight.

If you create cards so the rule pulls its weight, the game becomes worse. The phrase "target library of an opponent" should not coexist with "target opponent's library." That is a distinction that should not be made. It makes the game more confusing for no benefit.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 8:47AM, cyphern wrote:

Dec 29, 2012 -- 4:02AM, HammerAndSickled wrote:

The point is to change Circu because we want to remove an irrelevant, unintuitive, redundant section of the rules from the rulebook. That section exists only to shore up this one card.

It's obviously not irrelevant, since you just said it shores up a card. It's obviously not redundant, since no other rule allows circu to target libraries (and if it was redundant, removing it wouldn't change a thing).

I'm with HammerAndSickled here. This rule is irrelevant except for one meaningless distinction on this one card. It's unintuitive because it's different from every other similar card in a very subtle way that's easily missed when skimming, and because the difference only matters in one or two unusual cases. But in those unusual cases, the card works differently to how many people would expect it to.

Is it a functional change? Yes. Is there any "need" to make this functional change? No. But Wizards have made such functional changes before, for the sake of tidying and streamlining the rules. Read the "Functional Changes" sections of MaGo's old update bulletins for a variety of cases where things were weird, with no good reason to be weird, and they were tidied up.

I think this should be another case like that.

(But I don't feel especially strongly about it.)

What was the intent of Circu? Was it to target a player, or to target a zone?

The intent of Circu was to target a player.
There is no rule-related reason why it targets a zone.
The only reason was lack of space on the card. This reason is no longer valid.

There is now an opportunity to return the card to its intended functionality.
I believe it is opportune to grab it.

Reasons to do it:
1) Rule simplification (removal of zone targeting)
2) Wording consistency (all cards that target and affect a zone are worded the same way)
3) Possible removal of ambiguity (target opponent's library/hand)
4) It is more intuitive (most people expect shroud/hexproof/protection to work vs Circu)
5) It was actually intended this way.

Reasons not to do it:
1) It does not match the printed wording, which is a current guideline for oracle wording.

Guidelines are just that. They are not set in stone. This explains why sometimes power level is an important factor in card wording.
In this case, there is more gain in not following this specific guideline.