A bit pushed truth to be told.

Template it as an additional cost like Deprive?

Okay, this is a stupid reason, but the reason why it isn't worded that way is because it would make the card have four lines of text and cards with 4 or more lines of text are said to be red flagged by NWO (or do additional cost texts actually count?). This way it fits into 3 lines (in the Magic Set Editor render) so it's a "hack" in a sense...

I think this unintuitive (since not standard) wording is more deserving of a red flag than the more usual wording.

I'd eat the red flag if I were you. But since you can ignore often repeated text you can also just go and make a cycle of these and split the complexity up into a minor theme.

It is better to first design the card you want to make and not bother about red flags until your first revision i. e. use the wording you would generally use and figure out which red-flagged cards need to be changed once you can look at the whole lot side-by-side.

This has a very specific flavor so it seems hard or at least it would feel forced if I went around and made it a cycle of some kind.

I guess I can eat the red flag since I've been careful with those.

There's also this thing though... I mean, "as an additional cost to cast blaa" is just kinda ugly to me. It's pretty clear what this does, right? I feel like the current wording also pronounces the flavor of it. Can't I use like, idk, Dead Reckoning or Lat-Nam's Legacy as an example? :D

Speaking of red flagging, do you guys know if a card like Elvish Visionary or Phyrexian Rager is red flagged (or in my case, Watchtower Loremaster)? How about Flurry of Horns or Raise the Alarm (Out of the Pit)?

Cantrips are generally not red-flagged for being cantrips alone. Combining them with removal would be an issue and something that makes the cantrip repeatable (e. g. self-bounce/blink).

I am not aware of any red flags concerning multiple token creation at sorcery speed, but of the twelve cards creating two 2/2 tokens there is only one common (Knight Watch) and that could conceivably a red-flagged card to put more tokens at common in a set that needs it.

­Reap the Seagraf, Ojutai's Summons, Coursers' Accord and Rise of Eagles are all commons that make two tokens at 2/2 or bigger. And Sunspire Gatekeepers is a 2/4 that (sometimes) makes a 2/2. I think Out of the Pit is fine given that you'd get a 4/4 at common, but the cost might well get pulled up to 5 mana.

Personally I'd try to reduce that flavour text a bit, because tiny rules text is also effectively a red flag.

Well, 20 % of commons are allowed to be red flagged, sooo... Does anybody know whether those cards are part of that 20 %? I guess not.

Where are you getting this "tiny rules text is also effectively a red flag" thing? Do you have a source for it? I've always though it was about the amount of text the user has to read, not how small it is (although obviously the text being super small would be annoying and cheating the "3 or less lines" advice). I find it hard to believe a card like Soul's Grace is/would be red flagged 'cause it has tiny text.

... Regardless of that some of the flavor texts could indeed use some trimming. I've been doing little bit of that but rather conservatively so far.

It's from his podcast on red flagging. Transcript

Just went through that — I didn't find any mention about the size of the text font... ???

Most of that I was already familiar with, but it did make me think about what do the players have to think about in this environment that they don't usually have to. I haven't consciously paid much attention to that, but they would likely be these two (or one of them): Whether there are duplicate creatures (distinguished) & the number of (untapped) enchantments (chant). Quite peculiar.

"Now, it turns out there are longer texts that are easier to process. So one of the things about this red flag is it goes, “Okay. Are you wordy?” And I’m defining wordy as being four or more lines of rules text. If you are wordy, it means, okay, let’s take a look at you. Maybe that means there’s just too many words on you. Maybe that means you’re doing too much. Maybe it means let’s just see how it easy it is to grok what you’re doing."

Uh-huh... soo? I'm not following.

Do you think that also refers to flavor text? That isn't part of the rules text. The font size of the text on this card (here's a link to an old render) is along the lines of cards like Aviary Mechanic and Audacious Infiltrator.

Couple of standard commons with lots of flavor text: Catalog (Shadows over Innistrad) and Commencement of Festivities (Kaladesh).

@dude1818: that quote very clearly specifies that it's talking about rules text length. Nothing about small rules text there.

Edit: a word

Right. Overall font size concerns require 7 or fewer lines of text, except in rare occasions, at any rarity. NWO means you get red-flagged for having 4 or more lines of rules text at common. These are separate issues.

This card is fine according to NWO. It's pushing it on just having too many words overall, which makes it hard to read.

@dude1818:

... then why do you say it's "effectively a red flag" and also respond by quoting a podcast which is about the separate issue?

So where are you pulling this "7 or fewer lines" suggestion? Finding a satisfactory answer is really irritating...

In the MTG Salvation primer Doombringer says...

> "most cards in general should aim for 7 or less lines and never more than 9"

... considering Necrobite but I don't know where s/he's getting that either. The thread ends with suggesting there still seems to be uncertainness about these line "limits".

http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/578926-primer-nwo-redflagging?page=3

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/20954942567/soulbond-seems-awfully-complicated-for-common

> su92 asked: ... it (Soulbond) takes more than six lines of text before mention what ability is going to be granted

> markrosewater: New World Order does allow some complexity at common. It just limits how much and likes for the complexity to be focused on the same area. Soulbond fits that criteria.

­Galvanic Alchemist, Diregraf Escort, and Elgaud Shieldmate are all commons that have 8 lines of text. More can be found at higher rarities.

15 years old daily mtg article mentions font sizes but I don't think we have a proper way to gauge them on MSE? (+ it is indeed over a decade old article):

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/rare-well-done-2002-02-25-0

> "The default font size of an average Magic card is 9 point. But sometimes a 9 point font doesn’t fit. For these occasions, Editing allows us to shrink the font size down as small as 7.5 point. We refer to anything with a font size below 9 point as having “microtext.” One of the standing rules in R&D is that only rare cards can have mircotext. Thus, if a card is wordy enough that it requires microtext (and once again the quality of this card is irrelevant), R&D is obligated to cut some words out of it (thus allowing Editing to enlarge the font size) or make it rare."

IIRC you can set a minimum text size in MSE, though in theory you could alter your style sheet with an option that sets the minimum text size to 9 for all commons - in that case those won't have microtext and instead will notice too much text as your bottom line overlapping the frame.

I'd have to double-check though.

I like this card. It's flavorful.

Although the return island effect might normally be a cost, I think it's okay if you change it to target island you control, like Peel from Reality.

"Return target Island you control to its owner's hand and put target nonland permanent you don't control on top of its owner's library."

You don't need the If clause anymore. And "nonland permanent you don't control" fits the theme better.

Fits the theme? Surely you can make an escape with an island yourself?

Looking at the card with that text change, I think it reads better the old way as a 'cause and an effect' text. The two effects aren't mechanically related enough IMO to jell well together in one sentence.