A possible tech for targeting without targeting..? Cheat the system!

Alternative name: "Deemed Guilty" or something that plays on the whole naming thing.

There are too many noncreature common spells with cmc of 1 btw... and this card specifically was placed on the token generation slot...

A decent workaround that comes with issues when facing a mirror.

I feel the order of actions could be communicated better by changing the wording to "Choose a card name. Tap all creatures with that name."

It's still within the word limit. Though "you don't control" unfortunately isn't. :)

The mirror issue is too small for me to care about and could even be considered a novel twist when encountered. So maybe it's a feature instead of a bug?

For wording, would you also reword Stave Off? To me, it seems logical that since tapping is the action we're doing it should be on the forefront. Clause/options come afterwards.
... Then one could also argue about how the new wording would split into two sentences with one being a variable and second using a reference to that variable as being less clear than just expressing the action and its clause in a singular, simple query.

Targets are chosen while a card is cast, other choices are made as a card resolved (i. e. later). Stave Off correctly first states "target creature" then "color of your choice". There are actual spells that have changed there wording from the standard template to achieve this order e. g. Judge Unworthy.

Our card though (obviously) doesn't target and hence should follow a different template. Though I hadn't checked before, now I have; Brave the Elements seems to agree.

What about Extinction and Riptide Chronologist?

Would be improved with the altered wording. Though I can excuse the more concise wording on an activated ability.

Remember this is NNWO where a uncommon word in the card name may be red-flagged. I don't wait until the Oracle text of old cards gets updated to match Distant Melody. I see an improved wording and seize it.

There are three cards using the phrase "creature type of your choice". What about Kindred Dominance and Tsabo's Decree and Luminescent Rain?

Tbh, I was kind of hoping you were saying it wasn't legal in rules terms instead of going about... something?

> Targets are chosen while a card is cast...

Targets? We have renounced these so right off the bet this is starting on the wrong foot. I guess you're going about the supposed consistency in which order stuff is done in an spell/effect? I'm not sure who this is supposed help.

This is about as clunky as going

> Choose the color red. Tap all creatures of the chosen color.

instead of

> Tap all creatures of red color.

Okay, okay, let's delve into this. So, the thing is to make the card as clear as possibly - and many times this is related to how lengthy the card text is. Basically, just a quick flash of the card text should already give you an idea what the card is about.

As the card is now, the words "tap", "name", and "(your) choice" should come off it strongly. Also, note the order

> tap -> creatures -> with name

What does it do? Taps creatures with a name. So players can just go around putting this card on the table and saying "I'll tap that" in the simplest of cases. Given that having creatures with the same name is not that common, it's entirely reasonable way to go about things. In the more complicated cases, it will be "Tap all Raging Goblins".

Now on the other hand, with your wording... What does it do? The first thing it starts to go about is presenting the player with a literal choice. "Choose a card name." Who 'chooses' a 'card name' instead of giving a name / naming stuff anyway? Are we gonna specify that the name has to be chosen from the existing pool of card names (of creature cards on the battlefield or in existence)? We might as well as start the card text with an unrelated short story about a squirrel and his escape from a burning tree.

So the player would kinda go "'Erm... I guess I declare a card name... whatever that means...' Reads the card further. 'Oh, so cards with the name I just declared will be tapped... uh-uh." Then there are all the possibilities of misinterpreting what 'choosing' actually is, such as thinking that once that choice is made, it will remain the same for the following copies of Bow Before Light or whatever.

Now compare this to the text as it is and how it boils down to "tap that/those".

There's merit for going with the "choose a" variant when the card text is long-winded with side paths and effects unrelated to that choice and using the "of your choice" would be ambiguous/confusing or just plain impossible. In this case, I would say there's definitely not.

I would wager that if specifics would have been thought about in that NNWO article, it would state that "choosing" itself is so complex that it's automatically red-flagged. This is pretty granted just by the virtue of targets being red-flagged. Stuff like "choose a nonland card name" is so entrenched in MTG jargon that you basically need a judge's decree to parse them.

> Targets? We have renounced these so right off the bet this is starting on the wrong foot.

... And yet you brought up Stave Off. Which is what I was refering to.... and I specifically call it out in the same comment... and I specifically state that our card does not target - implying that you were starting on the wrong foot.

What's going on here?

> "Choose a card name." Who 'chooses' a 'card name' instead of giving a name / naming stuff anyway?

I just go with the wording you pointed out to me elsewhere. I have no problem going back to the old wording for NNWO. It's preferable in my book.

> So players can just go around putting this card on the table and saying "I'll tap that" in the simplest of cases. Given that having creatures with the same name is not that common, it's entirely reasonable way to go about things.

Well, in that case why not make a card that does exactly that rather than making a hack that sometimes has unintended side effects:

>> "Tap a creature of your choice."

To be honest: Both the current wording and my fix to it have issues (since neither works the way you described once you mix it with certain effects that could appear at uncommon/rare - but those are issues with NNWO).

Maybe choose/choice should be red-flagged both. That's your call. Due to the example you have given above, red-flagging them seems even more appropriate than red-flagging "target".

To me one of the stronger pros of "name of your choice" is that it's target can't become illegal because of flickering spells or whatever. It isn't interested whether the creature is still the same 'instance' as it was during targeting. This obviously still holds true for the "tap a creature of your choice" as well, but it's not so much of a hack if included in the non-NNWO sets. It's pretty much a simplified version of the Echoing cycle IMO (Echoing Courage). So it has utility beyond this set.

My point is that both versions have a different actual timing than targeting - which is an issue, because the timing of targeting has been designed around the way players expect spells to work.

It's more natural to expect opponent's choices for sacrificing creatures to happen during resolution than your own choice.

Echoing courage IMO would be better using a template that does not target, but at the same time that doesn't necessarily mean it's also NNWO good.

I currently have a similar issue with Explore which seems fine, but has its instructions 'out of order' from a best practice perspective.