Portal of New New World Order: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | Skeleton

CardName: Puzzled Out Cost: U Type: Sorcery Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Each opponent reveals their hand. Exile a sorcery card revealed this way. Flavour Text: "Two things show feebleness of mind: holding your breath at the time for speaking, and speaking when you should be silent." —Saadi Shirazi Set/Rarity: Portal of New New World Order Common

Puzzled Out
{u}
 
 C 
Sorcery
Each opponent reveals their hand. Exile a sorcery card revealed this way.
"Two things show feebleness of mind: holding your breath at the time for speaking, and speaking when you should be silent."
—Saadi Shirazi
Illus. Maxwell Crabill
Updated on 22 Jun 2018 by Tahazzar

Code: CU17

Active?: true

History: [-]

2018-06-22 10:02:09: Tahazzar created and commented on the card Puzzled Out

This barely goes over the word limit with one or two depending on how we look at it. I don't know how cut-throat we want to be about it.

Still, I feel that neither Lotus Path Djinn nor Misplace are justifiable red-flags at the moment. Actually they both seem that they would be doubly flagged which makes them even worse offenders. I could see Djinn before thrice flagged for having nonsquare stats, prowess itself is questionable, and then add in the combination of the two.


Mechanically, this is obviously a bend, but IMO it 'correlates' well with Negate. For example, at the moment, Collective Brutality is the only black discard spell that explicitly discards the stuff Negate targets. It's fairly weak, but at least it Peeks at each opponent's hand even if it doesn't hit anything.


Also, how do we feel about using real world quotes in coresets?

The text here has this minor hint that you might be able to cast the instant(s) you are holding before this resolves, but that's a 'advanced/hidden' strategy ;) The text in general also seems to fit well with a card that makes opponents reveal their hands and meshes well with the art.


I added the art for some spice and it was the initial motivation for the card's themes. Some other names I was thinking were

  • Bizarre Antithought
  • Antithesis of Thought
  • Alternative/Null Hypothesis

They are all pretty vague, impersonal, and don't really hit any 'nerves' though... so I went with the simplest one that was 'okay' with the art. Also, you could think of instant and sorceries, especially ones in your hand, as more 'thought-like' than anything else so an 'antithought' negating them makes sense.

2018-06-22 10:10:21: Tahazzar edited Puzzled Out:

fixed the name

You didn't even consider "The feeling when fish are eating your mind" as a name? Shame.

You could make it shorter by removing the 'or instant; since they're probably just gonna cast the instant, anyway.

2018-06-22 11:10:39: Tahazzar edited Puzzled Out:

Antithought -> Puzzled Out

I gave this a bit more 'humane' name.

@Vitenka:

They don't necessarily have a target for the instant - not to mention the mana - to cast it. Plus, it would make the card that is already quite weak mechanically even worse.

I know; just thinking.

I really want a 'spell' word. If only instant were a supertype.

I presume this is intentionally only able to choose one in multiplayer; not one per player?

Historic did set the path for collective terms so as to make it possible to create a term that would refer specifically to instants and sorceries. On the other hand, if were to change instant to a super type this wouldn't be an issue. Wait - hold on - that was the intention here as indicated by the Giant Growth. Time to revise the set...

I think one for each player would be a little bit too powerful in multiplayer. However, here the NNWO rulings place very strict limits on the word count so there wouldn't be any room to explore that anyway.

EDIT: Ah, I see that the instant supertype discussion did briefly come up in Pounce.

> Still, I feel that neither Lotus Path Djinn nor Misplace are justifiable red-flags at the moment.

What does that mean? Does that mean its not justifiable to put a red flag on them or its not justifiable to have them at common since they have red flags?


Puzzled Out is the only name that would not be considered problematic.


> I really want a 'spell' word.

You would think "Exile a nonpermanent card revealed this way." had that word somewhere in it.


If instants are red-flagged, what about mentioning instants (compare Tireless Knight )?

Derp, actually the supertype doesn't cover the 'or sorcery' clause though it would now cover what were 'flash' creatures. Hmmm...

I still think this is a good place to do the update since were are already treating instants very differently here.

EDIT: Almost as if it were a new complex block mechanic. So making it an 'additional' type on its own - and extension of the common card types - pronounces and supports that.

Double comment since I missed that last response...

With Djinn and Misplace I think you have gotten the idea that "oh well this is red-flagged we might as well go overboard with them anyway" even as if red-flag would be the only important thing to note. Red-flags are merely warning signs - something to keep an eye on to see if they are problematic. One red-flag isn't necessarily as serious as another. Beginning to pile one after another once one has been placed on a card is a really bad practice. Red-flagging is a guideline to keep the overall complexity on a reasonable level. The red-flag count is one such easy principle, but I don't see it as a hard-rule that covers all cases. I would rather have multiple minor flags rather than a couple very serious ones.

This might have been covered elsewhere, but the word 'permanent' isn't necessarily that familiar to players since it doesn't itself appear on cards themselves plus it refers to all kinds of strange stuff such as cards on the battlefield, but not on the stack. Ie. Nature's Spiral tended to sport the reminder text regarding about what is a permanent. So using that plus a negative prefix 'non' could be very confusing.

I don't see referring to mechanics/types/cards that themselves are red-flagged as a red-flag itself.

Why doesn't this now say "Exile a sorcery card revealed this way"?

That's it! That's what my brain was trying to tell me when it linked my thoughts to that supertype idea. I'm really puzzling myself out here :)

2018-06-22 12:56:34: Tahazzar edited Puzzled Out:

removed instant clause since sorcery type now covers them

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
What is this card's power? Rumbling Baloth
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)