oh, my bad, i thought looting could be used androgynous for both of those effects. Also i think i may have been confused on how i've been writing it. anyway this all makes sense, i think i'm just confusing myself.
I don't know who told you that ", Discard a card: Draw a card" is wrong. It isn't... for rummaging.
But as I explained to you a while ago: Looting and rummaging are different things. In looting discard is not part of the cost, but part of the effect since by the nature of the effect you discard after drawing: ": Draw a card, discard a card."
Have you ever considered just looking at actual existing cards and reproducing their wording? If you want to make a blue card that loots, look up Merfolk Looter. If you want a card that rummages, look up Rummaging Goblin.
I'm not certain I am ready to walk you through the problem with the current status any more than the above post actually does. If you understand that cards changing zones become new objects, you understand the potential problem. If you don't, well, there is a reason I called it "nitpicky".
I've been hearing a bit lately about certain ways costs can be ignored. i've always written looting/rummaging as ", Discard a card: Draw a card" because i assumed discard was a cost, in order to draw that delicious card. i've just learned i've been reading and writing it wrong. Is there some sort of easy way to understand how to properly write costs and effects so they cannot be abused or ignored?
i'm fine with making whatever niche rules need to be moved moved, i'm not quite sure what's the problem with the current status tho
> , Exile two cards from your graveyard: Sacrifice ~. If you do, add .
The reason no card has used the currently suggested wording is really nitpicky rules issues with permanents and the cards they eventually become being different objects etc.
There is technically nothing wrong though with leaving the card as it is and claiming "the rules can be adapted to make this work as intended", because that's entirely plausible.
I actually don't know. I don't think any cards have this cost yet. We can pretend it works, or you can make exiling a cost and sacrificing part of the effect, e.g. ", Exile two cards from your graveyard: Add and sacrifice ~."
You're allowed to pay costs in any order, so no matter how you write the cost you could just exile this creature and one other card to pay for the ability. Not sure if that's intended
Btw, on activation costs that are partly symbols, partly not, the symbols always come first (mana before tap symbols, but that's not relevant here).
You correctly capitalized each part of the cost that is written out in words. I think their order is simply alphabetically sorted according to the first word.
Interesting twist with the exiling of cards from the graveyard. Certainly supports the color choice.
Red is the color best at producing temporary bursts of mana, be it with one-shot spells, permanents with one-time triggers, or things that need to be sacrificed to be used. Black can also get mana but usually requires paying some cost, most often sacrificing something else."
I wouldn't really count Eldrazi tokens and Treasure/Gold tokens since another, nonramping, nonaccelerating color got those kind of cards as well: . Eldrazi Skyspawner and Prosperous Pirates for example. To me it seems that those mechanical themes were stretched a lot.
oh, my bad, i thought looting could be used androgynous for both of those effects. Also i think i may have been confused on how i've been writing it. anyway this all makes sense, i think i'm just confusing myself.
"it is first"? In what? Do I smell autocorrect?
I don't know who told you that "
, Discard a card: Draw a card" is wrong. It isn't... for rummaging.
But as I explained to you a while ago: Looting and rummaging are different things. In looting discard is not part of the cost, but part of the effect since by the nature of the effect you discard after drawing: "
: Draw a card, discard a card."
Have you ever considered just looking at actual existing cards and reproducing their wording? If you want to make a blue card that loots, look up Merfolk Looter. If you want a card that rummages, look up Rummaging Goblin.
I'm not certain I am ready to walk you through the problem with the current status any more than the above post actually does. If you understand that cards changing zones become new objects, you understand the potential problem. If you don't, well, there is a reason I called it "nitpicky".
I've been hearing a bit lately about certain ways costs can be ignored. i've always written looting/rummaging as "
, Discard a card: Draw a card" because i assumed discard was a cost, in order to draw that delicious card. i've just learned i've been reading and writing it wrong. Is there some sort of easy way to understand how to properly write costs and effects so they cannot be abused or ignored?
i'm fine with making whatever niche rules need to be moved moved, i'm not quite sure what's the problem with the current status tho
Or better:
>
, Exile two cards from your graveyard: Sacrifice ~. If you do, add 
.
The reason no card has used the currently suggested wording is really nitpicky rules issues with permanents and the cards they eventually become being different objects etc.
There is technically nothing wrong though with leaving the card as it is and claiming "the rules can be adapted to make this work as intended", because that's entirely plausible.
I actually don't know. I don't think any cards have this cost yet. We can pretend it works, or you can make exiling a cost and sacrificing part of the effect, e.g. "
, Exile two cards from your graveyard: Add 
and sacrifice ~."
is everything better now?
I do too like the graveyard exile addition - it gives off a Deathrite Shaman vibe.
@dude1818: That sounds really weird. I would most certainly say it's not intended.
You're allowed to pay costs in any order, so no matter how you write the cost you could just exile this creature and one other card to pay for the ability. Not sure if that's intended
Btw, on activation costs that are partly symbols, partly not, the symbols always come first (mana before tap symbols, but that's not relevant here).
You correctly capitalized each part of the cost that is written out in words. I think their order is simply alphabetically sorted according to the first word.
Interesting twist with the exiling of cards from the graveyard. Certainly supports the color choice.
thanks! i will use this! also its confirmation for this card on forward steps
When in doubt, consult the Mechanical Color Pie:
"Mana production, temporary
Primary: red Secondary: black
Red is the color best at producing temporary bursts of mana, be it with one-shot spells, permanents with one-time triggers, or things that need to be sacrificed to be used. Black can also get mana but usually requires paying some cost, most often sacrificing something else."
yes! sorry
Previously this did cost
. An error while reverting?
would adding a tap requirement diverge this from red's speed with mana rituals?
Also maybe some sort of graveyard themed thing? Exile two cards from a graveyard? mill 2?
will revert.
The requirement "if you control a basic Swamp" on a black creature might as well be nonexistent.
The card is less acceptable in black than before.
This is interesting, could I try something?
I wouldn't really count Eldrazi tokens and Treasure/Gold tokens since another, nonramping, nonaccelerating color got those kind of cards as well:
. Eldrazi Skyspawner and Prosperous Pirates for example. To me it seems that those mechanical themes were stretched a lot.
MaRos notes:
This topic could perhaps be worthy of an inclusion in the color pie discussions set.