Infinity Plus One

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 2 years ago

Does this work?

All instances of X equal X+1.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
spacemonaut
Bauble reclaimer
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 10
Pronoun: she / her
Location: Scotland

Post by spacemonaut » 2 years ago

You'll need a replacement-effect style definition for this in the rules to support that the rule doesn't apply to itself recursively.

I'm thinking through how this applies in practice, and I'm not sure it's the effect you want though. "All instances" is a lot of things. Let's consider casting Walking Ballista while this rule is in effect: to cast it, I choose a value for X. We can't choose negative numbers, so the smallest value I can choose is 0. Then I have to pay for it: I have to treat X as X+1, so I pay . When it enters, it enters with X+1 counters, so one +1/+1 counter. In this way it's become a sort of Gaddock Teeg inverse: "Players can't choose less than 1 for values of X." Similar applies to Disembowel and other X spells.

Completely different scenario for Fumiko the Lowblood. I'm not confident at all in parsing how this applies there. She seems to get Bushido X+1. When she gets +X/+X from it, do we add +1 again? I'm not sure. I think we might. That's a potential red flag—tracking the quantity of passes of X to get the final result would make this effect hard to manage and make it lead to surprising outcomes. Sunbird's Invocation raises a similar concern for me. Maybe you can answer this in the rule addition, but I don't have the answers there.

I am unsure how this interacts with Blazing Shoal's alternative cost. My best guess is it does nothing at all of substance beside require X>0 like the Walking Ballista case.

I think this effect might have a way to technically work given sufficient rules definition, but I don't think it's workable in practice for human players. It's hard to figure out, and takes time to analyse the correct outcome in different situations. Those are significant red flags in a game operating on the level of math a 13 year old might be familiar with, and which needs to proceed at a reasonable pace. In some circumstances it has almost no effect other than requiring X>0, so that's not worth the work involved.

I could compare this to Unbound Flourishing, since it looks at first blush like a super-generic version of that. Unbound Flourishing makes it clear what it interacts with and what the outcome is. It doesn't make anything behave weirdly, it just gives me free stuff. Because of how it's structured, I know I can pick X=2 for Walking Ballista and get the outcome of having picked X=4 for free, and I know I can cast Disembowel for X=2 to destroy two different creatures with mana value 2. And it's important that the two different cases got handled differently, because, well, they work differently and have different needs! I bring up this comparison since I'm not clear what this effect wants me to do in different cases. I would instead follow Unbound Flourishing's lead and pick specific X interactions to work with, like what the Panharmonicon variants are doing.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 2 years ago

spacemonaut wrote:
2 years ago
You'll need a replacement-effect style definition for this in the rules to support that the rule doesn't apply to itself recursively.

I'm thinking through how this applies in practice, and I'm not sure it's the effect you want though. "All instances" is a lot of things. Let's consider casting Walking Ballista while this rule is in effect: to cast it, I choose a value for X. We can't choose negative numbers, so the smallest value I can choose is 0. Then I have to pay for it: I have to treat X as X+1, so I pay . When it enters, it enters with X+1 counters, so one +1/+1 counter. In this way it's become a sort of Gaddock Teeg inverse: "Players can't choose less than 1 for values of X." Similar applies to Disembowel and other X spells.

Completely different scenario for Fumiko the Lowblood. I'm not confident at all in parsing how this applies there. She seems to get Bushido X+1. When she gets +X/+X from it, do we add +1 again? I'm not sure. I think we might. That's a potential red flag—tracking the quantity of passes of X to get the final result would make this effect hard to manage and make it lead to surprising outcomes. Sunbird's Invocation raises a similar concern for me. Maybe you can answer this in the rule addition, but I don't have the answers there.

I am unsure how this interacts with Blazing Shoal's alternative cost. My best guess is it does nothing at all of substance beside require X>0 like the Walking Ballista case.

I think this effect might have a way to technically work given sufficient rules definition, but I don't think it's workable in practice for human players. It's hard to figure out, and takes time to analyse the correct outcome in different situations. Those are significant red flags in a game operating on the level of math a 13 year old might be familiar with, and which needs to proceed at a reasonable pace. In some circumstances it has almost no effect other than requiring X>0, so that's not worth the work involved.

I could compare this to Unbound Flourishing, since it looks at first blush like a super-generic version of that. Unbound Flourishing makes it clear what it interacts with and what the outcome is. It doesn't make anything behave weirdly, it just gives me free stuff. Because of how it's structured, I know I can pick X=2 for Walking Ballista and get the outcome of having picked X=4 for free, and I know I can cast Disembowel for X=2 to destroy two different creatures with mana value 2. And it's important that the two different cases got handled differently, because, well, they work differently and have different needs! I bring up this comparison since I'm not clear what this effect wants me to do in different cases. I would instead follow Unbound Flourishing's lead and pick specific X interactions to work with, like what the Panharmonicon variants are doing.
Thanks for all that, but "instance" denotes a term found in the rules text (even "X"), not a mana "value" denoted by a mana symbol, i.e. X as seen in Unbound Flourishing (Oracle text).
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
spacemonaut
Bauble reclaimer
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 10
Pronoun: she / her
Location: Scotland

Post by spacemonaut » 2 years ago

Legend wrote:
2 years ago
Thanks for all that, but "instance" denotes a term found in the rules text (even "X"), not a mana "value" denoted by a mana symbol, i.e. X as seen in Unbound Flourishing (Oracle text).
X occurring in rules text is more than half of the cases I'm talking about here. Unbound Flourishing also cares about instances of X in the rules text of permanents — by doubling the value of X they'll use, in a way that doesn't affect costs.

From what you're telling me, you seem to be working with the idea that "instance" has a very specific definition related to rules text, but ... it doesn't have that definition. It's not defined that way anywhere in the CR, not even in the glossary. The CR document uses "instance" it in its plain English sense, hence the CR referring to instances of damage and instances of effects in addition to "instances of X in rules text". This is why I said "instances of X" (not constrained to where, like "instances of X in rules text") is a lot of things—it's everywhere an X shows up.

It sounds like the effect you want is "If an effect would use a value of X, it instead uses a value of X+1." (But, again, not sure how that interacts with Blazing Shoal and the other members of its cycle.)

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 2 years ago

spacemonaut wrote:
2 years ago
Legend wrote:
2 years ago
Thanks for all that, but "instance" denotes a term found in the rules text (even "X"), not a mana "value" denoted by a mana symbol, i.e. X as seen in Unbound Flourishing (Oracle text).
X occurring in rules text is more than half of the cases I'm talking about here. Unbound Flourishing also cares about instances of X in the rules text of permanents — by doubling the value of X they'll use, in a way that doesn't affect costs.

From what you're telling me, you seem to be working with the idea that "instance" has a very specific definition related to rules text, but ... it doesn't have that definition. It's not defined that way anywhere in the CR, not even in the glossary. The CR document uses "instance" it in its plain English sense, hence the CR referring to instances of damage and instances of effects in addition to "instances of X in rules text". This is why I said "instances of X" (not constrained to where, like "instances of X in rules text") is a lot of things—it's everywhere an X shows up.

It sounds like the effect you want is "If an effect would use a value of X, it instead uses a value of X+1." (But, again, not sure how that interacts with Blazing Shoal and the other members of its cycle.)
I see what you're saying. You're right that "instance" isn't necessarily limited to the text box, as seen on Artificial Evolution, but "X" is still not "X". (Nor are they interchangeable.) Clash of Wills doesn't and couldn't say "Counter target spell unless its controller pays X." nor could Walking Ballista cost XX. But a card ruling or two is probably in order. Do you think these would this suffice?
It only changes the text variable "X". It can't change a mana value of X or a letter "x" that's part of a word.
And for further clarity:
It doesn't cause multiple instances of "X" on the same card to iterate. For example, with the first instance being X+1, the second X+2, the third X+3, etc. X will only ever be X+1.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
spacemonaut
Bauble reclaimer
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 10
Pronoun: she / her
Location: Scotland

Post by spacemonaut » 2 years ago

The reason I'm harping on about is that, well, I think that's an instance of X. There's an X there. I have to choose a value of X, then pay that quantity of generic mana. If "all instances of X" are treated as X+1, then if I choose 0, that's treated as 1, and that matters for mana payment. The "if an effect would ..." replacement effect I described would leave costs out though, even costs for activated abilities. Maybe I'm wrong though or the rules definition of this effect can specifically say doesn't count.

As I check those rulings you wrote, I bear in mind that the role of rulings is not to establish new truth, but instead to clarify and communicate to players what would already be the case even if the ruling didn't exist. (With notable exception on some old rules nightmares that rules managers want to keep out of the CR, like Equinox.) On that basis, I'm concerned they may not be true. After all, normally all instances of X on a single card have the same value at any given time, but this is an abnormal situation. That's especially when considering Fumiko, who chains X attackers into Bushido X+1, which chains into its own separate +X/+X trigger. Even the replacement effect I wrote would likely do that for Fumiko. edit: I just realised Fumiko wouldn't do this. 5 attackers gives her Bushido 6, and that would just give her +6/+6, no X involved.

This is why I'm suggesting just broadly addressing all instances of X doesn't seem workable, and you may want to just create cards responding to specific ways X gets used, or specific quantities of things being handled in specific ways, and work with those instead.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 2 years ago

spacemonaut wrote:
2 years ago
The reason I'm harping on about is that, well, I think that's an instance of X. There's an X there. I have to choose a value of X, then pay that quantity of generic mana. If "all instances of X" are treated as X+1, then if I choose 0, that's treated as 1, and that matters for mana payment.
I think, although X defines X, X is not X. And neither X nor any other variable or number in a card's textbox has ever before defined X of the card's mana cost , so I'm not sure why it would in this case. I DO understand the confusion, thus the clarifications. But I don't think it would require a comprehensive ruling.

Again, Clash of Wills doesn't and couldn't say "Counter target spell unless its controller pays X." nor could Walking Ballista cost XX. And I'll add that Sphere of Resistance doesn't say "Spells cost 1 more to cast." It says they "cost 1 more to cast." Because "X" and "1" don't mean anything in regards to mana costs. That's all I got right now. I'll have to sleep on it. By all means reply, but I won't get back until tomorrow or so. Thanks again.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Custom Card Rulings”