No, because I have the precise oracle wording memorized for every magic card ever printed (this is approximately a 12% exaggeration).
The word "flying" is even shorter and easier to miss than an entire sentence. Should we print "flying" twelve times on every creature with flying just in case? This is an unrealistic expectation. If you fail to read an entire sentence of a card, you are probably going to play the card incorrectly. That's just how it is. Read your %$#%$#% cards.Or alternatively, it could just be a new player with a card they're not familiar with. I would not at all be surprised if someone out there is going to miss the 'once per turn' clause occasionally.
Personally I think keeping card wording concise and less legalistic reduces the chances that people will glaze over and skim through the text, potentially missing something important.
As you yourself acknowledge, the extra words don't necessarily prevent a mistake. They could prevent a mistake if multiple creatures enter simultaneously, but not if creatures are cast or enter in separate events.Now, suppose that person has multiple creatures enter the battlefield the same time and trigger Extraordinary Journey, or some other card.So yeah, I do think the additional clarity is meaningful.
- If they think it triggers once per creature, then they put multiple triggers on the stack. Their opponent calls a judge over, and they get an infraction or are disqualified from the Pro Tour, or whatever.
- If they think it triggers once, total, then they only resolve one trigger. No misplay has occurred. There may be an issue if it triggers again later that turn, but they're fine for now.
Which of those two seems more likely to come up?
There are some cards that mass blink, of course, and some that blink a couple creatures at once. so that does happen. I don't think there's any from this set spoiled so far, but maybe there will be. I think there are likely more single-target blink spells.
But what about when might someone want to cast multiple creatures from exile, which of course must be done one at a time? Well, one circumstance that comes to mind is when they play a card in this very set, which is called....hang on, let me just check... oh right, Extraordinary Journey, which can exile multiple creatures while allowing them to be cast, potentially multiple in a turn. Personally, that seems more likely to be relevant to the text of extraordinary journey to me, than mass-blink spells that might pop up in commander games every once in a blue moon. So much more relevant, in fact, that I'd say failing to read the "once per turn" text pretty much guarantees you're going to misplay your card sooner or later - probably sooner. So personally I think it's probably best that people just read their cards.
I get that creating a single trigger rather than multiple may be desirable. But in the cases of those cards, it does functionally change how they work - for example, a single Stifle can prevent you become monarch even if you hit with 100 creatures, or similarly with treasures. But in the case of extraordinary journey it has (afaik, if anyone is a bigger badder rules guru feel free to correct me) zero impact on the mechanics of the card and is 100% aesthetic.Another thing I'll note is that from a templating perspective, redundant triggers are usually combined with a 'one or more' clause - see stuff like Forth Eorlingas! and Malcolm, Keen-Eyed Navigator. Could they be written to trigger multiple times? Sure... but combining redundant triggers is generally preferred for Arena and MTGO, because manually stacking triggers is a pain. In this case, every additional hypothetical trigger is redundant, because the ability triggers only once or turn... so it seems pretty natural to be consistent with the 'one or more' wording used for redundant / combined triggers elsewhere.
I agree that there's likely been formatting guidelines decided upon, likely to streamline online play, like those you outline, for mechanical reasons. But I think applying it to this sort of trigger is pointlessly legalistic and ugly, and nobody would be bothered or confused if it was formatted "inconsistently" by omitting the unnecessary words. If we lived in an alternate reality where EJ and other cards like it omitted the "one or more" text, and I came on here annoyed that it was "inconsistent", you'd rightly think I'd lost my damn mind.
