We NEED Standardized Language

Mburn7

Ok, this is getting ridiculous.  Looking at the bugs thread it is amazing how many cards are not functioning the way you would expect based on their text.  Sure, some of them are bugged, but it is almost impossible to know for sure because wording is not consistent on different cards with the same effect.

We NEED these conflicts to be officially resolved and enforced in the game.  Paper MTG prides itself on having consistent language and wording on all of its cards.  We need something similar here.

Some examples:

Summon vs Cast (duh):  In the first run of legacy Across Ixalan, using Vivien's Invocation counted toward the "summon 3 or more creatures" objective on the first node.  I have noticed it counting in other legacy events as well.  I have also noticed it not counting in most events (ever since Hibernium changed the way "cast" objectives function back in Innistrad).  Clarifying this issue (also including whether or not token creation counts) should be a top priority for Oktagon.

Bounce vs Full Hand:  Are cards that say "return target creature to its owner's hand" supposed to instead destroy the creature if its owner has a full hand, are they supposed to temporarily increase the owner's max hand size, or are they supposed to just not cast?  All 3 versions currently exist in the game (along with a 4th that only bounces 1 reinforcement, somehow), and it is maddeningly confusing.  Just look at the A World Reborn event.  There is a fight (2.1) that runs 3 different cards with bounce effects, and all 3 function completely differently.  We need you guys to pick one interaction, say that it is the correct one, and then make all bounce cards function in that way (rewording them if necessary)

Creature Damage vs Combat Damage:  Several cards (Rabid Bite, Savage Stomp, Gravitic Punch, and Vivien's Invocation for sure, possibly others) read, in some way "Target creature deals damage to..."  However, these effects do not appear to actually have the target creature dealing damage, since they do not trigger "when this creature deals damage" effects (Easiest to see with Spiritmonger and Emperor's Vanguard from IXN), they do not work with deathtouch (so damage from a deathtouch creature is not lethal), and they do not work with lifelink (you don't gain any life).  It appears all of these things only work with combat damage the creature deals instead of all damage.  That may not be a huge problem, but it is definitely confusing.

Destroy vs Discard:  Some cards say "destroy cards in hand/deck" instead of "discard cards from hand/deck".  This creates some confusion as to whether cards that have "when [cardname] is destroyed" effects, since they read like they should trigger on those discards when they in fact should not (Gather the Pack is a prime example of this).

Exiled from Hand vs Manually Exiled (for Jump Start):  Jump Start reads "whenever you exile a card from your hand", but there are cards that allow you to exile cards from your hand (most notably Apex of Power).  There should be some clarification here too.

Possession vs Ownership:  In paper, there is a difference, hence why some cards say "owner's hand" or "owner's control" and some don't, depending on the desired effects.  Here in MTGPQ, however, many cards say "owner" but instead work based on the controller (ex.  casting Perilous Voyage or Depths of Desire on a creature stolen by In Bolas' Clutches).  It makes sense here that possession is 9/10 of the law, but the wording should be changed accordingly to avoid confusion.

Did I miss any?  I feel like there are more.  Comment them in and I'll edit them into the post for clarity.

Update:  Remembered another:

And condition vs And/Or condition:  Please provide better clarification as to when a spell that has multiple effects requires multiple valid targets to be cast.  For example, Doomfall just says "exile your opponent's first creature on the battlefield and first card in hand".  Since this is untargeted, it reads as if there does not have to be a creature on the field or a card in your opponent's hand to be cast.  In practice, though, both conditions must be met before you can cast the card.  Fraying Omnipotence is another one, since it has several effects and cannot be cast without all effects being met, a potentially great card is completely useless.  Please either revise how you control and/or effects on cards, or add text stating that all effects must have targets in order for the spell to be cast.

@Brigby @Oktagon_Daiane please make the devs aware of these issues (if they aren't already) and give us some sort of answer on it.  Even if you can't fix everything right away, at least give us a definitive statement on how they are supposed to work so we know what to expect.

Tremayne

Seconded, third and fourth this proposal.

Furks

There are a few cards in the new set that have me confused. Several supports reinforce themselves and use reinforcements to trigger effects. In the past, the wording for supports has always been to gain or lose shields. So does this mean it actually behaves differently? 

Take Firemind's research. It reinforces when I cast a spell, great, does that mean it gains 1 or 4 shields? And its abilities use up reinforcements, again, does that mean 1 or 4 shields? What if the support has lost a few shields due to matches  wil it loose the full 4 or just enough to take the reinforcement away? It's second activation actually eats up 4 reinforcements, does that equate to 16 shields?? If a card raises or lowers shields of a support will that work or does it have to be actual reinforcements ... 

I'm sorry for the ignorance but I don't own any of the cards so can't test it out. But that's kind of the point, I shouldn't have to test a card to figure out how it works, I should be able to tell just from the text. 

Mburn7

Furks said:

There are a few cards in the new set that have me confused. Several supports reinforce themselves and use reinforcements to trigger effects. In the past, the wording for supports has always been to gain or lose shields. So does this mean it actually behaves differently? 

Take Firemind's research. It reinforces when I cast a spell, great, does that mean it gains 1 or 4 shields? And its abilities use up reinforcements, again, does that mean 1 or 4 shields? What if the support has lost a few shields due to matches  wil it loose the full 4 or just enough to take the reinforcement away? It's second activation actually eats up 4 reinforcements, does that equate to 16 shields?? If a card raises or lowers shields of a support will that work or does it have to be actual reinforcements ... 

I'm sorry for the ignorance but I don't own any of the cards so can't test it out. But that's kind of the point, I shouldn't have to test a card to figure out how it works, I should be able to tell just from the text. 

When it says reinforce it should just add/remove the base # of shield (I think 4 in this case).  Adding extra shield shouldn't effect it at all.

I don't have it either so I'm not positive, but that's my guess reading it.  I agree stuff like that is definitely an issue that should be looked at going forward, albeit a harder one to resolve since it is a case-by-case basis with possible translation issues involved.

MTG_Mage

As of now there are 2352 different cards in MTGPQ, so this is a huge task to take on.

I suggest opening this up to the community and making a subforum dedicated to it, or select volunteers to do a set each. All submissions need to have exact current wording beside adjusted wording, and the programmer putting the new text into the system will have to verify whether the card is coded in the way stated and adjust accordingly.

The devs can ask WOTC to have one of their employees audit the final versions since they should be interested in making sure an officially liscenced product is consistant with their standards. This will also reduce manpower dedicated to this task for the devs.

The gatherer can be used as a guideline for specific wording http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Default.aspx

but of course since each MTGPQ card is a different interpretation of its paper versions this is only used as a guideline

I am sure there will be a huge amount of community volunteers on the forums, and hopefully getting these top contributers in touch with the devs directly will lead to free QAQC work in the future...

Laeuftbeidir

Uh.. This is sooo important and doesn't even cover everything, but only the most important things.. I really really hope it becomes reality

HarryMason

This is one of those obnoxious things about this game that I've just given up on. The issue has been dodged so many ways. That it's turned from an issue of general maintenance, to a monumental task.

I'll use mtgo as an example. Every time wording of an effect is updated, every single instance of that effect has its text updated to match the current wording. Common sense would say go with the most recent wording, but there are 2 problems there . First, wordings aren't even necessarily consistent within the same set and secondly, at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, nothing works right in this game. Since nothing works right, things that should be simple become really confusing. 

I understand that this is a big task, but it's something that should never have gotten this bad in the first place. Plus , we're really just asking the devs to to the whole job , not just part of it .

Kinesia

With bounce though... I disagree they should all be made the same, instead they should all have proper wording for what they do.

(PS, my wording here is bad because I just want to make the point quickly.)

"If opponent has 5 or less cards return to hand" that is fine as is.
"Returns to hand" ??? Theoretically that should take hand size above 6 and some of them used to
"Returns to hand, if it can't it is destroyed" - This is the type of comment that needs adding on many new ones.

We WANT different effects (because all the counterspells becoming drain mana from first card was SOOOO dull) but they need different wording.

The more restrictive something is the cheaper it should be. (So most of the new ones with less restrictions should cost more than the older ones, but they are cheaper!)

Mburn7

Kinesia said:

With bounce though... I disagree they should all be made the same, instead they should all have proper wording for what they do.

(PS, my wording here is bad because I just want to make the point quickly.)

"If opponent has 5 or less cards return to hand" that is fine as is.
"Returns to hand" ??? Theoretically that should take hand size above 6 and some of them used to
"Returns to hand, if it can't it is destroyed" - This is the type of comment that needs adding on many new ones.

We WANT different effects (because all the counterspells becoming drain mana from first card was SOOOO dull) but they need different wording.

The more restrictive something is the cheaper it should be. (So most of the new ones with less restrictions should cost more than the older ones, but they are cheaper!)

Fair point.  I will say, for all of their issues Hibernium mostly got it right like this.  Most cards had the "5 or less cards in hand" clause, and the few big spells that didn't (Crush of Tentacles comes to mind) specifically said "destroys if hand is full"

I just want something clearly defined.  I don't care how complicated it is (although simpler is obviously better)

stikxs

I'm on board with the bounce having varying levels of usability, the text just needs to be accurate, and the ones with more usability are just balanced by their cost ('bounce when <6 in hand' should be cheaper than 'bounce, destroy if full hand' because blue shouldn't be blue and black for the same cost).

FindingHeart8

I'm on board with this 100%, if veteran magic players are confused at the language there's little hope for new players grasping it.

ertaii

And if you happen to play in other languages, it's even worse. We have card that say "return to your hand" when they actually "return into play", some translations of planes walker abilities that are wrong, for instance the number of mana generated by sorin's first ability is just false in my language. Very annoying.

mrixl2520

Can I throw something in to the mix? I hate seeing cards that target "Opponent's Planeswalker." Its confusing and redundant. 

Tilwin90

I am jumping in to remind everyone (especially the DEV team taking a peek through the forums), that defining a clear and structured set of rules (which includes the terminology) can do wonders for the actual implementation of the game too.

Sure, it will take time to migrate towards that, and it will require baby steps, but we need to start somewhere. A strict set of rules can slowly start being built independent of the current development. You just need a Tabak, a.k.a Rules Manager for this to orchestrate this whole process and then in the future ensure the rules are being enforced.

I know... sounds easier than done. But as I said, baby steps. Slow and steady.

Tilwin90

mrixl2520 said:

Can I throw something in to the mix? I hate seeing cards that target "Opponent's Planeswalker." Its confusing and redundant. 

Not redundant at all. I dislike the words planeswalker & player being used interchangeable for targets. But the fact that it specifies opponent only makes sense. It ensures you cannot be targeted with those spells - this exists in MTG terminology too. Plus the targetting is again relevant in case of hexproof or effects triggering as a result of being targeted.


Thoughtseize is a wonderful example that lead to a very fun situation in a legacy paper match for me. The cards reads
"Target player reveals their hand. You choose a nonland card from it. That player discards that card. You lose 2 life." I'll let you read the description carefully before continuing.

Now what happened is that my opponent requested to read the card carefully before casting Redirect (You may choose new targets for target spell.), targetting my Thoughtseize. He redirected the Thoughtseize to myself. This lead to me revealing my own card (yep, my opponent got to see what I was playing with), choose and discard a nonland card, then I also lost 2 life! 

It's VERY IMPORTANT here that Thoughtseize read "Target player!" and not "Target opponent", because otherwise my opponent couldn't have redirected it to myself. By comparison, if it were a Duress this move wouldn't have been valid. 
Duress: "Target opponent reveals their hand. You choose a noncreature, nonland card from it. That player discards that card."

[Deleted User]

Tilwin90 said:

mrixl2520 said:

Can I throw something in to the mix? I hate seeing cards that target "Opponent's Planeswalker." Its confusing and redundant. 

Not redundant at all. I dislike the words planeswalker & player being used interchangeable for targets. But the fact that it specifies opponent only makes sense. It ensures you cannot be targeted with those spells - this exists in MTG terminology too. Plus the targetting is again relevant in case of hexproof or effects triggering as a result of being targeted.


Thoughtseize is a wonderful example that lead to a very fun situation in a legacy paper match for me. The cards reads
"Target player reveals their hand. You choose a nonland card from it. That player discards that card. You lose 2 life." I'll let you read the description carefully before continuing.

Now what happened is that my opponent requested to read the card carefully before casting Redirect (You may choose new targets for target spell.), targetting my Thoughtseize. He redirected the Thoughtseize to myself. This lead to me revealing my own card (yep, my opponent got to see what I was playing with), choose and discard a nonland card, then I also lost 2 life! 

It's VERY IMPORTANT here that Thoughtseize read "Target player!" and not "Target opponent", because otherwise my opponent couldn't have redirected it to myself. By comparison, if it were a Duress this move wouldn't have been valid. 
Duress: "Target opponent reveals their hand. You choose a noncreature, nonland card from it. That player discards that card."

I have been out if magic for a while.. i did not know this distinction

[Deleted User]

And shouldnt this be here as well @Tilwin90

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/75764/triggers-on-creatures-entering-play-somehow#latest

Tilwin90

jimpark said:

And shouldnt this be here as well @Tilwin90

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/75764/triggers-on-creatures-entering-play-somehow#latest

I was simply tackling various creation and ETB effects, not other rules. I did consider at some point starting a compendium but to be honest I have been so tired with work and organizing things there I haven't really had energy for other projects... for now.

[Deleted User]

Tilwin90 said:

jimpark said:

And shouldnt this be here as well @Tilwin90

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/75764/triggers-on-creatures-entering-play-somehow#latest

I was simply tackling various creation and ETB effects, not other rules. I did consider at some point starting a compendium but to be honest I have been so tired with work and organizing things there I haven't really had energy for other projects... for now.

Oh yeah real life is definitely more urgent so get plenty of rest. 

But that was so well done that i thought it deserved to be linked in this post. And sorry didnt mean for you to include it in your post although that would be super cool. I merely meant your elaboration on these concepts should be included here. My post was vague and it could have been interpreted both ways hehe