Explaining The Card, Explains The Card | Magic's Most Ambiguous Designs

[@RhysticStudies]

You simply can’t make this video without misinterpreting a few details yourself. Let’s pretend my mistakes were intentional (and not me losing myself in my own logic knots.) *1) Stalking Yeti.* I believe I was right that this ability is technically not the same as “fight,” but the Yeti can, in fact, take lethal damage in return. If, however, the Yeti has Wither or Infect, that will affect how much damage it takes in-between. Also, damage on the stack was relevant to combat damage and not this ability, which I misunderstood. Weird, weird card, and I’m still not sure I fully understand the intricacies… *2) Squares and Rectangles.* I understood this metaphor conceptually when I was writing, but I reversed the terms, then reinforced the error with a graphic that should’ve itself been reversed. Casting is the square and playing is the rectangle, since everything you cast you play, but not everything you play you cast. Right. Thanks for the feedback!

[@dankmemes7085]

I'm fairly sure that the Oblivion Rings having two separate triggers is not why three of them create an infinite loop. Like the same loop would work with three Banishing Lights if it could exile your own permanents. Though I can't find any card that has that templating that could exile another copy of itself on Scryfall.

[@YoshiFawful64]

Ah, I was about to comment on that, nice to see I'm saved the effort. I do have one more minor correction though: the triple-O-Ring loop has nothing to do with the paragraph break, and cards with the newer "exile something until this leaves the battlefield" templating can still do the exact same thing, probably most easily with three Hostage Takers. Instead, new cards with the same function (mostly) dodge the loop by other means, most commonly by preventing you from targeting your own stuff; so for example, three Banishing Lights can create a loop _if and only if_ all three are controlled by different players. (EDIT: Whoops, I didn't see the other reply because I didn't refresh the page. Oh well)

[@mathy4605]

Weirder still is that "fight" is not the same as what happens during combat. Notably, "fight" ignores "first strike" and "double strike", which is not at all intuitive to one reading a card that says "fight" without explaining what only the rulebook explains regarding the meaning of said keyword. In conclusion, when your creatures fight as a result of combat, they are not fighting. Why, Wizards, why?

[@fredouellet3160]

Also, at 13:50, you should have said 2 generic and a black to destroy a non land creature

[@anthonydelfino6171]

appropriately in a game about ambiguity.... I'll admit I may be wrong here about the Yeti but one additional thing here is that it creates a clause that checks if the yeti is still in play when the damage would be dealt. So unlike saying when it enters, it deals damage equal to its power to target creature, now you can wait for it to enter, wait for the ability to go on the stack, and then if it's targeting one of your creatures you want to save (especially relevant in a multiplayer game) you can remove the yeti in response and stop the damage from going out. Whereas if I'm not mistaken if it didn't have that "if it's still on the battlefield" clause, even if you removed the yeti, your creature would still get punched in the face.

[@Waffletown654]

What a coincidence, Time Walk basically still reads "Target player loses next turn" today!

[@therealax6]

That's because of the formats where it is played. If it was printed into Standard, it wouldn't be that dramatic. Don't get me wrong, it would be the best card in Standard by twenty kilometers, but it would very often see play as a makeshift Growth Spiral in control decks.

[@donbionicle]

@@therealax6 Sometimes in the formats where it's allowed Growth Spiral is all it amounts to, but that's still enough to make it into "target player loses next turn" anyway!

[@Waffletown654]

@@therealax6 Control decks in standard would probably use this card… Fairly, which, as you say, is still a very good effect. But the ones it would break are the aggro and combo decks. In current standard, cheesing out an extra combat step before your opponent can board wipe or combo on turn 3 would be insanely busted. The growth spiral effect is fine… keeping your opponent off their mana and sorcery speed plays while you forward your game plan is priceless

[@hansoskar1911]

people use Growth Spiral in derogatory way but the for Growth Spiral the ceiling is just Growth Spiral when for Timewalk Growth Spiral is the floor. the ceiling is win the game.

[@technyst]

​@@Waffletown654 If Time Walk was in standard, every competitive deck would run it, no exception. Control decks may not attack as much, but they do have planes walkers. even if they didn't the card gives you both a mana and resource advantage at any point in the game.

[@Radio_freewill]

26:19 “This red mountain is not red.” I feel like René Magritte just giggled a little bit in the afterlife.

[@basilmemories]

Ah, my favorite of his works, La Trahison des imarouges.

[@roland9189]

Yeah, definitly

[@bwheelermtg]

Thank you for talking into my chest, it's great to be here

[@plastefuchs666]

Serge really did say it with your whole chest.

[@tristanmatthews9509]

Please set up a Friday night paper fight that starts with Ambiguity in play.

[@NStripleseven]

Played a game of magic about 15 years ago that’s still running. Floral Spuzzem hasn’t made up its mind about my opponent’s artifacts yet.

[@genzo454]

It didn't get DQ'ed for slow play?

[@slayerofthebuzz1]

Slow play only applies to players. Judges cannot DQ a card. We'll just have to be patient. . .

[@Foofoothegoon]

You need to flash in a Spuzzem Strategist. In order to alter your deck mid-match without being DQd yourself, I'd recommend first slapping a Platinum Angel on the table.

[@jaredwonnacott9732]

I hate hate it when my cards can't make up their minds.

[@yungmythologist]

Special shoutout to the white-border print of Throes of Chaos that doesn't have reminder text, therefore simply says: "Cascade Retrace" Incredible stuff.

[@mn6334]

There are now a total of 5 instants/sorceries that have just two keyworded abilities that have printings without any reminder text 😮

[@velphidrow]

and i love it

[@borisvanderhof8952]

@@mn6334 What are the other ones?

[@TheThiccestChungus]

Not quite as good as Manifest dread Manifest dread

[@Joker22593]

My favorite is Time Stop. On the foil card, centered in the text box is "End The Turn". On the non-foil card, it has enough rules reminders to make a Yu-Gi-Oh player blush.

[@meemnaan3108]

16:43 This reminds me of how I explained first & double strike to a friend who was interested in Magic - basically I asked him to imagine two people (creatures) running at each other with swords; that’s the normal combat experience. First strike gives one dude a spear, so he can kill the opponent with a sword if he’s strong enough. Double strike is dual wielding both, so if the spear stab isn’t enough he has the sword too. I think that helped, even if it might not be 100% mechanically accurate.

[@psymar]

Given how magic combat works, I think both creatures normally have spears, just first strike is a longer spear

[@Igor369]

12:36 Dead Ringers knows what colors the creatures are because it knows what they are not. It knows this because it knows what color they aren't. By subtracting what their colors are from what their colors aren't, or what they aren't from what their colors are, it obtains a difference, or deviation.

[@TalionRarshak]

Epic

[@ubermenschen01]

Perfect comment, no notes.

[@johnrinka2904]

Thanks now I get it

[@lordbored2706]

Comment of the month

[@goosewithagibus]

Makes me eepy

[@garryame4008]

These are the kinda cards that make me sympathize with the employees who translate the cards to other languages

[@abuelovinagres4411]

What about the players who speak other languages? :v

[@screwball69]

Id be curious if any of these actually work better in other languages, English being the mess that it is .

[@gamingwhilebroken2355]

@@screwball69 English is the lingua franca of the scientific, financial, international law, and technologic worlds. English also likely has the largest vocabulary out of all languages (this is due to English's unique history and that English is particularly partial to neologism). English grammar is also not particularly complex (there is no der die das in English). Then finally coupled with American global cultural hegemony has created a world in which English is fairly standardized (for example most international navigation is done in English as two English speakers from opposite sides of the planet are very likely to understand each other with ease; this is not the case with other languages. Some languages the next town over can speak a different dialect). So tldr no, it probably isn't particularly easier to explain magic's mechanics in other languages. Some specific mechanics might be easier but overall not likely.

[@abuelovinagres4411]

@ I've read a few of german cards, and they have not updated most of the vocabulary. Those cards are kinda messier than english ones.

[@miaouew]

@@abuelovinagres4411 they need to learn english

[@MrEquinoxParadox]

Although not a particularly difficult card to understand, only yesterday I was explaining Clavileño to a magic newcomer by pointing out that you choose an attacking vampire to possess with a demon soul, which pops out should they die. Sometimes using the actual flavour to explain helps a lot.

[@Diamon_Boots]

Flavour can be genuinely great to communicate intent. Collective Effort has such good flavour of "you can do one thing, but if your creatures help you can do many things together!", the name and mechanic make it a card that even a new player can uderstand super easily (I would know, I was the new player).

[@daniellowe6116]

I believe Akroan Horse was originally called Akroan Elephant during playtesting, and player disliked the card because it was confusing. It wasn't until it was renamed as a Horse to make the flavor as clear as possible that players reacted positively to the card.

[@NomicFin]

Probably the best example of that is Animate Dead. It has a huge and complicated wall of text, but the actual effect is actually simple to explain and makes thematic sense: You return a creature from the graveyard onto the battlefield and attach the enchantment to it, and if the enchantment is ever unattached the creature goes back to the graveyard. It makes sense as an effect to represent you enchanting a corpse to return it to life, with the creature turning back into an inanimate corpse if the enchantment reanimating it is dispelled. But because of the way Magic rules work (specifically, modifications such as auras normally don't stay on a card when it switches zones) it require a huge wall of text to accomplish that effect in a way that's rules-legal.

[@fatpad00]

Something this made me think about is Reading the card DOES explain the card, but you have to understand the language to read the card. Mtg is written in its own language, and the Comprehensive Rules is the dictionary/text book.

[@ND-nr6mx]

The same people who get petty about "Reading the Card" don't understand: -When to use Whom instead of Who -How semicolons work -Where to put all the commas -To never end a sentence with a preposition -The proper order of time, location, adjectives, etc. Even a person's native language can be beyond their comprehension, so it's ridiculous to get upset at players for having trouble parsing the language of the game.

[@SmugLookingBarrel]

I think my favourite example of this is the card Animate Dead, which is actually a pretty easy card to explain: "This is an aura that reanimates a creature, but gives it one less power", but the rules text is a head scratcher, both in the original and in subsequent reprints.

[@2424Lars]

Necromancy is even worse

[@misirtere9836]

The only reason the rules text is a nightmare is because modern MTG is completely unwilling to write that a card can just ignore the rulebook. If it was just allowed to Enchant something while it moves zones, or reanimate the creature before enchanting anything, 60% of the rules text would be wiped out in an instant.

[@therealax6]

The issue with Animate Dead is that they tried to get a card to do something that the rules technically can do, but in a complicated way. Nowadays they just wouldn't make the card. But to make the card work within the now formalised rules... they had to write it out in the weirdest of ways. It's easy to understand _why_ Animate Dead does all the things it does if you know the rules (namely, an aura cannot be attached to something its enchant ability doesn't allow, so it has to rewrite itself so it can be cast targetting a creature card in a graveyard and remain attached to the creature as it stops being a creature card in a graveyard and becomes a creature on the battlefield). Of course, a modern design of the card would look something like this: Animate Dead - 1B Sorcery Return target creature card from a graveyard to the battlefield under your control. Create a black Aura enchantment token attached to that creature with enchant creature, "Enchanted creature gains -1/-0," and "When this Aura leaves the battlefield, sacrifice enchanted creature." That's probably a lot easier to read. But it would be some massive functional errata on the card, so it's too late to do that now.

[@maikocat]

@@therealax6 Technically this wouldn't be exactly the same as original Animate Dead, as whether a thing is a token or nontoken can matter. Also, Animate Dead being in the graveyard means it could be recurred and recast while the previously animated creature is still on the field. I'm not sure there would be a better way to exactly copy original Animate Dead's effects, besides using the Alchemy effect "Conjure", which creates a nontoken card. You are correct though, that a modern printing of Animate Dead would likely use a token aura. That'd make the most sense in modern Magic. Hmm, given the Role token auras in WOE, I wonder if we could have had an "Animated" Role aura, had designers thought about this.

[@fergusfisher1315]

@@maikocatthat’s exactly what they’re talking about when the mentioned that it would be a massive functional errata. The actual gameplay of the card would be changed. Functional errata have happened before but not this big.

[@orpheos9]

The LSV clip is pure gold. Perfect combination of someone who knows the rules very well and someone who knows how to entertain

[@jmcalcy69]

As a judge, I've experienced this phrase used so much from a place of toxicity, condescension, or unkindness towards people trying to understand the game.

[@TheYoutubeUser69]

it is especially rediculous when you consider almost all cards have special rulings attached to them. but the mtg community is kinda toxic anyway. seldom have i seen groups of ppl more transphobic for example.

[@nicholash.7656]

That's why I'm a big fan of RTFC. Much more aggressive and to the point.

[@WilliamMacLeod-en3pm]

To be fair I’d expect a judge to understand the cards

[@hansoskar1911]

and that is the way friendlier version of what used to be said: RTFC

[@solcloudchaser4988]

I still say RTFC. 99 times out of 100 it's true.

[@Falchieyan]

The "Buffalo buffalo..." phrase reminds me of something: Way way back in the early 2000s there was a website I visited (now long forgotten) that let people create and upload custom Magic cards. I very distinctly remember one, a red card called "Target Target," which used a picture of the Spy Vs. Spy cartoon characters as the artwork. It read something like: "Target Target targets target target that was not targeted by Target Target. Target Target changes the target of target spell to another target target."

[@lia_wings]

That sounds equal parts disgusting, hilarious, and plausible. Exploiting and maximizing confusing and repetitive wording is a recurring trope in custom card comedy and I eat it up every time, even if my eyes start glazing over the line after trying to read it for the fourth or so time

[@anotherstupidhipster3551]

Or, in Legalese: The card named Target Target (henceforth refered to as "This Card") allows you to take the action known as targeting against a designated target spell (henceforth known as "the spell"). The target selected in this manner may not be a permanent already targeted by this card. This card allows you to designated a new target for the spell.

[@PanAndScanBuddy]

Nowadays the art would be the logo of big box store chain, Target. Although I'd love to see a Spy turning into the Target logo a la Animorphs.

[@MetFreak42]

"Roger, roger."

[@ND-nr6mx]

What happens if Target Target targets target target's Target Target? 😳

[@casketbase7750]

Progenitus wasn’t mentioned here because he has protection from KZbin videos.

[@collinbeal]

It also has protection from being mentioned. Did you use _Dress Down?_

[@casketbase7750]

@collinbeal I had Platinum Angel out so I could break a rule without losing the game.

[@collinbeal]

@@casketbase7750 I tried to do that, but only got halfway because of my _Abyssal Persecutor._

[@dinobro4273]

Lmao cards like Progenitus in YGO would be able to be Tributed (from cards like Lava Golem) despite being "protected from everything", unless explicitly stated they cannot be Tributed, because AFAIK Tributing is a 'game mechanic' and not a card effect, even though card effects can bypass game mechanics e.g. "unless explicitly stated they cannot be tributed" like I said. YGO is a self contradictory mess and it seems like MTG is not that much better.

[@casketbase7750]

@dinobro4273 I play both games, and the best comparison I know is this: Magic effects tell you which rules apply to the card. Yugioh effects tell you which rules the card breaks.

[@Jesin00]

20:00 Damage doesn't kill creatures until state-based actions are checked. This difference from "fight" only matters if one of the combatants has wither or infect.

[@MagicalEmma6]

26:35 I think it's fitting, in a video such as this, that a linguistic error is made here. In this analogy, the rectangle would be playing a card, while the square would be casting a card. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Every card that you cast is played, but not every card that you play is cast.

[@gagepursifull7670]

Came here to say this. Not a bash on Sam. Just agree that it’s irony or poetic or something (I don’t know words) that on the subject of confusion, the creator becomes confused by confusing ideas.

[@jackrosenquist1432]

I paused the video right here and was like wait, did sam get that backwards? Then came to the comments and found this, understanable mistake but halarious that its in the video about confusing wording.

[@Jalae]

actually it seems this was likely a purposely chosen ambiguous metaphor. he wasn't talking about all squares and rectangles, rather he was talking about the specific square on the screen called "play" and the part of that square which is the rectangle "cast". which was a venn diagram. so it was even more fitting than imagined.

[@MagicalEmma6]

@ he actually clarified that it was an error in his pinned comment, and that the graphic only reinforced the error. Which is reasonable, given that he could’ve done a similar graphic in which a “cast” square is cut out of a “play” rectangle, so the graphic itself isn’t an important part of the analogy

[@FanOfMostEverything]

This helped me realize just how deeply enfranchised I am in this game. Many of the examples felt intuitive to me, Powerstones included. Still a great look at the challenges of interpreting the funny cardboard rectangles.

[@slayerofthebuzz1]

Heh, Spuzzum

[@eewweeppkk]

Being easily understandable only AFTER you have experience and knowledge on the subject means it is NOT intuitive.

[@FanOfMostEverything]

@@eewweeppkk Exactly my point, yes! After decades of parsing rules text, it's impossible for me to know what will trip up a newcomer until I'm trying to explain it to them at FNM.

[@jaredwonnacott9732]

The same is true for me. I have a fairly good handle on how things read to beginners still, though, as I teach Magic to middle schoolers after school, and I'm always fielding questions. It's actually really reassuring watching videos like this and everything making sense, cause that means I'm probably getting most everything right as I'm teaching the next generation of Magic players.

[@MortonGoldthwait]

I built a cube based on bad, old and unusual cards. I'm always on the lookout for the next strange card and videos like this are a big help. Thank you for the inspiration.

[@Teh1ucalljon]

I'm surprised Wheel of Misfortune didn't get a shout out. I feel explaining the card is less confusing than actually reading its oracle text. I usually dish it out as: - The lowest number doesn't wheel. - The highest number wheels and takes damage equal to their chosen number. - In between just wheels, no damage.

[@Sidewinder_Circa]

Having just become a Level 1 Judge, I have always tried to explain a card and what strange nuances come with it to my peers and friends while giving Rules Advisor rulings at my FNMs and casual tables. This video exemplifies what I've been trying to achieve, and is a testament to simply not being a jerk when explaining what a card does. Reading the card only does so much. Fantastic work, Sam ❤

[@haeilsey]

I still think my favourite ambiguous card is season of the witch, which cares about creatures which "could have attacked." it's hard to intuit what could and couldn't have attacked in the past in many situations, and turning to the rules for help just gets you a shrug.

[@therealax6]

@@haeilsey A creature couldn't have attacked if you couldn't have declared it as an attacker in some combat phase that turn. Note that effects that say "creatures can't attack unless [something]" still count as "can't attack", unless you chose to do the something. But that part, which is really the only ambiguous part, _is_ explained in the rules... tangentially. Basically, the rules consider restrictions that you can lift to be unconditionally in force unless you choose to lift them.

[@haeilsey]

@@therealax6 the headache interaction is with silent arbiter. "only one creature can attack each combat." if i have two creatures and attack with one, does it kill the other? if i attack with neither does it kill both or one of my choice?

[@therealax6]

@@haeilsey As far as I can tell, if at the beginning of a declare attackers step you _could_ make an attack declaration (without paying any costs) involving that creature, the creature can attack, and Season of the Witch will destroy it if it didn't. I haven't found any rule defining "couldn't have attacked", but feel free to point one out if I missed it; absent any such rule, this is the only way you could consistently interpret this wording.

[@xway2]

@@haeilsey If you believe in hard determinism then only the creatures that did attack could have attacked. You never had an opportunity to choose otherwise, the laws of physics don't allow it.

[@TrustyFishOdor]

Blood Moon is my pet peeve on this subject. That short sentence, "Nonbasic lands are Mountains." never says that they lose any of their previous properties, or that they gain the ability to make red mana.

[@RakkiXIII]

while this answer may seem unhelpful, it is true. first, Mountains have an innate ability to produce red mana. this is also why basic lands don't have a color identity "{T}: {R}" is not the rules text of a basic Mountain, a basic mountain has no rules text. for commander purposes there is an extra rule the lands may only be included in a deck, if all mana it produces is of a color in the commanders color identity, without this extra rule, basic lands would be illegal in commander decks second, other such effects will explicitly write out "... in addition to its other types", since blood moon lacks this extra text, it instead overrides all other types instead of adding to them.

[@TrustyFishOdor]

@@RakkiXIII This is all true! also none of it is written on the card, or intuitive. (imo)

[@therealax6]

While all of that is true, none of that explains why they lose their other abilities! It's true that any land with the Mountain subtype has the ability to tap for red mana (rule 305.6), and that basic land types apply color-identity-like restrictions for Commander decks (rule 903.5d, and note that this rule only applies to lands with a basic land type - lands like Mana Confluence, which _can_ produce off-color mana, can be included in any deck), but neither rule explains why Blood Moon causes lands to lose their abilities instead of simply gaining the ability to tap for red mana. After all, Blood Moon doesn't cause nonbasic lands to become the card Mountain (they don't change names, for instance, nor they become basic) - "...are Mountains" is simply replacing the _land subtypes_ of the lands, just like "green creatures are Beasts" would do with creature subtypes. The reason why nonbasic lands lose their abilities is rule 305.7, which explicitly says that lands lose their abilities when an effect sets their subtypes to basic land types without saying "in addition to its other types". This is why Omo, Queen of Vesuva says "in addition to its other types" for lands: to avoid taking their abilities. Fun fact: note how I said that _land_ subtypes are replaced. Not _other_ subtypes. If you cast Blood Moon and there's an Urza's Saga on the battlefield, it becomes an Enchantment Land - Mountain Saga with no abilities. Since it's a saga with no abilities (Saga is an enchantment type, not a land type), its final chapter number is 0 (it has no chapters), and thus it is considered to have reached its final chapter (as it will necessarily have 0 or more lore counters, because everything has zero or more counters of any type) and gets immediately sacrificed.

[@jonasmayer4031]

@@therealax6 I always thought that Blood Moon "transforms" non-basic lands into the actual card "Mountain" and not giving them the land type mountain. Because of this it was clear to me that the other abilities were gone and that these lands can only produce red mana.

[@therealax6]

@jonasmayer4031 It's just a subtype, and losing abilities is part of the rules for basic land subtypes. Note that this only affects abilities, not other parts of the card: if a Dryad Arbor is in play, it becomes a Creature Land - Mountain Dryad, but it's still a 1/1, it's still green (even though it only taps for red mana!), and it's still named Dryad Arbor.

[@Omniprong]

This is my favourite video you've done in a while. I like videos like this one, Hatred Outlives the Hateful, and Limits of a Cardname way more than set retrospectives and lore analyses.

[@PanAndScanBuddy]

I'm kinda the opposite, and that's what I love about Rhystic Studies, is that there's a little something for everyone, whether you like a deep dive on mechanics, lore, or even a trip back in time to the Season of the Witch.

[@jacc1854]

I like this video a lot because it cuts to one of my favorite things to do when helping a new player learn; Summarizing the card. There's so many players who will rush to teach them all of the intricacies of their favourite mechanics, but unless the new player is the type who wants to rush into all those intricacies bc they like those complex systems, it can be really overloading. But explaining Teferi's Protection as "they basically don't exist," is usually sufficient. Last night I explained to someone how the stack worked in utilitarian terms: you get to decide the order of things that trigger at the same time, and then I gestured towards the more complex version involving declaring targets and putting triggers on the stack in order. He was able to play the game, while understanding what more there could be to learn. It was cool.

[@masterargus7858]

I've had Gisela, Blade of Goldnight as my commander for over a decade and I can’t tell you how many times I've had to explain how the rounding works on her damage prevention ability. It says "prevent half that damage, rounded up" meaning I actually round down when calculating how much damage I take. It'd be easier if it was just a replacement effect that said rounded down, but they had to work "prevent" in there because of other cards that interact with damage prevention.

[@michaelsparks1571]

I think replacement effects only really work mechanically when the result is a specific outcome (such as Worship being "1"). "Half" would vary with each damage instance, so prevention is probably much easier to apply.

[@ProfDragonite]

I always love when some cards round up, and then other cards round down.

[@therealax6]

@@michaelsparks1571 An effect _could_ in theory say "if a source would deal damage to you or a permanent you control, instead it deals half that damage, rounded down". That does work within the rules. But there are many other effects that interact with prevention (Questing Beast comes to mind, and so does Stomp, the adventure side of Bonecrusher Giant), and they clearly wanted Gisela to work with those the same way any other damage prevention effect would.

[@masterargus7858]

@@therealax6 Ghosts of the Innocent was printed with that exact wording, and like you said, it isn't technically damage prevention. It got especially confusing with Excruciator being printed in the same set. I get why they worded Gisela's ability differently later down the line. Still kind of annoying to have to explain it though.

[@wolfgangromine8341]

I like the added touch of physically shuffling through all the cards mentioned in the video at the end there, neat.

[@accidentallike8977]

Nothing is better than channeling Magic's pile arcane of rules into one of my favorite things: The "YOU CAN DO THAT!?"-Moment.

[@JervisGermane]

With the right combo, Magic's rules let you turn all your permanents into Enchantment Artifact Creature Lands with all creature types and all basic land types.

[@abuelovinagres4411]

19:58 I'm pretty sure the creature the Yeti fights still has a chance to respond the damage since it doesn't die until the state based actions are checked, which can not happen in between the resolution of an object on the stack; in this case, the triggered ability from the yeti itself. Thus, it can not be sequential, since there are no steps between the damage dealing from both creatures... At least, that's how it works nowadays. :v

[@jokey665]

It is sequential, but the second creature will get to punch back even if it's dealt lethal damage by the yeti. However, if the Yeti somehow has wither or infect it can reduce the other creature's power and potentially not get damaged in return.

[@abuelovinagres4411]

@@jokey665 That's a nice and interesting take. It seems a funny cornercase in which the sequence matters after all.

[@HS_Gomikubi]

I hate to do this after making the mistake of replying to another comment on this topic without checking first but apparently this card has since received errata replacing the sequential terminology with phrasing that amounts to modern "fight" rules despite not using the keyword, oracle text now indicates that both damage instances are dealt as a simultaneous action. That said, when it was printed it took a savvy player to understand the last known information rule (simply put the Yeti still 100% died in the exchange if it targeted another 3/3, even under pre-M10 rules) which is why the "if it's in play" clause was so important: Otherwise allowing the ability to resolve would have resulted in the Yeti abusing the very same rule of last known information to safely snipe it's targets through flicker-induced exile or bounce, including via it's own activated ability.

[@abuelovinagres4411]

@@HS_Gomikubi One of those misteries about wording I will never understand.

[@DudeBronkster]

@@HS_Gomikubi I don't know where you got that info from, but the portion of the oracle text about how damage is dealt is identical to what's printed on the card. Only the part about entering is worded differently to align it with the modern wording, but also amounts to the same thing it always has.

[@thomasfleming8131]

11:49 "I don't know. Good luck" is the best way to state "this is outside the scope of this paper"

[@1ogic948]

might be a good example of why you're in charge of declaring your own triggers haha

[@donbionicle]

11:45 would be a better timestamp, yours is after the line has been said.

[@Giga-lemesh]

Hahaha

[@VVheeli]

My favorite “What does it do?” card has to be one my brother showed me. Chaos Lord from Ice Age has an updated oracle text but no new printing since its first un-errata’d mess. And the first sentence is the funniest way to confuse a Magic player while they reread it twice. “Chaos Lord can attack the first turn it comes into play on a side, except the first turn it comes into play.” Not only is it insane to read, but that effect is almost impossible to use without someone using Control Magic on it. And it doesn’t work with the other part of the card’s ability.

[@benepic3101]

iconic secret lair ad card all-star chaos lord

[@NStripleseven]

As a massive “weird magic rulings and phrasing” nerd, excited about this title.

[@bertrandlecerf2565]

Guilty as charged for that Lagrella bit. New Capenna was one of my very first in-store Magic event, after a long time away from the game and years before that spent only on casual kitchen table Magic with friends. For my first time sitting across a bunch of strangers, I crack open my packs, get 2 copies of Lagrella, skim her text-box and go "wow, I can wipe my opponent's whole board with these, neat !" and go on to totally misplay her for all my games that day. And none of my opponents noticed. It was only after coming home and reading it more carefully that I shamefully realized my mistake. Was nice seeing this very mistake pop back up in this video, a nice blast from the past :)

[@LazyMaybe]

I think for that card's text to make any sense at all it would need to have wording like "...for each player, you may exile one target creature controlled by that player".

[@CalastantNight]

@@LazyMaybe I agree with you. A comma really needs to be put in that sentence.

[@dustinseth1]

“Explaining the card explains the card.” Brilliant concept, and execution. It’s inside knowledge every magic player gets, but feel like this is also generally entertaining. Maybe your best.

[@jugularstab]

It is insane timing that this video got released as I am wading through an abandoned TTRPG system to clean up and streamline the grammar and syntax for ease of use in my upcoming campaign. Nice to know other people care about these things; thanks for the excellent work as always, Sam.

[@daviderde]

love how this feels like an old rhystic studies video. literally has the same music vibe as "magic's best worst card" and a similar energy haha

[@Murdrad]

26:00 I scooped to an "all is dust" first time I saw it. Asked myself "why in the world would WoTC put mass land destruction in a precon?" Simple answer, they wouldn't because they didn't.

[@1ogic948]

Many of these cards are deeply beautiful to me. It’s a feat to translate the evocative to the technical and coming out succinctly, not losing the evocative. Some stick the landing, some don’t. Also, for me and some other fans that do their own magic design as a hobby, it’s the tightrope we love to dance on, making something a little unhinged, but also a little plausible. There’s a trill to pushing the limits, making art out of tech.

[@phyrexian_dude4645]

My favorite "Reading the card, explains the card" moment is when its followed with "why would you DO that!?" from new players. There was this former Yu-Gi-Oh! player that got sick of the game, started playing Magic Commander and found refreshing to be able to understand the damn cards... and be able to read them in a fond that is not on 6px. Anyway, he had a couple of games under his belt, saw the familar combo, aggro, control, etc. decks. Thought that he understood the game and just needed to get familiar with the cards. Then i proceeded to blew his mind with Jon Irenicus. He read the card and was confused with the point of those mechanincs... and the i gave him a Phyrexian Soulgorger, tryied to sac it and i was like "You cant do that" and porceeded to re read Jon to him. He listened, re read the Soulgorger and then i said "thats an interesting interaction". Then, the next turn played a Grid Monitor, he read the card and he had the sudden epiphany of what my deck was trying to accomplish and was like "What kind of SICK deck is that!?". After i got my ass destroyed by the other players for obvious reasons, he asked me "How do you win with that?". I said to him "Oh this deck hardly wins any games. I just made it for the shits and giggles" and showed the entire deck full of jank. Which made him realice that the game required more than just reading and doing things with the cards but also that you can play with the language and interpretations of the cards for your advantage. And that was one of the reasons why i made that deck. Not just to mess around with everyone (which is hilarious) but to teach new players about those weird interactions.

[@therealax6]

Do you have a decklist? I love reading through those weird interactions.

[@keoshine]

Fortunately for anyone savvy enough with the rules, the Soulgorger interaction doesn't actually require the player whomst ends up controlling Soulgorger to sacrifice *anything*, so they just get a free 8/8.. Cumulative Upkeep is an optional cost, so the player whomst controls the trigger is never *forced* to pay it.. You could simply decline to pay, and then nothing would happen because Soulgorger can't be sacrificed as part of the cumulative upkeep trigger resolving without payment..

[@velphidrow]

@@keoshine yup many people misunderstand it, including myself due to forgetting what exactly Cumulative Upkeep actually was

[@phyrexian_dude4645]

@ Oh im well aware about the ruling... but you would be surprised about the sheer amount of long time players that dont. I always giggle at the idea that they dont play stuff for fear of the upkeep.

[@graefx]

Great timing with the new Start Your Engines ability coming up. That scrap trawler bit at the end immediately made me think of Kappa Cannoneer where it's MH3 text box removed the ambiguity from the ability. Oath of Druids would have been another good example. The OG just reads so much more understandably to a lay person but has all sorts of rules wrinkles especially vs someone trying to Spike things. Foil armor just making a card humidor.

[@JamookLuke]

I LOVE YOU SAMUEL STUDYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@CorpCoCEO]

I find it funny that Oubliette has effectively experienced every kind of ambiguity discussed in this video. Beginning life as an old card which expressed non-obvious rules interactions in plain language, transforming into a card so full of nightmarish rules legal-ese that it couldn’t be reprinted for lack of space to fit its oracle text on the card, to the modern era of keywords flattening full paragraphs of comprehensive rules into simple phrases that demand additional pieces of reading material to understand

[@DarthTUK]

Bless you, Sam! There is no better feeling than a new upload from you

[@kyddkreature9801]

Funnily enough, just played with my pod yesterday a d someone dropped Chains. The Oracle text simplified it so much 😂

[@AtomTomZeitalter]

@@kyddkreature9801 Really? I personally think that the original text of Chains is easier to parse.

[@Halinn]

Prisoner's Dilemma is interesting, in that if you're playing a 4 player game of Commander, snitch-snitch-silence is the same total amount of damage as silence-silence-silence, but much easier to collaborate on achieving

[@qin2500]

I've been trying to introduce MTG to some of my friends. Venture into the dungeon, The Ring Tempts You, Initiative, Day Night, Cycling, and Madness have all been mechanics that trip them up over and over again

[@Naren25]

That's interesting. Why cycling? That seems pretty easy, what confusion did that cause?

[@ineptist]

It's tough introducing people to formats with sets and sets worth of mechanics. I've actually found limited to be pretty appealing to new players simply because it's, well, limited!

[@CraigStevenLikesStuff]

Some of us have day jobs, Sam. (And a lot of us are happy to have this during work hours.)

[@prog00017]

I think my favorite rules eureka moment was realizing that casting Phantasmal Image to copy Lord of the Unreal created a 2/2 Hexproof Lord for all illusion creatures on the board that then received a total +2+2 from its own buff and the existing Lord's buff stacking together.

[@alexhopewell449]

"Whenever X happens, do Y. This ability triggers only once each turn." makes me want to pull my hair out.

[@Donistotle-mtg]

Regarding Notion Thief-esque cards, I really wish there was a clean MTG term for "the first card drawn during the draw phase." The innate draw of the draw step ought to have a word of its own

[@nannerthepuss]

I only recently re-discovered Magic and found Arena and stumbled upon this channel in the process of trying to get what's new in MTG, decks, etc. I binged your videos and this is absolutely my new favorite channel, Magic-related or otherwise. Great stuff, man. Stoked to watch this at least once later tonight.

[@centillionandone]

For Bounty of Luxa I feel like it would be a lot easier to comprehend if the phrasing was just done more like it was explained. If the card just stated "precombat main if there arent any counters draw,and put one on, if there is then add mana and take off the counter"

[@fatpad00]

It would be so much easier to read if it was 2 separate abilities. "At main phase, if counter, remove and add mana. At main phase, if no counter, put counter and draw."

[@ratadjacent]

When I was in kindergarten, my teacher was trying to get the class to read out the word "the". At this point in time, I couldn't read, nor could any of my classmates. I tried to read it out phonetically, (I think it left my mouth as "tuh-huh-eh ?") which was completely wrong. The teacher kept telling us, "you just have to know it" which was no help at all. It was something that only made sense when someone who already understood how it worked told you how it did. Explaining how to say "the" explains how to say "the", I guess.

[@Bargadiel]

Reading the card can explain the card, but it is absolutely true that not all explanations are made equal.

[@JoneBone-zv1kr]

Share the Spoils is a great example of explaining the card doing a much better job of explaining it than reading it. I have it in my propsper, tome bound commander deck, and whenever I play that card I make sure to explain how it works and have everyone put the cards exiled with it in the center of the table. I also just find that properly explaining my deck and the cards in it is really helpful for everyone at the table, and I always make sure to do that.

[@lucyarisato6850]

Always a delight to see more from you Sam.

[@christopherjones4697]

This is the same with penal, vehicle, and municipal codes, ect... Just reading the code sometimes doesn't mean how it reads, or the courts have interpreted the code in a specific way than how a normal person would.

[@jmcalcy69]

19:10 There's uncommon cards in modern Standard sets that don't have reminder text for their one-off set mechanics. Aetherdrift, being spoiled now, has them as well for "Start Your Engines". WOTC has lost the plot so hard, thinking draft uncommons don't need reminder text.

[@therealax6]

Draft uncommons might not need reminder text if you're seeing the same text in three commons in the same draft, plus the reminder card. The point of reminder text is to be ubiquitous enough that you'll see it somewhere.

[@Tuss36]

People complain about the wordiness of cards these days, but I think the bigger issue is how more cards "hitch" these days than usual. There's an unspoken flow to how abilities tend to go that have an expectation that trip you up when the text goes against them. For example, if you had a card that was "When this enters, reveal the top three cards of your library. You may put a land card from among them into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library." everything is smooth so far, but if you added "If you don't put a card into your hand this way, return target creature to its owner's hand" that creates a hitch where, even though it works plainly in the rules, feels very disconnected from the initial ability. You were looking at the cards revealed, but now you have to look at the board state and evaluate all that, and it just doesn't feel mechanically linked. The number of words or even the choice of words isn't necessarily confusing, but the combination is.

[@Mulch4321]

Banger video as always Sam! Just wanted to leave another note around 22:00 - a common misconception in MTG rules is the concept of line breaks creating differences in things like triggered abilities. This is actually not the case! The only thing the rules care about when attempting to discern if a triggered ability is put on the stack are the words "When" (when this creature enters, do X) "Whenever" (whenever you draw a card, do Y) or "at" (At the beginning of your upkeep, do Z). Even if Oblivion ring was one paragraph, it would still function the same as other cards of its ilk, and this timing window on cards like O-ring and Fiend hunter was deemed unintuitive enough to new players that it was discontinued for more standardized templatings like the ones found on Banishing Light. For cards with multiple "When"s in a single block of text, take LCI's Inti, Seneschal of the Sun! It may look like it has two triggers, but it actually contains three seperate instances that go on the stack after a player attacks, discards and subsequently puts a counter on a creature. Hope this helps clear up some common pitfalls! Can't wait for your next upload, keep the quality coming

[@deoplo5988]

I'm glad something else noticed that about the oblivion ring section as well. I had to confirm for myself that the looping also in fact works with the likes of banishing light.

[@noteveryday]

Its rare that I save a video to enjoy it at exactly the right time of the day, Rhystic Studies meets the criteria for this.

[@9clawtiger]

The zoom in on Ben Wheelers side profile is quite funny

[@calebthecondor]

29:26 you know its bad when an intentionally confusing joke card called ambiguity is significantly easier to understand than most of the other cards featured.😂

[@Suspinded]

19:58 - There's no window for state based actions to destroy the opposing creature. This is more relevant if the Yeti somehow gets infect or another stat changing effect based on damage. If Yeti has infect, it will reduce the total damage dealt back to it.

[@stevenglowacki8576]

I'm not sure there are any effects that would allow the Yeti to change size based on dealing damage in time. Sure, there might be effects that can trigger to make it bigger, but those wouldn't resolve in the middle of the ability. There would need to be a static ability that says "Yeti has +1/+1 for each time it has dealt damage" and I don't think such a static effect exists when it makes more sense to use counters and put them on via a trigger.

[@doomhowar]

Thromok is easily one of my fav legendary creatures. Simple concept with streamlined text. Sick art as well.

[@Tvboy777]

@20:00 The creature still gets to hit back because state based actions, which is how lethal damage kills creatures, are not checked until the ability finishes resolving.

[@GregariousBant]

what i've learned so far is that a lot of my favourite cards are the hard-to-parse ones. balduvian warlord, cauldron dance, flanking, these are my greatest hits of magic!

[@WhereHeInsertedTheBladee]

13:35 sam making a very human mistake here when reading the card only helps underline the point haha

[@RhysticStudies]

I read this card so many times that I started adding words to it because it _still feels incomplete._

[@Trisaaru]

This card is so poorly worded. I think something like this would be better Destroy target creature. If green/white was spent to cast this spell, destroy target nonland permanent instead.

[@MetaKaios]

@Trisaaru I don't think that works because you choose targets before you pay the mana. That's the reason the card says "if" - "if" only checks the condition on resolution. Compare Red Elemental Blast to Pyroblast. REB must target something blue. Pyroblast can target anything, but it just won't do anything unless its target is blue on resolution.

[@Trisaaru]

@@MetaKaios Maybe an alternative cost asking to pay green/white/black would work? Literally anything is better than what we have now.

[@kyoyeou5899]

11:08 I've played only Breena in the last 2~3 years in Commander. You get used to it. But you really need to explain it every game. And as its a diplomatic card, I just take care of reminding poeole when its important they they could draw a card for free for attacking

[@artemiskearney8019]

You've got Stalking Yeti wrong in a couple of ways. 1. The "if it's in play" clause is nothing to do with damage on the stack (which was only ever about combat damage). Without that clause, the Yeti would still punch even if bounced (possibly with its own ability) in response to the trigger. Magic uses "last known information" to determine a creature's power if it's no longer on the battlefield, so the damage would still be dealt. (The restriction that both creatures must be present is actually baked into the "fight" keyword, so Affectionate Indrik needs no such qualifier.) 2. While you're right that the damage is dealt in a specific order unlike a fight, the yeti OHKOing its opponent doesn't help it, because damage doesn't kill creatures until after the ability finishes resolving. It would only matter if the Yeti gained wither or infect: the damage would put -1/-1 counters on the opponent, meaning it's weaker by the time it hits back.

[@artemiskearney8019]

Update: just saw your clarification comment; everything you said about the Yeti there is correct, hopefully this comment helps clarify the remaining gaps and make it fit together a bit more coherently.

[@RhysticStudies]

thank you very much for taking the time to explain! I appreciate it.

[@Numbnuts007]

That starburst play test card is hilarious. All they needed to add was one word, their.

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

3:17 never experienced to see a quote from a author I worked with :)

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

29:20 Hilarie Belloc is also a throwback, I always found his critique of Germany's and defense of France's role in history funny because he is so biased you couldn't be even more biased if you tried. "French Revolution? L l ll lets forget that... but that Martin Luther fellow... what do you mean France financed him?"

[@angelojohnson9441]

I still remember seeing Possibility Storm spoiled. I read it once and got really excited. I then reread it to understand what it did. I also had to explain the card nearly every time it came out as “if you try to cast something, you cast a random card in your library of the same type instead”. I found Lagrella in a draft chaff box and fell in love with her in the middle of my 32 deck challenge. Is it a blink deck? Yes, is it my unique blink deck running Hunting Grounds so I can free-cast Denizen of the Deep in case of a boardwipe? Also yes.

[@plastefuchs666]

I see Wheeler, I am happy to be here. 😊

[@tuwill2380]

bounty of the luxa reminds me of one of my favorites dumb cards, tidal influence. mechanics, you put a counter on it each upkeep and when it enters. if it has exactly 1 counter, blue creatures get -2/-0. exactly 3, blue creatures get +2/+0. exactly 4, remove all counters. its an old card too, so the text isnt defined that well. it says so much for such a small effect. i love it.

[@griffinkasch2884]

10:40 both starburst and time walk existed in the gamma playtest, starburst most likely became final fortune in mirage. There was also a black starburst in earlier play testing named paralysis.

[@knoxgordon9859]

Thromok has been one of my favorite creatures since i first saw it. I made my fiancée a Thromok deck as a christmas gift one year and it's still one of the craziest decks we have.

[@friedpinnapple]

Oh my god i love the flavor of prisoner’s dilemma. Its a perfect recreation of the prisoner’s dilemma including a key important No matter what the other players choose, you come out better snitching.

[@TheFiremind]

Cube Trivia Check guy will be a sad, sad fellow after a game against D&T. Between end-of-turn Flickerwisp shenanigans, double triggers from a flickered Leonin Arbiter, vialing in Ethersworn Canonist after the opponent casts a spell to cut them off from any more spells this turn, vialing in Sanctum Prelate to deny a Suspended spell...

[@FreyaTamiyo]

I am having an absolutely horrendous week filled with my rights being taken away and your channel brings me so much peace with the chill music and the incredibly well written content delivered in such a calm way. Thank you for having such amazing timing, I needed this today and you are my favorite creator

[@Giga-lemesh]

🏳️‍⚧️❤️

[@crusaderforlife8250]

I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS SO MUCH each one is like a once in a lifetime documentary capturing the soul of the game. You get this game in almost every way keep up the AMAZING work 💚

[@xcelentei]

On the topic of saruman of many colors, he is defeated most soundly in the books when the party rolls up to him to ask for his surrender. Saruman yaps too much at Theoden, Gandalf, and Aragorn, and the differences in his treatment of each let the good guys see through the enchantment magic in his voice. In that context the card is a flavor home-run for book saruman; he talks too much, he specializes in masterwork spells and enchantments, and he turns his opponents' strengths against each other until everyone gets tired of listening to his bullshit.

[@VerbalLearning]

This video is in and of itself ambiguous as to whether or not it is a video essay about ambiguity and it's history as well as it's impact on Magic as a game and how ambiguity affects game design and in what ways it should or shouldn't or a video detailing/listing Magics most infamous/historically ambigious cards and trying to explain how they actually work. If this was intentional then bravo. Successful meta commentary.

[@Pintyhet]

1:34 poor Wheeler.

[@jacksonanderson4406]

My favorite recent example of the card's text leaving holes in understanding is Wheel of Potential from MH3. There is an implied "if you do" after the "you may pay X energy" clause. But without that knowledge, the card effectively reads "if you want to, pay an energy for each card you would like to draw. then draw that many cards, regardless of if you paid the energy or not."

[@flpn2275]

10:27 lets face it Richard is a mathematician, not an English professor. That card shouldve said opponent skips their next turn. So simple but meh

[@clayxros576]

Which also explains their utter lack of critical nuance in regards to "balance" vs "feels good". Yes, on paper much of early magic was "balanced". But when you sit down and play with it, most of the time it sucks. Even with a proper B&R List. Their utter deafness towards cultural sensitivity also betrays they're mathematics experts primarily.

[@mfsoab]

My second deck ever was a pile of flanking and flying knights from a 1000 card lot I purchased and I still love it. The confused looks that Cavalry Master produces are just golden!

[@DavidSmith-cr7mb]

I always had "reading the card explains the card, did you read the card?"

[@PerilsAbound]

When writing rules for my own projects, I strive, sweat, even fret over these sorts of linguistic headaches (while subjecting myself to them repeatedly in the process). Card text is, by nature, a tricky thing. Navigating a sea of rules with a limited space to convey a complicated message is either an obstacle, or an opportunity-the writer's job is finding the latter of these two paths.

[@officialfire9500]

I never expected a title like this but I was not disappointed. I even modify it and use it in my daily life.

[@kingpoolosdos]

You hit all of my favorite text headaches including Dead Ringers. There's probably also a separate video to be done for effects that are no longer used like Camouflage and Raging River.

[@uiop60]

To me the most confusing part of Lagrella, the Magpie is the phrase "When a creature enters the battlefield under your control this way...". What way? Turns out it's referring to the occasion referenced by "until Lagrella leaves the battlefield". It's a moment hidden within the word 'until' - 'until such a time as Lagrella leaves the battlefield. When such a time coming causes YOUR creature to come back, it gets bigger".

[@1000Tomatoes]

"Reading the card explains the card" is definitely a goal of accessibile card design more than a universal truth.

[@matthewmartin9983]

I’m impressed Goblin game was not brought up! And I remember when everyone was really complaining about Wheel of Misfortune! Love the videos Sam. Seriously my favorite content to consume! PS. Have you considered “History of the Token”? Just thought the The Hive segment was really interesting.

[@ppIoIi]

your manner of speaking and style of structure reminds me a lot of emplemon and I love it.

[@vezokpiraka]

I think you're wrong on stalking yeti. It's just a fight effect as SBAs aren't checked during the resolution of the ability so the other creature gets to hit back the yeti regardless of it being basically dead.

[@jokey665]

Mostly correct, it's not fight but the other creature gets to punch back even if it takes lethal damage. Wither or Infect can let the yeti potentially go un-punched, though, if it reduces the other creature's power to 0.

[@vezokpiraka]

@jokey665 lol you are right. Even basically fight has a niche interaction in the rules that makes it not equivalent. (In addition to not being called fight and thus not triggering stuff that says "whenever a creature fights")

[@TeamSprocket]

I think he was describing how it was when damage was on the stack?

[@vezokpiraka]

@@TeamSprocket damage on the stack refers to combat damage being on the stack. You could block a creature with the yeti, return it to your hand and it would still deal damage to the blocked creature without taking anything back due to being in hand. The first ability happens when it enters and thus can never interact with damage on the stack. It's just to make it weaker to removal because a repeatable removal on a stick is really annoying in limited.

[@dominiciancabatit6012]

A day automatically becomes good when a new Rhystic Studies video is uploaded.

[@philiphunt-bull5817]

Reading the card does not explain the card! Fire🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Explaining the card Explains the card!🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@DanIsBad420]

The word salad of magic has always been there... But it was somehow more charming in the early days. Thank you, Sam!

[@noahkmarshall]

I have always been fascinated by people's pushback on my distain for the phrase, especially its use by such prominent members of the community. If it was once well-intentioned, it now feels more like an insult behind the guise of "Well, the professor says it!". Just be nice and help people understand.

[@jennis8561]

Reading the card to understand the card is mostly only helpful if you are a veteran player and understand the language the game uses. I occasionally play MTG with non-native English speakers, who can speak and understand English just fine but they have issues understanding the cards just because they really don't explain themselves that well for the uninitiated. On that note though, at least I often read prof using the phrase very much ironically when speaking about convoluted design in magic, even if he previously genuinely meant it.

[@LoonerFlight]

I explained trample once as "imagine you hit something small and trip. Your body is the excess damage. Flying and trample is the same thing but it's a bus falling out of the sky" And the interaction between shroud, hexproof and protection and Destroy wraths as "camouflage does not help you if the city you are in gets flattened"