Game has incomprehensible mechanics

The original description wouldn't be true for a R/W and a W creature, but yours would.

Wouldn't it be
"Destroy two nonblack creatures that don't have a color they do not share"?

Attached: Untitled.jpg (949x353, 137.01K)

Almost, they don't have to be the exact same colour but must at least share a colour. You can target non-black creatures that don't share a colour, but then the spell would have no effect.

You're right

>card clearly believes it just gave you a choice, but actually just straight up told you what to do, so you don't have one and just deck yourself instantly if you draw a card apart from the one you always get
>no proofreader looked at it
>people who this product have financially by the balls MUST come out to defend it regardless
Pretty sweet life they've made for themselves.

technically thats the same thing.

>just deck yourself instantly
no the card implies choice.

>game manual has in-jokes

Attached: destroy my sides they cant be regenerated.jpg (472x152, 25.19K)

Yet fails to give it. Do you understand that this is poor writing or not?

It's a replacement effect you nonce.
Chains replaces a single draw effect and doesn't trigger off of itself.
I

This only confuses people cause it came out during a multi color block

It doesn't say it does not trigger off itself.

You need a certain level of IQ to read between the lines i guess. The card shouldnt have to explicitly say you have a choice, the implication should be enough. Taking everything literally is a problem with autistic people.

Tell us more about how you should read between the lines of explicit statements to make a carefully constructed game work where this would be a total fucking disaster to "rule" in most other cases? Guess the answer was that you do not understand. You CANNOT rule by interpreted implication in this or the game ceases to work.

This reads like something an ESL would write.

That's what I thought it was saying until I noticed the sentencing structure.

I think the problem is just the fact multi-color cards are a thing so the card needed to word itself in a way that made it clear how those would work.

you can’t just choose to ignore a rule. listen to what you’re saying

Do you realize that MTG is a game based on programming and literally interpretation, specifically?

>drawing a card outside draw phase means you discard a card before drawing one, if you have no cards to discard you put the top card in your library in your graveyard

>read between the line
>in Magic
Have you played the fucking game, you piece of shit?

Old MtG cards had so much soul. The modern frames really are souless shit.

I'm not fully versed in the rules of Magic, but I assume there's something in the way effects resolve that would prevent an infinite loop like that. Otherwise the cared would be completely broken

>having it in your deck is a choice
>having it in your hand, paying it's mana cost and using it is a choice
>reading your comment is a choice
>replying to it is a choice

Correct, if i remember correctly the stack is shaped the way it is to prevent self triggering cards.

Just joining in on dogpiling this faggot.

Attached: 1563409498353.jpg (500x628, 59.77K)

JUDGE!

I agree with this post. It was right all along and the rest of you have failed the test.