Ravenchild wrote:Spectre is immune to combat damage if your top deck card is a unit or if you can reveal a ghost in your hand.
This wording suggests that the players have an understanding of what "immune" is and how we define "combat damage" and separate that from other types of damage. (For example if I attack you, and you defend with your creature, and I then activate another creature that deals damage to you without being involved in that combat, did you just receive combat damage? ; )
I think having to define those two will be impossible and unwise to avoid anyways, so yeah, that wording could work. Or not, since it only says "Spectre" and that's a partial name, while no real card has that name. Doing partials only will create chaos eventually. Take "Elvish Rider" as an example
When a unit deals damage to spectre, ignore that damage if ...
This is a re-phrase of "combat damage" since combat damage implies(?) that a unit dealt it and did so udner what we'd define as "combat". Or...actually it isn't: This just meas that any damage dealt by a unit, no matter if while in combat or not, will be possible to ignore. So it alters the ability and makes it more powerful than in your first wording.
asp wrote:Honestly, if a card's name is only stated once in the affect text, I don't see much of a problem.
I agree. However, the problem is there if we in some cases use the name (when it's mentioned once only) and in others use something else. It would be totally inconsistent and a mess. We need to have a system that can cover every scenario, so it has to be based on the worst cases and what clarity it brings to them.
When an enemy creature deals damage to this Spirit....
So, say a creature has 3 types: "Elvish Rider (Scout)" for example. By what standard would you choose which type to use in the card text? There's a problem with that choice no matter how we do it if the types are flexible, and they are. This "Elvish" doesn't work. This Rider works, and so does This Scout. But why choose one over the other? And, depending on the types in question, wouldn't it lead to the payers having to read in different places? Sometimes it would be the title, sometimes the first subtype with small letters, sometimes the second one.
"This card" (or my proper noun idea) are concise enough not to warrant the 'saving' of space. I'm not sure how to put it tactfully, but "TC is immune to..." just looks tacky. I'm not sure an icon would solve the issue either. I think icons should be reserved for identifying marks (abilities) and user actions (mark).
Agree. We'll avoid icon and also TC. I still lean towards "this card" though...