Top 10 Cards With The Most Confusing Card Text 

Cool in commander

Why does it infect the player who cast the card, and not the opponent who originally it was feeding off of? The wording makes it sound like an upside, not a downside.

So it's not necessarily going to hit the original caster. What happens when no more creatures can be chosen (either none on the battlefield, or they all have protection) is whoever controlled that last creature is now "that player". Honestly, even though it's a minor functional change, the end state should be "Takklemaggot loses 'enchant creature' and gains 'enchant player', then return it to the battlefield attached to that player.", and then with an additional line earlier ("At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, Takklemaggot deals 1 damage to that player.") (I'm a little surprised we haven't seen a DFC implementation of it, though, as that's even easier to follow. Maybe when we go back to Lorwyn?)

Dear god it’s Shahrazad all over again

I had an old legacy troll deck with 4 raging rivers in it. God I miss troll decks. Miserable to play with an against but it was a novelty you don't see really anyone do much anymore

So is it like exponential or linear?

​@@Animaster89 Yes

That sounds horrible. Like copying Warp World a bunch of times.

So it gives every "gain control" effect also give haste? I love it.

That's one of the dumbest, most niche abilities ever... Almost as irrelevant as cards that do things like "tap: remove plainswalk/horsemanship from a creature." 😂

A roundabout way to say, this creature is unaffected by Summoning Sickness when it switches control between players

They couldn't just give it haste. That would make it too good, I guess. Except it was never in danger of being good, even at the time.

@@TheThiccestChungusnot just haste, bad haste. You can’t tap it for abilities since the effect specifies only attacks. So it’s even more niche since you can’t temporarily steal it and use it as a mana dork with Paradise Mantle since it can’t tap for abilities.

...enchants the last creature's controller, actually. Part of the problem is that while the original wording swapped who controls it, the current wording does *not* and has a "that player" reference to the player who couldn't pick a new creature to attach it to.

That could be a pretty cool design for Innistrad or something. it helps Toxrill players make their opponents lives miserable.

And Camouflage.

its an example of mtg's great design. That card doesnt even need text, put the picture of a river in the middle of the table and everyone will instantly know whats up.

i was gonna say this XD yu-gi-oh is so leaps and bounds more confusing, wordy, & ridiculous to anything magic has ever put out. To this day, yu-gi-oh is still the most confusing & hard to understand game I've ever played.

Most Yu-gi-oh cards are pretty easy to parse once you get the hang of card grammar. It's just that every card has ten different effects, rather than one convoluted one.

And that includes text size.

​@@Varooooooom God how I wish yugioh cards were the same size as Magic cards.

@@murlocaggrob2192 Yeah it’s true. What also makes it confusing though is how many similar but slightly different effects exist in most archetypes. Like one will be “When this card is sent from the field or hand to the GY, you can send one monster card from you deck to the graveyard.” And another one will be “When this card is sent from the field to the GY, you can search you deck for a spell card and add it to your hand or send it to the GY.” That makes it so much more confusing remembering all the differences in every Archetype

What about “non snow” costs, that can only be paid with mana NOT generated by a snow source

@@algotkristoffersson15 I'm not sure I understand the question. Unless I am missing something, there is no such thing as a "non-snow" cost. Are you suggesting they should design cards like that?

@@connorhamilton5707 yeah why not? Snow covered lands should not be a direct upgrade.

Right!

its really not :D For example, how is it not falling off instantly? It says "enchant dead creature" but once your creature is on the battlefield, its not dead anymore. Thats kind of the point why they had to make it so wordy.

​@@ich3730 ok, but take off your "established magic player" glasses, and equip your "I'm a new player" glasses. If you're a new player, it makes perfect sense that you enchant a dead creature, and the enchantment doesn't just fall off afterwards. From a casual player's perspective, the original card is super easy to understand.

@@DrMonty-ng5fo Even then, the game text cards have to say the correct rules of the game. New players will, eventually, have to learn the rule by themselves. You can't write down wrong rules for the sake of new players.

Which if it was reprinted into Standard would have made it quite good with Wedding Announcement or some other nice, janky kinds of deck

My favourite version of something like this was described as "silly counters". Basically just playing as many cards like Takklemaggot and Frankenstein's Monster with weird and niche counter types and moving them about all over the place to give everyone a headache. "Your 2/3 has 2 +1/+1 counters, 1 +2/+0 counter, 1 +0/+2 counter and 2 -2/-1 counters, have fun!" EDIT: Should mention the main point of that deck, not being asked to play commander any more :P

You’re that guy huh

@@Hunted0LessShirt so Sultai proliferate to ensure that maximum salt is had by everyone.

The actual number 1. Never even read what morphed creatures it produced. It used to be 0/1s and now is 2/2s. It mentions neither of that

That one is easy because the effect dealing damage is not the one responsible for destruction. The biggest problem are things like Lava Blister: "Destroy target nonbasic land unless its controller has Lava Blister deal 6 damage to them." How are you supposed to know if the spell will destroy the land?

​@@fernandobanda5734 IIRC in the controlling players rulings, or something like that, in a tax effect it's considered that the first outcome is the one that "would" happen, but I would need to hit scryfall or the comprehensive rules to check it out.

Compare Blood Moon to a card like Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth. The former just says what they are, while the latter says that they are Swamps in addition to their other card types. If the last bit of text isn't there, it overrides the abilities of the card.

@@jameshonaker585 This is correct, but I kind of hate it. Imo, they should get rid of that rule and issue errata to retain the functionality of the impacted cards.

@@naomicoffman1315 There are a lot of cards that this would impact besides Blood Moon, and I've never had an issue with the rule being that it's an override unless it says "in addition to".

@@jameshonaker585 To be clear, I don't mind effects that set (sub)types removing other (sub)types. My issue is with Blood Moon/Spreading Seas/what have you removing abilities when nothing on the card even mentions abilities in any way.

Yeah, it's kind of understandable that it would remove/replacing land types when worded that way, but it removing abilities is just wack.

They could also instead say "unless they are different colors."

@@Prince_Eva_Huepow Unfortunately, that would be ambiguous. Many people would interpret that to mean that sharing a single color is sufficient to prevent targeting. You would have to say something like "This means it destroys them both unless they do not share all their colors in common", which is too close to the actual text to serve as clarification. The Spanish reminder text is actually very clear

Feel the same. And also Camouflge.

Well, that just changes the effect of the card. That's offering a choice

I still read the opposite interaction with Silent Arbiter because of the first ruling. You don't have to take an action that would enable it to attack. With Silent Arbiter, each creature could have been declared as an attacker, but only one in total. Alternatively, Ghostly prison says that creatures cannot attack (unless you pay 2) The default state there is that they cannot attack, and you are not required to pay to enable them to. The other ruling: "At the beginning of every end step, regardless of whose turn it is, the second ability triggers. When it resolves every creature that could have been declared as an attacker during that turn's Declare Attackers Step but wasn't will be destroyed." Example 1: You have goblin motivator and cast grizzly bears while season of the witch is in play. You are not required to tap the goblin motivator to give the bears haste in order to prevent their destruction, as the game only sees that the bears have summoning sickness, and thus cannot attack. Example 2: You have 3 grizzly bears, and your opponent has Season of the Witch and Silent Arbiter. You attack with one bear. All three bears could individually have been declared as an attacker. The Season of the Witch sees that, and destroys the other two bears. They could have been declared as attackers, but only one was. Example 3: You have 3 grizzly bears, and your opponent has Ghostly Prison and Season of the Witch. You choose not to pay to enable them to be able to attack. None are destroyed. Example 4: You have 3 grizzly bears, and your opponent has Ghostly Prison and Season of the Witch. You are playing in three player game, and choose not to attack the third player either, as he has 3 It That Betrays. All three bears are destroyed, because they still could have attacked player 3. (you then lose to the player with 3 big eldrazi.) But that is just my understanding, and I am not a judge. (EDIT: Added "not" to example one, as I forgot it, and it drastically changes the meaning.)

​@@JDP5127 I can explain all 4 examples here. I'll use the rule mentioned in the video as Rule A and the one I quoted from Gatherer as Rule B. For reference incase any of the examples require it, the exact Oracle Text for the effect is: "At the beginning of the end step, destroy all untapped creatures that didn't attack this turn, except for creatures that couldn't attack." Example 1: Rule B actually uses this exact case as an example for creatures that WOULDN'T be destroyed. Yes, you could have done something to enable the bears to attack, but if you didn't, they wouldn't be able to attack. The important part is Rule A looking at whether a creature can attack during the Declare Attackers Step, not whether or not it was possible for them to if different things happened. Example 2: Silent Arbiter's attacker limit makes it so any declared attacker past the first is illegal. This means that as long as you attack with one creature, all other creatures aren't able to attack, which gives them protection from Season. This does mean that choosing to attack with nothing means everything that could've been the one attacker dies, however. Example 3: This is correct, due to Rule B seeing that while it was possible to them to attack, you didn't pay the tax and therefore """"couldn't"""" (massive air quotes required). This is good enough for Season to not blow up your creatures. Example 4: This is also correct, though I personally would throw the bears at It That Betrays as it can only block one creature. Hopefully this clears things up, but I know I'm not the best at explaining things.

@@D0omsday779 I still disagree on Silent Aribiter, but I can see the logic, and would need a third party to weigh in. I now see I left a typo behind that drastically changed the first example. I meant "you are NOT required to tap the motivator". That is my bad. I will jokingly point out that in example 4 attacking would do little good, as the third player has 3 It That Betrays, each eating one of your grizzly bears, and shortly the rest of your board.

I finally decided to actually look it up, as everything before this was just my thought process. I found a couple of places where someone claiming to be a level 3 judge (and probably reliably so) stated that D0omsday was correct. Silent arbiter makes it so all creatures except the one one who did attack could not attack, and would not die. My bad.

If we're looking at 'common language' interpretations of "couldn't attack", I think the most straightforward way to determine if a creature "Couldn't have attacked" is to answer the question "At the time of combat, when attackers were declared, was there a legal attack you could have declared that contained this creature?" If the answer is no, it couldn't have attacked. This nicely handles all the corner cases If you're facing into a Ghostly Prison, then none of your creatures are legal to attack with unless you choose to make them legal. If you choose to make them legal, then Season will be able to affect them. If you put a creature with Haste in play any time after attackers are declared, it won't matter. That creature didn't exist, so no legal attack could have been declared that included it. Silent Arbiter in play and you have two creatures? Each of them is part of some possible legal attack declaration, so whichever doesn't attack will be Season'd. Etc, etc. Note that legal attack possibilities have to take into account all existing requirements and restrictions, and the only legal attacks are those which maximize the number of requirements met while obeying all restrictions. If you have three creatures that "Must attack if able", but one of them also has "This can only attack alone", then the only legal attack is with the two that do not have that second line, as attacking with the 'must attack alone' creature would only satisfy one requirement, while attacking with the other two satisfies two requirements. In this case, Season would not kill the 'can only attack alone' creature, because there is no legal attack it could have made when it came time to declare attackers.

it lets u draw two cards

that's.. not correct

@@masterowl123 thanks for your detailed explanation

@@masterowl123 its literally correct...

Yeah, this seems like a non issue and I have no clue how it holds the number one spot on the list.

So, if I attack with one creature, none get destroyed? And if I don't attack with any creature, all of them get destroyed? Is my understanding correct?

Space Beleren I think

Yeah, that would be the Mystery Booster Playtest Card, Problematic Volcano, and being a World Enchantment prevents there from being more than one on the battlefield at a time.

The Invasion set card Stand or Fall is superior to Raging River, as it also affects flying creatures, and is simple to understand.

There are very few cards that have changed functionality. The one I can think of used to boost Falcons, which aren't a supported type anymore, so now it affects all Birds.

There are cards that have become better or worse because of changes to the Comp. Rules.

It does prevent destruction. "Instead" means that the first part (a land being destroyed) doesn't happen.

I think there's a rule in MTG that "when this happens" effects don't refer to themselves specifically to prevent self loops.

Chains of Mephistopheles has what is known as a replacement effect, and you can only apply it’s replacement effect once

A single replacement effect can only apply to an event once

Thanks, friends! You are all friends, friends!

You would still have to add text saying the creature dies when Animate Dead is destroyed. And your version raises some tricky questions too. For example: Can I cast Tranquil Domain (which destroys all non-aura enchantments) in response to Animate Dead changing to an Aura to destroy the creature? What about if I just destroy Animate Dead in response to its first ability reanimating the creature? The effect would still happen in your wording.

Why

@@miekamariehodson1731 ?? because people might want that?

To be fair, MANY card effects don't make sense in the order they're read. I can't stand games like Dragon Ball or Weiss Schwarz where they use something like "Discard 2 cards from your hand: When you play this card, draw 2 cards."

No. Replacement effects only affect a single event once. Otherwise, something like "If a source would deal damage, it deals double that damage instead" would go infinite too.

@@fernandobanda5734 oh yea

This results in animate dead enchanting a creature you control that isn’t the reanimated target, which while functional does change both the function and the flavor

@@Gamemaniac92711 But it already does require you to enchant another creature... at least that's how Logs explains it in this video. To be honest his explanation felt more confusing than the card text, so if my assessment is wrong please let me know.

@@SirGrimly the target on cast is a creature in a gy, and it reanimates that target and attaches to it while switching the condition of what it attaches to (as otherwise it would immediately fall of by aura rules due to being on an invalid target)

@@Gamemaniac92711 Then why did Logs specify "another creature." in his explanation of the effect? The way he explained it made it seem like you needed a second creature on the field to target because you could play Animate Dead (because otherwise it would destroy itself before the revived monster could hit the field). Granted, I don't understand why it can't just target a creature in the graveyard... is there some ruling for auras that makes so the target has to be on the battlefield for the spell to be castable?

@@SirGrimly it can target a creature card in a graveyard, the main wording issues is the fact a creature card in a graveyard and a creature on the field are different types of game objects Logs isn’t perfect and if anywhere is bound to have mistakes it’d be a list of most confusing wordings

Hiding in a snowbank, sleeping off a thirty-year bender.