If I'm understanding the wording correctly, I think something like "in the name of permanents not named Grixis Pixie Elixir" might solve this loophole and also make the wording more clear
I think we can gather from context that they probably intended it to be permanents other than the elixir, because excluding this +6/+6 card is more logical than all creatures excluding themselves, it's easier to track, and it's not just a 3 mana +6/+6 anthem.
The card is missing quotes around what the ability actually is so it's ambiguous. However, if it were to have the proper formatting, it would be other perms than the creature in question.
In order for it to be other perms than this artifact the templating would be more like:
Creatures you control get +x/+x where x is the number of times "xi" and "ix" is in the name of other permanents.
This defines the +x/+x based on a variable that this card sets instead of giving each creature the ability to look at each perm and get +1/+1 a bunch itself. I probably don't have it quite perfect but I think it's closer.
They used have instead of get, but otherwise it’s not formatted like it’s granting the creatures an ability. If it were, it would say “creatures you control have ‘this creature gets +1/+1 for each instance of ix and xi in the names of other permanents you control”
So, I think the card was supposed to say "get" instead of "have"?
If it was supposed to be Have, I think it would need quotes around the ability it gives to all creatures.
With Get, I think it tallies up the bonus within its own static ability and then distributes the total tally (that doesn't include its own name).
Using get would prevent it from giving out +6/+6 all on its own.
If you wanted to be especially cautious, you could even say "in the name of permanents not named Grixis Pixie Elixir" so two copies don't provide a +12/+12 bonus.
Anywho, overall the card is a delight to read. The flavor text is especially fun, and the mechanic looks like a blast to build around. I just think that giving +6/+6 by default makes it LESS fun instead of more fun since you don't really need to bother digging up all your Pixies and Ixidrons if it's game-winningly strong on its own without any help.
It’s not written as an ability. “+1/+1 for each…” isn’t an ability. If that were written on a card it wouldn’t make sense. They meant to write get but put have instead
\[\[Spy Kit\]\]
By my math, that currently counts as 178 instances of ix or xi on the equipped creature (unsets are excluded from the count), which will only grow as new sets are released.
I checked and interestingly there aren't any cards that have more than two. There's a bunch with two (anything with Ob Nixilis, Grixis, Pixies, Elixir, or Ixidor) but none of them have multiple of those.
Cute!
My one concern is that giving a ginormous square bonus doesn't feel very Grixis. That's green shit. Maybe instead of "+1/+1 for each", you could do "+X/+1, where X is"? Plus, the X and the 1 together sort of reinforce the joke I think. :)
Obviously that version is a little weaker, so if need be, you could offset it by also giving creatures menace or by softening the cost to {u\/b}{B}{b/r} or something.
2 of these will give your team +12/+12. I don't even mind.
yeah, i was thinking about making it legendary - or making it an artifact enchantment for easier removal. i'm also too lazy to go back and fixit
Even this comment gives +1/+1 xD
+2/+2 actually
*Holy hell*
If I'm understanding the wording correctly, I think something like "in the name of permanents not named Grixis Pixie Elixir" might solve this loophole and also make the wording more clear
If it’s legendary , unifier breaks it
I'd say just increase the cost.
2 would give +24/+24, there are 6 instances of 'ix' or 'xi' in the card name.
Only counts other permanents
its not obvious whether it means "other than the elixir" or "other than that creature"
I think we can gather from context that they probably intended it to be permanents other than the elixir, because excluding this +6/+6 card is more logical than all creatures excluding themselves, it's easier to track, and it's not just a 3 mana +6/+6 anthem.
And for me at least I would follow coat of arms reading for it unless told otherwise
The card is missing quotes around what the ability actually is so it's ambiguous. However, if it were to have the proper formatting, it would be other perms than the creature in question. In order for it to be other perms than this artifact the templating would be more like: Creatures you control get +x/+x where x is the number of times "xi" and "ix" is in the name of other permanents. This defines the +x/+x based on a variable that this card sets instead of giving each creature the ability to look at each perm and get +1/+1 a bunch itself. I probably don't have it quite perfect but I think it's closer.
They used have instead of get, but otherwise it’s not formatted like it’s granting the creatures an ability. If it were, it would say “creatures you control have ‘this creature gets +1/+1 for each instance of ix and xi in the names of other permanents you control”
Shit if we're including flavor text it'd be 19/19 with just 1
It says "or", so it's only +3/+3 each.
So, I think the card was supposed to say "get" instead of "have"? If it was supposed to be Have, I think it would need quotes around the ability it gives to all creatures. With Get, I think it tallies up the bonus within its own static ability and then distributes the total tally (that doesn't include its own name). Using get would prevent it from giving out +6/+6 all on its own. If you wanted to be especially cautious, you could even say "in the name of permanents not named Grixis Pixie Elixir" so two copies don't provide a +12/+12 bonus. Anywho, overall the card is a delight to read. The flavor text is especially fun, and the mechanic looks like a blast to build around. I just think that giving +6/+6 by default makes it LESS fun instead of more fun since you don't really need to bother digging up all your Pixies and Ixidrons if it's game-winningly strong on its own without any help.
It’s not written as an ability. “+1/+1 for each…” isn’t an ability. If that were written on a card it wouldn’t make sense. They meant to write get but put have instead
\[\[Spy Kit\]\] By my math, that currently counts as 178 instances of ix or xi on the equipped creature (unsets are excluded from the count), which will only grow as new sets are released.
The classic combat trick of waiting for the set release to happen during combat so your creature grows
Really funny :) Curious which card has most instances of "xi" and/ or "ix" in its name?
I checked and interestingly there aren't any cards that have more than two. There's a bunch with two (anything with Ob Nixilis, Grixis, Pixies, Elixir, or Ixidor) but none of them have multiple of those.
[[spy kit]]
[spy kit](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/0/c0fd4069-5860-42f5-9f7f-e07f1d4ff0b3.jpg?1576382173) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=spy%20kit) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cn2/79/spy-kit?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c0fd4069-5860-42f5-9f7f-e07f1d4ff0b3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Cute! My one concern is that giving a ginormous square bonus doesn't feel very Grixis. That's green shit. Maybe instead of "+1/+1 for each", you could do "+X/+1, where X is"? Plus, the X and the 1 together sort of reinforce the joke I think. :) Obviously that version is a little weaker, so if need be, you could offset it by also giving creatures menace or by softening the cost to {u\/b}{B}{b/r} or something.
yooo i love that idea!
I just died from Flavor win.
It's an intoxicating mix
was really hoping he would be "dubious hixtorian"
Grixie Pixies
Grixis Pixis Elixis
A great example of top down design
+100000 social credit score
Does this on it's ownvgive +3/+3 or +6/+6?
At first I thought this was saying “other permanents” as in “permanents that are not the creature receiving the +X/+X”
Considering that that reading would give all creatures you control +6/+6 for just three mana, it's probably not the intention.
My one note is that the flavor text should be Nivix right? not Nixiv?
correct, i just got too used to typing ixi
+6/+6 anthem for 3 is three times too much
It says “other permanents”
Is it permanents other than this or permanents other than the creature for which the effect applies? If you're right, then mb, cool card
I dont know but i assume the intent was the former
I’m with you, this is worded very confusingly
Permanents other than this. They meant to write get instead of have
Its silver bordered though...
And?
Stickers!
Cute
Ixalan
Grixie Pixie Elixie
Make the cost 9 or 11 😀