Up to One

Browse card art (or: me looking through the comprehensive rules)

Magic designers have had decades to tighten up card wording. And they've done a good job overall. Tight wording plus obeying the rules of the game can lead to some weird wording at times. Today's post focuses on "up to one."

There are over 200 Magic cards that include the phrase "up to one" on them. Here are four examples:

This is clunky wording, isn't it? Why not say "one?" For Air-Cult Elemental, why can't it read "When Air-Cult Elemental enters the battlefield, return one other target creature to its owner's hand"? The answer is in the targeting rules.

Last year, I looked a bit at targets. That is an important concept to understand. Today's focus is similar; the reason they use the phrase "up to one" is to enhance a given card's usability. Relevant parts from the official rules:

An excerpt from 601.2: To cast a spell, a player follows the steps listed below, in order. A player must be legally allowed to cast the spell to begin this process (see rule 601.3). If a player is unable to comply with the requirements of a step listed below while performing that step, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed.

I'll skip posting the steps, save for 601.2c: The player announces their choice of an appropriate object or player for each target the spell requires.

Requires is the key word here, and the reason behind "up to one." This wording gives players the option of choosing one or zero targets for the given effect or ability. That matters because they couldn't cast the spell if it couldn't meet the targeting requirement. Take Kogla (one of the above examples): his ability says he fights "up to one" target creature you don't control. If instead it read "one," your opponent must have a creature in play for you to be able to cast Kogla. The "up to one" verbiage negates that requirement, enabling you to play Kogla regardless of your opponent's board state.

That is for casting spells- putting them on the stack in the first place. What about abilities or effects on cards already on the battlefield (or the stack)? What if there are no targets in that case (like in 'blink' decks, that I discuss here)? 

An excerpt from 603.3d: If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack.

Look again at Kogla. He has a second triggered ability: "Whenever Kogla attacks, destroy target artifact or enchantment defending player controls." But since Kogla must be already on the battlefield for him to be able to attack, 603.3d applies. Whenever he attacks, his ability goes on the stack, and then simply removed if there are no legal targets. 

Similarly, take Disenchant:

This is a spell, so it needs a legal target (from rule 601.2) to be cast (placed on the stack). You cannot cast it if your opponent has no such cards on the battlefield. But once on the stack, if the targeted artifact or enchantment is removed by some other spell, ability, or effect, Naturalize does not go back to your hand- it 'fizzles' (from rule 603.3d) and is placed in your graveyard.

This is a nuance that can be easy to misunderstand. "Up to one" is clunky wording but used for a reason. Now, some other cards use "may" in place of this- "when ____ enters the battlefield, you may destroy target _______." Wild Celebrants is an example:

In this case, "may" means the same thing. It could instead read "When Wild Celebrants enters the battlefield, destroy up to one target artifact." 

Pay attention to wording; it matters. Some other common misconceptions in this vein are discussed here.