I'm not sure where this best fits, so I'll put it here.
There are several traits in the various codices that seem to me to have been inefficiently designed. By this I mean that they are far more specific than they need to be, and limit options for reuse in other contexts. I have decided to compile a list of these traits, and ways that they could be reworded to allow for the maximum possible scope of use; no need to come up with a new trait when an existing one will do.
This is NOT a revision of existing traits to incorporate rulings; any altered trait must still function in the same way as the original trait, but must also allow for applications beyond the scope of the original trait.
Revised Codex
Extendable
When you cast this conjuration, you may pay additional mana equal to its cost plus its level as part of the cost of casting the spell. If you do, when this spell resolves, you may take an additional conjuration of the same name out of your spellbook and place it on any zone adjacent to the first zone (or zone border adjacent to the first zone border if it is a wall). The second conjuration must be placed within LOS.
There is no reason to restrict this trait to walls; honestly, there is no reason to restrict it to conjurations, aside from theme.
Magebind +X
It is more difficult to cast this spell on a mage. If this spell targets a mage, its cost is increased by X. Only the reveal cost of an enchantment is affected by this trait, not the casting cost. The adjusted cost is used for all purposes in spells, abilities, or effects which refer to the cost (or reveal cost) of this spell.
Future non-enchantment spells that cost more when targeting mages seem entirely reasonable. In fact, there are perhaps even some current non-enchantment spells that would benefit from this treatment...
Novice
Basic apprentice spells. This spell costs spell points equal to its level for all mages, even when they are not trained in the appropriate schools.
An obvious change.
Indestructible
This object cannot be destroyed as a result of having more damage than life.
There is absolutely no reason to prevent an indestructible object from taking damage (if it has no life, the damage is meaningless anyway), and if a card comes along for which there is, it would be better treated as an exception than as the rule.
Please feel free to suggest other addenda to these or other traits (keeping in mind that the intent is not to clarify the rules, but rather to broaden existing traits so they can be reused in other contexts).
