Grammar for Spell activated in opponent's Zone

[Rayfield Lumina]

Hello, dear community!

I have plans to make an Casual Archetype that, among other things, can activate Continuous Spell Cards directly in the opponent's Spell/Trap Zones. But I have some doubts about this, because of how the wording should be done for cards that you are not controlling.

Usually, cards say stuff like Activate... / Target... / You can... etc. and You, the handsome player controlling that card, are the one the card is referring to, and the ugly person in front you is the opponent >_< . But!, when a card changes control, who the card is referring to and who the opponent is from the card's perspective is reversed, isn't it? (although you're still the handsome one, obviously). Sooo... how should I word a card I want to activate in the opponent's Spell/Trap Zone? I'll give an example so what I'm talking about becomes clearer.

Deerlivery Service - Megaton Bomb

Continuous Spell

You can only activate this card is you control at least 2 "Deerglebell" monsters. You can activate this card in your opponent's Spell/Trap Zone, except the leftmost and rightmost zones.

PAUSE. So, this card is in your possession, and until you activate it directly to the opponent's zone, you're the one this card refers to. From that point, since the card is activated in the opponent's zone, the perspective changes. Should I use normal wording so the stuff that refers to the current controller applies to my opponent?

You can only activate this card is you control at least 2 "Deerglebell" monsters. You can activate this card in your opponent's Spell/Trap Zone, except the leftmost and rightmost zones. Once per turn, during your Standby Phase: Place 1 Counter on this card. If this card is destroyed by your opponent's card effect: take 700 damage for each counter this card had on the field. If you destroy this card: take 300 damage for each "Deerglebell" monster your opponent controls.

So yeah, the stuff is bold is when the perspective has changed, and everything from that point is applied normally for the owner of the card's opponent. I suppose it looks pretty weird and confusing, but it kinda works. But the whole idea of making this post is to ask if you have a better option to word this. I've thought of possible wording such as using "the owner of this card's opponent" or "If this card is not in its owner's possession.... but so far I'm trying to stay with the most simple way... if this can be made simple.

So, any help is truly appreciated ^_^

[Rayfield Lumina]

14 hours ago, Dr. Jolly Glot the III said:

To be fair the the changed burn is not fully intentional. "Just by whim" type of thing. Although to be fair it does make the damage always lives (it always damage regardless of destruction but has bonus while certain condition met) [damage modification is kinda based on Dark Snake Syndrome if you curious although beware that most of the copy is that i know off is pre-PSCT ]

You can still use your seperated old wording if you may

Got it, thanks again.

[Rayfield Lumina]

Bump. I was wondering if you can help me with this, @Dr. Jolly Glot the III and @Redro

[Dokutah]

"You" still refer to the controller. Like how Lava Golem works. but to make it even more clear especially since the card also involving moving (when it destroyed thus moved to GY) you can also used "Controller" 

You can Activate this card on your opponent Spell/Trap Zone other than the left-most or the right-most zone while you control 2 "Deerglebell" Monster. Once per turn, during your Standby Phase: Place 1 counter on this card. If this card is destroyed by card effect: Controller of this card take damage equal to the number of counter on this card x50. Double the amount of damage for each "Deerglebell" Monster your opponent control 

 

[Rayfield Lumina]

I see, I see. Using controller can help quite a bit, as it eases understanding and avoids controversy. I dunno why you changed the direct damage effects, XD, but thanks, Dr.!

[HQCardmaker]

This effect stays refering to the earliest set-up as "you", "your opponent", and "your Spell/Trap Zone" and cannot switch control by the effect of this card: (Continuous) X.

The Duelist(s) that set this card can activate the following effect as belonging to them if this card is set on the opponent-of-that-Duelist's side of the field: (Continuous )  Y.

Choose your flavor.  I don't know if this is what you meant but I hope it helps.

[Rayfield Lumina]

2 hours ago, HQCardmaker said:

This effect stays refering to the earliest set-up as "you", "your opponent", and "your Spell/Trap Zone" and cannot switch control by the effect of this card: (Continuous) X.

The Duelist(s) that set this card can activate the following effect as belonging to them if this card is set on the opponent-of-that-Duelist's side of the field: (Continuous )  Y.

Choose your flavor.  I don't know if this is what you meant but I hope it helps.

Woah, this is interesting, but I don't know, I haven't seen card grammar similar of this before. Anyway, I'll keep in my mind your suggestions, thanks for the answer ^_^

[Tinkerer]

Yeah, Jolly pretty much summed it up.

Using "controller" should also be super helpful (look up the old text of "Silent Wobby" if you want to see confusion )

[Rayfield Lumina]

1 hour ago, Redro said:

Yeah, Jolly pretty much summed it up.

Using "controller" should also be super helpful (look up the old text of "Silent Wobby" if you want to see confusion )

XDDD I even found this as a Youtube video:

But wait, now I think I understand why the Doc changed the 2 burn effects, but if I still want to keep them separated, can I actually use something like the wording I was using before? Or maybe something like

Is this card is destroyed by the controller's card effect: The controller of this card takes 700 damage. If this card is destroyed by the opponent of the controller of this card: The controller of this card takes 300 damage for each "Deerglebell" the opponent of the controller of this card controls.

Yeah, sounds kinda ridiculous, but maybe that allows for the use of both effects. That or "the opponent of this card's owner..." stuff. Lol, I don't wan't to sound stubborn, I'm just making sure how to word this correctly ^_^''

[Dokutah]

To be fair the the changed burn is not fully intentional. "Just by whim" type of thing. Although to be fair it does make the damage always lives (it always damage regardless of destruction but has bonus while certain condition met) [damage modification is kinda based on Dark Snake Syndrome if you curious although beware that most of the copy is that i know off is pre-PSCT ]

You can still use your seperated old wording if you may