Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity

CardName: Unfinity (Spoilers) Cost: Type: Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Discuss the upcoming set release. You may discuss the change from silver border to black border. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Conversation Uncommon

Unfinity (Spoilers)
Discuss the upcoming set release.
You may discuss the change from silver border to black border.
Updated 5 days ago by SecretInfiltrator

History: [-]

2022-01-21 07:17:10: SecretInfiltrator created the card Unfinity (Spoilers)
2022-01-21 07:18:50: SecretInfiltrator edited Unfinity (Spoilers)

Unfinity's greatest break from the accustomed is the end of silver borders in favor of an acorn-shaped holofoil stamp.

Thus WotC has come to call Un-cards, which were formerly known as "silver-bordered", "acorn" cards; non-Un-cards, which were formerly referred to as "black-bordered", are now called "eternal" cards.

I have no problem with the former, but the latter I consider unfortunate, because it overlaps with Eternal formats. I know it is intentional, because WotC wishes to push that eternal cards are for Eternal formats, but it is not a term that really helps conversing about disctinctions between "acorn" and "non-acorn". Which is why I prefer "non-acorn". :)

My observation: The Space Family Goblinson is not an acorn card, so the creature type Guest is coming to the Comprehensive Rules. Now I want creature types to cover the full list again.

About the acorn, I thought maybe it should be more prominent, but maybe it is good enough.

Since some cards might work in ordinary rules, this could be OK that they are doing this, I suppose.

Some cards are banned in Vintage and so in other official Eternal formats too, even though they are "eternal" cards. I have "pseudo-Vintage" (sometimes used in puzzles, and defined in the "Codex" that I had written) which does not ban many of these, although Chaos Orb and Falling Star remain banned, and the Un-cards, silver-border-cards, and acorn-cards also remain banned. (Some cards such as conspiracies may be banned or not banned depending on the specific kind of rules.) I don't know if they could effectively errata Chaos Orb and Falling Star as acorn-cards, since they should be that instead of the standard rules.

One question about the acorn: Will it affect the errata of any older Un-cards?

I also saw and have some comments relating to both that and this together. Some cards say "eternal star (match)". Rules will need to be written for such things to handle some situations. However, I would think that match rules should mostly be beyond the scope of the game rules, although game rules still will need to specify some such things too, including persistent properties, interaction with subgames, etc. Ante rules should work in a similar way, too. Normally, all game effects cease to exist when the main game ends, although match rules could specify which ones persist, how they persist, other effects relating to them (e.g. scoring), effects lasting beyond a single match, etc. I would define ownership of an object as a persistent property (where all persistent properties are also one-shot properties). Ante can cause ownership to change just as the game ends, so normally this change would not be meaningful. However, match rules could specify that these changes will last until the end of the match (or the tournament), that players can keep the cards, that they will affect scoring and then be reverted, etc. Games rules will still need to define what kinds of effects these are (so that match rules may refer to them), and their effects within a single duel (meaning a main game, subgames within that main game, and restarted games), though. (There are some other problems with the ante rules too, having to do with subgames, team games, multiplayer games, and a few other things; I have ideas how to fix these though, which does not impact match rules.)

I also think that "non-acorn" is better than calling them "eternal", since "acorn" and "non-acorn" would also be applicable to unofficial cards too, but unofficial cards are presumably not Eternal.

(However, I usually use "non-Un-cards" or "Un-cards", which I think may be better.)

In the future - sure. But no cards from previous un-sets have acorns; so using 'non-acorn' would be confusing there.

I don't think there's a good answer. Other than keeping 'silver bordered' as the name; but it's probably quite hard from a physical-card point of view to manage a mix of silver and black cards in a set.

I'm going to keep calling them "real cards" and "parody cards"

Except "parody cards" describes a theme - and there will be cards with the silly, self-referencing jokes that will now no longer be "acorn".

I think it's fine to call unofficial cards "eternal" as shorthand for "designed with eternal in mind" etc.

In the end, there is a lot of nuance anyway and I rarely just used a single word to describe where a card belongs, often distinguishing already between "silver-border creative" and "not feasible in black-border rules".

Maybe you can call them "comp. rules card" because they work in the comp. rules, but then again there are some eternal cards where Judges like to look the other way because they don't really work in the rules.

> but then again there are some eternal cards where Judges like to look the other way because they don't really work in the rules.

This is why I think that a FOSS computer program implementation with all of the cards would be helpful, and to make possible as a reference implementation, that you can make well defined meanings of the cards. Other changes that I have suggested might also help with this and other issues (in a few cases they did so, though). Figure out which circumstances required to be consistent with existing rulings where necessary. Make test cases, to show that the program is correct.

Although such a program may have bugs in it, that is also true of the comprehensive rules even as they are; there have been bugs in the past which have been corrected.

There are some FOSS computer program implementations of Magic: the Gathering, but miss many cards, such as text-changing effects. (I have some idea how to make "AST-based" text-changing effects, to allow this to work; I have ideas about some of the other things, too.)

If such a thing is done then the definition would hopefully be more precisely (perhaps if you use e.g. Haskell, because C has too much undefined behaviours; I think Haskell is also better for making mathematical definitions of things than C is, anyways; a variant of Lisp might also do instead of Haskell, or possibly a custom programming language designed for this purpose might work best), and literate programming might also help (so that the text and the program code are together in one book, you can easily read it and see precisely what they are).

This would also be helpful if you want to ensure that rules needed for unofficial cards or unofficial formats do not conflict, I suppose.

Another thing about comp.rules: I have banned Chaos Orb and Falling Star in pseudo-Vintage; if there are other cards that cannot be made to work with a precise mathematical definition of the rules that can be implemented in a FOSS computer program in a reasonable way, even if modifying the rules to fix the problems, then more cards might need banned too.

Also there is issue if unofficial cards are made, what shapes using for such designations. Official cards will have ovals, triangles, acorns. Unofficial cards might or might not be intended to be consistent with the rules (whether they are the official rules or modified rules), but "Universes Beyond" does not seem to be a relevant distinction for unofficial cards. One possibility is to use the same shapes but a different colour, or something similar like that. But, then, there is also consideration of cards using the old style; I am not sure how to handle that situation.

I feel like the earlier un sets may have had less good gameplay but had a really fun "anything goes" vibe even on cards that were unprintable in black border because of tone or swingyness even if they had normal rules.

It makes sense that to be playable new sets have more "silly flavour but otherwise normal" cards, or mechanics that are silly but functional like augment/host. But I miss the way old cards tried to break the pattern SOMEHOW even if it was only unusual templating or a niche effect that didn't really affect gameplay. It makes sense that some un cards could be eternal friendly but gives a "trying too hard, corporate sanctioned fun" vibe to me now...

Now for something I didn't expect to be eternal legal: Mechanically distinct cards with the same name (check the last paragraph of Attractions).

With that holy cow dead and eaten e.g. caring about watermarks is back on the table.

Those are mostly in the vein of Cryptic Spires, which is why I said that card was a total mistake

I also think that it is a mistake, too (and it is not the only one).

But, I do think that, in general, having acorns and non-acorns, is OK (although I am not sure that the acorns are prominent enough, but I might be wrong about that).

But there is another question relating to it: What is the primary key, now?

Add your comments:

(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
How much damage does this card deal? Searing Wind
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)