Sienira's Facets: Recent Activity
| Sienira's Facets: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | The Facets Of Sienira | Keyword Mechanics | FAQ |
Recent updates to Sienira's Facets: (Generated at 2024-05-04 19:48:51)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
Well, I think that shifting the discussion from "rules can't handle this" to "editorial rules prohibit" (whatever those are in mtg) and "you don't do this in 'real' magic" shows the truer nature of this idea. One is a fatal error while the other is something more of an opinion.
I for one would like to question as to what exactly does p/t setting serve with these effects. In cases where this might be a problem (ie. new players in standard) it's highly unlikely to occur (how many creatures per set have variable p/t?) + if you know that
s are 
when a spell is cast without paying its mana cost (which might have around the same chance of happening as this), this too should be deduced pretty easily from that. I mean, what else could it be than 0? One might even say that adding "with base power and toughness 1/1" would confuse players more than its exclusion would and add unnecessary text (that uses a noncommon/weird phrase no less) which also is a factor for comprehension complexity.
I'm not quite sure why this card has suddenly received attention, but I would point out it's 7 years old, as is my initial comment on it. (Though yes, 107.2 has been around since before 2010; even back in 2007 the same rule existed, just as part of rule 104.2.)
Editorial rules prohibit removing all abilities without defining new power and toughness. Just because they added a hack in to prevent the game from breaking in case it happens, doesn't mean you're supposed to go out of your way to test it. I'm not even sure if that rule applies here, since there's no ways of making a creature have an undefined P/T in real Magic.
People always keep bringing this "issue" up:
> 107.2. If anything needs to use a number that can't be determined, either as a result or in a calculation, it uses 0 instead.
You could add something like: X/Y/* then they become 0/1/1 ?
Lose all activated and triggered abilities?
Maybe the rules should define "lose all abilities" to mean "lose all abilities other than characteristic defining abilities", that would often be useful.
I made my own version of this in Card Name Reinterpretations, although it's not very different: Rise to the Challenge #2
This card was created as an alternative to Magma Rift, because I didn't want to just reprint a card. I said over on the Facets of Sienira page "This set would have really liked Plated Geopede and Magma Rift, and perhaps in development I'll swap them in for the cards that have those slots at the moment."
Design philosophy has shifted a lot in the past 6 years, and this would very likely now just be a reprint of Magma Rift... Either that or perhaps the new Devour in Flames, which further demonstrates how massively underpriced this card was.
Hm. Maybe because History Sculptor was blue, and I wanted to differentiate them? I... agree this looks just as blue as white, looking at it now 5 years on.
Why did you choose white over blue?
What about granting the triggered ability? "All creatures have 'When this creature attacks and isn't blocked, etc.'"
formatting
minor templating tweak
remove broken art link
I like this a lot, but I do feel that it should only include basic land types.
Might be a little late on the commenting, but have you thought about making its type just "Land" and then having somewhere in the text box: "This card is all permanent types at all times." or something to that effect? i.e. the 'changeling' ability?
I over-fixed it in the image version, which does need the two abilities in that order to work.
Vigilance is cleaner. People often don't read reminder text.
I had the same problem when I designed the same exact card for an older set of mine (Except mine was a 5/6 for
and was a 'Creature - Angel Beast'. It was also a super-relevant creature in set, since the setting was "tapped/untapped matters" and there were a pile of Master Decoys in set). The reminder text told players they could attack... but despite the reminder text which clearly spelled out what the card could and couldn't do, players would sit there asking each other if the creature could attack. So I added Vigilance. Problem solved.
or you could just add that to the reminder text which is already there.
I'm with Dude here. I do think Vigilance should be first, though: keyword abilities come before most other effects.
It is, except how many people think tapping is required to attack? By explicitly having vigilance, you don't have to worry about whether its first ability is pseudo-vigilance or defender.
vigilance is redundant
I don't really know what you mean. The Import Data function can be used to make mass edits to a large number of cards, yes.
Hmm, image size seems a bit wrong. Don't suppose there's a way to bulk include the image links?
Heh!
http://vitenka.com/AlexMtg/Set-files/Imperturbable%20Guardian.jpg