Portal of New New World Order: Recent Activity
Portal of New New World Order: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Portal of New New World Order: (Generated at 2024-05-22 02:51:18)
To me one of the stronger pros of "name of your choice" is that it's target can't become illegal because of flickering spells or whatever. It isn't interested whether the creature is still the same 'instance' as it was during targeting. This obviously still holds true for the "tap a creature of your choice" as well, but it's not so much of a hack if included in the non-NNWO sets. It's pretty much a simplified version of the Echoing cycle IMO (Echoing Courage). So it has utility beyond this set.
> Targets? We have renounced these so right off the bet this is starting on the wrong foot.
... And yet you brought up Stave Off. Which is what I was refering to.... and I specifically call it out in the same comment... and I specifically state that our card does not target - implying that you were starting on the wrong foot.
What's going on here?
> "Choose a card name." Who 'chooses' a 'card name' instead of giving a name / naming stuff anyway?
I just go with the wording you pointed out to me elsewhere. I have no problem going back to the old wording for NNWO. It's preferable in my book.
> So players can just go around putting this card on the table and saying "I'll tap that" in the simplest of cases. Given that having creatures with the same name is not that common, it's entirely reasonable way to go about things.
Well, in that case why not make a card that does exactly that rather than making a hack that sometimes has unintended side effects:
>> "Tap a creature of your choice."
To be honest: Both the current wording and my fix to it have issues (since neither works the way you described once you mix it with certain effects that could appear at uncommon/rare - but those are issues with NNWO).
Maybe choose/choice should be red-flagged both. That's your call. Due to the example you have given above, red-flagging them seems even more appropriate than red-flagging "target".
Tbh, I was kind of hoping you were saying it wasn't legal in rules terms instead of going about... something?
> Targets are chosen while a card is cast...
Targets? We have renounced these so right off the bet this is starting on the wrong foot. I guess you're going about the supposed consistency in which order stuff is done in an spell/effect? I'm not sure who this is supposed help.
This is about as clunky as going
> Choose the color red. Tap all creatures of the chosen color.
instead of
> Tap all creatures of red color.
Okay, okay, let's delve into this. So, the thing is to make the card as clear as possibly - and many times this is related to how lengthy the card text is. Basically, just a quick flash of the card text should already give you an idea what the card is about.
As the card is now, the words "tap", "name", and "(your) choice" should come off it strongly. Also, note the order
> tap -> creatures -> with name
What does it do? Taps creatures with a name. So players can just go around putting this card on the table and saying "I'll tap that" in the simplest of cases. Given that having creatures with the same name is not that common, it's entirely reasonable way to go about things. In the more complicated cases, it will be "Tap all Raging Goblins".
Now on the other hand, with your wording... What does it do? The first thing it starts to go about is presenting the player with a literal choice. "Choose a card name." Who 'chooses' a 'card name' instead of giving a name / naming stuff anyway? Are we gonna specify that the name has to be chosen from the existing pool of card names (of creature cards on the battlefield or in existence)? We might as well as start the card text with an unrelated short story about a squirrel and his escape from a burning tree.
So the player would kinda go "'Erm... I guess I declare a card name... whatever that means...' Reads the card further. 'Oh, so cards with the name I just declared will be tapped... uh-uh." Then there are all the possibilities of misinterpreting what 'choosing' actually is, such as thinking that once that choice is made, it will remain the same for the following copies of Bow Before Light or whatever.
Now compare this to the text as it is and how it boils down to "tap that/those".
There's merit for going with the "choose a" variant when the card text is long-winded with side paths and effects unrelated to that choice and using the "of your choice" would be ambiguous/confusing or just plain impossible. In this case, I would say there's definitely not.
I would wager that if specifics would have been thought about in that NNWO article, it would state that "choosing" itself is so complex that it's automatically red-flagged. This is pretty granted just by the virtue of targets being red-flagged. Stuff like "choose a nonland card name" is so entrenched in MTG jargon that you basically need a judge's decree to parse them.
Would be improved with the altered wording. Though I can excuse the more concise wording on an activated ability.
Remember this is NNWO where a uncommon word in the card name may be red-flagged. I don't wait until the Oracle text of old cards gets updated to match Distant Melody. I see an improved wording and seize it.
There are three cards using the phrase "creature type of your choice". What about Kindred Dominance and Tsabo's Decree and Luminescent Rain?
What about Extinction and Riptide Chronologist?
Targets are chosen while a card is cast, other choices are made as a card resolved (i. e. later). Stave Off correctly first states "target creature" then "color of your choice". There are actual spells that have changed there wording from the standard template to achieve this order e. g. Judge Unworthy.
Our card though (obviously) doesn't target and hence should follow a different template. Though I hadn't checked before, now I have; Brave the Elements seems to agree.
The mirror issue is too small for me to care about and could even be considered a novel twist when encountered. So maybe it's a feature instead of a bug?
For wording, would you also reword Stave Off? To me, it seems logical that since tapping is the action we're doing it should be on the forefront. Clause/options come afterwards.
... Then one could also argue about how the new wording would split into two sentences with one being a variable and second using a reference to that variable as being less clear than just expressing the action and its clause in a singular, simple query.
A decent workaround that comes with issues when facing a mirror.
I feel the order of actions could be communicated better by changing the wording to "Choose a card name. Tap all creatures with that name."
It's still within the word limit. Though "you don't control" unfortunately isn't. :)
Profound? Probably not.
I have just been scouring a lot of cards to find a different workaround in the hope for more variety (since red already uses it for artifact destruction in this set). The deeper meaning behind this comment is that apparently it's the only answer.
A possible tech for targeting without targeting..? Cheat the system!
Alternative name: "Deemed Guilty" or something that plays on the whole naming thing.
There are too many noncreature common spells with cmc of 1 btw... and this card specifically was placed on the token generation slot...
eh, deactivated
It seems we never set up the pronoun use... Are we okay with 'they' instead of 'he/she'? This card would have exactly 11 words if name is counter as one and 'they' is used. Eh, name could be changed to be one-worded.
Also, are hieromancers like wizards? A bit iffy with that type on a card.
Is this too similar to Watchful Guards? 4cmc 3/3s
Wasn't each opponent saccing something we set up pretty early on as a workaround? You're stating this as if it were new news... Have you realized something new/profound about it?
REPRINT: Yawning Fissure
Mark my words: Making each opponent sacrifice stuff is NNWO's answer to removal as we know it.
REPRINT: Bloodshed Fever
REPRINT: Caterwauling Boggart
Technically fits many criteria. Encourages to follow some theme when choosing reprints (e. g. Scoria Elemental over Raging Poltergeist?).
REPRINT: Halberdier
RED FLAG
One of the better ways to use non-square stats is to show the way first strike can work around low toughness in red.
REPRINT: Wild Jhovall
Since red doesn't have that many red flags (yet), I also could see going for something like Raging Poltergeist
And Preordain is modernized Sleight of Hand (though as an Anticipate variant the analogy is not exact - Sleight of Hand is better design than Omen).
Scry is the new and consistent take on the top-of-library-reordering. Modernisations are upgrades like Sage Owl into Augury Owl.
The gulf between one-mana cantrips and two-mana cantrips is too big for me to consider that a closer comparison.
Ponder is an old template rearing its ugly head in Standard as long as it's considered reprintable for power level reasons because the reprint is necessary for other formats. Not in NNWO though.
Ponder is modernized Omen. This is Preordain+.
Symmetrical indiscriminate pump effects are really not the kind of thing this set would be reverting to.
I think the symmetric haste is realized better in Mass Hysteria and the addition of +1/+1 is detrimental to the design.
For whatever it is worth I'm taking the restrictions serious for this set, but am mentally capable of separating this set from other custom sets and from official sets.
The intent to me never never appeared to be the creation of a set as it would mirror the design rules we will see in a contemporary official release, but merely to follow the design rules laid out in the fiction of the cited article.
I can tell you that the perspective shift after just spending fifteen minutes a day trying to follow NNWO and then returning to another project and enjoying the lack of restrictions has been a worthwhile experience for me.
Well, I mean, is any custom card design really 'serious'? How is that defined?
I was thinking of this set as an interesting experiment; something that might be learned from. The premise has believability after all. It also sets harsh restrictions that could be interesting to try to meet. A 'hard mode' if you will.
if that's relevant, why was that never mentioned? yet you act like the design of this set is serious.
yeah