Conversation by Alex

142 cards in Multiverse

115 with no rarity, 7 commons, 6 uncommons,
4 rares, 9 mythics, 1 token

95 colourless, 1 colourless multicolour, 5 white, 4 blue, 2 black, 3 red,
2 green, 14 multicolour, 3 hybrid, 5 artifact, 8 land

1717 comments total

A venue for discussions about Magic design

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

Cardset comments (30) | Add a comment on this cardset

Recently active cards: (all recent activity)

What do you think this card type will be?
last 2023-04-10 21:41:43 by zzo38
Magic: the Puzzling, and cards that can be used in puzzles (Rosewater's "Magic: the Puzzling" book says that cards that are hardly of any use except puzzles are called "rosewater" cards).
last 2023-03-31 04:41:46 by zzo38
“I’ve heard much about you from my daughter,” Multani rumbled. “There was a timew hen I’d balk at your aid, phantom, but she has shown me the merit in Urborg’s strange ways.”
“Gnshhagghkkapphribbit,” replied Yargle.
last 2023-03-31 04:06:03 by zzo38
Share some of your cards that showcase your unique style as a designer.
last 2023-03-28 20:31:12 by zzo38
Leave a comment with links to individual cards or card sets you'd like feedback to let others know.
last 2023-02-26 10:32:08 by SecretInfiltrator

Recent comments: (all recent activity)
On Battle:

I have downloaded the latest version of the official rules, which includes the rules for battles. I have updated by unofficial rules with the rules for battles. Some of them do not match the official rules (because I disliked some of them). Some of the official rules are good, and most of them have been kept as they are. For one thing, the protector of a battle with no subtypes is its controller (this is an official rule, and I think that this is good; I might make up some unofficial cards that use this).

On Battle:

There are many things in Magic: the Gathering that you might need to keep track of by markers, papers, etc, including counters, some tokens, Lifelace, Magical Hack, choices made when playing a card, life points, effects that last over multiple turns, etc. (Actually, I think that just writing down who is the protector will likely be clearer even if it does not attack and block) (If each player is using different card sleeves, then you will not need to keep track of owner in this way since card sleeves can be used for this purpose instead. However, that is not always the case.)

About "protector", there are some potential complications with the rules, although presumably they would write them to handle such things (including the protector leaving the game, the controller changing, differences of multiplayer rules (depending on the specific kind of multiplayer and team rules being played, certain considerations may be needed), etc). (I have some ideas, but I will wait to see the official rules.)

I have written unofficial rules, and might continue to do so. (I will wait for the official rules for battles before attempting to write any unofficial rules relating to such a thing, though.)

On Battle:
  • "It could be kept track of, by e.g. taking a paper and writing who is the protector."

You must be new to game design. ;)

To re-state: The task of a designer is to put work into allowing things to work without the use putting a lot of work into it.

That's what the rule does. It takes away an option to make things run more smoothly.

"(Actually, I might have preferred to not assign a "protector" and handle defense differently than that, but maybe there is not a better way.)"

As someone who has spend a lot of time trying to figure this one out without protector-tech: I'm happy it's there. It's the solves the main contention point I had with my own variant. It's a blessing.

On Battle:

It could be kept track of, by e.g. taking a paper and writing who is the protector. (Even if it is not a creature, writing such things can be helpful for this and other cards too.) (Actually, I might have preferred to not assign a "protector" and handle defense differently than that, but maybe there is not a better way.)

(Another question: If the battle's controller changes, does the protector change, or does it stay the same (even if it is not an opponent of the new controller), or something else?)

I did consider blocking, as I have mentioned. The possibility of combinations to allow it is not much more significant than combinations to damage it directly (or otherwise remove counters from it) anyways. And, if it dies without being able to cast the spell on the other side if it dies due to damage greater than or equal to its toughness, then there is that consideration too, as I have mentioned (that is more important to consider when it attacks than when it blocks, but even if it blocks or is damaged by something other than combat, that can still be relevant). (There are ways to avoid this too, such as by regeneration or indestructible.)

On Twitter, some people also say, it is unintuitive to disallow battles from attacking, and many other people also dislike this rule. (Some people say battles should not be allowed to attack themself, but I think that is unnecessary.) However, some people like such a rule. Matt Tabak has said "you work through a few scenarios with battles attacking and who’s the protector and who can block and you start thinking about future battles possibilities and you realize battles attacking is a very bad idea." Actually, I think that it isn't too difficult. In a game with more than two players, you still need to keep track of both the controller and the protector, even if it does not attack.

MTG Wiki lists the following rulings for battle:

  1. Battles are susceptible to more than just combat damage. Some spells and abilities may specifically say that they cause damage to be dealt to battles. Also, any spell or ability that says "any target" can target a battle.

  2. Battles enter the battlefield untapped.

  3. They can be tapped, but they don’t naturally tap. Being tapped doesn’t have any mechanical relevance.

  4. Battles that are Animated as creatures in addition to being a battle can't attack or block.

  5. Battles that become an attacking or blocking creature drop out of combat.

  6. Battle creatures that receive damage remove that many defense counters in addition to the damage being marked on the creature.

  7. If lethal damage also removes the last defense counter, the battle creature will die before it can be exiled and the back face be cast.

I agree with 1, 2, 6, and 7 (and are what I had already expected); they "naturally" make sense within the rules. (I dislike the wording "any target", but the way that rule works is good.) I disagree with 4 and 5, and think that the rules would be cleaner to omit those special cases. I mostly agree with 3, although there would also be possibility of gaining abilities with {t} (or of naturally having such abilities in some cases, even if none of the official cards do), in which case there would be a relevance of being tapped.

On Battle:

Here is another issue with battles attacking/blocking: Now you can use it as a blocker to get rid of defense counters, so instead of investing resources you drain opponent's resources. It's just so plainly cirectly circumventing the "protector" concept that doesn't apply e. g. to planeswalkers that I can easily see why the exception is made here...

There are also logistics to be considered. Battles already have to track both a controller and a protector in multiplayer, that gets even more complicated if they enter combat.

On Battle:

zzo38, I don't know what your "generalized ongoing" rule is, so mentioning it adds nothing to your comment for me.

Battles attacking themselves makes no sense mechanically and little sense narratively.

On Battle:

The state-based action mentioned makes sense. (My unofficial "generalized ongoing" rule would suppress it like it also does with Sagas, schemes, dungeons, and phenomena.)

I also find the second point annoying, too. I think that it would be cleaner (i.e. not needing so many exceptions) if that rule that battles that are also creatures cannot attack or block is omitted, and just allow it to attack and block, and even to attack itself. (It would be a creature so you can declare an attack with it, and it is a Siege that you are not the protector of therefore you can attack it, so it should be allowed to attack itself. I also dislike the rule about creatures not being allowed to be attached to other stuff.)

(If a Siege creature attacks itself (if it were allowed), there is still a strategy involved. For example, if it is a 5/5 creature, then regardless of the number of defense counters, I would expect that since the damage is now equal to its toughness so it will die before the triggered ability can resolve. If the protector has a creature with zero power that can block (e.g. many Walls), then it will not receive any damage. Alternatively, if it is a 4/5 creature with 4 defense counters, then blocking with creatures with 5 or more total power will cause it to die before the other side can be used, too. And yet still, battles are not normally creatures, so you will still need to play combinations of other cards. There is also blocking, which seems that it would be easier to use to your advantage, but still battles are not normally creatures and effects after blockers are declared can still affect the power and toughness of creatures, and abilities such as first strike, etc.)

On Battle:

I understand why they did it, but for cases like the one you pointed out, I would still rather the ruling be that they can't attack themselves, not that they can't attack at all.

On Battle:

No other permanent would be able to attack itself. Yeah, planeswalkers can block for themselves, but battles already mess with the logistics of the combat phase through the protector mechanic.

On Battle:

Does anyone else find that second point annoying? Every other permanent type can attack if transformed into a creature...

(All recent activity)
See other cardsets