Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2019-09-19 13:38:20)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
Okay I got a cool commander with a name and everything. With this Commander I'm introducing a new concept of extra creature types in the rules text. At least I think its new.
Dargee Lak, Blood Bandit Boss
this year's state of design is out. I have a few bones to pick...
We could use more synergy between the sets.
Who saw this coming after they complained that Block Constructed was too constraining?
We executed well on the guilds.
I very much beg to differ. Addendum was, a complete punt flavorwise, and I'm not even sure it was successful as a design. While afterlife may have been mechanically appropriate, it was so lazy a design when we get cards with that basic mechanic pretty much every single set as to be downright insulting. At least Addendum was borrowing something that isn't done all the time.
Having to reuse convoke is telling in how they seem incapable of actually executing on Selesnya... Furthermore, the fact several mechanics could be shifted around is incredibly telling: Addendum felt like a Dimir mech (I fact I designed a keyworded version of it as a Dimir Mechanic three years ago!), Afterlife—with adjustments to the tokens—is a fine fit (maybe better!) for Selesnya or especially Golgari, Spectacle and Riot are actually variations on each other's guilds' previous mechanics, and Mentor would be right at home as a Simic or Selesnya mechanic, without even changing its name in the latter case...
There wasn't enough innovation
Given the above, I'm only gonna say... ORLY.
Ravnica Allegiance Limited play didn't have the depth of Guilds of Ravnica
I'm impressed at the failure to realize that the creature-based/linear/aggressive mechanics were all concentrated in the second set, and even more so than Gatecrash, who was plagued by this exact same problem in the first place!
Have a looksie at my New Commanders. Its not a commander set, just some legendary creatures.
What about it? The question I ask does not care at all about creatures attacking their owner. Also an owner is a player, so attacking planeswalkers is not covered by that wording...
I've been using "arrives," Lost Fblthp, but "enters" could make sense for Wizards, considering the wayb they truncated producing mana.
Heres an idea i jist came up with. What about "enters" instead of "Enters the battlefield"
What about "X can't attack its owner."
So, I want to shorten and generalize some wording as it appears e. g. on Assault Suit and Norn's Annex. Since custom cards include permanents that can be attacked that aren't planeswalkers it is preferable to only refer to "permanents you control", but I want to generalize even more.
In a format I'm developing and at least one I already played attacks can be directed at certain new zones or "virtual allies" that are similar to planeswalkers, but not represented by permanents e. g. the treasury or a pet monster.
I want to introduce a phrasing meaning "can't attack if you are the defending player", but sounding technical. I'm currently going with "can't attack your side of the battlefield", but wouldn't mind hearing different ideas.
Three symbols still are discernible arranged tri-brid style - at least equally as easy as discerning for certain whether a third of a current color indicator is blue or green.
For DFC planeswalkers that keep their three colors I maintain recognizability will not be worse - but it will be better in other more common cases.
No and yes.
Devoid will stand apart from color identity in that you can built your deck either according to color identity or to devoid-ness. The rule does not seek to make it impossible to play any card currently legal for Mistform Ultimus to be no longer legal.
Maybe I'm overeaching with devoid and should only consider mana cost and color indicator - or only color indicator as that is keeping the change nonfunctional.
Counterpoint to Sphinx of the Guildpact: Nicol Bolas, the Arisen. I didn't notice that you weren't using the full mana symbol, since it was very small on my phone. I like what you did instead
So does that make Deranged Assistant's color identity both blue and devoid, like how Quenchable Fire is both red and blue?
I've considered these points.
I'm a custom card designer, so let's talk about a custom case: A multicolored card with Phyrexian mana. If we take precedent from Reaper King, we can assume that the reminder text will explain one of the two colored symbols, but not the other.
Further this means you'll have to use reminder text even if it is inconvenient. All despite the fact that there is already a way to communicate that a symbol combines two different cost options.
For consistency with color identity. Deranged Assistant is devoid for the same reason Quenchable Fire has a blue color identity.
To be honest the original reason I created the batch word is to give a way to recreate certain designs that refer to devoid, but I figured that giving "true colorless" a deeper identity is even better.
I've been a fan of making the color indicator an actual mana symbol, although once you start including multicolor indicators, it gets really hard to read. Also, once you try to include devoid cards, you run into the issue of conflicting mana symbols on the card. Remember, Magic players are stupid
Phyrexian mana always has reminder text with the full mana symbols in it, so I don't see the added utility of phybrid. You'd still need the same reminder text
I really don't see the point of your devoid batching word. For some reason it includes true colorless cards, devoid cards, and anything that can produce colorless mana. Why is Deranged Assistant devoid?
(For discussion of the content found also here)
Three changes to the game I propose to retroactively always have been that way (since the introduction of the concept that causes them to exist):
Color Indicators
Color indicators should not be just colored circles, but instead or additionally make use of the color symbols. This serves two purposes.
On the one hand this is much more friendly to the colorblind. Frames are more or less discernible for the colorblind (you won't mix up white and black), but an indicator that uses a means other than color to convey that information would be very useful.
On the other hand it solves the devoid issue. Devoid was made a keyword because they couldn't find a meaningful way to represent colorlessness with a color indicator. But just one set after devoid's introduction they introduce a colorless mana symbol that everyone gets. If color indicators used the same symbols as mana symbols, you get to introduce the colorless symbol sneakily one set early - and have an argument to immediately change the cards adding colorless mana without having to errata them by the second set of the block without actually revealing your plan to introduce colorless mana costs.
Visual Sample
Phyrexian Mana
The color of Phyrexian mana is kinda hard to distinguish without the ability to see color. Like color indicators they eschew one of the most accessible ways we represent and recognize color: sun, drop, skull, flame, tree - the symbolic encoding of the colors used in mana symbols.
One might argue that you cannot simply use a colored mana symbol since you also want to use the Phyrexian symbol in your symbol for thematic reasons. Fortunately we already do that every now and then with hybrid mana symbols. I hence introduce: Phybrid mana.
A Phyrexian cost symbol actually cannot be paid with mana, but can only be paid with 2 life. But since Phyrexian hybrid mana symbols are hybrids of one colored mana symbol and one Phyrexian mana symbol you can pay either 2 life for the Phyrexian cost or the appropriate color of mana for the mana cost. The change is entirely visible and not functional - unless you count the opportunity to later actually use the Phyrexian cost symbol by itself on some colorless card that can be paid only in blood life.
Visual Sample
Devoid
Remember how I removed the need for devoid to exist with the first change? Well, now that the word is no longer used as a keyword ability it may still be of use (after all some cards still might want to refer to it for compatibility with Eldrazi explicitly over e. g. artifacts and lands which are also colorless but not devoid).
Here is the new definition of devoid as a batch word: Any card that has a colorless mana symbol in its cost or rules text and any card that is defined as colorless by a characteristic-defining ability or color indicator (which now also uses the colorless mana symbol, remember) is devoid.
This is a functional change since previously only cards now using a colorless indicator would be devoid. This change though groups (some) Eldrazi with colorless identity and (some) with colored identity together - which one might actually consider preferable. I wouldn't at all be against now allowing the single devoid legendary creature to helm a Commander deck with any devoid creature in it (the colorless Eldrazi that are not devoid get in anyway).
Have you created a batch of cards, but only the most recent changes receive comments? Have your recent changes to a card not received proper attention? Are you just annoyed that only the most unbalanced cards generate conversation?
Do not fret! Steer the conversation where it belongs!
By leaving a comment with links to individual cards, to card sets or to comments that you'd like replies to you can let others know where you'd like to get additional input.
I personally will go through these comments one by one as long as I'm an active user and write... something, but anyone should feel free to give as much as you receive and leave some feedback every time you leave a request.
(If asked to comment on a set I'll probably generate one or two random boosters and comment on a handful of noteworthy cards and check out highlighted comments on the front page, so you'll get not only feedback on your latest cards.)
Yeah. The main problem is MaRo giving grand statements of purpose about things he knows nothing about
Well, MaRo is also more involved with gameplay, too. With regards to storyline he shouldn't be considered an authority and probably is not aware of the minutiae that are used to explain/justify the exception.
He's answering the question from the more rough perspective of story "vision", because that's what he is concerned with. With the amount of times he gets something wrong storywise because he only remembers a preliminary version, it's no wonder he's missing this.
For the article this is also apparently the perspective he's acting from: Grand vision. And for the grand vision "unique abilities" are the dominant factor over exact explanations.
Well no - printing "This planeswalker can break the flavour-rules" is bad for the novels/flavour. Printing a green bolt would be bad for the gameplay.
I think that's the disconnect here. Some people weight the flavour/novels as important; others as completely irrelevant.
Mowu is basically a golem, yeah. That's in the War of the Spark novel. That makes it totally fine for Yanggu to travel with him
There's nothing stopping them from printing a green Bolt, other than it being really bad for the game. It's the exact same problem
Is Mowu a golem? Where did u hear that?
If so, chances are hes a kind that is fine to be in the blind eternities. Still doesnt justify why yanggu can bring him
I didnt mean to say that maro isnt responsible for being wrong or doubling down i meant he was not responsible for creating the character (to my knowledge lol)
I disagree that a green bolt is the same as a bad lore choice. I do this because in their established story they can break their own rules (they shouldnt and it hurts when they do especially when they give such a non-reason like maro did) and mechanically they have made their own rules but those still apply to real world logic and criticism so they cannot just say Thats how It Is and be done with it.
I think you believe that this is a bigger disaster than it is. I think it was wrong (my main issue wasnt that it was broken its that they did it poorly and still im not super sure they Should be allowe to break their rules) but as with sorrow i thibk it doesnt affect much. I think u disagree with that, and tahts where the main split is that makes it a worse mistake to you
You said that characters will try to find ways to do it but i dont believe that wizards will choose them to do that. If that ruins yer supenion of disbelef then i can only offer that there might not be any way to copy it.
I feel bad that u think it devalues everything but i dont see it as that because simply put yanggu probly wasnt active while bolas was in that planning stage and also one yanggu couldnr have done anythung close to bolas army, so even if bolas knew why would he care. A man and his dog cant hurt him and the boy cannot even move anythnf BUT the dog.
Also when they make a break they dont do it again, so its not the same unless u are worrying abou the WHY. Mechanically becausr they shouldnt and lorewise they dont hace an explanation wgich is bad writing except ive told u i beieve they dont need onee because there is nothing to learn from this or get from it so my sus of disbelief is ok and i hope urs is now too
Btw sorry for errors wroe this on phone and it took days for me to give in and do this becayse pc isnt workin
If one character can do it, then more characters will be able to discover how to do it too. If you print one color pie break, then that sets precedence for doing it again
Give Yanggu ome element of the story that makes the transportation just something Yanggu is capable of, a shared spark or somehow a sliver of the ability planeswalkers had before the mending, or maybe Mowu has an unawakened spark that is linked to Yanggu. The point being, as long as the ability is solely Yanggu's the story remains largely unaffected.
It absolutely has as large an effect. By breaking the rules and allowing one person to bring an animal with them, there's now literally nothing stopping anyone else from bringing whatever they want with them. For example, literally the entire Bolas arc hinged on the fact that living material can't be transported through the BE, so throwing out that rule invalidates the last three years of the story.
@dude1818 "That was an intentional choice they made, and MaRo's (utterly inane) claim that they let Yanggu do it because "it seemed fun" is literally no different than printing a green Lightning Bolt because "it seemed fun"" I might be missing your intention here, but hard colorshift for a green Lightning Bolt changes the play of the game- green decks now have access to the removal and face damage of bolt that those decks otherwise wouldn't have..That will affect every format the card could potentially be legal for. A story/lore break need only affect the character or characters in question and they become a unique exception that does not affect other rules of of the universe. Make any excuse (after all, this is Magic), and apply it. If Ravnica can have all angels being clones or altered clones of Razia and a gorgon population emerging after the species had one sole member left, Magic can paddle something out about why Yanggu can planeswalk Mowu.
I'm not saying MaRo needed to make the article in question, just that story alterations cannot really be compared game alterations because their consequences are different. Also, I am not necessarily in favor of Yanggu being able to bring an organic matter creature with him, but rather I'm just used to these retcons or deviations happening from experiences with other media. These deviations from what were once truths of the media do not invalidate the media's other engaging or enjoyable features.
MaRo is 100% responsible for this, because he made up something on his blog that was wrong, and when we called him out on it, he doubled down
Living organisms die in the Blind Eternities if they're not protected by a spark. And a very important part of the Mending was nerfing the spark, which included being able to protect other people you could carry with you. That was an intentional choice they made, and MaRo's (utterly inane) claim that they let Yanggu do it because "it seemed fun" is literally no different than printing a green Lightning Bolt because "it seemed fun"
Mowu is a golem, not a dog
I'm pretty sure for common sense that they let planeswalkers keep their clothes lmao...
But then again, if we're gonna deep-dive, and we're nerds, so yes we will; i suppose in the mtg multiverse what we know about quantum mechanics has never been stated, so technically speaking it's possible for something that we would consider organic to be inorganic (as far as i remember, clothing is inorganic, yes it's made from organic material, but it's all processed, and more than that im pretty sure the cells are dead. it doesn't grow or rot, meaning it's artificial in my books)
Also i've noticed that maro sometimes just makes shit up or is kind of contradictory instead of admitting he's wrong but again we only get to see so much what's behind the curtain... but yeah it does seem oddly.. convenient sometimes what he decides to answer with... or sometimes he skirts around the question entirely.... idk it's pretty annoying imo, but i hope i'm wrong, cause otherwise it's just kinda minorly shitty.
Also it's been specifically stated pwalkers can bring clothes and small items. so that's probably an inherent thing they are capable of, or perhaps (this is a bit speculative) they can use their will to bring things of that sort. I might've heard they can/cant bring food, but if they can it pretty much confirms the pure will theory. if they cant (which i remember them not being able to) then they cant transport organic material, but not clothes either because clothes are inorganic or it's a special case.
lmao maro worked on roseanne for 1 season that's like his entire bibliography but yeah he does write well which makes reading his constant stuff not a chore (and besides it's a chore if you dont want to and you dont need to so dont bother if u dont want to but if you do want to see that stuff he presents it well enough)
Yeah actually i liked the comparison between people caring about intense mechanical consistency and intense flavor consistency, but both gave good reasons why its important to break defaults.
I definitely didn't think this sucked when i saw it i was like oh cool a doggie, that was my camp for sure... but yeah i mean i just figure it's neat he can do that... then again it's not really fair to call it a default because it's absolutely comes off as a constraint to the audience, and i think it mostly is, i was reading his rhetorical questions and expected him to say Yes when asking himself (or the readers i guess lol) if it was a rule they could break, but he said no which just makes me feel like he just wrote all that to elaborately """prove""" he was right , but really just didn't have an important article (Which is fine) and didn't want to admit he was wrong (which aint fine)
then again maro is not the responsible party for creating this unique situation, so he's not at fault for anything expect throwing those who did under the bus.
I normally just accept story how it is cause I'm not super into reading stories or experiencing characters or any of that intimate delicate stuff as i am having a thorough knowledge of all events (down to the smallest detail)
i very rarely question motivation or most things, this especially didn't strike me as odd, it still doesnt thinking about it but i do agree magic presented the planeswalker rule as an absolute and should not have broken it..
if its a default, whatever... magic has been doing a shabby job of some aspects of planeswalkerness lately...
first of all lots of the cards have been so similar, boring and methodological...
secondly they suck at advertising, explaining, empathizing and making it stick/be important that players are basically planeswalkers in game.
this is just kind of tangenty
Indeed; so is clothing. Oh dear.
...wait; I mean clothing is organic. Not clothing is a dog. That's even sillier imagery I didn't need for planeswalker's arrival.