Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2022-06-28 17:36:40)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
-Damage blockers Goblin Javelineer
-Ward with lifecost payment, shared with black Moonrage Brute
-Burn spells Flame Slash
-Combat tricks that grant first strike Abandon Reason
-Ignorant Bliss- I do not know if this one has any peers
EDIT: Wow, over a decade later I finally realized that Ignorant Bliss exists so that you can get Hellbent going, and is not a random anti-discard measure.
Such as:
@zzo38- The interchangeable names are for Universes Beyond, like the Stranger Things Secret Lair. I don't think either version of the cards is currently on Gatherer. E.g. Lucas the Sharpshooter is interchangeable with Bjorna, Nightfall Alchemist
OK, I read it again, it says "if this permanent would be destroyed as the result of an effect", and "an effect" means "something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability". So, I suppose that you are correct.
"A creature with a shield counter on it may still be destroyed by state-based actions if it has damage marked on it equal to its toughness or has been dealt unpreventable damage by a source with deathtouch."
The rules say some cards have "interchangeable names", which are, as far as I can tell, the same name with a different spelling (i.e. what the name of the card is called), it seems.
It would help to have examples so that we can see what cards have interchangeable names, and to be able to query them in Gatherer and/or Scryfall.
Also, if a source with deathtouch deals unpreventable damage to a creature with shield counters, how many shield counters are removed?
I think alliance was insultingly lazy. We literally get those effects (sometimes with minor variations) all the damn time. Ability words have usually been applied to unusual triggers or conditions.
If the reason is "we've been trying to formally name creaturefall forever" fine, but they shouldn't try to act as though it makes anything more than a merely serviceable faction mechanic!
"Revision"
Meh, evolution covers a lot of things that Evolve mechanically doesn’t capture.
I do think evolution as a word does work better on creatures, and I have no card references for how this mechanic would appear. There’s a stigma that evolution should be permanent, or at least something for a foreseeable amount of time (until of course, further evolution changes the subject). Note, that evolution could be argued in then case of things being designed by otherwise altered in society, (e.g. the evolution of vehicular combat) though my gut tells me that such is not the case here.
Anyway, I would suggest Diversify.
Evolve captured evolution better than this. Adaptation seems a more appropriate choice of word. Though adapt existing as a keyword might dissuade you from that one as well.
Add the name, according to Alex's suggestion
"Evolutionary", perhaps. Though it looks like it'd be a better design to only allow you to do it once. There are so very few cards that'll be able to do more with this than a single hit. (And I say this as the designer of the Magic Turing Machine that hits Rotlung Reanimator with two creature type changes and one colour change. It's not worth the overhead.)
Annoyingly, Splicer's Skill exists. I think in practice you just ignore that, and print, say, Hour of Promise with
> Evolutionary
(You may pay an additional 
any number of times as you cast this spell. For each time, change Desert to another nonbasic land type, Zombie to another creature type or black to another colour.)
even though teeechnically someone could also add Phyrexian or Golem to the list of changeable types.
What are we going to call it?
I like the token diversity we are getting. I make no secret out of my love for token diversity.
And I tried for a while to come up with a good Wizard token that could sacrifice to counter something. Realizing that Force Spike was too much, I haven't figured that "noncreature" would be all that I was missing to get there. v.v"
But the Ogres, Cats and Dogs are all nice, too.
@amuseum- I figured Alliance’s name was in reference to gang alliances rather than the Ally type mechanic.
Alliance is basically "creaturefall". name is probably homage to the similar Ally tribal mechanic.
Blitz is like Evoke, but more rules baggage.
Most interesting card yet seems Urabrask. really screws over opponent, particularly blue control.
I don't vibe with shield counters, probably because of the setting. A friend also pointed out that at base they just kind of work similarly to totem armor (not identically, I am aware) and that probably lowers my opinion of it.
Casualty also misses with the flavor for me, but I actually like the mechanic. I think having to tie a power to the creature sacrificed is an interesting way of making a balance for each card.
I like connive.
Blitz is aight. I don't love it from the little I've seen so far, but I don't see anything wrong with it either. Maybe other cards will make the mechanic interesting to play with.
Alliance is cool. I'm more likely to give ability words more slack because they have more room with what they can do.
No opinion on Hideaway yet.
I like connive. I have a soft spot for those keyword actions your creatures can do, like explore.
Hideaway is a solid improvement and now quite similar to my old hoard keyword ability. Thumbs up.
Blitz and casualty are neat.
Alliance... I forgot what alliance does. I got distracted by the other ability word that returns voting to the commander product.
Is it just on creature ETB? It's like getting an ability word for "Whenever you gain life" or "Whenever a creature dies" - it just is a very basic aspect of gameplay and we've seen it a lot. It won't revolutionize how I think about card designs and is fairly tame in flavor.
The common land cycle is neat.
I like the pun on Anhelo, the Painter a lot. :)
plenty of stuff to discuss.
color arcs, Shield counters, Connive, Hideaway, Casualty, Blitz, Alliance
There are currently 23,094 unique magic cards. Taking seven cards at random with replacement, there are 6.9e26 possible opening hands. (That assumes no limit to the number of copies in a deck, but applying a 4-of rule wouldn't change it by more than an order of magnitude or so)
There is a way to be interpreted that the order of cards in the library is sometimes not relevant when considering if it is same game state or not; e.g. if the library (or a hidden face-down pile, otherwise) is shuffled, then the order is indeterminite and only collapses when the card is drawn, scried, etc (until it is shuffled again). However, that is only true if you want to count the past and ignore the future. If you want the game state of the future as well as the past, then the order of the library is relevant and maybe also future coin tosses, etc. But, this is not the only way. Counting all cards in a shuffled library even if you cannot see them, but not counting coin tosses, also is a different possible way to do it.
The other thing to be considered is timestamps (although timestamps are not always relevant). Everything inherently has an order. And then, there is history-based effects, effects that take cards from the sideboard, playing the same cards but using a different version of the rules (where some of the differences might or might not be significant), etc.
So, counting game states is really much more complicated. (But, even in chess, there is such thing as a 75 move rule, etc)
(And then, there is conspiracy, vanguard, etc)
> Haha I really didn't expect anyone would want to pick this up lol
I am an inveterate sucker for nerd bait :)
> It makes me wonder if there has ever been a 'duplicate' game-state in magic...
Your guess sounds about right to me, that if you include the library order, then probably not, but if you only look at cards in hand and in other zones, then probably. There's a lot of possible seven hands out of sixty cards, but there might be precon or degenerate decks that include a fair number of duplicates and get played enough.
> "Exile either has a card or not (no order)"
Some cards can exile cards as ordered pile e. g. Mangara's Tome.
Haha I really didn't expect anyone would want to pick this up lol
Thanks Jack :)
I've gotta say, this really puts into perspective how this game can be mind-bogglingly complex, lmao
It makes me wonder if there has ever been a 'duplicate' game-state in magic... Sort of like how they say a deck of cards is never shuffled the same way twice in human history (because 52! is a huge ass number)...
I was thinking there might have been, since having the same seven cards in your opening hand might be not that unlikely for a popular deck that is played globally by millions of people... but then I remembered that isn't counting for their library, which given that it is 60 cards (maybe with some repeats), is probably close to anywhere from like 30! to 60!, meaning it also never has likely been shuffled identically...
So, I guess the moral of the story is, even if you feel that play patterns are getting stale, just remember that nobody has ever played the exact same game of magic that you are about to play!
A Lot :)
I'm not sure where to start for a full answer. If you had a sixty-card deck of unique cards, it could be in 8320987112741390144276341183223364380754172606361245952449277696409600000000000000 different states, and if you considered all possible decks the number would be much, much, higher.
Other zones have similar calculations. The graveyard would have approximately as many possibilities as the library. Slightly less because cards can usually only be in one or the other. Exile either has a card or not (no order), so for one deck with unique cards that's only 1152921504606846976 possibilities. All these apply to your opponent.
The most complicated would be the battlefield. In the rules it tracks what order permanents entered, but assuming we're ignoring that except when it actually matters for a static effect, you just have some cards. Except that each card can have up to 50 counters on. At the simplest, that would be something like 5160 (each can be not there, there with zero counters, there with 1 counter, etc). I couldn't find an exact number, but that's approximately 2800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Obviously it's more complicated than that, e.g. if the cards were all equipment they could all be attached to different things, but also, if every card is a permanent you have less options for the stack.
And then you multiply all those numbers together. And then square them because your opponent's deck can also be in those situations. And then raise them several more powers if you can be in nested subgames with Shahrazad :)
So far, that's something like 100000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (with a LOT of guessing, it will actually be quadrillions of times bigger or smaller several times over). And we haven't yet considered a full deck.
If you made a deck from one each of all 23000 legal cards, it would have a number of possible orders something like "3 followed by 90333 zeroes" which I COULD paste into the comment field but won't. Of course that wouldn't pass the "can shuffle by hand unaided" test
I just had a wild idea...
How many possible game states are there in magic the gathering?
'infinity' is a boring answer, so what if the repetitions and values were artificially capped at some arbitrary number, like 50?
BTW, a 'game state' would count every card in every zone (including things like stack and mana pool), as well as every resource/effect in every zone, in just one moment.
It would probably be a lot more than the 20K+ cards squared...
For example, starting with 'two players with 1 life each, no cards or effects in any zone except for one card in all player's libraries which is "Ach! Hans, Run!"' as the first game-state, then 'two players with 1 life each, no cards or effects in any zone except for one card in all player's libraries which is "Ach! Hans, Run!" and the card second-from-the-top of player two's library which is _____' and so on so forth
Any math nerds wanna tackle this one? XDDD
Hmm, the point about referring to "this Saga" in rules text is a good one. I hope that it's inspired to try to simplify these Sagas as they are going way past the complexity of commons if you ask me as I've noted previously. It also does look like that for example in the case of The Shattered States Era, if it actually referred to its name, it would have to crunch that already small rules text even smaller.
So I hope that the reason for that convention is "we need to try to simplify these conceptually" rather than "we need even more space on cards for rules text". Not that being more concise with rules text terminology /syntax is bad but I'm questioning the motivation behind this particular approach here.