Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2022-09-28 18:09:46)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
I like to see strange things in Un-sets (as opposed to "proper" cards), and I also think that too many of the newer ones are too much "trying too hard, corporate sanctioned fun", too (although a few of them are OK).
Some things I would think are better for Un-cards will be:
"Play cards as written. Ignore all errata." (An official card, named R&D's Secret Lair.)
"Goblins cannot reach Nirvana." (On an unofficial enchantment card named Nirvana. I forget where it comes from, but I did not make it up. I remember they tried to make cards using the words in the Comprehensive Rules in wrong ways, and there were some good funny stuff.)
"(You cannot draw anything if you do not have a hand to hold the pencil.)"
"Create a token that is a copy of target player."
"You must attack if able." (Someone else made on this Multiverse and it is a card named "You", so the text is ambiguous.)
"
: Add 
into your mana pool."
"Unhaste (this creature cannot attack before it enters the battlefield)"
"Use rules of Alpha edition of the game."
"All intervening if clauses are true."
I also think that it is a mistake, too (and it is not the only one).
But, I do think that, in general, having acorns and non-acorns, is OK (although I am not sure that the acorns are prominent enough, but I might be wrong about that).
But there is another question relating to it: What is the primary key, now?
Those are mostly in the vein of Cryptic Spires, which is why I said that card was a total mistake
Now for something I didn't expect to be eternal legal: Mechanically distinct cards with the same name (check the last paragraph of Attractions).
With that holy cow dead and eaten e.g. caring about watermarks is back on the table.
I feel like the earlier un sets may have had less good gameplay but had a really fun "anything goes" vibe even on cards that were unprintable in black border because of tone or swingyness even if they had normal rules.
It makes sense that to be playable new sets have more "silly flavour but otherwise normal" cards, or mechanics that are silly but functional like augment/host. But I miss the way old cards tried to break the pattern SOMEHOW even if it was only unusual templating or a niche effect that didn't really affect gameplay. It makes sense that some un cards could be eternal friendly but gives a "trying too hard, corporate sanctioned fun" vibe to me now...
> "Sets which are not designed for Standard need not have all types, I think. Nor need it have all colors, balanced colors, all common keyword abilities, etc; however."
WotC has learnt though that it is better to strife for these things to an extend e. g. missing out on color representation in preconstructed decks.
Custom card creators have more freedom.
Speaking of not having all types: It seems, so far, that the decks won't have planeswalkers.
Of the other card types, I don't really see a reason why you would even want to avoid them.
As far as I can tell, squad seems to be similar to replicate, but different. For one thing, squad seems to be only applicable to permanent spells. Since squad makes copies of the permanent when it enters the battlefield and replicate makes copies of the spell when it is cast, there will be many other differences too.
Guessing from the reminder text, I think that ravenous as a keyword ability is a bit messy. (Many other keyword abilities (including "bands with other") are better designed in my opinion.)
Sets which are not designed for Standard need not have all types, I think. Nor need it have all colors, balanced colors, all common keyword abilities, etc; however. A set designed purely for Constructed (or a uniform Cube) does not need rarities, either. If it it is not designed to be added to Eternal, then there are a few more things you can do, too. The result may be a rather different style of the resulting game, but it will still be Magic: the Gathering.
(For example, you can make a set with no creatures, or all creatures, or only blue and red cards, etc.)
Of course making such changes is not necessarily the best idea, but depending what kind of game you may be trying to make, it might work, but you should be careful to ensure that the game will still work OK in such a case. However, doing this is probably going to be more difficult than just doing the usual way, but is probably still possible somehow.
(One possible example might be if you are drafting multiple sets in sequence, so you will draft first a set with creatures and then a set without creatures, or vice-versa, or first set without multicolors and then a set with only multicolors, or vice-versa, etc.)
> What do you mean it didn't work out for Lego? Lego successfully partnered with other franchises, including Star Wars, DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc. Lego and SW have been partners for over two decades, and a new LEGO Star Wars video game just released this year. LEGO Batman movie and products are legendary.
The point is, at one point they overconcentrated on licensed properties for quite a bit. The problem with that is (as Lego founds out) that those sets sold well enough to fans of those franchise, but were a complete failure when it came to enticing a new generation of Lego fans. Add to the mix how there is a limit to how many new IPs you can license successfully once your big ones run out their contracts and/or their current hype wave dies out and you have a bit of a crisis because it's much harder to alter course as a producer than as a seller.
> but then again there are some eternal cards where Judges like to look the other way because they don't really work in the rules.
This is why I think that a FOSS computer program implementation with all of the cards would be helpful, and to make possible as a reference implementation, that you can make well defined meanings of the cards. Other changes that I have suggested might also help with this and other issues (in a few cases they did so, though). Figure out which circumstances required to be consistent with existing rulings where necessary. Make test cases, to show that the program is correct.
Although such a program may have bugs in it, that is also true of the comprehensive rules even as they are; there have been bugs in the past which have been corrected.
There are some FOSS computer program implementations of Magic: the Gathering, but miss many cards, such as text-changing effects. (I have some idea how to make "AST-based" text-changing effects, to allow this to work; I have ideas about some of the other things, too.)
If such a thing is done then the definition would hopefully be more precisely (perhaps if you use e.g. Haskell, because C has too much undefined behaviours; I think Haskell is also better for making mathematical definitions of things than C is, anyways; a variant of Lisp might also do instead of Haskell, or possibly a custom programming language designed for this purpose might work best), and literate programming might also help (so that the text and the program code are together in one book, you can easily read it and see precisely what they are).
This would also be helpful if you want to ensure that rules needed for unofficial cards or unofficial formats do not conflict, I suppose.
Another thing about comp.rules: I have banned Chaos Orb and Falling Star in pseudo-Vintage; if there are other cards that cannot be made to work with a precise mathematical definition of the rules that can be implemented in a FOSS computer program in a reasonable way, even if modifying the rules to fix the problems, then more cards might need banned too.
Also there is issue if unofficial cards are made, what shapes using for such designations. Official cards will have ovals, triangles, acorns. Unofficial cards might or might not be intended to be consistent with the rules (whether they are the official rules or modified rules), but "Universes Beyond" does not seem to be a relevant distinction for unofficial cards. One possibility is to use the same shapes but a different colour, or something similar like that. But, then, there is also consideration of cards using the old style; I am not sure how to handle that situation.
I feel ravenous is a much better example of a mechanic that seems more likely to come from a poduct like this than Squad. I could imagine the restrictions on premium sets make the necessary amount of X spells a hurdle that usually wouldn't be crossed.
It just was that squad got revealed before the article and ravenous did not.
You don't see the appeal in Demons from WH40K synergizing with Demons from MtG premium sets etc.?
What do you mean it didn't work out for Lego? Lego successfully partnered with other franchises, including Star Wars, DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc. Lego and SW have been partners for over two decades, and a new LEGO Star Wars video game just released this year. LEGO Batman movie and products are legendary.
What's so special about Lorcana? That other attempts to take over Magic, such as Pokemon, Yugioh, Warcraft, Hearthstone, etc. couldn't convince you to jump ship?
Most official "new" mechanics and designs have been created independently by armchair designers, like ourselves here. And yeah laypeople get excited when it's their first time discovering it via WotC.
Since this is their first set in UB, of course there will also be new lessons to be learned.
The color pie can be tricky. Mainly because other IPs are not as comprehensive and holistic. On the flip side, one may be asking why doesn't a big universe like WH4K have a prominent nature-aligned faction? Perhaps from this partnership, GW could introspect on bringing more "green" and "white" factions into the limelight.
@Sorrow - So Hobbits reprinted from The Lord of the Rings set may be Kithkin? My hopes are up.
I doubt it. Hobbit is much more well known, and giving them Kithkin type has no appeal to LOTR fans, and only causes confusion and disgust. Besides, Kithkin was just an inferior alternative because they didn't want to infringe on Hobbit.
For that matter, I don't understand the appeal to link subtypes with Magic's own. Unless they're general types, like Dinosaurs. Otherwise, other IPs can and should maintain their unique types. That makes them more exotic and sought after.
Regardless, UB sets aren't Standard legal. So there is no obligation to be as strict as normal Magic sets. Including color pie, subtypes, etc. (Except non-Magic sets would still have Planeswalkers, even though that is Magic-only thing. But only because of playability and compatibility, not flavor.)
Now we're still waiting for the Magic movie . . .
New unique creature types
Besides, they're more like halflings, which is also a supported creature type
@dude1818- So Hobbits reprinted from The Lord of the Rings set may be Kithkin? My hopes are up.
Yeah, they're never doing open-ended partner again because it's too strong. As for the creature types, MaRo has said that Universes Within versions will get new unique creature types that map to the GW-owned ones
> "I found it weird that they chose to make Friends Forever rather than just use parter for the Stranger Things Secret Lair. Were they concerned about power-levels with other partner cards or were they seeking some flavor at the cost of the compatibility of a whole seven cards that weren't released in a standard-legal product."
MaRo has gone on record that because each new card with Partner amplifies the power of all of them, they plan going forward to do variants that only tie together that small group without backwards compatibility (though individual cards may be added).
I could any number of movie/TV series UB work better than those of other table-tops. I think, matching creature types may be a benefit: Come for Jurassic Park decks, learn about further Dinosaur cards from Ixalan/Ikoria that go well with your precon, stay for all the planes that don't start with I!
Warhammer, probably not from what I've heard. I think there's a definite niche that might be hard to figure out- something needs to be a bit nerdy, but still has both a broad appeal, loyal fanbase, and a fanbase who would want tie-in or themed products. There's also striking while the iron is hot. For instance, the upcoming Doctor Who Universes Beyond has most of these, but the 2005 continuation's popularity waned a while ago. Maybe something Jurassic Park could work (at the very least, dinosaur fandom is a thing and Jurassic Park would be popular branding to make people aware [not that Magic didn't do a fantastic job with dinosaur depictions in Ixalan]).
I honestly did not think about the implications of the new creature types. Does Games Workshop (or whoever owns Warhammer, I only did a cursory search engine question) own those creatures types to the point that Wizards would have to pay by Games Workshop for simply having the creature type if the cards were reprinted? If such is not an issue, the cards could be thrown into the list and Masters Sets if/when desired.
I found it weird that they chose to make Friends Forever rather than just use parter for the Stranger Things Secret Lair. Were they concerned about power-levels with other partner cards or were they seeking some flavor at the cost of the compatibility of a whole seven cards that weren't released in a standard-legal product.
If your first hobby is Warhammer 40k, can you afford a second hobby?
They definitely stated that they are able to treat individual cards from any UB product like Secret Lair cards, but aren't likely to do so en masse.
Notably though: The cards would only differ in Name, so if the desired cards turns out to be a Tyranid, Astartes or Necron, that subtype will need to stay.
I think that a Magic: the Gathering cards could potentially introduce new people to the game, but not quickly. Some fandoms have loyal fans who would buy a tie-in product like Magic: the Gathering cards. Getting those buyers to play the game rather than just have the cards sitting around is the hard part.
I'm mostly ambivalent about the current state of Universes Beyond. My only concern is the future availability of highly-desired cards from UB and their reprintability, though I believe they stated that they'd treat such cards like the Stranger Things Secret Lair for Magic-fitting reprints.
Except "parody cards" describes a theme - and there will be cards with the silly, self-referencing jokes that will now no longer be "acorn".
I think it's fine to call unofficial cards "eternal" as shorthand for "designed with eternal in mind" etc.
In the end, there is a lot of nuance anyway and I rarely just used a single word to describe where a card belongs, often distinguishing already between "silver-border creative" and "not feasible in black-border rules".
Maybe you can call them "comp. rules card" because they work in the comp. rules, but then again there are some eternal cards where Judges like to look the other way because they don't really work in the rules.
Yeah, a creature with replicate was the first thing I designed for my Futuresight 2 set. And by now they even updated the rules to work like that would require to actually work.
But I'm a fan of working around restrictions, and if Squad is not that inspiring (not a bad mechanic per se though - just not living up to the claim of "something they wouldn't come up with otherwise), then that doesn't mean we don't get something out of this on another level; I have hopes for the artifact reanimation theme the Necrons seem to feature. It's not something that we wold never see in MtG Canon - both in a new setting or for e. g. Sheoldred's Phyrexians -, but it's something nice that was pushed by the UB setting of choice.
I've said since day one that the entire idea of trying to introduce other IPs in magic was a bad idea.
I am DEEPLY amused that they found literally twice as many problems as advantages to this.
I also find that squad is as worrying an example as they could've mentioned. It's basically just Replicate for creatures, which dozens of people have come up with before. Hardly a mechanic that REQUIRED a uniquely new IP being used to be discovered!
And finally the "It introduces Magic to a new audience." is of dubious concern. Magic is certainly not as accessible a system as Lego is... and that idea notoriously didn't work for Lego in the long term. I'm pretty sure that's basically why they even came up with the Ninjago franchise in the first place!
Now Disney is openly gunning for Magic with Lorcana and my disgust with the Disney corporation is pretty much the only reason keeping me from jumping ships.
I'm going to keep calling them "real cards" and "parody cards"
In the future - sure. But no cards from previous un-sets have acorns; so using 'non-acorn' would be confusing there.
I don't think there's a good answer. Other than keeping 'silver bordered' as the name; but it's probably quite hard from a physical-card point of view to manage a mix of silver and black cards in a set.
I also think that "non-acorn" is better than calling them "eternal", since "acorn" and "non-acorn" would also be applicable to unofficial cards too, but unofficial cards are presumably not Eternal.
(However, I usually use "non-Un-cards" or "Un-cards", which I think may be better.)
Stun counters are eerily similar to my Frozen concept. Including the replacement effect (if a frozen creature would untap, instead it loses frozen.)
Damn I was about to use the word Enlist in my new set. (I had to rename to Enroll instead.)
and also I knew tehre was another tumblr I was forgetting about: https://5ecardaday.tumblr.com/
It seems the "time travel moment" of this story line will be Brother's War. It doesn't seem likely or narratively satisfying to use time travel to set up the all out war and to conclude it - in an epilogue even.
🤔
I could see that happening, but I think I would be disappointed.
I'm expecting more of an Endgame/Tarkir time travel change. In All Will Be One and March of the Machine, we see the multiverse fall to New Phyrexia. Then in Aftermath, they time travel back to stop Phyrexia from spreading in the first place. Sacrificing Karn during the original Invasion prevents Mirrodin from being corrupted in the first place, so New Phyrexia never forms, and the multiverse is saved. Then the returns to Eldraine and Ixalan showcase how the multiverse is similar but different to how it used to be
Speaking of nifty interpretations, I like the implications of Dominaria being United when facing Phyrexians. Makes you think they might... All become one.