Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2021-12-09 12:32:18)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
I like Mimicry as a concept, though Red isn't the first color I'd think for it, I could see it on UR gold cards. The problem would be memory issues, unless Mimicry triggers each turn.
Subsurface seems unnecessary- not that it'd never come up, but that it's so fringe it's gonna be irrelevant most of the time. Sure, you could put Subsurface on auras and equipment to give the ability to flying creatures, but that's even more fringe (and something I believe green already does).
Ambush- This is just jankifiedd flash with no real upside to creating a separate mechanical other than maybe pushing some sorceries to be more versatile.
Demise seems the best, since it recalls Ball Lightning type abilities. I'd tweak the concept so the creature sacrifices at the end of the turn it attacks or blocks, since blue might want some one-use defenders with this as the ability seems too aggressive for blue creatures. That, and without such an attack or block cause, you're just evoking and may as well be designing sorceries 99% of the time.
actually they were created in accordance with canon MTG.
I assume these make sense in your re-balanced world, but you can probably see why they don't answer the question very well in regard to canon MtG.
In my quest to 'balance' the evergreen keywords for every color pair, I assigned three positive and one negative keyword to each pair.
I feel U/R are the masters of trickery, uncertainty, and imitation. Thus I assigned them Mimicry, Subsurface, and Ambush.
= Mimicry = As this enters, it gains a keyword from another creature on the field.
= Subsurface = Can't be blocked by flyers
= Ambush = You may cast this spell as though it had flash if you additionally pay its ambush cost.
= Demise = Sacrifice this at end of turn.
Reasons:
Mimicry effect must be evergreen rather than only appearing in specific sets. So that it can copy keywords in any set, in any format, from every set and every card from the beginning of time until the end of time.
Subsurface replaces similar older blue and red evasion. Namely landwalk, where Islandwalk and Mountainwalk were the most common forms thereof. Subsurface adds some tension against flying (the most common keyword). Flavorwise, blue creatures dwell below the surface of water, and red creatures below the surface of earth.
Ambush can be put on creatures, artifacts, enchantments, and even sorceries. Compared to flash, the base mana cost of the spell should be equal to or lower than the curve, and ambush is a straight-up bonus.
Demise is the negative keyword. Represents red's flash in the pan, and blue's fragility. Appearing more in red offensively and blue defensively.
Considering the small numbers itwould be useful to the discussion to actually list the cards (as I did) to help me understand the situation e. g. I specifically did not count cards that only animate Vehicles due to the special situation of Vehicles, but of the five cards I reviewed for black none fulfilled the animation criteria.
I didn't find any of the hybrid cards you mention.
Black is not the absence of color. You probably mean the absence of (visible) light.
I have given you the reason colorless is not covered in the color pie. If you want to argue the reasons, you should goto the person who determines them, not me.
Mono black = 3 (1 old)
Mono green = 2 (1 old)
Mono white = 2
Mono red = 3 (mainly vehicles)
U/B = 3
U/G = 1
U/W = 1
WUB = 1
Black has a clear lead over other nonblue colors in terms of animating artifacts.
Green has a card that is an exception in an artifact-flavored set. Which is frankly less flavorful than an old black card (also from artifact set).
White also has more recent animate artifact cards than green. Moreover, white and red can reanimate artifacts (and by extension, artifact creatures).
Technically black isn't a real color because it's the absence of color. Doesn't make black less important in our lives.
Freezing lands didn't work for red (not surprising). Instead, such anti-land control/tempo could be focused on blue/green. To enable soft-lock prison decks, in the same veins as Turbofog and Stasis.
I assume that's more a reference to what colors have gotten that ability historically rather than a new addition (unless we're going to get asurprise soon???). Titania's Song and Lifecraft Awakening mean that this is accurate. Green is indeed the next best color to animate artifacts. No mention of black for Xenic Poltergeist though.
The color pie does cover colors. Colorless is not a color. Simple as that.
According to MaRo's interpretation they want to use "cleave" as a synonym for "cut", as in "cuttign out the words". The reason I (and others replying to him) consider this unsatisfactory is because - as Vitenka states - cleaving is not just a simple synonymfor cutting, but means "split"/"sever"/"divide"/"cut in twain" etc. which doesn't work well with the more surgical excision of text that it actually refers to.
There is a perfectly fine word for this kind of cutting that they could hae used instead and sounds equally gruesome (and hence suitable for Innistrad): "carve" means to "cut with care or precision". So close in letters, yet all the difference IMO.
Cleave as in cutting in twain - you're literally cleaving the text apart.
It's STILL terrible word usage. But they probably didn't want to waste 'cut' on something that's so niche.
@amuseum: I wish, I knew, who you are refering to and what you want to say.
you mean 'loquaciousized'. it narrows the goalpost, the goalpost is still vulnerable from other corner cases.
Well, I made a whole set based on the token names being identical to the subtypes and those will now have the amazing Oracle test "create a 1/1 blue Faerie Rogue creature token with flying named Faerie Rogue" etc.
:/
It looks like they fixed the rule for implicit token names, which is something that I had wanted fixed for a while. So, now it is good that they fixed it.
One blatant disagreement I have is how green is now secondary in animating artifacts. Where Green philosophically hates artifacts, but now is an enabler? Even though all these years, Tezzeret, who is blue-black, is one of the most popular methods of animate artifacts strategies. If not black, then red should be considered since it loves to tinker with artifacts. Even white may be more likely than green, both philosophically and mechanically (who loves equipment). He also omitted artifacts animating other artifacts (for that matter, entire article neglects where colorless and artifact partake in the mechanical pie.)
By Mark Rosewater
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/mechanical-color-pie-2021-changes-2021-10-18
Ah, amuseum: I missed the part where adding custom cards to Forge is (relatively) easy.
@zz038: You can search cards by user.
Note also that the purpose of this thread is to create smaller focus, so "various cards that I have posted"is just so broad and ill-defined that I'm going to ignore it.
Caught up on your other set though.
I am not trying to make the computer code to be necessarily more terse than the English printed text. Rather, together with the rules of the game, the short computer code can be automatically parsed and combined with the rest of the program. For example, with the example I gave,
:counter,:target, and:spellwould be already defined (and must be FOSS, so that you can easily read the definition, understand the rules of the game precisely, and fix it if it is wrong or if you are making a variant game), so the spell text can just be coded as[:counter [:target :spell]]. (In the case of the damaging effect, the:frompart is implied; some kinds of effects would need to specify it explicitly, but in this case the default (:from :this) would be implied automatically since it is not specified explicitly.) Of course, more complicated scenarios will need to use more complicated code, but sometimes simple codes can be used for the card texts even though the codes for the rules (which implement these simpler codes) are much more complicated.As a custom card designer, you can easily create new cards and sets and formats in Forge.
Whereas XMage data (cards, sets) are hardcoded in java files. Thus designers would need IDE, compiler, and knowledge of Java and the engine code in order to make playable cards.
Whereas Forge data (cards, sets, decks, etc.) are external text files, that can be added to the game without any programming experience or compiling software. The syntax are human-readable and writable.
It's like what @zzo38 said about separating the data and the engine. Forge lets you add new cards and sets without touching the engine. Obviously only works with existing mechanics and keywords that the engine understands. But you can add new mechanics by modifying the engine. (Difficulty depends on the mechanics' complexity.)
I've written a bunch of new mechanics, keywords, cards, sets, and played them on Forge. I even overhauled the UI for better viewing on 4k monitors. The most difficult part is coding the AI to understand how to play new mechanics.
Forge has a great quest mode (in the same spirit as the first MTG video game by MicroProse, set in Shandalar.) You start with just a few packs of cards, make a deck from those cards, then battle AI to win credits to buy more cards and packs to upgrade your collection and decks.
One thing XMage is probably better at is playing online against other humans.
Is it? A brief glance makes me wonder if it's any better than XMage.
I find that my biggest wish regarding cleave is that the text within the brackets should be highlighted so that it's easier to separate mentally from the rest of the text.
my censor was originitially only for white and black faction. the demon is homage to cheap demons with drawbacks , Juzam Djinn, Phyrexian Negator et al. Hexdoom is evergreen in my sets, allowing black to continue this tradition of summoning creatures.
I thought about that token version, but it always comes at the cost of supporting multiple token types, though: "Create two 3/1 red Elemental Shaman creature tokens with haste. [Sacrifice them at the beginning of the next end step.]" still works cleanly.
I personally regard "mana value" as a mostly lateral move, though I assume no longer including the term "cost" will stop/reduce the confusion of someone saying "its converted mana cost is
".
I've some more ideas for censor, though not yet posted on this site. It can be pretty creative if you try really hard. Even a tutor similar to Dig Up
ex.
Create a 5/5 black Demon creature token [with hexdoom]. (sacrifice when targeted by spell or ability)
Each player [except your opponents] gains 7 life.
Search your library for two [Plains] cards, exile them, and shuffle. Put one card exiled this way into your hand and the other card on top of your library.
I haven't paid much attention to recent sets. but came upon a new official term "mana value" to replace "converted mana cost". definitely a huge improvement.
I use "becomes also" instead of "becomes ... in addition to its other types".
So MaRo recently could't even explain why the word cleave was even chosen. It makes not much sense with the D&D usage nor either of its Meriam-Webster definitions. Actually, not even MaRo's guess that the word was chosen to make sense in the setting is all that understandable to me since cleave is like third tier for "Innistrad" word maps and even lower tier for "Vampire Wedding".
While "cleave" can fit with a brutal horror; don't get me wrong. But in a setting of transforming monsters and fitting the theme of one spell becoming something else, how about "distort"/"distortion".
@dude1818 "I associate the word [cleave] with damaging multiple things at once"
To me, cleave as this usage now common in video games is also misnomer. A more proper term would be sweep.
sweep:
n. "a movement in an arc"
v. "cover the entire range of"