Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-04 02:25:05)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-04 02:25:05)
@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"
Or it is more complicated because now you have to look up the part of the ability that changes by censoring a specific word.
There are also questions of design space etc. There are many versions of this ability e. g. I've recently seen one that specifically only alters the wording of the target e. g. turning Plummet into Murder.
I think the concept can be taken into different directions.
@amuseum- Censor seems much simpler, since you only omit one word from the censored version, and the omitted word is next to the Censor cost.
Cleave is just like my "censor" mechanic, 8 years ago. See Censor Therapy.
I'm not a huge fan of cleave. First, the name has anti-flavor: I associate the word with damaging multiple things at once, not this even less flavorful thing than cycling. I'm also quite surprised they were able to clear it with the localization teams
I think Runo's neat, though
This mechanic - including the square brackets in many cases - has been a repeateadly (independenty?) designed custom mechanic. I always felt that the mechanic's one weak point that needed fixing was those brackets though. It makes for a busy text box. I'm surprised to see they didn't find a better treatment.
Also the name of the mechanic is rather a let-down.
Speaking of let-downs: Runo Stromkirk, am I right?
In other news: Blood tokens are colorless artifact tokens,and I really feel they missed a chance to make them red artifact tokens.
Currently the Magic: the Gathering template in TeXnicard (and possibly other programs) uses square brackets for a different purpose. This will need to be fixed in order to allow cleave to be used. The ASCII form of loyalty abilities also uses square brackets (rule 107.7; I don't know if they will have to change this), so this will need to be handled properly, too.
I find the Cleave mechanic quite surprising. Conceptwise, a cost to do a broader version of an ability isn't odd. The way it's implemented onto the card, with the removed words in brackets has a weird look and feel.