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)
Yep, though I put it before the ability the way forecast/boast are :
Sorcerous –
, 
: Target player discards a card.
I think it is important to keep the timing restriction and the cost restriction apart.
In do-over world you could literally make activated abilities instants and sorceries that way.
I definitely agree with the spirit behind that last idea ("Sorcerous"), but I think you don't need the extra vocab word:
as a sorcery: ~some effect~
Yes. But that's not something influenced by conjure at all. Before conjure it was already correct that Helm of Kaldra stuff worked in black-border, but all that other stuff works only in silver-border.
What I mean is that the stuff that works in black-border could become more viableas a cardest's theme with conjure since you can increase the as-fan of cardnames with it in a way that is more open than tokens alone - some entirelynew design space being any zone other than the battlefield.
It's fine for "Card with this specific name" - we already have that mechanic permitted. (Helm of Kaldra)
But you can't do anything that un sets did with it. Nothing with length, or vowels. Even "Number of words in the name" varies.
A card name is just the primary key of the effective text of the cards (for database objects) (except for some Un-cards, but those can be ignored), and is one of the characteristics of an object (normally the same as the primary key, but not necessarily). Of course when the text is translated, everything will need to be translated to the way those words are written in the other language (card names, types, subtypes, colors, etc).
I think that the lists (for spell books or whatever they are) ought to be part of the Oracle texts (there are two cases where they are part of the Comprehensive Rules). The printed text can abbreviate them by giving the name, if the entire list will not fit.
Even if there are issues to to bad translation, that shouldn't change the meaning, but it does make it confusing and so should be avoided.
I expect that the cardnames in the rules text and the cardnames next to the mana cost will match in all languages (at least in digital - in the past there have been issues with multiple translations to a single English cardname in paper), so I don't see a problem with that.
Cardnames-matter is even harder in digital; because each player will see the cards with their own local language.
In positive responses, I am happy that conjure now finally provides a mechanic that makes the cardnames matter set finally feasible.
The Astral set is heavily relying on randomization as the feature of digital card games that it applies to its designs. The other one is "big lists" (similar to what the spellbook seems to be) and "hidden information".
Conjure is problematic if you cannot look up the card that is conjured, which might be a problem with the "spellbook".
Perpetual changes and conjur of a well-defined card, and also seek are okay applications of digital, though there are some worrisome design among the cards. E. g. anything that mimics Urza, Academy Headmaster should be silver-bordered even in digital IMO.
The Astral set has nothing to do with Magic. That was a digital RPG that happened to use the Magic rules for its deckbuilding component.
Conjure is pretty similar to Garth, except for the part where tokens can get shuffled into your deck and not go poof.
Un-sets are garbage for a similar reason - they don't actually work under the core rules.
Conjure doesn't seem to be anything to do with RNG? It seems to be generally used to make one specific card, like the guy who conjures a Stormfront Pegasus into your hand when he attacks (Wingsteed Trainer, that's the bunny). Shoreline Scout turns a card into a Tropical Island, Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv makes a Shivan Dragon... it's just Tome of the Infinite that does weird RNG things, and that's the fault of that one design rather than the conjure word.
SecretInfiltrator said: >
, Spot three artifacts you control: Tap target creature.
Common Activated Abilities requirements could be put in the cost part, before the colon :
Metalcraft -- Control three artifacts: ~some effect~
Threshold -- Have seven cards in your graveyard: ~some effect~
Including a new keyword "Sorcerous", to denote an ability only activated as sorcery.
, Sorcerous: ~some effect~
"Field" instead of "battlefield" seem good to me; not all permanents will be engaged in combat, anyways.
One concern that I have is, would there be the rules for them written out fully, in order to know exactly their working? Having read some things about Hearthstone (although I didn't play, I know some people who do), it seems to be more difficult to understand than Magic: the Gathering due to some rules being less clear, more confusing, some cards having text differently describing than their actual effect, etc. When making up a game, you should write the rules, so that you can read so that you will know how to play this game.
I like Perpetually- it's the kind of feature that can fit well into a card game digitally while not changing the feel of the game.
Seek is something that I'm a bit more wary of, though that's more for deckbuilding to eliminate the random aspect of Seek rather than Seek itself.
Conjure is the one I'm hesitant with, because rng was something Hearthstone was heavily criticized over.
Not to mention Magic already did this once. It's called the Astral set, and I don't think those cards cheapened the old Microprose game...
This has a lot to do with restraint. As long as they don't make Arena unrecognizable from paper Magic, then it shouldn't be a big problem. It will admittedly feel weird, however, if the Digital Historic format deviates considerably from Historic.
Every other format has cards that are only available or only playable in that format. I don't see a problem with Digital Historic joining that group. It's not like Un-cards or Commander precons broke the game.
How long before we can call Arena Magic-in-name-only? Before or after they stop bothering with the actual card game?
See Announcement
I saw it and posted a followup on his set, over here. It sounds like he's all set for now :)
Messing with Forge, several phrases I use.
"withdraw" for "return from field to hand"
whole bunch of evergreen keywords (my project to provide all color pairs with balanced evergreen keywords. Each color pair gets 3 positive and 1 negative evergreen keyword)
Have you tried Forge? Am confident it is the best way to play Magic (on electronic device).
Card physical dimensions necessitates terse rules text. Am not convinced computer language can be more terse than natural human language. Human language may consists of unwritten implications and suppositions. Otoh every detail must be spelled out in order for computers to calculate accurately, according to intended purpose. Humans can (usually) understand despite (some) omissions.
Sorry, fishMaster. The site was down for a bit. I bet nobody has seen your comment.
Perhaps if I bump this someone who's here more often will come along and help you out.
Hey, I just got here, and am trying to work on making a set. The layout and workings of the page are really confusing to me though. I can't seem to generate a set skeleton, and none of my cards show up in the card list. Is there any kind of tutorial resource for getting to know the site?
I kinda like the idea of writing a program that would present the "true" state-engine that magic is. However, if you think it would be more consistent that reading and interpreting those rules from a rulebook, I think I might have some bad news for new - software programs of this complexity are often riddled with bugs. Basically we're talking about a more nuanced MTGO (not arena since that's simplified) and you might know that MTGO isn't exactly the paragon of, well, anything really.
So I would imagine that what would ideally act as a constant/standard to which compare results of specific rules interactions, might just become a long list of legacy bugs that takes forever to ever become addressed - especially knowing the track record of WotC digital/software/online departments.
I would call it a "nice exercise" but dunno about relying on it.
Yes, it is mostly from computer programming, although mathematical structure has something to do with it as well (especially if you are programming in Haskell, which isn't a programming language I really use much to write actual programs (I prefer C), although I do sometimes use it).
You can't say they are equal to each other because they are not value of the same type ("type" here in the sense used in Haskell, not the sense it has in Magic: the Gathering, which is different), so you can't compare them for equality. So, if the name of an object can be based on the subtype that a token is created with, then it must be embedded in the possibility of names. While using the spelling in English of the individual words would be a possible way to do that, that violates the AST principle that I mentioned, doesn't seem very nice mathematically, and also is potentially confusing for players of foreign cards. (Actually, it is how I thought it worked before I found out otherwise.)
An example of a "mana step" is rule 601.2g. There are some other rules that allow mana steps too, but mainly it is rule 601.2g.
"And, at least to me, what makes sense mathematically is that the two objects don't "have the same name"; the names just happen to have the same spelling.
To me, you're saying that when the values (spelling and words) of two things exactly equal one another, that in some world it makes sense that those things... wouldn't actually equal one another? That just doesn't say "mathematically sensical" to me. Maybe you have a different perspective on what constitutes "mathematical" to me. You definitely have a deeper background in programming, which is where it sounds like you're actually coming from.
A one-shot property is a property of an object or player which is affected by one-shot effects and not by continuous effects (although some of them may have continuous effects, such as counters). A persistent property is a one-shot property that persists across zone-changes (such as ownership and initial text).
Maybe it's just how tired I am, but this didn't clarify anything for me.
A mana step is when you get a step inside of some procedure to activate mana abilities (currently, the rules don't seem to call this step anything, and that makes it difficult to discuss).
Could you give an example of this?
It isn't an entirely different game (nearly everything is the same; the effective rule changes are less than Wizards of the Coast did actually).
And, at least to me, what makes sense mathematically is that the two objects don't "have the same name"; the names just happen to have the same spelling. It is an enumeration, like I said, and they are two separate enumerations. The rest of the rules seem to support this use, but the interpretation of rule 612.2a seems to be different.
A one-shot property is a property of an object or player which is affected by one-shot effects and not by continuous effects (although some of them may have continuous effects, such as counters). A persistent property is a one-shot property that persists across zone-changes (such as ownership and initial text). A mana step is when you get a step inside of some procedure to activate mana abilities (currently, the rules don't seem to call this step anything, and that makes it difficult to discuss).
I feel like zzo38 is trying to create an entirely new game that happens to use Magic cards as the pieces
You realize that in many ways it's more confusing if two objects with the same name don't have the same name, right? Also... That's an incredibly niche situation. Linking the cards you mentioned for later readers: Artificial Evolution, Giant Slug
DFCs can be face-down, though, I think? They can be placed onto the battlefield face-down. They just can't be turned face-down later.
What is a one-shot or persistent property? What is a mana step??