Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-03 01:45:56)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-03 01:45:56)
Huh. I'd guess that if you're only ever going to draft it once, then a set could actually be very small. After all, you only have 3 boosters per player; so you certainly don't need there to be many rares or any mythics in the set. (But you do want to avoid duplicates cropping up - so can't settle on just three rares each). Uncommons are indeed the sticking point; since you need each player to see a guiding one in their starting pack - and ideally a different one. And then you want a decent chance at seeing a duplicate among the three packs but it to not be too likely. You have, what, nine uncommon per player in the draft, so you probably need about 20 uncommons in the set, to meet those criteria.
Then fill it out with however many commons you need to fit out the deck archetypes you have made. Given the absolute need for basic functions (every set needs a bit of direct damage, creature removal, counterspell, combat tricks, etc.) it's actually going to be harder to crop down the commons to a sensible level. Still; you could probably get away with maybe 100 of them. (20 in each colour means you're going to see a lot of duplicates; but that's probably ok).
But if you want it to be draftable more than once, and not just be the same set of cards each time, then requirements are going to go up. Still; I reckon you could get away with sub-200 reasonably enough. 150 seems like a plausible lower limit, if my reasoning is valid.
Of course the smarmy answer would be that the absolute limit is three cards - a rare, an uncommon and a common. But it would be a very boring draft.
For what it's worth? My two small sets work ok-ish for a draft, at about 100 cards each. But a second draft of either of them gets very samey.
I have made up many cards. Often what I find is not making up the name of cards, maybe someone else has ideas about it. (Cost, subtypes, flavor text, and other changes, can also be considered.)
I also have ideas about possible challenges, some of which I had not made up any cards by myself.
What I think would be helpful is a NNTP server to discuss custom Magic: the Gathering cards. (I set up some newsgroups on my own NNTP server, which may be used, I suppose.)
Sup, I have a question and this felt like the best place to ask:
What's the smallest set I can make that's still draftable?
It's obviously doable with 249 cards (101/80/53/15), older sets had only 20 fewer uncommons so that might work too. Conspiracy had 210 (89/68/43/10+65) but it's not a regular draft environment, I don't know if it works as a regular draft.
Can you do it with the equivalent of a small set? Smaller? Larger?
I'm all for Bizarro Gatewatch, and they would likely be more popular than the Gatewatch. They would just have to work like the Praetors of New Phyrexia: Encounter them individually and work up to the team-up.
I feel the Gatewatch is turning into something similar e. g. Teferi is using Gatewatch resources to make BRO happen, but not everyone shows up in the set.
If the Gatewatch hadn't immediately followed their founding with another team up on Innistrad and then another team-up onKaladesh and then another team-up on Amonkhet... we'd have seen far less Gatewatch fatigue.
Ixalan e. g. got praise for being a break following only Jace - despite following Jace of all options! :)
This was the plot of War of the Spark
I feel like this idea is something that was being considered until it became clear people were annoyed with the Gatewatch getting so many cards over every other planeswalker.
I think having a group of villainous planeswalkers whose interests align to forming an alliance could be an interesting idea. They'd need to be at least characters that could still have some complexity and could still somewhat be rooted for to work I think.
I found another possible confusion in the rules:
"Visit -- [Effect]" means "Whenever you roll to visit your Attractions, if the result is equal to a number that is lit up on this Attraction, [effect]."
To roll to visit your Attractions, roll a six-sided die. Then if you control one or more Attractions with a number lit up that is equal to that result, each of those Attractions has been "visited" and its visit ability triggers.
It is unclear if visit abilities work if the permanent is not an Attraction. (There is also the question of if a non-Attraction permanent is considered to have lights (similar to rule 208.3; the text may define power/toughness but it does not effectively have any if it is a non-creature permanent). However, even if it does effectively have lights, it does not answer the original question.)
I think that a more clear distinction between normative and non-normative rules is needed (for example, rule 120.3f is normative while 702.15f is non-normative); many more things could also be improved (not only for Unfinity, although Unfinity is one that has many more problems than usual).
I forgot text box exchanging is now part of the rules. Well, this implicitly answers the question. If "exchanging text boxes" means "exchanging rules text", then everything in the text box must be considered rules text or have "no rules meaning" (e. g. reminder text, flavor text, ability words, flavor words,
watermarksdecorative icons) - since the "lights" are considered part of the text box, even if not explicitly called out as rules text.To be fair: Unfinity probably put a lot of stress on the rules team.
Yes. Furthermore, whether or not it is considered to be a part of the rules text is important, even if it is copiable. Some effects might care whether or not they are considered to be a part of the text box, e.g. if two Attractions are made into creatures and then Exchange of Words targets them.
Yep. They have a list of copiable values and lit up lights need to be on there. Alternatively they need to make it explicit that the numbers are part of the rules text, which is already on the list.
Mark Rosewater said lights are copiable. (Still, I think that the rules should be made clear; they aren't clear.)
"Open an attraction" means to move the top card of your attraction deck (which is a pile of face-down Astrotorium cards in the command zone) to the battlefield (face up).
The junkyard is not a special zone; it is a pile in the command zone. Astrotorium cards that would go to any zone other than exile, battlefield, or command zone, go to the junkyard instead.
Some rules are unclear. Does an Attraction work if it loses its subtypes? The rules for visit say specifically Attractions, so I would guess not. Lights are not mentioned as the object's characteristics, and it is unclear if it is supposed to count as part of its initial text (the selection made for Cryptic Spires does count as part of its text; the rules say so). Also, how does name stickers working if applied to an object that has multiple names?
so "open an attraction" is just very similar to "assemble a contraption"? put an attraction from your attraction deck into play. (cf. put a contraption from your contraption deck into a sprocket.)
there's also a special zone called "junkyard" just for attractions that were destroyed.
I would want also if more cards will be good mainly for use in puzzles, too (not necessarily if exclusively so).
Can a Magic: the Gathering puzzle be made up as good as Mitrofanov's chess study? Is there anything like the Babson task? Are some puzzles with unofficial cards, or unusual stipulations, or unusual rules?
Although, even real rules and cards can be used as well. For example, it does not have to be a usual game since a puzzle (that specifically says so) could use Team vs Team, Archenemy, etc. When teams and subgames are possible, then there is also the possibility that a puzzle might involve conceding, too.
Will you make up any new puzzles? I have made up some puzzles, and I have a NNTP set up to post any new puzzles that you or I might make up, too.
I also wrote the Codex of Magic: the Gathering, which describes some conventions for puzzles. (There are a few puzzles whose solutions only work because of the Codex, e.g. because unknown cards are put directly into the graveyard from the library.)
Pseudo-Vintage and Extended pseudo-Vintage are also relevant for puzzles.
zzo38 wrote:"However, there is rule 201.3 with "interchangeable names". I think this means that a single "legal name" may have more than one English spelling (did they fail to consider this in Unfinity?)."
dude1818 wrote: "Interchangeable names actually refers to things like Universes Within versions of Secret Lair cards (see 201.3c). This is different from secondary names like the Godzilla skins (see 201.6)"
I haven't checked the rules, but before the sticker update the interchangeable names don't really offer an easily solution to issues where interchangeable names have different number of words (e. g. Mike, the Dungeon Master and Othelm, Sigardian Outcast). Right now, as opposed to alternate names (e. g. Godzilla series), there is no "main name" that supersedes the other name. At the moment interchangeable names don't replace each other, but both are equal - truly interchangeable. (all this considers only eternal rules)
Yes, I know that, and I do mean the interchangeable names (like Universes Within versions of Secret Lair cards).
Interchangeable names actually refers to things like Universes Within versions of Secret Lair cards (see 201.3c). This is different from secondary names like the Godzilla skins (see 201.6)
Yes, that would also work; requiring that they can't go in the middle, but can go before and after (like the original name is only a single word), would also work. I still think that stickers should never be allowed to match the original names, though. (Although two cards that have originally the same name, and the same sequence of name stickers applied to them, will have the same name as each other.)
About choosing names, I think it is sense to require to choose a "legal name" which is the key in the database (although some might correspond to a different parts of one card (see rule 201.4)). This never matches names including stickers or names of tokens that are not explicitly given a name by the effect that creates them. However, there is rule 201.3 with "interchangeable names". I think this means that a single "legal name" may have more than one English spelling (did they fail to consider this in Unfinity?). ("Legal name" means that the name itself is legal, not necessarily the card it refers to.)
I think, the rules would be fine if, in eternal, you could put stickers only before an after the card's printed name - issues only arise - as far as I have noticed - from actually caring about the number of words in a card's printed name.
I'm also not a fan of not being able to choose a card name as altered by stickers. It's consistent, but opens a door to weird corner cases.
I do not like the rule for name stickers in non-Un-cards mentioned in the Unfinity Release Notes. There was previously a problematic rule for implicit token names, although that rule has been corrected. Now the stickers are problematic (although the Comprehensive Rules changes have not yet been released, so it is not completely sure by now), in the way that the tokens previously were but have now been fixed.
Therefore, I will suggest to substitute the rule (in non-Un-games only): Name stickers can only go after parts of the name that are not stickers, although you can place them before other name stickers if desired. Names with stickers and those without never match each other; for a name to match, the name without stickers must be the same and the sequence of name stickers placed must be the same. (Effects that care about the spelling of name stickers still works; this is a property of the stickers.)
I found out that the ticket symbol is {TK}. I had the same question, and someone else also asked, and now they answered that question.
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.