Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-05 19:50:46)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-05 19:50:46)
I think resurrecting green a distant third would be more likely if they ever went that route. They seem to be liking (and you seem to be completely ignoring) the new one-sided fight better, though.
I believe your premise is improper. When talking about the pie, color combination don't have enemies. It's that the two colors may or may not happen to share an enemy or ally. Besides, color combinations, designwise, are unlikely to ever be placed in opposition to monocolor factions, making it entirely unnecessary to try and figure that out anyway.
You need a six-colors pie to be able to define triads of enemies. A six-color pie gives you enemy triads, shard allies and pairs whose relationship I like to envision as very ambiguous. Here's a thread where I discussed the idea, without mechanical elaborations.
Whereas the allied color pie is one side of a coin, the enemy color pie is the other side of this same coin. When certain pairs of colors are arranged around a circle, each color pair has a common enemy color. However this has only been done for half the color pairs. Thus there is an opportunity to complete the pie for the remaining color pairs. Such that each "enemy" color pair gets its single antagonist.
For instance, white-blue's enemy is red. But who is white-red's enemy? The color pie as shown to us by WotC omits this important information. If a new pie were to be developed that arranged the "enemy" colors adjacently, then it appears white-red's antagonist is actually green. That may seem counter-intuitive, because that is information that has been hidden or neglected since the beginning.
I believe this knowledge will enrich the color pie and interplay between colors, and provide new rivalries and associates. This could then extend into the mechanics and flavors of cards and stories.
I'm a fan of P/T on noncreatures. A possibly valuable tool
No secret that Green is my least favorite color. I yawn at every green card that gets spoiled. Back in the days, I used to build Stompy and Elf ramp-combos, but that got old.
One thing I noticed is how few spells and abilities Green has that would be used on opponent's creatures. They always pride themselves to make the game more interactive, yet here is an entire color that scarcely target opponents' creatures.
Yea yea green is about creatures and combat, but what color isn't nowadays? Even the bad creature color Blue is forced to prioritize combat.
Green has a few niche effects that target opposing creatures. It has the most anti-flying hosers, but that's too narrow to maindeck. Rarely even worth to sideboard.
Another effect which it almost monopolizes is fighting. However it doesn't fit all archetypes, such as combo and control and tokens. Moreover it just feels like more combat outside combat.
Green occasionally gets fringe effects. Small burn occasionally sneaks into a set, despite Maro's detest.
One effect Green used to get quite a bit is tapping down. I think this could moved from White, who already has so many combat tricks and control effects. In fact, almost the whole Snake tribe in Kamigawa had this ability, and the tapped creatures couldn't untap at the next upkeep. Green also used to have fog spells that sometimes kept the creatures tapped for the next upkeep.
However, this effect overlaps greatly with Blue. Just keep Blue as the primary color, green secondary, and white distant third.
It's not mana. It doesn't go in your mana pool. And vehicles aren't dumbed down, since they have no precedent in Magic.
Vehicle, besides very dumbed down, the most interesting part is putting P/T values on non-creature cards. Will we see that on manlands?
actually Energy seems more efficient replacement for Gold tokens. One symbol replaces entire "Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool." Sure Energy is insular, but it reads so much better. except when they have too much symbols together. they should streamline when more than five of the same mana symbols are together to avoid miscounting.
e.g. Pay eight
. Gain six 
.
Could or should
be a mana type or not? It has a symbol, functions as mana, generated like mana. The main difference is Energy sticks around between steps and phases.
Enegy is so much simpler than Recharge :(
I fabricate giving any Tesla person tinker flashbacks?
http://www.magicspoiler.com/mtg-spoiler/skysovereign-consul-flagship/
Woah, they finally made a vehicle mechanic. Apparently it's a lot simpler if the creatures just drive the vehicle and don't use any of their own abilities :)
The other cards are pretty surpising as well. (And the fox artifact is so pretty.)
@amuseum Typically, tokenmaking abilities on planeswalkers don't take that much space (they only get wordy when other stuff is involved, like Kiora's emblems or Chandra and Sarkhan's sacrifice abilities).
Personally, I like how easy it'll make to find cards that make tokens (as opposed to cards that mentions tokens or use "nontoken") in databases.
I'm not sure if I was clear in my original post, but I do support the creation of a specific keyword action for making tokens.
I'm very much a fan of the fact that this action was given shorthand. I just don't love the term. I'm sure it will grow on me, though.
I appreciate the keyword, even if I'm not thrilled about the word 'create'. As it stands, anyone who 'puts a token on the battlefield' still has to be told what that expression means (what tokens are, and what they do aren't necessarily intuitive.) So if you've got to send someone to the rulebook anyway, you might as well keyword it.
Agreed
I advocated for this long time and already done this for my custom cards years ago. I have used both "summon" for flavor and "create" for more layman readibility and for cross-compatibility with another game I was working on.
This is a very great change. First, tokens are so common now and huge mechanic in card games, it deserves a simple phrase. Second, it would facilitate rider effects. Third, yes it saves a lot of space. Esp. For planeswalkers cards that have limited space per effect. And many PWs create tokens. Fourth, it reads and types faster. When you make a huge amount of cards, a simple intuitive word helps your brain process faster and helps organizing the cards. Also as a player, you process it faster, helping you focus on strategy.
I feel like the fact that it specifies the token's attributes means that the only players who would confuse summon or another keyword with searching their library are the players who already confuse the current template with that (or e.g. the players who think Llanowar Elves taps to search your library for a Forest).
I do find it extremely bizarre. I mean, yes, it's a sensible concern from one point of view - it'd feel quite frustrating to keep opening A1 and B2 when you need A1 and A2. But that just points to the fact that the mechanic is much better when you can mix-and-match.
I find their choices here particularly bizarre given that back in Lorwyn, with Champion (Wren's Run Packmaster, Lightning Crafter etc) they deliberately and specifically avoided requiring you to match a card with another one specific card (the way that e.g. Pokémon cards do). They made the right choice in Lorwyn and the wrong one here. All I can say is I hope that when they next visit a plane with mechanical golems they revisit the meld mechanic in a mix-and-match way. (MaRo has stated on his blog that meld can be reused in different ways in the future, not restricted to pairing two specific cards.)
Finding some terminology for this is long overdue.
I might have preferred "Summon", which has been used in other games (most recently Codex Card Time Strategy), and fits nicely with "summoning sickness". But Jack's got a sensible point that it could be taken as implying searching your library, or even Elvish Piper/Dramatic Entrance from your hand.
I like it. I think it'll be intuitive to most people, and making the template shorter is really valuable, both for making common cards easier to read, and for squeezing more effect onto rare cards.
There's several clunky phrases like "put onto the battlefield". I imagine they've tested several phrases to keyword, but wanted to be really sure before using any of them.
I'm not completely happy with "create" but I can't think of anything better. FWIW, I think of it as meaning creating the token, not the creature. I think the keyword needs to make it clear that you take a token and put it into the game, "summon" might imply search your library or something.
I do wish they had chosen a more universal word, though I'm having trouble thinking of one. "Created a 1/1 white Soldier" sounds off when compared to "Create a 3/3 Golem."
Perhaps "Summon a 2/2 green Elf?" I think that sounds better, though I guess it is reminiscent both of Yugioh and the defunct card type Summon.
I like how it saves space. I don't like the way it sounds and feels when making creature tokens. It feels more right with artifact tokens, which I imagine will be prevalent in Kaladesh.
I think it's funny how the very first card we get to see with the new wording shows an example of how it can be awkward. "Create a tapped Zombie" is uncomfortable phrasing. Of course, maybe it only bothers me because it's new.
What are people's opinions of the keywording of "put a token onto the battlefield"? The first example was shown on the upcoming Rise from the Tides FNM promo card, and Mark Rosewater (and others) confirmed on Twitter that this is the template starting in Kaladesh. My question to you is, do you like the change and what do you think it foretells about Kaladesh?
In my opinion, I'm not a fan. It's convenient, sure, and that's not to say I'm against it, but overall I'm pretty meh about it. Contrast that with dies, which I really liked keyworded.
I was a little surprised they didn't do this for SOI, considering investigate was a mechanic, although I guess the flavor was off. (You're not creating the clues, you're finding them.) I'd be surprised if they introduce this without it mattering in some way in Kaladesh.
I guess that makes sense
One of the articles today mentioned there had been 2 sets at common originally, but it meant people got mismatched sets too often. I guess opening only one meld card is less feel-bad than opening 2 that don't meld together?
Does anyone else find it bizarre that there are only three sets of meld cards? You'd think they would do at least one more, at uncommon.
Emblem of Nobility
I created something very similar to escalate over on Noonday Sun and friends, and I'm excited to have the idea see print.
Meld is bizarre. Needing two cards like this isn't something I would have imagined them doing.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/over-moon-part-1-2016-06-27
Woah, wizards went ahead and made mecha, in innistrad, without even waiting for kaladesh.
Called "meld". A fairly simple version with one front-face to one back-face, not mix-and-match. But it shows they thought through a similar set of rules problems that Tesla project did on Goblin Artisans and came to similar conclusions.
They also added an entwine variant for "pay to choose an additional mode", which might make making Peculiar cards easier :)
@Circeus on Corrupted Tombstone: Excluding mana producing non-basic land abilities that happen to include discard, you must play a one cost spell on round one which happens to somehow include discard to ramp up to four mana on round four.
I'm sure Shadows will include lots of effects that will help you discard, and players will probably get to turn on their gravestones on turn four or five. I just don't think many players will be packing the necessary 10 1-cost cards in their deck required to get reliable 'fast mana'. I presume, most of the time, it will function in a similar way to Serra Avenger (get played later than its casting cost would suggest, but is still very cost efficient, and it an excellent card to play two of on round 4.)