Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-03 01:48:23)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-03 01:48:23)
@amuseum- I figured Alliance’s name was in reference to gang alliances rather than the Ally type mechanic.
Alliance is basically "creaturefall". name is probably homage to the similar Ally tribal mechanic.
Blitz is like Evoke, but more rules baggage.
Most interesting card yet seems Urabrask. really screws over opponent, particularly blue control.
I don't vibe with shield counters, probably because of the setting. A friend also pointed out that at base they just kind of work similarly to totem armor (not identically, I am aware) and that probably lowers my opinion of it.
Casualty also misses with the flavor for me, but I actually like the mechanic. I think having to tie a power to the creature sacrificed is an interesting way of making a balance for each card.
I like connive.
Blitz is aight. I don't love it from the little I've seen so far, but I don't see anything wrong with it either. Maybe other cards will make the mechanic interesting to play with.
Alliance is cool. I'm more likely to give ability words more slack because they have more room with what they can do.
No opinion on Hideaway yet.
I like connive. I have a soft spot for those keyword actions your creatures can do, like explore.
Hideaway is a solid improvement and now quite similar to my old hoard keyword ability. Thumbs up.
Blitz and casualty are neat.
Alliance... I forgot what alliance does. I got distracted by the other ability word that returns voting to the commander product.
Is it just on creature ETB? It's like getting an ability word for "Whenever you gain life" or "Whenever a creature dies" - it just is a very basic aspect of gameplay and we've seen it a lot. It won't revolutionize how I think about card designs and is fairly tame in flavor.
The common land cycle is neat.
I like the pun on Anhelo, the Painter a lot. :)
plenty of stuff to discuss.
color arcs, Shield counters, Connive, Hideaway, Casualty, Blitz, Alliance
There are currently 23,094 unique magic cards. Taking seven cards at random with replacement, there are 6.9e26 possible opening hands. (That assumes no limit to the number of copies in a deck, but applying a 4-of rule wouldn't change it by more than an order of magnitude or so)
There is a way to be interpreted that the order of cards in the library is sometimes not relevant when considering if it is same game state or not; e.g. if the library (or a hidden face-down pile, otherwise) is shuffled, then the order is indeterminite and only collapses when the card is drawn, scried, etc (until it is shuffled again). However, that is only true if you want to count the past and ignore the future. If you want the game state of the future as well as the past, then the order of the library is relevant and maybe also future coin tosses, etc. But, this is not the only way. Counting all cards in a shuffled library even if you cannot see them, but not counting coin tosses, also is a different possible way to do it.
The other thing to be considered is timestamps (although timestamps are not always relevant). Everything inherently has an order. And then, there is history-based effects, effects that take cards from the sideboard, playing the same cards but using a different version of the rules (where some of the differences might or might not be significant), etc.
So, counting game states is really much more complicated. (But, even in chess, there is such thing as a 75 move rule, etc)
(And then, there is conspiracy, vanguard, etc)
> Haha I really didn't expect anyone would want to pick this up lol
I am an inveterate sucker for nerd bait :)
> It makes me wonder if there has ever been a 'duplicate' game-state in magic...
Your guess sounds about right to me, that if you include the library order, then probably not, but if you only look at cards in hand and in other zones, then probably. There's a lot of possible seven hands out of sixty cards, but there might be precon or degenerate decks that include a fair number of duplicates and get played enough.
> "Exile either has a card or not (no order)"
Some cards can exile cards as ordered pile e. g. Mangara's Tome.
Haha I really didn't expect anyone would want to pick this up lol
Thanks Jack :)
I've gotta say, this really puts into perspective how this game can be mind-bogglingly complex, lmao
It makes me wonder if there has ever been a 'duplicate' game-state in magic... Sort of like how they say a deck of cards is never shuffled the same way twice in human history (because 52! is a huge ass number)...
I was thinking there might have been, since having the same seven cards in your opening hand might be not that unlikely for a popular deck that is played globally by millions of people... but then I remembered that isn't counting for their library, which given that it is 60 cards (maybe with some repeats), is probably close to anywhere from like 30! to 60!, meaning it also never has likely been shuffled identically...
So, I guess the moral of the story is, even if you feel that play patterns are getting stale, just remember that nobody has ever played the exact same game of magic that you are about to play!
A Lot :)
I'm not sure where to start for a full answer. If you had a sixty-card deck of unique cards, it could be in 8320987112741390144276341183223364380754172606361245952449277696409600000000000000 different states, and if you considered all possible decks the number would be much, much, higher.
Other zones have similar calculations. The graveyard would have approximately as many possibilities as the library. Slightly less because cards can usually only be in one or the other. Exile either has a card or not (no order), so for one deck with unique cards that's only 1152921504606846976 possibilities. All these apply to your opponent.
The most complicated would be the battlefield. In the rules it tracks what order permanents entered, but assuming we're ignoring that except when it actually matters for a static effect, you just have some cards. Except that each card can have up to 50 counters on. At the simplest, that would be something like 5160 (each can be not there, there with zero counters, there with 1 counter, etc). I couldn't find an exact number, but that's approximately 2800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Obviously it's more complicated than that, e.g. if the cards were all equipment they could all be attached to different things, but also, if every card is a permanent you have less options for the stack.
And then you multiply all those numbers together. And then square them because your opponent's deck can also be in those situations. And then raise them several more powers if you can be in nested subgames with Shahrazad :)
So far, that's something like 100000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (with a LOT of guessing, it will actually be quadrillions of times bigger or smaller several times over). And we haven't yet considered a full deck.
If you made a deck from one each of all 23000 legal cards, it would have a number of possible orders something like "3 followed by 90333 zeroes" which I COULD paste into the comment field but won't. Of course that wouldn't pass the "can shuffle by hand unaided" test
I just had a wild idea...
How many possible game states are there in magic the gathering?
'infinity' is a boring answer, so what if the repetitions and values were artificially capped at some arbitrary number, like 50?
BTW, a 'game state' would count every card in every zone (including things like stack and mana pool), as well as every resource/effect in every zone, in just one moment.
It would probably be a lot more than the 20K+ cards squared...
For example, starting with 'two players with 1 life each, no cards or effects in any zone except for one card in all player's libraries which is "Ach! Hans, Run!"' as the first game-state, then 'two players with 1 life each, no cards or effects in any zone except for one card in all player's libraries which is "Ach! Hans, Run!" and the card second-from-the-top of player two's library which is _____' and so on so forth
Any math nerds wanna tackle this one? XDDD
Hmm, the point about referring to "this Saga" in rules text is a good one. I hope that it's inspired to try to simplify these Sagas as they are going way past the complexity of commons if you ask me as I've noted previously. It also does look like that for example in the case of The Shattered States Era, if it actually referred to its name, it would have to crunch that already small rules text even smaller.
So I hope that the reason for that convention is "we need to try to simplify these conceptually" rather than "we need even more space on cards for rules text". Not that being more concise with rules text terminology /syntax is bad but I'm questioning the motivation behind this particular approach here.
From the name "racoon dog" I assume.
Interesting fact I didn't notice before: The final ability of DFC Sagas actually refers to the Saga as "this Saga" rather than by name; it's almost as if there is a special emphasis on the the homogeneity of these abilities. Normally you would find this quirk in reminder text.
It's not just a general approach to abilities on Sagas either. Kumano Faces Kakkazan refers to itself by name to deal damage.
I wonder whether they considered a keyword action there since they had to use the same tech on Origins-DFC-creature/'walkers before.
Tanuki are more closely related to foxes than dogs, so I'm disappointed they gave Tanuki the Dog type.
406.3 is apparently a functional change for Clone Shell :)
Yepp, by now Wizards has released them. It would be impressive and suspicious for any site to have them before wizards.com.
The difference seven hours make. :)
The rules change to 406.3 might be the most interesting to me right now, because it helps immensely with keeping the word count on a problematic mechanic I've been struggling with for a while down.
https://vensersjournal.com/ keeps diffs for all rules changes, and it has the NEO comp rule update already
The change announcement is available, but the changed rules are not yet.
The comprehensive rules changes are available now.
I would prefer to change the rules that creatures cannot be attached to anything in a different way than how they did it. I would have that creatures can be attached to other stuff (if they have other types that allow it), and to reconfigure makes it stop being a creature but doesn't become unattached if it somehow still is a creature. (The fact that they put in a rule that creatures cannot be attached to anything can make things klugy like this. There are a few other cards that expect the existing rules but they can be made with errata if necessary.)
Changing the crew ability so that it cannot crew itself, is OK but I think unnecessary. I think that it isn't unintuitive. (It is still OK though, and might perhaps affect puzzles, strategies, designs, etc.)
Compleated seems to be what I expected it to be.
I am not sure why only creatures are allowed to be "modified", since Auras and counters can apply to any object or player.
The change to the rule about players looking at exiled cards is good, but should be unnecessary. If you already would be allowed to know what it is, then you should be allowed to look at it.
They are right that the rules about wording on older cards are unnecessary; the Oracle texts and glossary already help, so these additional rules saying such thiings, do not belong.)
I don't know what exactly change is made to rule 903.3a, but I would think that simply deleting the word "planeswalker" would be suitable.
When the new rules are released, then they can be examined more. (I keep copies of old versions so that diff is possible.)
another bit of evolving design tech in this set: "as you cast this spell" is becoming standard wording (as opposed to showing in oddball cases such as Enthralling hold or the reveal a dragon cards from DTK: Flame Discharge, Lethal Exploit...). Basically it creates scaling or bonus effects that cannot be turned off or reduced by changing what's on the battlefield by the time it resolves.
I have a hard time with agreeing on the Sagas. It certainly isn't how I would have approached the concept of common Sagas as I expressed earlier. One troubling thing is that the differences between the common Sagas and those at higher rarities in the set aren't blatantly clear to me from a glance. Obviously there are things like impact of the card that might of higher in these uncommon/rare Sagas but the comprehension complexity is almost at equal levels in many as far as I can tell.
Why do you see them as being of lower complexity than Sagas of the past? There are plenty of Sagas which I could see arguments for being simpler than these, despite all of them being of uncommon or higher rarity: The Birth of Meletis, Song of Freyalise, Triumph of Gerrard, Forging the Tyrite Sword, History of Benalia, Battle for Bretagard, Time of Ice, Chainer's Torment, ... There are obvious reasons why some of these can't appear at common rarity, but I'm strictly talking about their complexity in comparison to the common Sagas presented in here. I'm not convinced on the DFC side side of the argument either - even Werewolves (say in dark ascension) with the quirkiness of their triggers, did at common only exactly what they had to with very little fluff besides that.
Maybe I didn't make my position exactly clear regarding the themes of the set, but I'm the guy who made planeswalkers at common so I basically see anything possible at lower rarities as long as you devout enough of your total complexity to that particular concept. The point I tried to get across with all of those listings, and their nuances and complexity issues, is indeed that having all of them in the set is what dilutes the focus totally and the set easily starts giving these vibes of being incoherent when they pile on top of each other. The insidious thing with complexity is that it doesn't scale linearly but rather kinda multiplies with each other theme you are trying to get focus of the players on.
If the set for example solely honed down on the themes of artifacts and enchantments and how interplayed of each other (ok, maybe not just 100% into them, I think I would drop few of the subthemes from these as there's too much overlap anyway and then add very loosely complimentary ones around that didn't touch them directly but yeah), it could have been made an absolutely brilliant set as far as I know, with DFC Sagas in as well despite my gripes with them. The thing that makes the set messy is that it has "on one side" all of these intermingling ideas that could constitute a clear vision (though they seem to be also at least partially getting in the way of each other), but it then also this thing, and then those two, and then that also, and some random little one-offs of that and so on. Currently the set looks extremely "noisy" design wise and that the cards have a clearly higher average word count as well doesn't help one bit. As I asked previously, "does it [the set] need to fire on every single cylinder possible they can think of?"
Thank you for the insight. I'm going to come back to this as I set up something. Reminding me of the annual articles is great as well. They ought to be a good indicator of these issues that don't require slogging through blogatog.
Let me state that there is definitely something amiss, I just really think that some specific things you mention are actually less of an issue, but with an issue of accumulated complexity it is clear that the pinpointing of troubles is not possible.
Let's reformulate my position:
> "That's something you yourself literally designed, so I assume, you are fine with them existing - justified by lore only."
It's very well possible I might have made that sort of card but I have no recollection of it. I mean, I have made tens of thousands designs with a lot of experimentation and I don't honestly think all of them are that great. Like I have that one test set where I literally state I detest it deeply or something that effect xD
Was that design of relatively recent years or like ten years back? I have a hard time remember any vanilla designs I have made now that I think about it. I would actually be interested at looking back to it.
> "If anything vanilla and french vanilla artifact and enchantment creatures should be preferable to forcing them to be reconfigure Equipments, Vehicles, Sagas or even just enchantments with static abilities."
Slapping artifact and enchantment types on creatures without any sort of justification that can be found on the card itself seems nonsensical. For one, it devalues the whole meaning of having that card type to the point of becoming completely meaningless.
It isn't impossible to design simple creature cards that makes them having the artifact or enchantment a relevant factor. If you have literally nothing as in the case of vanilla creatures, it's really ugh. Having those types shouldn't be an arbitrary moniker - you are actively devaluing them by using them that way. There's a lot of themes and historical mechanical package to them that isn't done any justice if you just use them the same way you would use some fringe or overly generic creature type.
The complexity I feel has been an issue for a shorter period of time. It seems to me that the current sets have had various, many times differing, problems. Like the case of cramming too much stuff is one that I see particularly in Kamigawa 2 - and if my understood what dude1818 said there earlier, it's completely correct just purely by going by word count.
From what I recall, most of my gripes with sets of past years is how they have failed to live to their full potential in many ways - Kaldheim, Strixhaven, and War of the Spark especially come to mind as they played with settings very similar to those that I have experimented myself with from anywhere between preliminary design discovery phase to actual set design. So the failings of potential in them are especially stark to me. Even with them, they weren't that bad as sets, not just quite there I would say. I hoped a lot more out of them and they ended up being more like "above average".
While complexity has been a general factor of sets these past years, I don't remember it being anywhere near as blatant as it's in Kamigawa 2. Also I don't think it has necessary been a linear creep in complexity though I haven't kept track of it. Possibly the furthest memory I have where I went "Hold on, the complexity at common seems amiss here" was with Fertile Thicket in Battle for Zendikar, which makes it seven years ago. I did a red flag count of the commons and noted that it was clearly elevated but nothing too serious.
I recall that at roughly the same time I noted MaRo blogatoging about how they were well aware that they had been steadily overstepping in this manner. I think it also came up in one of those "yearly reports" or whatever they are called that are done on dailymtg. With a set like Kamigawa 2 I don't even dare to do a red flag count given how bursting out of it seams it is at just face value.
Regarding the quality of sets overall, my extremely cynical response would be that the original Innistrad was the last "truly great" set. I would be unfair of me to not note that Dominaria always looked pretty darn good to me. I think it had the right mix of doing new, relatively innovative stuff mixed in with older stuff all the while managing the whole responsibly with afforded levels of complexity. So Dominaria to me is clearly an exceptional blip between these long years. Very clean design overall though legendary nonpermanent spells are a big misstep but let's give credit where it's due.
Solid stuff with Dominaria we can agree on that but to me most of the stuff before and after that is "muddled". It certainly doesn't help that there has been return to return to return to ravnica or whatever and also is it the second return to innistrad now? It all starts to blur at some point and I think it's becoming quite apparent that the quality isn't going stay up when you're having your third or fourth return to the same plane.
Sets like modern horizons have had certainly some interesting isolated designs but that isn't what makes a great set, plus those are supplemental sets anyway with different "rules" to them so "eh".
woah this post ended up being a lot longer than I thought lol
I have to repeat myself: Shattered is an issue, but the other common Sagas are basically rebound sorceries with a third return that is a token - and not making it a token, but a DFC is less taxing in other aspects that you mention.
> "colored vanilla artifact creatures"
I think you misunderstand. That's something you yourself literally designed, so I assume, you are fine with them existing - justified by lore only.
If anything vanilla and french vanilla artifact and enchantment creatures should be preferable to forcing them to be reconfigure Equipments, Vehicles, Sagas or even just enchantments with static abilities.
I want toreally make an exercise in comparing this set with a set you'd consider well done, even just for myself to check my position, so which set was the last one before the rise in complexity become an issue.
Since I find it hard to believe Ikoria wasn't already part of the complexity creep, the question would be: Theros Beyond Death or which earlier set? I'm absolutely positive Dominaria was still a clean design, so where between those would you put your personal cut-off point for "sets that are still not cramming in too much"?
DFC are an issue in of themselves regardless what card type they might or might be tied to as far as I'm concerned - they need to be reserved the proper amount of the "complexity quota". None of my gripes with them are alleviated with being restricted to a single card type. That they are tied to such an already complex card type in Sagas is really more than less of a problem - you're stacking up complexity there. Time to make Planeswalker Sagas because why not?
The reason why I didn't mention colored vanilla artifact creatures is merely because I didn't notice them among all the other stuff going on. It's that bad. There might be a lot of other things I missed as well. EDIT: I don't know if you're even talking about this set as it's hard to grasp whether this might have those or not. I do see there being a similar scenario to blue ninjas where some black rat ninjas are artifact creatures and other are not. Bonkers.
With Shattered that buff is still something you have to keep in your working memory. If it were on an instant it would be whatever but as a Second chapter on a permanent that's a different story. While it's true that the redflag is more about stuff that can tap to give a bonus to a dude at instant speed, the very bare essence of it is "there is too many things going on in the board state it becomes to hard and you end up making mistakes".
The moment you have that chapter triggering with some other buffs, and whatever auras and counters on creatures, there's already several things to keep track of - not in terms of on-board combat tricks but just in general stats. Just having Shattered with Befriending the Moths I can already see getting annoying fast. "Okay, all of these gets +1/+0 ueot, I give this 3/4 dude +1/+1 ueot, it has a +1/+1 counter on it and +2/+1 bonus from the thing reconfigured to it and I have 2/1 and a 1/1 as my other attackers - how much I can attack for?" Just basic math without any on-board instant speed combat tricks can be made hard - and this works from the other side as well if you are to attack into that sort of board and next turn those two chapters are gonna trigger so you have start calculating with how much damage they can retaliate with depending on what you leave to block.
The Shattered States Era is an example for a common DFC Safa that I wouldn't have allowed, you seem to misunderstand the "affects other permanents" red flag since this is triggered at a predetermined time in a turn. This is more about on-board tricks at instant speed or triggering during the highly interactive combat phase.
I think mentioning DFCs as separate from Sagas is disingenuous since the fact that every single Saga is a DFC and vice versa - and they all transform the same way - is a huge part of that contains the complexity.
I agree that the five Equipments with equip might not have been worth the inconsistency towards those with reconfigure. But please recognize the consistency conversely used on Sagas.
You seem to have no problem with colored vanilla artifact creatures. I wonder whether they are justified with anything but "lore or whatever".
I think one thing that makes sets more complex is the loss of blocks to spread ideas out over.
I'm intrigued. Maybe a true direct comparison between sets is in order. But I wouldn't even know which sets would be "good".