Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-03 01:48:24)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-03 01:48:24)
Thanks!
Today I learnt: While the most often printed (and AFAIK most famous) flavor text of Llanowar Elves is the pretty brutal
> One bone broken for every twig snapped underfoot.
—Llanowar penalty for trespassing
it always seems like such an odd creative treatment of a mana guy. And actually the original flavor text is far less martial and fits the mechanics very well:
> Whenever the Llanowar Elves gather the fruits of their forest, they leave one plant of each type untouched, considering that nature’s portion.
Can you at least link to the rules?
I do not want to remove supertypes, but I don't like that "legendary" does two unrelated things (it seems illogical to me), and would change what legendary currently means for instants/sorceries (205.4e) to a keyword ability (I don't know what this keyword ability should be called), although those cards would still be legendary, too. The fact that they are legendary does not do anything by itself since it isn't a permanent card, but does mean that it is historic, can be found by things that find legendary cards, etc. The existing legend rule would still be applicable to legendary permanents.
I would also generalize ongoing. Currently, the ongoing supertype makes an object immune to the state-based actions for schemes (rule 704.6e). Rules 704.6f, 704.5s, and 704.5t are similar, so I would have ongoing make it immune to those state-based actions too. (Note that rule 309.5b can still get rid of a dungeon even if rule 704.5t is suppressed in this way.)
https://vensersjournal.com/archives resumes where yawgatag ceased
I have a local copy of rules (not Oracle texts) and may later make them public in order to make diff. However, note that sometimes the character encoding and line break encoding are changed between versions, so I may also make available the versions that have been transformed into one format (e.g. ASCII only, with LF only for line breaks).
Unfortunately yawgatog.com stopped recording Oracle changes around Ixalan, so now we're left without knowledge other than last printing towards what might have been the wordind before Dominaria.
EDIT: The change has been recorded! It did indeed coincide with the "any target" rules change and required wording change, so there was a time when planeswalkers existed and could be drained for more life than their loyalty, but then they applied functional errata! I'm happy to have found source of Oracle changes.
In other news: Dominaria was released more than three years ago, closer to four. O.O
Ah, to avoid looking it up, I looked at the printing Gatherer showed me (Beatdown Box Set) and cross-referenced with the oracle text.
The change on life capping life gained from a player's total seems to me to be significant change. Why Wizards decided to implement that change is I guess the question. Updating the card to treat planeswalker targets the same as creature and (later) player seems just the normalization of making cards work with features that have been added since the card's creation. To me, the wild change was introducing planeswalkers, then, years later, the rule update of targeting them. As for no printed version, the card's last printing was six or seven years prior to planeswalkers being a card type, so of course there would be not printed version of the card to reflect that.
At the time of the card's creation it didn't mention player's life total as a restriction though. The restriction was pretty explicit about it: "If you drain life from a creature, you cannot gain more life than the creature's toughness." Player's life total doesn't get thrown into the mix until Fourth Edition. And to top it all, it seems like a functional change from before; if the change really got introduced with the "any target" ruling, then there was a time in-between when the redirection from player to planeswalker allowed to drain for more life than the planeswalker's loyalty (since "any target" just changes that the planeswalker will be targeted, not whether the spell would be able to damage it). That would be pretty wild considering that the change is reflect it no printed version of the card.
I mean, when Magic switched so that burn could hit planeswalkers directly, and then combined each [sensible and possible] option into "any target," the natural change would be to update Drain Life to the present, with the caveat of including oracle text that's intuitive based on the similar restrictions presented by the options that existed at the time of the card's creation.
Thought it may be some weird thing about how damage interacts with Loyalty counters.
I actually read the card wrong, but it's a bit similar in that they couldn't just use one word to refer to 'toughness' 'loyalty' and 'life total' all at once.
If these old cards weren't such as slog to read through, I may have gotten it. Still, neat micro-challenge , though
Today I learnt: Drain Life's Oracle text refers to the card type planeswalker despite dealing damage to "any target". Can you guess why without looking it up?
He's discussed that a little: he doesn't even fully support sets he's not lead on. He's said he only attends half the meetings of those sets
Of course Unfinity definitely was too much to add on top of that, and is a total waste of time
That's the thing though: He is on every vision or exploratory design team (for premium sets) anyway, why does he need to be lead for so many though?
You start all your comments stating his position as head/lead of vision design, as if that's not exactly my point: He might be spreading himself a bit thin (by leading two consecutive premium sets and a supplemental set in sequence to those in addition to being everywhere in a supporting position anyway).
Maro is head of vision design. He's on every standard-legal vision team, no way he has time to also follow the set and play design teams. Usually they have someone from set or play design on the vision design team to have a background
Isn't there supposed to be someone from vision design who stays on the team all the way throughout to keep the vision intact? I thought that would be the lead, but then set design and play design leads could do so as well.
Maro leads vision design. Mechanics usually don't have names until set or play design. Heck, half the mechanics don't even exist until set design!
Cleave is also one of those weird words that is its own antonym
Fully agree on Blood tokens being weirdly function-over-flavor.
I'm all on-board with two-colored Edgar though.
I didn't look up the design team and just gave him the benefit of doubt that he might not have been all that involved in the set.
I suppose, he might have had too much fun designing Unfinity? ;) I think, the real problem is that despite being "lead" (which he also definitely is for Kamigawa and Unfinity), he is only really working on vision design and cleave seems like the mechanic introduced later.
Looking at it like hat, I think he might have lead too many sets at once this time around. Though OTOH Crimson Vow is not actually a bad set by my criteria, more filled with oddities and suboptimal choices.
I'm not saying that Crimson Vow is a clusterfuck but Cleave and Blood tokens seem like huge misses to me in many ways. Like I don't get how the Blood tokens are reasonably expected to convey mechanically any flavor of being blood.
What I find extremely funny about MaRo not knowing why the word "Cleave" was chosen is that he was supposedly the design lead of that set from what I can see xD
I now learnt a thing - in "leave and cleave" the word "cleave" means literally the opposite of "cut apart".
I thought "cleave" was a rather clever word choice for a set about a wedding, as in "leave and cleave". But it seems that wasn't even deliberate!
I agree "carve" would have been a better word for it.
I know about modified, and it does part of what I want; it probably is sufficient, too. I am looking forward to designing with it in the tool box.
An Aura is attached to a permanent. The permanent has an Aura attached to it. It is not the permanent that is attached, but the Aura.
An Aura is enchanting a permanent. The permanent is enchanted by an Aura. It is the permanent that is enchanted, not the Aura.
> Looking at those "attached = enchanted" appears incorrect.
To look at the same issue through the present participle lense (-ing):
The player/effect attaches the Aura [to an permanent] :: The Aura enchants the permanent.
I'd talk about the attaching player/effect before I'd talk about an attaching Aura.
...
The issue is that for "enchant" Aura is the subject and the permanent is the direct object, but for "attach" Aura is the direct object and the permanent is the indirect object. Past participles (-ed) as adjectives describe the direct object, while prsent participles (-ing) describe the subject.
Accordingly the attached Aura is enchanting the permanent. The enchanting Aura is attached to the permanent.
> It follows: "attached ~ enchanting".
@SecretInfiltrator- Kamigawa Neon Dynasty leaks imply that the set will use Modified for permanents that are enchanted, equipped, or have counters on them.
in this case, it's -ing vs -ed.
Attaching = enchanting = equipping
Attached = enchanted = equipped
Huh; the natural wording is "Flash; Enchant creature; All of your enchanted creatures get +1/+1"
('All of' being optional, but makes it clearer) I guess that's not sufficiently templatey?
But the "attached permanent" is the Aura/Equipment/etc. rather than the enchanted/equipped/etc. permanent.
I also don't see how it solves the issue with Guardian's Magemark's wording since it just replaces an adjectival participle with another one.
There's "attached" I think?
I really wish there was a term for enchanted/equipped/fortified objects, because it feels wrong to have to call enchanted permanents "permanents that are enchanted" instead.
Oh certainly it can be worked out - but all such complexity is a cost. So you have to work out whether there's benefit to having that cost.
And... I just don't see any real benefit here. It doesn't make the cards shorter or cleaner, it just potentially opens up messier game states.
What would make things shorter is if you could have a term of art for "Thing you are enchanting" that is nice and short. Then you could do something like: "Creature Aura" "Enchantee has +1/+2". But the cost of THAT simplicity is that we once again have rules-bagge in the type line; which seemingly most people dislike.
In situations where the state is unclear (not only in this situations but many others too), you can figure out ways to be represented, and different situations may require different representations. This can apply if there are any situations that you do not remember (there are many others in the game, too), for any reason, not only this one.