Logic: the Processing: Recent Activity
| Logic: the Processing: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Foreword |
Recent updates to Logic: the Processing: (Generated at 2024-04-26 20:11:04)
| Logic: the Processing: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Foreword |
Recent updates to Logic: the Processing: (Generated at 2024-04-26 20:11:04)
climax mechanic
climax mechanic
scene with climax
scene with climax
Card design to look Like typical Scene card
Yeah... stuff like Character Identity Words.
"Guilds, wedges, shards" is weird since two of them describe in-universe concepts and once is a term for a certain set of color combinations. Why would colors need to be codified as "qualitypes" rather than just as colors.
And the in-universe qualitypes create questions: No one will argue Selesnya Guildmage qualifies as Selesnya, but is Heroes' Reunion? Is Dark Heart of the Wood Golgari? Is Mortify Orzhov or Sorin's?
Guilds, wedges, shards may be qualitypes.
Qualities linked by pattern. Ex. <Cantrip>, <Charm>
Planeswalker possessive tense. Ex. Creature - Illusion <Jace's>
I suggested years ago that fire, water, night, lawful etc. could be supertypes without associated rules . Subtypes are obviously tied to cardtypes - which has some issues when you try to fit the type on both instants and Elemental creatures -, but supertypes are fine. You can have "Fire Creature - Elemental" on a type line.
I don't think it's necessarily the best way to go, but it's an option I keep in mind since I'm cultivating a side project that wqill introduce flavor-only subtypes to all card types.
One thing to consider is whether this makes you consider a GCTU-like overhaul, because right now neither Fire Elemental nor Fire Ball are fire spells (or "<Fire> spells" in your notation).
Every detail you add to a card even as trinket text/subtype/qualifier may make the card less reprintable e. g. because a qualitype the card wouldn't have under the old system doesn't fit the new setting. Other issues may take the form of the Dryad Nymph issue, where you create redundant typing.
Since you are considering "flavor, lore, association, etc.", do you have anything in mind other than Elements? For Elements particularly I have a very out-of-the-box solution.
I don't disagree on keeping things simple from WotC's side - doubly for a product with a paper trail.
So.. this is 'subtype' then?
The big overlapping ball of types thing is indeed something a lot of other CCGs do. It tends to end up as "This is the type I care about, and here's a bunch of others I ignore" Maybe that's OK? It can certainly be flavourful. (Ice, entry, Observer, Dog...)
A qualitype is additional qualifier that goes on the type line. They have no inherent rules or effects, but they may be referenced by abilities. Rather they are used as qualifiers to group or identify cards via flavor, lore, association, etc.
Each qualitype for a card is separately enclosed by angled brackets <>. They appear after subtypes.
Ex. Fire may be a qualitype. It may appear on any card type, such as Instant - <Fire>, and Enchantment - <Fire>, and Creature - Elemental <Fire>. An ability may say for instance " spells cost 1 less."
Q: There may not be enough room on the type line.
A: That is a flaw with Magic card frame. On the Vogon frame, the type line runs almost the entire vertical height of the card, which is 40% longer than the width.
Actually idea was inspired by Shadowfist's designators. Shadowfist cards may have additional designators printed in bold at the top of the rules box. Other card games do something similar. Guardians CCG put additional qualifier words in bottom right of rules box.
Scenes now more closely tied to planeswalkers and are used to tell their narrative.
Scenes are now basically mini-planeswalkers (aka paragon in my Erfh set) and will appear in all rarities. Such that scenes enter play with fate counters, and have two abilities. The first ability adds fate counters. The second ability costs a great amount of fate counters and is always a Climax.
You win the game if you acquire 3 climax points. A scene's climax is worth 1 Climax points, and PW/Paragon's climax is worth 2 Climax points.
You can win in any combination of scene and paragon climaxes that total 3 or more climax points. E.g. climax 3 scenes; climax 1 scene and 1 paragon; or climax 2 paragons.
Another alternate wording:
Mox Serpentine
.
Artifact - Mox
Tap two untapped Mox: Add
By the way, I really like this take on the moxes. It has the power level down just right. I'd also suggest other ways in set to produce half-mana, so you don't feel so bad when you only play one Mox (This is pretty much a dead card in draft, for example.)
Funny thing about my suggestion to add more half-mana to your set. If you do, my suggested "Tap two untapped Mox" becomes a terrible idea. I mean, technically you could add something like...
Mox Dog
Artifact Creature - Mox Hound
2/1
But I wouldn't suggest this being the way out. [Of note: Mox Dog works because Mox is an artifact type, not a creature type. Yadda, yadda, "The Tribal Card Type" yadda yadda doo. You get the idea.]
But the important question is: Can I spend two different half mana together to pay for a cost of the appropriate hybrid mana?
The fact that half mana won't expire, but the resulting full mana will is a trip. If you are going that path I'd rather go a different route entirely e. g. "
: Charge 
. (If you have a green charge, use it up to add 
. Otherwise, gain a green charge. Charges don't expire.)"
Now that would be a conceptual divide to help grokk the difference.
I'm also a little confused from your comment whether you intent half mana to inherently not expire, and if so, why it's rules text on the card rather than reminder text.
Well yes; lots of other CCGs royally SUCK, too :)
You've taken the victory condition from Spellfire. That aint a good thing to do :)
The problem with this kind of victory condition is that it is (can be) completely non-interactive. You just try to gain the resource more quickly than your opponent. You can try to disrupt your opponent; but you're better off concentrating on gaining more rather than stopping them from gaining. Especially in a multiplayer format.
So while this could work; it feels like too big a change that would need too much testing and is unlikely to be the kind of fun most magic games enjoy.
I'd suggest, instead of making it global, put "Upkeep,
: If you control at least 4 scenes, win the game" on a scene (or maybe one scene for each colour). That way you get the thing, you make the thing much more reasonable for opponents to cope with - without taking over the whole game - and it stays within magic's flavour for alt-win cards.
A permanent that is both land and scene is worth two 'points' toward the victory condition of controlling 12-lands+scenes. Ex. The Brothers' War.
See Scene.
i wanted 3rd victory that could just tag along without explicit mentions in swaths of cards. (cf. victory counters that need extra counters, and repeatedly mentioned on cards.) victory based on card type is implicit accumulation using the same props (cards) needed to play the game.
many other CCGs already have similar win conditions, based on accumulation of certain card types.
lands because every deck has a bunch. scenes have the desire to be memorable, as in narrative gameplay.
it's more likely for one to have more lands than scenes, for two reasons. latter would be scarcer in deck lists; and being damaageable and attackable, they are easier to remove by opponents. thus compels the interplay of the victory condition between all players. you see a player close to 12 lands and scenes, you could try to attack their scenes to deny their victory.
obviously not going to allow only lands to win. thus the minimum amount of scenes and lands. somewhat for flavor--the sense of ownership of vast lands while controlling one's destiny. i guess minimum of three each could work, if to unify constructed and limited formats.
Nekomancer.
Wizard druid would be a biomancer
That seems like a sudden and unintuitive change. I wonder what would prompt such a change.
It's also a weirdly specific combination of restrictions - as if players are going to get to nine scenes often while stuck on three lands.