Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics

CardName: Unfinity (Spoilers) Cost: Type: Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Discuss the upcoming set release. You may discuss the change from silver border to black border. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Conversation Uncommon

Unfinity (Spoilers)
 
 U 
 
Discuss the upcoming set release.
You may discuss the change from silver border to black border.
Updated on 25 Oct 2022 by SecretInfiltrator

History: [-]

2022-01-21 07:17:10: SecretInfiltrator created the card Unfinity (Spoilers)
2022-01-21 07:18:50: SecretInfiltrator edited Unfinity (Spoilers)

Unfinity's greatest break from the accustomed is the end of silver borders in favor of an acorn-shaped holofoil stamp.

Thus WotC has come to call Un-cards, which were formerly known as "silver-bordered", "acorn" cards; non-Un-cards, which were formerly referred to as "black-bordered", are now called "eternal" cards.

I have no problem with the former, but the latter I consider unfortunate, because it overlaps with Eternal formats. I know it is intentional, because WotC wishes to push that eternal cards are for Eternal formats, but it is not a term that really helps conversing about disctinctions between "acorn" and "non-acorn". Which is why I prefer "non-acorn". :)


My observation: The Space Family Goblinson is not an acorn card, so the creature type Guest is coming to the Comprehensive Rules. Now I want creature types to cover the full list again.

About the acorn, I thought maybe it should be more prominent, but maybe it is good enough.

Since some cards might work in ordinary rules, this could be OK that they are doing this, I suppose.

Some cards are banned in Vintage and so in other official Eternal formats too, even though they are "eternal" cards. I have "pseudo-Vintage" (sometimes used in puzzles, and defined in the "Codex" that I had written) which does not ban many of these, although Chaos Orb and Falling Star remain banned, and the Un-cards, silver-border-cards, and acorn-cards also remain banned. (Some cards such as conspiracies may be banned or not banned depending on the specific kind of rules.) I don't know if they could effectively errata Chaos Orb and Falling Star as acorn-cards, since they should be that instead of the standard rules.

One question about the acorn: Will it affect the errata of any older Un-cards?

I also saw http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cardsets/3067/details_pages/3110 and have some comments relating to both that and this together. Some cards say "eternal star (match)". Rules will need to be written for such things to handle some situations. However, I would think that match rules should mostly be beyond the scope of the game rules, although game rules still will need to specify some such things too, including persistent properties, interaction with subgames, etc. Ante rules should work in a similar way, too. Normally, all game effects cease to exist when the main game ends, although match rules could specify which ones persist, how they persist, other effects relating to them (e.g. scoring), effects lasting beyond a single match, etc. I would define ownership of an object as a persistent property (where all persistent properties are also one-shot properties). Ante can cause ownership to change just as the game ends, so normally this change would not be meaningful. However, match rules could specify that these changes will last until the end of the match (or the tournament), that players can keep the cards, that they will affect scoring and then be reverted, etc. Games rules will still need to define what kinds of effects these are (so that match rules may refer to them), and their effects within a single duel (meaning a main game, subgames within that main game, and restarted games), though. (There are some other problems with the ante rules too, having to do with subgames, team games, multiplayer games, and a few other things; I have ideas how to fix these though, which does not impact match rules.)

I also think that "non-acorn" is better than calling them "eternal", since "acorn" and "non-acorn" would also be applicable to unofficial cards too, but unofficial cards are presumably not Eternal.

(However, I usually use "non-Un-cards" or "Un-cards", which I think may be better.)

In the future - sure. But no cards from previous un-sets have acorns; so using 'non-acorn' would be confusing there.

I don't think there's a good answer. Other than keeping 'silver bordered' as the name; but it's probably quite hard from a physical-card point of view to manage a mix of silver and black cards in a set.

I'm going to keep calling them "real cards" and "parody cards"

Except "parody cards" describes a theme - and there will be cards with the silly, self-referencing jokes that will now no longer be "acorn".

I think it's fine to call unofficial cards "eternal" as shorthand for "designed with eternal in mind" etc.

In the end, there is a lot of nuance anyway and I rarely just used a single word to describe where a card belongs, often distinguishing already between "silver-border creative" and "not feasible in black-border rules".

Maybe you can call them "comp. rules card" because they work in the comp. rules, but then again there are some eternal cards where Judges like to look the other way because they don't really work in the rules.

> but then again there are some eternal cards where Judges like to look the other way because they don't really work in the rules.

This is why I think that a FOSS computer program implementation with all of the cards would be helpful, and to make possible as a reference implementation, that you can make well defined meanings of the cards. Other changes that I have suggested might also help with this and other issues (in a few cases they did so, though). Figure out which circumstances required to be consistent with existing rulings where necessary. Make test cases, to show that the program is correct.

Although such a program may have bugs in it, that is also true of the comprehensive rules even as they are; there have been bugs in the past which have been corrected.

There are some FOSS computer program implementations of Magic: the Gathering, but miss many cards, such as text-changing effects. (I have some idea how to make "AST-based" text-changing effects, to allow this to work; I have ideas about some of the other things, too.)

If such a thing is done then the definition would hopefully be more precisely (perhaps if you use e.g. Haskell, because C has too much undefined behaviours; I think Haskell is also better for making mathematical definitions of things than C is, anyways; a variant of Lisp might also do instead of Haskell, or possibly a custom programming language designed for this purpose might work best), and literate programming might also help (so that the text and the program code are together in one book, you can easily read it and see precisely what they are).

This would also be helpful if you want to ensure that rules needed for unofficial cards or unofficial formats do not conflict, I suppose.

Another thing about comp.rules: I have banned Chaos Orb and Falling Star in pseudo-Vintage; if there are other cards that cannot be made to work with a precise mathematical definition of the rules that can be implemented in a FOSS computer program in a reasonable way, even if modifying the rules to fix the problems, then more cards might need banned too.

Also there is issue if unofficial cards are made, what shapes using for such designations. Official cards will have ovals, triangles, acorns. Unofficial cards might or might not be intended to be consistent with the rules (whether they are the official rules or modified rules), but "Universes Beyond" does not seem to be a relevant distinction for unofficial cards. One possibility is to use the same shapes but a different colour, or something similar like that. But, then, there is also consideration of cards using the old style; I am not sure how to handle that situation.

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...

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.

Those are mostly in the vein of Cryptic Spires, which is why I said that card was a total mistake

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?

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.)

  • "{t}: Add {chaos} 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 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 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 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.

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.)

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, I know that, and I do mean the interchangeable names (like Universes Within versions of Secret Lair cards).

  • 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)

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.

"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?

Mark Rosewater said lights are copiable. (Still, I think that the rules should be made clear; they aren't clear.)

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.

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.

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, watermarks decorative 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.

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).

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
How much damage does this card deal? Lightning Blast
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)