Silmarillion: The War of the Jewels: Recent Activity
| Silmarillion: The War of the Jewels: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Archetypes | Flavor | 1st Playtest | 2nd Playtest | 3rd Playtest |
Recent updates to Silmarillion: The War of the Jewels: (Generated at 2025-08-03 10:49:05)
I didn't mean to come off as defensive - it just raised a lot of questions.
Like:
Did you mean I should use that template for this mechanic instead? If so, why? Did you find the mention of a "main phase" too complex? Do you think Conduit's solution is more elegant and/or less complex? Did you think the card was too aggressively costed compared to Conduit? Do you think the "main phase" wording can't work for some reason?
So I was like, "What does this mean?!"
If you had went with:
> "Reminds me of / Similar to Hardened Berserker."
then I would've just gone "Yup, it sure is."
I feel like "see this" suggested there was something I should have noticed or something I should react to somehow.
Yeah, my mind can start bouncing off from minor things pretty fast.
Sorry, didn't mean to say your card is wrong, it's just another way to have the "same" effect.
See Conduit of Storms. What's your point?
Interested to hear what people have to say about this one. Similar to (but less powerful?) Krosan Vorine.
NOTE: You can't change the targets for the copies.
At the end of the chant reminder text this also would be included:
> Mana abilities can’t be targeted.
REPRINT: Crystal Ball.
Currently the only uncommon artifact in the set.
Removed the flavor text
Changed the flavor text (had pretty much the same from melian)
Shortened the flavor text
Removed the flavor text
See Hardened Berserker.
Shortened the flavor text (again)
Removed the flavor text
Shortened the flavor text
Shortened the flavor text
Shortened the flavor text
Shortened the flavor text
IIRC you can set a minimum text size in MSE, though in theory you could alter your style sheet with an option that sets the minimum text size to 9 for all commons - in that case those won't have microtext and instead will notice too much text as your bottom line overlapping the frame.
I'd have to double-check though.
@dude1818:
... then why do you say it's "effectively a red flag" and also respond by quoting a podcast which is about the separate issue?
So where are you pulling this "7 or fewer lines" suggestion? Finding a satisfactory answer is really irritating...
In the MTG Salvation primer Doombringer says...
> "most cards in general should aim for 7 or less lines and never more than 9"
... considering Necrobite but I don't know where s/he's getting that either. The thread ends with suggesting there still seems to be uncertainness about these line "limits".
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/578926-primer-nwo-redflagging?page=3
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/20954942567/soulbond-seems-awfully-complicated-for-common
> su92 asked: ... it (Soulbond) takes more than six lines of text before mention what ability is going to be granted
> markrosewater: New World Order does allow some complexity at common. It just limits how much and likes for the complexity to be focused on the same area. Soulbond fits that criteria.
Galvanic Alchemist, Diregraf Escort, and Elgaud Shieldmate are all commons that have 8 lines of text. More can be found at higher rarities.
15 years old daily mtg article mentions font sizes but I don't think we have a proper way to gauge them on MSE? (+ it is indeed over a decade old article):
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/rare-well-done-2002-02-25-0
> "The default font size of an average Magic card is 9 point. But sometimes a 9 point font doesn’t fit. For these occasions, Editing allows us to shrink the font size down as small as 7.5 point. We refer to anything with a font size below 9 point as having “microtext.” One of the standing rules in R&D is that only rare cards can have mircotext. Thus, if a card is wordy enough that it requires microtext (and once again the quality of this card is irrelevant), R&D is obligated to cut some words out of it (thus allowing Editing to enlarge the font size) or make it rare."
Right. Overall font size concerns require 7 or fewer lines of text, except in rare occasions, at any rarity. NWO means you get red-flagged for having 4 or more lines of rules text at common. These are separate issues.
This card is fine according to NWO. It's pushing it on just having too many words overall, which makes it hard to read.
@dude1818: that quote very clearly specifies that it's talking about rules text length. Nothing about small rules text there.
Edit: a word
Uh-huh... soo? I'm not following.
Do you think that also refers to flavor text? That isn't part of the rules text. The font size of the text on this card (here's a link to an old render) is along the lines of cards like Aviary Mechanic and Audacious Infiltrator.
Couple of standard commons with lots of flavor text: Catalog (Shadows over Innistrad) and Commencement of Festivities (Kaladesh).
"Now, it turns out there are longer texts that are easier to process. So one of the things about this red flag is it goes, “Okay. Are you wordy?” And I’m defining wordy as being four or more lines of rules text. If you are wordy, it means, okay, let’s take a look at you. Maybe that means there’s just too many words on you. Maybe that means you’re doing too much. Maybe it means let’s just see how it easy it is to grok what you’re doing."
Just went through that — I didn't find any mention about the size of the text font... ???
Most of that I was already familiar with, but it did make me think about what do the players have to think about in this environment that they don't usually have to. I haven't consciously paid much attention to that, but they would likely be these two (or one of them): Whether there are duplicate creatures (distinguished) & the number of (untapped) enchantments (chant). Quite peculiar.
It's from his podcast on red flagging. Transcript
Well, 20 % of commons are allowed to be red flagged, sooo... Does anybody know whether those cards are part of that 20 %? I guess not.
Where are you getting this "tiny rules text is also effectively a red flag" thing? Do you have a source for it? I've always though it was about the amount of text the user has to read, not how small it is (although obviously the text being super small would be annoying and cheating the "3 or less lines" advice). I find it hard to believe a card like Soul's Grace is/would be red flagged 'cause it has tiny text.
... Regardless of that some of the flavor texts could indeed use some trimming. I've been doing little bit of that but rather conservatively so far.
Reap the Seagraf, Ojutai's Summons, Coursers' Accord and Rise of Eagles are all commons that make two tokens at 2/2 or bigger. And Sunspire Gatekeepers is a 2/4 that (sometimes) makes a 2/2. I think Out of the Pit is fine given that you'd get a 4/4 at common, but the cost might well get pulled up to 5 mana.
Personally I'd try to reduce that flavour text a bit, because tiny rules text is also effectively a red flag.