Metadesign Collaborative: Recent Activity
| Metadesign Collaborative: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Metadesign Collaborative: (Generated at 2024-05-14 17:33:51)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
I had also disliked DFCs due to the physical cards, including drafting, the card can be accidentally or deliberately revealed, and if you use the card in your deck then you will need either sleeves or substitute cards. (If there are enough substitute cards included in the packs, this might help a bit.) The idea of DFC is good though, even though there is these problem by the physical cards.
I also think that the rule preventing DFCs face-down is klugy and unnecessary. You can easily represent that a DFC permanent is face-down by either placing the substitute card face-down on top of it, or by turning the opaque sleeve face-down. Similar would be the case for meld cards.
There are many things that could be done with DFC (including transforming, modal, and day/night), though.
I think the existing rule (you lose if you draw a card from a empty library) is good. (However, your suggestion can be a interesting variant, but I think the existing rule is generally better than the variant.)
(I have once won a game of Magic: the Gathering by forcing opponent to draw (not mill) a lot of cards. If I remember correctly, I think it was using Swans of Bryn Argoll. There are other cases where such a thing can also be possible (with other cards, too), but I do not play this game very often.)
Yet.
More importantly it speaks to the position of cycling - usually below triggered and activated abilities, but above that one. Positioning relative to nonkeyworded abilities seems at times more important than order among keyword abilities.
Compleated seems still in the wrong spot.
an ability that triggers on cycling is not a keyword
Triggers go wherever they work e. g. on cast, on entering, on death, from graveyard in that order; and e. g. an ability that triggers on cycling comes below cycling.
added triggers, activations, other zones
Some abilities do more than one thing. For example, flying affects both attacking and blocking. Some combat affecting abilities are evasion abilities. Haste affects attacking and also
and 
.
Deathtouch is one of a few keywords that affect damage (whether or not it is combat damage); lifelink and wither are some others.
Abilities such as shroud, hexproof, ward, protection, are abilities which protect the permanent that has it from being targeted (although ward is a bit different). Also, protection has other effects too such as also affecting combat.
Compleated does not affect payments but affects the result due to the payment; sunburst also affects the result due to the payment but not the payment itself.
I do not bother to put keyword abilities in any particular order, unless somehow it is relevant.
Somewhat tongue in cheek - but should we not also apply the rules of grammar to the ordering? (opinions, size, quality, shape, age, colour, origin, material, type, purpose).
Keywords that alter how you attack (haste, vigilance) before keywords that alter how you block (mostly evasion keywords e. g. flying, skulk, menace) before keywords that affect how you deal combat damage (first strike, trample). I can see an argument being made for deathtouch and lifelink moving to the same place as first strike and trample since they also matter mostly for combat damage on creatures.
The category "static" is kinda meaningless since most evergreen keyword abilities are static: Flying, trample, flash etc. The category for hexproof & indestructible (& protection, but also for the triggered ability ward) could be "passive" or more specifically "defensive".
I'm basically fine with abilities, like cycling, that are alternative modes of using a card moved to the bottom (excluding effects that depend on them e. g. "When you cycle this card"-abilities), but everything else can be put in the order it matters during the default life-cycle of a card.
For that reason I'd put compleated after flash, because flash affects the timing of casting a spell, while compleated only matters after you cast the spell by altering the way you resolve it/it enters the battlefield. Kicker e. g. would thus belong between the two.
Notes: (A) No matter what the reminder text says, the way phyrexian hybrid mana is paid is independent of the keyword compleated - it only adds the loyalty counter change; (B) even if that was the case paying mana costs comes after both the time flash matters and the time you decide on additional costs, so the order is not really affected by that among the mentioned keywords IMO.
Characteristic-changing keywords:
Mana cost payment:
While casting or on the stack:
Static:
Combat altering:
Triggers:
Activated abilities, field:
Abilities, other zones:
Order of Keywords
Discuss how keywords should be ordered in the rules text box.
Including if rules-laden supertypes were turned into keywords.
Protection keyword
Partitions
Color Distribution
Absorb
((Examples))
Elude
((Examples))
The limitations and concerns about DFC have mostly to do with paper physical limitations. On digital Magic, its fantastic (for custom designs).
I (and probably others) have thought of being able to cast/play either side (from the hand), long before WotC.
Another idea I had about Auras: Make one with haunt; once the Aura dies, it now haunts something else, having a different effect on that other thing. (See also my generalized rules for haunt; you can haunt any object or player which is permitted by the ability; the existing haunt cards are now "haunt creature".)
Many other things are also possible with Auras, and other enchantments, such as making one which is also a adventurer, making a Aura with ninjutsu (of course it can't attack, but it can still enter the battlefield), etc. You can also put equip or fortify on a Aura to allow moving it after it is initially cast (although only onto creatures (or lands) you control, even if that wasn't its original target, but it is something). Like any other permanent card, graft and modular are also possible, as well as protection, shroud, echo, etc.
There are also a lot of effects that are possible to be made with enchantments, both official ones and some unofficial ones, including some of my ideas you might look for too. (My currently designing custom set so far as only two enchantments, one of which is a Aura, but I intend to add some more.)
But there is a solution about that "red zone", which is to use a piece of string or something to denote such things, perhaps. (Doing that can help in other circumstances too, not only attack/block, but other things you might need to keep track of, including soulbond and other stuff; and sometimes it might be better to take a paper and write a note, in case it requires you to choose a color or choose a name or whatever and then use that one, or to mark the kind of counters, etc)
Also, high level tournament play sometimes includes a table with a literal red zone between both players, for players to put their attacking creatures into. It helps the audience keep track of what's going on.
"The red zone" is a pretty common slang for "attacking/blocking". I think it originally comes from some two-person playmats which had a row for lands for each player, a row for creatures for each player, and a separate row that was red where you put the creatures that are attacking or blocking.
The point is very sensible. With a big declaration of attackers, it's important to be able to tell which creatures are attacking. Imagine a Commander board of 12ish creatures where 6-8 of them attack and a few hold back. Now imagine a few of those are attached to lands, global enchantments, other creatures, but able to attack independently? That's going to be a total mess just in terms of physical table layout.
.... yeah; no idea what 'red zone' means here.
Soulbond did the whole "attach a creature to another creature" thing, and it was just fiddly. It's just really fiddly to keep track of what is attached to what, and then you want to tap one of the creatures and not the other thing it's attached to; and it all just gets messy.
What red zone?
> Another thing I would suggest is deleting the rules which prohibit creatures from being attached to anything. Deleting those rules would allow more to be made with them.
That's a bad suggestion. Creatures attached to other stuff have a hard time moving to the red zone.
Many Auras can be used on either your own cards or opponent's cards, including many which give bonuses and those which give penalties, and that makes it useful. Also, some combinations of abilities and other changes may be useful for different purposes for different players. (Maybe some people don't like the possibility to put -1/-1 on your own creatures, or whatever, but I do like such possibilities; you can put it on whatever player's cards you want to do.) Also, I like stuff such as totem armor together with -1/-1, or defender with +1/+1, or the Aura itself has phasing, "When this enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on enchanted creature", and "Enchanted creature gets -2/-2", so that it does more than one things at once.
Also, consider world enchantments with "when this enchantment dies, ..." (this can also apply to other permanents that are world, other than enchantments). This makes world able to do more.
Another thing I would suggest is deleting the rules which prohibit creatures from being attached to anything. Deleting those rules would allow more to be made with them.
Now I think about it, enchantments do tend to break down into:
* Negative auras, which work ok (minor inconvenience being on the wrong side of the board)
* Positive auras, often a bit weak but still have a good place. Ideally there might be something inbetween auras and equipment in "how hard they are to deal with"
* Enchantments with a static effect. Ideally these would be exciting things that change the rules of the game, but in practice, they too often they just play better if they were on a creature. Or benefit from the extra options of being an artifact with tap, or a planeswalker with a once-per-turn ability.
I'm not sure if there's some clever way of rebalancing all those niches and the artifact niches to make it better than it is now, or not :)
I also forgot that auras include cards like Pacifism that hinder opponent's creatures. Also, Curses have plenty of untapped design space.
For non-Bogles constructed decks, auras could use a boon. I'm even tempted to say just outright power-creep them. Auras do serve purpose in limited. Also, auras themselves have plenty of theoretical untapped design space, for enchanting artifacts, Planeswalkers, and even other enchantments. Of course, such designs would need a home where those were aplenty.
I would rather use global enchantments than Planeswalkers and certainly creatures (though I'm of the opinion anti-planeswalker abilities and effects should have been introduced long ago and with more frequency). There is no more reason to make enchantment an artifact subtype than their is making artifact an enchantment subtype. Non-aura enchantments tend to have a pretty significant impact on the board, and make for a lasting threat when one isn't packing enchantment removal. In fact, not being attached to the body of a planeswalker or creature is what I believe allows some beloved enchantments to be as powerful as they are, such as Doubling Season and halved children. Even if a planeswalker had Doubling Season as an ability, it'd likely be an ultimate and not something the player is even guaranteed to get use of depending on the board state. I can't say that a creature or planeswalker is innately better than a non-aura enchantment for that reason that enchantment immediately grants the player access to the ability they're looking for.
Specific rebuttals
1. Planeswalkers have little more unexplored design space than any other black-border card type. Aside from the static abilities introduced in War of the Spark, Planeswalkers are usually effectively X: instant/sorcery ability, Y: another instant/sorcery ability, sometimes an enchantment, and Z: instant/sorcery ability or enchantment.
2. Planeswalkers do move product with their popularity. I no rebuttal to this.
3. I have previously stated enchantments are more likely to offer direct, immediate access to the ability desired, thus increasing their power level. Though the planeswalker may have more versatility, the planeswalker has no guarantee of getting to an explosive effect desired. This is not to disparge the + and smaller - abilities Planeswalkers have, this is only for the comparison to enchantments. The smaller abilities more often imitate instants and sorceries.
4. That seems entirely dependent on what the deck is looking for.
This last point may be irrelevant, but having no concern for damage to separate them from creatures and planeswalkers, and not tapping gives enchantments a very different feel from artifacts. When playing artifacts, I expect the artifacts to be pieces of a combo in a specific set of cards, something that explodes like a bomb upon the opponennt once all the pieces are together. In contrast, enchantments have a feel of a boulder rolling down a hill, not necessarily together but overwhelming as they appear and alter the state of the board.
EDIT: Why omit an entirely functional, existing card type from the game? This seems only to hurt potential design space by losing out on an item that cards can care about and interact with?
Additionally, this would probably uneven the color pie, because enchantment's spaces in colors don't overlap with artifact's spaces in colors.
See Enhancing Enchantments.
No doubt planeswalkers have encroached on enchantments. We all knew it would come to that for several reasons.
Exactly what I mean about this topic. Why do we need enchantments when it can be replaced and no one would notice or care.
Consider what if Enchantment was a subtype of artifact. Type line would be Artifact -- Enchantment. Then Auras could be instants and sorceries using similar technology to Haunt and Cipher. Instants even have built-in "Flash". But better because instants and sorceries have far far far more support than Auras. Of course we still have reusable Auras in the form of colored and colorless Equipment.