Portal of New New World Order: Recent Activity
| Portal of New New World Order: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Portal of New New World Order: (Generated at 2026-01-18 04:54:28)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
Moat Piranhas & Ogre Sentry show this could easily be
.
Actually, Glade Watcher, Steelclad Spirit etc. go even further, NNWO is perfectly fine with a colorshift of the former examples.
Published as mtgnexus Card of the Day 2020-07-11.
Published as mtgnexus Card of the Day 2020-07-03.
Okay, this is where I might diverge a little bit on the end point with others. One of the things that make the NNWO article so believable is that it makes some really good points (for one thing, instants are problematic and many other MTG clones omit them). I would hope to take it as a presupposition and evolve from it - not merely adhere to it. I think truth and value could be extracted from this starting point, but I would actually argue each point made in it and not take it as a dogma. So basically going with the same principles as NWO but lowering the complexity level even more.
Maybe it would be worth to consider eradicating all red-flags that are problematic? This would keep the 'challenge' as well. In a way, I would say that nonsquared stats are a lower level red-flag that isn't an issue on its own. At that point it might be worth starting to consider categorizing red-flags and going through them on a case-by-case. So yellow-flags and orange-flags?
Digging even deeper maybe there would be a sense to think of things that are too complex (red-flaggable) even at an uncommon rarity? This way the challenge doesn't merely just basically end when all the commons are finished. I mean, that's where we're about now.
What would you think of this new direction? It's one that I've been alluding to little bit there and there.
I think you should be aware of the problem from your own experience with Puzzled Out - old wording will refer to instant cards but are not meant to apply to new wording instant permanent cards.
It is more consequent to just do the interrupt thing and fold instants into sorceries. And call out "flash sorcery card" or "swift sorcery card" on the cards where you want to be specific.
I don't think anything that directly is called out in the original article as deserving a red flag should get anything less. Otherwise you are not doing "NNWO" but "partway to NNWO".
I consider most of the challenge for creature cards in the square stats; allowing them is like "soccer but you're allowed to take the ball in your hands and run with it" or "marathon, but you may use a car rather than go by foot". You might as well not take the challenge at all and do a different thing.
What are the errata issues with instant that flash doesn't have? I have some sense there might be some, but I'm not 100% on the details. How much of an issue would they really be?
I kinda like instant since it works well as an adjective which I see as preferable for a super type.
This is on a whole another topic, but I would think about nonsquared stats not being a red-flag as long as the creature is (otherwise) fully vanilla (has no abilities whatsoever). For example, I would count the complexity of a 2/2 haste vs 2/3 vanilla being slightly more on the side of the haste creature.
using the reminder tech
using the suggested reminder
A trick, that I use sometimes, is to give the mechanic a codename (e. g. "FlashReminder") and put the entire reminder text (including parentheses) as the name.
Check out e. g. the (custom) explore reminder text in my Card Repository over here.
It won't help with all the necessary retyping of supertypes, but that's just why I didn't want to bring the hassle of introducing that change into this set to begin with. ^^
Flash is fine. How about interrupt? xD Seriously though, that term might better describe the general gameplay effect instants have.
Ugh, writing out and updating/fixing that reminder text is a bit of a pain. There doesn't seem to a way to create a mechanic with no name (with just codename)... Maybe a single white space as a name would be enough - if that required validation doesn't trim the name. I don't like that solution though.
Hey, now that instant is moved from card type, can we quickly discuss the name of the new supertype? I'm of the strong opinion that the new supertype should not be instant. Flash is fine, anything entirely new is fine, but instant comes with some problems with errata (that flash does not have - there are also some issues independent from the word chosen).
I'll stab at it. Take this type line:
Legendary Artifact Creature - Golem
Golem is a subtype. Fair enough, since it comes after the dash. But how do we distinguish between supertypes and types? Besides, you know, just memorizing all the supertypes and all the types. In theory, you might guess that all the adjectives are supertypes (legendary) while all the nouns are types. That breaks down when you see this type line:
Legendary Snow Creature - Faerie
I mean... it's not a major problem. But it is pretty weird when you think about it.
> The whole 'super / sub' type mess is a MESS.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here? Care to explain?
removed instant clause since sorcery type now covers them
That's it! That's what my brain was trying to tell me when it linked my thoughts to that supertype idea. I'm really puzzling myself out here :)
Why doesn't this now say "Exile a sorcery card revealed this way"?
Eh, reminder text is shorthand; it doens't have to be 100% identical to the comp rules. It's close enough.
The whole 'super / sub' type mess is a MESS. Given you're changing it, we can assume that you change the comprules to fix that mess at the same time :)
Hmmm, I can't find a single card that would refer to a 'supertype' in its rules text. Aren't subtypes and supertypes "types" in the general sense? Ie. The common phrase of "... in addition to its other types." I think one would refer to 'card types' specifically if need be as is the case with delirium.
EDIT: I think that reminder text needs "... the instant type... ". Also, "at any time" isn't really true...
Double comment since I missed that last response...
With Djinn and Misplace I think you have gotten the idea that "oh well this is red-flagged we might as well go overboard with them anyway" even as if red-flag would be the only important thing to note. Red-flags are merely warning signs - something to keep an eye on to see if they are problematic. One red-flag isn't necessarily as serious as another. Beginning to pile one after another once one has been placed on a card is a really bad practice. Red-flagging is a guideline to keep the overall complexity on a reasonable level. The red-flag count is one such easy principle, but I don't see it as a hard-rule that covers all cases. I would rather have multiple minor flags rather than a couple very serious ones.
This might have been covered elsewhere, but the word 'permanent' isn't necessarily that familiar to players since it doesn't itself appear on cards themselves plus it refers to all kinds of strange stuff such as cards on the battlefield, but not on the stack. Ie. Nature's Spiral tended to sport the reminder text regarding about what is a permanent. So using that plus a negative prefix 'non' could be very confusing.
I don't see referring to mechanics/types/cards that themselves are red-flagged as a red-flag itself.
I thought instant was supposed to be a supertype? Shouldn't the reminder text reflect this?
Derp, actually the supertype doesn't cover the 'or sorcery' clause though it would now cover what were 'flash' creatures. Hmmm...
I still think this is a good place to do the update since were are already treating instants very differently here.
EDIT: Almost as if it were a new complex block mechanic. So making it an 'additional' type on its own - and extension of the common card types - pronounces and supports that.
supertype update
supertype update