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 2026-06-08 00:09:29)
supertype update
> Still, I feel that neither Lotus Path Djinn nor Misplace are justifiable red-flags at the moment.
What does that mean? Does that mean its not justifiable to put a red flag on them or its not justifiable to have them at common since they have red flags?
Puzzled Out is the only name that would not be considered problematic.
> I really want a 'spell' word.
You would think "Exile a nonpermanent card revealed this way." had that word somewhere in it.
If instants are red-flagged, what about mentioning instants (compare Tireless Knight )?
supertype update
supertype update
supertype change
Historic did set the path for collective terms so as to make it possible to create a term that would refer specifically to instants and sorceries. On the other hand, if were to change instant to a super type this wouldn't be an issue. Wait - hold on - that was the intention here as indicated by the Giant Growth. Time to revise the set...
I think one for each player would be a little bit too powerful in multiplayer. However, here the NNWO rulings place very strict limits on the word count so there wouldn't be any room to explore that anyway.
EDIT: Ah, I see that the instant supertype discussion did briefly come up in Pounce.
I know; just thinking.
I really want a 'spell' word. If only instant were a supertype.
I presume this is intentionally only able to choose one in multiplayer; not one per player?
I gave this a bit more 'humane' name.
@Vitenka:
They don't necessarily have a target for the instant - not to mention the mana - to cast it. Plus, it would make the card that is already quite weak mechanically even worse.
Antithought -> Puzzled Out
You didn't even consider "The feeling when fish are eating your mind" as a name? Shame.
You could make it shorter by removing the 'or instant; since they're probably just gonna cast the instant, anyway.
fixed the name
This barely goes over the word limit with one or two depending on how we look at it. I don't know how cut-throat we want to be about it.
Still, I feel that neither Lotus Path Djinn nor Misplace are justifiable red-flags at the moment. Actually they both seem that they would be doubly flagged which makes them even worse offenders. I could see Djinn before thrice flagged for having nonsquare stats, prowess itself is questionable, and then add in the combination of the two.
Mechanically, this is obviously a bend, but IMO it 'correlates' well with Negate. For example, at the moment, Collective Brutality is the only black discard spell that explicitly discards the stuff Negate targets. It's fairly weak, but at least it Peeks at each opponent's hand even if it doesn't hit anything.
Also, how do we feel about using real world quotes in coresets?
The text here has this minor hint that you might be able to cast the instant(s) you are holding before this resolves, but that's a 'advanced/hidden' strategy ;) The text in general also seems to fit well with a card that makes opponents reveal their hands and meshes well with the art.
I added the art for some spice and it was the initial motivation for the card's themes. Some other names I was thinking were
They are all pretty vague, impersonal, and don't really hit any 'nerves' though... so I went with the simplest one that was 'okay' with the art. Also, you could think of instant and sorceries, especially ones in your hand, as more 'thought-like' than anything else so an 'antithought' negating them makes sense.
deactivated
What is this card? I hardly see any uses for it as a sorcery. It can't even protect your combo properly that's about the only few proper uses I can think of. Why is it a common? The likelihood of you naming the right combat trick or whatever before waving into combat is incredible unlikely. This card is beyond narrow.
EDIT: Okay, I see from the skeleton that the motivation behind this a 'simple counterspell'.
Tbh, I didn't really even think of trample until I saw it here as I've never cared about it that much. I notice now that neither my Silmarillion or "Zion" set has any cards that mention trample... Maybe I had already mentally blocked it out of my mind. So even outside the context of NNWO I see the keyword as inadequate.
I mean, trample makes the creature harder to block. It definitely compares better to menace than to deathtouch or whatever. Afflict is quite similar as well. I get that one might twist it around so that they aren't 'technically' evasion but the end result is just that they are more likely to deal damage to the defending player when they attack.
Thorn Elemental's ability did occur to mind, but IMO it's about as baffling or even more so than trample. I recall as a kid that our playgroup had trouble getting what that card was trying to tell us and it was misunderstood on many occasions.
Fun fact: I thought about branching a side thread off of this over in Conversation brainstorming 10 evergreen abilities for the color pairs that are NNWO compliant.
If you want to change trample's status from just "redflagged" to "no longer evergreen", that should probably go into the highlighted comment on the front page.
How many keyword mechanics ever were removed from the list of evergreen keywords, but then brought back? I recall one: trample. I personally credit this to a fact that trample actually is not an evasion ability. It's closer to deathtouch than to flying/daunt since it doesn't prevent blocking/interaction, but makes you reconsider whether you want it.
To me personally it's not a big issue to turn this into a Thorn Elemental reprint if trample is deemed a keyword non gratia.
Trample has been criticized often as being too complex for evergreen. We do remember its original reminder text, right? The current one is kind of ambiguous. WotC has been considering with going with "can't be blocked by creatures with power 2 or less" as well as a mechanic - in part to be a replacement for trample. Why do we want trample to exist - regardless or rarity? If it can't be used at common here, then it certainly doesn't need to be an evergreen. Flash, double strike, and indestructible are all mechanics that make sense as uncommon evergreen (so deciduous?) as they have specific uses. Trample is just bad evasion.
I was under the impression that Great Sandwurm was pretty much the replacement for the traditional trample fattie for these exact reasons.
REPRINT: Duskdale Wurm
Uncommon due to trample anyway, so also getting an appropriately sized reprint.
I'm currently brainstorming some draft themes for the color pairs.
Inadvertently, it seems, the amount of life gain in green-white has gone up enough to justify a theme.
We also have many vanilla creatures and even a few cards like Muraganda Petroglyphs, so I though vanilla-matters for red-green and tokens for white-X?.
Among white-blue-black I could see a theme of power 2 (or less), flying/evasion, maybe life loss.
Colorshift: Ambush Viper
So Ambush Viper has been ciriticized philosophically for being too close to spell removal in green.
Also flash is now tried as something more often to appear in black.
A perfect time to shift Ambush Viper into black - a card featuring two keywords redflagged at common under NNWO.
REPRINT: Adamant Will
Combat tricks are required to have instant speed.
>> 
4/4 >> 2/4; Beast >> Badger Beast
This is now directly next to Rumbling Baloth in the skeleton. But the slot is still marked as a red flag from earlier, so this could easily be a functional reprint of Alpine Grizzly or Colossodon Yearling. For the moment we have a p>t vanilla common in green already, so I'm going to turn this into a 2/4 though the flavor and playtesting may lead me to switch the p/t on both this and Terrain Elemental.
Also regarding the creature type debate: Why choose?
I don't care much for the change. It comes with a lot of trouble beyond just cleaning up rules, but outright changing the functionality of cards - and inconsistently. If it was an altogether new term (or flash changed to a supertype), it would be easier to swallow.
Most of all I think it's a distraction to me right now. If you feel going through all the cards and correcting the type lines is worth it, go for it. I recalled the idea after I was done with these five cards... and didn't change it since the idea is not technically an inherented aspect of NNWO - it's something additional the jury is still out on.
Uh, so, are we abandoning the instant super type update idea? Ie. see Giant Growth. IMO it fits here quite well in that it makes instant something that's indeed 'added/additional' and not a base type among other card types.
Also, given that it's stated that...
> ... so the card type of instants isn't leaving the game, just at common (and possibly in a few cases, uncommon)
... it isn't that far fetched for instants to have a reminder text even at uncommon :P
Note: the instant supertype is mentioned briefly in the article:
> Flash
> This is one of the ones that surprised me. It seems so simple once you know what it does, but it just confuses the new players. I think this is where having instant as a supertype would help us.
Filling staple designs that won't go at common.