Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2024-04-18 17:24:53)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
I have downloaded the latest version of the official rules, which includes the rules for battles. I have updated by unofficial rules with the rules for battles. Some of them do not match the official rules (because I disliked some of them). Some of the official rules are good, and most of them have been kept as they are. For one thing, the protector of a battle with no subtypes is its controller (this is an official rule, and I think that this is good; I might make up some unofficial cards that use this).
There are many things in Magic: the Gathering that you might need to keep track of by markers, papers, etc, including counters, some tokens, Lifelace, Magical Hack, choices made when playing a card, life points, effects that last over multiple turns, etc. (Actually, I think that just writing down who is the protector will likely be clearer even if it does not attack and block) (If each player is using different card sleeves, then you will not need to keep track of owner in this way since card sleeves can be used for this purpose instead. However, that is not always the case.)
About "protector", there are some potential complications with the rules, although presumably they would write them to handle such things (including the protector leaving the game, the controller changing, differences of multiplayer rules (depending on the specific kind of multiplayer and team rules being played, certain considerations may be needed), etc). (I have some ideas, but I will wait to see the official rules.)
I have written unofficial rules, and might continue to do so. (I will wait for the official rules for battles before attempting to write any unofficial rules relating to such a thing, though.)
You must be new to game design. ;)
To re-state: The task of a designer is to put work into allowing things to work without the use putting a lot of work into it.
That's what the rule does. It takes away an option to make things run more smoothly.
"(Actually, I might have preferred to not assign a "protector" and handle defense differently than that, but maybe there is not a better way.)"
As someone who has spend a lot of time trying to figure this one out without protector-tech: I'm happy it's there. It's the solves the main contention point I had with my own variant. It's a blessing.
It could be kept track of, by e.g. taking a paper and writing who is the protector. (Even if it is not a creature, writing such things can be helpful for this and other cards too.) (Actually, I might have preferred to not assign a "protector" and handle defense differently than that, but maybe there is not a better way.)
(Another question: If the battle's controller changes, does the protector change, or does it stay the same (even if it is not an opponent of the new controller), or something else?)
I did consider blocking, as I have mentioned. The possibility of combinations to allow it is not much more significant than combinations to damage it directly (or otherwise remove counters from it) anyways. And, if it dies without being able to cast the spell on the other side if it dies due to damage greater than or equal to its toughness, then there is that consideration too, as I have mentioned (that is more important to consider when it attacks than when it blocks, but even if it blocks or is damaged by something other than combat, that can still be relevant). (There are ways to avoid this too, such as by regeneration or indestructible.)
On Twitter, some people also say, it is unintuitive to disallow battles from attacking, and many other people also dislike this rule. (Some people say battles should not be allowed to attack themself, but I think that is unnecessary.) However, some people like such a rule. Matt Tabak has said "you work through a few scenarios with battles attacking and who’s the protector and who can block and you start thinking about future battles possibilities and you realize battles attacking is a very bad idea." Actually, I think that it isn't too difficult. In a game with more than two players, you still need to keep track of both the controller and the protector, even if it does not attack.
MTG Wiki lists the following rulings for battle:
Battles are susceptible to more than just combat damage. Some spells and abilities may specifically say that they cause damage to be dealt to battles. Also, any spell or ability that says "any target" can target a battle.
Battles enter the battlefield untapped.
They can be tapped, but they don’t naturally tap. Being tapped doesn’t have any mechanical relevance.
Battles that are Animated as creatures in addition to being a battle can't attack or block.
Battles that become an attacking or blocking creature drop out of combat.
Battle creatures that receive damage remove that many defense counters in addition to the damage being marked on the creature.
If lethal damage also removes the last defense counter, the battle creature will die before it can be exiled and the back face be cast.
I agree with 1, 2, 6, and 7 (and are what I had already expected); they "naturally" make sense within the rules. (I dislike the wording "any target", but the way that rule works is good.) I disagree with 4 and 5, and think that the rules would be cleaner to omit those special cases. I mostly agree with 3, although there would also be possibility of gaining abilities with
(or of naturally having such abilities in some cases, even if none of the official cards do), in which case there would be a relevance of being tapped.
Here is another issue with battles attacking/blocking: Now you can use it as a blocker to get rid of defense counters, so instead of investing resources you drain opponent's resources. It's just so plainly cirectly circumventing the "protector" concept that doesn't apply e. g. to planeswalkers that I can easily see why the exception is made here...
There are also logistics to be considered. Battles already have to track both a controller and a protector in multiplayer, that gets even more complicated if they enter combat.
zzo38, I don't know what your "generalized ongoing" rule is, so mentioning it adds nothing to your comment for me.
Battles attacking themselves makes no sense mechanically and little sense narratively.
The state-based action mentioned makes sense. (My unofficial "generalized ongoing" rule would suppress it like it also does with Sagas, schemes, dungeons, and phenomena.)
I also find the second point annoying, too. I think that it would be cleaner (i.e. not needing so many exceptions) if that rule that battles that are also creatures cannot attack or block is omitted, and just allow it to attack and block, and even to attack itself. (It would be a creature so you can declare an attack with it, and it is a Siege that you are not the protector of therefore you can attack it, so it should be allowed to attack itself. I also dislike the rule about creatures not being allowed to be attached to other stuff.)
(If a Siege creature attacks itself (if it were allowed), there is still a strategy involved. For example, if it is a 5/5 creature, then regardless of the number of defense counters, I would expect that since the damage is now equal to its toughness so it will die before the triggered ability can resolve. If the protector has a creature with zero power that can block (e.g. many Walls), then it will not receive any damage. Alternatively, if it is a 4/5 creature with 4 defense counters, then blocking with creatures with 5 or more total power will cause it to die before the other side can be used, too. And yet still, battles are not normally creatures, so you will still need to play combinations of other cards. There is also blocking, which seems that it would be easier to use to your advantage, but still battles are not normally creatures and effects after blockers are declared can still affect the power and toughness of creatures, and abilities such as first strike, etc.)
I understand why they did it, but for cases like the one you pointed out, I would still rather the ruling be that they can't attack themselves, not that they can't attack at all.
No other permanent would be able to attack itself. Yeah, planeswalkers can block for themselves, but battles already mess with the logistics of the combat phase through the protector mechanic.
Does anyone else find that second point annoying? Every other permanent type can attack if transformed into a creature...
Yes, Tabak said that there's a state-based action that puts battles with no counters and no triggered ability on the stack into their owner's graveyard, just like sagas
He also tweeted that battles that are also creatures can't attack or block
My assumption on the trigger on defeat is that the battle will be put into the graveyard as an SBA, but the intrinsic triggered ability tracks that card.
It is already out there that the default behavior of battles without defense counters is to go to the graveyard, Sieges just add to that.
Some ideas about making puzzles (I don't know if some of these might have already puzzles that use such things or not):
You have to concede a subgame in order to win.
You have to force opponent to copy Phage the Untouchable. (I had an idea, but had not actually done it: It could be Archenemy, the next scheme card being Ignite the Cloneforge, and one player on your team has to play Phage the Untouchable and get rid of all other permanents that player controls, and the other players on their team have to concede. Other cards/effects could be added to make this difficult.)
It has no solution (due to a mistake in its construction), but more than a year later, the rules are changed (or errata is issued) which makes it valid.
A selection of cards that hides an elaborate secret message.
A theme which significantly involves timestamps.
A puzzle where you have to spend all of your mana even though there is no mana burn (perhaps involving Omnath, Locus of Mana).
A "orthodox helpmate" puzzle involving Mindslaver.
Something similar to the "Babson task". (Maybe, opponent has several cards that they can play; to win, you must play the card that is the same as that one; e.g. if they play Thoughtlace then you must play Thoughtlace, and if they play One With Nothing then you must play One With Nothing, etc; other cards don't help)
The stipulation says you have to force a draw; a win isn't good enough.
You have to play so that, if neither player concedes, you are guaranteed to lose regardless of what opponent does.
Some puzzles that I had made involve such things as:
You have to concede the main game in order to win.
The only thing about a card that matters is that it has madness.
You have to cast a spell only because it has split second, not because of its effect when it resolves.
The restriction "The new creature type can't be Wall" in Artificial Evolution is relevant, despite the fact that there are no Walls or anything else that cares about Walls in the puzzle.
Judges disagreed on whether or not the solution is valid.
Battle: See Battle.
Backup: Does it interact with text changing effects at all? Is it treated as an abbreviation (similar to macros in some programming languages), which will inherently involve the same abilities listed below?
Incubate: Now there are double-face tokens. Although the current rules say "double face card", it wouldn't be a problem to allow other objects to be double-face also, so now it can.
Chaos ensues: I had similar idea before. (I had previously written such things as "roll the planar die, but choose
as the natural result instead of choosing the natural result at random", which is rather messy. So, it is good that now they are doing it better.)
Now I found some more information about it, in the March of the Machine Mechanics article.
The use defense counters. That seems to be similar to loyalty counters, but it is a different kind of counters, being removed due to a different type.
It says "every player except a battle's protector may attack it". Does that include players on the same team as the protector? How does this work with rules dealing with "defending player"? (Currently the rules are that the active player decides which player is the defending player as a turn-based action during the begin combat step (possibly restricted to only the previous or next player on a different team, depending on the specific variant being played), unless all opponents are automatically defending players. How does that interact with battles? Does the defending player need to be the battle's protector to be able to attack it, or is that somehow not the case?)
If a Siege's controller changes, who is its protector? If the controller changes control during combat, is it removed from combat and no longer attacked? I would think so, if it is like existing rules, which says that a permanent whose controller changes is removed from combat, so I would guess that it would apply here, too.
It says "when the last defense counter is removed from a Siege battle, the battle is defeated and a triggered ability triggers". That suggests a (presumably intrinsic) triggered ability, which could be countered (or otherwise fail to resolve) and leave it with no counters, unless there is some other rule having to do with that somehow. (One alternative would be a state trigger, which would allow it to retrigger in such a circumstance.)
Can a Siege creature attack itself? (And, therefore if the blocking creature has positive power and the attacker does not have first strike (or the blocker does have first strike), it will damage the battle anyways, whether or not it is blocked)
Reverse planeswalkers it is. This is very similar to a card type I created: You could "attack" the permanent you yourself control for a reward.
I always was unhappy that allowing your opponents to block made the card type weak in multiplayer. They solved that by introducing a "protector". That's nice.
There will be different variants of battles it seems. I'm looking forward to read up on which aspects of the card we got are inherent to all battles and which parts are tied to Siege specifically.
We should switch to getting images from Scryfall instead of Gatherer, then I could just link to previewed cards :)
Universal Salvation
Card128589 (this one I like best)
Card129519
Card138364
Card138718
Mathematical Puzzlement
Card140005
Also, some of my cards mention things that are in the rules but are hardly or never mentioned in the text of official cards (such as "special action", "timestamp", etc), and stuff mostly only found in older cards (such as "bands with other").
The file name has a
.jpgsuffix, but the MIME type isimage/webp. So, I installed thewebppackage, but then, it cannot read from stdin, so I need to store a copy of the file and then convert it; however, output to stdout does work, so storing a copy of the converted file is not necessary.The reminder text does not explain much, but it gives some idea of its working. I will hope to see the actual rules later, since then it would be explained better, probably. (I can see why they made a new type, though.) One thing that I notice is that it has a subtype, and the reminder text mentions the subtype.
We now know what battles are: Invasion of Zendikar
You play the battle, get an etb effect, and assign an opponent to defend. Any other player can then attack the battle. When its defeated, it transforms and you get the spell on the back
I'm all caught up for over a year.
How about you check out a booster of [Tribute] Arnath and leave some feedback?
I expected a true crossover between planes, e. g. Thalia riding Ghalta, but the shared-plane pairings of legendary creatures are also fine.
The Praetor DFCs are neat, though the Sagas might feel a bit like a planeswalkers ultimate: Rarely relevant to the cards actual power level.
I really like the way off-color Phyrexian mana is used on the Compleation DFCs.
I really enjoy the use of flavor text on the common land cycle - introducing us to ten of the planes getting invaded (though there are more, as we know from the names of some art associated with the set).
Battles in MOM (some, most, all?) are confirmed to be double faced. So yeah, I already dislike them.
I guess this implies the back side is the "reward" for completing some goal on the front side.
My only hunch is that battles are something that changes combat, and that you (and possibly the opponent) assign creatures to, like Raging River.
I think a cute idea is a "reverse planeswalker". Battles just a permanents on the battlefield and you can "attack" a batte you control to add counters to it, while your opponent can block.
Then at certain thresholds you get effects similar to Sagas; you just have to go through combat to advance the battle.
It's more simple than my above suggestion.
An interesting new tidbit about battles is the new arts we've seen that's probably for them. It's horizontally oriented, and makes me think of planar cards. Planes themselves are just really similar to global symmetric enchantments though, so no idea what to make of that.
I think it will be representing individual planes fighting the phyrexians. You and the opponent will be on one side or another of the war perhaps having to do a sidequest similar to a mix of an enchantments saga and dungeon mechanic to "win" the battle.
Sup folks,
Share some of your cards that showcase your unique style as a designer. To link cards, type "C" plus its ID (found in the url) between triple parentheses, like ( ( ( C 1 2 3 4 5 ) ) ) without spaces.
Mana Leek
Contract for a Soul
Wandering Spider
Most of my designs are commons, as I play mainly Pauper and Limited. I really enjoy simple cards. Also, my main interests are the mechanical color pie, and exploring how each color approaches their strengths and limitations.
MaRo has been on record for a while that this will bring about a lasting change both in-world and to the game.
So far everything is on a course to fulfill my earlier prediction that the multiverse will "shrink".
If they somehow manage to nerf the Glistening Oil, they can even keep the Phyexians around as a reasonably-powered but interplanar villain for a while - addressing the Praetors individually, but based on earlier comments they want to end the arc here (with Aftermath).
They also stated that the next set(s) will deal with the ramifications, so undoing ONE & MOM with time travel seems off the table.
I'm also really happy to see more Planechase. Perfect spot for it, and combining these additional formats with commander decks aims them at the correct audience.