Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-07 10:12:39)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-07 10:12:39)
I would also like them to keyword Ping, Bolt, Shock, Drain and Mill, etc
that sounds beautifully simplistic vitenka
would it be fair to say it would also kinda rock to have
: +1/+0 UEOT for firebreathing?
I guess because when adding you think 'add to what?'
I don't see what was wrong with good old "
:
"
What's wrong with Add?
that shorthand sounds litty af
I really wish that the terminology for mana had become as such:
:Produce 
.
I really dislike "add."
I have been using "arrives" as shorthand for "enters the battlefield."
I worry ally and enemy is confusing considering that the color pie also uses that terminology
Yes; that would often be helpful shortening, and also quite clear.
i'm 100% in
Time to add to the ideas:
Two new "ownership attributes" to be used in card text: "allied" and "enemy".
Anything controlled by you or a teammate is "allied"; anything that doesn't have a controller and is owned by you or a teammate is "allied".
Anything controlled by an opponent is "enemy"; anything that doesn't have a controller and is owned by an opponent is "enemy".
> Sucker Punch
Sorcery
Put a +1/+1 counter on target allied creature. It deals damage equal to its power to target enemy creature.
A non-obvious benefit of this is multiplayer friendly wording in Standard legal sets e. g. wouldn't it be neat if Zealous Persecution buffed "allied" creatures? Currently any wording that would achieve the same would sound like the card was specifically worded with something beyond single player in mind.
Yeah; but you're not directed to look at any of the OTHER cards. Just the one you choose.
But searching your library due to an effect is something you are explicitly directed to do.
You could do "Shuffle your deck for a creature". But that might take a while...
Wouln't the best way be to comp-rules that unknown portions of your deck are always unknown, and you should shuffle any time you find something out that you're not explicitly directed to?
Yeah, I'm in favor of the 'autoshuffle' clause that MaRo has suggested as well. I personally already use it in my sets: Shepherd of the Trees, Elvish Harbinger, Heed the Call, and Humble Tutor.
> To be real, what would you shuffle if not your deck?
A face-down pile of exiled cards. See e. g. Ghastly Conscription.
It has been suggested before to shorten that phrase. It really creates issues in only some corner cases and might be doable.
Also another idea, maybe a bit branching off (possibly)
do you think they might stop saying x player's library when shuffling?
I mean after removing x players mana pool, i'm thinking abut stuff that could free design space.
To be real, what would you shuffle if not your deck? Your hand? I dont think so. Im quite sure everyone knows how to shuffle (although wizards has said it's not great for beginners to have to do, not that they dont know how, just they dont like to)
So why not simplify it?
when ~ etbs, search your library for a card and put it into your hand, then shuffle.
also shuffle could come with reminder text in core sets or in minor appearances, but it's overall pretty simple.
I did assume there was rules baggage with it. I just sometimes get the urge for a simpler way of writing, one that maybe flows nicer and is more intuitive on the surface level, but when you get into it, it would obviously fall apart.
It's mostly me just being lazy
It's for consistency. And with the new staggered triggers the consistency is even higher since they have now to kind of abilities that are worded "When A, you may B. When you do, do C to target D." It's neat to have similar wordings for these that are distinct only in key phrases.
Remember also that "If you do" does not always follow an optional instrunction - sometimes it's mandatory, but you might not be able. Those also fit neatly into the same template.
I think they changed to the current wordier template due to translation problems; but I might be misremembering. I do know that actual real people have had trouble understanding "X to Y" responding "I cannot X, so I just get Y free, right?" even though "NO; why would you EVEN?" feels like the right level of response to that.
I added some kind of description on the card.
On the suggestion itself, the wording looks familiar to stuff seen in the older cards. It's hardly shorter and depending on the context, could make you question the timing.
So if I'm getting this right you are saying that Academy Raider would read better as
> Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may discard a card to draw a card.
That kind of makes me think I would be able to rummage as many times as I want once I get a hit in.
I know wizards likes to save design space if they can, so would they ever consider beginning to write things simpler?
Instead of "You may pay
, if you do, draw a card"
it could be
"You may pay
to draw a card"
maybe they do this, but sometimes I think things could be shortened and am surprised they haven't already
I really wouldn't count 'discourages blocking' as a negative since it makes sure the games end. 'Discourages attacking' is the problematic twin, which holds true for deathtouch, first strike, and menace.
Haste only matters for a single turn - and only if you want to attack.
Flying is extremely parasitic.
Lifelink and vigilance are pretty good.
Anyway, my point is that hardly any keyword is not without its faults. That's why the pros and cons need to be weighted and evaluated. Because of this, I would just jam pretty much any keywords as placeholders that could then be 'one-upped' by new contending ones. At least that way some progress would be made as these kind of 'find a new keyword' don't tent to go that far. You can check up various threads seeking for new
and 
evergreens for that.
Couple of things I thought about and/or recalled:
> "Stalwart" (This can block any creature, regardless of that creature's abilities.)
> "Ruthless" (This deals twice as much combat damage to players and planeswalkers.)
> "Avert" (If this would be dealt damage, you may have all of that damage be dealt to you instead.)
> "Stalk" (This can't be blocked by more than one creature.)
> "Elusive" (Whenever this becomes blocked, you may untap it and remove it from combat.)
So to reiterate, I would slam just the first things that come to mind in there somewhere and then let the new ones contend with them. Instead of looking for 'perfect ones' we would be having the keywords fight against each other and find the 'best ones' that way.
Which, yeah, I know... I didn't solve anything. I gave abilities to colors that already had abilities. Still, IMO, these swaps make the pie stronger.
In theory, I'd suggest offense for B/R. Though haste makes a lot of sense in that combination.
I would add that evasion 'might not count'. You could probably make the system make more sense if you just assumed that flying and menace were just 'part of the game' and weren't locked into a two-color combination. Every color, after all, should have some form of evasion.
If that's the philosophy, then tying reach into a two color combination also seems weird (it already was kind of weird to begin with. If your opponent has no flying creatures, your keyword does nothing.) So, like evasion, anti-evasion can 'not count' when deciding on keywords for two color combinations. I'd also suggest moving reach into white, so you can get parity like this:
Flying: White/Blue/Black
Menace: Green/Red/Black
Reach: White/Green/Red
If we did this, we could move haste into R/G, then give 'Offense' to B/R.
Move flying to blue/black in common. Give white/blue 'defense', AKA
Shield Maiden
W
Creature - Human Soldier
Defense 1 (As long as this creature is blocking, it gets +1/+1.)
0/2
It makes obvious sense in white to have better blockers. It's also a nice touch in blue, because it lets you print weaker creatures that can stand toe to toe with green creatures on the block.
I think the bigger issue with the proposed keywords for
and 
is developmentally. Both of these mechanics discourage blocking, which is probably something that isn't encouraged in R&D land, because it means that there's less interaction overall. Of the evergreen mechanics, only deathtouch and I guess first strike really discourage people to block when they can, and even then, the attacker still has a risk of losing their creature if the defending player chooses to block with it. With the proposed two mechanics, there's much less risk when attacking because at the very least, you know you're going to get the damage in/going to force the opponent to commit a chump block unless he wants to take damage. In limited, there's not much the opponent can do to get around that if it becomes a problem.
Not going with the idea of less-powered environments seems like a good idea tbh. NNWO might be sort of a joke, but there are some real truths to its message. Shuffling being one of the things that are pretty much now 'a real' red-flag in NWO as well. Even the nonsquared pt is now considered an issue when relating to buffs - or more specifically to prowess.
Pushing for some 'defender tribal' could be something to try, but I think you're right that it would be a futile effort. We've seen glimpses of it before.
I've never been too much of a fan of daunt. I don't know what to say about it. The static number of "2" seems kind of out of place in an evergreen. It seems quite environment dependent to me, as in, whether there are a lot of playable creatures with power 2 or less.
Now that we're considering dropping first strike could this work for
> ? (Prevent all damage that would be dealt to this creature as long as it's attacking.)
Is it too much of a bend in mono-
?
EDIT
Afflict / "Super trample" variant for
?:
> Whenever this deals combat damage to a blocking creature, that creature's controller / defending player also loses that much life.
Maybe
... and menace into 
?
This compares badly to deathtouch obviously, but maybe the 'when deals damage, tap the damaged and it doesn't untap during next untap step'? This is one of those points where I might be willing to raise the 'portal flag' as an excuse at least until something better is made for
.
NNWO doesn't go far enough to simplify the game. All keywords should be eliminated in NNWO.
How kosher would daunt (Can't be blocked by creatures with power 2 or less) be under NNWO? My gut feeling says that it's okay, because it's unlikely to vary from set to set. It can fit into
or 
or even 
to replace trample.
I don't think
or 
even need keywords, honestly.