Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-12-21 05:22:39)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-12-21 05:22:39)
I'm just playing fam, I don't mean any offense, and I'm not offended either. This was supposed to be a humorous way to ask if there were any other symbols not listed on the side menu.
Sorry it came off rude, I often use 'yelling' to communicate a joke. Kind of like comedians do, but i understand if there was a miscommunication on my part. Sorry.
Apparently no one told you that typing in all caps is considered equivalent to yelling and equally rude.
I just learned that
is a thing, why was this not on the side of my cards!?!?!
WHAT ELSE HAVE I BEEN LIED TO ABOOOT!
It would be nice for one simple word to be used for every sort of resource, but that also makes it harder to understand what actually is doing what... so maybe kinda dangerousse
I dally with the idea to make the wording for counters consistent across objects.
Currently players "get" (Daxos the Returned) and "lose" (Leeches) counters, while for creatures it is "put onto" or "removed".
Would it be so bad to word Fretwork Colony's upkeep trigger ability as:
> At the beginning of your upkeep, ~ gets a +1/+1 counter and you lose 1 life.
? Suddenly that's consistent with players. You could go one further and use "gain" over get, but that's me just wanting to unify "gain 1 life", "gain
" and "gain an experience counter".
The only on that sounds weird to me is "creature gains +1/+1", but still less weird than "
: Add 
." and that's currently a thing.
Yeah, it's pretty unintuitive i suppose. At some point is it fair to say, just learn these words? maybe not. I never had struggle learning magic, but i guess not everyone is like the great and wonderful froggo, so i shouldn't be arguing for having more newbie complexity
That's the old wording from revised edition. E.g. http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=1349
Bolt might be doable, buit is a bit niche. Mill they are strongly on the fence - because while it's evocative to long-time players; it makes no sense at all to new ones. Because seirously, Millstone makes a noise which drives you crazy and so you discard cards. Obviously!
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