Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-07 08:41:34)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-07 08:41:34)
I think exchanging deathtouch for first strike is a valid option to resolve the "close call". I just use the default as the article states it. It's anyone's call to remove additional keywords.
I'm not taking into account any "implied notion". That might be the idea for the "Portal of New New World Order" set, but the idea of any NWO is "going forward this is what we have" - not just for one set, right?
Defender is in as far as I am concerned, but it's not a viable candidate for a color pie keyword and just a drawback all colors have access to.
This hand-waved away in the NNWO article, but I find that first strike is at times one of the harder keywords to explain - even worse than trample. Some players just didn't get the idea of 'dealing damage first' and the 'other creature not even getting the change to strike back'. So I would question that as well - at least on common.
"Tunneling" could be thing for
(can't be blocked by creatures with flying). Maybe in addition to reach as a counterpart since they both play the anti-flying game?
I would also bring up the list of possibly deciduous keywords. The ones that can be used at time to time and perhaps in our case, at uncommon if need be. Indestructible would be on that list, and in my opinion first strike should be consider to be moved there.
Deathtouch isn't problematic on its own, only with other keywords. The ones quickly stated in the article to cause issues with it are trample, protection, and first strike. If there aren't any others, this would just reinforce my option that first strike needs to leave the evergreen list. The other two we've already listed off. So deathtouch in, first strike out? Something to consider.
I'm actually not convinced that death triggers are that much of an issue because you don't know when they will trigger. I wouldn't outright disqualify a keyword for using such. Their real issue now comes from their "dies" wording when it comes in contact with an exiling effect.
Come to think of it, there isn't any mention of "remove from the game /exile" in the article. Are we to assume that such effects are fine at common. I think so.
One thing to mention (though this is arguably) is that if we go by the implied notion of a "portal set" is that the power level doesn't perhaps need to be, how would I say it, on point. That is, the proposed keywords don't need to be that relevant gameplay wise (developmentally irrelevant) as long as they are easy to understand and flavorful (flavor makes them easier to understand as well). I don't know if this helps or even makes sense, but I thought to mention it as a possibility.
Hmm, with that in mind, maybe defender could be back in? xD As far as this discussion goes, it would certainly go in
, but I don't where I would place flying then. Though it seems that 
has haste and menace here so I guess it's fine for a color pair to have multiple and not try to shoehorn the keywords.
Lifelink being somewhat questionable in
and as a possible 
mechanic is an idea I've played around, but that probably goes beyond this discussion. So far it also seems that vigilance and lifelink are perfectly content to sit where they are in that current list up so messing around with lifelink's color identity at this point would make things just more difficult. It might be something to come back to if things change dramatically regarding that listing.
New New World Order
Thought Experiment/Challenge
The following previously evergreen keywords are gone:
²) Deathtouch & Indestructible are "close calls" in one way or another and the powers that be could be convinced to keep one of these if the rest of the line-up is perfectly simple.
Here are the color pairs with their remaining keyword abilities:
Other (ir)relevant: Defender
³) Reach is a shared keyword of red and green, but since it is an extension of flying it is preferably not counted by itself.
The following things the new keyword abilities should avoid:
The chsllenge is to assign each of the ten color pairs at least one shared evergreen mechanic (preferably keyword). Remaining keywords may be assigned to colors differently.
Anything to add?
@Link i dont have any of that stuff, but i'll bookmark it along with a few others and store it in a new bookmark section :D
yay daily plans to fill the empty void. oh wait im typing this
jk im cool
@Froggychum, you should follow the blog if you want to keep up with it :)
That's very kind of you to say, Froggychum. Thank you. :)
And thank you, Tahazzar. I write the day ahead and look over them the day I post them, but it's hard to do good editing for myself at the pace I've set. My husband looks over everything but he's not so great at spotting errors. I really appreciate the corrections and the compliment.
truism
For free! That's a rate you can't easily beat.
oh, tahazzar, you're such an editor! :D
As a test: Would the term/phrase be appropriate if someone uses their land drop for the turn?
> "Whenever you do not cast a land, you gain 1 life."?
Well, I don't only do not cast a land, when I play a Forest, I also do not cast a land when I cast a Raging Goblin.
I could see "establish". It's about on par with "deploy" IMO.
I recently stumbled over "introduce".
@Link:
On "Trapped, Part 1", there were some minor errors, as is to be expected really
As far as the actual content, it seemed good, but I'm no literature critic.
I am reading now, and plan to catch up and keep up with it.
Your writing is beautiful, thank you.
I know I haven't been very active here lately and that this isn't explicitly Magic-related, but I've started a short story blog. I post a news story 5-6 days a week. You can check it out here.
"Whenever you do not cast..." :)
Looking for ETB but not via the normal route? "Whenever ~ sneaks into play"? "Whenever ~ is cheated into play"?
lay / lay down, situate, deposit, establish,
> I would say "place" at that point except for the concept of placing counters on a permanent.
Yeah, I had the same thought and rejected the term for the same reason.
> I'm unsure what a permanent would be besides land that doesn't use the stack.
Custom card types. I recently created on called 'asset', but I've seen others. The term is supposed to be used for cards that are modular with other custom cards.
> This is a little bit disingenuous as a question
You think I'm not actually interested in having that term?
> "put on the battlefield"
Well, except if I create a card with e. g. the text "Whenever you put a permanent onto the battlefield, draw a card." it sounds really much like a permanent entering the battlefield after resolving as a spell should trigger that.
It ("putting onto the battlefield") also doesn't actually require playing a land and hence would also trigger from e. g. Elvish Piper/Llanowar Scout.
I want a term that actually means "play, but not cast" (note how both of my comments before this one specifically say "play"); your proposed wording is (usually? always?) used when an effect wants to move a card to the battlefield while circumventing the game action described by playing.
> and if that's not what you mean, then you need to revise your own wording first before asking for new ones.
I have no idea what this means. Which is my own wording?
This is a little bit disingenuous as a question since there is a well established template (if not quite "rule term") for "playing a card directly to the battlefield (it becomes a permanent)", and that is "put on the battlefield"—and if that's not what you mean, then you need to revise your own wording first before asking for new ones.
I didn't understand the distinction. I would say "place" at that point except for the concept of placing counters on a permanent. I'm unsure what a permanent would be besides land that doesn't use the stack.
I personally am a fan of special sheets and when I create any kind of special tricks like this I go for simulated special sheets as well.
As you say: Less prone to errors, and easier to realise to begin with.
No, "play" is definitive not the right term since it is already a rules term and already mentioned as literally the first word of the first comment.
Plenty of cards already use "play" and trigger on it, so changing its definition would require to change the wording of plenty of cards from "play" to "cast or play".
What I am searching for is specifically a term for "play, but not cast" and that term being "play" would just invite a lot of confusion.
My current working term is "deploy", but its not exactly thematic for lands.
cast: placing a card on the stack (it becomes a spell) Play: placing a card directly to the battlefield (it becomes a permanent)
Quickest solution, probably something better exists
The collation method for Dominaria is more complex, and that means higher chances of errors. Sirgog noticed that on MTGO, which tries to emulate the paper collation method, that Dominaria packs are missing the foils for legendary cards. He suspects the error might be due to the complexity of the collation.
Special sheets have been done several times before, so experience and simplicity makes it less prone to errors. Moreover, any errors are easier to test, detect, and rectify.
This doesn't directly address the basic issue and it kind of falls under that hosing camp, but... What if 'hating snow' (freezing stuff) was made into a theme of its own that also 'happened' to hose that particular archetype?
I really couldn't nail it down, but there might be something there with these examples:
>
Sorcery
> Destroy target creature if it's snow. Otherwise, put an ice counter on it and return this spell to its owner’s hand. (Permanents with ice counters on them are snow.)
>
Creature 1/4
: Put an ice counter on target permanent. (Permanents with ice counters on them are snow.)
: Exchange control of target land you control and target snow land an opponent controls.
>
>
>
Instant
> Target permanent becomes snow until end of turn. Activated abilities of snow permanents can’t be activated this turn.
> Draw a card.
So I tried out a few designs in temporary storage that would care about non-snow mana.
First, outside of a snow environment my cards look like normal cards with a wacky add-on clause for what would seem a narrow situation.
Now two of the cards I nerfed if snow was involved. This just looks ugly, and like I said, outside of the a constructed environment with snow, the card functions normally without any nerfing.
The other design referenced only non-snow, with no option for snow use (though a snow land could source green mana for the activation cost). This looks like one of those old Magic cards with an arbitrary restriction that serves no purpose beyond inelegance.
EDIT: Clearly, Hot Basic Plains/Island/etc. are the answer and you need a hot vs. cold set.
Snow basics were a mistake. They shouldn't have had the Basic type.
They already are that, yes.
I guess you could add some in-set cards that care about non-snow-land and non-snow-mana. Maybe a faction that's trying to thaw everything out.
But it really feels like pushing against the direction you want to go. You want snow, and ice, and terrifying abonmbinations and warm cocoa and...
Otherwise it's like making a dragon set and putting, I don't know, morph creatures in as a big theme; that all care about non-dragons on the battlefield. Why would you even do that?
The actual issue is that snow basic lands are only meaningful different from nonsnow basic lands if there is a reason to weigh them against each other.
If you can replace every nonsnow basic land with a snow basic land without notable downside you have "strictly* better basic lands"
*) by commonly used standards
If wizards sold packs of 5-of-each-art full-art snow lands; people would buy them.
Even if there wasn't a promise of an upcoming snow set.
But yeah; I think the answer i "How do you make non-snow important in a snow set" is... "Why would you want to do that?"
Sure, not every deck archetype would use snow, you'd want a couple that didn't much care one way or the other. But those decks don't see a disadvantage from snow land. So what's the actual issue?
@Dude: Ah! I never drafted during Oath of the Gatewatch. I just saw the results... that most stores would have a giant pile of Wastes next to their basic land piles in their stores. That was different from Snow-Covered Lands, since I never saw stores just handing the snow lands out. I made the (wrong) presumption that that meant players had free access to as many wastes as they wanted.
I still think giving players unlimited snow lands in limited is the clutch answer, though. Otherwise, you either end up with useless limited chaff, or insane constructed cards, or something that nobody wants. Wizards does it this way because they are restricted by the cost of printing so many new free lands for players. We aren't.
@Jack V, I think what he's looking for is positive reinforcement for playing nonsnow lands, rather than negative reinforcement for not playing snow lands.
@Secret, I like the updated idea of Partially Frozen Golem and Season's Turn. I'm not as sold on Moraine Stalker, but in a set that would be surrounded by multicolor sets, I can see it being a good fit and a nice way to encourage running non-snow basics.
Riffing off of the themes of Season's Turn, you could do a lot with nonsnow -> snow, snow -> nonsnow as a theme for
and maybe 
.
>Frost // Thaw
>
// 
>Sorcery
>As an additional cost to cast Frost, sacrifice a nonsnow land.
>Search your library for a snow land and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
>//
>As an additional cost to cast Thaw, sacrifice each snow land you control.
>Search your library for that many nonsnow lands and put them onto the battlefield tapped. Then shuffle your library.
Not a very good design, but focusing on seasonal changes themes like a good way to encourage playing both types of basic lands in a deck.
As a general theme though, it'll be a bit harder to implement this sort of idea in colors (
, 
, and 
) that don't involve land shenanigans, unless you specifically reference non-snow mana - but then, you'll get headscratchers of "why would this be in a set that has snow mana?". There's no mechanical reward for playing with non-Snow right now, and given how playing with non-Snow is the default anyway, any Snow-themed set that doesn't encourage you to play with Snow lands and makes will end up feeling like a dud. To encourage people to play with snow lands (for most people, that means buying a whole subset of new basic lands that have an expiration date), you need to provide a strong reason to. So you'd have to encourage snow at the same time as encouraging non-snow if you want to make nonsnow basics not strictly better in any design.
Again, this is solely an issue of Snow being a terrible mechanic to begin with. I'm honestly not sure why people like it so much.