Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-05 19:07:41)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-05 19:07:41)
I found another possible confusion in the rules:
"Visit -- [Effect]" means "Whenever you roll to visit your Attractions, if the result is equal to a number that is lit up on this Attraction, [effect]."
To roll to visit your Attractions, roll a six-sided die. Then if you control one or more Attractions with a number lit up that is equal to that result, each of those Attractions has been "visited" and its visit ability triggers.
It is unclear if visit abilities work if the permanent is not an Attraction. (There is also the question of if a non-Attraction permanent is considered to have lights (similar to rule 208.3; the text may define power/toughness but it does not effectively have any if it is a non-creature permanent). However, even if it does effectively have lights, it does not answer the original question.)
I think that a more clear distinction between normative and non-normative rules is needed (for example, rule 120.3f is normative while 702.15f is non-normative); many more things could also be improved (not only for Unfinity, although Unfinity is one that has many more problems than usual).
I forgot text box exchanging is now part of the rules. Well, this implicitly answers the question. If "exchanging text boxes" means "exchanging rules text", then everything in the text box must be considered rules text or have "no rules meaning" (e. g. reminder text, flavor text, ability words, flavor words,
watermarksdecorative icons) - since the "lights" are considered part of the text box, even if not explicitly called out as rules text.To be fair: Unfinity probably put a lot of stress on the rules team.
Yes. Furthermore, whether or not it is considered to be a part of the rules text is important, even if it is copiable. Some effects might care whether or not they are considered to be a part of the text box, e.g. if two Attractions are made into creatures and then Exchange of Words targets them.
Yep. They have a list of copiable values and lit up lights need to be on there. Alternatively they need to make it explicit that the numbers are part of the rules text, which is already on the list.
Mark Rosewater said lights are copiable. (Still, I think that the rules should be made clear; they aren't clear.)
"Open an attraction" means to move the top card of your attraction deck (which is a pile of face-down Astrotorium cards in the command zone) to the battlefield (face up).
The junkyard is not a special zone; it is a pile in the command zone. Astrotorium cards that would go to any zone other than exile, battlefield, or command zone, go to the junkyard instead.
Some rules are unclear. Does an Attraction work if it loses its subtypes? The rules for visit say specifically Attractions, so I would guess not. Lights are not mentioned as the object's characteristics, and it is unclear if it is supposed to count as part of its initial text (the selection made for Cryptic Spires does count as part of its text; the rules say so). Also, how does name stickers working if applied to an object that has multiple names?
so "open an attraction" is just very similar to "assemble a contraption"? put an attraction from your attraction deck into play. (cf. put a contraption from your contraption deck into a sprocket.)
there's also a special zone called "junkyard" just for attractions that were destroyed.
I would want also if more cards will be good mainly for use in puzzles, too (not necessarily if exclusively so).
Can a Magic: the Gathering puzzle be made up as good as Mitrofanov's chess study? Is there anything like the Babson task? Are some puzzles with unofficial cards, or unusual stipulations, or unusual rules?
Although, even real rules and cards can be used as well. For example, it does not have to be a usual game since a puzzle (that specifically says so) could use Team vs Team, Archenemy, etc. When teams and subgames are possible, then there is also the possibility that a puzzle might involve conceding, too.
Will you make up any new puzzles? I have made up some puzzles, and I have a NNTP set up to post any new puzzles that you or I might make up, too.
I also wrote the Codex of Magic: the Gathering, which describes some conventions for puzzles. (There are a few puzzles whose solutions only work because of the Codex, e.g. because unknown cards are put directly into the graveyard from the library.)
Pseudo-Vintage and Extended pseudo-Vintage are also relevant for puzzles.
zzo38 wrote:"However, there is rule 201.3 with "interchangeable names". I think this means that a single "legal name" may have more than one English spelling (did they fail to consider this in Unfinity?)."
dude1818 wrote: "Interchangeable names actually refers to things like Universes Within versions of Secret Lair cards (see 201.3c). This is different from secondary names like the Godzilla skins (see 201.6)"
I haven't checked the rules, but before the sticker update the interchangeable names don't really offer an easily solution to issues where interchangeable names have different number of words (e. g. Mike, the Dungeon Master and Othelm, Sigardian Outcast). Right now, as opposed to alternate names (e. g. Godzilla series), there is no "main name" that supersedes the other name. At the moment interchangeable names don't replace each other, but both are equal - truly interchangeable. (all this considers only eternal rules)
Yes, I know that, and I do mean the interchangeable names (like Universes Within versions of Secret Lair cards).
Interchangeable names actually refers to things like Universes Within versions of Secret Lair cards (see 201.3c). This is different from secondary names like the Godzilla skins (see 201.6)
Yes, that would also work; requiring that they can't go in the middle, but can go before and after (like the original name is only a single word), would also work. I still think that stickers should never be allowed to match the original names, though. (Although two cards that have originally the same name, and the same sequence of name stickers applied to them, will have the same name as each other.)
About choosing names, I think it is sense to require to choose a "legal name" which is the key in the database (although some might correspond to a different parts of one card (see rule 201.4)). This never matches names including stickers or names of tokens that are not explicitly given a name by the effect that creates them. However, there is rule 201.3 with "interchangeable names". I think this means that a single "legal name" may have more than one English spelling (did they fail to consider this in Unfinity?). ("Legal name" means that the name itself is legal, not necessarily the card it refers to.)
I think, the rules would be fine if, in eternal, you could put stickers only before an after the card's printed name - issues only arise - as far as I have noticed - from actually caring about the number of words in a card's printed name.
I'm also not a fan of not being able to choose a card name as altered by stickers. It's consistent, but opens a door to weird corner cases.
I do not like the rule for name stickers in non-Un-cards mentioned in the Unfinity Release Notes. There was previously a problematic rule for implicit token names, although that rule has been corrected. Now the stickers are problematic (although the Comprehensive Rules changes have not yet been released, so it is not completely sure by now), in the way that the tokens previously were but have now been fixed.
Therefore, I will suggest to substitute the rule (in non-Un-games only): Name stickers can only go after parts of the name that are not stickers, although you can place them before other name stickers if desired. Names with stickers and those without never match each other; for a name to match, the name without stickers must be the same and the sequence of name stickers placed must be the same. (Effects that care about the spelling of name stickers still works; this is a property of the stickers.)
I found out that the ticket symbol is {TK}. I had the same question, and someone else also asked, and now they answered that question.
I like to see strange things in Un-sets (as opposed to "proper" cards), and I also think that too many of the newer ones are too much "trying too hard, corporate sanctioned fun", too (although a few of them are OK).
Some things I would think are better for Un-cards will be:
"Play cards as written. Ignore all errata." (An official card, named R&D's Secret Lair.)
"Goblins cannot reach Nirvana." (On an unofficial enchantment card named Nirvana. I forget where it comes from, but I did not make it up. I remember they tried to make cards using the words in the Comprehensive Rules in wrong ways, and there were some good funny stuff.)
"(You cannot draw anything if you do not have a hand to hold the pencil.)"
"Create a token that is a copy of target player."
"You must attack if able." (Someone else made on this Multiverse and it is a card named "You", so the text is ambiguous.)
"
: Add 
into your mana pool."
"Unhaste (this creature cannot attack before it enters the battlefield)"
"Use rules of Alpha edition of the game."
"All intervening if clauses are true."
I also think that it is a mistake, too (and it is not the only one).
But, I do think that, in general, having acorns and non-acorns, is OK (although I am not sure that the acorns are prominent enough, but I might be wrong about that).
But there is another question relating to it: What is the primary key, now?
Those are mostly in the vein of Cryptic Spires, which is why I said that card was a total mistake
Now for something I didn't expect to be eternal legal: Mechanically distinct cards with the same name (check the last paragraph of Attractions).
With that holy cow dead and eaten e.g. caring about watermarks is back on the table.
I feel like the earlier un sets may have had less good gameplay but had a really fun "anything goes" vibe even on cards that were unprintable in black border because of tone or swingyness even if they had normal rules.
It makes sense that to be playable new sets have more "silly flavour but otherwise normal" cards, or mechanics that are silly but functional like augment/host. But I miss the way old cards tried to break the pattern SOMEHOW even if it was only unusual templating or a niche effect that didn't really affect gameplay. It makes sense that some un cards could be eternal friendly but gives a "trying too hard, corporate sanctioned fun" vibe to me now...
> "Sets which are not designed for Standard need not have all types, I think. Nor need it have all colors, balanced colors, all common keyword abilities, etc; however."
WotC has learnt though that it is better to strife for these things to an extend e. g. missing out on color representation in preconstructed decks.
Custom card creators have more freedom.
Speaking of not having all types: It seems, so far, that the decks won't have planeswalkers.
Of the other card types, I don't really see a reason why you would even want to avoid them.
As far as I can tell, squad seems to be similar to replicate, but different. For one thing, squad seems to be only applicable to permanent spells. Since squad makes copies of the permanent when it enters the battlefield and replicate makes copies of the spell when it is cast, there will be many other differences too.
Guessing from the reminder text, I think that ravenous as a keyword ability is a bit messy. (Many other keyword abilities (including "bands with other") are better designed in my opinion.)
Sets which are not designed for Standard need not have all types, I think. Nor need it have all colors, balanced colors, all common keyword abilities, etc; however. A set designed purely for Constructed (or a uniform Cube) does not need rarities, either. If it it is not designed to be added to Eternal, then there are a few more things you can do, too. The result may be a rather different style of the resulting game, but it will still be Magic: the Gathering.
(For example, you can make a set with no creatures, or all creatures, or only blue and red cards, etc.)
Of course making such changes is not necessarily the best idea, but depending what kind of game you may be trying to make, it might work, but you should be careful to ensure that the game will still work OK in such a case. However, doing this is probably going to be more difficult than just doing the usual way, but is probably still possible somehow.
(One possible example might be if you are drafting multiple sets in sequence, so you will draft first a set with creatures and then a set without creatures, or vice-versa, or first set without multicolors and then a set with only multicolors, or vice-versa, etc.)
> What do you mean it didn't work out for Lego? Lego successfully partnered with other franchises, including Star Wars, DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc. Lego and SW have been partners for over two decades, and a new LEGO Star Wars video game just released this year. LEGO Batman movie and products are legendary.
The point is, at one point they overconcentrated on licensed properties for quite a bit. The problem with that is (as Lego founds out) that those sets sold well enough to fans of those franchise, but were a complete failure when it came to enticing a new generation of Lego fans. Add to the mix how there is a limit to how many new IPs you can license successfully once your big ones run out their contracts and/or their current hype wave dies out and you have a bit of a crisis because it's much harder to alter course as a producer than as a seller.
> but then again there are some eternal cards where Judges like to look the other way because they don't really work in the rules.
This is why I think that a FOSS computer program implementation with all of the cards would be helpful, and to make possible as a reference implementation, that you can make well defined meanings of the cards. Other changes that I have suggested might also help with this and other issues (in a few cases they did so, though). Figure out which circumstances required to be consistent with existing rulings where necessary. Make test cases, to show that the program is correct.
Although such a program may have bugs in it, that is also true of the comprehensive rules even as they are; there have been bugs in the past which have been corrected.
There are some FOSS computer program implementations of Magic: the Gathering, but miss many cards, such as text-changing effects. (I have some idea how to make "AST-based" text-changing effects, to allow this to work; I have ideas about some of the other things, too.)
If such a thing is done then the definition would hopefully be more precisely (perhaps if you use e.g. Haskell, because C has too much undefined behaviours; I think Haskell is also better for making mathematical definitions of things than C is, anyways; a variant of Lisp might also do instead of Haskell, or possibly a custom programming language designed for this purpose might work best), and literate programming might also help (so that the text and the program code are together in one book, you can easily read it and see precisely what they are).
This would also be helpful if you want to ensure that rules needed for unofficial cards or unofficial formats do not conflict, I suppose.
Another thing about comp.rules: I have banned Chaos Orb and Falling Star in pseudo-Vintage; if there are other cards that cannot be made to work with a precise mathematical definition of the rules that can be implemented in a FOSS computer program in a reasonable way, even if modifying the rules to fix the problems, then more cards might need banned too.
Also there is issue if unofficial cards are made, what shapes using for such designations. Official cards will have ovals, triangles, acorns. Unofficial cards might or might not be intended to be consistent with the rules (whether they are the official rules or modified rules), but "Universes Beyond" does not seem to be a relevant distinction for unofficial cards. One possibility is to use the same shapes but a different colour, or something similar like that. But, then, there is also consideration of cards using the old style; I am not sure how to handle that situation.
I feel ravenous is a much better example of a mechanic that seems more likely to come from a poduct like this than Squad. I could imagine the restrictions on premium sets make the necessary amount of X spells a hurdle that usually wouldn't be crossed.
It just was that squad got revealed before the article and ravenous did not.
You don't see the appeal in Demons from WH40K synergizing with Demons from MtG premium sets etc.?
What do you mean it didn't work out for Lego? Lego successfully partnered with other franchises, including Star Wars, DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc. Lego and SW have been partners for over two decades, and a new LEGO Star Wars video game just released this year. LEGO Batman movie and products are legendary.
What's so special about Lorcana? That other attempts to take over Magic, such as Pokemon, Yugioh, Warcraft, Hearthstone, etc. couldn't convince you to jump ship?
Most official "new" mechanics and designs have been created independently by armchair designers, like ourselves here. And yeah laypeople get excited when it's their first time discovering it via WotC.
Since this is their first set in UB, of course there will also be new lessons to be learned.
The color pie can be tricky. Mainly because other IPs are not as comprehensive and holistic. On the flip side, one may be asking why doesn't a big universe like WH4K have a prominent nature-aligned faction? Perhaps from this partnership, GW could introspect on bringing more "green" and "white" factions into the limelight.
@Sorrow - So Hobbits reprinted from The Lord of the Rings set may be Kithkin? My hopes are up.
I doubt it. Hobbit is much more well known, and giving them Kithkin type has no appeal to LOTR fans, and only causes confusion and disgust. Besides, Kithkin was just an inferior alternative because they didn't want to infringe on Hobbit.
For that matter, I don't understand the appeal to link subtypes with Magic's own. Unless they're general types, like Dinosaurs. Otherwise, other IPs can and should maintain their unique types. That makes them more exotic and sought after.
Regardless, UB sets aren't Standard legal. So there is no obligation to be as strict as normal Magic sets. Including color pie, subtypes, etc. (Except non-Magic sets would still have Planeswalkers, even though that is Magic-only thing. But only because of playability and compatibility, not flavor.)
Now we're still waiting for the Magic movie . . .
New unique creature types
Besides, they're more like halflings, which is also a supported creature type
@dude1818- So Hobbits reprinted from The Lord of the Rings set may be Kithkin? My hopes are up.