Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-08 01:08:30)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-08 01:08:30)
Not sure about "return". I find it intuitive, that it's putting the card into a zone it usually was before. Which is simpler in my head than "put" where it might go from any zone to any zone. But you may well be right that overall using "put" would be simpler.
In fact, I notice several of these comments are about not having a word for putting a card into a specific zone: only "exile" works well like that. But I can't think of a good general answer.
I thought the point with auto-shuffle, at least as Tahazzar suggested, is that commons and uncommons would include "shuffle" as reminder text, but it could be left off on very wordy cards, when people are expected to know.
I agree, it would be bad to just expect everyone to know by word of mouth. (I feel like I would -- if it meant "search and then stack your library however you like" it would cost more, but that doesn't have to be obvious to most people.)
I'm not sure exactly how it would be written or if there would be awkward edge cases. I imaged something like, after you search your library[1], shuffle it. One or more shuffles are combined and/or moved to the end of the resolution of an ability if the order of cards doesn't matter inbetween.
[1] Or part of your library, thank you, Aven Mindcensor :)
The edge cases that occur to me are things like "cards that care if you shuffle once or twice". But I feel like if those cards have some small functional changes, that's ok, they're quite niche anyway.
Are there other edge cases that would be difficult?
Personally, I'd like to replace "combat" with "fight". And yes; the corresponding rules change of having combat effects such as first strike work with other fights.
Bury is old old terminology. If you need to change "destroy" to something else; why not use "dies" again? "Target creature dies."
Auto-shuffle makes more words for the odd cases where you don't shuffle; and also needs complicated spelling out to allow you to not do pointless shuffles when, e.g. performing two searches. But yes, it so totally should have been done years ago.
"Attacks and is not blocked" could do with simplifying too. "Is unblocked" should cover it, but that currently also counts things like "isn't even your turn".
More use of while/until too.
The problem with 'searching automatically comes with shuffling' is that it isn't intuitive. At least it isn't intuitive with everyone. I'm sure some players, who didn't read 'and now shuffle the cards' would just put the library back down and keep playing. Others might only shuffle the part of the deck they picked up.
Not everything needs to be spelled out on the card, but if this was relegated to the rulebook, it would just be a corner case. You know... like tapped creatures don't deal damage when blocking (which existed in pre-Sixth Edition rules.) You either knew it or you didn't. And you wouldn't want people walking into an FNM not knowing that they need to shuffle.
(For what it's worth, I really wish we could get rid of it too. I think the best chance we have to get rid of 'then shuffle your library' would be if we came up with a different word for 'search'. Something like "Probe your library for a Forest." By using 'Probe' we tell players that something is going on that's different than normal English syntax, and maybe they should look in a rulebook to see what that is.)
Personally speaking, I'd like to get rid of the word 'Return'. "Return target creature to its owner's hand", "Return target creature from the graveyard to the battlefield", "Return target exiled card to the top of a player's library" Etc, etc. You can't return something that never was someplace. Let's "Unmake target creature to its owner's hand" and "Resurrect target creature to the battlefield". Maybe there's a word for putting stuff ontop of the library... but it doesn't happen too often, so maybe not. Either way, things can be 'put' there. We don't need to 'return' them.
"Win,""survive," or any other intuitive word for the outcome of a creature fighting and not dying would be ideal. I lean towards "survive," since that seems the simplest to understand.
I've only been playing since ROE, and even I can't help but read bury as destroy without regeneration. Simply knowing it exists is confusing. Plus there are cards printed with that text, which hurts its chances.
I know MaRo has pushed unsuccessfully to have search include shuffle automatically. He mentioned it recently on his blog.
Good question.
I agree with wizards to be very careful, and only add words when they usually make things simpler (even for new players).
I am considering a word like "win" or "survive" for fight, or other similar mechanics, probably templated as "isn't dealt lethal damage" (and the other is). It could also be "if it doesn't die this turn", but that adds a delayed trigger. But it might still be too fiddly.
I'd like a keyword for mill, but wizards sound persuasive that there's no word they like and it usually wouldn't save much text.
Auto-shuffling sounds like a good idea.
Huh. "Bury" is interesting (although confusing for people who remember the old magic meaning). It's true, that's fairly intuitive, and a common phrase which could do with being shorter. It nicely parallels "exile". In fact, I wonder if in the long term wizards would even consider changing "graveyard" to "buried zone" to reduce the number of words. Or I guess you could verb "graveyard" instead. And it would template half of mill, which would help without templating the whole thing.
I'd like to suggest opposing/opposed to denote "blocking or blocked".
Examples:
Destroy target opposing creature.
When this creature becomes opposed, draw a card.
Each opposing creature you control gets +2/+2 until end of turn.
I personally am using "bury" for "put into its owner's graveyard".
I have seen suggestions to create a definition for "kill" or "win a fight".
Tahazzar suggests:
"What do you think about removing 'then shuffle your library / then that player shuffles his or her library' from various cards and instead adding the reminder text at the end (and changing the rules):
It's fine right? And kinda obvious too."
I think the idea has some merit, but there are plenty of cards to consider that would interact with this change - especially those which interact with the timing of shuffling the library.
My personal philosophy is to minimize the use of tutoring effects in the first place since they create a loading screen of shuffling (whether it is part of the rules text or reminder text).
What do you think about the above suggestions? Do you have any suggestions?
Who am I kidding? Just tell us what you would call milling! But what other ideas do you have? ;)
I like to think of 7+ on the Rabiah scale as a list of planes I get to make custom sets for that won't be contradicted by canon.
We have seen these planes get nods in supplemental sets and I don't see that going away and that's actually about as much as I ask for when it comes to not forgetting planes of the past.
If they dialed it forward a thousand years, they could do some sort of 'Ghost in the Shell' style plot. Honestly, I find it unfortunate that there isn't a drive to just revisit everything at some point or other. Except maybe Ulgrotha. I love me some Homelands, but that one ain't gonna work.
If they return to Kamigawa, they could dial the clock forward a hundred years and have a story about a powerful samurai clan starting an expedition into the Kami spirit world or whatever. That would be interesting.
In the Recent Changes view, when a log entry is "someone commented on [a card]", the link from [a card] will be to that specific comment. But if the log entry is "someone edited [a card]" then the link is just to the top of the card's page.
So this partly fills your request automatically. If there's a card (like this one) whose actual card text is irrelevant and is just used as a discussion thread, then each hyperlink to it from the recent changes views will jump to the bottom.
Huh weird. So did I this time. But when I tested using Red Commons Submissions from the old community set, I was sent to the top. Still do.
http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cards/10672
It may be a mobile thing, or because I'm following the link from the recent changes page, but I do in fact get jumped to the last comment.
Edit: here's the permalink to this comment that I'm directed to. http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cards/78578#comment_82494
Thanks Jack! I totally get skipping the podcast stuff when hitting my blog. If it was me, I'd probably skip those entries as well. If I go to a blog, I'm probably there to read words. I go to the iTunes store if I want to hear a podcast. It's just the way it works.
@Alex: I like the idea of constantly updating the same card. A number of Facebook groups do the same thing, asking you to post new episodes to your show to an old chain, thus pushing it to the top, but also not creating a pile of comment threads (FWIW, I'm not posting here for each individual episode. I know this isn't the place for that. I might try making a post for each season, however.)
It does feel a little less intuitive on Multiverse, though. On Facebook, a conversation chain is compressed to only the most recent comments. Multiverse comes with a giant pile of text. It would make more sense if the site automatically scrolled down to the bottom of the conversation, but we don't do that here... for good reason. When evaluating comments on cards, we want people to acknowledge the previous comments, even if they don't read them, rather than unconsciously nudge them to only read the last couple of comments and ignore the rest.
Either way, I'm happy to comply with that plan if that's what you prefer. At the very least, we can use it as a test ground. A week from now, I'll talk about the more Magic-y project on my blog on this card, and we'll see how people feel about creating an ever expanding conversation on one card.
Oh, and as an alternate idea: Is there any way to make the comments scroll down to the bottom on just one card? Could we make a card titled "Self-Promotion" and force anyone who wanted to promote their stuff to use that card, which always scrolled down to the latest entry? And is that even a good idea? Would creating a card like that just encourage 'the wrong type of people' to take advantage of it?
And FWIW, I read your blog and enjoy your writing, but it just happens I don't easily absorb videos or podcasts, so I haven't seen a lot of your interesting output.
shrug I can't see any possible downside to posting this -- I am certainly interested in this sort of stuff about other multiverse regulars.
If conversation gets overwhelmed with off-topic stuff, we could split it into "magic conversation" and "other conversation" or similar.
But I don't see any advantage to worrying about it in advance. The reason for rules about "no spam" or "no advertising" is that if you don't have that, everyone tends to think everyone is interested in their pet project, and the forum is overwhelmed with that sort of thing, to the exclusion of the ostensible topic. I think, there's few enough regulars, that there's no need for particular rules.
My strong opinion is to continue posting whatever people like, and only instituting a policy if we get enough people that stops working.
I'd say if an article series is of specific interest to card designers, then this cardset is a fine place to link it.
Apart from that... I don't know. It's the kind of thing it'd be natural to put on user profile pages, if we had them, or even for people to include in their forum signatures, if we had them. But we don't. Forum signatures, avatars etc aren't really the kind of thing I'm interested in implementing; Multiverse isn't trying to be a freeform forum, and I'm not interested in reimplementing phpBB.
User profile pages are something I'd like to give people more control over, if only so it's clearer which cardsets are the "main" or "interesting" ones and which ones are archive or scratch or staging areas. And I'd certainly let people add hyperlinks to those, if they existed. But it wouldn't make much sense for those to turn up in Recent Changes, so it wouldn't be any use for actually drawing people's attention to stuff.
I can't think of a natural way to advertise something completely non-Magic-related on the site. But at the same time, if people who're well-established in the community (as jmgariepy certainly is) have something they're excited about, I'm not averse to them finding somewhere not too intrusive to share it, like this.
One idea: maybe we could have a convention that there's a cardset - maybe this one, Conversation - where each user can create their own card as their own space, and can put whatever they want in the thread there?
Maybe. I thought I'd run it up the flagpole and see.
For what it's worth, I've been dealing with this on Reddit for a number of weeks now. Every subreddit has their own rules. I can't seem to find a way to even segue this into r/Manga, even though I know many Redditors there would appreciate it. r/AudioDrama, however, is almost exclusively 'spam' like this, and it is encouraged considerably. r/Seinen, meanwhile, is in the air. There just isn't enough action there for any hard and fast rules to have been applied. I'm probably just going to take a stab there while apologizing.
We have a lot more activity here than r/Seinen (albeit with a smaller group.) But I don't think we've ever talked about straight up advertising one's own stuff. It seemed more appropriate to just do it, and see what people's reactions would be.
I do have a Magic related article series I think people would be interested in as well. But this thread doesn't seem like a good place to mention it. I only mention it here to help add to the conversation. Was my initial post welcome? If not, would it be welcome in a different 'card set'? And what about Magic-related stuff? Is self-promotion of that appropriate here/in another set?
While polite, and by a community member...
Isn't this spam?
I know this has nothing to do with Magic, but I'm very proud of my new audio drama, called Say Hello to Black Jack, and I want to share it with youse guys.
It's based on the award winning hard-hitting medical drama manga of the same name (Shuho Sato made his work 'Royalty Free' in 2012 meaning anyone can use it for any way they see fit.) Season one consists of five episodes, which you can listen to on iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, or check out the website at sayhellotoblackjack.com
Interesting.
Ah, well spotted. Yes, I'm glad to get an update.
Here are the updated creature percentages:
62% - White
50% - Blue
56% - Black
53% - Red
59% - Green
And here’s how many creatures per color (assuming ten cards per color):
White - 6
Blue - 5
Black - 6
Red - 5
Green - 6
And if there are five artifacts, I’d make two creatures. That gets us to thirty creatures.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/158140162218/any-chance-of-you-doing-an-updated-design-skeleton
That's true.
Black would likely do Swamps Matter instead.
: return or play land from graveyard.
: clone land.
, 
: search land.
, 
: polymorph land.
, 
: Lands make extra mana.
: Lands untap.
: Artifact lands?
: Land animation.
I think land produces colourless mana is more
than 
, though I admit it'll be hard to find things for 
to do in this space.