Conversation: Recent Activity
Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2024-04-20 04:19:17)
Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2024-04-20 04:19:17)
I am fine with the suggested "opposing" and "friendly." However, would it be possible to simply be "opposing" and "non-opposing."
SecretInfiltrator, would simply keeping the wording referring to ownership the same for times when ownership is relevant be a simple answer. e.g. Return target opposing creature to its owner's hand.
One of the main reasons I have a problem with "enemy" and "allied" already being occupied by color pair jargon. "opposing" still works well referencing "opponent".
The term for "friendly" is usually the one hardest to get accepted, since it is hard to make another person intuit the intended difference between "you control" and "you or a teammate controls" without them seeing an ability that says "your" directly next to it.
It can work though.
You still have times you want to refer to permanents "another player controls". The argument not to do it is obviously possible confusion between control and ownership. Without mentioning control on the regular you have a harder time establishing ownership as a separate concept.
What about omitting 'control'?
ex.
Hybrid mana using lower-case letters wuld be new to me. It's probably just case-insensitive or laziness since 107.4 clearly uses upper case for other examples that have been written in lower case in the cited post.
We don't have a Saga frame at all, so I just post a lot fewer Sagas than I come up with.
Maybe it does, but the rules are using uppercase, though.
According to Maro, the format for the mana symbol on Tamiyo is "(g/u/p)." Hybrid mana uses lower case letters
I agree that Phyrexian mana being drawn like a hybrid symbol to begin with would be better, since it is like a hybrid mana. However, now there is another one, so that is another consideration, I suppose.
But, for double colour Phyrexian mana symbols, we might have to wait for the rule changes to be released to see the ASCII representation of them; my idea is something like
{M/N/P}
(with the appropriate letters in place of M and N), but we will have to wait to see what they do.Also, you can design a transforming Saga even without the appropriate frame, for now, I suppose. (You can just mention the chapter abilities in the text, and mention "Enchantment - Saga" in the type line.)
"Ninja/Samurai tribal cards care about Rogue/Warrior as well. Keeps the type line clean."
I'd rather have the reverse. Allow Warrior tribal cards also affect Samurais.
I suppose Compleated appears only on a single Planeswalker (for now.) Hence may not be a expansion-wide mechanic?
They chose the complementary path and made the Ninja/Samurai tribal cards care about Rogue/Warrior as well. Keeps the type line clean.
Talking about clean/cramped type lines: Legendary Enchantment Creature – Shrine caught me off-guard. Congrats to Yusai, Bound at the Edge.
Equipment Jellyfish is cool, too.
Compleated does not appear in the Mechanics article for the set, so I don't know whether the name is used for phyrexian hybrid mana. But I'm going to plug my view on how Phyrexian mana always should have been hybrid to begin with.
Compleated mana is hybrid Phyrexian mana. Paid with either color or 2 life.
The samurais are still just Samurai. But you could make a case of subclasses on top of major classes, if you want more interaction with major class. e.g. Human Warrior Samurai. Rat Rogue Ninja.
Phyrexian script reappears -- on Phyrexian cards in alternative frames.
Reconfigure is just turning Licid ability into keyword. Probably only appears on Equipments (not Auras) in this set? The Reality Chip is cheaper Future Sight. Could be a card to look out for.
I really, really wanted to design a transforming Saga, but the lack of Saga-frame on the site discouraged me.
Well, two people did.
I'm a big fan of enchantment creatures taking strides towards their rightful position as deciduous/evergreen. I also am very happy they kept the concept of the starry frame (since there was the suggestion that enchantment creatures on other planes would get their own treatment not evoking Nyx). All left to wonder is why they don't expand it to all enchantments the same way artifacts get a shared frame treatment.
I haven't read the story, but am really happy about how the unveiling of the Tamiyo story worked out, though I'm not emotionally prepared.
Good call on merging Ninja/Rogue tribal and Samurai/Warrior tribal respectively?
First thoughts on the big spoilers starting this week:
Why tf did they start on a Thursday? I know I'm not keeping as close an eye on things because I'm on a significant break off paper magic, but that still feels WRONG to have a Making Magic article released on Thursday...)
Creature becoming attached and not being creatures while attached. Oh, how I am reminded of my own Operate mechanic...
Huh... looks like ability counters are just gonna be a general thing now if Biting-Palm Ninja is any indication?
About the acorn, I thought maybe it should be more prominent, but maybe it is good enough.
Since some cards might work in ordinary rules, this could be OK that they are doing this, I suppose.
Some cards are banned in Vintage and so in other official Eternal formats too, even though they are "eternal" cards. I have "pseudo-Vintage" (sometimes used in puzzles, and defined in the "Codex" that I had written) which does not ban many of these, although Chaos Orb and Falling Star remain banned, and the Un-cards, silver-border-cards, and acorn-cards also remain banned. (Some cards such as conspiracies may be banned or not banned depending on the specific kind of rules.) I don't know if they could effectively errata Chaos Orb and Falling Star as acorn-cards, since they should be that instead of the standard rules.
One question about the acorn: Will it affect the errata of any older Un-cards?
I also saw http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cardsets/3067/details_pages/3110 and have some comments relating to both that and this together. Some cards say "eternal star (match)". Rules will need to be written for such things to handle some situations. However, I would think that match rules should mostly be beyond the scope of the game rules, although game rules still will need to specify some such things too, including persistent properties, interaction with subgames, etc. Ante rules should work in a similar way, too. Normally, all game effects cease to exist when the main game ends, although match rules could specify which ones persist, how they persist, other effects relating to them (e.g. scoring), effects lasting beyond a single match, etc. I would define ownership of an object as a persistent property (where all persistent properties are also one-shot properties). Ante can cause ownership to change just as the game ends, so normally this change would not be meaningful. However, match rules could specify that these changes will last until the end of the match (or the tournament), that players can keep the cards, that they will affect scoring and then be reverted, etc. Games rules will still need to define what kinds of effects these are (so that match rules may refer to them), and their effects within a single duel (meaning a main game, subgames within that main game, and restarted games), though. (There are some other problems with the ante rules too, having to do with subgames, team games, multiplayer games, and a few other things; I have ideas how to fix these though, which does not impact match rules.)
Unfinity's greatest break from the accustomed is the end of silver borders in favor of an acorn-shaped holofoil stamp.
Thus WotC has come to call Un-cards, which were formerly known as "silver-bordered", "acorn" cards; non-Un-cards, which were formerly referred to as "black-bordered", are now called "eternal" cards.
I have no problem with the former, but the latter I consider unfortunate, because it overlaps with Eternal formats. I know it is intentional, because WotC wishes to push that eternal cards are for Eternal formats, but it is not a term that really helps conversing about disctinctions between "acorn" and "non-acorn". Which is why I prefer "non-acorn". :)
My observation: The Space Family Goblinson is not an acorn card, so the creature type Guest is coming to the Comprehensive Rules. Now I want creature types to cover the full list again.
https://yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/ It is hypertext you can select the numbers from the list (which I had mentioned above) in order to find a specific rule. You can also download the non-hypertext rules from Wizards of the Coast (although they change the URL according to the version of the rules, and Yawgatog doesn't change the URL).
The original llanowar elves was also designed by the artist to be a vampire elf, since there was basically no oversight in the art direction back then
Yeah yeah Elves are natural-loving idealists who live in harmony until you read a speck of Germanic folk lore, and then suddenly 'BAM!' you realize the first text fits a lot better.
These things are descendants of the Fae in most settings, right? That's enough reason to suspicious of them on it's own, right? Everyone saw Lorwyn, yeah? Stop getting tricked by these cunning bastards.
And don't give me "Oh... but that germanic folk lore stuff is soo old, you're totally forgetting about the more recent stuff blah blah blah" dude just quit it. Do you know how old Elves can live until? Not exactly? That's right, most people don't know. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE HIDING THAT INFORMATION FROM US, MAN!
For that reason, the older stuff is sure to be more accurate in revealing their true nature before the Fair Folk (which yes, is a misleading name) deciding to hide their true selves behind masks of beauty and love... wonder when that started... oh idk, maybe the industrial revolution?
Hm... what else did humanity accomplish during that time... warfare? No way... nuclear weaponry? You're saying the elves might be faking it for such reasons? OBVIOUSLY YES. THEY FEAR US NOW, UNLIKE BEFORE!
Disgusting elves and their wicked lies will deceive you if you give them the slightest opening. Do not give them the upper hand over humanity, or we will return to being mere livestock like we were in the days of fairy tales and lost records.
Elves are demons wearing the masks of angels, do not let them deceive you into believing otherwise. Or else you will regret it.
Thanks!
Today I learnt: While the most often printed (and AFAIK most famous) flavor text of Llanowar Elves is the pretty brutal
> One bone broken for every twig snapped underfoot.
—Llanowar penalty for trespassing
it always seems like such an odd creative treatment of a mana guy. And actually the original flavor text is far less martial and fits the mechanics very well:
> Whenever the Llanowar Elves gather the fruits of their forest, they leave one plant of each type untouched, considering that nature’s portion.
Can you at least link to the rules?
I do not want to remove supertypes, but I don't like that "legendary" does two unrelated things (it seems illogical to me), and would change what legendary currently means for instants/sorceries (205.4e) to a keyword ability (I don't know what this keyword ability should be called), although those cards would still be legendary, too. The fact that they are legendary does not do anything by itself since it isn't a permanent card, but does mean that it is historic, can be found by things that find legendary cards, etc. The existing legend rule would still be applicable to legendary permanents.
I would also generalize ongoing. Currently, the ongoing supertype makes an object immune to the state-based actions for schemes (rule 704.6e). Rules 704.6f, 704.5s, and 704.5t are similar, so I would have ongoing make it immune to those state-based actions too. (Note that rule 309.5b can still get rid of a dungeon even if rule 704.5t is suppressed in this way.)
https://vensersjournal.com/archives resumes where yawgatag ceased
I have a local copy of rules (not Oracle texts) and may later make them public in order to make diff. However, note that sometimes the character encoding and line break encoding are changed between versions, so I may also make available the versions that have been transformed into one format (e.g. ASCII only, with LF only for line breaks).
Unfortunately yawgatog.com stopped recording Oracle changes around Ixalan, so now we're left without knowledge other than last printing towards what might have been the wordind before Dominaria.
EDIT: The change has been recorded! It did indeed coincide with the "any target" rules change and required wording change, so there was a time when planeswalkers existed and could be drained for more life than their loyalty, but then they applied functional errata! I'm happy to have found source of Oracle changes.
In other news: Dominaria was released more than three years ago, closer to four. O.O
Ah, to avoid looking it up, I looked at the printing Gatherer showed me (Beatdown Box Set) and cross-referenced with the oracle text.
The change on life capping life gained from a player's total seems to me to be significant change. Why Wizards decided to implement that change is I guess the question. Updating the card to treat planeswalker targets the same as creature and (later) player seems just the normalization of making cards work with features that have been added since the card's creation. To me, the wild change was introducing planeswalkers, then, years later, the rule update of targeting them. As for no printed version, the card's last printing was six or seven years prior to planeswalkers being a card type, so of course there would be not printed version of the card to reflect that.
At the time of the card's creation it didn't mention player's life total as a restriction though. The restriction was pretty explicit about it: "If you drain life from a creature, you cannot gain more life than the creature's toughness." Player's life total doesn't get thrown into the mix until Fourth Edition. And to top it all, it seems like a functional change from before; if the change really got introduced with the "any target" ruling, then there was a time in-between when the redirection from player to planeswalker allowed to drain for more life than the planeswalker's loyalty (since "any target" just changes that the planeswalker will be targeted, not whether the spell would be able to damage it). That would be pretty wild considering that the change is reflect it no printed version of the card.
I mean, when Magic switched so that burn could hit planeswalkers directly, and then combined each [sensible and possible] option into "any target," the natural change would be to update Drain Life to the present, with the caveat of including oracle text that's intuitive based on the similar restrictions presented by the options that existed at the time of the card's creation.
Thought it may be some weird thing about how damage interacts with Loyalty counters.
I actually read the card wrong, but it's a bit similar in that they couldn't just use one word to refer to 'toughness' 'loyalty' and 'life total' all at once.
If these old cards weren't such as slog to read through, I may have gotten it. Still, neat micro-challenge , though
Today I learnt: Drain Life's Oracle text refers to the card type planeswalker despite dealing damage to "any target". Can you guess why without looking it up?