Conversation: Recent Activity
Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2024-04-23 15:49:35)
Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2024-04-23 15:49:35)
He's discussed that a little: he doesn't even fully support sets he's not lead on. He's said he only attends half the meetings of those sets
Of course Unfinity definitely was too much to add on top of that, and is a total waste of time
That's the thing though: He is on every vision or exploratory design team (for premium sets) anyway, why does he need to be lead for so many though?
You start all your comments stating his position as head/lead of vision design, as if that's not exactly my point: He might be spreading himself a bit thin (by leading two consecutive premium sets and a supplemental set in sequence to those in addition to being everywhere in a supporting position anyway).
Maro is head of vision design. He's on every standard-legal vision team, no way he has time to also follow the set and play design teams. Usually they have someone from set or play design on the vision design team to have a background
Isn't there supposed to be someone from vision design who stays on the team all the way throughout to keep the vision intact? I thought that would be the lead, but then set design and play design leads could do so as well.
Maro leads vision design. Mechanics usually don't have names until set or play design. Heck, half the mechanics don't even exist until set design!
Cleave is also one of those weird words that is its own antonym
Fully agree on Blood tokens being weirdly function-over-flavor.
I'm all on-board with two-colored Edgar though.
I didn't look up the design team and just gave him the benefit of doubt that he might not have been all that involved in the set.
I suppose, he might have had too much fun designing Unfinity? ;) I think, the real problem is that despite being "lead" (which he also definitely is for Kamigawa and Unfinity), he is only really working on vision design and cleave seems like the mechanic introduced later.
Looking at it like hat, I think he might have lead too many sets at once this time around. Though OTOH Crimson Vow is not actually a bad set by my criteria, more filled with oddities and suboptimal choices.
I'm not saying that Crimson Vow is a clusterfuck but Cleave and Blood tokens seem like huge misses to me in many ways. Like I don't get how the Blood tokens are reasonably expected to convey mechanically any flavor of being blood.
What I find extremely funny about MaRo not knowing why the word "Cleave" was chosen is that he was supposedly the design lead of that set from what I can see xD
I now learnt a thing - in "leave and cleave" the word "cleave" means literally the opposite of "cut apart".
I thought "cleave" was a rather clever word choice for a set about a wedding, as in "leave and cleave". But it seems that wasn't even deliberate!
I agree "carve" would have been a better word for it.
I know about modified, and it does part of what I want; it probably is sufficient, too. I am looking forward to designing with it in the tool box.
An Aura is attached to a permanent. The permanent has an Aura attached to it. It is not the permanent that is attached, but the Aura.
An Aura is enchanting a permanent. The permanent is enchanted by an Aura. It is the permanent that is enchanted, not the Aura.
> Looking at those "attached = enchanted" appears incorrect.
To look at the same issue through the present participle lense (-ing):
The player/effect attaches the Aura [to an permanent] :: The Aura enchants the permanent.
I'd talk about the attaching player/effect before I'd talk about an attaching Aura.
...
The issue is that for "enchant" Aura is the subject and the permanent is the direct object, but for "attach" Aura is the direct object and the permanent is the indirect object. Past participles (-ed) as adjectives describe the direct object, while prsent participles (-ing) describe the subject.
Accordingly the attached Aura is enchanting the permanent. The enchanting Aura is attached to the permanent.
> It follows: "attached ~ enchanting".
@SecretInfiltrator- Kamigawa Neon Dynasty leaks imply that the set will use Modified for permanents that are enchanted, equipped, or have counters on them.
in this case, it's -ing vs -ed.
Attaching = enchanting = equipping
Attached = enchanted = equipped
Huh; the natural wording is "Flash; Enchant creature; All of your enchanted creatures get +1/+1"
('All of' being optional, but makes it clearer) I guess that's not sufficiently templatey?
But the "attached permanent" is the Aura/Equipment/etc. rather than the enchanted/equipped/etc. permanent.
I also don't see how it solves the issue with Guardian's Magemark's wording since it just replaces an adjectival participle with another one.
There's "attached" I think?
I really wish there was a term for enchanted/equipped/fortified objects, because it feels wrong to have to call enchanted permanents "permanents that are enchanted" instead.
Oh certainly it can be worked out - but all such complexity is a cost. So you have to work out whether there's benefit to having that cost.
And... I just don't see any real benefit here. It doesn't make the cards shorter or cleaner, it just potentially opens up messier game states.
What would make things shorter is if you could have a term of art for "Thing you are enchanting" that is nice and short. Then you could do something like: "Creature Aura" "Enchantee has +1/+2". But the cost of THAT simplicity is that we once again have rules-bagge in the type line; which seemingly most people dislike.
In situations where the state is unclear (not only in this situations but many others too), you can figure out ways to be represented, and different situations may require different representations. This can apply if there are any situations that you do not remember (there are many others in the game, too), for any reason, not only this one.
Please, Akroma, you heard what they said.
Carven Caryatid vs. Butcher's Cleaver. I have just different associations between the two of them.
I agree that an entirely different term probably would be preferable. My argument was and is that since they already decided to use a visceral sounding synonym for "cut", they chose entirely the wrong word from the large list of potential options.
Carve specifically is just an option that glaringly checks all the boxes our sources say WotC deemed necessary while also having a definition that is not baffling with regard to the actual effect.
meh; 'carve' has suggestions of edibility. Honestly, they could have gone for "Omit" or something directly relevant.
The rule that you can't attach creatures to things is purely there to make the board state readable. Otherwise you can have a situation of "Hang on; is that a creature equipped with that artifact; or is the artifact {whatevered} with the creature?"
It CAN still happen, but it's much more difficult to arrange with the rule in place.
Changing mechanic so that an irrelevant enchantment no longer falls off, it just doesn't do anything... I don't really see any benefit. If it can't be a useful thing to do, why allow it to happen? Again, keeps the board cleaner. (I know you wanted to buff your land before you animated it. But it's hardly going to be a surprise when you do, and the minor extra utility of being able to re-order that is probably not worth the faff.)
Oh, and of course, auras are themselves permanents. So "Is that A enchanting B, or B enchanting A?" pops up again...
That basic lands aren't usually printed as such has been a problem all the way since Alpha. Thanks Phantasmal Terrain.
Honestly, making 'keyword' and 'supertype' be the same thing makes sense to me. Then put the resulting superkeytypeword in the type line.
Regarding a comment from long ago "Is there any organised hate of nwo" - the only reason for such I can see would be non-draft boosters. Thought process: "I already own a 2/2 vanilla, and a shock and a giant growth and so forth. I don't really need to see 75% of the cards I purchased being boring coverage of things I already have. I want to see the new and interesting stuff."
In terms of playability though - it really does usually make sense for a set to have that base of boring solid stuff. While playing type-4 is fun, it's because it is hilariously unbalanced and random. Occasional fun, not all the time fun.
I had also considered spellmorph. My rules for spellmorph are: It is like morph that you can cast it face-down as a 2/2 creature for , but it does not use a special action to be faced up (unless it also has morph or megamorph, in which case the special action option is still available). Instead, if it is a face-down permanent that you control that has spellmorph when face-up, then you can cast it face-up for its spellmorph cost at the same time you could do so as though it were in your hand. This spell can be any type, including a permanent spell, and if it has flash (or if it is an instant), then you can do so whenever you have priority; otherwise the normal timing restrictions for its type apply.
(I had also seen suggestion for different rules for spellmorph, which allow an object's kind (card, token, etc) to change, and have more restrictions than above, but I like my rules better.)
Never, although sometimes it might have a similar effect in some cases.
To me, rarity should be set to improve the Limited game for that specific set (which means that rarity of the same card can be different in different sets), in order to affect the variance of specific kinds of game play for that set.
If you are playing Constructed, or are not designing cards for a specific set, then the rarities are irrelevant and can be omitted.
(Note, however, that when I import cards from TeXnicard, there is a SQL DEFAULT clause which sets the rarity normally to "common", so the rarity will be set even though it may not be appropriate. I could change the default, but at this time I had not done so.)
I had used the term "conventional basic land" to mean one of the five (database) cards Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, or Forest.
I should think it would be better to mention ability counters explicitly as such a thing, perhaps by writing "ability counter" or by putting the ability in quotation marks; this way it cannot interfere with other uses, with newly added abilities and/or counters, etc, can add more without adjusting the rules, and be less confusing to know whether or not it is a ability counter. (Although if they didn't do that, I would instead prefer to not define them as counters at all and instead just write "target permanent gains shroud" or whatever; you can still place physical markers on them to keep track.)
About mutate, I would have generalize it, so that the existing mutate will be "mutate non-Human creature", but some cards can specify different qualities in which case it can target any permanent with the appropriate qualities that has the same owner as the spell.
Auras can be attached to stuff other than permanents; they may potentially be attached to any object or player. Therefore, the "enchant" ability should not be omitted. I think that the rules are OK how it is (although I dislike the rule that creatures can't be attached to anything).