|
3 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2010 - 10:17PM
#41
|
- YMtC Champion
- Ceci n'est pas une porte
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2004
|
Ok guys Here's a card for each of you, specially designed by the illustrious Pegaweb. I've pasted them to your various card pages. It's easier to make creatures, so I mostly went for the slightly harder card types. Spoiler:
Show
Ethan Fleischer – Blue
Juvenile Feathers
U
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature with power 2 or less
Enchanted creature has flying and shroud.
Jonathan Loucks – White
Seal Off
2W
Sorcery
Exile target nonland permanent you control and target nonland permanent an opponent controls.
Shawn Main – Blue
Meddling Clairvoyant
1U
Creature - Human Wizard
1/2
If a spell or ability would cause you to draw cards, instead draw one extra card, then discard a card.
Devon Rule – White
Begone!
W
Instant
Exile target nonland permanent that entered the battlefield this turn from a library.
Scott Van Essen – Red
Spoils of Plunder
1R
Sorcery
Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature that attacked this turn.
Daniel Williams – Green
Giant Tumbleweed
G
Creature - Plant
0/4
Shroud
Defending player blocks Giant Tumbleweed if able.
Jonathan Woodward – Black
Murderous Envy
B
Sorcery
Destroy target enchanted creature. That creature's controller may attach an aura attached to that creature to another creature he or she controls.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2010 - 10:43PM
#42
|
|
|
I appreciate your luck bringing powers, Pegaweb, but your card makes me deck myself.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2010 - 10:47PM
#43
|
- YMtC Champion
- Ceci n'est pas une porte
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2004
|
I appreciate your luck bringing powers, Pegaweb, but your card makes me deck myself.
Seeing the fabled Pegaweb also makes you deck yourself.
Fixed now. \:>
Also, get yourself some shoes.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2010 - 11:25PM
#44
|
|
|
I would, but I lost them years ago ( Shoe Tree  ; Bronze Tablet  ).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2010 - 11:40PM
#45
|
|
|
I also thought of doing a Tumbleweed for Daniel, and I recommend him thinking about my Roadrunner I submitted on the wiki.
A few thoughts after reading five pages of this thread.
1) When they only spent a few hours AT BEST looking at essays, it tells me they were just looking for people wanting to cook sacred cows of theirs so they coudl go ahead and eliminate those. That took away a lot of possible creativity.
2) A lot of the worlds seem underwhelming to me. A world dominate by spiders and such seems cool, but the many critters that need Reach is ridiculous. Same for all the overly-dark stuff; I don't do angst, but then I'm a 38 year old who has been conencted to Magic since the Fall of 1994. The Western, Utopia, and Speedy-Darwin worlds were the only three I really liked.
3) Speaking as a long time red player, the Thunderbird is flavorful and at 4/1 flying and haste I would draft him, but it is not constructed worthy; eliminating the other ability is better as it makes the card more common.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2010 - 11:47PM
#46
|
|
|
You can teach a guy with visions how to properly balance cards, but you can't teach a guy who just cares about balance to make something innovative and interesting.
I suspect that both Mark Rosewater and Roger Von Oech disagree with you.
I was thinking ...
It's great to see Wizards employees taking an interest in the forum discussion. I have a question about something you told Jonathon Loucks in his critique, though:
MT: The "alternative morph cost" design is an attractive one, but unfortunately it doesn't work. The morph ability allows you to cast a spell face down, but it's actually the rules of the game that provide a way for you to turn a face-down permanent face up. So, when you take the special action to turn it face up, you reveal what the morph cost will be, but at this time it's still face down, so it doesn't have the static ability that gives it the cheaper morph cost.
The rules (maybe?) don't currently support in situ alternate morph cost abilities, and if that's the case, then what you said is technically true. But it seems like the thrust of your argument is, in essence, false, because the rules already allow for preemptive ability grafting on morph creatures. (They just don't happen to allow the grafting of alternate morph cost abilities ... yet ... maybe.)
Your argument that "[the creature with morph] doesn't have the static ability that gives it the cheaper morph cost" would be true for any and all abilities a creature with morph might have, including, for example, those that take the form "when/as [this permanent] is turned face up..." But those such abilities work, even though morph creatures "shouldn't" have them until after they are already turned face up. My understanding is that such abilities work specifically because of 707.11:
"If a face-down permanent would have an 'As [this permanent] is turned face up...' ability after it’s turned face up, that ability is applied while that permanent is being turned face up, not afterward."
Couldn't there just as easily be a rule that says: "If a face-down permanent would have an 'As long as ... you may pay [cost] instead of paying [this permanent's] morph cost' ability after it's turned face up, that ability is applied while players are being shown what that permanent's morph cost would be prior to it being turned face up, not afterward."
I know complexity creep is a huge concern and it's a big deal to add new rules to the game, but players are already well-equipped to deal with this sort of ability grafting, both because it's intuitive ("why would this ability be printed if it didn't do anything?") and because they already do it whenever 707.11 is applied.
It's also not entirely clear to me that a new rule is necessary for Jonathon's cards. 702.34d, the rule for turning a morph creature face up by paying its morph cost, states:
"If you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control face up. This is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115). To do this, show all players what the permanent’s morph cost would be if it were face up, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up."
Since conditional abilities that affect morph costs would affect "what the permanent's morph cost would be if it were face up," don't the rules already allow for cost reducing effects, and payment of "that cost," that is, the reduced cost? (Though to make use of this loophole Jonathon would have to use a template like "as long as ... [this permanent's] morph cost is [cost]" and not something like "as long as ... you may pay [cost] instead of paying [this permanent's] morph cost.")
Thanks for any clarification you can bring to this thorny issue, and have a happy Thanksgiving!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 25, 2010 - 12:18AM
#47
|
|
|
There's actually a discussion on that very subject here, Gleamaxe.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 25, 2010 - 12:59AM
#48
|
|
|
About the "usually 2 of a mechanic in any color, unless perhaps it's a key aspect", a quick search through the big sets in extended gave me:
infect in black (4), green
metalcraft in blue (4)
level up in white
landfall in blue, black, green
kicker in red, green
exalted in white
unearth in black
cycling in white, red, green
tribal in blue, black, red, green
evoke in red Most big sets have 2 mechanics 3 times in a color. Not all of them seem that vital.
So contestants, I say 3 cards with the mechanic is very defendable, and more fun!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 25, 2010 - 9:49AM
#49
|
|
|
The reason for only having one or two of a mechanic in a particular color is, I would assume, so that there's variety and depth to the color, providing a greater diversity of experience during drafts and sealeds. If cards with the same keyword play similarly, too much of it at common makes the play experience shallow. (Hence the problem with the multiple Reach+Favored spiders.)
Metalcraft, landfall, tribal, and kicker all tend to do different things on each card, and each common with level up levels up into a very different final form. Exalted, meanwhile, works best in high concentrations, cycling doesn't make cards play similarly, and evoke creatures define and distinguish themselves by their very different triggers.
So while you can defend three in the same color at common, you need to make sure the cards don't play too similarly to each other.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 25, 2010 - 10:56AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2002
|
Also from the contexts, Rosewater is almost certainly talking about creatures with repeated keywords. You're including all cards, which certainly increases the number of color/keyword combinations that "qualify". That does still leave infect in both colors, metalcraft, level up, exalted, unearth, and evoke, I believe.
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
