|
2 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2011 - 5:03PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2004
|
I've been kicking around a couple ideas to make it more clear at a glance whether something targets and what it can target. Sometimes, it takes a fair amount of reading to figure out; for instance, Fiery Gambit  reads, Flip a coin until you lose a flip or choose to
stop flipping. If you lose a flip, Fiery Gambit
has no effect. If you win one or more flips,
Fiery Gambit deals 3 damage to target
creature. If you win two or more flips, Fiery
Gambit deals 6 damage to each opponent.
If you win three or more flips, draw nine
cards and untap all lands you control.
It's not immediately clear that Fiery Gambit has one target, a creature.
The best solution I have so far is to put the targeting condition in bold.
Flip a coin until you lose a flip or choose to
stop flipping. If you lose a flip, Fiery Gambit
has no effect. If you win one or more flips,
Fiery Gambit deals 3 damage to target
creature. If you win two or more flips, Fiery
Gambit deals 6 damage to each opponent.
If you win three or more flips, draw nine
cards and untap all lands you control.
This solution could also make it easier for new players to understand the difference between Backlash  and Deadshot  . Finally, reading something with a ridiculously long targeting condition like Teferi's Response  would be easier; when I read that card, I keep thinking the targeting condition is done, and I'm reading part of the effect, but it doesn't make sense, so I have to back up.
I'm not necessarily recommending this templating policy, as it wouldn't do much to improve understanding of simple cards like Doom Blade  , but I think it's worth a look. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2011 - 5:22PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
I wouldn't mind if card fonts were altered to better indicate things like this. We already have italic text on cards to signify nonrules meaning.
I could see this expanded to help communicate ideas better. (and faster)
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2011 - 9:41AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2002
|
The templating team chose to address the Deadshot problem in a different way. If a new cards both taps (or untaps) a permanent and does something else to that permanent, we put some distance between the targeting restriction and the tapping (or untapping). Compare the more recent Act of Treason  to Threaten  , for example. For cards like Fiery Gambit , we always have the option of frontloading the target. That is, the rules text could start "Choose target creature." I don't remember the details of that particular card, but I'm guessing that frontloading the targeting in that case risked misrepresenting what the card does.
Del Laugel
Senior editor, Magic TCG
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2011 - 10:53AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2004
|
For cards like Fiery Gambit , we always have the option of frontloading the target. That is, the rules text could start "Choose target creature." I don't remember the details of that particular card, but I'm guessing that frontloading the targeting in that case risked misrepresenting what the card does.
It looks like frontloading would increase the rules text from 8 line to 9 lines; is this considered an issue?
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2011 - 11:56AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2002
|
Oh, I remember now. The alternative template for Fiery Gambit does fit on a card, but referring back to "that creature" in the middle of line five doesn't make any sense at all.
Del Laugel
Senior editor, Magic TCG
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2011 - 3:41PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
This is a side tangent, but i figure this is as good a place to put it as any:
DId you ever consider bolding evergreen keywords?
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 23, 2011 - 2:28PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2002
|
No, we have never seriously considered bolding some words in rules text. That feels like a solution in search of a problem.
Del Laugel
Senior editor, Magic TCG
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 23, 2011 - 2:41PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
No, we have never seriously considered bolding some words in rules text. That feels like a solution in search of a problem.
Well, the problem Crandor points out is real; mostly under control, but legitimate in at least a few cases. Most cards aren't Fiery Gambit, but for the handful that are I think his suggestion could be very helpful.
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 23, 2011 - 2:46PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2002
|
Helpful to whom?
Del Laugel
Senior editor, Magic TCG
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 23, 2011 - 2:51PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2004
|
Like I said a while back, the answer to ambiguous wordings is to develop a new language (or adapt an existing one) and make the pseudocode version of the cards the definitive one rather than the English language version. Depending on how MTGO represents card text internally, that may be a good starting place for that sort of thing - unless Wizards have solved the problem of creating a natural language parser (for the specialised domain of Magic cards) there's going to be, at the least, some markup to indicate how cards should be read...
M:tG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
