|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 9:25PM
#11
|
|
|
I note the obvious problem in verifying against cheaters. Because there's no way to know when you can play a cloaked card, someone could easily play a card cloaked at a time when they shouldn't be allowed to do so. The only way to counteract this would be to keep track of what phase each cloaked card was played in... which would obviously be tedious. It would probably be more appropriate to just set a time... either any time you could play a sorcery or any time you could play an instant.
Really... that's no problem, Why?
Because, enough that you look at the card and pay attention at 3 things :
A) If your card is "Sorcery, Enchantment or Artifact", you can turn it face up only in your turn.
B) If your card is "Instant", obviously you can turn it face up anytime.
*The same applied for your opponent.
C) And finally, the card will have the ability "Decloak"
That's piece of cake  , by the way... it's similar to "Morph" (specifically in the rule)... because the card without "Morph and Cloak", cannot play face down...
*In "Morph" you pay  and In "Cloak" you pay  ... Here, you see the difference about the cost.
***Maybe, to avoid confusion with "Morph" (If you play with Morph and Cloak)... The cards with "Cloak" enter the battlefield tapped!.
P.D: In conclusion... "Morph" enter the battlefield, face down and "Cloak" enter the battlefield, face down tapped.
-In my personal opinion, excellent complements! 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 11:56PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Sep 27, 2006
|
I note the obvious problem in verifying against cheaters. Because there's no way to know when you can play a cloaked card, someone could easily play a card cloaked at a time when they shouldn't be allowed to do so. The only way to counteract this would be to keep track of what phase each cloaked card was played in... which would obviously be tedious. It would probably be more appropriate to just set a time... either any time you could play a sorcery or any time you could play an instant.
Really... that's no problem, Why?
Because, enough that you look at the card and pay attention at 3 things :
A) If your card is "Sorcery, Enchantment or Artifact", you can turn it face up only in your turn.
B) If your card is "Instant", obviously you can turn it face up anytime.
*The same applied for your opponent.
C) And finally, the card will have the ability "Decloak"
That's piece of cake , by the way... it's similar to "Morph" (specifically in the rule)... because the card without "Morph and Cloak", cannot play face down...
*In "Morph" you pay and In "Cloak" you pay ... Here, you see the difference about the cost.
No, that doesn't answer the issue.
Regarding Morph, there's a simple way you can call out a cheater. After the game, say "okay... turn your face-down creatures face up." Boom! Honesty verified!
With cloak, though, cheating would take the form of someone cloaking a sorcery (not decloaking) when they would only be able to cloak instants. An opponent of someone using cloaked cards would not know whether the card is an instant or sorcery until the card is actually decloaked... so the player is forced to keep track of all the cards.
The verification against cheating would require:
A: Me keeping a record of every instance when you played each cloak card. That's where it gets tedious.
B: Me not mixing up your cloaked cards... which wouldn't be as much of a worry in tournament style play, but could be a problem in casual games.
Or you could just make it so the act of cloaking a card was standard among all cards with cloak and avoid the hassle. The choice really seems obvious.
Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes I imagine what Cisnero's life must be like. I imagine cargo pants - every pocket stuffed with coins. I imagine him (I almost said "him or her" but then I decided his gender with through the randomization of a small metal disk) - I imagine him, shopping, purchasing food, choosing which spot to park in, all through this meticulous flipping process. I imagine him asking a girl out, taking her to have a drink or whatever and then asking if she wants to play this fun game. When she responds "Sure." he removes a single quarter from one of his jingling pockets. Then proceeds to flip it repeatedly while she calls it - until she is able to make up an excuse to leave. Will he respond to this post? Only if the Chaotic Gods of Copper and Nickel deem it so. Someday many years from now, in the Dystopian future world, I'll ride my Billy Idol Unicycle past a bedraggled slumbub - He'll be clad in armor made all of the (now worthless) coins of yesterdecade. He'll grin a shiny grin at me as he flips another coin - and I'll know who it was. How could I not?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 10:15PM
#13
|
|
|
No, that doesn't answer the issue.
A) Regarding Morph, there's a simple way you can call out a cheater. After the game, say "okay... turn your face-down creatures face up." Boom! Honesty verified!
B) With cloak, though, cheating would take the form of someone cloaking a sorcery (not decloaking) when they would only be able to cloak instants.
C)An opponent of someone using cloaked cards would not know whether the card is an instant or sorcery until the card is actually decloaked...
D) so the player is forced to keep track of all the cards.
The verification against cheating would require:
a: Me keeping a record of every instance when you played each cloak card. That's where it gets tedious.
b: Me not mixing up your cloaked cards... which wouldn't be as much of a worry in tournament style play, but could be a problem in casual games.
E) Or you could just make it so the act of cloaking a card was standard among all cards with cloak and avoid the hassle.
The choice really seems obvious.
A) Because we know that these cards are "creatures" right?
B) Sorry, but I don't understand this point! Maybe with an example, I could undestand better.
C) Exactly, you don't know that cards are instants or sorceries... That's the idea!, until your opponent play it.
*Remember that the "cloack" (as ability) is permanent, once played face down until you pay "decloak".
D) Sorry, but I don't see why do it!
E) I hope so, with your help and others members!
*Remember that "cloak" will have "rules" more or less like "Morph"... I need them! 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 09, 2012 - 9:51AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Sep 27, 2006
|
Okay... let me try to rephrase the issue.
Assume I have a sorcery and an instant that can cloak in my hand.
There are 3 different ways the cloak rules can be written.
A: I can only cloak cards any time I can play a sorcery. Under this rule, every card would be played at the same time. If I try to cloak a card at intant speed, someone would say "hey, you can't do that..." and it'd be over.
B: I can cloak any card any time I can play an instant (although decloaking may still be regulated by card speed, i.e., sorceries decloak at sorcery speed). This would also work... if I try to cloak a card at instant speed... it's legal. No problem.
C: I can cloak instant cards at instant speed and sorcery cards at sorcery speed. This is where the problem would come in. The only player who actually knows whether the card they are cloaking is an instant or sorcery... is the player cloaking the card. Under this rule, there would be a possible intance in which rules can be violated (specifically, by a player cloaking a sorcery at instant speed), but there would not be a way to determine if a player who was cheating is actually cheating, because the cards are hidden. The only way I could make sure my opponent is not cheating would be to keep track of when every individual card was cloaked.
That's the problem. The ability under this set of rules (the rules you wrote to begin with) would create a standard, "players cannot do x." However, there is no way to actually verify that layers are not doing x except through more work than necessary. So either followers of the rules are forced to audit every card cloaked or you create a system where there is very little recourse against a particular form of cheating.
So either you need to have every card cloaked (but not necessarily decloaked) at instant speed or sorcery speed so there's uniformity among the cards.
Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes I imagine what Cisnero's life must be like. I imagine cargo pants - every pocket stuffed with coins. I imagine him (I almost said "him or her" but then I decided his gender with through the randomization of a small metal disk) - I imagine him, shopping, purchasing food, choosing which spot to park in, all through this meticulous flipping process. I imagine him asking a girl out, taking her to have a drink or whatever and then asking if she wants to play this fun game. When she responds "Sure." he removes a single quarter from one of his jingling pockets. Then proceeds to flip it repeatedly while she calls it - until she is able to make up an excuse to leave. Will he respond to this post? Only if the Chaotic Gods of Copper and Nickel deem it so. Someday many years from now, in the Dystopian future world, I'll ride my Billy Idol Unicycle past a bedraggled slumbub - He'll be clad in armor made all of the (now worthless) coins of yesterdecade. He'll grin a shiny grin at me as he flips another coin - and I'll know who it was. How could I not?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 13, 2012 - 6:50PM
#15
|
|
|
Hi esteemed Cisnero, thanks for your time... I was analyzing deeply their proposals and examples, and finally... I understood their points (and problems with "Cloak") You right!, "Cloak" needs uniformity! Definitely, " Cloak" will be played at " sorcery speed" (but not necessarily decloaked)...
Now, we must create the rules for "Cloak" based on sorcery speed!
Finally, Is a good idea to create a card (permanent) that allows play "Cloak" at instant speed (pay for example, for each card to play)?
Regards!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 13, 2012 - 10:20PM
#16
|
|
|
With apologies to you Wingex, I really don't think the space exists for this. I can't see any mechanical variant that can't be utilised by trap type triggers  . The only thing this does is push a spell to a relatively uninteractive zone, and all that that accomplishes is protecting from discard spells, which are a pretty minor part of the game anyway. By the way, you're not an MUP of VoyRager are you? YOu remind me a lot of him/her.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 14, 2012 - 9:30AM
#17
|
|
|
With apologies to you Wingex, A) I really don't think the space exists for this. B) I can't see any mechanical variant that can't be utilised by trap type triggers . The only thing this does is push a spell to a relatively uninteractive zone, and C) all that that accomplishes is protecting from discard spells, D) which are a pretty minor part of the game anyway.
E) By the way, you're not an MUP of VoyRager are you? YOu remind me a lot of him/her.
Hi Imidazoline, I appreciate your opinion...
A) Why?, If the idea is to put cards face down tapped in the battlefield with the objective of: "Protect and to avoid discards of your hand, caused for your opponent"...
B) I don't understand your point, between the ability "Cloak" with the card trap type triggers 
C) Not only used to protect the cards, also is used to make doubt and surprise your opponent. (Imaginate that your opponent have a card that allows look at your hand permanently and can discard cards that your opponent choose!)
D) Remember that... "the pretty minor part of the game", can be "the difference" between win or lose the game!
E) Sorry, but I am not this person...
Regards
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 14, 2012 - 7:13PM
#18
|
|
|
A) It's a huge amount of mechanical baggage to solve a problem that doesn't exist. You want to surprise your opponent? Use instants. You want to set things off unexpectedly? The Zendikar block Trap cards already do that. Discard is present in a subset of spells in one colour (maybe 1.1 colours if we include things like Frightful Delusion  . Oh, and it gets around Telepathy  like effects. It just doesn't have an impact enough to warrant a gargantuan and complicated ability that involves hidden cards in the exiled zone, etc etc. B) My point was that you have a precendent. Spells currently exist with the trap type that accomplish 80-90% of the functionality of 'cloak' cards without the huge rules baggage attached. Your keyword could say (If a spell or ability an opponent controls causes you to discard this card, you may return it to your hand). And even then it's a bad keyword, as it still suffers from all the narrowness issues it has now. C) Instants do that already. It's kind of pointless saying 'what if your opponent has a card that does this' when that card doesn't actually exist. Sure, there are times that your opponent will Gitaxian Probe  you, and play around your key counter. So? That's part of the game. And it's a good part. It promotes interactivity. You can keep your opponent guessing by holding cards, and surprise them with instants. If anything, cloaking telegraphs the fact that you have something, and not just a fist-full-o-land. D) But it's not worth the complexity load - again, the narrowness of the application is what hurts this. In 99%+ of games, using mana to cloak a spell is objectively worse than keeping it in your hand and casting something that has an immediate impact, or leaving mana open so you can cast an instant. E) OK.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 19, 2012 - 8:21PM
#19
|
|
|
A) It's a huge amount of mechanical baggage to solve a problem that doesn't exist. You want to surprise your opponent? Use instants. You want to set things off unexpectedly? The Zendikar block Trap cards already do that. Discard is present in a subset of spells in one colour (maybe 1.1 colours if we include things like Frightful Delusion . Oh, and it gets around Telepathy like effects. It just doesn't have an impact enough to warrant a gargantuan and complicated ability that involves hidden cards in the exiled zone, etc etc.
B) My point was that you have a precendent. Spells currently exist with the trap type that accomplish 80-90% of the functionality of 'cloak' cards without the huge rules baggage attached. Your keyword could say (If a spell or ability an opponent controls causes you to discard this card, you may return it to your hand). And even then it's a bad keyword, as it still suffers from all the narrowness issues it has now.
C) Instants do that already. It's kind of pointless saying 'what if your opponent has a card that does this' when that card doesn't actually exist. Sure, there are times that your opponent will Gitaxian Probe you, and play around your key counter. So? That's part of the game. And it's a good part. It promotes interactivity. You can keep your opponent guessing by holding cards, and surprise them with instants. If anything, cloaking telegraphs the fact that you have something, and not just a fist-full-o-land.
D) But it's not worth the complexity load - again, the narrowness of the application is what hurts this. In 99%+ of games, using mana to cloak a spell is objectively worse than keeping it in your hand and casting something that has an immediate impact, or leaving mana open so you can cast an instant.
E) OK.
Thank you for all Mr. Imidazoline,
Then of analyze deep all the topic... You right! It's not interesting for make a new format about this...
Now... reviewing other topics about cards face down, for example this topic the "Morph":community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758..., in this topic unfortunately this topic is closed, some problems that I believe to have solved!
Please, look at these examples that I did (about the cost, these are only examples)
This card is one variant of "Morph" called "Morph-Instant" (This card behaves like a instant, for can be "countered")
Then I make other variant card called "Morph-Sorcery" (This card behaves like a sorcery, for can be "countered", sorry but I forgot to write it in the card)
And finally, with additional effect (pay 2 for this card remains until the end of your turn)
*When playing this card, immediately then goes to the graveyard, unless you pay 2 for that this card remains until the end of your turn.
*What do you think about these cards?
P.D: In morph only need to have "Instants" and "Sorceries" for to complete the variety of the game.
Regards
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 19, 2012 - 9:20PM
#20
|
|
|
I don't understand what is going on. You seem determined to find solutions for problems that don't exist. In each case, the Morph 'type' is pointless and undefined, the colours are weird, you mix types, change the definition of the types, change what a keyword ability does between cards. For an instant to have any effect, it needs to resolve on the stack. For a counterspell variant, see Disruptive Pitmage  . If you turn an instant face up on the battlefield, it will be put into it's owners' graveyard immediately. Same with a sorcery. Can you say in one sentence: What are you trying to do?
|
|
|
