|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 9:09PM
#1
|
|
|
I'm working on a few games myself, so interaction with rules is a very important concept to me. I'm just wondering, for the legendary wolf debate, what would be the problem with something like this -
HUMAN CARDNAME - mana cost
At the start of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform HUMAN CARDNAME.
P/T
------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSFORMED CARDNAME - 0
While TRANSFORMED CARDNAME is on the battlefield, HUMAN CARDNAME cannot be cast.
P/t
Would that solve the issue, or am I overlooking something?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 9:33PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
What issue are you trying to solve? I'm unfamiliar with the "legendary wolf debate".
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 9:49PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
Apparently one of the reasons that there wasn't a legendary werewolf was the awkwardness of it being possible to have both sides out at once.
blah blah metal lyrics
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 10:30PM
#4
|
|
|
Apart from the extreme ugliness of having to have several extra lines of text there to enforce legendariness? There's also the issue that non-casting methods of getting the creature onto the battlefield would bypass it.
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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 10:33PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
I would just rather see the Legend rule updated to match the planeswalker uniqueness rule rather than start using ugly text like this. But that would require a major overhaul of the current type system, and not something you'd do for just one card.
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 3:18AM
#6
|
|
|
Incidentally, you can delete the "While TRANSFORMED CARDNAME is on the battlefield," without changing the effect. Also, is there any reason that you can't give both sides of the card the same name?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 5:47AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2005
|
Incidentally, you can delete the "While TRANSFORMED CARDNAME is on the battlefield," without changing the effect. Also, is there any reason that you can't give both sides of the card the same name?
The name of a card is the ultimate unique identifier of the card. Having two different cards with the same name (even if they're different sides of the same piece of cardboard) would require the rulebook to be rewritten from scratch.
srs rls mgr is srs
"If you're having defense problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 soldiers but they're just 1/1."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 7:25AM
#8
|
|
|
Incidentally, you can delete the "While TRANSFORMED CARDNAME is on the battlefield," without changing the effect. Also, is there any reason that you can't give both sides of the card the same name?
The name of a card is the ultimate unique identifier of the card. Having two different cards with the same name (even if they're different sides of the same piece of cardboard) would require the rulebook to be rewritten from scratch.
I'm not sure that's true. Looking through the rule-book, I can't find any rules that would have to be rewritten if a double faced card had the same name on both sides. Admittedly it would be a strange state of affairs, and I can see why they didn't do it, but I'm not sure that there is any reason why it couldn't be done.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 10:51AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
Incidentally, you can delete the "While TRANSFORMED CARDNAME is on the battlefield," without changing the effect. Also, is there any reason that you can't give both sides of the card the same name?
The name of a card is the ultimate unique identifier of the card. Having two different cards with the same name (even if they're different sides of the same piece of cardboard) would require the rulebook to be rewritten from scratch.
I'm not sure that's true. Looking through the rule-book, I can't find any rules that would have to be rewritten if a double faced card had the same name on both sides. Admittedly it would be a strange state of affairs, and I can see why they didn't do it, but I'm not sure that there is any reason why it couldn't be done.
A card's English name is it's unique identifier. It is a card's name, (and nothing else on the entire card) that tells you what that card does. If they printed a black lotus with the name "giant growth" then that card would be a one mana green instant that gave a creature +3/+3 until end of turn.
Having two different cards with the same name is not possible. That's just how the game works. How would you issue errata to them?
Just to show how important this rule is, this rule is one of the few ones that even Uncards have to follow. Erase (Not the Urza's Legacy One) &type=card)
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 11:35AM
#10
|
|
|
I'm not sure that's true. Looking through the rule-book, I can't find any rules that would have to be rewritten if a double faced card had the same name on both sides. Admittedly it would be a strange state of affairs, and I can see why they didn't do it, but I'm not sure that there is any reason why it couldn't be done.
There's the name-a-card rule.
Let's suppose there exists a DFC, both sides of which have the name Great Leader. The Human side has an activated ability that gives all Werewolves +1/+1 until end of turn, the Werewolf side has an ability that forces a Human Werewolf to transform. (Exact details aren't relevant; just that both are activated abilities.)
I cast Pithing Needle  and, on resolution, name Great Leader.
The rules allow effects such as Pithing Needle to name either side of a DFC, just as they can name either the flipped or unflipped name of a flip card. The precedent is quite clear that only one name can be affected. So, which side has the ability blocked?
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
