tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post7462584373706032209..comments2024-03-11T02:32:15.295-04:00Comments on Goblin Artisans: Zeffrikar Exploratory Design Part 1: Past as PrologueUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-69510197382870171502015-05-01T14:22:48.591-04:002015-05-01T14:22:48.591-04:00@jack You can't say "creatures with a lan...@jack You can't say "creatures with a landfall ability." Ability words can't be referenced by game rules/effects.<br /><br />@zefferal I disagree. Inexperienced players pay less attention to the type line and are more likely to ignore things that don't immediately make sense to them. It's the intermediate players who believe they understand everything but don't who get confused by such things, but those players have the resources (friends, dailymtg, the comp rules) to figure them out pretty easily.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-71740272580625540932015-05-01T04:54:36.964-04:002015-05-01T04:54:36.964-04:00@Tommy: Ah, thank you! Ah, ok, found it. It does s...@Tommy: Ah, thank you! Ah, ok, found it. It does say basically that.<br /><br />Although even after reading Mark's answer, I'm still not sure I agree. You can't say "creatures with landfall" but you could say "creatures with a landfall ability" or "whenever a landfall ability triggers, copy it" or "battalion counts one fewer/one more attacking creatures". That seems a lot more likely than reprinting a landfall or battalion card without the ability.<br /><br />In theory, you could just choose cards with an appropriate theme and reprint them with an ability word. But wizards haven't, and I think the ability word, even though it doesn't have rules meaning, is usually seen as an integral part of the card.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-27045636389254074302015-04-30T22:26:52.189-04:002015-04-30T22:26:52.189-04:00The "you can't reference ability words&qu...The "you can't reference ability words" thing was one of the multiple choice questions for GDS2 if you want to look it up. I don't think referencing ability words is a good idea because I don't want any constraints on the use of ability words whatsoever. Design should be able to use them to help players see whatever they want them to see. <br /><br />I have a really hard time imagining a new player ever questioning why the type line of Blaze says Sorcery -- Fire. I think the biggest problem would be them wanting to know why Icy Blast is an Ice spell and Encase in Ice and Frost Titan aren't, but as has been pointed out, the types shouldn't mix. <br /><br />Tommy Occhipintihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495646355536064735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-83058642958981214682015-04-30T20:41:50.170-04:002015-04-30T20:41:50.170-04:00@Jay re: rules baggage of subtypes. I don't ca...@Jay re: rules baggage of subtypes. I don't care about actual rules baggage that come with those cards. I care about the implied rules baggage that comes with inexperienced players seeing instant combat tricks with a subtype attached right next to instant combat tricks without. It screams out that "this means something!" when, two uninteresting blue cards aside, it doesn't. <br /><br />If we're going to make subtypes like curse and traps, let's make them matter for something other than flavor, because all the flavor in those instances is captured by card name convention and card mechanic.<br /><br />(Note, curses were handled slightly better than traps imo, but I still would have preferred more support.)<br /><br />(Note, part 2: I loved arcane spells. Two major mechanics in the block cared about whether the thing you were casting was arcane or not. I understand the parasitic problem Maro has discussed, but parasitic mechanics are fine as far as I'm concerned if handled at the right volume and cross-block planning is handled a little better (as it is these days).)zefferalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845251416516553492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-73070091197269704542015-04-30T20:33:45.362-04:002015-04-30T20:33:45.362-04:00@Jules&Jay: I think that's the most compel...@Jules&Jay: I think that's the most compelling reason to not let the rules see Ability words. Let's be able to reprint cards with threshhold without it counting towards the set's named mechanic allotment. Let's be able to tack it onto things like phosphorescent feast without actually errataing. zefferalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845251416516553492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-3438130619010598502015-04-30T18:21:55.100-04:002015-04-30T18:21:55.100-04:00I imagine the reason they are is for situations li...I imagine the reason they are is for situations like M14 where they wanted Sporemound. If cards referenced Landfall, people would be confused and/or upset when they didn't work with Sporemound, but they don't want a random word on one card confusing people and they don't want a card interacting with cards that don't even say the thing they reference.Juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13784920130399590671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-79111774281798359702015-04-30T17:53:19.363-04:002015-04-30T17:53:19.363-04:00Ability words are flavor text. They're italici...Ability words are flavor text. They're italicized and serve no technical purpose but theme. Magic <i>could</i> reference ability words, just as easily as they could reference flavor text. But that's silver-border stuff.<br /><br />Do I agree it should be that way? Definitely not. They're making life harder on themselves.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-71613859570474387662015-04-30T17:23:42.724-04:002015-04-30T17:23:42.724-04:00Re: Tribal
I don't understand why the rules c...Re: Tribal<br /><br />I don't understand why the rules couldn't have just said "non-creatures can have creature subtypes" or something like that. But wizards have repeatedly said that they couldn't do tribal like that, and that doing tribal at all was a mistake. And I can't see any reason for them to lie, and they're usually right about this sort of thing, so I assume they're right.<br /><br />Re: Ability words.<br /><br />Jenesis, well spotted, thank you. OK, a single example of errata'ing an ability word onto an old card sounds more like agreement than not. They've done this with keywords -- errata'd cards with equivalent functionality to use lifelink when there was no functional change, and then errata'd them back again when the rules changed so there WOULD have been a functional change.<br /><br />But... people say again and again that "ability words are invisible to the rules" but offer no evidence for it, and it seems contrary to every other way the rules work. (The comprehensive rules say ability words have no rules effect, which is true, but different.) Anything CAN be referenced by the rules, like I would have said wizards would never say "replace all instances of this word with this other word" outside silver-border, but that's what overload did.<br /><br />The rules usually reference things that are expected to be an inviolable part of the card: colour, name, etc, etc, etc. And DON'T reference things that can change: rarity, expansion, part of a name (in different languages) etc, etc. Can an ability word change? Can wizards reprint a battalion card without battalion? They could, but there seems little benefit, since ability words are usually fairly central to a card's identity. Is there a benefit to referencing ability words? Yes, definitely, just like saying "cards with flash" or "cards with defender" for keywords.<br /><br />They haven't, but I can see nothing in the comp rules preventing it, and no problems in doing it. I feel like I'm missing something -- sorry, what am I missing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-44853670559112067482015-04-30T17:16:42.635-04:002015-04-30T17:16:42.635-04:00I mean, the same goes for anything that can change...I mean, the same goes for anything that can change types: Mistform creatures, Xenograft, Imagecrafter. But the bigger problem is it breaks a bunch of cards intended for "choose your own tribe" play. Imagine Distant Melody choosing Island or Belbe's Portal choosing Arcane.<br /><br />There's a perfectly consistent system if you do this from the start, but changing in in Lorwyn creates all sorts of unintuitive interactions or a bunch of errata that doesn't match the printed text.<br /><br />To be clear: I think Tribal was a terrible idea and has done a lot of long-term harm by making most subtype referencing rules text templates longer, but the alternative wasn't any good either (and would have required all the same wonky templates).Juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13784920130399590671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-47006556242263424402015-04-30T16:34:46.850-04:002015-04-30T16:34:46.850-04:00Do you have an explanation/defense that doesn'...Do you have an explanation/defense that doesn't involve changelings? <br /><br />Because you really just convinced that changelings were a terrible idea.metaghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18301191638894756414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-71195516217627666502015-04-30T16:27:08.922-04:002015-04-30T16:27:08.922-04:00To clarify: I'm not saying I don't think o...To clarify: I'm not saying I don't think other approaches to land matters can work, but Landfall is one of the best mechanics Magic has come up with ever and we can't bring it back in a different land block because it'll be too similar to Zendikar. Here we can and should return it.Juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13784920130399590671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-54580125709341098932015-04-30T16:19:05.603-04:002015-04-30T16:19:05.603-04:00Desegregating subtypes doesn't just make Trapf...Desegregating subtypes doesn't just make Trapfinder's Trick hit Mistform Ultimus, it also makes Mothdust Changeling tap for {G} because that's rules baggage that comes with the Forest subtype. It's certainly much more complicated to desegregate subtypes than to add a new type.Juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13784920130399590671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-13410717776976478712015-04-30T15:21:50.771-04:002015-04-30T15:21:50.771-04:00Reading this response form a judge, I still don...Reading this response form a judge, I still don't really understand the necessity of Tribal:<br /><br />"Q: What’s the deal with tribal anyway? Why is that a card type at all?<br /><br />A: During Lorwyn block, the design team wanted to have things that weren’t creatures interact with the plentiful “creature type matters” effects they were putting in the block. For instance, they wanted to make instants and sorceries that players would be able to find with Boggart Harbinger. Unfortunately, they couldn’t just add creature types to cards, for example, by making Tarfire an Instant – Goblin, because goblin isn’t a spell type. Their solution was to introduce another card type, give it all the same subtypes that creatures had, and put this new card type on any noncreature card they wanted to give creature types to. It isn’t the most elegant solution, but it works."<br /><br />Like... there's a segregation of what subtypes are associated with which card types, and somehow it was less complicated to invent a new card type than it was to desegregate subtypes?metaghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18301191638894756414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-27505850699165528642015-04-30T15:04:29.543-04:002015-04-30T15:04:29.543-04:00Ability words are entirely invisible to the game. ...Ability words are entirely invisible to the game. Nothing can reference an ability word.<br />The Tribal supertype is necessary to put creature subtypes on non-creature spells.<br /><br />How much rules baggage is there in the 'trap' and 'curse' subtypes, versus a personal dislike of something standing out as different?Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-47993559365758118022015-04-30T14:08:58.475-04:002015-04-30T14:08:58.475-04:00I like the idea behind Cultivate, but it's pre...I like the idea behind Cultivate, but it's pretty wordy and in its current incarnation will be very repetitive. I'm fairly convinced that Earthform won't work within the rules, and Dowse seems even more problematic than Sweep, which was already a bad mechanic.Juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13784920130399590671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-15665087729795808552015-04-30T14:05:14.048-04:002015-04-30T14:05:14.048-04:00Amidst all this discussion regarding subtypes, I&#...Amidst all this discussion regarding subtypes, I'm wondering:<br /><br />Is the Tribal supertype necessary in order to put those subtypes on instants and sorceries?<br /><br />Because I'll be honest, I was ever so slightly disappointed that the various dragon-themed spells (like Silumgar's Scorn) weren't Instant - Dragon (for instance). Letting Sarkhan's Triumph tutor up Draconic Roar feels like it would have been flavorfully awesome.metaghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18301191638894756414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-90647154744592458902015-04-30T13:43:45.516-04:002015-04-30T13:43:45.516-04:00Chroma was actually retroactively added on to an e...Chroma was actually retroactively added on to an existing card - Phosphorescent Feast from Future Sight. :)<br /><br />If the game were to be rebooted from scratch, I wouldn't mind seeing spell subtypes glommed onto existing spells as trinket text. What bugs me now is there's a vast difference in the way staple creature bodies/effects are printed versus staple spell effects, with the latter being much more likely to receive an actual as opposed to functional reprint. Somehow players don't mind it as much on creatures because most creatures are limited filler anyway, and most Constructed playable ones have enough unique effects that it wouldn't make sense to print the exact same card under a different name. But it'd get pretty annoying if I had to rebuy, say, Naturalize or Negate every time Standard rotated because WotC insisted on giving the functional reprint a slightly different flavor and "spell subtype."Jenesishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05356037137564501914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-27935425192401399312015-04-30T13:10:36.154-04:002015-04-30T13:10:36.154-04:00One somewhat-tangential note. Zendikar was introdu...One somewhat-tangential note. Zendikar was introduced to us thematically as "adventure world" and mechanically as "the land set" where "lands matter".<br /><br />In practice, however, almost all the "lands matter" was "lands <i>entering the battlefield</i> matters". There were very few other kinds of "lands matter" in <i>Zendikar</i> itself, certainly not in any volume. (<i>Worldwake</i> brought another sensible kind of "lands matter" which was manlands.) I don't think kicker counts as "lands matter" because every set has some mana sinks these days - in Gatecrash it was extort, in KTK it was outlast, DTK it was dash, and none of those sets had a "lands matter" theme.<br /><br />This was one thing that somewhat bugged me about the block. But in retrospect it bothers me a bit less: the block was one way to do "lands matter", but not the only way. <a href="http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cardsets/217/" rel="nofollow">Verdia</a> is another way. MtG will likely find a couple more other ways of doing "lands matter", just like there'll be more enchantment blocks that do things rather differently to how <i>Theros</i> did.<br /><br />Anyway, like I say this is somewhat tangential, because for the purposes of gaBfZ you likely want to stick to doing things the way <i>Zendikar</i> did them rather than the way any of us think Zendikar "should" have done them :) And <a href="http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cards/45201" rel="nofollow">earthform</a>, while an extremely cool mechanic that I remain convinced would work just fine in the rules, would most definitely not be sensible to have in the block immediately after a morph-manifest-megamorph block!AlexChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05674122775216494431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-89559613361281416772015-04-30T08:23:33.894-04:002015-04-30T08:23:33.894-04:00FWIW, I would like more subtypes if they were used...FWIW, I would like more subtypes if they were used consistently (I liked curse). But since Wizards tried with tribal and decided it didn't work, I don't like a compromise where _some_ trap-flavoured cards are "trap" and some aren't, and some fire flavoured cards are "fire" and some aren't, etc.<br /><br />I don't understand the rules problem. Chroma is an example where the abilities don't all do the same thing. And IIRC wizards haven't made ability words rules-relevant YET, but nor have they reprinted cards adding or removing them, which suggests they could be. Indeed, that seems part of what they're FOR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-17622633618944563172015-04-30T03:03:23.664-04:002015-04-30T03:03:23.664-04:00I do dislike curses having their own type, for a f...I do dislike curses having their own type, for a few reasons.<br />First, subtypes have implied rules baggage. Some creature types are trivial, but there are a million cards that can support a Brushwagg deck, if that's what you're into. Because every creature has a creature type, they matter no matter how obscure they are. That's not the case with Curses and Traps. There are two cards total that care about traps. Three that care about curses. I don't think that's enough upside for the implied rules baggage subtypes care about. <br /><br />Maro has had a number of podcasts/articles/etc. over the last year about things they would do differently if they knew then what they know now. While I agree with most of it, I am pretty opposed to having subtypes on spells like fire/ice/nature etc. The upside is too small and it adds more complication to an already very complex game. <br /><br />This segues into the other main reason I dislike traps and curses as subtypes. Unless they are evergreen subtypes, it doesn't make sense that an aura you stick to your opponent in Innistrad is a curse and one that's not in Innistrad isn't. Similar to how tribal noncreatures were considered a mistake in retrospect, largely because of inconsistency across sets/blocks. Also, because its not evergreen, it blocks perfectly reasonable reprints in sets that don't have it as a "mechanic".<br /><br />The middle ground, where the subtype is supported enough to justify its baggage and inconsistency, results in mechanics like splice onto arcane, which is considered a major failing due to its parasitic nature.zefferalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845251416516553492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-11372355891730090692015-04-30T00:37:02.196-04:002015-04-30T00:37:02.196-04:00I'm with AlexC here, I favor as many subtypes ...I'm with AlexC here, I favor as many subtypes on Instants/Sorceries as possible. No one complains when creature types are irrelevant, I think (for Magic) additional typing is better than only including minimal typing. <br /><br />The ability to print Trapmaker's Snare et al is well worth it. What is the downside? <br /><br />Also, I don't think there is any reason ability words have to define a condition, they just have to indicate something a bunch of cards have in common. They are totally meaningless ruleswise, so they can really do anything you want. They're flavortext. Of course, this makes them unuseful as a way of labeling traps. <br /><br />Do you also dislike Curses having their own type? I really don't get this.Tommy Occhipintihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495646355536064735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-60984105925817925112015-04-30T00:05:43.063-04:002015-04-30T00:05:43.063-04:00That is a clever idea. I'm still debating how ...That is a clever idea. I'm still debating how to handle the tribal component here, and I like what that opens up.zefferalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845251416516553492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-90323789894819357332015-04-30T00:04:49.208-04:002015-04-30T00:04:49.208-04:00Ability words wouldn't really work on traps, a...Ability words wouldn't really work on traps, as ability words are used to define a uniform condition that turns the ability on, which is the opposite of what traps do. <br /><br />If I were printing traps for the first time, they would look like this:<br /><br />Baloth Cage Trap 3GG<br />Instant<br />If an opponent had an artifact enter the battlefield under his or her control this turn, you may pay 1G rather than pay Baloth Cage Trap's mana cost.<br />Put a 4/4 green Beast creature token onto the battlefield.<br /><br />They would be identical to the original minus subtype, because subtypes on noncreatures are almost never worth it.<br /><br />Traps are awesome, and the only reason I'm hesitant to do it again is because of the subtype.zefferalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845251416516553492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-90906801329135306102015-04-29T15:48:27.920-04:002015-04-29T15:48:27.920-04:00I'm trying to think of a set more intimately t...I'm trying to think of a set more intimately tied to its central mechanic than Zendikar is to landfall, and I can't. For many, many players, Zendikar is "the landfall set." It was beloved by nearly everyone, and all of those fans are expecting it to return in BfZ. <br /><br />This isn't to say it's not *possible* to ditch landfall, only that you have to have a <i>very, very good reason</i> (hint: "I didn't like it" isn't good enough by half) and that what you <i>do</i> execute on has to be not just good, but such a home-run that your players <i>can't imagine</i> landfall being a better choice for your set. <br /><br />If you do manage to pull that off, I'll be eager to see the results, but it's certainly not the route I would go down.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17647677781801914930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-5380599504138440562015-04-29T12:15:19.504-04:002015-04-29T12:15:19.504-04:00Regarding Allies and the largely failed attempt to...Regarding Allies and the largely failed attempt to integrate the D&D concept of a cleric/wizard/warrior model, it may be a smart idea to ditch Allies in favor of a further refinement of a class-type matters theme.<br /><br />It could be a potentially great bridge between Khans and BfZ, allowing both a rejuvenation of Khans' Warrior theme (which dissipated as the block progressed) and a means to give new value to fringe constructed cards like Pitiless Horde (if there were Berzerker Tribal). metaghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18301191638894756414noreply@blogger.com