tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post1151153404808979218..comments2024-03-11T02:32:15.295-04:00Comments on Goblin Artisans: CCDD 030911—The Manifest MechanicUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-69120412799965578262011-03-10T16:30:54.274-05:002011-03-10T16:30:54.274-05:00There's actually already a rule covering this ...There's actually already a rule covering this situation:<br /><br /><i>707.6. If you control multiple face-down spells or face-down permanents, you must ensure at all times that your face-down spells and permanents can be easily differentiated from each other. This includes, but is not limited to, knowing the order spells were cast, the order that face-down permanents entered the battlefield, which creature attacked last turn, and any other differences between face-down spells or permanents. Common methods for distinguishing between face-down objects include using counters or dice to mark the different objects, or clearly placing those objects in order on the table. </i><br /><br />Also, cards without morph can already be face down, thanks to Ixidron and Illusionary Mask.HavelockVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698268009797139251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-89520390746120638882011-03-10T11:14:37.221-05:002011-03-10T11:14:37.221-05:00The fact that a rule would have to be changed (and...The fact that a rule would have to be changed (and how hard that may or may not be) is not a reason to avoid exploring a design possibility: If the design is worth it, the rules will change. If not, you will have learned one more thing that won't work. Perhaps the failed design will lead to another design which does work. Whether that rule has already been changed or not even less so: Why change a rule before it's relevant?<br /><br />The difficulty behind changing this particular rule is not a technical one (non-permanent cards with morph would require only a trivial rules update), but rests on the ramifications of allowing a card without morph to be face-down: Specifically that it becomes much harder to prevent cheating by playing a non-morph as if it were a morph. <br /><br />The scenario being that I've got a face-down card on the battlefield which got there via manifest, but the aura has since been disenchanted. If that card happens to be a card with morph, I could now play any card in my hand face-down, claiming it's a card with morph, mix the two up and you wouldn't know I cheated unless you killed the first creature in response.<br /><br />One possible solution is to allow manifest to put only cards with morph onto the battlefield. If so, you'd want to make sure there are a bunch of lands and—yes, maybe even instants and sorceries—with morph in the set. I don't love that solution because it limits the scope of manifest drastically.<br /><br />Another solution is to add text to the manifest cards that causes you to flip the enchanted creature face-up when the aura leaves play (or even to sacrifice them if the theme is that the aura is what granted that card life in the first place).Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-89756493307522043392011-03-10T03:57:49.127-05:002011-03-10T03:57:49.127-05:00hello!!
i like all the series of cards.
thanks a l...hello!!<br />i like all the series of cards.<br />thanks a lotMagic the Gatheringhttp://www.magiconabudget.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-56328207089538196492011-03-10T00:51:58.343-05:002011-03-10T00:51:58.343-05:00I honestly don't know if it's that simple....I honestly don't know if it's that simple. I'm no judge, and I don't know what exactly are all the complications, but something tells me that if there was a fix that easy it would already be in the rules.<br /><br />And even if the rules account for it, that doesn't change the fact that the situation in the first place is very weird and unintuitive. Avoiding it altogether if possible is preferable to allowing it to happen just because you want to take a shortcut.<br /><br />And the comments about complexity of the mechanic in general still stand.Luminum Cannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-62761310685056258612011-03-10T00:21:59.197-05:002011-03-10T00:21:59.197-05:00That complaint about Instants and Sorceries was br...That complaint about Instants and Sorceries was brought up multiple times in the GDS2, but isn't it pretty trivial to fix? There's already a rule that if an Instant or Sorcery would be put onto the battlefield, exile it instead or some such. So just add a new rule that if an Instant or Sorcery is on the battlefield, put it into its owner's graveyard as a state-based effect. Problem solved. Are there corner cases that I'm missing?Jonathan Woodwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02594128890226676164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-88755996642015493142011-03-09T23:40:55.574-05:002011-03-09T23:40:55.574-05:00I'm going to have to bring up the omnipresent ...I'm going to have to bring up the omnipresent issue of NO INSTANTS OR SORCERIES ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Using this face-down card from your hand method might seem clean in concept, but if you're using it in a block with normal morph cards, there ARE going to be ways of flipping the stuff you manifested face up. And that's a no-no.<br /><br />That issue in itself kills this implementation of Manifest. It's a fine effect, as living weapon shows, but this blends two fairly complex mechanics (entering the battlefield attached to a brand new object, and using face-down creatures) into one monster that, in addition, can easily create situations that wreak havoc on the rules.<br /><br />I don't see why the fact that living weapon uses 0/0s is a compelling reason to avoid them for manifest as well. If that solution is already shown to work, and work well, why change it?Luminum Cannoreply@blogger.com