Haunted Quag
Basic Land — Swamp [L] Alternate art 1
Haunted Quag
Basic Land — Swamp [L] Alternate art 2
Mud Wraith3B
Creature — Wraith [U]
Swampwalk
Whenever Mud Wraith deals combat damage to a player, you may transform it.
[3/2]
>>>>>>>>>> Haunted Quag
Land — Swamp [U] Alternate art 3
Wooded Ravine
Basic Land — Forest [L] Alternate art 1
Wooded Ravine
Basic Land — Forest [L] Alternate art 2
Wall of Branches1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>> Wooded Ravine
Land — Forest [U] Alternate art 3
The basic lands would fill the normal basic land slots (1 per pack,) not common slots. They would not be available in unlimited quantities, but the other basics (Swamp, Forest, etc.) would still technically be part of the set and available in unlimited quantities for draft.
[EDIT]: More accurately tagged the land rarities at Thought Criminal's suggestion.
Maybe I'm missing something, but you could make the Haunted Quag and Wooded Ravine have the [L] or [BL] rarity (the characters used to type the rarity depends on convention) to denote that the cards take up basic land slots rather than common slots. This would leave more room for common slots in your set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Maybe I'm missing something, but you could make the Haunted Quag and Wooded Ravine have the [L] or [BL] rarity (the characters used to type the rarity depends on convention) to denote that the cards take up basic land slots rather than common slots. This would leave more room for common slots in your set.
Very good. I was using "B" and that was messing things up with the bold tag. I will specify it correctly with [L].
How do you plan to get around the "strictly better than (normal) basics" issue? Also, this kind of illustrates the point about the backside being basic more starkly. A Haunted Quag card should just be the same as a Haunted Quag card, but if your opponent casts Ruination it will blow up some of your Haunted Quags but not others? I sort of got your point in the other thread that you didn't want to make basic a "pseudo-tribal effect," but with lands it already is a pseudo-tribal effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
How do you plan to get around the "strictly better than (normal) basics" issue?
These aren't "strictly better than basic lands", though (Wizards' definition). The single-faced Haunted Quag and the basic Swamp card are identical except in name. The rest of the functionality of those cards are the same. And the double-faced Haunted Quag card isn't strictly better than a basic Swamp, either, since you have to go through the burden of transforming it into the Quag before you reap its benefits.
Also, this kind of illustrates the point about the backside being basic more starkly. A Haunted Quag card should just be the same as a Haunted Quag card, but if your opponent casts Ruination it will blow up some of your Haunted Quags but not others?
It's the same as the Llanowar Elves tokens that are created by that one card. Both the tokens and the creature cards are meant to be named the same thing, with the same power and toughness, and with the same mana ability that allows G to be added to mana pools. But something that distinguishes between the differences between the two will destroy one and not the other. Yet Llanowar Elves tokens were still made despite this fact, which implies that discrepancies that distinguish between other characteristics of an object can be present as well.
So in other words, if it hits some Haunted Quags and not others, so be it.
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
They aren't better right now, but presumably there will be some effects that interact favorably with them in the set, or there doesn't seem to be much point in making them. I'm just saying that you then have to have some effects that interact unfavorably with them to make sure they don't become strictly better. It's similar to how Thermokarst and friends are the only thing making snow basics not strictly better than basics.
Edit for clarity: If you just printed Snow-Covered Mountain, it wouldn't be strictly better or strictly worse than Mountain; it would be, essentially, the same card. If you then printed skred, suddenly SC mountain would be better than mountain, which is undesirable. Once you then release Freyalise's Radiance, SC Mountain is an interesting part of the metagame with pros and cons. I just wanted to double check that there would be a Freyalise's Radiance in this set, and was curious as to what it was.
Regarding the basic issue which of these two cards would you prefer:
Wall of Branches 1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>
Forest
Land — Forest [U]
or,
Wall of Branches 1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>
Forest
Basic Land — Forest [U]
Regarding the basic issue which of these two cards would you prefer:
Wall of Branches 1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>
Forest
Land — Forest [U]
or,
Wall of Branches 1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>
Forest
Basic Land — Forest [U]
Hmm, I don't know. There are cards that favor the inclusion of the subtype, and there are cards that favor its exclusion; there are cards that only affect those with the subtype, and cards that only affect those without the subtype. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, enough of which for me to say that either would be viable in the right situations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
And what about this card:
Hopeful Bud W
Creature — Plant [R]
Defender
When Hopeful Bud dies, return it to the battlefield transformed under your control.
[0/1]
>>>>>>>>>>
Bitterblossom
• Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life and put a 1/1 black Faerie Rogue creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
And what about this card:
Hopeful Bud W
Creature — Plant [R]
Defender
When Hopeful Bud dies, return it to the battlefield transformed under your control.
[0/1]
>>>>>>>>>>
Bitterblossom
• Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life and put a 1/1 black Faerie Rogue creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
I think I... actually don't have a problem with that. Let's take it a step farther:
Wall of Branches1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>> Mox Emerald
Artifact [U] T: Add G to your mana pool.
Now, I wouldn't do that, obviously, because it accomplishes nothing other than to aggravate collectors. But, mechanically speaking, is it fair game? I think it is. And it might be an interesting way to sneak Reserved List cards back into action, a la Chronatog Totem and friends.
I'm fine with the mox emerald split card, the point with the Bitterblossom example is that it lost tribal-faerie.
Edit: Getting kind of off topic, but I don't think that would actually aggravate collectors too much, and I think it would be really cool to see printed. I'm probably going to do a TSP2 for my first custom set/block (once I finally get some free time, maybe this summer), and I'll keep these nostalgia designs in my back pocket.
I'm fine with the mox emerald split card, the point with the Bitterblossom example is that it lost tribal-faerie.
OK, I get what you're saying now.
There's an opportunity here to educate players about what "basic" means in this new context where it doesn't just appear on the five Alpha basic lands. And part of that opportunity is the ability to set that definition myself. If I'm setting the definition myself, I'm going to choose a consistent, functional meaning. I don't want "basic" to just be a dangling thread, or a pseudo-tribal search term. If it goes on the back of a transform card, it loses its functional purpose, and I think that would confuse players and negatively impact the reception of these new "basic" mechanics.
Here's a counterexample that I think illustrates my point pretty well:
Voja(G/W)
Legendary Creature Token — Wolf [R]
[2/2]
If that were to be printed as a card, it would achieve consistency with the previous version, Emmara Tandris would prevent damage to it, Dogged Hunter would kill it, and so forth. But you muddy the meaning of "token," and now have to develop a rules system to handle tokens that are actually cards. And I would inevitably have to develop a rules system to handle cards with the "basic" supertype that are limited to 4-of in a deck. Even if it's an easy fix, it muddies the waters for what the supertype is supposed to mean.
I'm fine with the mox emerald split card, the point with the Bitterblossom example is that it lost tribal-faerie.
OK, I get what you're saying now.
There's an opportunity here to educate players about what "basic" means in this new context where it doesn't just appear on the five Alpha basic lands. And part of that opportunity is the ability to set that definition myself. If I'm setting the definition myself, I'm going to choose a consistent, functional meaning. I don't want "basic" to just be a dangling thread, or a pseudo-tribal search term. If it goes on the back of a transform card, it loses its functional purpose, and I think that would confuse players and negatively impact the reception of these new "basic" mechanics.
Here's a counterexample that I think illustrates my point pretty well:
Voja(G/W)
Legendary Creature Token — Wolf [R]
[2/2]
If that were to be printed as a card, it would achieve consistency with the previous version, Emmara Tandris would prevent damage to it, Dogged Hunter would kill it, and so forth. But you muddy the meaning of "token," and now have to develop a rules system to handle tokens that are actually cards. And I would inevitably have to develop a rules system to handle cards with the "basic" supertype that are limited to 4-of in a deck. Even if it's an easy fix, it muddies the waters for what the supertype is supposed to mean.
Alright, I think I'm getting a better idea of where you're coming from as well. I kind of agree that if we were figuring out how we wanted basic to interact with the rules from the get go, it would be nice if all it ever did was say "you can have more than four of me in a deck." But the bolded part of your quote isn't really correct. WotC has already defined basic to be a supertype, one of the fundamental attributes of a card, and printed other cards that care about it in a pseudo-tribal fashion. Ruination and Zombie Apocalypse are essentially quite similar, and however you'd like to extend basic in NXS you're kind of stuck to contend with that.
The larger problem here is that my Bitterblossom example isn't just bad design, it's unprintable. I'm been poking around the internet trying to find where WotC's official stance on this actually saw the light of day, and the problem is actually much larger than I previously realized (sorry ).
Here's the article about naming, we care particularly about bullet point one. And herearesome more recent comments. Furthermore, each side of a double faced card counts as it's own card for these purposes. As per rule 711.8: "If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player may name either face of a double-faced card but not both," and the first ruling on the transform page, printing a DFC really involves printing two cards (which are, of course, very related) each with their own unique name->attributes bundle. This is further demonstrated with the fact that transform cards are treated as two different cards by the Gatherer (which is relevent per 108.1: Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card's wording. A card's Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.), with their own separate card numbers and rulings. In light of this, the loss of tribal isn't the only problem with my bitterblossom, it's also unacceptable that it doesn't have a manacost of 1B.
Now, of course, this is the custom card creation forum. None of these will actually need to be printable, and we can kind of go nuts with rewriting the CR:8th card type, split cards that are permanents, a version of the keyword flying that does something entirely different iff it's on a noncreature enchantment. To some extent you've already done this with the snow mana tweak, which I support. You could probably tweak the ruling which states that the back side of a DFC has no mana cost, and just give the firepit/clay ogre card a 2R mana cost on the backside with a note that it couldn't be cast that way. But while snow mana is a relatively small tweak, plausibly implemented in the real world, fiddling around with unique card names is so game-engine breaking that's it's unequivocally of the table for un-sets. I'm only bringing this up because it seems like you do care about rules compatability, and I got the sense that you didn't really appreciate the heft of this particular violation.
Edit: Regarding tokens, the fact that they don't appear in the gatherer, and don't have to have oracle text, or unique card names, makes them quite different. If I went to print:
Voja GU
Creature [C]
When Voja ETBs, draw a card
2/1
or,
Voja R
Instant [C]
Voja deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
it would be horrible, bizarre design, buts it doesn't actually break any rules.
Last edit, which I think provides the most concise framing I can think of: When someone goes to the gatherer and looks up the exact string "Haunted Quag," they can only land on one card. You get to decide whether you want the gatherer to display Land-Swamp or Basic Land-Swamp, but once you do so it's done -- whenever you go to try and make a physical card and want it to have the Haunted Quag name, you immediately get that typeline.
Good find with the transform rules, there, Sliver Lord.
If I was hugely committed to using transform in this set, I would probably argue the point and search for a workaround, but transform is completely just a means to an end here, and ultimately I never intended Nexus to be a meaty second helping of the mechanic. Since I have two other possible alternatives, I'm going to consider those. I may even create a new mechanic to handle this interaction.
Every card name printed for a card has only had one card frame correlating with it. This means that indeed, one could just look up the name on Gatherer, get the Oracle text that corresponds to that one card name and that one card frame, and be done with it. That being said, there's nothing preventing one card name from having two or more card frames correlating with it, as long as each card frame is distinct from the next. All that you would have to append to the Comprehensive Rules would be to "first note the card frame that the card is printed in, then look up the card name on Gatherer, and the Oracle text would correspond to not just the card name, but rather the card name-card frame pair."
It's a small extra step to do, and it's not really considered because we take it for granted, but it's entirely possible if you don't mind a slight CR change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Every card name printed for a card has only had one card frame correlating with it. This means that indeed, one could just look up the name on Gatherer, get the Oracle text that corresponds to that one card name and that one card frame, and be done with it. That being said, there's nothing preventing one card name from having two or more card frames correlating with it, as long as each card frame is distinct from the next. All that you would have to append to the Comprehensive Rules would be to "first note the card frame that the card is printed in, then look up the card name on Gatherer, and the Oracle text would correspond to not just the card name, but rather the card name-card frame pair."
What is the "frame" in this context? Because you are the first person to bring it up in this discussion and as far as I can tell there is no indication that the frame would change from a basic to a nonbasic version of the identically named card faces in question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
What is the "frame" in this context? Because you are the first person to bring it up in this discussion and as far as I can tell there is no indication that the frame would change from a basic to a nonbasic version of the identically named card faces in question.
I assume he means day/night frame? As in one has the normal Magic frame, and the other has the frame with Planar Chaos colors, a la all the transform cards so far? And that you'd be free to have different rules for each if you specified in the comp. rules that you have to search for the card name + its day/night version? That's how I interpreted that comment.
For the record (because maybe it matters for this discussion,) all the basics in this set will appear in Zendikar-basic-land-style frames. Basic creatures will have their P/T in the center of the box instead of a mana symbol. Nonbasic versions of the basic cards will either be tokens, or will appear with a normal text box, depending on which mechanical path I take. If I use transform, I will probably continue to adopt the Innistrad day/night card frames, but I don't plan to use the day/night symbols in the upper-left-hand corner, because that has no flavor meaning for this set. More likely, I'd use the Future Sight type symbols instead.
Oh, the day/night symbol are alterations to the frame? I thought only the alteration on most day sides counts as altered frame and the symbol is just overlapping with the frame. Does a tombstone symbol count as alternate frame? Are textless versions even feasible without continuity across frames?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Why would you have such a thing when it is so easily avoided?
I guess I didn't mention it in this thread, but in another...
The idea with these is that you might want to build a deck with as many cards with a given name as possible, both in Limited and in Constructed. In either format, simply using the "basic" card is problematic - in Limited, because you won't be able to draft enough of them, even with the increased numbers per pack of each basic creature; and in Constructed because you need more tricks than that to compete. So, I wanted another way to get more cards with the same name onto the battlefield.
But, the more I talk it through, the more I am convincing myself that tokens are the way to go to achieve this. So transform / flip is probably going to be scrapped.
I think I may have misunderstood you. The desire for more cards with the same name in Limited/Constructed is clear, IMO pretty cool, and very doable in various ways you've already outlined.
No matter how you slice it, these would not be "basic" in the general english sense. They should, however, have the supertype Basic, just like you wouldn't print a card which made a "2/2 green and white Wolf creature token named Voja" (nonlegendary).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
But, the more I talk it through, the more I am convincing myself that tokens are the way to go to achieve this. So transform / flip is probably going to be scrapped.
What is the "frame" in this context? Because you are the first person to bring it up in this discussion and as far as I can tell there is no indication that the frame would change from a basic to a nonbasic version of the identically named card faces in question.
Yeah, as it's already been mentioned, by card frame I mean card template. As in, most cards are made in the regular frame, whereas planeswalker, double-faced, flip, split, black-on-black, extended-art, and leveler cards are all made with different card frames to support their mechanics.
So you would look at the name of a card and take note of the card frame it's on (in the case of the one-sided Haunted Quag, the regular frame; in the case of the double-faced Haunted Quag, the double-faced card frame), go on Gatherer, type in the name, look at the list of cards, find the one that correlates with the card frame you noted, and refer to that for its Oracle text.
I don't know if you're familiar with Magic Set Editor at all, but when I refer to card frame, I refer to the different styles a card can be, as divided above. Maybe "card frame" wasn't the best term to use.
EDIT: Response is a day or so late, but I figured I might as well reply when I could.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Haunted Quag
Basic Land — Swamp [L]
Alternate art 1
Haunted Quag
Basic Land — Swamp [L]
Alternate art 2
Mud Wraith 3B
Creature — Wraith [U]
Swampwalk
Whenever Mud Wraith deals combat damage to a player, you may transform it.
[3/2]
>>>>>>>>>>
Haunted Quag
Land — Swamp [U]
Alternate art 3
Wooded Ravine
Basic Land — Forest [L]
Alternate art 1
Wooded Ravine
Basic Land — Forest [L]
Alternate art 2
Wall of Branches 1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>
Wooded Ravine
Land — Forest [U]
Alternate art 3
The basic lands would fill the normal basic land slots (1 per pack,) not common slots. They would not be available in unlimited quantities, but the other basics (Swamp, Forest, etc.) would still technically be part of the set and available in unlimited quantities for draft.
[EDIT]: More accurately tagged the land rarities at Thought Criminal's suggestion.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
These aren't "strictly better than basic lands", though (Wizards' definition). The single-faced Haunted Quag and the basic Swamp card are identical except in name. The rest of the functionality of those cards are the same. And the double-faced Haunted Quag card isn't strictly better than a basic Swamp, either, since you have to go through the burden of transforming it into the Quag before you reap its benefits.
It's the same as the Llanowar Elves tokens that are created by that one card. Both the tokens and the creature cards are meant to be named the same thing, with the same power and toughness, and with the same mana ability that allows G to be added to mana pools. But something that distinguishes between the differences between the two will destroy one and not the other. Yet Llanowar Elves tokens were still made despite this fact, which implies that discrepancies that distinguish between other characteristics of an object can be present as well.
So in other words, if it hits some Haunted Quags and not others, so be it.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Edit for clarity: If you just printed Snow-Covered Mountain, it wouldn't be strictly better or strictly worse than Mountain; it would be, essentially, the same card. If you then printed skred, suddenly SC mountain would be better than mountain, which is undesirable. Once you then release Freyalise's Radiance, SC Mountain is an interesting part of the metagame with pros and cons. I just wanted to double check that there would be a Freyalise's Radiance in this set, and was curious as to what it was.
Regarding the basic issue which of these two cards would you prefer:
Wall of Branches 1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>
Forest
Land — Forest [U]
or,
Wall of Branches 1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>
Forest
Basic Land — Forest [U]
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
Hmm, I don't know. There are cards that favor the inclusion of the subtype, and there are cards that favor its exclusion; there are cards that only affect those with the subtype, and cards that only affect those without the subtype. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, enough of which for me to say that either would be viable in the right situations.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Hopeful Bud W
Creature — Plant [R]
Defender
When Hopeful Bud dies, return it to the battlefield transformed under your control.
[0/1]
>>>>>>>>>>
Bitterblossom
• Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life and put a 1/1 black Faerie Rogue creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
Wall of Branches 1G
Creature — Plant Wall [U]
Defender, reach
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may transform Wall of Branches.
[0/4]
>>>>>>>>>>>
Mox Emerald
Artifact [U]
T: Add G to your mana pool.
Now, I wouldn't do that, obviously, because it accomplishes nothing other than to aggravate collectors. But, mechanically speaking, is it fair game? I think it is. And it might be an interesting way to sneak Reserved List cards back into action, a la Chronatog Totem and friends.
Edit: Getting kind of off topic, but I don't think that would actually aggravate collectors too much, and I think it would be really cool to see printed. I'm probably going to do a TSP2 for my first custom set/block (once I finally get some free time, maybe this summer), and I'll keep these nostalgia designs in my back pocket.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
There's an opportunity here to educate players about what "basic" means in this new context where it doesn't just appear on the five Alpha basic lands. And part of that opportunity is the ability to set that definition myself. If I'm setting the definition myself, I'm going to choose a consistent, functional meaning. I don't want "basic" to just be a dangling thread, or a pseudo-tribal search term. If it goes on the back of a transform card, it loses its functional purpose, and I think that would confuse players and negatively impact the reception of these new "basic" mechanics.
Here's a counterexample that I think illustrates my point pretty well:
Voja (G/W)
Legendary Creature Token — Wolf [R]
[2/2]
If that were to be printed as a card, it would achieve consistency with the previous version, Emmara Tandris would prevent damage to it, Dogged Hunter would kill it, and so forth. But you muddy the meaning of "token," and now have to develop a rules system to handle tokens that are actually cards. And I would inevitably have to develop a rules system to handle cards with the "basic" supertype that are limited to 4-of in a deck. Even if it's an easy fix, it muddies the waters for what the supertype is supposed to mean.
Alright, I think I'm getting a better idea of where you're coming from as well. I kind of agree that if we were figuring out how we wanted basic to interact with the rules from the get go, it would be nice if all it ever did was say "you can have more than four of me in a deck." But the bolded part of your quote isn't really correct. WotC has already defined basic to be a supertype, one of the fundamental attributes of a card, and printed other cards that care about it in a pseudo-tribal fashion. Ruination and Zombie Apocalypse are essentially quite similar, and however you'd like to extend basic in NXS you're kind of stuck to contend with that.
The larger problem here is that my Bitterblossom example isn't just bad design, it's unprintable. I'm been poking around the internet trying to find where WotC's official stance on this actually saw the light of day, and the problem is actually much larger than I previously realized (sorry ).
Here's the article about naming, we care particularly about bullet point one. And here are some more recent comments. Furthermore, each side of a double faced card counts as it's own card for these purposes. As per rule 711.8: "If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player may name either face of a double-faced card but not both," and the first ruling on the transform page, printing a DFC really involves printing two cards (which are, of course, very related) each with their own unique name->attributes bundle. This is further demonstrated with the fact that transform cards are treated as two different cards by the Gatherer (which is relevent per 108.1: Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card's wording. A card's Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.), with their own separate card numbers and rulings. In light of this, the loss of tribal isn't the only problem with my bitterblossom, it's also unacceptable that it doesn't have a manacost of 1B.
Now, of course, this is the custom card creation forum. None of these will actually need to be printable, and we can kind of go nuts with rewriting the CR:8th card type, split cards that are permanents, a version of the keyword flying that does something entirely different iff it's on a noncreature enchantment. To some extent you've already done this with the snow mana tweak, which I support. You could probably tweak the ruling which states that the back side of a DFC has no mana cost, and just give the firepit/clay ogre card a 2R mana cost on the backside with a note that it couldn't be cast that way. But while snow mana is a relatively small tweak, plausibly implemented in the real world, fiddling around with unique card names is so game-engine breaking that's it's unequivocally of the table for un-sets. I'm only bringing this up because it seems like you do care about rules compatability, and I got the sense that you didn't really appreciate the heft of this particular violation.
Edit: Regarding tokens, the fact that they don't appear in the gatherer, and don't have to have oracle text, or unique card names, makes them quite different. If I went to print:
Voja GU
Creature [C]
When Voja ETBs, draw a card
2/1
or,
Voja R
Instant [C]
Voja deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
it would be horrible, bizarre design, buts it doesn't actually break any rules.
Last edit, which I think provides the most concise framing I can think of: When someone goes to the gatherer and looks up the exact string "Haunted Quag," they can only land on one card. You get to decide whether you want the gatherer to display Land-Swamp or Basic Land-Swamp, but once you do so it's done -- whenever you go to try and make a physical card and want it to have the Haunted Quag name, you immediately get that typeline.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
If I was hugely committed to using transform in this set, I would probably argue the point and search for a workaround, but transform is completely just a means to an end here, and ultimately I never intended Nexus to be a meaty second helping of the mechanic. Since I have two other possible alternatives, I'm going to consider those. I may even create a new mechanic to handle this interaction.
Every card name printed for a card has only had one card frame correlating with it. This means that indeed, one could just look up the name on Gatherer, get the Oracle text that corresponds to that one card name and that one card frame, and be done with it. That being said, there's nothing preventing one card name from having two or more card frames correlating with it, as long as each card frame is distinct from the next. All that you would have to append to the Comprehensive Rules would be to "first note the card frame that the card is printed in, then look up the card name on Gatherer, and the Oracle text would correspond to not just the card name, but rather the card name-card frame pair."
It's a small extra step to do, and it's not really considered because we take it for granted, but it's entirely possible if you don't mind a slight CR change.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
What is the "frame" in this context? Because you are the first person to bring it up in this discussion and as far as I can tell there is no indication that the frame would change from a basic to a nonbasic version of the identically named card faces in question.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
For the record (because maybe it matters for this discussion,) all the basics in this set will appear in Zendikar-basic-land-style frames. Basic creatures will have their P/T in the center of the box instead of a mana symbol. Nonbasic versions of the basic cards will either be tokens, or will appear with a normal text box, depending on which mechanical path I take. If I use transform, I will probably continue to adopt the Innistrad day/night card frames, but I don't plan to use the day/night symbols in the upper-left-hand corner, because that has no flavor meaning for this set. More likely, I'd use the Future Sight type symbols instead.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Why would you have such a thing when it is so easily avoided?
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
The idea with these is that you might want to build a deck with as many cards with a given name as possible, both in Limited and in Constructed. In either format, simply using the "basic" card is problematic - in Limited, because you won't be able to draft enough of them, even with the increased numbers per pack of each basic creature; and in Constructed because you need more tricks than that to compete. So, I wanted another way to get more cards with the same name onto the battlefield.
But, the more I talk it through, the more I am convincing myself that tokens are the way to go to achieve this. So transform / flip is probably going to be scrapped.
No matter how you slice it, these would not be "basic" in the general english sense. They should, however, have the supertype Basic, just like you wouldn't print a card which made a "2/2 green and white Wolf creature token named Voja" (nonlegendary).
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
In that case I suggest something like this.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Yeah, as it's already been mentioned, by card frame I mean card template. As in, most cards are made in the regular frame, whereas planeswalker, double-faced, flip, split, black-on-black, extended-art, and leveler cards are all made with different card frames to support their mechanics.
So you would look at the name of a card and take note of the card frame it's on (in the case of the one-sided Haunted Quag, the regular frame; in the case of the double-faced Haunted Quag, the double-faced card frame), go on Gatherer, type in the name, look at the list of cards, find the one that correlates with the card frame you noted, and refer to that for its Oracle text.
I don't know if you're familiar with Magic Set Editor at all, but when I refer to card frame, I refer to the different styles a card can be, as divided above. Maybe "card frame" wasn't the best term to use.
EDIT: Response is a day or so late, but I figured I might as well reply when I could.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall