I believe that there is a particular piece of Magic's vocabulary that is limiting. If it can be improved, I believe that it will open up some interesting design space.
1. Kill(s/ed) - A creature is killed when it is put into a graveyard as the result of lethal damage from a creature.
Ex: "Whenever this creature kills another creature, draw a card." or "Whenever a creature you control is killed in combat, draw a card."
I think this one is pretty intuitive. Learning what exactly counts as being killed shouldn't be too hard for new or experienced players to learn, certainly not as problematic as regenerate or protection. It can be used in several different ways, like "killed in combat," "killed by an instant or sorcery," or "killed in a fight," just to name a few examples.
2. Win(s) a fight - A creature wins a fight by killing the creature it fights.
Ex: "Whenever a creature you control wins a fight, draw a card." or "Whenever a creature wins a fight against a creature you control, its controller loses 2 life."
This one is reliant on Killing being introduced to the vocabulary. That said, when it's introduced, I think it will be just as intuitive as Killing. I also think it opens up just as much design space, even if it is a bit more niche. I could see using it as a subtheme for a set.
Now, I say that these improvements open up some design space, but technically that space is already accessible, just through more complicated language.
Anyway, what do you guys think? Is it realistic to think this might happen one day?
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
I agree with Thought Criminal in his criticism. Both terms are difficult to define due to specific (but not general) circumstances. A piece of terminology I do want to see is a 'dies' equivalent for noncreature permanents. The biggest issue I can see there is finding the right word.
For the first problem, I think we could use a system similar to blocking order to determine which creature gets the kill. The attacker chooses the blocking order and the defender chooses the damage order. So if two Elite Vanguards block a Peace Strider, the attacking player would determine that Strider deals 1 damage to Elite#1 and then 1 damage to Elite#2. The defending player would decide if Elite#1 will apply its damage first, or apply its damage second and get the kill.
It is a little more complicated than it lets on.
In the second problem, I suppose I should amend the Wins term to say "A creature wins a fight if it kills the creature it fights and isn't killed in the process." That way if both creatures die, noone wins.
For the record, here is my personal take for these two keyword actions:
---
701.SLA. Slay
701.SLAa A creature slays a second creature when the first creature deals damage to the second creature so that the second creature is destroyed the next time state-based actions involving damage are checked. The second creature "is slain" by the first creature.
701.SLAb To determine whether a creature slays a second creature, determine whether the creature is destroyed after taking into account any continuous effects from its own static abilities, as well as continuous effects from other sources that may affect it. If the second creature moves to a zone other than its owner's graveyard after the next time state-based actions involving damage are checked, the first creature doesn't slay the second creature.
701.SLAc A creature that slays a second creature can itself be moved from the battlefield to another zone as state-based actions involving damage are being checked. The first creature doesn't need to be on the battlefield for it to have slain the second creature.
701.SLAd Multiple creatures can slay a creature, as long as the total amount of damage dealt by the slaying creatures is enough to cause the damage marked on the slain creature to be lethal by the next time state-based actions are checked.
---
701.SUR. Survive
701.SURa A creature survives a source of damage when damage is dealt to it by that source, but is not moved to another zone from the battlefield the next time state-based actions involving damage are checked.
701.SURb A creature survives any other one-shot effect when that effect, or state-based actions that are checked immediately following that effect, could cause it to move to another zone from the battlefield, but is not moved to that zone after that effect is applied and after those state-based actions are checked.
Example: Alice controls an Elite Vanguard, a white creature. Bob targets Alice's Elite Vanguard with Doom Blade, which reads in part, "Destroy target nonblack creature." If Doom Blade destroys Elite Vanguard, Elite Vanguard doesn't survive Doom Blade. However, if Alice's Elite Vanguard somehow isn't destroyed by Doom Blade, her Elite Vanguard survives it.
Example: Alice controls an Elite Vanguard, a 2/1 creature. Bob targets Alice's Elite Vanguard with Tragic Slip, which reads in part, "Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn." Elite Vanguard doesn't survive Tragic Slip if it's moved from the battlefield to another zone as a result of it leaving the battlefield after state-based actions are checked, but it survives if it's not moved this way.
Example: Alice controls an Elite Vanguard, a 2/1 creature. Bob targets Alice's Elite Vanguard with Shock, which reads in part, "Shock deals 2 damage to target creature or player." The next time state-based actions are checked, if Elite Vanguard is destroyed for having lethal damage marked on it, Elite Vanguard doesn't survive Lightning Bolt. However, if it's not destroyed, Elite Vanguard survives Lightning Bolt.
---
701.10. Fight
...
701.10e A creature "wins a fight" if it fights another creature and, if state-based actions are checked immediately after the fight instruction, the other creature is moved from the battlefield to another zone and the first creature remains on the battlefield.
701.10f A creature "loses a fight" if it fights another creature and, if state-based actions are checked immediately after the fight instruction, it is moved from the battlefield to another zone and the other creature remains on the battlefield.
701.10g The creatures that fight can't both win the fight simultaneously nor lose the fight simultaneously. However, it is possible for neither of them to win the fight nor lose the fight.
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
@deidarakoon
The problem is, while the rules concerns can be addressed, that doesn't actually mean that it's OK. Your suggested terms are superficially intuitive, like dies, which means that seem to make good vocabulary, but unlike dies, they have additional complexity that negates the reduction in text space complexity for comprehension complexity in understanding what exactly the terms mean. Because the terms aren't greatly used effects, there isn't much to gain from the change in comparison to the confusion that would be caused.
I personally introuced a general term for putting something in the graveyard - it is more general than "die for other permanents", but due to the way permanent abilities are worded easily 90% of the time it will be used from the battlefield no other term is necessary.
For the record, here is my personal take for these two keyword actions:
---
701.SLA. Slay
701.SLAa A creature slays a second creature when the first creature deals damage to the second creature so that the second creature is destroyed the next time state-based actions involving damage are checked. The second creature "is slain" by the first creature.
701.SLAb To determine whether a creature slays a second creature, determine whether the creature is destroyed after taking into account any continuous effects from its own static abilities, as well as continuous effects from other sources that may affect it. If the second creature moves to a zone other than its owner's graveyard after the next time state-based actions involving damage are checked, the first creature doesn't slay the second creature.
701.SLAc A creature that slays a second creature can itself be moved from the battlefield to another zone as state-based actions involving damage are being checked. The first creature doesn't need to be on the battlefield for it to have slain the second creature.
701.SLAd Multiple creatures can slay a creature, as long as the total amount of damage dealt by the slaying creatures is enough to cause the damage marked on the slain creature to be lethal by the next time state-based actions are checked.
So why does slaying need to check damage specifically? My creatures with wither want in on the slaying action, but they are excluded.
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]
The main issue I personally have with winning/losing a fight is that it is just further separating two concepts that feel very similar, but are handled by different rules: Combat and fighting. I don't know whether dwelling on that divide is a particular good idea. I considered introducing a concept that includes combat and fighting as one (nicknamed "battle") - that way a mechanic focussing on "battle" is less narrow than a mechanic focussing on "fight".
I think there is space for this, but I wouldn't count on it making its way into Magic proper due to inheritted issues and an aversion to complexity creep.
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]
So why does slaying need to check damage specifically? My creatures with wither want in on the slaying action, but they are excluded.
It can, but the person who I first saw who came up with the mechanic (clan_iraq, I think) didn't account for that possibility, since none of their cards that used the keyword action had wither or infect in them (to my knowledge). That's why my draft CR rules entries don't cover wither or infect.
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.
1. Kill(s/ed) - A creature is killed when it is put into a graveyard as the result of lethal damage from a creature.
Ex: "Whenever this creature kills another creature, draw a card." or "Whenever a creature you control is killed in combat, draw a card."
I think this one is pretty intuitive. Learning what exactly counts as being killed shouldn't be too hard for new or experienced players to learn, certainly not as problematic as regenerate or protection. It can be used in several different ways, like "killed in combat," "killed by an instant or sorcery," or "killed in a fight," just to name a few examples.
2. Win(s) a fight - A creature wins a fight by killing the creature it fights.
Ex: "Whenever a creature you control wins a fight, draw a card." or "Whenever a creature wins a fight against a creature you control, its controller loses 2 life."
This one is reliant on Killing being introduced to the vocabulary. That said, when it's introduced, I think it will be just as intuitive as Killing. I also think it opens up just as much design space, even if it is a bit more niche. I could see using it as a subtheme for a set.
Now, I say that these improvements open up some design space, but technically that space is already accessible, just through more complicated language.
Anyway, what do you guys think? Is it realistic to think this might happen one day?
2) What happens when a Memnite (a 1/1) fights an Elite Vanguard (a 2/1)? Does my Memnite "win" even though it died? Similarly, does the Elite Vanguard "win" as well?
[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
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It is a little more complicated than it lets on.
In the second problem, I suppose I should amend the Wins term to say "A creature wins a fight if it kills the creature it fights and isn't killed in the process." That way if both creatures die, noone wins.
---
701.SLA. Slay
701.SLAa A creature slays a second creature when the first creature deals damage to the second creature so that the second creature is destroyed the next time state-based actions involving damage are checked. The second creature "is slain" by the first creature.
701.SLAb To determine whether a creature slays a second creature, determine whether the creature is destroyed after taking into account any continuous effects from its own static abilities, as well as continuous effects from other sources that may affect it. If the second creature moves to a zone other than its owner's graveyard after the next time state-based actions involving damage are checked, the first creature doesn't slay the second creature.
701.SLAc A creature that slays a second creature can itself be moved from the battlefield to another zone as state-based actions involving damage are being checked. The first creature doesn't need to be on the battlefield for it to have slain the second creature.
701.SLAd Multiple creatures can slay a creature, as long as the total amount of damage dealt by the slaying creatures is enough to cause the damage marked on the slain creature to be lethal by the next time state-based actions are checked.
---
701.SUR. Survive
701.SURa A creature survives a source of damage when damage is dealt to it by that source, but is not moved to another zone from the battlefield the next time state-based actions involving damage are checked.
701.SURb A creature survives any other one-shot effect when that effect, or state-based actions that are checked immediately following that effect, could cause it to move to another zone from the battlefield, but is not moved to that zone after that effect is applied and after those state-based actions are checked.
Example: Alice controls an Elite Vanguard, a white creature. Bob targets Alice's Elite Vanguard with Doom Blade, which reads in part, "Destroy target nonblack creature." If Doom Blade destroys Elite Vanguard, Elite Vanguard doesn't survive Doom Blade. However, if Alice's Elite Vanguard somehow isn't destroyed by Doom Blade, her Elite Vanguard survives it.
Example: Alice controls an Elite Vanguard, a 2/1 creature. Bob targets Alice's Elite Vanguard with Tragic Slip, which reads in part, "Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn." Elite Vanguard doesn't survive Tragic Slip if it's moved from the battlefield to another zone as a result of it leaving the battlefield after state-based actions are checked, but it survives if it's not moved this way.
Example: Alice controls an Elite Vanguard, a 2/1 creature. Bob targets Alice's Elite Vanguard with Shock, which reads in part, "Shock deals 2 damage to target creature or player." The next time state-based actions are checked, if Elite Vanguard is destroyed for having lethal damage marked on it, Elite Vanguard doesn't survive Lightning Bolt. However, if it's not destroyed, Elite Vanguard survives Lightning Bolt.
---
701.10. Fight
...
701.10e A creature "wins a fight" if it fights another creature and, if state-based actions are checked immediately after the fight instruction, the other creature is moved from the battlefield to another zone and the first creature remains on the battlefield.
701.10f A creature "loses a fight" if it fights another creature and, if state-based actions are checked immediately after the fight instruction, it is moved from the battlefield to another zone and the other creature remains on the battlefield.
701.10g The creatures that fight can't both win the fight simultaneously nor lose the fight simultaneously. However, it is possible for neither of them to win the fight nor lose the fight.
[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
The problem is, while the rules concerns can be addressed, that doesn't actually mean that it's OK. Your suggested terms are superficially intuitive, like dies, which means that seem to make good vocabulary, but unlike dies, they have additional complexity that negates the reduction in text space complexity for comprehension complexity in understanding what exactly the terms mean. Because the terms aren't greatly used effects, there isn't much to gain from the change in comparison to the confusion that would be caused.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
So why does slaying need to check damage specifically? My creatures with wither want in on the slaying action, but they are excluded.
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
........................
I used "wins/loses" fights for a Gruul mechanic. I think it's something we'll see relatively soon.
Whenever a creature you control wins a fight, something special happens.
etc.
I think there is space for this, but I wouldn't count on it making its way into Magic proper due to inheritted issues and an aversion to complexity creep.
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
It can, but the person who I first saw who came up with the mechanic (clan_iraq, I think) didn't account for that possibility, since none of their cards that used the keyword action had wither or infect in them (to my knowledge). That's why my draft CR rules entries don't cover wither or infect.
[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