Currently, specific keywords can be referrenced by rules text, as in Cairn Wanderer's ability. However, a card can't say, for example, "Target creature loses all keyword abilities until end of turn." That's because it isn't always clear to all plauers what counts as a keyword ability, but I think there's an easy solution.
"Vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, it explores."
It could say:
"Vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, it explores."
The only difference is that vigilance is bolded. What this allows us to do is now have effects that say something like:
"Target player loses all keyword abilities until end of turn."
Because it's bolded, it's easy to associate "keyword ability" with "vigilance" and other keywords.
Using this tech, we can reduce Cairn Wanderer's text to:
"Changeling
~ has all keyword abilities of all creature cards in all graveyards."
(And yes, I'm aware it is a little functionally different, considering Cairn Wanderer only cares about specific keywords, but my version can be used on any future variant of this ability without basically any drawback.)
So what do you think? I find this perfectly doable in Magic as it is today, which isn't something I can say about my ideas very often.
One issue I have with this is how... unfortunate it looks in the middle of a sentence. With isolated keywords that cards inherently have it's fine but imagine something like "Whenever this creature becomes blocked by a creature with flying, this creature gains first strike until end of turn."
One issue I have with this is how... unfortunate it looks in the middle of a sentence. With isolated keywords that cards inherently have it's fine but imagine something like "Whenever this creature becomes blocked by a creature with flying, this creature gains first strike until end of turn."
I see no problem with how that looks. In fact, it's more informative that way. The bold is a clearer signal that those words have meaning.
The idea itself is interesting but it has many corner cases and lots of confusion for the specific desired outcome.
Cairn Wanderer would gain all of the negative keywords that would normally be left off making the card significantly more complicated to play. Add in all the irrelevant keywords it gains that people would expect to have functionality but don't, and you have a rules nightmare.
The change might be a good idea, but cards like Cairn Wanderer would still be better off keeping their current templating.
This graphical approach is largely good, but the solution for Cairn Wanderer and related cards doesn't work without, minimally, further explanation.
The first problem is one that's been covered earlier: typically these cards don't inherit undesirable keywords (for varying definitions of undesirable which might be affected by 'negative' keywords, what's in standard at the time of printing, possible interactions between heritable keywords, color identity, other stuff I didn't think about) and to have them do so is at least a little problematic.
It's also important to figure out how inheritance of multiple instances is handled, and inheritance of keywords that have parameters (e.g flanking, bloothirst, etc) and express that strictly in the rules and preferably in a way that fits in reminder text.
Also one wonders why a line should be drawn between keyword abilities and prose abilities; formally a keyword ability is slightly different because it's an ability and a tag (i.e. you can search for 'creatures with flying' but you can't typically search for 'creatures with "This creature enters the battlefield tapped"') but I'm not sure that we need to deepen that divide.
IDK whether we need to care about any weird edge cases with spells inheriting permanent keywords or vice versa but it's probably worth thinking about.
There's also the issue of separating evergreen keywords from block keywords. Cairn Wanderer only cares about its contemporary evergreen keywords (minus defender), while Odric, Lunarch Marshal throws in skulk while leaving out defender and prowess.
This idea is doable in Magic, but I would contest the assumption that it would be better than the current template. As clunky as the current wording is, it's also simple and fairly easy to understand just by reading the card. Making it open-ended creates all of the issues outlined above, and, most damningly, it places a design constraint on future keywords. The fact that these kinds of cards are relics of their times decreases the chances of them being broken by future cards, while versions with the open-ended template turn these kinds of effects into veritable minefields.
There's also the issue of separating evergreen keywords from block keywords. Cairn Wanderer only cares about its contemporary evergreen keywords (minus defender), while Odric, Lunarch Marshal throws in skulk while leaving out defender and prowess.
This idea is doable in Magic, but I would contest the assumption that it would be better than the current template. As clunky as the current wording is, it's also simple and fairly easy to understand just by reading the card. Making it open-ended creates all of the issues outlined above, and, most damningly, it places a design constraint on future keywords. The fact that these kinds of cards are relics of their times decreases the chances of them being broken by future cards, while versions with the open-ended template turn these kinds of effects into veritable minefields.
Even if Cairn Wanderer and Odric, Lunarch Marshal were open-ended using my template, I highly doubt they would break any formats being exposed to every existing keyword in the game. At most, they would be even more splashy build-around cards than they are now. Also, keep in mind that these cards are mostly made at rare, meaning they have basically 0 influence on how keywords are made. Cards are balanced for standard and limited only, leaving banlists to take care of other formats.
My point is that my wording likely wouldn't be nearly as limiting as you're implying.
The other issues are interesting though. There are some keywords that are either irrelevant most of the time when granted to a creature (haste, flash, etc.) and there are some that are undesireable (defender).
The first group is really only problematic to the point that players might be confused about if they could play Cairn Wanderer at instant speed if you have a flash creature in the 'yard, but that problem isn't really there with cards like Odric, Lunarch Marshal that gain keywords after they've already been cast, as players can pretty easily tell that flash isn't relevant to creatures on the battlefield.
The second group could be seen as problematic, but I think it could also be seen as a build-around challenge.
The main advantage of my wording is that it makes effects like these easier to read. There are still plenty of times when I need to reread cards like Cairn Wanderer to see what abilities it actually grants, not to mention that its ability takes up so much space you can't fit any more than that on a card, limiting design space arguably more than the potential power level concerns you mentioned.
And again, this extends past just Cairn Wanderer effects. Imagine a card like this:
Celebrated Talents1WW
Enchantment
Each creature you control gets +1/+1 for each keyword ability it has.
Under the current template technology, this card can't exist, which is a little sad to me.
The problem with the proposal is that not every kind of card *wants* to refer to all the same abilities. How do you choose which abilities to make bold and which not? Due to layers e. g. bolding changeling (as you suggest) is a really terrible idea. Prowess is left off of those kind of abilities for a reason (as is defender, but for a different reason).
Or do you want to just bold all keyword abilities? In which case once again: Some keyword abilities are intentionally left out and are outright hurtful to the design if they are included due to your alternate approach. In fact I argue that the problem you propose (people not knowing what a keyword ability is) is not at all why the cards have their current more complex wording and the actual reason is that including all keywords also always covers mechanics that a good design doesn't want to cover.
Celebrated Talents1WW
Enchantment
Each creature you control gets +1/+1 for each keyword ability it has.
Under the current template technology, this card can't exist, which is a little sad to me.
No matter whether current template technology or your alternate proposal this kind of design is problematic due to the existence of two classes of abilities: redundant abilities (most static keyword abilities, e. g. evasion abilities) and cumulative abilities (triggered abilties mostly). Players are trained (by design and by default) to process these entirely differently. Two instances of flanking will be something a player will take note of, but two instances of flying will easily be missed.
And that's not even counting stuff like creatures that have abilities that might have abilities that usually wouldn't matte while they are on the battlefield e. g. embalm or cycling that suddenly matter.
I think the worst thing is that a discouraging low percentage of people would be aware that Mirran Crusader actually would get +1/+1 three times. Riots would be starting once it picks up a Sword of Body and Mind of course.
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]
Visually, if this were done in magic, I'd prefer it follow the convention current games, anime, visual novels, and even some novels deal with keywords these days, with brackets. [flying] Bolded also can be difficult to spot when printing spoilers.
I like it because right now names of cards can't contain names of abilities and vice versa (an in these forums, that's noted fairly often). Having a visual identifier that says "were talking of an ablity here, not (anything else)" is a good thing.
My problem with this is that it would require an extensive errata of a huge chunk of cards. In the example provided, flanking (or [flanking]) is not going ht not be obvious if it is when you read the card in a graveyard.
Visually, if this were done in magic, I'd prefer it follow the convention current games, anime, visual novels, and even some novels deal with keywords these days, with brackets. [flying] Bolded also can be difficult to spot when printing spoilers.
I like it because right now names of cards can't contain names of abilities and vice versa (an in these forums, that's noted fairly often). Having a visual identifier that says "were talking of an ablity here, not (anything else)" is a good thing.
My problem with this is that it would require an extensive errata of a huge chunk of cards. In the example provided, flanking (or [flanking]) is not going ht not be obvious if it is when you read the card in a graveyard.
Brackets could definitely also work. They add characters but work particularly better with keywords that have multiple words ("double strike", "protection from blah" etc.)
So far the biggest problems that I'm seeing feedback about mostly have to do either with dead keywords, being selective about keywords, or how older cards are affected. I think added together, it makes sense why this hasn't been done yet. That said, that won't stop me from adding it to my list of MTG Reboot changes
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Instead of Sunrise Seeker saying:
"Vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, it explores."
It could say:
"Vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, it explores."
The only difference is that vigilance is bolded. What this allows us to do is now have effects that say something like:
"Target player loses all keyword abilities until end of turn."
Because it's bolded, it's easy to associate "keyword ability" with "vigilance" and other keywords.
Using this tech, we can reduce Cairn Wanderer's text to:
"Changeling
~ has all keyword abilities of all creature cards in all graveyards."
(And yes, I'm aware it is a little functionally different, considering Cairn Wanderer only cares about specific keywords, but my version can be used on any future variant of this ability without basically any drawback.)
So what do you think? I find this perfectly doable in Magic as it is today, which isn't something I can say about my ideas very often.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Cairn Wanderer would gain all of the negative keywords that would normally be left off making the card significantly more complicated to play. Add in all the irrelevant keywords it gains that people would expect to have functionality but don't, and you have a rules nightmare.
The change might be a good idea, but cards like Cairn Wanderer would still be better off keeping their current templating.
The first problem is one that's been covered earlier: typically these cards don't inherit undesirable keywords (for varying definitions of undesirable which might be affected by 'negative' keywords, what's in standard at the time of printing, possible interactions between heritable keywords, color identity, other stuff I didn't think about) and to have them do so is at least a little problematic.
It's also important to figure out how inheritance of multiple instances is handled, and inheritance of keywords that have parameters (e.g flanking, bloothirst, etc) and express that strictly in the rules and preferably in a way that fits in reminder text.
Also one wonders why a line should be drawn between keyword abilities and prose abilities; formally a keyword ability is slightly different because it's an ability and a tag (i.e. you can search for 'creatures with flying' but you can't typically search for 'creatures with "This creature enters the battlefield tapped"') but I'm not sure that we need to deepen that divide.
IDK whether we need to care about any weird edge cases with spells inheriting permanent keywords or vice versa but it's probably worth thinking about.
This idea is doable in Magic, but I would contest the assumption that it would be better than the current template. As clunky as the current wording is, it's also simple and fairly easy to understand just by reading the card. Making it open-ended creates all of the issues outlined above, and, most damningly, it places a design constraint on future keywords. The fact that these kinds of cards are relics of their times decreases the chances of them being broken by future cards, while versions with the open-ended template turn these kinds of effects into veritable minefields.
My point is that my wording likely wouldn't be nearly as limiting as you're implying.
The other issues are interesting though. There are some keywords that are either irrelevant most of the time when granted to a creature (haste, flash, etc.) and there are some that are undesireable (defender).
The first group is really only problematic to the point that players might be confused about if they could play Cairn Wanderer at instant speed if you have a flash creature in the 'yard, but that problem isn't really there with cards like Odric, Lunarch Marshal that gain keywords after they've already been cast, as players can pretty easily tell that flash isn't relevant to creatures on the battlefield.
The second group could be seen as problematic, but I think it could also be seen as a build-around challenge.
The main advantage of my wording is that it makes effects like these easier to read. There are still plenty of times when I need to reread cards like Cairn Wanderer to see what abilities it actually grants, not to mention that its ability takes up so much space you can't fit any more than that on a card, limiting design space arguably more than the potential power level concerns you mentioned.
And again, this extends past just Cairn Wanderer effects. Imagine a card like this:
Celebrated Talents 1WW
Enchantment
Each creature you control gets +1/+1 for each keyword ability it has.
Under the current template technology, this card can't exist, which is a little sad to me.
Or do you want to just bold all keyword abilities? In which case once again: Some keyword abilities are intentionally left out and are outright hurtful to the design if they are included due to your alternate approach. In fact I argue that the problem you propose (people not knowing what a keyword ability is) is not at all why the cards have their current more complex wording and the actual reason is that including all keywords also always covers mechanics that a good design doesn't want to cover.
No matter whether current template technology or your alternate proposal this kind of design is problematic due to the existence of two classes of abilities: redundant abilities (most static keyword abilities, e. g. evasion abilities) and cumulative abilities (triggered abilties mostly). Players are trained (by design and by default) to process these entirely differently. Two instances of flanking will be something a player will take note of, but two instances of flying will easily be missed.
And that's not even counting stuff like creatures that have abilities that might have abilities that usually wouldn't matte while they are on the battlefield e. g. embalm or cycling that suddenly matter.
I think the worst thing is that a discouraging low percentage of people would be aware that Mirran Crusader actually would get +1/+1 three times. Riots would be starting once it picks up a Sword of Body and Mind of course.
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 like it because right now names of cards can't contain names of abilities and vice versa (an in these forums, that's noted fairly often). Having a visual identifier that says "were talking of an ablity here, not (anything else)" is a good thing.
My problem with this is that it would require an extensive errata of a huge chunk of cards. In the example provided, flanking (or [flanking]) is not going ht not be obvious if it is when you read the card in a graveyard.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
So far the biggest problems that I'm seeing feedback about mostly have to do either with dead keywords, being selective about keywords, or how older cards are affected. I think added together, it makes sense why this hasn't been done yet. That said, that won't stop me from adding it to my list of MTG Reboot changes