Another important thing to realize about Chroma is it almost makes you reread cards just to double check. If there were simply two */*s in the set, I'd assume they were both the same. Because they have Chroma, I had to double check rather than just assume they were the same. Finally, like countless others have said before me, it is NOT a keyword. I used to have negative thoughts on Chroma till I realized this. The word Chroma is in Italics and has no rules meaning. It is just there to help discus it, among other reasons.
RE: Chroma.
I think people are taking too much of a simplistic view on this keyword. If the key word wasnt there, each card with chroma would have an essay of text. There is an advantage of having the keyword there. At a glance, if a card had Chroma, straight away your mind tells you "Homer, you'll be counting mana symbols soon". Its a pre-empt to something thats about to happen.
Good point. Well said. Jolly good cup o' tea then, Bruce. Yes. Quite. Indeed.
And we weren't arguing.
We were discussing....with anger! :|
I like the idea of Chroma, but it seems like its execution was a bit sloppy and over complicated for its debut. I would've limited it to creatures power/toughness initially and just had the different chromas check different areas. For example:
Auracrux - Chroma:Enchantment (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of ENCHANTMENTS you control.)
:1mana::symu::symu::symu: Cerebralcrux - Chroma:Instant (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of instant cards in your hand.) Play with your hand revealed.
:4mana::symb::symb::symb: Umbra Stalker - Chroma:Graveyard (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of cards in your graveyard.)
:symr::symr: Chaoscrux - Chroma:Sorcery (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of SORCERY cards in your hand.) Play with your hand revealed.
:symg::symg::symg::symg::symg::symg: Primalcrux - Chroma:Permanent (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of PERMANENTS you control.)
I dunno, maybe this isn't better then what WoTC chose to do, but my point is, if its going to get a (?Keyword Ability?), then it should be better structured or defined.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Dark Ritual, Hypnotic Specter, Hymn to Tourach. If there is an unholy trio in Magic, this is it. These three cards have been wreaking havoc and crushing dreams for over a decade. They're like the New York Yankees, except powered by black magic. Oh, wait... never mind." Chris Millar House of Cards
I don't know why so many amateur templates with ability words insist on using sub-words, like "Chroma - Library" or whatever... I don't see them ever doing that. It's ugly and it also appears like it would have rules implications. The point of the ability word is to group similar cards, not define abilities.
It gives Eventide a "number of a particular mana symbol matters" subtheme.
A quick search on gatherer on "mana symbol" shows the only other card outside of Eventide that works in a similar way is Charmed Pendant.
And so they named this theme... Chroma. Could have found a better word for it, but it's just getting into semantics.
RE: Chroma.
I think people are taking too much of a simplistic view on this keyword. If the key word wasnt there, each card with chroma would have an essay of text.
It would? What "essay of text" is Chroma replacing?
It would? What "essay of text" is Chroma replacing?
Granted, what most people see on the card is that it does not reduce or effectively tidies up the text and that's totally understandable.
However, what this actually does, is that it is binding this mechanic that "counts the number of mana symbols on a card and do something with it" into a single word name, Chroma.
Even by saying something-chroma we now immediately think that it has something to do with counting the amount of mana symbols on a card. In that retrospect the keyword worked.
For all that we care, there might even be room for multi-coloured chroma.
Chroma - Dual Decapitation deals damage to target creature equals to the number of red mana symbols and another target creature gets -x/-x where x is the number of black mana symbols in the mana costs of permanents you control.
Or might even happen on a split card
Scratch // Retch
Chroma - The above red ability // Chroma - The above black ability
Texty, but when I mentioned "multi-coloured chroma", everyone roughly knows what to expect; it has something to do with counting mana symbols of different colours and do stuff with those numbers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from DoucheWaffle »
am i the only one refreshing magic websites while looking at porn and eating fruit loops at 2 in the morning?...i feel so alone...
......WTF????....... I don't even know what kind of warning you deserve for this....
However, what this actually does, is that it is binding this mechanic that "counts the number of mana symbols on a card and do something with it" into a single word name, Chroma.
Even by saying something-chroma we now immediately think that it has something to do with counting the amount of mana symbols on a card. In that retrospect the keyword worked.
I get what you and others are saying, I still find it weak and undersving of a keyword. Without the word chroma, if the community found the theme popular enough they would define an abrivated reference ala (Fetch Lands, Pain Lands).
It's not the first time that happened.
Look at hellbent, where everything's that's hellbent is described after the " - " sign. It could very well do without the keyword hellbent itself, but chroma worked fine in a similar fashion while bringing the idea across to the players.
It happened before, it happens now, I guess it's normal to expect something like that to happen again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from DoucheWaffle »
am i the only one refreshing magic websites while looking at porn and eating fruit loops at 2 in the morning?...i feel so alone...
......WTF????....... I don't even know what kind of warning you deserve for this....
No, Clash does mean something. Its a keyword action, and has actual rules meaning. Chroma, an ability word, is glorified flavor text, just like Grandeur, Hellbent, Radiance, and even Threshold.
Right, so what is the problem?
Making Magic easier to talk about is something that's almost always useful. I recall how upset people were about keywording "shroud" when Future Sight came out. Now people use it all the time. Same with things like Flash or Deathtouch. What's the problem with grouping a set of cards that share a common mechanic (counting the colored symbols in mana costs) with a common word to talk about them? Honestly the mere fact that you're able to say "I hate all the Chroma cards" or "All the chroma cards are useless" sort of proves the usefulness of the ability word. It's just something that's there so you can talk about the cards in an easy, short-hand manner.
Man, people will complain about anything.
-E
I'm about a week late, but since this topic is still alive, I'm going to respond by saying I didn't say anything was wrong with Chroma. Not in my opinion, anyway. I do take issue with it being classified as a keyword, and that's what my post was about; a little piece of me died when I programmed it into MSE2's keyword list to add to the source for the program. But what's done is done.
Looking back, I do like what I said about it being glorified flavor text; that's what it really is. And people don't complain about flavor text. So, what's wrong with Chroma again? Nothing at all.
They use the ability words to group together similar mechanics. If they could go back to the beginning, Maro said they would have keyworded spellshapers from masques block. When they don't keyword things like this, people complain about not having a keyword for it. Sure, there might not be a whole lot of instances of the keyword in the set, but it helps a little for simplicity's sake.
Keywording something for the sake of keywording instead of for an actual purpose is a waste of time and resources.
Chroma essentially does nothing. Radiance does nothing. Actually, Radiance would have more of a fit here than Chroma!
Hellbent...well, it's more of a condition than an ability. Same with Threshold. Compared to those two, Chroma and Radiance should not have been ability worded unless they were given a conditional clause that would have essentially ratified their creation in the first place.
Chroma was absolutely pointless and really threw away great potential for this set with its inclusion.
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Hellbent...well, it's more of a condition than an ability. Same with Threshold. Compared to those two, Chroma and Radiance should not have been ability worded unless they were given a conditional clause that would have essentially ratified their creation in the first place.
Chroma was absolutely pointless and really threw away great potential for this set with its inclusion.
'buster
This proves that you don't understand what you're talking about. Hellbent groups a set of cards that care about a particular condition. But Hellbent itself doesn't mean anything (in the way "Flying" means something on a card).
You could print:
Werebear 1G
Creature - Bear Druid T: Add to your mana pool. Hellbent -- Werebear gets +3/+3 if there are 7 or more cards in your graveyard.
1/1
Without any changes to the rules. Hellbent/threshold/chroma/radiance are NOT keywords. They are essentially flavor text that calls attention to common mechanics. They are not themselves mechanics. You couldn't have an aura that "gave" a creature chroma any more than you could have one that gave it Kinship or Radiance or threshold without further defining what that means. If you want to rail against ability words, go ahead. But don't expose yourself by stating that some ability words have some purpose and others don't. None of them have any more utility, insofar as the game is concerned, than any other.
This proves that you don't understand what you're talking about. Hellbent groups a set of cards that care about a particular condition. But Hellbent itself doesn't mean anything (in the way "Flying" means something on a card).
I'm not following. What do you mean by "doesn't mean anything"?
I thought "hellbent" was an ability keyword that is conditional to having no cards in hand.
You could print:
Werebear 1G
Creature - Bear Druid T: Add to your mana pool. Hellbent -- Werebear gets +3/+3 if there are 7 or more cards in your graveyard.
1/1
Without any changes to the rules.
I think the example is confusing... because the you stuck the hellbent keyword next to a threshold ability.
I get what you're trying to say now, but it's not very clearly put.
Hellbent/threshold/chroma/radiance are NOT keywords.
I think it's better explained here in the following article:
About keywords and 'pseudo-keywords' introduced in unhinged, then Kamigawa block.
Personally I think that the 'Chroma' ability feels a little different from other 'pseudo keyword' abilities... because of the way it's worded...
But it's not really all that different. You could have written it:
Chroma - (graveyard) If there are any colored mana symbols on cards, matching the colored mana costs in the cc of this card, in the designated zone (graveyard), then count those mana symbols. Blah blah blah...
And the difference between keyword abilities, and pseudo-keyworded abilites seems to be a little fuzzy at times.
e.g. channel does not seem to be that fundamentally different from cycling, or madness in terms of being a true keyword, vs a pseudo-keyword... but I think the latter two are true keywords. while I think channel might be an 'ability keyword'...
-
I wonder if the templating as true 'keywords' or mechanics, has something to do with how MTGO ultimately has to handle them in terms of template and game logic.
Just speculating... I admit I don't really understand it all. Just do feel that, from a "feel" standpoint, Chroma feels like it's the far end of the spectrum from true keywords... vs something like hellbent or threshold, which is in the middle vs all the way to channel, that almost feels like a true keyword mechanic, not very different from cycle or transmute... or even acts like a split card.
This proves that you don't understand what you're talking about.
This proves that you cannot read.
Hellbent groups a set of cards that care about a particular condition. But Hellbent itself doesn't mean anything (in the way "Flying" means something on a card).
You could print:
Werebear 1G
Creature - Bear Druid T: Add to your mana pool. Hellbent -- Werebear gets +3/+3 if there are 7 or more cards in your graveyard.
1/1
As I said, they are keyword abilities that depend on a specific condition in order for them to be active.
Hellbent is a condition that relies on the state of the cards (or, lack of cards) in hand. Threshold is a condition that relies on the state of the graveyard (seven being the "threshold" for these abilities to work). Why you substituted Hellbent with Threshold is beyond me, which shows that you have no comprehension as to how these dynamics work at all.
Radiance and Chroma are not conditional, nor are they really big abilities with no real merit outside of a supposed common factor (colour and mana symbols, in this sense). So in essence they should not have been ability worded or "key"worded (whether they are an ability word or a keyword, they still represent a specific effect that shares a static state among other spells with this ability) at all.
How dcartist described it, they should have been written as conditional as opposed to the way they are written now: no real need to be given conditional abilities but rather keeping their wording the same (i.e. Phosphorescent Feast) without inserting a pointless word that serves no purpose other than to fuel bad rhetoric such as this.
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Hellbent is a condition that relies on the state of the cards (or, lack of cards) in hand.
Wrong. Hellbent is a label put on cards that happen to share similar abilities.
Hellbent is not an ability in and of itself. Hellbent cards could function identically if the word "Hellbent" wasn't on them. This is significantly different than if Serra Angel, for instance, had the word "Flying" omitted. Flying has rules meaning. Hellbent (and any ability word) has absolutely none. This makes them functionally interchangable, which is why I said if you have a problem with one, you pretty much should have a problem with all of them (if you understand what they do, which you do not.)
Man, how can you guys seriously not understand what ability words are? Enslaught is completely right, ability words (Chroma, Hellbent, Threshold, Channel, etc) have no meaning under the rules and are simply there to tell the player "this card does something a bunch of other cards do" such as "counts mana symbols" or "triggers when you have no cards in hand" or "discards for an effect" and so on. It's one stupid little word that makes it easier to group cards together and understand how they work. I can't even fathom why this would make someone upset.
But it's not really all that different. You could have written it:
Chroma - (graveyard) If there are any colored mana symbols on cards, matching the colored mana costs in the cc of this card, in the designated zone (graveyard), then count those mana symbols. Blah blah blah...
But you see, they can't do that, because that would prevent them from being able to count only PART of the total sum of that chroma requirement. Case in point: Phosphorescent Feast. If it simply read Chroma - Hand, you'd have to reveal your whole hand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Evil is boring. The universe is friendly. Life is on your side. Joy is your birthright. Cynicism is idiotic. Fear is a bad habit. Despair is lazy. In fact, all of creation wants you to succeed. Act as if the universe is a prodigious miracle created for your amusement and illumination. Assume that secret helpers are working behind the scenes to assist you in turning into the gorgeous masterpiece you were born to be. . . Life always gives you exactly what you need, exactly when you need it.
But I'm still not clear on why channel is not considered a keyworded ability... yet other abilities such as madness, cycle, invoke, etc. are keyworded abilities... even though you clearly the word "madness" could still be removed from the card, just like "channel", and it doesn't change the card.
But I'm still not clear on why channel is not considered a keyworded ability... yet other abilities such as madness, cycle, invoke, etc. are keyworded abilities... even though you clearly the word "madness" could still be removed from the card, just like "channel", and it doesn't change the card.
Because cycling means something. According to the comprehensive rules section for cycling:
502.18. Cycling
502.18a Cycling is an activated ability that functions only while the card with cycling is in a player's hand. "Cycling [cost]" means "[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card."
See, cycling is an ability in and of itself. Compare to the entry for Threshold:
502.23. Threshold
502.23a Threshold used to be a keyword ability. It is now an ability word and has no rules meaning. All cards printed with the threshold keyword have received errata. Updated wordings are available in the Oracle card reference.
Ability words are like, well, labels, as said before. All cards with Channel spell out exactly what their cards do. Most cards with new keywords will add reminder text, but the reminder text is not necessary (see a card like Restore Balance versus a card like Rift Bolt). On cards with ability words, all of the text is necessary because the ability word itself doesn't mean anything.
Hellbent - Applies when you have no cards in hand. Always the same no other conditions apply.
Threshold - Applies when you have 7 or more cards in your graveyard. Alwyas the same no other conditions apply.
Chroma - Count the number of mana symbols where X is the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of permanents you control. Always the same no other conditions apply Oh uhh no, it might be cards in hand or maybe even cards in your graveyard.
But I'm still not clear on why channel is not considered a keyworded ability... yet other abilities such as madness, cycle, invoke, etc. are keyworded abilities... even though you clearly the word "madness" could still be removed from the card, just like "channel", and it doesn't change the card.
No, this is wrong. You can't simply remove madness from a card and retain the same functionality. Madness has a meaning under the rules and without it, you would need to print the entire text of what madness does on every madness card.
502.24a - Madness is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with madness is in a player's hand. The second is a triggered ability that functions when the first ability is applied. "Madness [cost]" means "If a player would discard this card, that player discards it, but may remove it from the game instead of putting it into his or her graveyard" and "When this card is removed from the game this way, its owner may play it by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. If that player doesn't, he or she puts this card into his or her graveyard."
Reckless Wurm 3RR
Creature - Wurm
Trample
Madness 2R(If you discard this card, you may play it for its madness cost instead of putting it into your graveyard.)
4/4
Reckless Wurm without madness would be worded something like this:
Reckless Wurm 3RR
Creature - Wurm
Trample
If you would discard Reckless Wurm, you may discard it, but remove it from the game instead of putting it in your graveyard. When Reckless Wurm is removed from the game this way, you may pay 2R. If you do, play Reckless Wurm.
4/4
You may think, "why not just use the reminder text for madness?" Like ability words, reminder text has no rules meaning. It's just there to help out players. Judges and those with advanced rules knowledge know how madness works and don't need the entire ability spelled out on the card, because it's all contained under the comprehensive rules entry for madness.
Arashi, the Sky Asunder would work exactly the same whether or not the word channel was there, because ability words don't do anything. The entire ability is spelled out on the card.
But I'm still not clear on why channel is not considered a keyworded ability... yet other abilities such as madness, cycle, invoke, etc. are keyworded abilities... even though you clearly the word "madness" could still be removed from the card, just like "channel", and it doesn't change the card.
The difference is whether or not you know what the ability means without an explanation. "Madness G" means you can play it for G when you discard it, and can be fully understood by just the keyword and cost. "Channel 1W" is insufficient, and what it does needs to be explained on the card itself. Therefore it's not a keyword and is completely unnecessary since the entire ability is explained right after the word on every card that has it. Same thing with hellbent, chroma, kinship, etc. - those words are not needed to understand what the ability does.
Hellbent - Applies when you have no cards in hand. Always the same no other conditions apply.
Threshold - Applies when you have 7 or more cards in your graveyard. Alwyas the same no other conditions apply.
Chroma - Count the number of mana symbols where X is the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of permanents you control. Always the same no other conditions apply Oh uhh no, it might be cards in hand or maybe even cards in your graveyard.
Maybe, but you're still off base. Cards -with- Hellbent all do a particular thing. Hellbent itself doesn't do anything. And cards with Hellbent only do a particularly defined thing because the abilities that grouped them together were kept fairly tight. Hellbent could have just as easily been concepted as an ability word describing emptiness in a variety of zones (such as the graveyard or the library or the RFG zone) without changing anything in the rules.
Why do I get the feeling that I'm going way over a lot of peoples' heads with this?
The difference is whether or not you know what the ability means without an explanation. "Madness G" means you can play it for G when you discard it, and can be fully understood by just the keyword and cost. "Channel 1W" is insufficient, and what it does needs to be explained on the card itself. Therefore it's not a keyword and is completely unnecessary since the entire ability is explained right after the word on every card that has it. Same thing with hellbent, chroma, kinship, etc. - those words are not needed to understand what the ability does.
I get that...
But then...
wait for it...
...why is channel (non-keyworded) different from kicker (keyworded)?
For kicker, you have to define BOTH the cost, AND the extra effect.
It's not enough to say kicker (R). You have to say:
Agonizing demise kicker - R - if kicker cost was paid, you get to gain life equal to creature's toughness.
Nightscape battlemage kicker - U - if kicker cost was paid, return two target non-black creatures to their owner's hands.
It seems that when it comes to kicker, the word kicker plus the mana cost doesn't tell you anything, and if you took out the word kicker, the text explains everything. As you play this spell, you may pay R. If you do, the card does Y.
How is this different from channel?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
L1 Judge
Good point. Well said. Jolly good cup o' tea then, Bruce. Yes. Quite. Indeed.
And we weren't arguing.
We were discussing....with anger! :|
Auracrux - Chroma:Enchantment (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of ENCHANTMENTS you control.)
:1mana::symu::symu::symu: Cerebralcrux - Chroma:Instant (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of instant cards in your hand.) Play with your hand revealed.
:4mana::symb::symb::symb: Umbra Stalker - Chroma:Graveyard (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of cards in your graveyard.)
:symr::symr: Chaoscrux - Chroma:Sorcery (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of SORCERY cards in your hand.) Play with your hand revealed.
:symg::symg::symg::symg::symg::symg: Primalcrux - Chroma:Permanent (~ power and toughness are each equal to the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of PERMANENTS you control.)
I dunno, maybe this isn't better then what WoTC chose to do, but my point is, if its going to get a (?Keyword Ability?), then it should be better structured or defined.
"Dark Ritual, Hypnotic Specter, Hymn to Tourach. If there is an unholy trio in Magic, this is it. These three cards have been wreaking havoc and crushing dreams for over a decade. They're like the New York Yankees, except powered by black magic. Oh, wait... never mind."
Chris Millar
House of Cards
-E
A quick search on gatherer on "mana symbol" shows the only other card outside of Eventide that works in a similar way is Charmed Pendant.
And so they named this theme... Chroma. Could have found a better word for it, but it's just getting into semantics.
<Qzilla> losing to girls at magic is such a high
It would? What "essay of text" is Chroma replacing?
Granted, what most people see on the card is that it does not reduce or effectively tidies up the text and that's totally understandable.
However, what this actually does, is that it is binding this mechanic that "counts the number of mana symbols on a card and do something with it" into a single word name, Chroma.
Even by saying something-chroma we now immediately think that it has something to do with counting the amount of mana symbols on a card. In that retrospect the keyword worked.
For all that we care, there might even be room for multi-coloured chroma.
Or might even happen on a split card
Scratch // Retch
Chroma - The above red ability // Chroma - The above black ability
Texty, but when I mentioned "multi-coloured chroma", everyone roughly knows what to expect; it has something to do with counting mana symbols of different colours and do stuff with those numbers.
<Qzilla> losing to girls at magic is such a high
I get what you and others are saying, I still find it weak and undersving of a keyword. Without the word chroma, if the community found the theme popular enough they would define an abrivated reference ala (Fetch Lands, Pain Lands).
Look at hellbent, where everything's that's hellbent is described after the " - " sign. It could very well do without the keyword hellbent itself, but chroma worked fine in a similar fashion while bringing the idea across to the players.
It happened before, it happens now, I guess it's normal to expect something like that to happen again.
<Qzilla> losing to girls at magic is such a high
I'm about a week late, but since this topic is still alive, I'm going to respond by saying I didn't say anything was wrong with Chroma. Not in my opinion, anyway. I do take issue with it being classified as a keyword, and that's what my post was about; a little piece of me died when I programmed it into MSE2's keyword list to add to the source for the program. But what's done is done.
Looking back, I do like what I said about it being glorified flavor text; that's what it really is. And people don't complain about flavor text. So, what's wrong with Chroma again? Nothing at all.
My Moderator Helpdesk| My Custom Set List | My MSE Template HostingBeers Tasted: 113 | Last Beer Sampled: Flying Dog Horn Dog Barley Wine Ale
Keywording something for the sake of keywording instead of for an actual purpose is a waste of time and resources.
Chroma essentially does nothing. Radiance does nothing. Actually, Radiance would have more of a fit here than Chroma!
Hellbent...well, it's more of a condition than an ability. Same with Threshold. Compared to those two, Chroma and Radiance should not have been ability worded unless they were given a conditional clause that would have essentially ratified their creation in the first place.
Chroma was absolutely pointless and really threw away great potential for this set with its inclusion.
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
This proves that you don't understand what you're talking about. Hellbent groups a set of cards that care about a particular condition. But Hellbent itself doesn't mean anything (in the way "Flying" means something on a card).
You could print:
Werebear 1G
Creature - Bear Druid
T: Add to your mana pool.
Hellbent -- Werebear gets +3/+3 if there are 7 or more cards in your graveyard.
1/1
Without any changes to the rules. Hellbent/threshold/chroma/radiance are NOT keywords. They are essentially flavor text that calls attention to common mechanics. They are not themselves mechanics. You couldn't have an aura that "gave" a creature chroma any more than you could have one that gave it Kinship or Radiance or threshold without further defining what that means. If you want to rail against ability words, go ahead. But don't expose yourself by stating that some ability words have some purpose and others don't. None of them have any more utility, insofar as the game is concerned, than any other.
-E
I'm not following. What do you mean by "doesn't mean anything"?
I thought "hellbent" was an ability keyword that is conditional to having no cards in hand.
I think the example is confusing... because the you stuck the hellbent keyword next to a threshold ability.
I get what you're trying to say now, but it's not very clearly put.
I think it's better explained here in the following article:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af67
About keywords and 'pseudo-keywords' introduced in unhinged, then Kamigawa block.
Personally I think that the 'Chroma' ability feels a little different from other 'pseudo keyword' abilities... because of the way it's worded...
But it's not really all that different. You could have written it:
Chroma - (graveyard) If there are any colored mana symbols on cards, matching the colored mana costs in the cc of this card, in the designated zone (graveyard), then count those mana symbols. Blah blah blah...
And the difference between keyword abilities, and pseudo-keyworded abilites seems to be a little fuzzy at times.
e.g. channel does not seem to be that fundamentally different from cycling, or madness in terms of being a true keyword, vs a pseudo-keyword... but I think the latter two are true keywords. while I think channel might be an 'ability keyword'...
-
I wonder if the templating as true 'keywords' or mechanics, has something to do with how MTGO ultimately has to handle them in terms of template and game logic.
Just speculating... I admit I don't really understand it all. Just do feel that, from a "feel" standpoint, Chroma feels like it's the far end of the spectrum from true keywords... vs something like hellbent or threshold, which is in the middle vs all the way to channel, that almost feels like a true keyword mechanic, not very different from cycle or transmute... or even acts like a split card.
This proves that you cannot read.
As I said, they are keyword abilities that depend on a specific condition in order for them to be active.
Hellbent is a condition that relies on the state of the cards (or, lack of cards) in hand. Threshold is a condition that relies on the state of the graveyard (seven being the "threshold" for these abilities to work). Why you substituted Hellbent with Threshold is beyond me, which shows that you have no comprehension as to how these dynamics work at all.
Radiance and Chroma are not conditional, nor are they really big abilities with no real merit outside of a supposed common factor (colour and mana symbols, in this sense). So in essence they should not have been ability worded or "key"worded (whether they are an ability word or a keyword, they still represent a specific effect that shares a static state among other spells with this ability) at all.
How dcartist described it, they should have been written as conditional as opposed to the way they are written now: no real need to be given conditional abilities but rather keeping their wording the same (i.e. Phosphorescent Feast) without inserting a pointless word that serves no purpose other than to fuel bad rhetoric such as this.
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Whatever, flame on.
Wrong. Hellbent is a label put on cards that happen to share similar abilities.
Hellbent is not an ability in and of itself. Hellbent cards could function identically if the word "Hellbent" wasn't on them. This is significantly different than if Serra Angel, for instance, had the word "Flying" omitted. Flying has rules meaning. Hellbent (and any ability word) has absolutely none. This makes them functionally interchangable, which is why I said if you have a problem with one, you pretty much should have a problem with all of them (if you understand what they do, which you do not.)
(I hope this answers what dcartist asked.)
-E
But you see, they can't do that, because that would prevent them from being able to count only PART of the total sum of that chroma requirement. Case in point: Phosphorescent Feast. If it simply read Chroma - Hand, you'd have to reveal your whole hand.
Thanks... it sort of addresses part of it.
But I'm still not clear on why channel is not considered a keyworded ability... yet other abilities such as madness, cycle, invoke, etc. are keyworded abilities... even though you clearly the word "madness" could still be removed from the card, just like "channel", and it doesn't change the card.
Because cycling means something. According to the comprehensive rules section for cycling:
See, cycling is an ability in and of itself. Compare to the entry for Threshold:
Ability words are like, well, labels, as said before. All cards with Channel spell out exactly what their cards do. Most cards with new keywords will add reminder text, but the reminder text is not necessary (see a card like Restore Balance versus a card like Rift Bolt). On cards with ability words, all of the text is necessary because the ability word itself doesn't mean anything.
-E
Threshold - Applies when you have 7 or more cards in your graveyard. Alwyas the same no other conditions apply.
Chroma - Count the number of mana symbols where X is the number of mana symbols in the mana costs of permanents you control.
Always the same no other conditions applyOh uhh no, it might be cards in hand or maybe even cards in your graveyard.Mark Roeswater said it best ""Close but different" can cause all kinds of headaches." - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr333
No, this is wrong. You can't simply remove madness from a card and retain the same functionality. Madness has a meaning under the rules and without it, you would need to print the entire text of what madness does on every madness card.
This is the wording of Reckless Wurm as is:
Reckless Wurm 3RR
Creature - Wurm
Trample
Madness 2R (If you discard this card, you may play it for its madness cost instead of putting it into your graveyard.)
4/4
Reckless Wurm without madness would be worded something like this:
Reckless Wurm 3RR
Creature - Wurm
Trample
If you would discard Reckless Wurm, you may discard it, but remove it from the game instead of putting it in your graveyard. When Reckless Wurm is removed from the game this way, you may pay 2R. If you do, play Reckless Wurm.
4/4
You may think, "why not just use the reminder text for madness?" Like ability words, reminder text has no rules meaning. It's just there to help out players. Judges and those with advanced rules knowledge know how madness works and don't need the entire ability spelled out on the card, because it's all contained under the comprehensive rules entry for madness.
Arashi, the Sky Asunder would work exactly the same whether or not the word channel was there, because ability words don't do anything. The entire ability is spelled out on the card.
The difference is whether or not you know what the ability means without an explanation. "Madness G" means you can play it for G when you discard it, and can be fully understood by just the keyword and cost. "Channel 1W" is insufficient, and what it does needs to be explained on the card itself. Therefore it's not a keyword and is completely unnecessary since the entire ability is explained right after the word on every card that has it. Same thing with hellbent, chroma, kinship, etc. - those words are not needed to understand what the ability does.
Maybe, but you're still off base. Cards -with- Hellbent all do a particular thing. Hellbent itself doesn't do anything. And cards with Hellbent only do a particularly defined thing because the abilities that grouped them together were kept fairly tight. Hellbent could have just as easily been concepted as an ability word describing emptiness in a variety of zones (such as the graveyard or the library or the RFG zone) without changing anything in the rules.
Why do I get the feeling that I'm going way over a lot of peoples' heads with this?
-E
I get that...
But then...
wait for it...
...why is channel (non-keyworded) different from kicker (keyworded)?
For kicker, you have to define BOTH the cost, AND the extra effect.
It's not enough to say kicker (R). You have to say:
Agonizing demise
kicker - R - if kicker cost was paid, you get to gain life equal to creature's toughness.
Nightscape battlemage
kicker - U - if kicker cost was paid, return two target non-black creatures to their owner's hands.
It seems that when it comes to kicker, the word kicker plus the mana cost doesn't tell you anything, and if you took out the word kicker, the text explains everything. As you play this spell, you may pay R. If you do, the card does Y.
How is this different from channel?