2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Commander ban list and rules update
    Quote from FlossedBeaver »
    Funny, in all my years playing Magic I never even knew this was a point of contention. It's... silly.

    Why is it silly to make cards in commander actually work the way they are designed and work in literally every other format?

    Quote from user_938036 »
    I don’t believe adding additional rules to ever be “no big deal”. Each additional rule makes it more confusing for a player to start something. Especially when it is a fundamental rule such as deck building restrictions. A new rule that says Hybrid’s color identity is whatever is most convenient. Sounds easy but it’s even easier to keep the rules the same. I would argue that allowing hybrid into any deck isn’t worth adding a contradictory rule.

    Commander already has additional rules and exceptions. The commander damage rule for example is also an exception, because it only exists in commander and serves no real purpose as far as I can tell.

    If you are concerned with rules complexity then are you advocating removing existing rules that aren't needed? Or is it solely about not adding new rules, in order to preserve the status quo, no matter the merit?

    Quote from user_938036 »
    Adding a contradictory rule and changing existing rules to allow something are not the same thing. I don’t believe adding an exception rule is a good idea. There is no goal post moving.

    This is goal post moving. Your original (implied) request was for people to provide a "clean" solution for hybrid. I presented not one but two. Even more, one of the rules changes actually contained the removal of an existing rule and replacing it with another, equally simple one (deck building restruction -> mana production restriction). If you really were concerned about rules compelxity, then that fix shouldn't be an issue.

    Quote from user_938036 »
    Many cards function differently in commander.

    Like which? Do you mean cards like Summit Apes, Gruul Scrapper or Serpentine Kavu? Because yes, technically they face a similar issue as hybrid, but unlike hybrid these are are supposed to be played like multi-colour cards, at least in constructed. Nobody would play Gruul Scrapper in a non-red deck, but people would totally play Deus of Calamity in mono-green.

    Quote from user_938036 »
    On the topic of what is an isn’t intuitive. I can’t say much. I’ve taught the commander format to only three people and each of them understood that hybrid was both. If people are teaching the format in such a way that makes people confused on this subject I question how people are teaching. Is the normal method to say “This Isamaru deck is a white deck so you can run any white cards.” Because my method is “This Isamaru deck is white. You can’t run any cards that are colors other than white.” Which is more intuitive I won’t argue.

    I think the core issue stems from the fact that people have a hard time wrapping their head around hybrid. Even wizards seems to have people who are not entirely certain what hybrid is supposed to do, as seen on Augury Adept. I see this in a lot of custom card designs as well.

    Again, hybrid cards are only multicolour because they have to, physically. Arguing that this disqualifies their original intent and design purpose is perplexing.

    I suppose a lot of people don't question the special rules oddity around hybrid when it comes to colour identity, simply because they don't see them as hybrid, but as gold cards. I can't really argue against it. If a game mechanic is misunderstood by the player, that's the designer's fault (though I have no idea how to make hybrid any clearer).

    However, here's the thing: Let's assume hybrids work as I outlined before. A white-blue hybrid card can be played in a mono-white deck. A player building a mono-white deck misinterprets hybrid cards as gold cards and doesn't include any hybrid cards. What happens? Nothing. The deck may be a little bit worse off due to not being able to play some cards, but there is nothing gamebreaking or rulesbreaking going on. The player sees someone else playing hybrid, asks about it and learns this new rule and includes hybrid from then on. Even in the utter worst case scenario it's simply an additional deckbuilding option, rather than a rule the player is forced to track, like commander damage.

    Quote from FlossedBeaver »
    If the current rules really aren't that intuitive for some people, are those people also confused as to whether you can mutate onto a Changeling?

    This does not really apply. There is no fundamental distinction between different creature types. You can mutate a beast. You can't mutate a human. You can mutate an elf. You can't mutate a changeling. Yes, it's somewhat arbitrary flavour-wise, the same way a wurm can wear Lightning Greaves, but there is no way for the rules to make a distinction the way Magic is set up.

    However, there is a fundamental distinction between hybrid and mono-coloured mana, and as such rules are able to treat them differently.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Commander ban list and rules update
    To people who think that Hybrid should be “Or” instead of “And”, I have a question: how would a legend with a single hybrid mana symbol in its cost work?

    If we put a card with a single R/G mana in its cost (*cough*rosheen meanderer*cough*) in the 99, we want it to fit in mono-green decks and mono-red decks because that R/G mana means red OR green.

    If we use that card as a commander, however, we suddenly want that R/G mana to mean red AND green so we can get more colors.

    Do we want the symbol to mean AND or OR? Choosing anything in the middle seems all kinds of messy.

    It's really not messy, because the expected use case is pretty intuitive:
    • A white-blue hybrid card can be played in commander decks that have access to white or blue.
    • A white-blue commander can play colorless, blue, white and blue-white cards, but no other colors.

    Color identity is a tool to put the above easy-to-grasp ideas into actual quantifiable rules. It is a means to an end, not the end itself and as such needs to be flexible to change when new rules (like hybrid) appears.

    Quote from user_938036 »
    I would argue that mechanically it is both because as far as the rules are concerned it is always both. Yes, some cards were designed with the concept "This card could be color A or color B" but Altar of Shadows was designed as "Any color can use this to destroy creatures at the rate we think is appropriate for any color to be able to destroy creatures" and yet very few people argue that MonoWhite decks should get to run it.

    And if Altar of Shadows had, arbitrarily, been designed to produce colourless mana instead? Should white decks then get to run it? And if yes, why is it somehow okay for white to run a "colorless" altar of shadows but not one that produces black mana, despite being in function identical to a non-black deck?

    Quote from user_938036 »
    Arguing flavor vs mechanics or intent vs function is rather pointless because if you try even a little you can make a solid argument for and against on any side. The real value in discussing this and the part I would like to actually discuss is the practicality of it. How should the distinction be drawn? Because if the side that is arguing for the inclusion doesn't know how things could be implemented cleanly then they don't really have a leg to stand on because it is no longer an emotional argument of "I feel it should be this way" but simply "It works now but not if you make this change."

    There are several ways to address this issue rules-wise, some more, some less intrusive to the existing rules.

    Off the top of my head there are:
    • Less intrusive version: Hybrid cards get a special rule that gives them 'multiple' colour identities. A blue-white hybrid card would have three identities: White, Blue and White-Blue. Commanders always use the most inclusive version (Blue-White) while non-commander cards always the least inclusive (White or Blue).
    • More intrusive version: A player can put any cards in their deck.* A player cannot produce mana of a colour that does not match their commander's identity. Sounds like it could theoretically break some cards that produce multiple types of mana for mltiple players, but honestly I can't think of a single one, apart from maybe Krosa? (*This may sound like it could allow degenerate cheating-into-play decks, but honestly? Just ban problematic cards that can cheat creatures into play. Being able to draw from the entirety of Magic's history there is no shortage of broken-when-cheated creatures or spells in each colour that giving such a deck access to all creatures wouldn't really change a lot. I'd be surprised if this would actually cause any crazy things to happen that aren't already happening.)

    Rules-wise it's really no big deal and the only reason to act that it is is to preserve the status quo for the sole purpose of preserving the status quo.

    Implementing hybrid is actually fairly simple, once you take two seconds to think about it logistically.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Commander ban list and rules update
    Quote from Kryptnyt »
    You can't play Kitchen Finks in your Melira, Sylvok Outcast or Heliod, Sun-Crowned or Grumgully, the Generous decks. I think that's the only reason people are lately clamoring for hybrid rulebreaking? If not, what are your reasons? How does it make the game better to allow exceptions for hybrid?

    There is no ulterior motive. This is simply about a subset of cards not functioning as intended in commander because of a legacy rule.

    How would it make the game better if they did? About the same way the game is better off if any card works as intended and designed.

    Quote from Kryptnyt »
    It's not about color pie breaks, is it? I want to put Altar of Shadows and Gruul Turf into my monogreen decks. Life is tough!

    "It's not possible, therefore it shouldn't be possible." is such a cold take it might solve global warming.

    Quote from Xcric »
    except they're also considered multicolored when determining color for things like protection too... so... yeah, they're multicolored, it functions just fine, and it fits the flavor of the format just fine too

    I fail to see how this is in any way whatsoever an issue. If it's not an issue in regular magic, why does it suddenly become gamebreaking in commander?

    Moreover, how is this bigger of an issue than cards not functioning the way they are designed.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Commander ban list and rules update
    Quote from Xcric »
    As intended or as intended by maro? Hes a nig proponent of that change but frankly it misses the mark. Hybrid cards are multiple colors, therefore they have a multicolored color identity, as long as theyre multiple colors they should be treated like multicolored cards. This is one area where flavor should stay intact

    They are only multicolor cards, because the physical card game unfortunately does not support multiple quantum states. Yes, it'd be great if the green-blue hybrid card would be green and blue and green-blue all at once, but that isn't how cardboard works.

    Also what do you mean intended by Maro? Intended by whoever created hybrid cards. Being used as an "or" as opposed to the "and" multicolor cards is their entire purpose. That is literally the one thing they are supposed to do.

    And what does flavour have to do with any of that? Flavour has no relevance to this. At all.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Commander ban list and rules update
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    They changed rule 11 so companion is allowed

    Oh, so commander rules can be changed to accomodate game mechanics. Huh. Who would have guessed.

    Any chance there will be adjustments for the rules to allow hybrid cards to work as intended? Or is that particular subset of cards going to be stuck in legacy rules limbo forever?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Return to Amonkhet ideas
    Quote from Mullerornis »
    All the more reason to subvert expectations.

    Wizards doesn't have a great track record with subverting tropes.

    Quote from OathboundOne »
    I seem to remember reading during War of the Spark that Hazoret and her followers had returned to reoccupy the ruins of Naktamun? I could be wrong? But I swear I remember that being mentioned.

    EDIT: Yeah, from the MTG wiki:
    Hazoret gave them her spear, reassuring Samut about the condition of Amonkhet's population: the goddess and the mortals brought the last two corrupted gods away from Naktamun; they have repopulated the city and created a new Hekma.


    Now, they could always retcon that bit, and I'm not sure what good a new Hekma is against the Locust god, considering he was able to (in fact twisted for the purpose of) destroy(ing) the last one. So, I suppose they could use the plotline that Hazoret's followers are TRYING to repopulate Naktamun, and detailing all the struggles they face. That could serve as the primary focus of the story, with other themes like rediscovering the past and such to flesh it out.

    I suppose it's possible they were able to reclaim part of the city, but not all of it. Naktamun appears to be somewhat largish, at least judging from the land art. Have your cake and eat it too, basically.

    Quote from 5colors »
    I do wonder why Bolas didn't make them eternals as well.

    You know, that would have been great foreshadowing for what would happen to the other gods.

    Of course, in universe you can always just say that Bolas needed them alive for their abilities. Or that when he corrupted the gods there simply wasn't the amount of lazotep available yet for producing god-eternals, so he just locked them away instead.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Return to Amonkhet ideas
    Quote from 5colors »
    I'm also struggling to see a beneficial locust god. Scarabs are fine, they are beneficial beings in original egyptian mythology as well, but locusts? Locusts always stand for being something negative. I suppose he could be a fertility god, maybe.


    Well Bolas said he twisted them into his tool (even warping what animal they had for a head) so I do think they would have different purposes. The two thoughts I've seen (and liked) is the locust god might have been a fertility/agriculture god and scarab god was once the guardian/protector of the real afterlife since Bolas had a cruel fondest for making a twisted parody of amonkeht culture (scorpion god would be a healing/medicane god for this example).

    I like the idea that the scarab god used to be in charge of the celestial, including moving the sun (like scarabs are said to do in egyptian mythology). This would also explain why Bolas corrupted him, because he needed to create/transform the second sun to serve as the trigger for his return.
    Could probably still be tied to the afterlife.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Return to Amonkhet ideas
    Quote from 5colors »
    I also can see the Bolas gods going 50/50 if they can be restored or are too far gone and are a monsters of the desert now.

    I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, I'd love for the locust and the scarab god to be redeemed. On the other hand I'm genre savvy enough to doubt that. Unlike the other 5 gods, the three corrupted gods were changed pyhsically, which usually means they have become irredeemably corrupted, see Brisela and, well, basically most fantasy stories.

    I'm also struggling to see a beneficial locust god. Scarabs are fine, they are beneficial beings in original egyptian mythology as well, but locusts? Locusts always stand for being something negative. I suppose he could be a fertility god, maybe.

    Quote from Manasurfer »
    The new big bad will be a powerful enough mummy that started its own empire.

    I think it would be interesting if the "surviving" mummies start squatting in the ruins of Naktamun, transforming it into a necropolis of sorts.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on [IKO] Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths- Ebook and Story
    There are six cards referencing poachers...
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Identity of Wedges: Ikoria
    Quote from soramaro »
    I don't want to keep on going on and on about this, but "desire for independence" reads like a red thing to me.

    To expand on this, black does not care as much about independence as it does about power. Black has no qualms binding itself to a higher power, like demons, if it means to become more powerful.

    I doubt Skysail is really associated with Indatha as much as the planeswalkers guide makes it look. It's a nomadic "everywhere" kinda society after all.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on [IKO] Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths- Ebook and Story
    Quote from Xeruh »
    Honestly kind of absurd to worry too much about words not being "fictional" enough. Unless they invent a whole new language it's going to have to use English or some other Earth language, and if it's in an entirely made up language it can't be read. Simple logic dictates that therefore some degree of familiar words are needed, and at that point it's just quibbling over where exactly the dividing line is.

    The issue is that Ikoria has no reason to distinguish "good" hunting from "bad" hunting. Either hunting is discouraged because "monsters are sacred" or they are not. If the former, then why not simply call them hunters?

    For Ikoria it's a baffling choice of words and the fact that it shows up so often implies that it is part of the world building and not an errant word that found its way into a random flavour text. This points to Ikoria's worldbuilding being rushed even further.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on [IKO] Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths- Ebook and Story
    I think the lore for this world was a bit rushed

    This is actually my main gripe with Ikoria. The worldbuilding feels very unrefined. Ikoria has only one thing going for it and that's the monsters. Take that away and there's literally nothing of note left. Other worlds are much more robust. Take away the nyxborn from Theros and you still have a greek world with the different poleis. Take away the guilds from Ravnica and you still have a city world. Take away the egyptian flavour of Amonkhet and you still have a world that is tragically and sickenly corrupted by Bolas.

    Take away the monsters and there's what? A world with crystals? That is neither a hook nor... anything.

    The humans on the world also don't really fit into the whole thing either. In Zendikar the cultures were shaped by their environment from their clothing to their weapons and even architecture. Sure, you could say that the whole mutating thing is recent but A) it's still not aesthetically pleasing if you don't know the history and as such have a special connection to it (like Dominaria does) and B) in that case you really need to show hints as to what the world was before, with ruins and so on (like Dominaria does). For all intents and purposes, Ikoria has no "before state".

    To add insult to injury, there's hardly any cards representing kaiju-like monsters. Not even mutate allows you to build up kaijus, because the power and toughness don't stack. It's all just a soup of creatures that exist on other worlds as well, except without any sort of defining flavour. Ikoria monsters can be anything, their unifying feature is that there is no unifying feature, which blurs the whole world even further. The only thing Ikoria wants to do with kaijus, and it doesn't even do that very well.

    I must admit I wasn't a fan of Eldraine either. It felt pretty shallow as well (but not as much as Ikoria) and the fairy tale references were too often way too close to the source material to make the set not feel like a non-canon crossover. Basically what Eldraine did was what Ikoria did with its Godzilla promos, except unironically. Both sets feel very fanmade and I am worried the "one set per world" paradigm is hurting the worldbuilding much more than anticipated.

    ...

    HAVING ALL THAT SAID, I actually really like Ikoria as a magic set. Mechanically it's probably one of my favourite sets, if not the favourite set (reserving judgement for when I actually got to play with the cards of course), but worldbuildingwise it's one of my least favourites.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on [IKO] Kaheera, the Orphanguard— ChannelFireball preview
    Quote from Xeruh »
    Quote from Flisch »
    "Dear Vivien, in what world do you live where predators, when they kill their prey, make sure that that prey's offspring is safe and sound?"



    I can't take Vivien seriously. She's either legit insane, which is not communicated/acknowledged in the material, or the writer has no idea how to write a pro-nature character.


    Hunters in this context are poachers. So kind of an important distinction. The issue isn't so much "killing animals is wrong" and more "poaching animals is wrong". One is a subsection of the other but they aren't the same thing.

    Not really. In the quote she refers to leaving the offspring to fend for themselves. This would happen regardless of poaching or hunting, there'd be no difference.

    She's judging humans for doing something animals do as well, wile defending the act when an animal would do it.

    If she would talk about poaching directly, you would have a point and we wouldn't have this conversation, but she doesn't.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [IKO] - MaRo Spoiler - Flame Spill
    This card probably doesn't have trample, because trample specifically refers to the defending player. If trample were to refer to the controller of the receiving creature, then it would change the functionality of fight and creatures that deal non-combat damage.

    Then again there is precedent of mechanics working entirely differently across card types. Cough legendary cough.

    However, the word itself makes no flavour sense for a spell either. A wave of magma, a fireball or a lightning strike don't "trample".
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [IKO] Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths- Ebook and Story
    Guys, girls and others... is the entity of the Ozolith self compiacent? Does it speak in convoluted way? Its motivations are unclear? It is a he?

    It's obviously none other than Nicol Bolas himself! Change my mind! Rofl

    I mean...
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.