It is currently Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:19 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 296 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:33 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 24, 2013
Posts: 5337
That's just Frenzy


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:42 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1095
Flopfoot wrote:
That's just Frenzy

Well, it's not just frenzy.

As is, though, the rules-y part becomes a little more complicated than the spirit of the design.

Part of the idea is to specifically not increase the power of the creature (so that it doesn't meddle with P/T, or anything else like that). However, that means that Bird and the elementals don't work as written (0 damage isn't ever "would be dealt" in the first place in order to be replaced by 1 damage), so the Comp Rule segment would need to be changed to accommodate, as I think the reminder text is still intuitive.

In my haste to use replacement effects and desire to maintain the ability for it to be stackable instead of non-stackable, I pushed myself into a corner I didn't realize I was in. When I should have been moving closer to lifelink style rules all along.

So, in light of that, I'll put up some 2nd draft amended rules that better meet Rush's desire for non-stackability, but also better meet the intuitive spirit of the design.

70whatever.80
Nuisance
Creatures with nuisance assign combat damage to players as though their power was 1 higher.

There may not be precedent for rules text worded in such a manner, but I think that gets much closer to the spirit of the ability as was intended, and is more appropriate considering the reminder text.

_________________
PbP Characters
Umiki800080SDSS
Navu'ai008000KotS
ParkunFFD700Ixen

PbP Games
—DDN—The Mines of MadnessCurrent Map

RPG Personality


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:21 am 
Offline
YMtC Champ '12
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 3608
Location: Orange County, California
The problem with that is its working itself into my requirements just to fit into them. Otherwise, this would have just been "Whenever this creature attacks and isn't blocked, it gets +1/+0 until end of turn" or some other simple setup. My rules aren't in place to make mechanics more difficult; they're in place to express what I think an evergreen keyword is, and to show that they provide elegant benefits.

_________________
Dies to Removal | Karados


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:29 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1095
The problem with that is its working itself into my requirements just to fit into them.

It wasn't the intent, actually, though it certainly shows when the design is extrapolated on.

The intent was to deliver a mechanic that felt red/blue in flavor, would provoke interesting combat decisions, and would be intuitive in reminder text for beginner magic players.

When you see the text, "this creature deals 1 more combat damage against players," or just, "this creature deals 1 more damage against players," if you don't know the intricacies of magic rules, what do you think?

The intuitive, not baptised in the comp rules, result is the correct result in this case. A plethora of 0/1 elementals with nuisance attacks the opponent. Each one that doesn't get blocked deals a damage. In the case where "combat" is removed from the description, a Tim with nuisance deals an extra damage to the player.

Remember, reminder text isn't for people who do read the rules...because they'll read the rules anyway. It's for the people who don't read the rules. The rules can then say whatever it is they need to say to make the result match the need.

--------------------

That said, I also wouldn't care if it was just frenzy, aside from the name not fitting RU.

Take a look at frenzy:

It's not an evasion :q:
It is functional alone :q:
When not alone it makes for more interesting decisions :q:
It breaks a rule (creatures don't deal extra damage against players) :q:

The result of the effect in the majority of cases is thematic to RU, plop it on merfolk, goblins, spirits, elementals, faeries, etc. These are pestering, nuisance creatures -- that's what RU owns. That's the kind of creature fantasy that RU shares -- a bunch of annoying pranksters.

Fix some of the issues with frenzy (like the fact that it's a trigger), and you're looking at a great RU keyword.

_________________
PbP Characters
Umiki800080SDSS
Navu'ai008000KotS
ParkunFFD700Ixen

PbP Games
—DDN—The Mines of MadnessCurrent Map

RPG Personality


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:03 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 3126
Why are y'all still looking for a creature keyword in U/R, which has a creature keyword, and not in U/B, which doesn't have a creature keyword?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:27 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jan 01, 2016
Posts: 346
Location: Bs. As.
Identity: Unknown
Preferred Pronoun Set: ki/kin/kins/kingself
Mata Hari wrote:
Why are y'all still looking for a creature keyword in U/R, which has a creature keyword, and not in U/B, which doesn't have a creature keyword?

Shadow :teach:

/jk

But seriously, I would actually like a shadow-like keyword for UB. I don't really like it in W though.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:11 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '12
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 3608
Location: Orange County, California
The intent was to deliver a mechanic that felt red/blue in flavor, would provoke interesting combat decisions, and would be intuitive in reminder text for beginner magic players.

I'm not convinced it feels that central blue. It's an aggressive combat damage ability. If blue sneaks through, it usually wants other benefits than more damage, i.e. Thieving Magpie.

When you see the text, "this creature deals 1 more combat damage against players," or just, "this creature deals 1 more damage against players," if you don't know the intricacies of magic rules, what do you think?

The intuitive, not baptised in the comp rules, result is the correct result in this case. A plethora of 0/1 elementals with nuisance attacks the opponent. Each one that doesn't get blocked deals a damage. In the case where "combat" is removed from the description, a Tim with nuisance deals an extra damage to the player.

What happens when a 2/2 with nuisance and trample is blocked by a 2/2 defender? What about a 1/1 nuisance attacking a player that has Urza's Armor? What about if you control Furnace of Rath and an unblocked 2/2 with nuisance? I have my doubts that players would reach the right results from these situations. As evidence, you incorrectly stated that 0/1s with "this creature deals 1 more combat damage against players" would deal 1 damage when unblocked. But the way you've written it, you're modifying damage. And 0 isn't an amount of damage. Nothing is being dealt to modify.

Remember, reminder text isn't for people who do read the rules...because they'll read the rules anyway. It's for the people who don't read the rules. The rules can then say whatever it is they need to say to make the result match the need.

The purpose of reminder text is to translate what's happening in sensible terms, which I don't believe your text does. It's much clearer to increase a creature's power. It's such a fundamental part of the game that giving it most of the work is the sensible choice.

It's not an evasion :q:
It is functional alone :q:
When not alone it makes for more interesting decisions :q:
It breaks a rule (creatures don't deal extra damage against players) :q:

The result of the effect in the majority of cases is thematic to RU, plop it on merfolk, goblins, spirits, elementals, faeries, etc. These are pestering, nuisance creatures -- that's what RU owns. That's the kind of creature fantasy that RU shares -- a bunch of annoying pranksters.

It doesn't really break a rule. Not a fundamental one. It's a power increaser, which is very red/black. It also doesn't seem very pestering, especially when you realize that a 0/1 with nuisance is worse than a simple 1/1, and probably gets costed similarly.

Mata Hari wrote:
Why are y'all still looking for a creature keyword in U/R, which has a creature keyword, and not in U/B, which doesn't have a creature keyword?

Well, I don't think RU has a suitable evergreen, and BU gets to share flying when it wants, but ya, all the recent talk about needing a UB keyword might want to shift the focus.

Maybe even to a new thread.

_________________
Dies to Removal | Karados


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:48 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 3109
I still don't understand why you hate a mechanic that brings more hidden information during the declare blocker step in an intuitive, simple and easy to support way.
It's also the only evergreen other than haste that doesn't let players know how much damage the opponent will be able to deal during the next turn.

_________________
Useful link:
Spoiler


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:44 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1095
I'm not convinced it feels that central blue.

Very true, hence the option to leave "combat" out of the rule entirely. Though I think it works better and more simply if it is combat only.

However, it's not as aggressive of a combat mechanic as you might think. It encourages blocking, rather than discouraging it, just less strictly than provoke does. It forces the defender to think more about the situation at hand, which I do think this is something in Blue's purview -- forcing players to think more.

Black would certainly be a tertiary color for it, and I think it's a solid argument that it would be a closer fit for RBu than RUb. But I like it in Blue, I think Blue's creatures traditionally fit the flavor the mechanic is trying to describe better.

From a top-down perspective, RU share creatures that pester, prank, and make general nuisances for other players. The mechanic should reflect that as best as possible. Whatever the mechanic is, it has to be able to feel right on a goblin, merfolk, faerie, fire elemental, water elemental, bird, kobold, wizard, etc.

What happens when a 2/2 with nuisance and trample is blocked by a 2/2 defender?

0, and not because there would be no damage to assign, but because the 2 toughness of the defender blocks the 2 power of the attacker, the game doesn't check to see if damage should be dealt to the defending player.
What about a 1/1 nuisance attacking a player that has Urza's Armor?

1 damage. The creature deals damage to the player as though its power is 2 instead of 1. 1 of that damage would be prevented.
What about if you control Furnace of Rath and an unblocked 2/2 with nuisance?

6 damage. The creature deals damage to the player as though its power is 3, which is the amount doubled. This is a particularly interesting case. When the rule was written as a replacement effect instead of a change to how the game sees the creature's power, it would still deal 6 damage (since the attacking player chooses the order of replacement effects) but could also deal 5 damage (if the attacking player chose for the order of replacement effects to be different).

But for new players, I think they would intuitively understand that the "1 damage" in the nuisance reminder text would also be doubled by Furnace, which is the intent in both versions of the rule.

As evidence, you incorrectly stated that 0/1s with "this creature deals 1 more combat damage against players" would deal 1 damage when unblocked.

The reminder text can be non-intuitive for people who do understand the rules, as long as it is intuitive to players who don't understand the rules at a more complete level. The reason it can be non-intuitive for people who do understand the rules is because they will go and read the rules, anyway. This has happened more than once, though most notably with Bestow in recent history.

One of the more common questions by players is whether 0 damage is a dealt amount of damage. Most non-rules-oriented players typically think it intuitively is, so I think the original reminder text is the one that would be interpreted correctly most of the time.

But I'm certainly up for any suggestions to change it.

But the way you've written it, you're modifying damage. And 0 isn't an amount of damage. Nothing is being dealt to modify.

It's changing the way the game sees the creature's power, rather than changing the creature's actual power.

It also doesn't seem very pestering, especially when you realize that a 0/1 with nuisance is worse than a simple 1/1, and probably gets costed similarly.

A 0/1 with nuisance should not get costed similarly to a 1/1, which is why I later modified Bird's cost. A 1/1 with nuisance should get costed similarly to most other french vanilla 1/1's (barring some, like double strike). It certainly pesters your opponent when they realize they have a shorter clock if they choose to leave a Goblin unblocked or allow a small blue flyer to get through.

It's a great discussion overall, always impressed by the amount of creativity on here.

Mata Hari wrote:
Why are y'all still looking for a creature keyword in U/R, which has a creature keyword, and not in U/B, which doesn't have a creature keyword?

Start up a thread for it!

_________________
PbP Characters
Umiki800080SDSS
Navu'ai008000KotS
ParkunFFD700Ixen

PbP Games
—DDN—The Mines of MadnessCurrent Map

RPG Personality


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:52 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3211
Location: somewhere btwn Achilles and the tortoise
Preferred Pronoun Set:
resdamalos wrote:
Battle Tactician
Creature - Human Soldier
Linking (Whenever a creature with linking attacks alone, there is another combat phase after this one.)
~ gets +1/+1 for each combat phase before this one.
2/2

River Lurker
Creature — Turtle Horror (C)
Sneak attack (Whenever one or more creatures attacks for the first time each turn, if they all have sneak attack, untap them. There is another combat phase after this one.)
"How hard could it be to find a turtle?"
—"Ick" Ridley, last words

1/4

Silent Striker
Creature — Vedalken Ninja (U)
Sneak attack (Whenever one or more creatures attacks for the first time each turn, if they all have sneak attack, untap them. There is another combat phase after this one.)
"Walk like wind, speak like water, stand like earth, and strike like fire."
—Motto of the Broken Bladesmen

1/2

Crystalshore Raiders
Creature — Human Pirate (R)
Sneak attack (Whenever one or more creatures attacks for the first time each turn, if they all have sneak attack, untap them. There is another combat phase after this one.)
Trample
Whenever Crystalshore Raider deals combat damage to a player, you may discard a card. If you do, draw a card.
4/4

Gorrak of the Hidden Flame
Legendary Creature — Goblin Monk (M)
Hexproof
Creatures you control have haste and sneak attack.
"My secrets are free to be learned by all, but never through their telling."
3/2

_________________






Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:36 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Apr 01, 2016
Posts: 5
Here's a couple.

Skirmisher (You may return this creature to your hand at any time during combat.)

In red it makes the creature immune to combat tricks, and in blue it can be put on ETB guys for value.

Masquerade (You may redirect any amount of damage that would be dealt to this creature to another creature you control with masquerade.)

In red it lets you use other creature's toughness in combat. In blue it feels like you're planning something.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:16 pm 
Offline
Winner - CotY '16
User avatar

Joined: Oct 24, 2013
Posts: 2198
Why is Skirmisher red? It's very cautious and defensive, focused on conserving resources rather than using them aggressively, and forces you to slow down and spend extra mana to maintain your board position. And it's much better when blocking than it is when attacking.

If it were a block mechanic where Red's pendulum could switch to a slower more tactical style and decks could build around it with specific card synergies, that'd be fine. But saying "this is something that we want Red to be able to do in every set and every environment" is a stretch.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:21 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jan 05, 2016
Posts: 1355
Location: noe valley
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/they
I've got nothing against Prowess and I think it's a great blue/red evergreen keyword

_________________
i disappointed myself when you asked for a secret and i could
only produce that my father would have preferred that
i had gone into politics, instead


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:32 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Apr 01, 2016
Posts: 5
Fallingman wrote:
Why is Skirmisher red? It's very cautious and defensive, focused on conserving resources rather than using them aggressively, and forces you to slow down and spend extra mana to maintain your board position. And it's much better when blocking than it is when attacking.

If it were a block mechanic where Red's pendulum could switch to a slower more tactical style and decks could build around it with specific card synergies, that'd be fine. But saying "this is something that we want Red to be able to do in every set and every environment" is a stretch.


I agree. I would have erased it, but thought it was an interesting mechanic nevertheless.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:18 pm 
Offline
Winner - CotY '16
User avatar

Joined: Oct 24, 2013
Posts: 2198
To be fair, I like it a lot in Blue/White.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:21 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Apr 01, 2016
Posts: 5
Fallingman wrote:
To be fair, I like it a lot in Blue/White.

:D


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 12:31 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3211
Location: somewhere btwn Achilles and the tortoise
Preferred Pronoun Set:
Can I get a comment or two on sneak attack? I think it's flawless. You get an extra attack! Isn't that concise?

_________________






Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 7:49 am 
Offline
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 6850
Personally I feel like Double Strike has taken the role of the 'extra attack' in a much more succinct and organic way. In many situations, a creature attacking an extra time or having double strike is pretty much the same thing. Also, the odds of all of your creatures having sneak attack is low, or your building a Sneak Attack deck, which doesn't feel very evergreen to me. Plus, combat based keywords don't feel very blue.

_________________
SithasLore, White, Blue, Black, Red, Green, Multicolored, Artifacts, Lands
Sithas: Rising StormsLore, White, Blue, Black, Red, Green, Multi, Artifacts and Land
Join The Izzet League today!
Ephemeron


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 9:32 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3211
Location: somewhere btwn Achilles and the tortoise
Preferred Pronoun Set:
I think what this keyword needs to be is the third concept in the triangle for which the other two points are hexproof and indestructible. IE the thing that can deal with Descend upon the Sinful. The only problem is that I don't know how it would be worded.

Elusive (This card ignores effects that affect "all" cards of a certain quality.)

Primarily in blue, secondarily in green, tertiarily in red. Would that work?

Alternatively:

Lightning rod (If an effect would affect all cards of a certain quality, you may have it affect only this card if it has that quality.)

But I like the first one better.

_________________






Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 10:06 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Apr 01, 2016
Posts: 5
I think what this keyword needs to be is the third concept in the triangle for which the other two points are hexproof and indestructible. IE the thing that can deal with Descend upon the Sinful. The only problem is that I don't know how it would be worded.

Elusive (This card ignores effects that affect "all" cards of a certain quality.)

Primarily in blue, secondarily in green, tertiarily in red. Would that work?

Alternatively:

Lightning rod (If an effect would affect all cards of a certain quality, you may have it affect only this card if it has that quality.)

But I like the first one better.


Frenetic Efreet did this to some effect, though it dodged all sorts of removal.

No comments on Masquerade (above)?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 296 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group