Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Oct-13 5:38 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2016-Aug-01 8:53 am 

Joined: 2011-Aug-18 3:35 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
papa_funk wrote:
JJackson wrote:
papa_funk wrote:
You think someone in R&D said "Extort will finally show how silly it is to treat reminder text as not there"?

I think BC was saying that somebody in R&D is known for his opinion that hybrid is intended as an either/or and doesn't like how CI interacts with that. More in line with your Crypt Ghast comment: how do we make an ability with a W/B symbol that avoids running into CI problems.


So the conspiracy theory is that Mark cares enough about hybrid to use mechanics to take shots at the RC, but does so in a way that makes the cards totally compatible with the current stance, necessitating no change to make things work in the (probably) optimal way. Devilish!

(Note that Mark's stance isn't actually incompatible. The cards are either/or in gameplay, and the elimination of the mana production rule makes that even clearer. But the deckbuilding restriction isn't about what you can cast. There's lots of cards that you can cast that you can't include in a deck.)


Evil genius. He crafted this mechanic and templated it in such a way as to make it work within the current rules of the format which was guaranteed to grate at the nerves of the purists within the community and breed dissent. The RC doesn't care about flavor anymore! We must rise up and make Wizards wrench control from them to save us! MaRo is either biding his time until he can stage a coup OR laughing maniacally in the background as his plans slowly come to fruition. (but not both).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-17 9:23 am 

Joined: 2017-Apr-17 8:22 am
Age: Hatchling
To me, keyword text should definitely count towards a card's colour identity.
WotC loves to put keywords on whatever just because they think it makes for more cool cards (although I strongly disagree).
There is no rule utlility in this practice, only marketing, they later find ways to have keyword matter just to justify this weirdiness.
I read the thread about Murmuring Bosk and I still don't understand why for it it's ok to rely on the comp rules and not for this.
I also want to bring two examples to this idiosyncrasy:
1. Ghostfire and Devoid:
Ghostfire has the very same mechanics as Devoid, except it didn't come in Battle for Zendikar so it didn't get keyworded.
If I remember correctly, they even wanted to reprint it but eventually made Reality Hemorrhage instead because it would have implied an errata.
Think of it: the card would have been essentially the same, except for cards like Corrupted Crossroads.
2. Vinelasher Kudzu and Landfall:
It has landfall or not?
Once again, they picked something old, they put on it a keyword to sell it as a new thing and they made a whole set out of it.
What if it was extort instead of landfall?
Kudzu's identity would have been WBG if it were printed in Ravnica and just G if it were printed in Zendikar.
To me this is plain stupid.


Last edited by crimsonking on 2017-Apr-28 9:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-23 9:47 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
A card's colour identity COULD include the following:
a) its colour
b) the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text
c) the colours in the mana costs of keyword abilities in the card's rules text
d) the corresponding colours of the card's basic land types
e) the corresponding colours of basic lands types that are specified in any search abilities in the card's rules text. A "search ability" is an ability that uses the word "search."
.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-23 10:15 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
crimsonking wrote:
To me, keyword text should definitely count towards a card's colour identity.
WotC loves to put keywords on whatever just because they think it makes for more cool cards (although I strongly disagree).
There is no rule utlility in this practice, only marketing, they later find ways to have keyword matter just to justify this weirdiness.
I read the thread about Murmuring Bosk and I still don't understand why for it it's ok to rely on the comp rules and not for this.
I also want to bring two examples to this idiosyncrasy:
1. Ghostfire and Devoid:
Ghostfire has the very same mechanics as Devoid, except it didn't come in Battle for Zendikar so it didn't get keyworded.
If I remember correctly, they even wanted to reprint it but eventually made Reality Hemorrage instead because it would have implied an errata.
Think of it: the card would have been essentially the same, except for cards like Corrupted Crossroads.
2. Vinelasher Kudzu and Landfall:
It has landfall or not?
Once again, they picked something old, they put on it a keyword to sell it as a new thing and they made whole set out of it.
What if it was extort instead of landfall?
Kudzu's identity would have been WBG if it were printed in Ravnica and just G if it were printed in Zendikar.
To me this is plain stupid.

It appears to me you have a very loose understanding of the design process. In multiple articles from MaRo as well as his blog, he has discussed how and why they apply keywords in different ways. Key words are used in order to link a mechanical theme of a set, they are signposts. In magic origins one of the enchantments had the wording for landfall but not the keyword, because landfall was not a focus for the set. In kaladesh inventors fair has all the words for metalcraft but not the keyword, because metalcraft was not in the set.

The point of using keywords is to save on words, however there is a cost to doing so. You are expecting the players to know what the keyword means and you add complexity to the cards by not always spelling out exactly what a card does. It's thoroughly narrow minded to assume these decisions are made just to add flash.

In summary, keywords serve the specific purpose of providing the players with markers for what the set is about, they are not applied randomly in order to make cards look cooler.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-23 10:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
specter404 wrote:
It appears to me you have a very loose understanding of the design process. In multiple articles from MaRo as well as his blog, he has discussed how and why they apply keywords in different ways. Key words are used in order to link a mechanical theme of a set, they are signposts. In magic origins one of the enchantments had the wording for landfall but not the keyword, because landfall was not a focus for the set. In kaladesh inventors fair has all the words for metalcraft but not the keyword, because metalcraft was not in the set.

The point of using keywords is to save on words, however there is a cost to doing so. You are expecting the players to know what the keyword means and you add complexity to the cards by not always spelling out exactly what a card does. It's thoroughly narrow minded to assume these decisions are made just to add flash.

In summary, keywords serve the specific purpose of providing the players with markers for what the set is about, they are not applied randomly in order to make cards look cooler.

You're a little bit off there - Landfall is an "ability word". Your description of "key words" is really a description of "ability words", which are similar but distinct. Extort is NOT an ability word, but a full-on keyword, with its own entry in the CR.

Comp Rules wrote:
207.2c An ability word appears in italics at the beginning of some abilities. Ability words are similar to keywords in that they tie together cards that have similar functionality, but they have no special rules meaning and no individual entries in the Comprehensive Rules. The ability words are battalion, bloodrush, channel, chroma, cohort, constellation, converge, council’s dilemma, delirium, domain, fateful hour, ferocious, formidable, grandeur, hellbent, heroic, imprint, inspired, join forces, kinship, landfall, lieutenant, metalcraft, morbid, parley, radiance, raid, rally, revolt, spell mastery, strive, sweep, tempting offer, threshold, and will of the council.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-24 6:46 am 

Joined: 2017-Apr-17 8:22 am
Age: Hatchling
My proposal:

A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text after replacing each keyword occurrence with its corresponding meaning.
A keyword's meaning is the definition of that keyword given by the rules in the form: “keyword” means “definition”.
The meaning of a keyword is often put in that keyword's remainder text.


Example:

702.100a
Extort is a triggered ability. “Extort” means “Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way.”

The meaning of extort is then: “Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way.”
Which by the way, is equal to extort's remainder text.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-24 10:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-15 5:03 am
Age: Dragon
Because we clearly need to update the colour identity rule so that the 4 white cards with extort can't be played in mono-white deck, and Crypt Ghast being unplayable in mono-black is an unfortunate side effect.

The question isn't "Is extort on mono-white cards a break of the colour pie?" (It probably is.)

The question isn't "Can we update the colour identity rules so that extort gives a card a white/black colour identity? (We absolutely can do this.)

The question is "SHOULD we update the colour identity rules so that extort gives a card a white/black colour identity?" (No. This is stupid and dumb and idiotic.)

I do not think we should update the colour identity rules because of four cards that piss you off by breaking the colour pie. (Especially since it also ruins Crypt Ghast, a perfectly fine card in mono-black.)

While we're at it, should we update the CR to say that "cards that make opponents lose life have black in their colour identity in addition to their other colours"? Tbh, this is arguably a better solution because it wrecks the white extort cards, leaves Crypt Ghast playable in mono-black and fixes a bunch of colour-pie breaks from New Phyrexia. (And it's also incredibly stupid, just making a point here.)

_________________
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Curse of the Swine is like the unholy love child of Terastodon and Dregs of Sorrow. AND it makes bacon!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-25 9:13 am 

Joined: 2017-Apr-17 8:22 am
Age: Hatchling
sir squab wrote:
blablabla...
The question is "SHOULD we update the colour identity rules so that extort gives a card a white/black colour identity?" (No. This is stupid and dumb and idiotic.)
blablabla...

This is not a matter of color bleeding, nor annoying cards, not even extort itself.
This is a matter of rule feebleness.
I'll bring another example to convince you this is a serious problem:
Let's say they decide to keyword firebreathing (this is as much legitimate as keywording vigilance or fear, as they did in fact).
So they put a sentence somewhere in the rules that reads: “Firebreathing” means “{R}: This creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn.”
Fine.
Now tell me: what's the colour identity of Angelfire Crusader?
Pure nonsense. Please, stop that.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-25 1:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
crimsonking wrote:
to convince you this is a serious problem:

This isn't gonna happen. It's less than ten cards. Unless WotC decides to literally do your firebreathing scenario several other times (they won't), it's going to be almost trivial to anyone's EDH experience.

Quote:
stuff about if firebreathing became a keyword


First off, that's probably a big factor in why extort was printed that way. It's not like scores of prior cards had an unofficial "extort" effect.

This is also clearly not the same deal since firebreathing doesn't refer to simply "R: creature gets +1/+0 until EOT". It also refers to "1R: Creatures get +2/+0 until end of turn" and "R: creatures you control get +1/+0 until end of turn" and plenty of other similar effects. This is a big part of why I'm pretty sure Wizards will not do this, although I could see a pseudo-keyword like landfall or metalcraft. Something like:
Lizard Dude, 1R

Creature: Lizard

Firebreathing: Whenever a spell or ability causes Lizard Dude's power to increase, it deals one damage to target player.

1/1


Quote:


It's actually pretty simple: does WotC errata it to have Firebreathing? If so, then it's white. If not, it's red/white.

Furthermore, even if something like this did happen, it would only affect a small amount of mostly unplayable cards, which does little to give anyone a reason to care.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-27 4:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-15 5:03 am
Age: Dragon
Also, while we're bringing up weird dumb corner cases where the colour identity rule doesn't work, what about Mtenda Lion? If we're being this nit-picky about corner cases, this should really be playable in mono-green.

Or we accept that, in order to have (relatively) simple rules, weird corner cases are going to exist.

_________________
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Curse of the Swine is like the unholy love child of Terastodon and Dregs of Sorrow. AND it makes bacon!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-28 7:59 pm 

Joined: 2017-Apr-17 8:22 am
Age: Hatchling
Uktabi_Kong wrote:
This isn't gonna happen. It's less than ten cards.

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
Furthermore, even if something like this did happen, it would only affect a small amount of mostly unplayable cards, which does little to give anyone a reason to care.

Rules should be valid per se. They should be valid always, not on a majority of cases.
For instance, they spent many years trying to get Illusionary Mask work within the rules, and it was just a silly old card that nobody played (until they allowed the dreadmask combo, of course).
Even if your idea of rules were correct, it isn't the mere number of cards that matters but rather their impact on the game.
For instance, Crypt Ghast is played in almost every monoblack deck. We're not speaking of a little impact at all.

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
This is a big part of why I'm pretty sure Wizards will not do this, although I could see a pseudo-keyword like landfall or metalcraft. BlaBlaBla...

You keep bringing arguments against firebreathing actually being keyworded.
Wizards will do this, Wizards won't do that... Let alone that you're stating things as you were in charge of them (but you're not: it's just your opinion), I'm not saying they're going to keyword firebreathing. I myself don't think they ever will. It's just a hypothesis!
You guys seem to have no sense of abstraction. It's like you're not able to speak about fruits, you have to speak about apples or bananas... and probably only if you have some in your hands.

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
It's actually pretty simple: does WotC errata it to have Firebreathing? If so, then it's white. If not, it's red/white.

That's my point! If they do the errata, people that don't know the card's Oracle text (the Oracle, not even the rules!) will think Angelfire Crusader is red/white.

sir squab wrote:
Also, while we're bringing up weird dumb corner cases where the colour identity rule doesn't work...

Thank you for finally acknowledgeing the problem. :D


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-30 4:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-15 5:03 am
Age: Dragon
crimsonking wrote:
sir squab wrote:
Also, while we're bringing up weird dumb corner cases where the colour identity rule doesn't work...

Thank you for finally acknowledgeing the problem. :D


I'm acknowledging that there are weird dumb corner cases where the colour identity rules don't work perfectly. I am NOT acknowledging that this is actually a problem.

_________________
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Curse of the Swine is like the unholy love child of Terastodon and Dregs of Sorrow. AND it makes bacon!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-Apr-30 5:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
So, like.. Do we really have to punish Mono White decks for no discernable reason? I was under the impression that Mono W is the single worst color setup in Commander (being someone who absolutely adores Tails.)

Like, Extort cards are okay-ish in Mono B (mostly Crypt Ghast)- but in Mono W, Blind Obedience is one of those very few ways to really draw out the value of your spells- where W tends to suffer from being the best color at dividing the board, but not necessarily good at loading it up with anything but token creatures and enchantments.

Even in Tails, putting on sufficient pressure or generating strong enough development to keep up with UG requires a redundancy of these hate cards- and losing Blind Obedience, because some people aren't comfortable with the role that reminder text plays in color identity would be an absolute waste.

From a format lens, there isn't an issue. From a rules perspective, there isn't an issue. From a power/necessity lens, there REALLY isn't an issue.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-May-01 4:41 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
crimsonking wrote:
Uktabi_Kong wrote:
This isn't gonna happen. It's less than ten cards.

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
Furthermore, even if something like this did happen, it would only affect a small amount of mostly unplayable cards, which does little to give anyone a reason to care.

Rules should be valid per se. They should be valid always, not on a majority of cases.
For instance, they spent many years trying to get Illusionary Mask work within the rules, and it was just a silly old card that nobody played (until they allowed the dreadmask combo, of course).
Even if your idea of rules were correct, it isn't the mere number of cards that matters but rather their impact on the game.

While don't think that rules must be valid per se- Is Ante still a thing? Would the game change at all if these cards were left unsupported in the Comp rules?.. the point you make about impact goes against this. But I do think talking about the impact of the rules is vital.

The problem is that there are no significant card issues right now under the current rules.
Then you must also consider that the rules for Commander are per se functioning. Now that we have rules governing the exiling of a commander facedown from a library there really aren't any issues inherent to commander that need addressing.

Extort is not a rules malfunction, but one of flavor. And while flavor is a driving force in EDH there is no need mechanically or flavor wise that overrides the aim of keeping the rules simple.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Case Against Extort in Mono decks.
AgePosted: 2017-May-01 9:04 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
There are two cards which are in any way relevant to this discussion:
Crypt Ghast
Blind Obedience
These are only ones which see significant play in the format to the best of my knowledge.

Crypt ghast is a black card, it's mana double ability is well established in black and should on that basis be allowed to remain in mono-black.

Similarly, the effect of tapping opponents permanents is well established in white, all the way back to kismet through to Thalia, Heretic Cathar.

The cards suit their colours and whilst you could generate an argument that white doesn't have a precedent for the drain life ability by itself, this point is so weak against the difficulty of making a change for one card, that the juice really isn't worth the squeeze.

When it comes down to it you can put it in the same category as arid mesa in a BW deck, I dont do it because I dont agree with the flavour, but flavour is subjective so I wont impose mine on other people.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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

Search for:
Jump to: