|
Wield
Dec 19, 2018 22:52:44 GMT
Post by gateways7 on Dec 19, 2018 22:52:44 GMT
If you wanted to avoid new-player confusion, just add (Players are not creatures, and effects that affect creatures don't affect players.) or something else like that that sounds better to the reminder text.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 19, 2018 23:38:34 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Dec 19, 2018 23:38:34 GMT
gateway7 ) It isn't as simple as that. At all.
As writ Wield would require basically a rewrite or amendment of literally dozens of rules in the comprehensive rulebook.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 20, 2018 0:02:51 GMT
Post by gateways7 on Dec 20, 2018 0:02:51 GMT
While I agree that the mechanic isn't that simple to understand, and needs to be rewritten in the rules (even though kino has already demonstrated it's possible), I think that having that reminder text would alleviate a lot of concern and confusion that new players would have while dealing with wield cards.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 20, 2018 0:37:33 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Dec 20, 2018 0:37:33 GMT
gateways7 ) It wouldn't. If anything, that would make it look even more unfun to play against, because that's the equivalent of explicitly stating that you're going to be seeing a Hearthstone-style player attack every turn whose only solution is to chumpblock ad infinitum or break out Phage, the Untouchable, with no real way to stop it from happening otherwise. This is especially so in black, who absent Phage has no answers to Wield.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 20, 2018 1:05:24 GMT
Post by gateways7 on Dec 20, 2018 1:05:24 GMT
Using creatures to block serves as a pretty good counter to Wield, because the Wielding player only has so much damage to deal, and the other creatures all hit directly to the face. That's like saying a creature with hexproof is inherently broken, and while Wield is a more egregious example, there is still a pretty easy way to deal with it. Also, what's the problem with Hearthstone in this context?
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 20, 2018 1:11:00 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Dec 20, 2018 1:11:00 GMT
Gateways7 ) It's only a good counter to Wield if you omit the fact that the only way to stop the attacker is with chump-blocking, while the Wielding player can remove any chump-blockers with spells, fight/punch, etc. It's completely asymmetrical; the Wielding player has an advantage because chump-blocking creatures are the only feasible way to stop the Wielder, while the Wielder has a much wider array of methods to remove the chump-blockers due to the entirety of Magic's combat paradigm being built on creature vs. creature combat.
It's not a "loses to removal" thing, it's a "no realistic counters" thing.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 20, 2018 2:44:17 GMT
Post by kefke on Dec 20, 2018 2:44:17 GMT
ameisenmeister One of your concerns is just normal learning curve for the game. When Planeswalkers were introduced (and subsequently had how they function changed), there was also confusion. That didn't stop WotC from introducing a new card type. They just provided information on the new rules, and then left it to players to familiarize themselves. As for the rest, those aren't really a criticism of the card type as a whole. That's just the questions that need to be addressed when designing each card. Along with casting cost and Wielding cost, figuring out what would make it worth it to use, and what would keep it from being aggravating to play against, are just the normal balance questions that any card has to address in its design.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 20, 2018 9:50:48 GMT
Post by ameisenmeister on Dec 20, 2018 9:50:48 GMT
kefke Wizards didn't introduce a new card type since they introduced planeswalkers, and for a good reason. Magic already has seven different card types, each with it's own rules and attributes. Simply adding adding new card types for every new idea just creates unnecessary complexity.
Addressing your second point, no, it's not a balance issue, it's an issue thats basically engrained in the mechanic itself. It's highly ill-advised to attack if the opponent does have creatures and on the other hand it's almost impossible to stop your attack if he or she doesn't. Everyone who wants to use this mechanic in a somewhat serious context is bound to have a ton of (mass) removal to do so.
It's not even that I dislike the idea of an equipped player. I previously shared my idea of a player equipment and there are some others floating around here, too. As far as I see it, good design is not having a cool idea and then making up new card types and changing a bunch of rules to make it work, but to find ways to implement the cool idea into the existing framework, thereby creating something new without changing the core of what was already fine.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 21, 2018 0:33:29 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Dec 21, 2018 0:33:29 GMT
It's not even that I dislike the idea of an equipped player. I previously shared my idea of a player equipment and there are some others floating around here, too. As far as I see it, good design is not having a cool idea and then making up new card types and changing a bunch of rules to make it work, but to find ways to implement the cool idea into the existing framework, thereby creating something new without changing the core of what was already fine. This, full stop.
This is why I like ameisenmeister's take on it (since his behave more like player Aurae) and dislike Wield.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 27, 2019 10:12:07 GMT
Post by kefke on Jan 27, 2019 10:12:07 GMT
Sorry to necro this again, but I was struck by an idea. - There have been hybrid cards of more than one supertype.
- Planeswalkers already have a structure both for being attacked, and doing things on their own.
- Subtype on a planeswalker no longer has major rules significance (the "planeswalker uniqueness rule" was replaced with the generic "legend rule").
- While the "equipment" subtype has rules significance, it is technically the "equip" ability that does the work.
So, I mocked up a pretty crude proof of concept for something. It's far from perfect. For instance, there wasn't room on the card to put reminder text that damage that is "treated as combat damage" should be dealt during the combat damage step (which was my intent), or that effects that prevent/redirect combat damage affect it, and only the latter can be easily inferred (though not having it assigned at the same time just means the player effectively has first strike, which isn't a major issue). The type line ends up being a bit cramped due to all the long words that need to be on it. However, in terms of representing a player - who is supposed to be a planeswalker - taking up arms and fighting for themselves, I think this idea comes really close without breaking any rules that actually change how the game functions. So anyway, here's the prototype; Like I said, it's mostly within the existing rules. Rules as Written, an equipment that lacks both the equip keyword and any rules for how it functions when equipped to a creature technically could still be equipped to a creature, but only forcibly, and there would be no reason to do so. If this is really an issue, you would at most need a "301.5f An Equipment that lacks the equip keyword ability can't equip a creature. If an Equipment that is attached to a creature loses the equip keyword, becomes unattached from that permanent but remains on the battlefield. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)", which IMHO isn't that bad, and a logical extension of the existing rules, anyway.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 27, 2019 20:06:50 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 27, 2019 20:06:50 GMT
Equipment has rules significance the same way Aura does. And even then, there are limits to the subtypes. Something that is both Aura and Creature falls off; same would apply for Equipment. (Rule 704.5p) Not so sure about Equipment/Aura + Planeswalker, as the rule I just cited only explicitly says something about creatures.
I would imagine there would be some significant rules snarls about this that Wizards would just amend 704.5p to also include Planeswalkers were they to do something like this in a legit set.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 27, 2019 21:17:00 GMT
Post by kefke on Jan 27, 2019 21:17:00 GMT
The equipment subtype has been given to cards that weren't pure artifacts before, when it was used for the "hero artifacts" from Hero's Path events. Granted, the comprehensive rules don't cover hero cards at all, since they're only used for events and not any form of normal play, but it does at least show that, officially, WotC considers mixed-type equipment to be comprehensible enough to be made. With the creature restriction, my first thought was that the rules are only to avoid any confusion about a card being able to attach to itself, but this doesn't seem to be the case. While auras and fortifications do both have a "can't attach to itself" clause, they only specify creatures as a type they can't be and also be attached to something (which for auras is odd, since it means that, as written, licids don't work and bestow is significantly confusing). I'm not sure why they all specifically care about being a creature, but it does seem to be the case that it is the being a creature that's considered problematic, and not having a hybrid type.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 27, 2019 22:48:07 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 27, 2019 22:48:07 GMT
[...]I'm not sure why they all specifically care about being a creature, but it does seem to be the case that it is the being a creature that's considered problematic, and not having a hybrid type. Because it makes it confusing as hell if you have a situation where both a creature and the Equipment/Aura attached to it can attack. It futzes the board state a massive amount, especially since most players tend to tap both creature and attached cards when attacking with an equipped/enchanted creature just out of convenience.
Planeswalker has a similar issue, if more minor. To a new player, attacking an equipped Planeswalker equipment looks far too much like you're attacking the creature directly.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 27, 2019 23:04:20 GMT
Post by kefke on Jan 27, 2019 23:04:20 GMT
[...]I'm not sure why they all specifically care about being a creature, but it does seem to be the case that it is the being a creature that's considered problematic, and not having a hybrid type. Because it makes it confusing as hell if you have a situation where both a creature and the Equipment/Aura attached to it can attack. It futzes the board state a massive amount, especially since most players tend to tap both creature and attached cards when attacking with an equipped/enchanted creature just out of convenience.
Planeswalker has a similar issue, if more minor. To a new player, attacking an equipped Planeswalker equipment looks far too much like you're attacking the creature directly.
Okay, that makes sense. My design sidesteps that problem by not being able to be equipped, but I suppose it's fair to assume that a handling for fringe cases would be necessary.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 28, 2019 2:02:33 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 28, 2019 2:02:33 GMT
Because it makes it confusing as hell if you have a situation where both a creature and the Equipment/Aura attached to it can attack. It futzes the board state a massive amount, especially since most players tend to tap both creature and attached cards when attacking with an equipped/enchanted creature just out of convenience.
Planeswalker has a similar issue, if more minor. To a new player, attacking an equipped Planeswalker equipment looks far too much like you're attacking the creature directly.
Okay, that makes sense. My design sidesteps that problem by not being able to be equipped, but I suppose it's fair to assume that a handling for fringe cases would be necessary. Cards like Brass Squire would sidestep the lack of an Equip ability.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 28, 2019 2:20:30 GMT
Post by kefke on Jan 28, 2019 2:20:30 GMT
Okay, that makes sense. My design sidesteps that problem by not being able to be equipped, but I suppose it's fair to assume that a handling for fringe cases would be necessary. Cards like Brass Squire would sidestep the lack of an Equip ability. Hence why I proposed a change that cards without the keyword cannot be attached. Looking over it again, you might be correct about needing to change the section on state-based actions as well, but only a slight change should do. Something along these lines should suffice.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 28, 2019 9:43:27 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 28, 2019 9:43:27 GMT
Hence why I proposed a change that cards without the keyword cannot be attached. Looking over it again, you might be correct about needing to change the section on state-based actions as well, but only a slight change should do. Something along these lines should suffice. It wouldn't, because unlike Enchant, Equip is mechanically disconnected somewhat from Equipment. Literally all Equip is is an activated ability that allows you to attach it. Not having Equip does not affect its ability to be attached to permanents, unlike Enchant.
Making Equip a requirement would require the Equip keyword to be completely re-written to function as Enchant does. I can't help but imagine that if Wizards wanted it to happen this way they would have back in Mirrodin.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 28, 2019 10:45:50 GMT
Post by kefke on Jan 28, 2019 10:45:50 GMT
Completely rewriting this post to be less rude...
You don't need to change what the keyword does at all. The reason Auras require the "enchant x" ability is because what they can attach to is not a mechanical element of the Aura subtype - which is why the line wasn't needed back when what they attached to was a component of the type line. It was only the adoption of a unified subtype to eliminate any confusion caused by "Enchant X" typing that additional clarification text became necessary, and such clarification needed to have mechanical function, because the card otherwise didn't have anything to define where it went. That's not needed with Equipment and Fortifications because what the card can be attached to is mechanically baked into the subtype. Equipment is a subtype that mechanically can only attach to creatures, just as Fortification is a subtype that can mechanically only be attached to lands.
Thus why the handling of when and how an Equipment or Fortification need only be handled in the rules for the subtype. To quote you,
If the rules for the subtype say that a card without the ability cannot be attached at all, and the rules for state-based actions say that the keyword is a requirement to be legally attached, then that is covered, no changes to "equip" necessary. Equip establishes when, how, and what (as a sorcery, for N, attach), and Equipment where to do it. Adjusting the rules for a "requires the keyword to do anything" is merely establishing the default state when you have a targeting quality, but not what to do with that targeting. It's little different from WotC establishing that a non-existent casting cost can't be paid, rather than being free. We're simply establishing that a non-existent cost means the card cannot be attached at all.
I'd even argue that this is supported under the existing rules for the equip keyword.
Equip specifically references that all rules related to how it functions not specified in its section are covered under the rules for artifacts, which includes section 301.5 on Equipment. So in other words, the keyword defaults to anything under the Equipment rules superseding its function. You don't even need to add a clause to the 702.6 section, because 702.6b already covers it.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 29, 2019 2:44:20 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 29, 2019 2:44:20 GMT
You don't need to change what the keyword does at all. The reason Auras require the "enchant x" ability is because what they can attach to is not a mechanical element of the Aura subtype - which is why the line wasn't needed back when what they attached to was a component of the type line. It was only the adoption of a unified subtype to eliminate any confusion caused by "Enchant X" typing that additional clarification text became necessary, and such clarification needed to have mechanical function, because the card otherwise didn't have anything to define where it went. That's not needed with Equipment and Fortifications because what the card can be attached to is mechanically baked into the subtype. Equipment is a subtype that mechanically can only attach to creatures, just as Fortification is a subtype that can mechanically only be attached to lands. Thus why the handling of when and how an Equipment or Fortification need only be handled in the rules for the subtype. [...] If the rules for the subtype say that a card without the ability cannot be attached at all, and the rules for state-based actions say that the keyword is a requirement to be legally attached, then that is covered, no changes to "equip" necessary. Equip establishes when, how, and what (as a sorcery, for N, attach), and Equipment where to do it. Adjusting the rules for a "requires the keyword to do anything" is merely establishing the default state when you have a targeting quality, but not what to do with that targeting. It's little different from WotC establishing that a non-existent casting cost can't be paid, rather than being free. We're simply establishing that a non-existent cost means the card cannot be attached at all. You do realise that what you're still essentially arguing is to turn Equip into a discount Enchant, correct? It would be far, far easier and far less wide-ranging rules-wise to merely rewrite Equip and make minor adjustments to the rules for Equipment to act more like Enchant and Auras do and it would have more-or-less the exact same effect gameplay-wise.
The utility of the Equipment (and to a lesser extent Fortification) types are intrinsic to the type itself, and not tied to Equip/Fortify, which are quite literally just the most straightforward way to attach them. By making Equip a requirement to attach an Equipment you're essentially making Equipments that may as well not even have the type to begin with. There is an expectation with a type with intrinsic rules or strongly-associated abilities (Equipment's ability to be attached being the latter) that all the cards with that type will have those rules/abilities. You are correct that the ability to be attached isn't intrinsic to the Aura subtype, but the problem with your argument is you're making a case that the ability to be attached should not be intrinsic to Equipment either by requiring Equip to keep it attached when the Comp. Rules plainly state otherwise.
And while we're on the topic of Equip/Enchant, it should be noted that Enchant is in and of itself a consequence of local-enchantment reformatting for clarity. When Equip was made, local enchantments still had the "Enchant <foo>" type. It wasn't until 9E ( 1) that Wizards changed it to the Auras we know today, and they did so both because of the intrinsic rules issues and card readability.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 29, 2019 3:03:08 GMT
Post by kefke on Jan 29, 2019 3:03:08 GMT
I don't think we're ever going to agree on the mechanical side of this. However, it's not like this is a necessary argument, really. I mean, the cards could just sidestep the issue entirely and use a different subtype. Technically speaking, Planeswalkers always have a subtype, which is simply to define who (or in this case what) the planeswalker in question is, so it isn't really necessary in any way that an Artifact subtype be used. The only real advantage of using "Equipment" over a brand new typing of "armament", "implement", "instrument", etc...is that "Equipment" is a common word that is already understood to be something used by someone, both in a general sense and in terms of its game-rules meaning. The main idea is just to a) make it clear that you're calling forth a thing, rather than a person, and b) to imply that it's being used by the its controller rather than acting on its own. If a subtype without added baggage does that better, I can concede the point, whether I think it's as big an issue or not.
|
|
|
Wield
Jan 29, 2019 4:33:56 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 29, 2019 4:33:56 GMT
[...]If a subtype without added baggage does that better, I can concede the point, whether I think it's as big an issue or not. It can. The issue is that "Equipment" has a specific meaning and expectation in Magic. A different subtype would not havee those expectations.
|
|