MTGNexus

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:18 am**

Pygyzy wrote: ↑
3 years ago
Exactly. You can't "have" 0 of a thing. But you can still add nothing. It's just a question I'll ask people to see what their response is. A vacuum is technically nothing. But 0 and nothing aren't the same.

You may have misunderstood. The question "is zero a number?" is more so asking the question "how do you define numbers?" because, once you have that definition, figuring out whether zero satisfies that definition is usually a straight forward process.

It seems like you have two warring definitions in your head, one being the set theorist view of "how many items are in this set" and one being the concept of the identity in a monoid (adding zero).

In both cases, using traditional mathematical models, zero ends up being a number.

In the set theoretic view, yeah, you can totally "have zero" of a thing. Like right now I "have zero water in this glass (and need a refill)." It's one of the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory axioms that state that the "empty set" exists. You could subscribe to a version of set theory that doesn't have the empty set, but . . . that would get unpleasant very quickly.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:06 am**

Probably. Honestly I didn't understand a lot of what you said. It's also 1 am. I'm have to look at it again once I'm rested. I just think it's interesting that you can have a value that's also not a value. I'm also not well-verses in mathematics I just thought the concept is interesting.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:52 am**

Yeah, I could probably explain it using less terminology.

It's just tricky sometimes to separate what would make sense to me from what would make sense to someone else. Sorry if I wasn't making myself easily understood.

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:28 am**

Youre good. I was super tired before. I brought it up. I get what you're saying more or less. I'm familiar with null set a value of 0. It's just one of those funny things. Like what was it, some culture didn't have the concept of zero? Lemme say it like this. Does zero exist as a thing? It's purely a thought experiment, I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just curious to hear different answers. You had a great explanation, it actually makes me more interested.

Like imaginary numbers correct me if I'm wrong, they're not real numbers but they are real on mathematics, however I can't have an imaginary number in reality. I'm not comparing 0 to something imaginary it's just interesting cuz you can add subtract whatever, "have" nothing. Probably doesn't make a whole lotta sense but I'm a layman.

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 3:50 am**

Ah, the complex numbers? Yeah, there exist complex numbers in real life. However, to understand that, you need to kind of understand what numbers and math are. Like, you use the concept of "having a number of things" and that is what numbers are, in your mind. However, generally speaking, that's just the natural numbers. In a much more general sense, numbers are ways of describing things.

You can't have a negative quantity of an object, but you can have negative numbers. What a negative number means depends on the context. Like, if a question is asked like "how many of this item do I need to gain?" and a negative answer is given back, that could imply that you need to lose something.

It's the same thing with complex numbers. Yeah, a complex number has physical meaning, but what that meaning is will depend on the context. Like, complex numbers crop up in motion of mechanical structures. In that context, one possible interpretation is that the "real" part of a complex number corresponds to the left-right motion while the "imaginary" part of a complex number corresponds to the up-down motion.

However, having said all that, if you just take numbers themselves and don't have any kind of real world interpretation attached, no numbers exist. Like you can't hold "the number 5" in your hand. You can hold five things, but that's just associating the concept of "5" to the things you are holding.

(Also, yeah, some cultures don't develop a word or symbol for the number 0, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a concept of "having nothing." With that in mind, the instant a culture starts getting into slightly more advanced math, a 0 will crop up.)

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:36 am**

That's really cool. I learned something. That's why I asked. That helps me grasp the concept cuz it was always weird to me. I understood the concept but trying to conceptualize that was hard. Thanks.

Edit: Oh ya forgot about this @slimytrout

I wouldn't have thought that was such a concern given that free sacrifice outlets already exist, but I'm sure you have more experience playing such decks than I do.

Well generally anything that sacrifices things immediately catches my attention, so much so I'm known for it in my playgroup. This card would definitely give me way more use than it should. I would do some stupid stupid things without the tap stipulation. Closest comparison I can't think of right now would be something like Zombie Infestation where just last game I played. I discarded my hand made 3 tokens, Drew a new hand then discarded that for 3 more, then did it one more time, all at the end of my opponents turn for the win.

It would be similar to that but with sacrifice instead of discard.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:43 am**

void_nothing wrote: ↑
3 years ago

Notes of the Day

Is this a required section?

Since I don't host very often these days, I gonna go with - ABSOLUTELY!!!!

netn10 wrote: ↑
3 years ago
Votes: Flatline (I really like your idea for a set, do you have it on Planesculptors?)
I've never heard of Planesculptors, but thanks for the compliment. It's an idea I've had for many years now, and it has gone through many different iterations, but the basic story and themes have always remained basically the same. The main theme is that all of the races have put aside their differences and have come together to try to overcome their tremendous difficulties. Mutants have always been a part of the plan as well, although I've never completely settled on what the mutate ability would entail. These days, I'm thinking that perhaps MTG's version of mutate might just work for Wastelands of Zanbae. I used to want to incorporate a basic lands vs. non-basic lands theme also, but these days I've been thinking that I would utilize Wastes, and make the mutants rely on colorless mana, although I never wanted them to actually be colorless. Now I'm thinking that I just might make them all colored creatures, with colorless mutate costs.

One of the main reasons I've never actually started any real work on Zanbae (other than the time sink), is because I really want the set to convey a sense of unity between the various races on Zanbae. That means that I need some sort of mechanic to show off this theme. I've had a difficult time coming up with something I really like. Changelings have ruined many of my potential ideas. At one point I was even kicking around an idea to separate race from class on all creatures. Actually, it was the theme of the only MCC I've ever hosted (back on MTGS). But I think I've decided that that would be overly complicated. Lately, I've been thinking about going with something like this: Unity - If you/as long as you control at least three creatures that share no creature types, <effect>. To help achieve the threshold, I'm thinking that I would make all of the humanoid creatures on Zanbae only have a race, with no class. So all the creatures would be Humans or Goblins, not Human Clerics or Goblin Warriors.

I'll probably never actually get around to actually making Wastelands of Zanbae, but that's where my thoughts on the set are right now.

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:16 am**

void_nothing wrote: ↑
3 years ago
Brownouts yesterday turned into full-on blackouts today. No sign of power restoration anytime soon but I can get by the next couple of days if I work quickly at posting the contest threads.

What's going on over there? Whatever it is, I hope it is resolved soon.

Posted: **Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:52 am**

Hey everyone - I think I've hit upon a solution to an ongoing issue. I'm going to condense hosting signups for the monthly contests into one thread here. If you want to host a month of the DCC in the near future, please post there, even if you've already asked - this lets me reconfirm with all the potential hosts and keep their names and host months organized.

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:18 pm**

Woo! That is my first time actually winning the DCC! There's a lot of stiff competition in this contest, so I'm ecstatic to have won a month. Thank you to everyone who voted for my stuff over the month. (If only I weren't also on probation at the time of winning.)

I had a lot of fun filling out the "lopsided wedge" cycles over the month. It's surprising how few cards actually use hybrid mana.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:36 am**

Is anyone interested in hosting the DCC in October, and possibly entering the regular host rotation? I'd like to thank Rithaniel for stepping up for many months - unfortunately, real-life obligations have left him with less time to do things like this.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:40 am**

Now might be a bit early for me since I became active literally hours ago, but I'll work on familiarizing myself if you still need someone to keep it going in a week or so.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:43 am**

That's very kind of you to offer. Rithaniel is taking most of this month with me filling in when they're unavailable, and November is therefore gonna be mine to host, but if you're still interested in a future month after that, new blood is definitely welcome when it comes to hosting.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:50 am**

EDIT: Yoops, these were actually my thoughts on my submission for Club Nexus.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Three-color, three mana cards. So I took it to the next level and made three, three-color three-mana cards, which in my mind became the French tricolor, which became Incarnations.

I've always thought the Incarnations are one of the weirder mechanics in MtG. They embody the aspect of, say, haste -- but when they die ... everyone gets it? instead of it going away? Ah. Well.

Yes, banding. Because I think banding represents fraternité pretty well. I have a custom mechanic that utilizes just the damage-distribution portion of banding that I'd probably substitute instead.

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:06 pm**

Riria wrote: ↑
3 years ago
Votes: JessWIll, Pygyzy

Copter Schematics 1
Vehicle (U)
Flying
(A vehicle that isn't an artifact can't be crewed.)
Crew 1
4/4

Isn't that basically typeless card? While idea is nice, lack of type discourage me.

OneAndOnly wrote: ↑
3 years ago
Votes: Riria, void_nothing
.
Wild Swing -- 1R
Instant
Target creature in combat assigns damage to a random target creature instead.
Overload 3RR

I see just one problem here with wording for overloaded version (because it works that way

): Each creature in combat assigns damage to a random each creature instead.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:33 am**

Sagharri wrote: ↑
3 years ago
Isn't that basically typeless card? While idea is nice, lack of type discourage me.

Yup. I've always been fascinated with the idea of typeless permanents. Naturally, I understand why most people dislike/shy away from the concept. (although technically we do know rules-wise how typeless permanents work, since while there aren't any up-front typeless permanents in the real game, it is possible to create typeless permanents through certain card interactions)

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:52 pm**

Riria wrote: ↑
3 years ago
Ink-Treader: Honestly the kinds of combos you can do with this card, while degenerate, require 3 cards generally and this particular piece of the combo lacks redundancy, which is important. My biggest concern about it is that you can use it as free removal with the legend rule, I think? (especially problematic as repeatable land destruction)

I did overlook that interaction. Thankfully Leyline of Singularity doesn't affect lands. On the other hand, that does mean the Slate can keep forcing an opponent to choose between which of two nonland permanents they want to keep, which is rather strong. Otherwise, your opponent would need to have at least two legendary permanents in order to kick things off. Actually kind of neat, really. Perhaps it would have been better to only pick graveyard cards, to encourage plays more along the lines of enhancing Accumulated Knowledge. I just wanted the broadest possible effect that wasn't instantly degenerate.

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:23 pm**

You don't have to have two nonland permanents (or even two legendary permanents) you want to keep, I think. If I have a naked Ugin, you can change the name of a Forest I control to Ugin in order to force me to sac my Ugin, for example.

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:47 pm**

That's not quite how the legend rule works:

704.5j If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners' graveyards. This is called the "legend rule."

So if your opponent has two legendary permanents, you can force them to sacrifice one, but calling a Forest "Ugin" doesn't have any effect.

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:22 pm**

Wait, so if two permanents have the exact same name, but only one of them is legendary, you get to keep both? Now that I'm reading the rule per se it makes perfect sense that it works that way but it's still highly unintuitive at a glance. (on second thought, I guess it's. because of the unintuiveness that Wizards haven't printed cards that change cards' names without being clone effects haha)

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:05 pm**

Riria wrote: ↑
3 years ago
Wait, so if two permanents have the exact same name, but only one of them is legendary, you get to keep both? Now that I'm reading the rule per se it makes perfect sense that it works that way but it's still highly unintuitive at a glance. (on second thought, I guess it's. because of the unintuiveness that Wizards haven't printed cards that change cards' names without being clone effects haha)

It's why a card like Jace, Cunning Castaway makes the copies nonlegendary.

Posted: **Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:55 am**

Riria wrote: ↑
3 years ago
(I'm actually not sure yet how to balance sagas in design, so someone let me know pls, not today but tomorrow, if it's okay for a saga to have effects that are individually stronger than the saga's entire mana cost as long as they're delayed on late enough chapters)

Once Upon a Midnight Dreary WUB
Enchantment - Saga (MR)
I - Untap all creatures you control. They gain vigilance until end of turn.
II - Look at the top three cards of your library, then put them back in any order. You may shuffle your library. Draw a card.
III - Create Lenore, a legendary 3/3 black Zombie creature token with wither.
IV - Create The Raven, a legendary 2/2 blue and black Bird creature token with flying and "Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, you may discard any number of cards to have that player discard twice that number."

My wild-ass-guess is that this is probably reasonable from a balance perspective. It's essentially two very strong creatures with suspend that cantrip. The fourth chapter is potentially very powerful, but your opponent has 5 turns to prepare for the token getting created and then attacking so I think it might be OK. I think the fact that you don't need to worry about the 2/2 flyer because you already got value out of the card, but your opponent has to worry about not letting it hit them makes it powerful, but this is offset by being annoying to cast and also getting worse the longer you have to wait to cast it.

The thing that concerns me more is the complexity. I don't know exactly what your intentions are with this card, but a 4 chapter saga, with 2 that have relatively unique effects is a bit of information overload, and even for the first chapter, while it isn't very complex, adds a bit more complexity than is necessary. I would definitely make chapter 1 either just give your creatures vigilance or untap them (this won't actually be a meaningful difference in most games anyway), and chapter 2 be Preordain instead of Ponder, juts because scry is something where players don't have to remember how it works. For the raven's ability, personally I would simplify it - I'd just make it when it deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card. If you're trying to go with that ability to make it more flavorful, that might be a fine tradeoff as long as chapters 1 and 2 are less unnecessarily complex. Personally if I was going to make an effect that unique and out-there, I'd put it on a normal creature instead of inside of a saga.

Posted: **Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:13 pm**

Thanks for the advice! Now that I think more about it, in hindsight I would've probably not made the card at all, especially concerning your point about chapter 2 (Since the poem goes "Once upon a midnight dreary/ As I pondered weak and weary", having chapter 2 be preordain instead of ponder would be a massive flavor fail, to the point where at least I would feel bad. But I understand why doing it the flavorful way would be needlessly complex)

My initial thought as to why I made it a saga instead of a creature was that Wizards has shown in the past that they're okay with levels of complexity in Sagas that are far beyond other types of permanents, but in all fairness you could make a valid argument that just because Wizards has done something, doesn't automatically make it good design (indeed a lot of prominent cards, even from recent sets where design is more refined, would receive a low score if they were for example judged by our MCC rubric).

Posted: **Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:32 am**

One thing with the way WotC does sagas is that most of the time if they create a permanent, that is pretty simple. They have some saga chapters that would make for complex sorceries, but usually not tokens.

Posted: **Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:16 pm**

(from yesterday:)

Fated Admirer 2g
Creature - Nymph (C)
Split second
Ransom (When you play Fated Admirer, you may tap one of your opponent's lands for mana to cast it.)
You'll soon be living out of each other's pockets.
2/2

Is there an actual feasible mechanical way to word Ransom? I wanna use it for real, and I'm guessing my phrasing is nonsense regarding actual rules syntax. I was looking at the existing card Piracy, but that gives you an ability for the rest of the turn; this lets you cast the spell it's written on and I'm not any type of rules guru to understand whether it's possible to model that intention inside the game's timing rules.

MTGNexus

The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread

Re: The DCC Discussion Thread