Re: Magic: The Alternative

"Me"

> Yes, and I am glad they have. However, the game is still designed as a
> one on one. In larger games, the inactive players don't do much unless
> they're playing with counters. My changes to the turn structure should
> correct that.

Is not possible to play with curent cards using your turn system ?
Note: that system could be a blueprint for a real multiplayer turn system.
I have sean several post of people complaining there is no nice multiplayer
system, and so they invent their own system to play with friends.
Another thing I see is that multiplayer game is increasing (as is last
longer and is more fun)
But not all people have 3 or more friends  that like Magic.


> > > Names of cards all in the set {A, B, ..., Z, a, b, ..., z, <space>}.
> >
> > Aether Storm is a name in that set.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the significance of that statement. Could you
> explain why the possible inclusion of "AEther Storm" is a problem?

Aether is writhen with a specific Char in the card, but we use ae
conjunction to write the same.

> NO! This is very important, and the fact that only the older cards and
> none of the newer cards that WotC has printed have characters outside
> the above character set should be a clue. As someone with knowledge of
> computer science, I can tell you that names with non-standard
> characters cause serious problems when you try to store

Yes , that is true, I have experience on that also.
This means you have no problem using special chars in card printing , only
in card referencing , right ?

> > If you pretend to make an alternative do not mess with names.
> > Use Instant speed for Instant like cards, or use other numenclature like
> > Speed: L (low) N(normal) F(fast) FF(Faster)
>
> The speed system seems very easy to grasp to me.

The speed is connected with the Cards Type. Why to change that ? So you can
play a creature as an instant ? Ok. Then you wish not to write "You may play
this as an instant" and so code this ability in the Speed field.
Ok. Now thing like this: you have a database of cards. Is better to use a
new field or add the text "You may play this as an isntant" on some cards ?
There are few cards with that hability say (I thowing a number here) 30 in
3000
 If you use a char to speed you have 3000 *1 char =3000 chars plus in you
database.
If you use to put the text in the card 30 * 28 = 840 chars plus in you
database.
Bottom line: it is simpler to link seep to type and create exceptions where
needed.

> > The types and their default
> > > speeds: Sorcery [S], Land [I], Enchant [S], Artifact [S], Creature
> > > [S]. Any card can have any speed.
> >
> > This is complex and messes with card design.
>
> This is no more complex than MTG's unwritten speed system.

Yes it is, because this means you may have [S] lands , [I] creatures and [I]
enchantements
[I] enchantements is a very powerfull thing can responde to a [I] sorcery.


> > > There are no supertypes. There is nothing legendary and nothing basic.
> >
> > also a bad choice.
>
> Why?

Because legendary mechanics means a card is to powerfull to be more than one
copy in play It is also a flavor linked rule, like creature and lands
subtypes.
What do you intend to do with legendary MTG cards ?


> > See Equipement. Is a new artifact type that peopel unsderstand and like.
>
> If there would be enough equipment-like cards in the MTA cardlist,
> then I'd add rules for the "Equipment" artifact subtype. What I don't
> want to see are situations like what Shahrazad did the MTG
> comprehensive rules.

If you are in the computer thing you know about back-compactibility.
Sharazard rules is just that.

There should not be an entire section in the
> rulebook dedicated to explaining how one card functions.

It should be for back-compatability reasons.

> > Subtypes is a powerfull templating mecanic that aids keep the rules
simplier
> > but possibilates upgrades easly.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please explain
> yourself more clearly.

Using sub types is a easy way to create new rules.
Example : Rule : If you have 3 or more Relics in play, you win the game

Book of Nothing
3
Artifact - Relic
2: draw a card, lose 1 life.

This is easier than :

Book of Nothing
3
Artifact - Relic
( If you have three or more Relics in play, you win the game)
2: draw a card, lose 1 life.

Or the Sliver mechanic.

And an easy way to add flavor.

> > Not: Lands with casting cost must have a color. If they are colorless
their
> > are Artifact Lands.
>
> That which is colorless need not be an artifact. The basic lands of
> MTG are a good example.

They have no cost.
Lands with no cost are

name :Landname
cost : n/a
type : land

Lands with null cost are

name: landename
cost: 0
type: land

They work the same, but the fist has no color, the other is colorless.
A card that targets colorless cards wil ltarget the last one, but not the
first.

> > > Keywords: flying, regeneration, protection, trample, haste,
> > > first-strike, multiblock, banding. More may be added. Keywords cannot
> > > contain spaces.
> >
> > ahummm multiblock does sounds no good.
>
> It can be removed if no one likes it. As I said, nothing is set in
> stone, but it always made me wonder why, after so many years, WotC
> didn't make a keyword for extra blocking.

Is not use that ofen...
I do not understand why Haste was "This is not affected by sommoning
sickness" for so long.


> > > Some things are still hardcoded into the rules. Creatures with the
> > > "Wall" creature subtype can't attack (rather than having "<cardname>
> > > can't attack" printed on every wall).
> >
> > That is only a reminder text not a rule text.
>
> I was seriously considering putting "<cardname> can't attack" on every
> wall instead of having a rule regarding one specific creature subtype,
> but decided that the rule was worth it. Note that the text in the
> above quotation would have been a static ability of walls, not
> reminder text.

The rule : Walls cannot attack is part of the rules. The text (Wall's cannot
attack) is a reminder, not a rule text (that's why it is in italic). Is not
like the Imprint text, you see?

> > > The "[R]" on cards like Shock mean "on resolution," indicating spell
> > > text (now called "resolution text"). All text to be followed on
> > > resolution should be preceeded by "[R]". It's possible to have, for
> > > example, a creature with resolution text that Shocks as it resolves
> > > (just before it comes into play). This would be very similar to the
> > > card "Flametongue Kavu" from MTG. If "Mystic Snake" were to be
> > > included in MTA, it would also use resolution text rather than a
> > > triggered ability. Resolution text is NOT a static ability, like it is
> > > in MTG.
> >
> > You are making the rules more complex !! You are going agains your own
> > millstones.
>
> How many casual MTG players know that the text on Shock is a static
> ability?

And they want to know ? No they don't.
Other games like LOTR TCG uses that keyword activated text. I do not grow to
like that.

"[on cast] sacrifice a creature
[on resolve] gain 2 lifes.
[on graveyard entrance] You may put this into your hand. "

This seams uggly.

"As an adicionar cost to play this sacrifice a creature.
Gain 2 lifes.
If this is put into a graveyard return this to your hand."

better


> > > Subtypes are listed in parentheses.
> >
> > useless. Hifen separation is fine.
>
> It prevents possible situations like:
>
> Artifact--Equipment Creature--Golem Land--Mountain
>
> which I think is much uglier and harder to read than:
>
> Artifact (Equipment) Creature (Golem) Land (Mountain)

How ofen that situation arises ?