Re: Magic: The Alternative

> Is not possible to play with curent cards using your turn system ?

It could be done, but you'd need to get rid of anything that could
give extra turns, or just use normal MTG turns for a player's extra
turns.

> 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.

Yes, there is a lack of quality Magic players. WotC should manufacture
more. :)

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

Right. That character would not appear on any MTA card, but "A"
followed by "E" could.

> 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 ?

True, but I'm not printing cards to sell! Then WotC would really throw
a fit.

> 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 speed would only appear on a card or ability if it was different
than the default. You make a good point about the number of cards that
would take advantage of the system. Still, I think it's better to have
an explicit speed system rather than an implicit one. If you didn't
know MTG, which would you find easier to learn, MTA or MTG?

MTA: "All types are [S] except lands which are [I]. Abilities are
[F]."

MTG: "Lands have these rules. Sorceries have these rules. Enchantments
have these rules. Artifacts have these rules. Instants have these
rules. Creatures have these rules. Abilities have these rules."

> > 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 wouldn't necessarily be [I] enchantments. But there *could* be.
There may not be [S] lands, but there *could* be, and people would
immediately know what rules apply to an [S] land or an [I]
enchantment. It's the same as saying, "You may play <cardname> any
time you could play a <typename>." Except it's simpler.

> 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.

Yeah, legends do have some flavor. But they're also really powerful,
perhaps too powerful. I think the main reason why WotC makes them is
because they're rare and they're powerful, which means people will
want them and they'll have to buy a lot of packs to get them. I can
make cards that do the same thing as a legend in MTG would, except
that it wouldn't be a legend, wouldn't have a proper noun as a name,
and would have some rule (maybe a new keyword?) that would restrict
the number in play. Or, I could just say "Hell with it" and include
yet another subtype rule (along with the "Island", "Plains",
"Mountain", "Swamp", "Forest", and "Wall" rules) from MTG.

> What do you intend to do with legendary MTG cards ?

See above.

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

Shahrazad should never have been printed. But it was, and once it was
out there, WotC had to deal with it. I'm not saying they should remove
the rediculous subgame rules from the MTG comprehensive rules. I'm
saying that they, and I, should not make cards that would require us
to add entire sections to the game rules.

> > There should not be an entire section in the
> > rulebook dedicated to explaining how one card functions.
> 
> It should be for back-compatability reasons.

It should be if the card is a tangible object that people have payed
money for. Such is not the case with MTA cards.

> Using sub types is a easy way to create new rules.

The goal is not to create new rules! The goal is to minimize them
while retaining strategic depth.

> Or the Sliver mechanic.

There was never a rule associated with the creature subtype, "Sliver".
All cards with that creature subtype just did similar things.

> And an easy way to add flavor.

And an easy way to add unnecessary complexity to an already complex
game.

> > 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.

That is incorrect. If an MTG sorcery with the text, "Destroy all
permanents that are not black, green, white, red, or blue," were
printed, its effect would destroy all lands and artifacts (unless they
were given a color somehow).

> > > 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 think it should be. Although perhaps the return of banding would be
enough?

> > 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?

You still do not seem to understand what I meant. I was saying that,
instead of a hardcoded game rule stating that all walls can't attack,
I would give every wall an ability (NOT REMINDER TEXT!) stating that
that particular wall could not attack.

I know that the text on MTG walls, "(Walls can't attack)" is reminder
text. I was considering putting similar text on MTA walls that would
NOT be reminder text, instead of using the hardcoded game rule. But I
decided against that and plan to use the hardcoded game rule if I ever
finish the project.

> 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.

Well, I wasn't planning on having tags for casting and "graveyard
entrance". And the "[on resolve]" would just be a short "[R]" on the
card. I don't think that its that ugly, and I think that it makes it
clearer, especially for the novice.

> "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

Not to me, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

> > 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 ?

If it would occur even once, then it would be better to use
parentheses. Also, I think that it looks better even for single types.