I'd say that Magic's rules text on cards (templating) is an example of a modeling language that models the Comprehensive Rules (a structured system), it matches the definition closer than a programming language. It uses keywords that are domain specific (their original meaning is distanced from the original language, or jargon), that refer to the Comprehensive Rules to give it function and meaning. The Comprehensive Rules describes both how its system functions and how a modelling language is used to connect its systems together to create a process and give it behavior. For example, it defines what a creature is (a concept), what happens when it runs out of toughness (a process), and what keywords are used in the modeling language to refer to these concepts and processes in a concise representation instead of inserting the whole text involved in the process.
I still remember them revealing the textless Cryptic Command so many years ago. Textless MPR cards were not brand new, but only a few of them existed at the time, all of them being iconic effects widely known among all Magic players, or at least all of the ones who played in the 5-20 sanctioned events necessary to get one of these cards mailed to your address. To this day, it's always bothered me that WotC chose to give the textless treatment to Cryptic Command over Thoughtseize, which was from the same set, was the same rarity, and was played exactly as much as Cryptic was. Thoughtseize would have been so much better of a choice, especially because it's occasionally important to know not just what the four modes are, but what order they appear, something even veteran Cryptic Command players would be hard pressed to confidently recall.
@@JudgingFtW Woahh it’s Dave! I love your content! Thanks for stopping by. I think that Thoughtseize would have been a cool textless print as well. I also think really the only thing defending “Cryptic” Command in my book is the irony.
You always kill it Arcosa! MTG as a programming language will always be something that I point to in my explanation in why this is the greatest game ever created.
When people say RTCETC, it means following the card text/rules in the grammar and follow it. Magic is very precise. Once you understand the grammar, you understand how it functions. I've had to explain this to people many many times. Cards only do exactly what they say.
Yes, and I think it needs to be distinguished that "reading the card" is often an abbreviation for "reading the card and its associated rules". But, the phrase is also very frequently misused to condescend toward new players or people whose native language isn't English. (This isn't important to the discussion. Rude people are rude; but it must be stated.)
Finally, someone who appreciates magic as a codable game like I do! Also, I completely agree about the dichotomy of mistakes and perfection is what makes magic so fun and intriguing, especially from a game *design* standpoint. Many card games that came after magic have tried to solve the "problem" that is lands, with one of the most popular solutions being that every card can be a land, but I think that lands honestly make magic a better game, even though you do get screwed over sometimes. It gives you something to blame, it's such a tangible, interactable thing, and it just feels *really* good when you get the perfect distribution of lands. Also, Oops, All Spells! and other related land vs nonland combos will never not be funny!
@@micboyyaboy2578 I remember playing the original World of Warcraft TCG where every card could be used as a land before they moved to digital and adopted the gem system in Hearthstone. I really liked that feature, but it also feels a little wrong because the concept of “Land” is really cool with all the depictions of Magic locales and biomes.
@theArcosa That's another part that I love! Magic has such a rich history of great worldbuilding, though I am kinda sad they've mostly been throwing that away with the recent "gimmick" sets.
Vigilance Deathtouch Haste Can’t be blocked by creatures with power 2 or less Combat damage dealt by creatures you control can’t be prevented When this deals combat damage to a player, it deals that much damage to target planeswalker that player controls Anyway, finished the video. Is it weird that I sort of _like_ stupidly complex cards like Animate Dead and Dungeons? I dunno. I just think it’s fun to see how they translated these cards into modern language. I make Custom Magic cards sometimes, so maybe that’s why. If nothing else, it makes me feel smart? I guess?
@@davidhower7095 My stints on custommagic was what inspired this video, actually! All the uniquely worded cards in Magic give me the worst itch to think of new ideas.
I just started playing magic and wondered the exact same thing. How can players remember all these rules and interactions. We had a guy at my second edh night who everyone else went to for rulings, he probably could sit for the bar and become a lawyer if he really wanted to
Rules lawyers LOVE to help. There’s something satisfying about being able to get stuff out of the encyclopedia of the mind, especially if it’s a complicated puzzle.
You think the textless Cryptic Command is bad... they recently have shared a textless version of Urza's Saga... you know... the Enchantment Land - Saga that has a book's worth of words on it normally.
Your video essays are always the best! If you’re reading this, give Arcosa a sub! I think one thing that we love to be reminded about is how much our knowledge and information has stacked in terms of magic the gathering! It’s like knowing all the different pokemon!
Here's my best guess for Questing Beast: Haste, Death touch, reach, can't be blocked by creatures with power two or less. combat damage dealt by creatures you control can't be prevented. whenever Questing Beast deals combat damage to a player, it deals that much damage to target Planeswalker they control. How'd I do?
Great video! The one about the bats is very cool and detailed too, just in time for my budding interest in these creatures. I'd say there's another aspect of language in magic: the pictograms. Apart from the obvious (and copyrighted!) mana and tap symbols, the art itself becomes a pictogram. Moreover, the players themselves, through thousands upon thousands of repetitions (~acts of speech) of creating and encountering game situations make some selected arts into pictograms. You could play a Japanese Lightning Bolt with no problem (as Christopher Rush's art, and, subsequently, Christopher Moeller's reinterpretation of it became symbols), but probably not a Return to Coralhelm. Moreover, you could argue that multiple plays of a narrow format are somewhat like the breaking off of dialects or argot: by the third game of WAR limited you and your opponent will both surely have created a "symbol" of Toll of the Invasion. Sorry that was a ramble
@@KhitriyKrab Yes! There were so many things I didn’t have time to talk about! I originally had a section about a similar idea with card names too, and how one utterance of Rhystic Study can send everyone on high alert.
Wow for a video about language, how do you make so many mistakes? From the start, you say it's 2018 and memories from next year's core set are fresh in mind... How can we in 2018 have memories of M20 which is next year's core set? Or how you say the Cardboard Computer video was published by Kyle Hill when it was published by Because Science? We're supposed to trust you as an authority of language?
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd say that Magic's rules text on cards (templating) is an example of a modeling language that models the Comprehensive Rules (a structured system), it matches the definition closer than a programming language. It uses keywords that are domain specific (their original meaning is distanced from the original language, or jargon), that refer to the Comprehensive Rules to give it function and meaning.
The Comprehensive Rules describes both how its system functions and how a modelling language is used to connect its systems together to create a process and give it behavior. For example, it defines what a creature is (a concept), what happens when it runs out of toughness (a process), and what keywords are used in the modeling language to refer to these concepts and processes in a concise representation instead of inserting the whole text involved in the process.
This is a very good analysis! Thank you for your insight!
I still remember them revealing the textless Cryptic Command so many years ago. Textless MPR cards were not brand new, but only a few of them existed at the time, all of them being iconic effects widely known among all Magic players, or at least all of the ones who played in the 5-20 sanctioned events necessary to get one of these cards mailed to your address. To this day, it's always bothered me that WotC chose to give the textless treatment to Cryptic Command over Thoughtseize, which was from the same set, was the same rarity, and was played exactly as much as Cryptic was. Thoughtseize would have been so much better of a choice, especially because it's occasionally important to know not just what the four modes are, but what order they appear, something even veteran Cryptic Command players would be hard pressed to confidently recall.
@@JudgingFtW Woahh it’s Dave! I love your content! Thanks for stopping by.
I think that Thoughtseize would have been a cool textless print as well. I also think really the only thing defending “Cryptic” Command in my book is the irony.
Judging FTW in the wild??? Awesome!!
I left a Trinisphere on my desk and had to tap three lands just to post this.
You could have just turned the Trinisphere sideways to turn it off 😅
You always kill it Arcosa! MTG as a programming language will always be something that I point to in my explanation in why this is the greatest game ever created.
When people say RTCETC, it means following the card text/rules in the grammar and follow it. Magic is very precise. Once you understand the grammar, you understand how it functions. I've had to explain this to people many many times. Cards only do exactly what they say.
Yes, and I think it needs to be distinguished that "reading the card" is often an abbreviation for "reading the card and its associated rules".
But, the phrase is also very frequently misused to condescend toward new players or people whose native language isn't English. (This isn't important to the discussion. Rude people are rude; but it must be stated.)
It is very precise. It is not perfectly precise. Dont be dismissive of that difference.
@@theArcosa especially if said card has had errata or changed in reprints, but the old wording makes sense so you don't even think to look it up
it would be really bad if someone started using it as a catchphrase and with utmost seriousness. that would be awful
I think this may be my new favourite mtg channel
Means a lot 💜
Finally, someone who appreciates magic as a codable game like I do!
Also, I completely agree about the dichotomy of mistakes and perfection is what makes magic so fun and intriguing, especially from a game *design* standpoint. Many card games that came after magic have tried to solve the "problem" that is lands, with one of the most popular solutions being that every card can be a land, but I think that lands honestly make magic a better game, even though you do get screwed over sometimes. It gives you something to blame, it's such a tangible, interactable thing, and it just feels *really* good when you get the perfect distribution of lands. Also, Oops, All Spells! and other related land vs nonland combos will never not be funny!
@@micboyyaboy2578 I remember playing the original World of Warcraft TCG where every card could be used as a land before they moved to digital and adopted the gem system in Hearthstone. I really liked that feature, but it also feels a little wrong because the concept of “Land” is really cool with all the depictions of Magic locales and biomes.
@theArcosa That's another part that I love! Magic has such a rich history of great worldbuilding, though I am kinda sad they've mostly been throwing that away with the recent "gimmick" sets.
I love the effort you put into these videos. Always a great watch!
Vigilance Deathtouch Haste
Can’t be blocked by creatures with power 2 or less
Combat damage dealt by creatures you control can’t be prevented
When this deals combat damage to a player, it deals that much damage to target planeswalker that player controls
Anyway, finished the video. Is it weird that I sort of _like_ stupidly complex cards like Animate Dead and Dungeons? I dunno. I just think it’s fun to see how they translated these cards into modern language.
I make Custom Magic cards sometimes, so maybe that’s why. If nothing else, it makes me feel smart? I guess?
@@davidhower7095 My stints on custommagic was what inspired this video, actually! All the uniquely worded cards in Magic give me the worst itch to think of new ideas.
First time viewer. You deserve a sub. Great video.
The algorithm brought me here. Really good video! Subbed for more.
I appreciate the support! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I just started playing magic and wondered the exact same thing. How can players remember all these rules and interactions. We had a guy at my second edh night who everyone else went to for rulings, he probably could sit for the bar and become a lawyer if he really wanted to
Rules lawyers LOVE to help. There’s something satisfying about being able to get stuff out of the encyclopedia of the mind, especially if it’s a complicated puzzle.
You think the textless Cryptic Command is bad... they recently have shared a textless version of Urza's Saga... you know... the Enchantment Land - Saga that has a book's worth of words on it normally.
Your video essays are always the best! If you’re reading this, give Arcosa a sub!
I think one thing that we love to be reminded about is how much our knowledge and information has stacked in terms of magic the gathering! It’s like knowing all the different pokemon!
And boom you mention the pokemon count hahaha
Here's my best guess for Questing Beast:
Haste, Death touch, reach,
can't be blocked by creatures with power two or less.
combat damage dealt by creatures you control can't be prevented.
whenever Questing Beast deals combat damage to a player, it deals that much damage to target Planeswalker they control.
How'd I do?
@@OmneAurumNon 5/6!
reach?
Could easily be a video describing JavaScript
@@ThickpropheT Javascript catching strays
Great video! The one about the bats is very cool and detailed too, just in time for my budding interest in these creatures.
I'd say there's another aspect of language in magic: the pictograms. Apart from the obvious (and copyrighted!) mana and tap symbols, the art itself becomes a pictogram. Moreover, the players themselves, through thousands upon thousands of repetitions (~acts of speech) of creating and encountering game situations make some selected arts into pictograms. You could play a Japanese Lightning Bolt with no problem (as Christopher Rush's art, and, subsequently, Christopher Moeller's reinterpretation of it became symbols), but probably not a Return to Coralhelm. Moreover, you could argue that multiple plays of a narrow format are somewhat like the breaking off of dialects or argot: by the third game of WAR limited you and your opponent will both surely have created a "symbol" of Toll of the Invasion.
Sorry that was a ramble
@@KhitriyKrab Yes! There were so many things I didn’t have time to talk about!
I originally had a section about a similar idea with card names too, and how one utterance of Rhystic Study can send everyone on high alert.
So what does cryptic command even do??
It wouldn’t be Cryptic if we knew for sure.
get that dollar brother
Wow for a video about language, how do you make so many mistakes? From the start, you say it's 2018 and memories from next year's core set are fresh in mind... How can we in 2018 have memories of M20 which is next year's core set? Or how you say the Cardboard Computer video was published by Kyle Hill when it was published by Because Science? We're supposed to trust you as an authority of language?
@@LakeVermilionDreams Nice bait
@theArcosa nice deflection