nobody should have ever made it and returning to it is always a mistake but because it exists and it's out there there are returns to it that always spend most of their time trying to keep it under control and just stop thinking it's neutral stop looking at the places where designs are missing, the negative space and go 'oh I wonder why they never did THAT with phyrexian mana' because PHYREXIAN MANA BREAKS SHIT
- he/him
- press.invincible.ink/
I'm Talen! I make videos and articles and games and graphic designs and guides and messes and encouragement. Chances are you can find anything I do on my blog. I like it when you comment on my things, so please do!
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @TalenLee's post:
I mean the whole basis of Phyrexian mana is to... completely undermine the basic cost mechanic of Magic, it's absolutely bewildering that anyone would have thought it was a good idea in the first place or that it still hasn't been written off as a bad job
we just got a phyrexia set, but notably, there are no spells where the whole mana cost is phyrexian mana; it's just activated abilities and a few spells which can be cast with a phyrexiana mana for a lesser effect, but euahgh
I'd be interested in your explanation of how it breaks shit, programmers notwithstanding! Because I can basically play Magic but I don't feel like I deeply understand it and that sounds educational!
i think there's actually a good answer to that: the null reference. it should have never existed, but because it does, everything about programming in those languages is different. the phyrexian phi symbol also means null so it all fits together.
here's the relevant quote:
I call it my billion-dollar mistake. It was the invention of the null reference in 1965. At that time, I was designing the first comprehensive type system for references in an object oriented language (ALGOL W). My goal was to ensure that all use of references should be absolutely safe, with checking performed automatically by the compiler. But I couldn't resist the temptation to put in a null reference, simply because it was so easy to implement. This has led to innumerable errors, vulnerabilities, and system crashes, which have probably caused a billion dollars of pain and damage in the last forty years. -- Tony Hoare
so it never should have been made this way, it introduces infuriating complications but we can’t put it back? javascript