
MTG Hivemind: Artificial Intelligence Designing Magic the Gathering Cards - jsnell
https://medium.com/@lukbebalduke/mtg-hivemind-artificial-intelligence-designing-magic-372530640cc1
======
ericsoderstrom
Surprised this article didn't even mention roborosewater
[https://twitter.com/roborosewater?lang=en](https://twitter.com/roborosewater?lang=en)

~~~
65536
There’s a Coronus Goblin there, posted Dec 18 2018.

Maybe the Corona virus did not start with bat soup in China after all :O

~~~
StavrosK
There's also apparently a beer by the same name, from 1925.

~~~
65536
It is known :p

But Goblins, Wikipedia says, “are almost always small and grotesque,
mischievous or outright malicious”. Thus support is found for a connection
between Coronus Goblin and COVID-19.

~~~
StavrosK
Have you ever seen people after lots of beer? :P

~~~
65536
Haha, touché :)

------
DylanDmitri
Interesting to try this type of card generation on abstract syntax trees
instead of straight text:
[https://github.com/rmmilewi/mtgcompiler](https://github.com/rmmilewi/mtgcompiler)

~~~
Aeolun
Oh, this is really interesting, and I agree it would likely work better. At
least in terms of generating sensible text and abilities.

------
plaidfuji
I love this. Sure, the results are hand-curated and kind of odd, but the fact
that some are playable, interesting even is amazing. It demonstrates how
important it is to have a deep knowledge of the data and underlying rules
before applying AI. Would be really crazy to see this paired with an actual
MTG _simulator_ to validate their playability and ultimately their balance.
Could be a great case for active learning.

------
bfelbo
The cards would be much better if he reversed the order of his pipeline.
Generative models are easier to train and yield better results if they're
conditioned on additional information (just see all the conditional GANs for
images/videos). His pipeline tries to do the most challenging task first, the
Description, but it would work much better if it was done last. I'd probably
generate information in this order with later steps using information from all
prior steps as input:

Rarity -> Colors and Mana Cost -> Type(s) -> Name -> Power/Toughness (if
needed) -> Description

This approach would ensure consistency and avoid the challenge of finding the
right mana cost that he mentions. Anyway, this is a super fun project and a
nice write-up!

------
YeGoblynQueenne
It's interesting that this is an entire system, integrating disparate
components for different parts of a card. This is the first time I see this
kind of thing (for auto-homebrew M:tG cards). Unfortunately it doesn't work
that well.

Some of the cards that are presented as being "good" or even "gems" actually
dont' make a lot of sense. In fact, every single card shown in that article
has some kind of flaw- either the concept is all over the place, or the
ability text is incorrect, or both.

A few examples, starting with the three "gems" listed towards the end of the
article as surprisingly good stuff you find once in a while:

    
    
      Sick Strength 
      RR
      Creature - Nomad
      Haste.
      Whenever Sick Strength deals combat damage to a player, sacrifice all other
      creatures you control
      3/2
    

This is probably the one that the author of the article considers the "jewel
in the crown" because it seems to make sense. But - a _creature_ called "Sick
Strength"? Of type "Nomad"? A creature called "Strength" should be of a type
denoting some kind of elemental property, e.g. "Avatar" or "Elemental
Incarnation" etc. Or just "Elemental". In any case, a red card called "Sick
Strength" should probably be a sorcery, or instant (and most likely one
granting a P/T bonus).

    
    
      Mastery of the Unseen
      2UU
      Creature - Trilobite
      Blue instant and sorcery spell you control have flying The same is true for
      flying, deathtouch, haste, landwalk, protection, trample, and vigilance.
    

Wait, protection - from what? Protection must be protection _from_ something,
like "Protection from Black" or "Protection from Creatures" or even
"Protection from converted mana cost 2" etc. Also, Flying (twice), deathtouch,
haste, landwalk, trample and vigilance are all crature abilities, but while
Mastery Of The Unseen itself is a creature, it grants those abilities to
instants and sorceries. This card doesn't work. But, cool name (though totally
not for a creature).

[Edit: also note the ungrammatical use of singular "spell" for "Blue instant
and sorcery".]

    
    
      Dreamspoile Right
      WGG
      Creature - Dryad
      Sacrifice a forest: Dreamspoile Right gets -1/+1 and gainst vigilance until
      end of turn.
      4/3
    

Actually, this one's pretty decent. The ability even fits right into the
colours of the card and the overall theme is fine. The name is off though.
"Dreamspoile"? Not "Dreamspoiler"?

    
    
      Taste of Blood
      1UU
      Creature - Elemental
      Flying.
      When Taste of Blood dies, exile it with two time counters on it and it gains
      suspend.
      2/2
    

The article sounds amazed that MTG Hivemind managed to come up with that
second ability that uses Suspend not as an alternative casting cost, as it is
usually used. Except that's basically the second ability of Epochrasite [1],
that the article mentions as an example of a card with Suspend, word-for-word,
but with two counters instead of three.

Also "Taste of Blood" goes well on an Elemental, but really not on a _blue_
Elemental.

    
    
      Write Of Goblin Blade
      UR
      Creature - Goblin
      Prowess blue spells you cast cost 1R Less to cast.
      1/3
    

"Write of Goblin Blade"? Not "Write-off Goblin Blade?" Then, the ability text
is all wrong- it's ungrammatical for natural English and it's ungrammatical
for ability text even- keyword abilities like Prowess are written with a "\--"
after their name.

    
    
      Grim Battlemage
      4U
      Creature - Yeti
      Flanking.
      When Grim Battlemage enters the battlefield, return target permanent to its
      owner's hand.
      U: Grim Battlemage loses defender until end of turn.
      6/4
    

I was sure there was a card in Magic that gave Defender to a creature (so that
it couldn't attack you; bit crappy but eh). I even thought it had a name like
"Turn to stone" or something. A search on Gatherer can't find it. So, unless I
didn't search right, this is the ultimate junk card. [Edit: to clarify, it
loses defender, but it doesn't have defender to begin with and there's nothing
that can give it defender, so the ability is unusable] Also, a "Yeti" that is
a "Battlemage"? A "Battlemage" would be a "wizzard" probably. But OK, the
article clarifies that types don't work very well.

    
    
      Over Cub
      2U
      Creature - Skeleton
      Also can block only creatures with flying
      2/2
    

Also? OK, now we just have to find another creature that can block only
creatures with flying. No, we don't - that's not correct ability text.

    
    
      Juffy Khrovalize
      3G
      Creature - Ally
      Convoke.
      When Juffy Khrovalize enters the battlefield, you may search your library for
      a pirate card, reveal it, then shuffle your library and put that card on top
      of it.
      5/3
    

That name is a mess. I used to follow the development of Roborosewater (or the
neural net that eventually became Roborosewater) when it was a thread in MTG
Salvation and I remember clearly that many card names used to be a total
slapstick mess that made no sense, like this one. Roborosewater, if I remember
correctly, was able to generate more plausible names I think with a little
longer training. But I'm not sure.

___________

[1]
[https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multive...](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=446923)

~~~
zdragnar
I wonder if both "right" and "write" in the card titles should actually be
"rite"\- they make a bit more sense that way (not for creature names, still,
but better than what it produced)...

~~~
Izkata
Or maybe "writ" got spellchecked, on "Write of Goblin Blade". Also allllmost
makes sense, a goblin enforcer of some sort.

------
Aeolun
Well, it isn’t perfect, but I’m sure happy to see that they decided to split
up the networks to make something that does one thing well, instead of trying
to do everything in one.

I’m a bit worried basing color on ability will lead to cards that are less
varied though.

------
teeray
I personally want Zudgle Latin, with a CMC of 3 and the ability to grant extra
turns at 50% upon activating abilities. That’s as good as Time Walk, if not
better!

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Unfortunately, the ability text is all wrong:

    
    
      Whenever you activate one or more creatures block, flip a coin.
    

There is no way to "activate one or more creatures block" in M:tG. So you 'll
never get your extra turns :)

~~~
IggleSniggle
Clearly this is just the particular phrasing in this edition for "whenever
this becomes blocked," which has been phrased many different ways across
editions.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
I don't think so. First of all ability text has never been worded in a way
that is ungrammatical and doesn't make sense in natural English. That's a
hallmark of ability text, that it's correct English, rather than gibberish, as
this bit of text.

Then, this "ability" references some kind of activation. In M:tG, things that
can be "activated" are activated abilities. Blocking is not an activated
ability, so it doesn't make sense to say "whenever you activate one or more
creatures block" you are blocking with the creatures. But then- why is it
using the word "block", that is only used to denote, well, blocking? This
creates a lot of ambiguity and another hallmark of M:tG ability text is that
it's very carefully engineered to remove ambiguity.

So this is just gibberish that doesn't make sense, not a new, fancy wording of
an old ability. Which makes sense because like the author of the article says,
there are very few examples of M:tG cards' ability text to train a neural net
to generate good quality new ability text.

~~~
IggleSniggle
I do actually agree that you are semantically correct here within the rules of
M:tG.

In the world of a set of cards that do not actually exist, however, it is easy
for me to imagine some older edition of M:tG that used this language to update
"Block" from being a creature "capability" into a fully fledged "Ability." If
that were the case, it would be an Activated Ability with zero mana cost
(except for those creatures that, say, required some cost in order to block
something).

I do recognize that if such a thing were introduced _today_ however, it would
be as a Keyword Ability like Shadow (maybe "Ethereal"?), perhaps with text
like:

\- Ethereal (This creature is unable to block)

\- {Cost}: This creature loses Ethereal

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
If I understand correctly you're saying this could well be an older version of
ability text? The problem with this is - well, there are two.

The first problem is that there never _was_ any time in the history of the
game when this kind of wording would make sense, mechanically or in any other
way. There has never been any ability text string that included the phrase
"whenever you activate one or more creatures block" in any past version of the
M:tG game. You could _imagine_ an alternative reality where M:tG cards were
printed with that phrase- but in our timeline, they never were. Even more so
because, like I say above, that phrase is ungrammatical. There was never any
time in M:tG history when Wizards of the Coast would have printed
ungrammatical gibberish on a card and called it "ability text" \- except
perhaps for Un-set cards (which were likely excluded from the training of the
Description Generator anyway). Further more, there was never any time in the
history of the game when that kind of wording would make sense- not with the
original rules, not with Sixth Edition rules, not with any ruleset before or
after.

[source: The Gatherer:
[https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Default.aspx](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Default.aspx)]

The second problem is that the "Description generator" (the neural net that
generates ability text) was trained on modern versions of cards' Oracle text
(taken from MTGJson which has up-to-date card text even for older cards, taken
from The Gatherer and other sources; for example, if you look at Alpha cards
on MTGJson, you'll see they've got the up-to-date wording). The phrase
"whenever you activate one or more creatures block" cannot be found on the
modern version of any M:tG card, so its generation by the Description
generator is a failure of the system to represent its training data accurately
and not a brilliant invention of an ancestral version of ability text that was
or might have been; if nothing else because that's not what the training of
the Description Generator was trying to do, it was just trying to generate
correct ability text according to what is on cards today.

~~~
IggleSniggle
Yes, indeed, you are correct on all counts. I think I am more generously
interpreting "whenever you activate one or more creatures block" as "whenever
you activate one or more creature's block" as "whenever you block with a
creature."

In this sense, it is very close to grammatical even if it is not close to the
ruleset, and imho it is close enough that it could be playable in a casual
game, which is really the litmus I am using.

Instead of, "is this convincing as a magic card," I am considering "is there a
way that this card could be made to work in a casual game, and still be both
balanced and understandable"

