|
No one is saying unify types. Keep the lists of types separate and explicit. Just allow creature types on non creature spells occasionally. We had this discussion last month and the best Digges was able to say was, "yeah we could do it, but it would be kind of annoying sometimes."
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Just allow creature types on non creature spells occasionally. So, Tribal then. That is literally what the Tribal type was created to do. It wasn't well-received, so we aren't very likely to see it again, but that's what Tribal is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
vOv posted:Imagecrafter can turn dudes into Auras, which may or may not wind up killing them depending on how you rewrite the Aura rules. Changelings can be targeted by abilities that say 'target Plains/Island/Swamp/Mountain/Forest'. Chained to the Rocks would be kind of funny; I, for one, enjoy the amusing imagery evoked of Emrakul chained up to a Mothdust Changeling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
No, just do it. No additional types or supertypes. Hordeling Outburst - Goblin Sorcery And the reason they stopped doing it is not because it wasn't well received. It's because they were unhappy they had to put tribal in front every time, which is dumb and confusing, and also because of consistency issues. Every spell from then on and maybe a big errata backwards too would need to be evaluated on whether it should get a creature type hitched on to it. What's the test for that? What threshold? Most token generators would work but it's kind of a mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:No, just do it. No additional types or supertypes. Because card types have certain subtypes. Because "Counter target Arcane spell" could counter a Changeling by the same metric. Because a fetchland could put Crib Swap onto the battlefield. Tribal IS consistent, that was the test and threshold. It's a type created to do the one thing you want to do, with only minor differences other than, indeed, the thing in question (Goyf being the only major one that comes to mind). If they were to do a massive backwards errata, just let them fix spells and planeswalkers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Tribal's real crime is that they've stopped writing "Elves you control get +1/+1" in favor of the clunkier "Elf creatures you control get +1/+1". Is that even necessary? Would anything actually suffer if a card tried to give Bitterblossom +1/+1 or vigilance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Because card types have certain subtypes. Because "Counter target Arcane spell" could counter a Changeling by the same metric. Because a fetchland could put Crib Swap onto the battlefield. Tribal IS consistent, that was the test and threshold. It's a type created to do the one thing you want to do, with only minor differences other than, indeed, the thing in question (Goyf being the only major one that comes to mind). Again, no. You're not combining lists. Changeling cards would only have creature subtypes. Arcane is not a creature type. Forest is not a creature type.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Remind me what we gain again from unifying types? Like we just spelled out a whole lot of things we lose, but I'm not sure what we're gaining here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Tribal's real crime is that they've stopped writing "Elves you control get +1/+1" in favor of the clunkier "Elf creatures you control get +1/+1". Doesn't it sill work if you have Opalescence? Sigma-X posted:Remind me what we gain again from unifying types? Like we just spelled out a whole lot of things we lose, but I'm not sure what we're gaining here? Literally the exact same thing we have now, except the cards don't have to have the apparently unspeakable Tribal card type.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Remind me what we gain again from unifying types? Like we just spelled out a whole lot of things we lose, but I'm not sure what we're gaining here? Reduced entropy I guess that's technically not a gain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Doesn't it sill work if you have Opalescence? Okay so no gains other than removing tribal as a type which has no gameplay effect other than boosting tarmogoyf by +1/+1 but we also add a bunch of confusion by removing the implicit subtype-implies-type. I'm assuming everyone in favor of unifying types also things combat damage should go on the stack again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Again, no. You're not combining lists. Changeling cards would only have creature subtypes. Arcane is not a creature type. Forest is not a creature type. You're describing a huge mess. "Oh yeah, Sorceries can be Goblins, but you can't have Arcane creatures, becauseeeeeeee THAT'S HOW IT IS." Yes, you get one more word on the card, but what you're suggesting would be terribly inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Doesn't it sill work if you have Opalescence? As far as I know, the only effect that using the "Elf creatures" templating instead of the "Elves" templating has on gameplay is that if you cast "Faeries you control get +1/+1 until end of turn" and then cast Opalescence, Bitterblossom is a 2/2 under the former and a 3/3 (until end of turn) under the latter. It's not clear to me why one is so preferable to the other that it was worth errataing a dozen years' of cards and saddling every tribal-related card with more verbose wording that never ever matters. I think the reason they changed it was that the rules manager was existentially terrified of the idea of an enchantment having vigilance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:As far as I know, the only effect that using the "Elf creatures" templating instead of the "Elves" templating has on gameplay is that if you cast "Faeries you control get +1/+1 until end of turn" and then cast Opalescence, Bitterblossom is a 2/2 under the former and a 3/3 (until end of turn) under the latter. Which is totally weird since Scion of Oona does in fact give Bitterblossom Shroud and, now that I think about, also gives Bitterblossom +1/+1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:It's not clear to me why one is so preferable to the other that it was worth errataing a dozen years' of cards and saddling every tribal-related card with more verbose wording that never ever matters. I think the reason they changed it was that the rules manager was existentially terrified of the idea of an enchantment having vigilance. It's generally poor design to reference things like this. If you put an ability on a card you should make an effort to make that ability actually have some function, because if it literally has no function it creates a source of confusion. Angry Grimace posted:Which is totally weird since Scion of Oona does in fact give Bitterblossom Shroud and, now that I think about, also gives Bitterblossom +1/+1. It doesn't. It has 2 separate abilities, +1/+1 only applies to creatures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:You're describing a huge mess. "Oh yeah, Sorceries can be Goblins, but you can't have Arcane creatures, becauseeeeeeee THAT'S HOW IT IS." Yes, you get one more word on the card, but what you're suggesting would be terribly inconsistent. How is it a mess? It's exactly like today except creature subtypes can go on all card types? You can't have arcane creatures because arcane is not a creature type. That's true today and no one complains. Maybe it will be more clear if I state it from the top. You have types and certain types have subtypes. (Like we do today) <Enumerate Lists of subtypes> (Like we do today) Enumerate which subtypes go with which types. The same as today except creature subtypes go with all types rather than creature plus tribal. That's it? Sure maybe it should be Sorcery Goblin to preserve subtypes coming after types on cards but w/e.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Ultima66 posted:It's generally poor design to reference things like this. If you put an ability on a card you should make an effort to make that ability actually have some function, because if it literally has no function it creates a source of confusion. Oops, you're right. But that's totally weird, right? Would it break the game if Bitterblossom got +1/+1?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Oops, you're right. But that's totally weird, right? Would it break the game if Bitterblossom got +1/+1? It would cause feel-bads for opponents of my Bitterblossom Opalescence EDH deck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
You could just put reminder text on it like (Goblin is a creature subtype. Goblin is not a sorcery subtype) idk
dragon enthusiast fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:It would cause feel-bads for opponents of my Bitterblossom Opalescence EDH deck. The question then is whether Bitterblossom animated by Opalescence gains the bonus from Scion. I actually don't know. I assume there's rules-gibberish that the Tribal type and the creature type are separate or something, but Tribal types are all creature types, so 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Oops, you're right. But that's totally weird, right? Would it break the game if Bitterblossom got +1/+1? It would not, but at the same time it creates a source of confusion. It would be ambiguous to players who did not have it explicitly explained if the Bitterblossom suddenly becomes a 1/1 creature or just stays an enchantment where +1/+1 has no effect at all. Like, Raging Ravine and Llanowar Reborn are already sources of confusion, and those cards explicitly give a reason as to why you'd want +1/+1 counters on them. Only giving creature abilities and +x/+x effects is not a functional thing, but it makes the effects of the card clearer. It's similar to why all creatures that give abilities to creatures now have that ability themselves and give all other creatures the ability, like Dragonlord Kolaghan. While it would save space to just say "Creatures you control have haste," the wording they use is clearer and a lot harder to get wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Also I think MaRo's current line on the issue is that people would look at Form of the Dragon and be like "why the heck isn't this a Dragon" and the benefits of a Grand Subtype Update aren't worth the confusion
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Ultima66 posted:It would not, but at the same time it creates a source of confusion. It would be ambiguous to players who did not have it explicitly explained if the Bitterblossom suddenly becomes a 1/1 creature or just stays an enchantment where +1/+1 has no effect at all. This seems really simple to solve, even by new player standards. Just add italics or rules text saying (Only creatures have power and toughness.) to entry level products for a while & update the comp rules to mention such. dragon enthusiast posted:Also I think MaRo's current line on the issue is that people would look at Form of the Dragon and be like "why the heck isn't this a Dragon" and the benefits of a Grand Subtype Update aren't worth the confusion Form of the Dragon isn't a Dragon because you become a Dragon on resolution!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Fun fact, you can solve roughly 87% of rules questions by banning Opalescence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
dragon enthusiast posted:Also I think MaRo's current line on the issue is that people would look at Form of the Dragon and be like "why the heck isn't this a Dragon" and the benefits of a Grand Subtype Update aren't worth the confusion This is definitely one of the concerns. No matter which way we go, some old cards will be anomalies. Either people will wonder why Goblin Offensive isn't a Goblin or think that Bitterblossom is kind of weird. Letting only a small handful of Lorwyn cards and like 1 card from Rise of the Eldrazi be anomalies minimizes the number of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Tribal is one of those things where if it had been designed into the game from the beginning it would be cool and good, but trying to shoehorn it in 15 years into the game ended up being awkward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Niton posted:This seems really simple to solve, even by new player standards. Just add italics or rules text saying (Only creatures have power and toughness.) to entry level products for a while & update the comp rules to mention such. This literally adds even more ugly words to cards, and the entire reason people don't like how it is right now is because of the addition of 1 ugly word to cards. I mean this poo poo is the reason people are notoriously bad designers. Letting +1/+1 lords affect tribal enchantments is like allowing Lightning Bolt to target any permanent. It functionally does almost nothing and serves only to confuse new players. The only reason people like it is because people think it's "cute" that you have to stop and think for a moment to realize it does nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
According to MTGO, the answer is yes, a Tribal Enchantment animated by Opalescence does in fact gain the Tribal type as its creature type:
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Tribal's real crime is that they've stopped writing "Elves you control get +1/+1" in favor of the clunkier "Elf creatures you control get +1/+1". I guarantee you that at least one person would think that it would turn a Tribal Artifact - Elf into a 1/1 vigilance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
I wasn't sure where the right place to post this is, so I thought I would ask you guys. I have one of those giant Magic cards (like the ones they show off at conventions to announce new cards), but I also have mounting wedding expenses and I feel it may be time to part with it. How much do you think I should ask for it? The card is Elemental Mastery, if that makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
I got married last week and have since convinced my wife to start playing Magic, so do that instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
fruitpunch posted:I got married last week and have since convinced my wife to start playing Magic, so do that instead. My fiancé and I both play already, we have matching mana symbol tattoos :3 But it's not like I can actually play with this giant rear end card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
I just found this thread. I've been playing magic since I was 8 years old. (Ice age) I took about 6 years off and just got back into things about a month ago. I've focused mostly on commander since getting back into it. I'm trying to teach my fiance but so far no luck. Any advice for teaching a total newbie? For me its all second nature and I'm not a very patient teacher unfortunately
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
anotherblownsave posted:I just found this thread. I've been playing magic since I was 8 years old. (Ice age) I took about 6 years off and just got back into things about a month ago. I've focused mostly on commander since getting back into it. I'm trying to teach my fiance but so far no luck. Any advice for teaching a total newbie? For me its all second nature and I'm not a very patient teacher unfortunately Duels of the Planeswalkers 2013. There are newer versions but they're garbage.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Here's my buddy's ahh, 'tournament report' you could call it, from the pro tour. It's different and I think it says a lot about our community: http://legendstech.tumblr.com/post/117807127391/the-pt-sucks e: turns out Speck cheated in for funsies drafts too. Another friend of mine got t1'ed against him back at GP Vancouver...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Here's my buddy's ahh, 'tournament report' you could call it, from the pro tour. It's different and I think it says a lot about our community: We have found the Ur-Goon. There is almost nothing redeeming about that article, the amount of self-loathing is a critical mass of wtf.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Here's my buddy's ahh, 'tournament report' you could call it, from the pro tour. It's different and I think it says a lot about our community: point me to the parts of that wall of text that are funny or good, tia
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Its not trying to be funny it's trying to be insightful and thought provoking.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
It's definitely nice to hear a different perspective on the PT
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Its not trying to be funny it's trying to be insightful and thought provoking. It's a wall of depression and words someone in a college english class would pepper their essays with to seem profound.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 01:08
|
|
