Why did they nerf indestructible? It wasn't that broken

File: avacyn.jpg (629KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 1200x900px

>>47042327
They didn't. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>47042503
>>47042327

Possibly anon means the M14 rules change (where Indestructible became a keyword ability)? And if so, it's because the absolutely inconsequential drop in power is worth having the cards plays the way everyone expects them to anyway...

>>47042503
Before they changed indestructible to a key ability, if something would change your creature into some other type and make it lose all abilities, it would still be indestructible. But, now that it's a key ability it will lose indestructible.

>>47042627
>>47042582
Ah, so it made Turn to Frog and that ilk marginally better, not anything actually relevant.

>>47042627
This is only relevant to about 15 cards among the countless thousands of Magic cards in existence. I don't think it's a big deal.

>>47042582
I thought it was about how now most of the cards just exile instead of destroy

>>47042758
Snakeform, bitch!

>>47042627
That only applied when it was something else giving the indestructability - Darksteel Colossus would still lose it from various lose all ability cards because its own ability was what was granting it indestructability

>>47043141
No it didn't. Because it wasn't an ability to lose. It simply was indestructible at all times. That is why they changed Indestructible to a keyword ability.

>>47044537
A card like Snakeform blanks all the text on the card, including the part that says 'Darksteel Colossus is indestructable', just like how it also blanks 'Tarmogoyf's power is equal to the number of card types among cards in all graveyards and its toughness is equal to that number plus 1' - they're characteristic defining abilities, but they are still abilities. There was nothing special about being indestructable that prevented it from being taken away on a card that was indestructable by its own ability. This is also why all 'lose all abilities' cards set power and toughness, because most characteristic defining abilities involve power and toughness.
What DID change was that a card that said 'Target creature is indestructable' would not be overwritten, but now says 'Target creature has indestructable' which does get overwritten if it's hit with a snakeform or similar afterwards.

>>47043087
my brother and I love this card
bippity boppity SNAKE

File: 1462157955201.png (83KB, 500x551px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x551px

>>47042627
>>47044537
/tg/ - the only Magic community dumb enough to think non-keyword abilities aren't abilities.

File: seal-of-approval.jpg (26KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x332px

>>47047684

So why does -X/-X get around indestructable again?

>>47048106
state based effect, not destruction.

>>47048106
Because nothing is being destroyed.

>>47048131
this is close, but not on it. Being destroyed for having lethal damage marked on the creature is also a state based action.

>>47048131
In Magic "destroy" literally just means "moves from the battlefield to the graveyard."

>>47048306

No, that is not true. You are doing that all B is A therefore all A is B error. It isn't destroyed unless it was put into the graveyard by lethal damage or an effect that says "destroy" or "destroyed". Sacrificed creatures, for example, go to the graveyard without being destroyed. Not all B>G transfers count as destruction.

>>47048306
That's "dies". "Destruction" causes "dies", but is not the only thing that does.

>>47048106
Because it's easy to figure out how immunity to destroy effects/dying from damage works, but 0 toughness is a bit wonkier. As well, they wanted there to be some ways of dealing with indestructables while preventing the most common ways of doing so.

>>47042327
Because it isn't primarily U's thing therefore it needed to be taken down a notch