Does this template change mean anything? Besides being confusing?

Create is just a new shorthand like "dies" or "exiled"
All it does is save space on cards.

Please tell me that's not real

File: 4.jpg (67KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 312x445px

>>48469247
>Let's show off a new template for wording tokens on an FNM promo!
It seems like such an odd timing, EMN would have been fine with this, they've made worse decisions when it comes to putting new templating into sets.

>>48469247

Yuck! Was this really necessary?

>>48469292
Sweet let's save some space and have judge calls double.

>>48469351
I get the feeling it's something they decided to do for Kaladesh, but didn't squeeze it in early enough to get it into EMN. You'll probably be "creating" a lot of artifact creature tokens.

>>48469411
>>48469550
So, how are you guys liking "dies" as wording? Has it noticeably caused a lot of confusion or judge intervention?

>>48469750
This is probably correct.

>>48469247
I like it better this way. Its just as comprehensible and more to the point.

This is a good change because saying the same thing in less space opens room for more complex card design.

>>48469247
Source? Checked twitter, FNM promos for August and September, googled it, and nothing

>>48469351
I, for one, like anus and wish it received support every other set if not a few cards every expansion.

The only thing would be the need something to run with colorless that is not Eldrazi. Maybe true Colorless artifacts?

>>48469750
>>48469878
Makes a lot of sense, considering how "dies" immediately preceded Innistrad.

Note how "dies" streamlines the wording for Morbid, so there's probably a pretty good chance we'll be getting some sort of effect that interacts or cares about "creating" tokens.

>>48469247
They are rewording things so they can have riggers assembling contraptions in Kaladesh.

>>48469978
>Inb4 create contraptions

>>48469839
Dies is intuitive. It makes sense logically. And is easy to explain shorthand when compared to other older cards that reference the graveyard.

This makes it sound like a whole new mechanic or a rules change. Mostly people questioning if things still etb.

See when dies came around. All creatures "die". But with create not all things that etb are created.

>>48470051
Honestly, "summoning" a creature vs "creating" a token seems fairly intuitive to me.

>>48470051
And not all things that are put into your graveyard from the battlefield "die".

>>48470051
>Dies is intuitive
>Yet Create is not
You are just a sad little man scared of change.

>>48470080
When is that?

>>48470080
They technically do, actually. What did is shorthand for all permanennts can do. You could have an enchantment card refer to itself dying if you wanted. The action is the same. It's mostly for flavor that it is creature only. Well that and common sense.

>>48470165
Noncreature permanents.

>>48470092
Everyone is. Stop projecting you dumb faggot.

>projecting
>calls someone a faggot

>>48470187
Silly me, I didn't notice what you meant before.

At least this makes some reprints like Endrek Sahr and Geralf sound cooler.

Yet 'mill' is still not a thing.

>>48469247
I see no problem with this, we've all just been saying things "make" tokens for years anyway.

File: image.jpg (60KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 303x311px

>>48470244
"Projecting" would mean I too am scared of change.

But even if I were to be afraid of it, it's not so bad that I can't even stand a minor vocabulary change in my favourite children's card game.

I pity you.

>>48470478
Mill is not as intuitive as "die" or "create".

>>48470478
Mill is slang originated within the community, it wouldn't make the first bit of sense for it to appear in the cards because they'd be much harder to understand for newcomers.

>i need to whine on every single innane bullshit because muh wijjard make magic deeeeeeddddd

>>48470478
Half of it is that they don't have a good word for it. You need something that accurately describes the action to someone who is opening their first set of packs and has not ever used a "mill" card before, otherwise you're going to have to slap it in as reminder text and waste more space than you saved. They've said in the past they regret not structuring the game in such a way that you can "discard" cards from the top of your library.

>>48470478
I can see why they won't do that, since mill as a term is slang that comes from a card and not the actual word's definition. Having a different word would be fine, but there isn't really a word that's intuitive to the action of mill that comes to mind.

>>48470506
Ah the classic "insult someone by insulting the game I play"
Children's card game just makes you sound petty AF. I'm assuming you're really poor and just bitter at magic in general.

Also every human on earth is afraid of any change in the slightest. Especially when its unexpected. Stop trying to act tough. Everyone knows you's a bitch.

>>48469995
>implying we'll get anything cool from future sight
>ever

>>48470695
>Everyone knows you's a bitch
Said the nigger freaking out over a templating change.

>>48470882
We got Delve.

Look how that went.

>>48469247
Why isn't it 4UB?

>>48470910
Said like someone who just made 5 dollars based on your response.

I told a freind how easy it is to be called a nigger on 4 Chan and he didn't beleive me.

Thanks for the $5 new friend.

>>48470981
Because that would make it significant;y worse in draft, where it functions as a build-around uncommon for three different color pairs.

>>48470981
Because zombies on Innistrad are also Blue, and caring about Instants & Sorceries in the graveyard is Blue and Red.

>>48471060
Anything you say then, wonderbread. Enjoy your fin.

File: image.jpg (80KB, 701x312px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 701x312px

>>48470695
>Ah the classic "insult someone by insulting the game I play"
This is either poor grammar or logic simply does not follow. There is no way in which calling magic a 'children's card game' is an insult towards you, specially not when the expression is a dank meme and I play the game too.

Assuming I'm bitter or poor are also ad hominem assumptions based on your own prejudice towards other magic players and, particularly other /tg/ users rather than my circumstance (which you know nothing of) or any basis on reality.

And even if everyone really is afraid of change in some way deep inside (which A) I did not deny and B) Cannot be proved or refuted), only a handful could be so terrified of it to have the sort of visceral reactions towards a wording change that are displayed on this thread.

In chanspeak, you could say you are "delusional", "autistic", "reaching" and yes, "projecting" too, since you seem so adamant on inscribing your own insecurity onto myself. Everybody's scared to a point, but men are not born equal. Your weakness and cowardice are your own and they have nothing to do with me.

>>48471119
>reaching
Not the anon you're responding to, but thank you for reminding me that word exists.

>>48471119
So we you want to get all hot shit on me. Let's have a pissing contest then.

I'll bust out how much cash I have in my possession at this moment and my top 10 most valuable cards. Time stamp and post.
This is a challenge. You may choose to decline.

As for prooving if you ate scared. I can't prove this change has any degree of effect on you. But it's proven any change however large or small can cause simple anxiety to full fledge panic attacks.

While I simply dislike change for the sake of it being change. You will never admit your true feelings on the subject.

Let me know of the challenge is accepted.

File: image.jpg (71KB, 460x481px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 460x481px

>>48470910
>>48471060
Ah, this is perfect proof of what I was talking about. You just ascribed some traits to a fictitious construct of representing me and then proceeded to take anyone replying to you as if it were said person due to anonymity. That's quite the definition of projecting.

For more evidence, let me point at your last sentence, "new friend". With this, you are shaping, defining the construct without actually caring wether those traits are applicable in the least. In other words, its all a big strawman for you to beat on and make you feel better about yourself.

Which, no matter how you look at it, is incredibly petty.

>>48471253
>that challenge
ha ha what am i even reading

The amount of autism in this thread in amazing.

>>48471307
Dunno if this is the poor fag I'm argueing with. If it is I assume the challenge is declined?

I said you were petty because you can't afford cards. You said I was wrong. Here's where you prove it.

>>48471368
you're not very smart my dude

>>48470051

Not all things that ETB are created but all things that are created ETB. This is not confusing, stop whining about things that are clearly positive or neutral at worst.

>>48471253
And this, fa/tg/uys of the world, is the definition of childishness. Not only its pointless to determine who is richer in the conversation's context, but it also shows a very bleak, white and black vision of the world where money / might makes right.

Still, I'll take you up on that so that I may humilliate you. On one condition, out with magic cards, show me your most valuable possession of them all.

Poor or rich has nothing to do with Magic cards after all.

>>48471404
Cool.
*continues counting cash*

>>48471447
>he does not have someone to count cash for him
fucking poorfag

>>48471441
That's not what I challenged.

You could take a shit and call it sentimental value.

This argument is about magic. I said you were bitter about the game because the lack of valueable cards. You said "ad hominem"
The cash is irrelevant really. Just stack up top 10 cards and let the winner take it.

I'm gracious in defeat.

>>48471441
I'd like to ad. Money is what keeps this world and the people in it going. Don't act like it doesn't.

itt: The Amazing Autismo confuses the entire thread by arguing with himself

>>48471478
he said "strawman," too, interestingly

>>48470478
Hell, they could even call it "dump" to avoid any references to cards from which the slang originated. "Cast Balustrade spy, etb trigger targets me, dump my deck?"

>>48471489

Actually it doesn't, social status does. A lot of money will gain you a lot of social status (itself actually being an abstract system designed to calculate status) but that isn't the only route and as long as you have a high enough social status you will never be wanting. If you're an American with an unimportant job it's easy to see how you'd miss the distinction since the only way you can really get social status is money but the circumstances aren't the same for everyone.

>>48471564
Well. I'm not american. Guess that ends your theory.

>m-money isn't everything
>y-yoi don't need it to get by

True poorfag.

File: rules note - conquering dragons does not involve them dying.jpg (29KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 223x310px

>>48469247
It's far clearer than it used to be.

When you put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield, you take it from your hand and put it on the table. When you put a creature card from your opponent's graveyard onto the battlefield, you take it out of their graveyard and put it on the table. When you create a token that's a copy of target creature, where do you take the copy from? Do you get it from your hand? Do you search your library? Your opponent's library? For us experienced players this is obvious, but it's quite counterintuitive for new players who've never heard of 'tokens' in the context of Magic before.

>>48470051
>>48470080
>>48470184
Besides obvious newbie misunderstandings ("nuh-uh! My enchantment is no longer a creature so it didn't die when going to the graveyard!", exile != dies, how does a creature not die from Remove Soul, etc), there are edge cases where creatures, counterintuitively enough, do not die. Progenitus, for example, never hits the graveyard and thus does not die, nor does any creature while Leyline of the Void is on the table. Tricks like flicker -> put into graveyard also do not count as 'dies' even though it definitely feels like it.

>>48470092
>>48470244
>>48470506
>>48470695
>>48470910
>>48471060
>>48471096
>>48471119
>>48471253
>>48471307
Shut the fuck up.

>>48471619

Yeah, that was an example of why you might not understand how things work, not the only context in which in you might not understand things. It was a way of giving you an out, not an attack. If you'd prefer to be dumb for no reason that's fine too.

>>48471636
How is 'create' any more confusing than 'put' in that context? All of those questions apply just as much if a card tells you to put a token that's a copy onto the battlefield.

If anything, create is better, because it carries the implication that you're getting an object that wasn't in the game at all up until this point, rather than looking through your hand or library for it.

>>48470695
>>48471119
>>48471253
>all change of any sort is always bad and triggering to everyone in the world
>everyone who is not affected by change is a liar

Are you legit on the spectrum? You're obviously having problems with both forming empathetic bonds and adapting to changes in your environment just like an autist would.

>>48471909
You look like you were trying to argue against him, but you're actually in agreement.

>>48471909
That's what I'm saying. It makes no sense to 'put onto the battlefield' something that doesn't exist yet.

>>48469247
So with this new wording, do the tokens ETB, or are they just manifested inside the battlefield with no ETB abilities being triggered?

>>48472050
Yes, tokens enter the battlefield when created. It is not a functional change, just a cosmetic one. Everything works exactly the same as it already did.

What the hell is going on in this thread

>>48469839
It actually has, mostly on wether a creature dies when it leaves the battlefiel or is put in the graveyard since those are different times that affect different cards and can be messed with.

>>48472108
People being angry at very inconsequential things.

>>48471960
>>48472045
Ah, sorry. I must have misread. Then yeah, we agree. Create makes way more sense in the context of tokens, since they're taken from outside the game.

>>48472382
thhhiiiiiiiisssssssss for me

>>48469247
I like this wording change more than "dies", and I didn't mind "dies" that much to begin with.

Anyone asking "do tokens still enter the battlefield?" is obviously retarded and it should be easy for people who don't already know to understand.

>>48472382
>>48472541
Are you saying someone is so stupid they have to ask if a creature dies when it's unsummoned?

>>48469839
So indestructible creatures can now die from combat damage?

>>48472639
How does someone reach that conclusion?

>>48471489
I backpack between spain and s.korea on odd years, without money.
Money only makes your world go round when you're an office drone with more debts than net worth. The good ol' jewless system of helping others and building community links is still very prevalent and will live on beyond our modern economy to the bankster's woe.

>>48472601
>I Doom Blade your shit.
>Ok, Blood Artist goes off because my shit died.
>Lol no, Rest in Peace removes it before it touches the graveyard!
>BUT IT DIED!
>JUDGE!
Don't be dense, there's a lot of other situations that make "when does a creature actually -DIE-?" a sensible question.

Can the people that were having a pissing contest earlier agree on the challenge and provide their images? I know they were derailing the thread, but I know that I'm not the only anon who is interested in seeing how this all turns out.

>>48472805
get out of here you fucking hippie

>>48472874
And those are all clear cut and take barely any explanation.

There are people complaining that NWO is insulting and it shouldn't matter how complex the game is, then there are people complaining that "dies" and "create" are too complicated and shouldn't have been introduced. Just how smart does the average MtG player believe the average MtG player is?

>>48469247
>Besides being confusing?
Maybe if your mom heavily abused substances while she was pregnant and your dad used to smack you in the head.

>>48472901
I'd love to see what the guy issuing the challenge had for his trump cards. It'll probably be the most straightforward "look at me, Vintage Player Jim", some embarrassingly basic shit, or just Judge Foils.

>>48472977
I can see it being the power 9 printed in comic sans.

File: nigger.jpg (32KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 223x310px

>>48469247
>create ... creature token
What if
>assembly... artifact token

>>48469995
>>48470022
But contraptions aren't created, they're assembled.

File: 1468201497783.png (5KB, 275x275px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 275x275px

I scrolled a bit through the thread but all I saw was pic related. Is this confirmed or has someone merely taken their shitposting to new heights?

>>48470952
>We got Delve.

And it was awesome. They banned everything fun that was Delve before Legacy had a chance to adapt.

>>48469247
When I first read this card it sounded gross and wrong. Here's the thing, though.

Years and years ago when I first started playing collectible card games, I remember reading shit like "Put a token into play" or "put a counter on etc." And thinking that those were actual physical objects that I did not have any of, and thus didn't play those cards. It kinda fucked me up for a bit there. I think that while Create sounds abhorrent to current me, past me would have understood it a lot easier.

>>48472805
Look, good on you and all for traveling on a budget.

But here's the deal, if you want to experience some really cool shit, you need money. The best experiences I've had traveling I needed money to access it: hot springs, fine food and wine, massages, transportation to far off places, cooking lessons, access to craftsmanship that no longer exists in North America, and so on and so forth.

Quite frankly I will never stay at a hostel again. The precautions you have to go through to make sure nobody steals your shit is ridiculous in addition to the fact that you're essentially camping. I will pay money for a locked door and private closet to myself. I will pay money to ensure that the friends I'm staying with have a good time with me.

I didn't travel across the world to walk everywhere. I didn't travel to go camping in urban areas (unless it was specifically to go camping). I didn't take precious time out of my free time to travel to limit my experiences based on money - I wouldn't have gone if I was broke.

The thing about backpacking is that you come back with fucking nothing. You were just there. You tell some stories about having some drinks with people, about random people you met, maybe some friends you made, and some photos. It may impress the average person who doesn't travel but it doesn't impress me when you can't give me a compelling reason to visit a place because you didn't really do anything unique. I mean if you make friends that's great. But I already made my friends before going because I'm going to visit them. And the friends I make are friends of friends.

>>48472904
Go back to the oven shekelstein.

>>48469247
Create sounds way more flavorful. It just "clicks". You're a wizard, creating your zombies, thopters, carnivores, pests. It's way cooler.

>>48469975
I liked it as well I just wish they introduced in bfz instead of gatewatch it fits with the otherness of eldrazi more than ingest.

>>48472977
Dosent being a vintage player come automatically with some bragging rights? I mean if your packing heat of course.

>>48469975
I detest the change to the colorless icon BECAUSE they didn't continue to use it as an evergreen mechanic after Eldrazi. Thanks for fucking nothing Wizards. It's just another mechanic that is thrown out there as a flavor-of-the-month and they're going to revisit sometime years down the line.

All it did was shit up draft. Fantastic.

>>48473120
Yeah, you're not getting the point.
Money looks so important to you because it lets you escape from your monotonous life into luxury. I travel without a dime once a couple years because the travel life you're describing is my everyday life.

Unless you're really caught in the jew's game (through debts mostly), the more money you have, the less meaningful it is past the covering of necessities, there is a limit to how much better money can make your life despite american capitalism's fanatical devotion to wealth hoarding. On the other hand the experience of having to find alternative ways to become worth a bed or a dinner to someone else when you don't have a cent on you builds you up as a person.

>>48473320
Are you saying you travel so you can experience what it is like to live off nothing because you live a regular life of relative luxury regularly? I'm just working under the premise that you must live in Paris or New York or the equivalent.

I'm not poor but I grew up poor. But I live a life of self-imposed frugalness just so I can do outrageous things in my free time.

It makes no sense to me why you would find it a worthwhile experience struggling off no money traveling instead of using the money you obviously have to experience the best those countries have to offer.

Being poor is being poor, it doesn't matter where you live it's the same. Trying to find cheap food every day is the same in this country as it is in the next. I completely fail to see how the challenges of being completely broke while traveling builds character and how being poor is a novelty. Like I say, having nothing is the same no matter what part of the world you're in; "adventures in poverty" sounds ridiculous.

I'm not responding to your anti-capitalist statements. I don't really care what you think on that front. I just don't agree that there is any novelty in being poor.

>>48472674
Because indestructible creatures are immune to being destroyed, not killed.

>>48473279
It shows you have money, but it doesn't really make you that distinct.

>>48473506
Let's be specific with our words here. Being "killed" does not exist in Magic.

"Dying" translates to "put into the graveyard from the battlefield". "Destroy" refers to an effect that puts something into the graveyard from the battlefield. Indestructible creatures can die but they can't be effected by Destroy effects.

>>48469247
New wording flows vastly better. The old one:

Put a <2/2 black Zombie creature token> onto the battlefield <tapped> for each instant and sorcery card in your graveyard.

New:
Create a <tapped 2/2 black zombie creature token> for each instant and sorcery in your graveyard.

It was a problem that was there as soon as 'battlefield' was added to the game, it's just a very long and clunky word that takes up a lot of real estate in card text.

>>48471478
>That's not what I challenged.
As the challenger, you issued a challenge, as the challenged, I have the right to lay my own terms. That's the way it's always been.

Now you can either accept or chicken out, your call.

>You could take a shit and call it sentimental value.
Ahahahaha, I really wouldn't worry about that. You are the one who brought this up, but now that you did, I will play this game fairly and I will crush you completely so your defeat is absolute.

>This argument is about magic.
Not quite. The argument is actually about a wording change IN magic. You then got sidetracked like simple minds do. In other words, you called me poor implying such a thing could somehow have an impact on my thoughts regarding the use of "create" in magic cards.

You should realize that by this point that the money or cards we have are irrelevant for the discussion so we might as well up the stakes.

>>48471489
Again, even if it does, money is wholly irrelevant for this discussion and your incapacity to see it any other way shows how much of a narrow-sighted individual you truly are.

>>48473493
>It makes no sense to me why you would find it a worthwhile experience struggling off no money traveling instead of using the money you obviously have to experience the best those countries have to offer.
I live in Monaco.

>>48473682
The only situation I don't like it is for "tapped and attacking" tokens.

>Create two tapped and attacking 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens.
>Create two attacking tapped 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens.
>Create two tapped 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens attacking?

>>48473682
I like the old wording better. Create implies that it doesn't etb.

>>48471636
>Pull from eternity
MORE JHOIRA HATE THANKS SENPAI

>>48473596
The best example of that would be that you can sacrifice an indestructible creature, in which case it would die.

>>48471935
I'm actually legit on the spectrum.

But then again, I'm the one who's not scared of change.

>>48473847
It's
>Create 2 1/1 white Soldier tokens tapped and attacking.

>>48473825
I think you have a unique perspective on life that is shared by few other people in this world. Your nation has no income tax and you are probably richer than probably everyone here.

It's difficult to take your opinions about the character-building benefits of poverty-vacations seriously.

Thanks for talking though.

I like this as an idea but one thing that kind of bugs me is, do you "create" all creatures? Do enters the battlefield triggers now say when you "create" a creature or when a creature is "created"? If not, then while "put x token onto the battlefield" and "when x enters the battlefield" were not the same but meant the same thing functionally and read similarly to each other. This doesn't read at all similarly. We KNOW it counts as entering the battlefield but unless the wording is changed for all this stuff it seems weird that they made the disconnect.

I also don't love the use of "create" over "summon" but if all creatures are "created" now it's probably slightly more linguistically correct, if they're still going with creatures being aether replications. "Summon" still works but it's slightly less clear since it "could" mean actually pulling the creature from where it's from rather than being "created" from scratch. I just wish they'd used summon since the language had already been a part of magic.

Do we now have to change the wording of etb effects to "when you create"

>>48473934
But that doesn't agree with the only example that we have.
>tapped 2/2 black Zombie creature token

>>48473996
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you "create" tokens specifically, on account of them sometimes not being actual physical cards that you can put down on the table.

>>48473682
>battlefield
What, would you rather that you simply put stuff into play in the in-play zone? Shit was confusing.

Kind of like how the removed-from-the-game zone isn't actually fully removed from the game.

Battlefield and Exile fit better with Graveyard either way, IMHO.

>>48474039
Then I have no fucking clue.

>>48474065
This is how I'm thinking it is now, but I just really don't like that it reads less like it counts for "enters the battlefield" triggers. The old wording didn't technically say they "enter the battlefield" but it read more similarly "put (..) onto the battlefield) so it felt more natural. It's really nitpicky as is the create versus summon thing and it's not really a big deal. Just sort of bugs me is all.

>yfw it's fake

File: Tolsimir Wolfsblood.jpg (34KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 223x310px

>>48473682
>Put a <2/2 black Zombie creature token> onto the battlefield <tapped> for each instant and sorcery card in your graveyard.
>
>New:
>Create a <tapped 2/2 black zombie creature token> for each instant and sorcery in your graveyard.

Dropping words is cheating, anon. They're still instant and sorcery CARDS.

>>48473847
How about
>Create two tapped 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens. They are attacking.
Tapped and attacking tokens suddenly become a lot more threatening and awesome. (Yes, I love 'the land continues to burn'.)

>>48473885
Friend, Pull From Eternity was printed two sets before Jhoira. And it WAS specifically made to hate on Suspend (hence the flavor text).

>>48473996
>I like this as an idea but one thing that kind of bugs me is, do you "create" all creatures?
I'm sure 'create' on cards will only be used for tokens. Flavor-wise it makes sense, as in almost all cases you are creating the tokens ('Scatter the Seeds' is not about bringing in Saprolings from elsewhere; they came into existence right there). In the case of companion tokens (as with, for example, Tolsimir Wolfblood), you could argue that a replication of the companion comes into existence as a side effect of the summoning.

Stuff like Dark Depths ('create Marit Lage', yeah right) is a lot harder to explain, though.

>>48474065
>battlefield
For clarification, it was a great move, and I don't think there was really many other words that would work. It was definitely a good change. It still doesn't flow all that well in a lot of cases. This change really feels very similar to dies, as it makes the actions simpler to parse while letting more attention fall on what actually happens.

>>48469966
FNM October.

>>48474351
You "create" all creatures. They flip flop around a lot depending on what story they want to tell but by and large the accepted flavor consensus is that creatures, all creatures, are constructs pulled from the aether made with the shape and abilities of something the planeswalker has committed to memory. This is what allows you to play older versiosn of legendaries mechanically, for example, as planeswalkers can pull a memory of what they once were as well as however they may currently be like. I do believe "create" may only be for tokens, but if it is I just don't like that it doesn't involve the word battlefield somehow to make it ring closer to "enters the battlefield".

>>48474405
No, you summon creatures and you make tokens. I think it's a very flavorful difference.
One takes the creature from its original timeline and places it on the battlefield, which makes your summons somewhat special.
The other simply created with your powers, it's not taken from anywhere.

This is making me speculate that Kaladesh will have a strong token theme to it, even if it isn't the main attraction.
>SOI gives us Clue tokens, in form of Artifacts
>EMA gives us Eldrazi Horrors, which have a fair amount of producers.

>>48473311
You mean mechanic as in for costs? Because anything that produces colorless mana still uses the symbol. I've sought out Eternal Masters prints of mana rocks specifically because they use the updated template and expect to do the same with Sol Rings in C16.

>>48474469
Er, no. You don't remove ("summon" in context though it can work for either, and again I assume this is why they went with "create" over "summon" since summon is more ambiguous) creature spells from their original location. All creatures are aether constructs in current Magic story, though again they play fast and loose with it depending on the kind of story they want to tell (Kiora had a story relatively recently about her needing to "befriend" Arixmethes to go along with her to Battle for Zendikar even though the current lore doesn't have creatures physically pulled from their location, just for the dramatic tension more than matching the flavor exactly). That's currently the most prolific interpretation, but as Doug has said about it before, it "depends on what novel you read".

>>48474622
>All creatures are aether constructs
Except for tokens. Saprolings are sprouted, zombies are raised, Eldrazi tokens are spawned. Unlike summoned creatures, these are the real things.

>>48474720
This makes even less sense to use the wording "create" for tokens then if that's what you actually meant. I don't know what the flavor explanation for tokens has been recently. I've always assumed it was mostly just a mechanical seperation than a flavor one. In fact that explanation now that I think about it doesn't really work flavorfully. You use a sliver token making spell, if token spells call random creatures from the environment, what if you are on a plane without slivers?

File: frazzled-editor.jpg (77KB, 480x680px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 480x680px

>>48469247
How am I supposed to have a consistent collection?

I had to sell off all my cards that weren't reprinted with Vigilance, Reach, Lifelink, Deathtouch, and the nwo version of oblivion ring.

Then they came out with the m15 card frame. Nothing is more triggering than building a deck with non-matching cardframes, so there goes all my 8th edition frames and replacing favorites from commander, modern/eternal masters, and recent duel decks.

THEN they go and change the colorless mana symbol, it's so hideous when half of the new zendikar block has it and the other half doesn't; mismatching tokens and mechanics in adjacent sets? I know my ocpd is crippling, but that is inexcusable. I had to remove any land that didn't produce the sphincter from my collection.

NOW I have to go through and retcon anything that produces tokens as my collection will basically start all over again from kaladesh because seeing "Put X tokens on the battlefield" and "Create X tokens" simultaneously knowing they are exactly the same will make me flip.

I'm out of paper bags.

>>48473852

If you're retarded maybe.

>>48474793
I suppose the relatively sane thing to do as someone with brain problems like yours might be to exclusively collect cards from before one or more of those changes rather than cards after them.

>>48474793
This is how you force autists to keep buying superfluous shit.

>>48469351
>eldrazis are blue now
Just why?

>>48469247
Whoa fuck man. I KNOW what is going on and it "works" but "Create" fucking sucks ass. It leaves so much open ended that should not be open ended. If they uses it as the new standard I'm going to hear "JUDGE!!!! When he creates a zombie does it enter the battle field or is it like when you gain control of an opponents creature?" for fucking weeks.

What was wrong with the wording as is? Was "Put a X onto the battlefield to much?" It made perfect sense and left nothing open ended.

>>48469916
Oh you poor poor naive child. They want that space for their wonderful flavor text! Besides 70% of the cards in each set are banned from being complex in any way. Complexity is bad you know! Someone could get confused and we dont want that now do we?

>>48475409
"create" saves text box real estate by a good chunk. I also don't think it's going to be that big of a nightmare expect by people who explicitly want to annoy others. It's a very simple thing to understand.

>>48472936

Getting into something of a side topic here (not that it matters in this thread) but I don't think it's too hard to reconcile these statements. Dies and create are easy to understand shorthands for things that happen a lot, they are good for the game and don't particularly make it any more difficult to learn. NWO often leads to less interesting designs on average in the name of simplification, the game can afford to print a higher density of cool, unique or "complex" cards than it currently is and probably should if it wants to stay interesting thousands upon thousands of cards in. New player will be confused by things and need to ask questions, but that's alright because you should expect that of players new to any game.

There's nothing inconsistent about holding all of those things to be true.

>>48473045

It took two seconds of googling to confirm that this is a real thing. Stop being so lazy.

>>48475409
>for fucking weeks.
I think you overestimate.
Do you really think you're the only one competent enough to get it? Do you think so many people will go without discussing this with anyone who knows what they're talking about for entire weeks?

The other important thing to note here is that we have one (1) card with the Create formatting as of now. It's a reprint, so it's obvious that it functions the same way. It's not particularly tournament viable and it can't be drafted, so its not going to come up in actual events, and Kaladesh isn't coming for MONTHS. People have all the time in the world to hear about the change before it becomes an actual practical problem.

>>48475496
That's the problem though. Its TOO simple. Were coming from clear cut instructions that tell you exactly what to do and what happens for all other relevant effects to a single word. That's whats going to throw people off. It also doesn't help that most MTG players I have played with that aren't kids are a fucking stickler for wording and what exactly happens and the order. Even if the all get what is going on its going to throw people off for a while as they re read cards.

>>48473852

No, it doesn't. It doesn't imply anything in either direction, it's just a word. Once you're the meaning of the word you should never need to be told again.

>>48470187
But then, doesn't every single card that references "dying" say "when a creature dies", "when this creature dies", etc?

I.e., confusion about whether or not a noncreature permanent can die, isn't something that should come up.

>>48475549
>I don't think it's too hard to reconcile these statements.

You're in favor of the changes and against the NWO. To reconcile those statements, you'd have to provide a logical viewpoint to be against the formatting changes and also against the NWO.

>>48475562
No I dont but I also remember that for weeks every weekend I played I heard someone ask someone else it colorless producing lands and artifacts now make anus mana and if there was a difference. MTG players are not very good at handling format changes that dont really change anything.

People are going to see "create" and not "put X onto the battlefield" and are going to think its something completely different or just not make the full connection.

In time it will all even out and everything will be good but for those few weeks when the new format really starts seeing use I promise its all I will hear for a while since it just doesn't change anything when people will expect change.

>>48475616

Do you even know what NWO is? It has nothing to do with formatting and word choice, it's about what sorts of designs they allow themselves to print at lower rarities both for the sake of limited and for the sake of not overwhelming a new player with "complex" cards when they open their first pack. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with saying "I think they can afford to print more complex commons and uncommons on average than they are currently doing" and "I think it's a good idea to come up with new terms that simplify text boxes," those are entirely different topics that aren't even vaguely at odds with one another.

>>48475616
Formatting is fucking formatting, NWO has actual tangible mechanical impact.

File: Image.ashx.jpg (35KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 223x310px

so this would then be:

>When Hunted Dragon enters the battlefield, target opponent creates three 2/2 white Knight creature tokens with first strike.

"puts" + "onto the battlefield" - "creates" = text space, I guess.

>>48475677
I think in most cases it might save a line, which is somewhat significant in terms of magic cards.

>>48475677
That wasn't even the card text, but the oracle text.

>>48475606
But then, won't every single card that references "creating" say "create a token"?

>>48475628
>I also remember that for weeks every weekend I played I heard someone ask someone else it colorless producing lands and artifacts now make anus mana and if there was a difference.

To which the answers are, respectively "yes, and no". It takes two seconds to explain. This should take exactly as much time.

>When you create a token, does it enter the battlefield?
>Yes
>Oh

Here's the thing besides that. These weeks it's going to take for people to get acclimated? They start right now. This is an FNM promo, so it's going to be in player's hands, but they're not going to stop a game to ask any questions about it because it won't be relevant to any games during the duration of those weeks.

>>48475666
>There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with saying "I think they can afford to print more complex commons and uncommons on average than they are currently doing" and "I think it's a good idea to come up with new terms that simplify text boxes,"

That's the fucking point. I said the inconsistency was from people OPPOSED TO THE FORMATTING CHANGES also being OPPOSED TO NWO. You are not opposed to the formatting changes, so OF COURSE THERE IS NOTHING INCONSISTENT.

>>48475562
>It's not particularly tournament viable
Actually I thought there was some blue control deck in standard that played it right now as a finisher.

>>48470520
>Target player puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard

Vs

>Target player mills the top card of his or her library

Does literally the same thing as "create."

>>48475799
Except mills is not intuitive. Players who are used to the lingo will understand it, but it doesn't explain the action the same way "create" or "dies" does.

>>48472108
People dont like things that change literally nothing. Look at anus mana before this. Every format change that is only cosmetic results in this because they expect moire from it. They expect more change and then when they realize its only cosmetic they dont want the change. They see no point to it. Which is because its not for veteran players. Its for new players.

>>48475902
>Look at anus mana before this.

That actually did change something though.

>>48475925
That's being extremely pedantic. "create" is a similar thing if you want to be like that, since now cards can care about cards that "create" which personally is why I'm guessing they made this change before Kaladesh. It would make a lot of flavor sense if there were cards that cared about you "creating" things on the inventor plane.

>>48475799
>Create a zombie token

This is pretty easy to grasp. You make some sort of zombie token, with the power and toughness listed

>Target player mills the top card of his or her library

This isn't. A new player is going to look at this and ask what a mill is. Nobody is going to know what mill is lingo for at a glance.

>>48473311
We're highly likely to see colorless costed cards in Kaladesh block.

>>48475745

My apologies, when you said "You're in favor of the changes and against the NWO. To reconcile those statements..." it wasn't clear that the "statements" you were referring to were from an earlier post and not the ones you wrote immediately before it. In hindsight it makes sense but surely you can see how that was written rather sub-optimally.

>>48473311
>>All it did was shit up draft.

That's exactly why it's not Evergreen. You have to make some specific allowances to have colorless mana as a cost in a set. Players have to reasonably expect to get their hands on colorless mana sources in draft. Imagine if you had to get a colorless mana source to play Emerge creatures in EMN. It's not going to be easy.

>>48476061
Uh, no. We are not "highly likely" to see colorless costed cards in Kaladesh. What in the world led you to that conclusion? Artifacts don't use colorless mana costs yet if that's what you're thinking. They COULD but we have no reason to believe that they would in Kaladesh. I'd sooner expect colored artifacts like Esper and Mirrodin/new Phyrexia.

>>48476152
I'd honestly enjoy seeing both colored artifacts and colorless costs. They might even mix the two, having (<>U) as the cost.

>>48476195
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's possible. But there's certainly no reason to think that it's "highly likely" that they'd be used again Kaladesh.

>>48476132
Fair enough.

>>48469839
I know most of the players here haven't been around long enough to remember when that happened, but I do and it was a little bit of a fiasco.
And yes, just as there are doomsayers for "create," there were doomsayers for "dies." Quite funny how it all plays out.

>>48476254
I'd like to point out, I joined MtG during Innistrad and I never had any trouble at all understanding what "dies" meant. It kinda feels like the only people who were rattled by it were existing players.

File: wayne-reynolds-mad-prophet-mtg.jpg (591KB, 3069x2417px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 3069x2417px

>There are still people upset about Bury.
>There are still people upset about color coded rarity symbols in Exodus.
>There are still people upset about Summon replaced by Creature in 6th edition.
>There are still people upset about 8th Edition frames.
>There are still people upset about the reserved list.
>There are still people upset about Equipment.
>There are still people upset about Aura.
>There are still people upset about Mana Burn.
>There are still people upset about damage on the stack.
>There are still people upset about the Legend Rule and Legendary.
>There are still people upset about errata'd Humans and Class types.
>There are still people upset about Planeswalkers.
>There are still people upset about Tribal.
>There are still people upset about Mythic Rare.
>There are still people upset about play being replaced by the Battlefield.
>There are still people upset about basic lands in booster packs.
>There are still people upset about removed from the game replaced by Exile.
>There are still people upset about new Slivers.
>There are still people upset about the M15 frame and the holofoil.

>There are now people upset about the colorless mana symbol.
>There are now people upset about Create.


>There will be people upset about whatever bs Kaladesh brings with it.
>There will be people upset about Standard Legal cards found exclusively in Planeswalker precons (not a joke).

>>48470051
>All creatures "die"
When I discard a creature card, did it die?
(I know the answer is no, but it is not as obviously intuitive as you think.)

File: Declaration-in-Stone-Shadows-over-Innistrad-MtG-Art.jpg (152KB, 1024x751px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x751px

>>48477295
Also cards like Declaration in Stone; we know that the creature is exiled, and getting exiled is not "dying". But in context I'd say these vamps are pretty damn dead.

>>48477295
Ironically, I think this is the part that is actually intuitive, and only doesn't make that much sense if you really think about it. Most players. Don't think of creatures "existing" or being "alive" until they are on the board, which is where they can be "Murder"ed or "Shock"ed or whatever and die and die. Most people don't think of cards like Kind Rot "killing" the discarded cards. Therefore, intuitively l, without thinking about it, I think most people probably think of dying applying only to boarded creatures even if they might not realize that's what it means specifically.

>>48477395
> At least I haven't died!

>>48477402
I've had to explain that tokens die a lot, they just stop existing immediately after.

File: little_dunmer_girl.gif (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>48477239
Summon was so flavorful...

>>48474793
>the penis mightier then the sord
hehe.

>>48477239
>There are still people upset about the reserved list.
are you not upset about the reserved list?

File: staycoolstaycool.jpg (11KB, 337x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 337x225px

>>48479401
Very upset.

>>48477239
>>There are still people upset about color coded rarity symbols in Exodus.

Exodus and every set for the next several years had really large, ugly expansion symbols because of that change. They improved it later.

While we're at it, are you glad Magic is finally getting diverse?

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Kaladesh
>Kaladesh is an ethnically diverse plane where natural mages are rare

Also which opressed group will be the one to wipe out white men of Kaladesh?

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Aether_Revolt
>A revolt takes place on Kaladesh.

>>48477239
What was there to be upset about with Equipment?

>>48477239
I'm upset about colored artifacts, colorless spells and the color indicator.

>>48480538
If every construct is powered by artificially harnessed mana, it's possible that this will be your typical rise of the machines scenario.
Diverse or not, I'm sure the robots wont discriminate.

>create is a great keyword
>tokens always sound better when you say you create them
>all the Investigate cards are now erratad to mean "you create a clue"

Thank god we're already done with Innistrad, but you just know we're going to run into more logical inconsistencies because of this now.

>>48482095
Whenever a ghost dies,

>>48477239
Hol up, time to shill my favorite children's card game.

>There are still people upset about Bury.
And they're long gone because we haven't used that unintuitive word in ages.
>There are still people upset about color coded rarity symbols in Exodus.
There was literally no way beforehand to find out about rarity without looking it up, it was a welcome change.
>There are still people upset about Summon replaced by Creature in 6th edition.
A sad and true loss, the flavor will be missed.
>There are still people upset about 8th Edition frames.
Only grognards liked the old frame, I always thought it was stupid that only black and green had different looking frames while everyone else got a "normal" looking one.
>There are still people upset about the reserved list.
Why are you NOT angry about the reserved list?
>There are still people upset about Equipment.
Literally nobody.
>There are still people upset about Aura.
Literally nobody.
>There are still people upset about Mana Burn.
The only thing you should be angry about this is that there are no cards that bring it back.
>There are still people upset about damage on the stack.
Being able to deal damage with a dead creature was always retarded, I can't wait for the day when we finally get rid of blocking without a creature.
>There are still people upset about the Legend Rule and Legendary.
It was good when it was first implemented to combat people with similar decks, now there's literally no point to it. Wizards should at least give us more Grandeur cards.
>There are still people upset about errata'd Humans and Class types.
This is the worst thing Wizards has ever directly done to the game and you have every right to still be upset over it.
>There are still people upset about Planeswalkers.
Well yeah, they're shit.

>>48477239
>There are still people upset about Tribal.
Only because it was important enough to be considered a supertype and then never showed up again.
>There are still people upset about Mythic Rare.
Only poorfags who like to post nazi memes.

>There are still people upset about play being replaced by the Battlefield.
Literally nobody.
>There are still people upset about basic lands in booster packs.
It doesn't replace anything and gives us a chance to have foiled out lands, it was an improvement.
>There are still people upset about removed from the game replaced by Exile.
You know damn well wish cards were never intended to get past Exile, it's not supposed to be a second graveyard.
>There are still people upset about new Slivers.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>There are still people upset about the M15 frame and the holofoil.
It was an ugly change but a necessary one to fight off all the Chinamen. Good thing Standard is so unbearably weak nowadays that it doesn't matter.

>There are now people upset about the colorless mana symbol.
Only because it was made for maybe a dozen cards, it feels even more pointless than Tribal. The only reason anyone even remembers it exists is because of Tarmogoyf. Bitterblossom is a tribal card and half the people who play it don't even know that.
>There are now people upset about Create.
It's going to save tons of space, I'm already brewing ideas for custom cards I can make with this new formatting.

>There will be people upset about whatever bs Kaladesh brings with it.
You're damn right they will.
>There will be people upset about Standard Legal cards found exclusively in Planeswalker precons (not a joke).
No one is forcing you to buy the precons yourself when your LGS and online shops will do it for you.

>>48482363
Ghosts can double die in lots of different media though, making up your own clues is just what a shitty prosecutor does.

>>48482095
You mean "Create a colorless Clue artifact token".

It doesn't actually sound as dopey. Besides, it only actually shows up in reminder text.

>>48482363
Spirit. Ghost isn't a creature type.

And this is a game where 15 pigeons can successfully murder an interplanar horror capable of eating entire worlds

This is a game where it takes two trained soldiers to kill a housecat, and one of them will die in the process.

This is a game where strapping three broardswords and a warhammer to a parrot is a viable strategy.

Try not to get too hung up on the fluff.

>>48482403
While I MOSTLY agree with you...

>Basics in boosters
They replaced a common. Not much, but not 'didn't replace anything'

>Wishes and Exile
They were 100% intended to get past exile. That wasn't some 'clever loophole' they hated, because they could do that for eight fucking years before it was 'fixed'.

>>48482391
>This is the worst thing Wizards has ever directly done to the game and you have every right to still be upset over it.

That's a bold claim.

>Only because it was important enough to be considered a supertype and then never showed up again.

Tribal is a type, not a supertype. You don't see Tarmogoyf counting Legendaries, Snows, or Worlds, do you?

See: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/ask-wizards-may-2007-2007-05-01

and

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/flavor-tribals-2007-10-10

>Only because it was made for maybe a dozen cards, it feels even more pointless than Tribal.

We'll see.

>http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/134995368698/will-colorless-mana-be-a-one-set-thing-or-will-it
>Most sets will not care about it like Oath of the Gatewatch.

Implying "some" will.

File: image.jpg (92KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 312x445px

>>48483404
They were willing to change Winter Orb back (though not any of the other fucking things that worked the same way).

And the last "Wish" card printed, Coax, lets you grab from exile. Maybe they'll print the wishes in Conspiracy 2 with new wording to restore original functionality.

The idea wasn't that it was errata, it was just changing of what words mean in this game. The same way you can no longer choose "Island of Wak-Wakwalk" with this creature.

Anyway, I like create.

>>48483501
That's what I'm saying. The only thing stopping them from making Wishes NOT hit 'removed from game' and only hit sideboard was that they chose not to. It wasn't some "whoops we fucked up and there's no way to fix it even though we want to" loophole that just stayed open for nearly a fucking decade.

Also, I miss Tribal.

>>48483387
Yeah, I'm just saying that if "create" is the point of no return for you due to logical absurdities then you should probably take a look at how some of the weirder critters interact with "dies".

Take, for instance, the Wurmcoil Engine. It's an artifact that, when it "dies", flavor-wise splits into two component tokens. That one critter still dies, though. Or what about all those M12 illusions that "die" when targeted by a spell or ability?

It's the Jar of Eyeballs problem - sometimes fluff and mechanics just don't line up. Why do I get two eye tokens regardless of whether my critter is a cyclops, a human, a spider, a murder of crows, or a worm? 'Cause that's the only way that makes sense, design-wise.

"Create" might occasionally lead to you creating a token named "Marit Lage", but overall I think it's a positive change.

>>48483516
Oh, I love create for the same reason I like "dies". It's flavorful (even if a little goofy OCCASIONALLY due to fluff), intuitive, and it saves space on the card.

>>48469247
So I have to have a new piece of paper and a pencil ready for every token I need to create from scratch? Why can't I just use a pre-made token?

File: image.jpg (74KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 312x445px

>>48483510
The idea is that if something is exiled, it isn't actually removed from the game. It is still in the game. Clearly, because it can come back. You can't just put it back in your deckbox.

Here, look at this creature. It has no errata, but works nothing like how it used to and how it was supposed to. Why? Because the rules changed around him. The card's text hasn't.

We could make errata to restore the original functionality, but situations like these are a natural consequence of the rules of a game changing.

>>48483548
Premade tokens simply don't taste as fresh.

>>48483525
Ayup.

Although some day I want to get some friends together and play Kangaroo Court Magic. I imagine that that'll be even more fun with these changes in verbiage.

>>48483561
Right, it's part of the game because exile is a zone. It didn't used to be a zone of the game. It wasn't "exile" it was "remove from game".

>>48483590
The removed-from-game zone, yeah.

The one spoofed in Unhinged by AWOL removing it from the removed-from-game zone and putting it into the absolutely-removed-from-the-freaking-game-forever zone.

They kind of realized that Exile was a needed name change, I think.

>>48483590
Correct. So when introducing the rule, they could've either errata'd all the cards that reference it. Or just let it be.

To me, this is like asking Morphling to be errata'd to use damage on the stack.

The only reason people complain is because Burning Wish and whatnot matter a lot for Legacy. It isn't about consistency, as there are a billion issues like this that they are perfectly fine ignoring.

>>48483434
It is a bold claim, a bold change needs a bold claim. Even if you don't dislike it, you can't deny that it's the biggest change Wizards has ever done. Mass errata of the basic information on nearly every single creature that was currently in existence, it doesn't really get any bigger than that.

Also you know I meant Type, come on now. The point is they made Tribal a huge deal when it should have just been a Supertype, or at least be something that's capable of being relevant in more than a whopping three sets.

>>48483952
>the biggest change Wizards has ever done
>>48482391
>the worst thing Wizards has ever directly done to the game
Not that guy, but these two statements aren't exactly the same.

Why exactly was it a bad change, in your opinion?

>>48483952
>it should have just been a Supertype

You're just going to ignore all the rule reasons why it couldn't be?

>>48483952
The problem with Tribal was that they needed to commit to it, and it was far too late to do so. It raises a big question of why Elvish Promenade is an Elf card, but Dragon Fodder isn't a Goblin card. The answer is because Shards of Alara wasn't a "Tribal" set, but then the question becomes "why isn't it"?

If Tribal had been dreamed up back in The Dark when cards that cared about Goblins started being printed, it would be fine because they could've implemented Tribal as a mechanic throughout Magic. For them to actually use Tribal as it was needed, they would have had to begin adding it in whenever it was relevant, regardless of whether the set genuinely cared, and that would either cause this massive divide in pre and post-Lorwyn Magic or a wave of errata on a greater scale than the creature type update.

>>48484496
I don't disagree, but the argument feels somewhat bullshit considering planewalkers were introduced in the same damn block

>>48477239
>There are still people upset about the reserved list.
>There are still people upset about new Slivers.

Yeah, but those are worth being upset about.

>>48484834
That's not equivalent in the least.

>>48477239
But some of these are important changes that are wirse to the game.
Reserved List is going to kill eternal formats.
The new slivers are just a terrible design.
Planeswalkers are a weird design and can't be easily interacted with.

>>48485584
>can't be easily interacted with.

You can attack the bastards. They're easier to interact with than Enchantments.

>>48485619
And most playable planeswalkers have a way to defend themselves, or outright offer so much card advantage that even if you waste your resources and tempo to remove it, you're already behind.

>>48485721
And? The argument was that they were hard to interact with, not that it was too costly to interact with them.

>>48485721
Sure. But to describe them as hard to interact with is silly. Literally any card that deals damage to players kills them. Which is a lot of fucking cards.

So, any creature with power, any card that deals damage to players, any card that deals with permanents or noncreature permanents, any card that specifically references planeswalkers.

I get in Legacy, someone resolves a Mindsculptor and you don't have a board, it'll be hard getting rid of the fucker.

But Planeswalkers aren't inherently sturdy.

>>48485754
Sure, you attack them with the creature they've bounced back to your hand. Or they block with the token they've just created. Or they've always drawn cards and it doesn't matter whether you remove the planeswalker or not.
Enchantments might be harder to interact with, but they're not as widely used.

>>48485774
See my response above. Being able to attack them isn't enough when the minimum for a planeswalker to be viable is "able to defend itself".

>>48485795
Except you didn't address the fact that literally every direct damage ability or spell has "or deal that damage to a planeswalker" secretly written on it.

Even if you assume that attacking is never feasible, enchantments can't be killed by bolting them. Or by pinging them.

And it isn't like there isn't other removal that hits it.

>>48485863
Sure, you have to spend a burn to destroy them. However, most planeswalkers in standard right now can't be removed with a variant of lightning bolt, the premier burn spell. The fact that we need cards tha specifically say "destroy target planeswalker" is already enough reason for me to prove how hard they're hard to interact with, not to mention they provide instant value, which most enchantments don't.

>>48473021
Players create tokens. Permanents don't.

>>48485936
Planeswalkers may be a bit overtuned at the moment, but there are dozens of planeswalkers not worth running, simply because their value isn't worth it and they are easy to remove.

It isn't a fundamental flaw with the type.

I am guessing they are just playing it too safe with burns

>>48485774
>I get in Legacy, someone resolves a Mindsculptor and you don't have a board, it'll be hard getting rid of the fucker

Red Blast

>>48484227
All they had to do was make it so creature types aren't restricted to creatures, that's it. There is nothing game breaking about Tribal being a Supertype instead of one of the regular card types if they just say that's how it works.

>>48487294
>maindeck redblast
Madmen and painters, I tell you

>>48487529
As it stands right now, the subtypes are clearly linked to card types. Subtypes can be shared among card types, as with Instants and Sorceries and as with Creatures and Tribal. Blurring those lines doesn't gain you anything other than keeping "Tribal" from influencing Goyf and Delirium and creates a bunch of problems with arbitration about what does and does not count among categories of subtypes.

>>48471409
You would think that creatures "created" enter the battlefield, but what if they're "just there", like how creatures entering the battlefield attacking don't trigger "when a creature attacks"? Or like how creatures without haste can be tapped if their ability uses the word "tap" rather than the tap symbol? Magic mechanics are NOT intuitive at all.

>>48488310
Do you really want the word "attacks" go back to "is declared as an attacker"?

>>48488310
>You would think that creatures "created" enter the battlefield, but what if they're "just there"

Then they wouldn't have used it for existing cards.

>>48488310
"whenever a creature attacks" is shorthand for "whenever a creature is declared as an attacker"

the text "put X into play tapped and attacking" clearly does not state "put X into play then declare it an attacker"

Tap a creature: Do X is different than declaring a creature and attacker or tapping it using the tap symbol.

I'm being needlessly pedantic, but you're being needlessly obtuse

>>48477239
>There are still people upset about new Slivers.

let's not slip a shit in with the pigeons

>>48480538
>While we're at it, are you glad Magic is finally getting diverse?

The quote is literally taken from a designer responding to a complaint about too many white people in Kaladesh

File: belligerentindeed.jpg (243KB, 1215x401px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1215x401px

>>48491851
Displeased with the new designs, I decided to go see Edge of Tomorrow instead of fnm that week.
There was no escape.
Ironically enjoyed the flick though.

File: vacuum noises.gif (794KB, 458x411px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 458x411px

>>48471636
>tfw I just realized that this card can be used to kill flickering creatures
super-secret anti-Roon tech go!

File: 635032497117668232.jpg (44KB, 265x370px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 265x370px

>>48492997
It would have to something like Otherworldly Journey, where the creature is in exile while you have priority.

For things like Flicker and Cloudshift, the way those spells resolve don't leave any opening for a response outside of triggers by the time the creature is already back in play.

>>48493597
Naturally. It just so happens that Roon's journey also exiles until end of turn, so it would work on his ability at least.
Too bad all my decks with W in them are tight enough without making meta plays. Oh well.

>>48485936
The main reason this is the case is that wizards, in their infinite wisdom, decided lighting strike was too strong to reprint. Now every every burn spell is a sorcery and red is the worst color in standard, despite Chandra being an amazing card.

>>48474554
CREATE THOPTERS ERRYDAY

>>48492232
Edge of Tomorrow is pure kino.
>EEYYYYEEEE NEEED TO NOO NIEEE

>>48470478
Funny thing is, I've met Hearthstone players, who didn't know shit about magic and they still refer to "discarding from deck" as mill.

>>48477239
>There are still people upset about Tribal not being a thing
fixed

Also yes I'm mad about the color indicator. It's just lazy, wrong design. Just make basic Forests non-green in appearance and use the whole border as an indicator.

>>48487849
Imho, it doesn't have to "gain you anything". Simply the prospect of being able to make thematically sound deck is probably enough for many non-Spikes. That could lead to a modification to the Tribal Wars format.
And it's a nice investment, once a block rolls around that cares about types.

>>48482423
Phoenix please

>>48470022
>>48473034
And they've said that they won't make them work by changing already existing terminology to make them work.

>>48492997
Only when the flicker effect puts them back in play at the end of turn. You can't cast spells in the middle of a spell or ability resolving, so any flicker that puts them back right away would never give you a chance to cast a spell while the creature is in exile.

Also, creatures have to assemble. It's an action word performed by creatures. Create is an action word done by players. He's actually pointed out this wrinkle before so. The action has to be more like dies or fight versus create or sacrifice.

>>48502291
When I was trying to design contraptions, this was the biggest hurdle. Investigate is so close to assemble, but creatures can't investigate.

To me, another thing to consider is for Steamflogger to make sense, we have to accept the notion that assemble can make different things with contraptions only being a subset of them. As otherwise they wouldn't specify.

>>48502606
So you'd have a Rigger who has the ability to Assemble some number of target Contraptions, which in turn have "Assembled" as some kind of Monstrosity-esque state assigned to them?

Holy hell, that could turn into a hellhole of parasitic design. Maybe if the Contraption has some kind of Monstrosity-esque Assemble cost/condition that Riggers are simply an alternate way to trigger? Like if you'd have a creature who could make target creature Monstrous. (Functionally all that ability would do would be to prevent players from buffing that critter with the +1/+1s from the ability, but you get my point.)

The difficult thing is that you don't want to have cards that are completely worthless without other specific cards in the same block - they need to be multi-purpose. They don't want Kamigawa 2.0.

>>48502773
Well, see, even if a creature has an ability that say, puts a token on the battlefield ala Investigate, it still wouldn't be the creature doing it. It would be the creature allowing you to do it.

In my mind, if you could get past that, you could have three artifact tokens, Gizmo, Contraption and Doohickey for example.

But I can't give Crearures agency over token production. At this moment in time, as far as I know, the only thing creatures can do is die, attack and block.

>>48502818
They can also fight and exploit.

>>48502907
And devour, I'm pretty sure.

Yeah, I don't know.

>>48475958
It also cuts a lot of space from the text box, dingus.

>>48485936
I'm not sure how explaining that need to interact with them a lot means they're not able to be interacted with.

I wish Wizards would just make short little articles on the reasons behind template and wording changes (and new abilities altogether like Meld) when the card is released so we can avoid all the stupid arguing over what they mean.

>>48474554
Are you retarded? This is what clues you in to a token theme in Kaladesh? Not the fact that Origins gave us a bunch of thopter-producing spells from Chandra's cards about Kaladesh, or the setting description, or the Uncharted Realms about Chandra's spark igniting?

>>48477395
What context? Nahiri killed all of the vampires in that mansion first, and then stuck them in the stone. That's not how the game play works though, because they go straight from the battlefield to exile.

Not to mention that things in exile aren't dead, just put in a pocket dimension somewhere, sometimes forever, sometimes for short periods of time.

Declaration of Stone has a disconnect between the story and the art, and the way the card actually works.

They probably shouldn't have done this so close to anus mana. Fans are obviously gonna flip a shit.

>>48504394
I know /tg acts like it represents 110% of MtG players but not a single person in a room full of 40 people at the BfZ prerelease I went to hadn't already heard about anus mana and understood it represented colorless mana when the judge started explaining it