Why did they nerf Indestructible? It was so much fun

>>54649159
Im not familiar with the nerf.
How did they change Indestructible?

>>54649173

they didn't.

>>54649183
Then this was a lie bait
I feel like a fool....

>>54649159
>It was so much fun
No it wasn't, it was one of the many many things that made OGMirrodin cancer

>>54649173
They've started printing more exile effects and a very few 'creatures lose indestructible' effects.
Mostly because they've been using indestructible a hell of a lot more than it was used originally, and have started using single-turn indestructible as a replacement for regeneration.
Unless they mean that the reminder text now includes the fact that being brought to 0 toughness gets rid of an indestructible, which was always the case ever since indestructible was created. It just makes sure you know that for the casuals that may not have known it.
(Damage and effects that say "destroy" don't destroy it. If its toughness is 0 or less, it's still put into its owner's graveyard.)

>>54651618
Note - by 'very few' lose indestructible effects, I mean there's three total.
One is an X burn spell. One is a hexproof/indestructible hoser enchantment (that has to activate to do it). One is a 5 damage, 5 mana pyroclasm

>>54649159
>fun
>in Magic

And that's why it was nerfed.

>>54651618
>the reminder text now includes the fact that being brought to 0 toughness gets rid of an indestructible, which was always the case
>Damage and effects that say "destroy" don't destroy it. If its toughness is 0 or less, it's still put into its owner's graveyard.

Darksteel Colossus
>"Destroy" effects and lethal damage don't destroy it.

The hell are you on about?

File: accursed-horde-60770-medium-1.jpg (28KB, 268x392px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 268x392px

>>54652007
>now

He meant NOW it includes the text. Darksteel Colossus was printed THEN. THEN it read like that, but NOW it reads like this.

File: 73[1].jpg (58KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 312x445px

>>54652007
Bringing an indestructible creature down to 0 toughness puts it in the graveyard as a state-based effect.
Damage does not reduce toughness. Being put in the graveyard as a statebased effect is not a destroy effect, but the rules of the game.
This has always been true, and was one of the main ways to get rid of indestructibles - by using a card (such as Mutilate here) that gave them -whatever/-whatever until end of turn.
ALL creatures are put in the graveyard when their toughness is reduced to 0. They didn't put it in indestructible's reminder text originally because they thought people were smart enough to realize that it protected against the things it stated it protected against.
Unfortunately, they were wrong, and had to state the obvious so that people understood that yes, this shit still kills them just like always.

>>54651618
How fun wouldn't it be if the old adage of "regeneration doesn't do anything" also became true for indestructible as more and more removal spells get printed that get around it?

>>54652461
The new reminder text will just make new players think that damage kills creatures with indestructible because "I just dealt 3 damage to it and it had 3 toughness, so now it's at 0."

>>54652866
It still says damage doesn't destroy it.

>>54652866
Surely even most beginners aren't THAT stupid.

>>54652866
I play with a lot of bad/new players and I don't think I've ever had someone make that mistake

Once again /tg/ doesn't know anything about Magic

Indestructible didn't use to be an ability, it was just something that was true about a permanent. So things like Turn // Burn didn't used to kill an indestructible creature.

See the 2014 rule changes here if you don't believe me:
https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Indestructible

>>54653025
They changed it because people thought that it was an ability. They tried the same thing with unblockable for a while but realized that they used it too many different ways for it to be practical as an ability word.

>>54652911
A lot of new players think that damage would change its toughness. They don't see the difference between that and something like dismember

>>54652873
Doesn't destroy it, sure, but it also says "it's still put into its owner's graveyard."

File: 134[1].jpg (69KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 312x445px

>>54653025
Turn WOULD fuck up something like Darksteel Colossus - this is because it's the card's own rules text making it so, and cards such as Turn remove that. Same reason you'll never see something make cards lose abilities without setting a power and toughness - it erases all characteristic setting abilities.
However, it wouldn't do shit to something that was GRANTED indestructible temporarily (such as Withstand Death), which was kind of unintuitive. A Thornling that's activated its first three abilities loses Haste and Trample but is still indestructible?
And things that grant indestructibility continuously externally (such as Eldrazi Monument) still give it that indestructibility and everything else even if it's Turned! (same is still the case today)
But because the middle case was unintuitive - in part because it sounded like a keyword to some people, much like being unblockable, they changed it to match expectations. And the only case is with granted temporary indestructibility vs 'loses all abilities'

File: 6882bb72b2[1].png (349KB, 886x628px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 886x628px

>>54653025
Further proof is the very article you quoted, by the way - the changes in M14

>>54652911
>Surely even most beginners aren't THAT stupid.
Meanwhile, beginners are graveyarding lands when they generate mana because lands get "used up" after use.

>>54653852
It's funny.
Most shitty players do things like that.
My nine year old niece has no problems with the rules, and mainly problems with remembering that oh yeah there's a bunch of cards in her hand she can play and she shouldn't just play what she topdecked.

>>54652834
There's ALREADY way too much exile.

>>54649159
Say that about Protection.

>>54654983
Protection is nofun badfeel incarnate

>>54653880
I've been playing for more than two decades and I still have that problem.

>Draw for turn
>Huh, didn't I have more cards in my hand?
>Oh, here they are, under the cat.
>

>>54653852
I never saw this one
The only one I see (pretty much every time I meet a very new player I didn't introduce myself) is tapping the creature when it enters the battlefield to represent summoning sickness

>>54656978
The problem with Protection (and Landwalk and to a lesser degree Intimidate and Fear) is that it's either completely fucking pointless or is pretty damn brutal, with not much in between.
Those kind of cards should be sideboard cards. Having that kind of card around is fine - hell, they just printed a cycle of color hosers. The problem is that there's not much point in having a bunch of keywords around that are solely for sideboard cards - either they're costed with that in mind (and thus aren't played except when they're good) or they get the keyword slapped on for free and randomly win games against decks who happen to be running the hosed color. Neither is a desirable situation.
So rather than having keywords around that people have to learn to play the game, they just spell out their color hosers now. Which isn't a bad thing, in and of itself.
Of course, the problem, as with almost all things Magic nowadays, is that the Development side of R&D are a bunch of chickenshits too scared of their own shadow to print anything interesting, nevermind powerful.

File: 1490380782940.png (351KB, 352x478px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 352x478px

>>54652911


I wish it were only beginners who were that stupid

>>54651618

I fucking hate how they've made it so that regeneration is replaced with indestructible and bury is replaced with exile. That's textbook power creep, they make super powerful defensive abilities more common so in response they have to make super powerful offensive abilities more common too. Where do they go from here, when both indestructible and exile stop being cool? Do they replace them with "this creature cannot leave play for any reason ever" and "this creature phases out and never phases back in"?

>>54657542
>WotC removed phasing because it's too complicated and has memory problem
>They reintroduce half of it because exiling is not powerful enough
Sounds realistic

>>54651038
Mirrodin was awesome tho

>>54659213
It was pretty cool but also completely degenerate. So much that they crippled the next set to "make up for it" in the most dumb way imaginable.
Seriously, Mirrodin skullfucked any meta for ten years.

>>54657542
>replaced bury with exile
what? exile has been around since alpha, they just phased out a shitty mechanic that specifically hosed regenerate

>>54659454
Except exile was really fucking rare. Now everyone and their mother can exile shit to some extent.

>>54657542
Bury left the game ages ago and you know it.
They dropped regeneration not because it 'stopped being cool' but because people kept misplaying it (mostly the becoming tapped and removed from combat parts of it)
The amount of exile hasn't gone up that drastically. White's had its ORings for a while now. Red's always had burn spells that exile if they kill. Black is now getting a few (not even as many as when 'bury' was an actual term) kill spells that exile - also something it's gotten over the years, since it's just 'kill it so hard it doesn't leave a corpse'

>>54657542
Didn't we have one or two temporary "when this dies return it to the battlefield" effects recently? I'd like see those take over for regenerate in Black. Gets hosed by graveyard hate and allows ETB shenanigangs, so we get more interaction instead of less.

>>54659454

What this guy said >>54659515

It used to be be, way back then, that bury (or "destroy - can't regen") was the default "harder than normal" way to kill things that was used very commonly and remove from the game/exile was incredibly rare, there were only a handful of cards that could do it to permanents. When they stopped printing bury cards, they made exile cards far more common, effectively replacing one ability with another. Same for regen and indestructible.

File: blazing salvo.jpg (33KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 223x310px

>>54652911

Let me tell you about a game I played in my high school wargaming society.

I was playing a green ramp deck against red aggro. Nothing very interesting, just baby's first green deck. I had a trampler on the field, I forget what exactly but it was from around Onslaught, had just attacked and was going to win next turn if he didn't have a response.

He played this card targeting my damaged trampler. I was well ahead on life at that point, so I squared up the possibility that he might have a bunch more direct damage left in his hand, but figured probably not or he'd have used them earlier, so I said "I'll take the 5 damage".

His response? "You have it? You need to show me." After some conversation, it transpired that he interpreted the text to mean "Deal three damage to target creature unless THAT PLAYER PHYSICALLY OWNS THE CARD BLAZING SALVO IN THEIR COLLECTION, in which case deal 5 damage to them". To the point of having a I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home tantrum when he couldn't get anybody to agree.

>>54661004
They stopped printing cards with the text 'bury' in 1999. Then they stopped printing 'can't be regenerated' with any real frequency past like...Lorwyn in 2007 - there were all of four new cards after that that prevented regeneration, everything else being reprints.
This was mostly because the bury/can't regen cards weren't 'harder than normal' ways to kill things but present on every damn black killspell and every wrath and a good chunk of burn. For most of the game, regeneration was almost pointless because it only protected against combat damage.
And the current amount of exile hasn't even reached the amount of can't-regenerate that reprints brought in in the past decade. White's getting LESS permanent exile than it did at the start, though it's getting more oblivion ring and flicker shit granted. Red now has a whole two cards that remove indestructible, one of which exiles if the thing dies - and is a single target X spell. Black's had exile since fucking forever - it's just now getting it slightly more frequently than it did before. And even the amount they've gotten is mostly due to a combination of BfZ and Amonkhet blocks being how they are.

>>54662892
jesus

>>54652911
Too many newbies think that elvish mystic's ability of "add G to your mana pool" means to search their deck for a forest and put it into play.

And heaven forbid the "ill tap a skull and two suns for this thing" shitters.

File: 1372458681955.jpg (41KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 625x626px

>>54662892
Pic related. If it was book burning then it's be believable.

>>54663835
It's not, unless you mean that he was only pretending to think that.

>>54662892
>he couldn't get anybody to agree.

That's so insane troll logic that I'd backed him up just for lulz.

>>54663835
I've heard it claimed for all the Odyssey block punishers. It's just that Book Burning's the most likely one to get it due to the linebreak on the original printing. And all of them are due to people not actually reading the damn card