Community

I think a better way to refer to Hexproof is "(this creature) IS Hexproof" instead of "(this creature) HAS Hexproof." Just seems more descriptive of the condition of being "hexproof" instead of having a property called "hexproof." Compare it, for example, to fire-retardant fabric.. it "IS fire-retardant" but not "has fire-retardant." So, it works as far as I am concerned. As far as the mechanic itself... I find Shroud to be as much of a hindrance as a help. You cannot equip or directly buff any creature you have with Shroud. It makes creatures less playable to me. Hexproof creatures are much more useable.

As far as "Dies", it makes perfect sense to me. I do understand how people who have been playing much longer than I have (only 6 months or so) might think differently. But when I am playing, "Dies" is a word we use... I block your guy... they both "die"... I have not once heard "they both go to the graveyard from the battlefield." It seems intuitive that a creature card thats countered didn't "die" as it wasn't on the battlefield.. therefore wasn't "alive."  

What about Autumn Willow .
 The true first creature with a troll shroud, and on some point, actally better. 

May 23, 2011 -- 12:12AM, Kensan_Oni wrote:

It feels funny that we have gone from... destroyed... to destroyed and buried... to put into the graveyard... to dies... was there anything wrong with destroyed, outside of 5 extra letters?

What do you mean? "Die" doesn't replace "destroy". Destroy is still around. "Die" replaces "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield". Doom Blade ,  Go For The Throat  and Day of Judgement will not be changed by the introduction of "die", only cards like Caustic Hound and Glissa, the Traitor . In addition (you didn't mention this, but somebody or other did) "sacrifice" will still be in use, unchanged. Being destroyed generally causes a creature to die but not always (it won't if they regenerate, or if they're indestructible, or whatever), and there are many ways to make a creature die other than "destroy" effects (-1/-1 counters, lethal damage, sacrifices).

May 23, 2011 -- 7:03AM, Thrull_Champion wrote:

What about Autumn Willow . The true first creature with a troll shroud, and on some point, actally better.

 
Sort of, but not really. Hexproof only allows the creature's controller to target it. With Autumn Willow, you choose a player. Sure, 99 percent of the time you'd choose yourself, but there might be some really contrived situation where you want to trick your opponent into doing something to her, and more realistically in a multiplayer game you might want to let an ally cast something on her. Trollshroud/hexproof/whatever doesn't allow that.

As for the "dies" change itself, I'm not sure how much I like it. How many effects are there that trigger from noncreature permanents being put in the graveyard from the battlefield? I count at least eight in Standard. (All artifact-related, as fits the current block, but still.) Plus Bloodchief Ascension , the legendary Eldrazi, and probably a few other "from anywhere" effects. Those will now be templated differently from Butcher of Malakir , Glissa, the Traitor and many, many effects on creatures that trigger when they themselves die. Using "dies" is prettier and cooler and more evocative, but definitely isn't simpler.

I do like the look of the new cards, though. Bloodthirst is a good mechanic. Many of the abilities in the Ravnica block seem worth revisiting. How about bringing back graft, hellbent or convoke next? And that reminds me of another note: I think we're ready for multicolored cards in the core set.

"Hexproof" is an odd word since "hex" as synonym for "bad effect" never really caught on.  It's good to be keyworded and "Troll Shroud" would have been a poor idea.  And I guess we'll get used to it.  But a bigger problem is that it doesn't flow well in usage.  "Has flying ... has first strike ... has hexproof?"  Linguistically wouldn't it have "hexproofedness?"

"Dies" is fine, except that I predict players will think creatures getting exiled or moved to the library are also dying.  In fact, given what we've been told about some people's emotional attachment to uncast creatures, I wonder if there won't be a few who think discarding or getting milled (hey, keyword that!) is "dying" too.  It should be easy enough to educate though.

I wonder if we aren't working our way back to "buried" as shorthand for "destroyed and can't be regenerated".

Bloodthirst seems like the result of a meeting that went "well Scry favored control, what's a good aggro keyword"?  It's fine, but I'd rather have seen Ninjitsu.  Similarly creature-dependent but based on more interesting effects than "Grrr, creature get bigger!"

May 23, 2011 -- 7:03AM, Thrull_Champion wrote:

What about Autumn Willow .
 The true first creature with a troll shroud, and on some point, actally better. 

Autumn Willow has shroud.  It just has an ability that allows you to get around shroud.  This is similar to the many creatures with an effect similar to deathtouch but don't actually have it.

Ninjitsu will never come back, nor will pretty much any mechanic found in the Kamigawa block.

The entire block is "Parasitic", i.e. none of the mechanics work properly outside the context of the Block. Soulshift (Needs an emphasis on Spirits, very few found outside the Kamigawa Block as it's not a popular "tribe"), Splice onto Arcane (need an Arcane Subtype, only found in the Kamigawa Block), Ninjitsu (Locked into one creature type that makes no sense outside Kamigawa) etc.

There is no mechanical reason why ninjutsu couldn't be printed on cards other than Ninjas, or why Ninjas couldn't be printed in another set (just think of Ninja as a job rather than a specific group of people from a specific plane). There's nothing parasitic about referring to an unblocked attacker.

This whole article is hilarious. I'm not really sure why I found it so funny though.

"Dies" is fine, I suppose, since that's what I say anyway when referring to something going from the battlefield to the graveyard. Actually seeing it on a card, Archon of Justice at that, I puked laughter.

Hexproof is just silly. Protection from Hex ? Or it could mean that we will never see Hex again. Why is it that my Doom Blade is just a Doom Blade, but my opponent's Doom Blade is a "special hex"- Doom Blade?
Or, if my opponent casts Terror , it's a hex of some sort. But, if I Commandeer that Terror, it's not a hex anymore, just a normal Terror. Okay, the more I think about it, the more that it is alarmingly stupid.

I guess I can get used to it, especially being that I don't come across "hexproof" (lol) creatures that often.

Sacred Wolf

Sacred Wolf

Sacred Wolf .

The keyword name was right in front of you.

May 22, 2011 -- 10:22PM, Axterix wrote:

Dies is silly.  If WotC is going to shorten "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield" then do it in a way that applies to all permanents.  They are going to want to do it eventually anyway now that they are doing it for creatures and having multiple different ways of saying it is stupid.  Basically, it falls under "If you are going to do something, do it right."

I agree with this.
"Dies" is simply shorthanding a mechanical action.  There is no reason whatsoever to not propagate it out to anything else that "goes to a graveyard from the battlefield", and it will quickly become player shorthand anyway if it's not already.

"Rancor goes back to my hand when it dies."

Casting my vote for liking "dies." In fact, I think it should be used on every card type, regardless of potential flavor disconnects. Hey, why should a Steel Wall be allowed to die, but a Glint Hawk Idol can only "die" some of the time? Also, does this mean that cards that currently say "whenever a permanent you control is put into a graveyard from the battlefield..." will become "whenever a permanent you control dies or is put into a graveyard from the battlefield..."? Because that seems a little silly to me.

Truth is, sometimes flavor in the game doesn't make sense. I can have a sword-wielding sword , for instance. Why can't a planeswalker die except sometimes ?

As for Hexproof... some people are complaining it makes more grammatical sense to say "is Hexproof" rather than "has Hexproof." Mechanically, of course, this would indicate a difference between having a characteristic and an ability (of which Hexproof is the latter). But I would point out that the very same can be said of Flying. Think about it. In everyday life, you don't comment that "a bird has flying," you say "it is flying." But we've accepted this for years in Magic. We'll just have to do the same for Hexproof. And as for the name... "Hexproof" is a lot better than most of the alternatives. It may not be a home run, but I'll accept it.

Bloodthirst is the one thing from the article I'm less than excited about. I never really cared for it in Ravnica, because I feel it has very limited design space and forces very restrictive gameplay decisions. Normally I like decisions of "do this now for a benefit or save it for later for more flexibility", but with Bloodthirst, the answer to the question is usually pretty clear, which means it forces gameplay, not choices. But eh, you can't win 'em all, and I can see that a number of people are excited for the mechanic, so clearly I am not the target demographic. I'm okay with that.

Gorehorn Minotaurs.

It is one creature that represents multiple creatures.  Isn't this one reason why they dropped Grizzly Bears?  Does this mean the bears will return? 

I don't like that they don't show what Hexproof is called in other languages. D:

Can someone post it?

May 23, 2011 -- 9:11AM, Ribos wrote:

As for Hexproof... some people are complaining it makes more grammatical sense to say "is Hexproof" rather than "has Hexproof."

Keywords are always nouns, even when the English word is an adjective.  The notable exception is "indestructible", which really isn't a keyword anyway.

May 23, 2011 -- 9:11AM, Ribos wrote:

Casting my vote for liking "dies." In fact, I think it should be used on every card type, regardless of potential flavor disconnects. Hey, why should a Steel Wall be allowed to die, but a Glint Hawk Idol can only "die" some of the time? Also, does this mean that cards that currently say "whenever a permanent you control is put into a graveyard from the battlefield..." will become "whenever a permanent you control dies or is put into a graveyard from the battlefield..."? Because that seems a little silly to me.

From the article:

"Dies" is shorthand for "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield" that's used exclusively to refer to creatures. (Other forms of the verb "to die," such as "died," are used as appropriate.)... Cards will continue to use the current terminology if they refer to cards that aren't on the battlefield, objects that aren't creatures by default (for example, enchantments), or groups of objects that might include some creatures and some noncreatures (for example, permanents).

Therefore, a card that now says "whenever a permanent you control is put into a graveyard from the battlefield" would be unchanged.

Zombie dies, Solemn Simulacrums dies, Darksteel Colossus dies?

"Dies" should be "is destroyed", then it will fit flavourfully enough on every permanent type. Longer than "dies" but shorter than "is put into the graveyard from play".

It's just the play/cast thing again, guys.

May 23, 2011 -- 9:34AM, Orlanth wrote:

"Dies" should be "is destroyed",  then it will fit flavourfully enough on every permanent type. Longer  than "dies" but shorter than "is put into the graveyard from  play".

It can't be.  "Destroy" doesn't cover the state-based effects of zero-toughness or the Legend/Planeswalker/World rules, or sacrificing.

I say Hexproof sounds really forced and not self explanitory.

Dies seems to me to be a step in a direction that they have stepped away from.

I taught a player MtG the other day and used dies constantly throughout. It works very well.

May 23, 2011 -- 9:34AM, Orlanth wrote:

Darksteel Colossus dies?

I don't think so. If he would die from anywhere, he gets shuffled into his owner's library instead. With filigree!

Must confess to not getting the fuss.
Hexproof works well enough, hexing something would normally be seen as a negative state caused by an enemy act, so being hexproof would make you immune, but open to friendly spells.
A creature dying is perfectly reasonable and easy to understand, as is the concept that it if it never made the table it was only a card or a spell, so dying hasn't occured.

html_removed
Bloodthirst -- I'm guessing this was added to subtly teach new players that you can (and generally want to) cast your creatures in the second main phase.

I like 'dies'.

Can we have 'Bury' back again too? I miss that. It was plenty flavorful.

And summoning sickness, too. Or is that official again since it was printed on Dryad Arbor?

May 23, 2011 -- 9:20AM, jazzman20 wrote:

Gorehorn Minotaurs.

It is one creature that represents multiple creatures.  Isn't this one reason why they dropped Grizzly Bears?  Does this mean the bears will return? 

The only reason I heard for dropping Grizzly bears, was that the name was too connected to our own world and not flavorfull and magical. So don't get your hopes up for the return of Grizzly bears.

Regarding the changes:
I will get use to the terminology change and the new evergreen mechanic with time. No need wasting energy getting upset by these changes as I can see wotc's point of view on these changes.
Can't wait to play with bloodthirst again. I am also convinced that it will be a mechanic based in the jund colors as it was Gruul's mechanic back in Guildpact. I'm really hoping to see some vamps with the ability.

May 23, 2011 -- 10:39AM, shteevuk wrote:

I like 'dies'.

Can we have 'Bury' back again too? I miss that. It was plenty flavorful.

And summoning sickness, too. Or is that official again since it was printed on Dryad Arbor?

"Bury" probably isn't coming back because the difference between it and "destroy" is too small to be worth maintaining as separate mechanics. Also, there are several ways to save a destroyed creature in addition to regeneration: totem armor and indestructibility, and probably more I can't think of at the moment. If Wizards wants a removal effect to get rid of a creature the usual way, it will say "destroy"; if they want a removal effect to get rid of a creature without the slightest possibility of it being saved, they'd say "sacrifice". There doesn't seem to be much need for "burial", which prevents just one specific kind of protection but not others.

As for summoning sickness, I doubt there are any plans to get rid of the "haste" term: it's shorter and works better as an ability. That being said, cases where they need to refer to it on cards distinctly from "haste" are rare enough that you can call it whatever you want; it probably won't come up again until/unless Dryad Arbor is reprinted.

May 23, 2011 -- 10:50AM, Kilkomir wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 9:20AM, jazzman20 wrote:

Gorehorn Minotaurs.

It is one creature that represents multiple creatures.  Isn't this one reason why they dropped Grizzly Bears?  Does this mean the bears will return? 

The only reason I heard for dropping Grizzly bears, was that the name was too connected to our own world and not flavorfull and magical. So don't get your hopes up for the return of Grizzly bears.

No it really is something they don't like. Llanowar Elves suffer(s?) the same problem.

May 23, 2011 -- 11:19AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 10:50AM, Kilkomir wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 9:20AM, jazzman20 wrote:

Gorehorn Minotaurs.

It is one creature that represents multiple creatures.  Isn't this one reason why they dropped Grizzly Bears?  Does this mean the bears will return? 

The only reason I heard for dropping Grizzly bears, was that the name was too connected to our own world and not flavorfull and magical. So don't get your hopes up for the return of Grizzly bears.

No it really is something they don't like. Llanowar Elves suffer(s?) the same problem.

And yet, they are still printing Llanowar Elves . I'll also cite Auriok Survivors , Mortis Dogs , and Viridian Betrayers , all of which were just printed in the last set. Clearly this "multiple creatures" thing is not keeping them from printing Grizzly Bears.

They do still print plural creatures, but I think the plural might be part of the reason for discontinuing Grizzly Bears .  It's such a simple, staple creature that it's commonly used as example.  And needing to write things like ' Grizzly Bears is destroyed" is awkward, especially since those examples are aimed at people not yet so familiar with how Magic words things.

I think they'd also prefer if Llanowar Elves were singular, but they don't want to create another functionally identical version of that card.

When they rename Grizzly Bears, nobody really cares, because the endless rain of Grizzly clones all stop being relevant the exact second a draft ends.  In contrast, when a competitively played card gets renamed, the "OMG they just want money, 'cause I gotta buy a whole new playset again!" complaints pop out of the woodwork, regardless of the card's rarity.

May 23, 2011 -- 11:19AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 10:50AM, Kilkomir wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 9:20AM, jazzman20 wrote:

Gorehorn Minotaurs.

It is one creature that represents multiple creatures.  Isn't this one reason why they dropped Grizzly Bears?  Does this mean the bears will return? 

The only reason I heard for dropping Grizzly bears, was that the name was too connected to our own world and not flavorfull and magical. So don't get your hopes up for the return of Grizzly bears.

No it really is something they don't like. Llanowar Elves suffer(s?) the same problem.

It's "suffers," referring to the singular card, not the creatures it represents. "Suffer" would be directly referencing the elves of Llanowar as characters in the story.

This has been Grammar Corner. 

Thumbs up for Hexproof, makes it easy for all players to understand what it does and is brillantly worded to sound anti-enemy stuff.

Thumbs up for "Dies" will help newer players and will also stop any confusion between a creature that "dies" and one that is "Exiled" as most MTG players say  "my creature dies"  anyways kinda like "cast" a few years ago.

Love the return of Bloodthirst and in the correct color too I am enjoying that WoTC are trying to give each color thier own "mechanic".

So far looking forward to DoTP 2012 and Magic 2012...

Yeah whowever wrote the sacred wolf deal hit it on the head. "Sacred" sounds much much better than "hexproof." Oh well... they should've had a poll or contest or something...

"Dies" is great.

Hexproof isn't my favorite, but I can see why they picked it. I would have preferred something to convey the idea of "Concealed"  or "camoflauge". But I suppose once a creature attacks, it wouldn't be concealed anymore.

I'm (surprisingly) on board with pretty much everything here (except, of course, the continued existence of the mythic rarity and planeswalkers and the unfortunate merging of the two). 

I like hexproof, very flavorful. And ever since I saw "dies" I kept thinking "wasn't that around way back in the early days of Magic?" but I guess it's just because it's the slang everyone uses in games anyways that makes it fit so well.  

May 23, 2011 -- 1:00PM, mflanaga wrote:

Yeah whowever wrote the sacred wolf deal hit it on the head. "Sacred" sounds much much better than "hexproof." Oh well... they should've had a poll or contest or something...

I agree with the people that think "hexproof" is kind of an ugly name for the ability. While I welcome it, I wish it had another name. "Sacred" would have made me happy. And although the definition isn't as meaningful as hexproof, I would have liked the keyword " Asceticism " much more.

May 23, 2011 -- 1:22PM, milo_bloom wrote:

I like hexproof, very flavorful. And ever since I saw "dies" I kept thinking "wasn't that around way back in the early days of Magic?" but I guess it's just because it's the slang everyone uses in games anyways that makes it fit so well.  

In the time before templating, they did use "die" on a few cards:
Abu Ja'far
Battering Ram
Cockatrice
Disintegrate
Khabál Ghoul
Old Man of the Sea
Scavenging Ghoul
Sengir Vampire
Tetravus
Thicket Basilisk
Unstable Mutation

However, several of these use it for what would now be considered reminder text, and they sometimes means "leaves the battlefield" instead of specifically "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield".

I approve of dies.

I like Hexproof but it suffers from being an adjective. To say "this is hexproof" is quite slick, but by their own syntax, you have to say "this has hexproof". All the minds and time to devise something that fits the syntax and they fail. Plus this is about six years too late. Double fail.

I think a noun version was staring them in the face: sancticty

Sanctity and Sacred both sound white. Isn't it primarily a GU mechanic?

I like the "hex", and I get why they went with "proof". It's one word, vs. other words that convey the idea.

The term is growing on me as I contemplate alternatives. Not meaning that as a back-handed compliment, though it sounds like it.

I can't put my finger on why I'm cold on "dies". It's short, easy to understand, generally flavorful. Maybe just because I finally acclimated to the jungle of text that is "when CARDNAME is put into the graveyard from the battlefield." I'm sure it will grow on me. Still, it does seem like we're taking a step backwards, in that the notion of zones was added to help remove ambiguous phrases like "play" (as in "to play"/"to cast" and "in play"/"on the battlefield"). "Dies" seems like common enough a word that it could be unintentionally loaded and thus ambiguous.

The flavor of "hexproof" just doesn't work for me. -proof is usually used to describe things, not beings, and also often for technical purposes: foolproof, fireproof, rustproof, futureproof.... It does not make me think "fantasy".  I would have preferred that they do something based on shroud for future synergy. For example, by going down the path blazed before with "typeAbility" (baneshroud? spiteshroud? hateshroud?) or "Ability preposition quality" (Shroud from opponent's spells and abilities, Shroud from opponent, etc.). The latter would also open the design space for something between shroud and protection ("shroud from blue").

Barring that, they could have come up with another word. Maybe not "asceticism" (which, admittedly, works for Taoist Monk, Troll Ascetic, and Asceticism) or "sacred" (Sacred Wolf), but at least something like "hidden," "untouchable," or "warding." I know some people would prefer a noun, but that's not a huge issue for me with "flying" around since day one.

I myself don't like the keyword they thought of for what everybody called Trollshroud. Trollshroud has a much cooler ring to it, ya'know?

I do like Bloodthirst, because it benefits RDW and my general playing style (minus mono-green ramping). It also requires a little more thought on the behalf of the Red player. That last one is actually a downside. We red players do not want to think: WE WANT TO BUUUUURN!!!

Dies is....Stupid. Putting it bluntly, I think that it is not a good idea (which is why I am thanking God that Dr. Garfield is coming back to design Innistrad. WotC is having some serious design issues that require special care). It may save space, but it doesn't really help at all. It will guaranteed confuse newbies on their first few games. I was lucky in that I was "mentored" by an awesome player (his Goblin Grenade deck was a turn 2 win invariably), because he was able to explain things so easily to me. Other newbies won't be so lucky.

May 22, 2011 -- 10:49PM, Axterix wrote:

May 22, 2011 -- 10:27PM, mlanier131 wrote:

I dont have a problem with "die" as I use it and hear it used often when playing. "Oh and that guy dies" I have a feeling this is why it is being put on cards. You want to make the game less complex and "putting from battlefield to graveyard" requires you know those two zones, etc. Most players that scoff will be experianced players, but it will help new players.

I don't disagree with that.  Don't have an issue with simplifying that.  My beef with it is that it only applies to creatures.  There should be a single word applied to all card types.  Not dies for creatures and nothing for other things.  Will also cause certain cards to get more clunky.

For example, right now, you could have a card that reads "whenever a creature or artifact is placed into the graveyard from the battlefield, do blah."  With the new wording, it'll read "Whenever a creature dies or an artifact is placed into the graveyard from the battlefield, do blah."  Just made it wordier.  On other hand, if they'd done it right the first time, it'd change to "Whenever a creature or artifact verbs, do blah.

It'll also be interesting to see what happens the first time they make a card that triggers off a planeswalker hitting the graveyard from the battlefield.  Will they use die as well?

Destroyed instead of dies sounds better and can be applied to all permanents and is a term we are used to anways.
- I didn't realize that destroyed was already attached to other things that dont necesarily mean "hits the greaveyard" . I'm still for a word that can be applied to all permanents not just creatures.

As for my .02 on other things.... on the new keyword; hexshroud sounds much better than hexproof, in fact im solidly in the camp that hexproof sounds weak & the ability is close enough to regular shroud that including the word shroud in this new key word makes it an even better fit.

Lastly im not sure how i feel about bloodthirst, i wish it could be something other than just +1/1 counters like; "If player has been damaged this turn do X instead" ie;

Bloodthirst Kavu - 1RR
When x comes into play deal 2 damage to target creature,
Bloodthirst-2; if opponent has been damaged deal 4 damage instead.
2/2

Hexproof - I'm in favor of it. Keywording saves space, and space is important. As for the name, it's not too bad. maybe a 7 out of 10. Those suggesting it be "trollshroud" surely must be joking, because that would be a terrible name for a keyword.

"Dying" - I'm in favor of it. Remember how everyone pooped their pants in fury at the M10 changes where "in play" became "battlefield" and "removed from the game" became "exile"? Remember how six months later nobody cared anymore? Yeah. Same here. Bring on the flavor, I say.  

May 23, 2011 -- 3:30PM, Veslfen wrote:

Remember how everyone pooped their pants in fury at the M10 changes where "in play" became "battlefield" and "removed from the game" became "exile"? Remember how six months later nobody cared anymore? Yeah. Same here. Bring on the flavor, I say.  

I dearly miss the satisfaction of evicting things from the entire game.

Oh, and "battlefield" is just garbage. 

May 23, 2011 -- 2:08PM, ludd_gang wrote:

Sanctity and Sacred both sound white. Isn't it primarily a GU mechanic?

I like the "hex", and I get why they went with "proof". It's one word, vs. other words that convey the idea.

The term is growing on me as I contemplate alternatives. Not meaning that as a back-handed compliment, though it sounds like it.

You really don't like Hexward as much?

May 23, 2011 -- 3:30PM, Veslfen wrote:

Hexproof - I'm in favor of it. Keywording saves space, and space is important. As for the name, it's not too bad. maybe a 7 out of 10. Those suggesting it be "trollshroud" surely must be joking, because that would be a terrible name for a keyword.

"Dying" - I'm in favor of it. Remember how everyone pooped their pants in fury at the M10 changes where "in play" became "battlefield" and "removed from the game" became "exile"? Remember how six months later nobody cared anymore? Yeah. Same here. Bring on the flavor, I say.  

I agree. It's really amusing how people are getting so worked up about wordings that don't actually change the gameplay. I wonder if anybody complained when Planeswalkers had stated genders in their cards or with the whole Obsidian Fireheart thing...

May 23, 2011 -- 3:39PM, Necrokeryx wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 3:30PM, Veslfen wrote:

Hexproof - I'm in favor of it. Keywording saves space, and space is important. As for the name, it's not too bad. maybe a 7 out of 10. Those suggesting it be "trollshroud" surely must be joking, because that would be a terrible name for a keyword.

"Dying" - I'm in favor of it. Remember how everyone pooped their pants in fury at the M10 changes where "in play" became "battlefield" and "removed from the game" became "exile"? Remember how six months later nobody cared anymore? Yeah. Same here. Bring on the flavor, I say.  

I agree. It's really amusing how people are getting so worked up about wordings that don't actually change the gameplay. I wonder if anybody complained when Planeswalkers had stated genders in their cards or with the whole Obsidian Fireheart thing...

I was personally apalled by Obsidian Fireheart . I kinda like coherence.

I hated the "new" frames when they came out around Mirodin (mostly because white cards and artifacts looked the same), but they have grown on me.
I can honestly say that while "Hexproof" bothers me now,  I can see it becoming acceptable to me.  I think the hardest part is that I thought "troll shroud" was cute, and I am sad to see it go even if it too sucked.  Of the many suggestions on this page, "Hexshroud" is my favorite.  

BUT

The most important thing is that they keyworded it, and not whatever the keyword is.  It is a very important tool in green's arsenal, and keywording denotes support and increased future use.   

May 23, 2011 -- 4:11PM, Torleep wrote:

I was personally apalled by Obsidian Fireheart . I kinda like coherence.

Every Magic card ever:
These words are important (RTFM!).
Stop reading now.

I still sometimes accidentally say and write "comes into play" and "leaves play" although I've never messed up on "exile". Shorter wordings are better - people are lazy.

May 23, 2011 -- 5:02PM, Flopfoot wrote:

I still sometimes accidentally say and write "comes into play" and "leaves play" although I've never messed up on "exile". Shorter wordings are better - people are lazy.

Wow, and I was waiting to see the new Sorin, too. What the hell, Wizards? Replace Liliana with someone worse, that's a great idea. Not that black's allowed to be viable, not so soon after Bitterblossom had its rule.

May 23, 2011 -- 3:34PM, metalevolence wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 3:30PM, Veslfen wrote:

Remember how everyone pooped their pants in fury at the M10 changes where "in play" became "battlefield" and "removed from the game" became "exile"? Remember how six months later nobody cared anymore? Yeah. Same here. Bring on the flavor, I say.  

I dearly miss the satisfaction of evicting things from the entire game.

Oh, and "battlefield" is just garbage. 

Exiling something is literally the same thing as it was to remove things from the game. They're just as much "evicted from the entire game" as they were before the keyword was put in place.

And fyi just insisting that something is garbage without any proof is an empty statement.

May 23, 2011 -- 4:45PM, kiseki wrote:

The most important thing is that they keyworded it, and not whatever the keyword is.  It is a very important tool in green's arsenal, and keywording denotes support and increased future use.   

I agree that keywording is important, but I'd rather they not increase the amount of hexproof per set. It's a horribly uninteractive ability.
 

May 23, 2011 -- 5:15PM, Veslfen wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 3:34PM, metalevolence wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 3:30PM, Veslfen wrote:

Remember how everyone pooped their pants in fury at the M10 changes where "in play" became "battlefield" and "removed from the game" became "exile"? Remember how six months later nobody cared anymore? Yeah. Same here. Bring on the flavor, I say.  

I dearly miss the satisfaction of evicting things from the entire game.

Oh, and "battlefield" is just garbage. 

Exiling something is literally the same thing as it was to remove things from the game. They're just as much "evicted from the entire game" as they were before the keyword was put in place.
 

I'm well aware that it's (almost) functionally identical. They just sucked all the fun out of it.

I will continue to insist that "battlefield" is garbage.

Sorin is not necessarily worse than Liliana (he even saw play immediately after being printed, whereas I think it's only recently that Liliana has been used at all).

Hexproof is not so uninteractive. It means that creatures actually have to fight against creatures rather than both players just using removal spells until someone runs out.

May 23, 2011 -- 5:15PM, Veslfen wrote:

I agree that keywording is important, but I'd rather they not increase the amount of hexproof per set. It's a horribly uninteractive ability.
 

It's more interactive that shroud

It was also meant to promote creature combat, something wizards promotes a lot lately.

At least it's more interactive than Counterspell .

May 23, 2011 -- 5:49PM, TobyornotToby wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 5:15PM, Veslfen wrote:

I agree that keywording is important, but I'd rather they not increase the amount of hexproof per set. It's a horribly uninteractive ability.
 

It's more interactive that shroud

It was also meant to promote creature combat, something wizards promotes a lot lately.

At least it's more interactive than Counterspell .

I lost my sacred wolf 9 days ago when the serra's embrace on it was disenchanted mid combat.  

I think "Hexproof" and "Die" sound really, really silly.

Not saying I deslike it, but I have an issue with changes when I don't feel they were strictly necessary. I always expected "hexproof" to be called "Trollshroud" when the time came, but it's quite clear why it didn't happen. I might still call it "trollshroud", though.

As for the term "die", I understand it's simple, but it will take me a good time to get used to it. Not saying I think it's a bad decision, but I don't like it.

May 23, 2011 -- 5:49PM, TobyornotToby wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 5:15PM, Veslfen wrote:

I agree that keywording is important, but I'd rather they not increase the amount of hexproof per set. It's a horribly uninteractive ability.
 

It's more interactive that shroud

It was also meant to promote creature combat, something wizards promotes a lot lately.

At least it's more interactive than Counterspell .

I mean uninteractive as in it boosts the power of the creature (by making it resistant to removal), yet has no complementary downside (you can't equip or enchant it yourself). Switching it to all-upside for the caster seems an unnecessary switch, since it's not as if the boost was really needed (creatures with shroud are eminently playable, even in high-level tournaments).

Let me be clear I'm not opposed to its existence, but rather a significant increase in the frequency with which it occurs in sets moving forward. Personally I like the ability a lot (every time I cast a Multani, Maro-Sorceror I inwardly rage that I can't easily give it trample). But I don't think a marked spike in its useage is necessarily good for the game. Games are already decided by creatures overwhelmingly (Jace TMS not withstanding). And it's not clear whether that will be the case yet. 

May 23, 2011 -- 5:48PM, Flopfoot wrote:

Sorin is not necessarily worse than Liliana (he even saw play immediately after being printed, whereas I think it's only recently that Liliana has been used at all).

I don't remember Sorin ever seeing anything other than casual play, and for good reason--he's way too expensive for what he does. You could drop him, or you could drop a Titan or another significantly better 5 or 6 cost spell. At four he'd probably be played, but not at six. No chance.

I think the most important reason for trollshroud hexproof* to exist is to promote using Auras on your own creatures. (As opposed to only using the removal ones like Pacifism .) Players feel much safer playing Auras when they have guys like Uril, the Miststalker or even Sacred Wolf to put those Auras onto.

*This is gonna be as difficult as saying Commander instead of EDH, isn't it? 

May 23, 2011 -- 6:54PM, LordKahra wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 5:48PM, Flopfoot wrote:

Sorin is not necessarily worse than Liliana (he even saw play immediately after being printed, whereas I think it's only recently that Liliana has been used at all).

I don't remember Sorin ever seeing anything other than casual play, and for good reason--he's way too expensive for what he does. You could drop him, or you could drop a Titan or another significantly better 5 or 6 cost spell. At four he'd probably be played, but not at six. No chance.

Sucks that Sorin is the black m12 walker. He and Liliana are both awful in every format except EDH. Hopefully there's a good black walker in Innistrad. Liliana 2.0, maybe.

I've been playing since Revised, and I like the addition of "dies" and I can live with the name they chose for "hexproof." ("Trollshroud" would have made me smile, but if they want to print a hexproof Angel or Vampire, it would be weird to imply that they had some troll blood in them.) 

To begin, I wanted to say that I hope wizards is keeping up with this message board; there are a lot of good contributions from a lot of people in a very civil manner, so kudos to y'all. I have a lot to say about these minor changes that I'll deal with anyway, but I promise to end on a positive note :D

I dislike "hexproof" and "dies" mostly because of how inelegant they are. There is almost nothing elegant about any of it and I have a hard time believing that the wordsmiths and walking thesauruses working at the wizards creative department spent enough time on these issues to warrant their titles and paychecks.

-the wording of "hex" over the past two years has led me to believe that the cards with this name would have the ability to remove counters and probably be black. See: Vampire Hexmage and Hex Parasite . This completely destroys what I have taken for granted as it is now trollshroud and the first card I see is a green treefolk. hrm. I am firmly in the "hex shroud" or "ascetic" camp due to this reason. Core sets are supposed to be about introducing newer players to the basic evergreen mechanics and gameplay, right? Well, it is a heck (hex?) of a lot easier to memorize shroud and "xxx shroud" since they are more related than shoud and hexproof. Also, I thought they were setting up Asceticism for an m12 reprint and that it would be the evergreen keyword. Both of those make immediate sense to me, hexproof is out of nowhere and has no continuity with the game's history.

-They keywording is getting kinda out of control nowadays, really. I played heroclix once and was totally confused by all of they keywords that were being thrown around and never got into it due to the intimidation factor. I feel like magic is heading this way. "Dies" is fine as I understand what it does - but it only applies to creatures. This is a tragedy. This is unnecessarily complicating the game much like shroud-hexproof (which I saw coming as soon as they keyworded shroud... "hey, what about if they can't target your creatures but you can?" "Oh that? That's still a mouthful! Have fun for a few years before we decide to keyword that too!") Fear was fine since I grew up with the enchantment... but then MaRo pointed out that other colors might want to use it and I saw immediately where he was coming from. That became intimidate and fear has gone the way of banding as far as I can tell. If you're going to keyword something, please, PLEASE don't give it such a narrow application. It's awkward and inconsistent and really makes the game overall look much less elegant even if it saves a few lines of text on creatures only.

-Why wasn't "dies" introduced in the PHYREXIAN block?? Wasn't one of the design criteria for a phyrexian card that it has the exact definition of "dies" abilities? Someone really dropped the templating ball on that one.

-I love bloodthirst returing in red (more on this at the end to hold my promise) but I am again disheartened by the printing of a plural creature card. Gorehorn Minotaurs is a new card being printed yet my nostalgic Grizzly Bears was pretty much replaced by the forced replacement Runeclaw Bear because it was plural. I fell in love with this game because the first card I read the flavor text to was the revised Bears. A part of me will seriously die inside if you do not keep Giant Growth or Giant Spider in m12.

You guys are doing a great job in fleshing out red abilities at common. Bloodthirst is a proactive ability that perfectly describes red, and red creatures can actually enter combat more often instead of trying to end the game in the first 5 turns and avoiding combat with other creatures by bolting to the face for the last 3 points of damage or using Panic Attack effects. It makes red creatues still unapplealing unless the bloodthirst ability activates, and they become huge! Then you actually WANT to bash face and combat with other creatures, which then allows the ready red mage to use those combat tricks red mages are meant to use! Love it! I hope bloodthirst might somehow allow additional abilities as well and not just the narrow +1/1 counters. Scab-Clan Mauler is one of my favorite cards! Especially with a Moldervine Cloak !

"Dies" is a HUGE mistake.  There was a reason "bury" was removed and a full line of text was added.  Because new players had  a hard time figuring out the difference between "bury" and "destroyed."

You are basicly reversing the same concept for why bury was removed in the first place.  Now players will have to tediously look for the word "dies" in the text to figure out when an ability triggers.  Then the player has to know that "dies" = put into graveyard from the battlefield.  Just like with "bury" players had to know "bury" = destroyed and cannot be regenerated.

This is a huge mistake.  Even if you can add a few more lines of text in a card its not worth the headache you are going to cause judges, players, and new players.

Warded. Ascetic. Sacred. Shielded. I can think of a vast array of words that are better than "Hexproof, Stamp, Double Stamp, No Erasees, No Backsies, Times a Million."

May 23, 2011 -- 5:49PM, TobyornotToby wrote:

May 23, 2011 -- 5:15PM, Veslfen wrote:

I agree that keywording is important, but I'd rather they not increase the amount of hexproof per set. It's a horribly uninteractive ability.
 

It's more interactive that shroud

It was also meant to promote creature combat, something wizards promotes a lot lately.

At least it's more interactive than Counterspell .

Why should shroud be less interactive then trollshroud? Just because you can cast enchantments & equipments while your opponent is unable to react to them? That cleary doesn´t improve the gameflow nor is it "interacting with your opponent".

I also think your last statement is utter nonsense, counterspell is the most interactive, non-creature spell ever printed. Its interaction on a different level than your typical creature combat. - Both players need to consider how they play very carefully if one of them features counterspells.

Hmm, hexproof really does sound strange, it really should either be connected with shroud (like trollshroud or whatever), or it should be called ascetic or something similar. Just about anything which we as players can imagine what it does.

Personally, I like "dies" quite a lot. I don't know about English speaking community of the game but we in the Czech Republic use the word "die" when we are explaining a card to someone who doesn't know it. On the other hand, what twicky_kid says about "bury" makes sense. However, I haven't been playing MTG long enough to remember it, I've just seen it on some old cards so this doesn't influence my opinion.

Bloodthirst is good. The problem with red creatures is that they usually have small toughness numbers and the effects that are supposed to make them stronger only increases their power. That's why we red mages prefer avoiding creature to creature combat. So, I'm quite curious about what gets printed in M12.

And I'm also curious about the planeswalkers. So, just now we know about Sorin, but he's too expensive (in my country both in mana and money - for what he does), so I'd just stick with Liliana. After the video for the new Duels of the Planeswalkers, I also expect Gideon to be reprinted. Good choice. But what about the other colors? In green Garruk is the only choice. Just not Nissa! She's only good with elves and that's also arguable. In red I expect either Chandra Nalaar again or Chandra Ablaze but the latter is too mana-expensive. And blue? Just don't reprint Jace, the Mind Sculptor! The ones who can't afford him can hardly win in standard these days so let him just rotate out. I guess Jace Beleren is just fine, Tezzeret the Seeker is so commited to artifacts that he can hardly be of use in a core set. 

I'm not certain keywording and rewording everything is such a good idea. While it shouldn't cause much trouble for more experienced players, it's yet another hurdle for beginning players trying to understand how to game works. Even intuitive keywords like this require searching for a translation the first time it is encountered. Having to look things up too often is (in my experience) a major reason to give up trying to learn a game.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Also, I question the wisdom of letting unofficial shorthand slip onto the actual cards too much. It feels a bit like making l33tsp3@k an officially accepted form of spelling.)

Once again, FOESHROUD.

May 23, 2011 -- 4:51AM, ConcernedPlayer wrote:

Intimidate on a black creature is the exact same as fear (baring Chaoslace shenanigans)

Those shenanigans are rather important.  Blue has a huge mechanic of color-change effects; we haven't seen much of them since Shadowmoor, but they'll be back someday, and they'll almost certainly be intended to interact with Intimidate in ways they didn't with Fear.

and only two nonblack Creatures were ever printed with fear ( Squealing Devil and Dust Elemental )

You forgot Arcbound Fiend .  Who really doesn't approve of the change because if you replace Fear with Intimidate on him, you don't switch out which one of five colors is now able to block him - you make them ALL able to block him.

May 24, 2011 -- 1:11AM, Warrior57 wrote:

Why should shroud be less interactive then trollshroud? Just because you can cast enchantments & equipments while your opponent is unable to react to them? That cleary doesn´t improve the gameflow nor is it "interacting with your opponent".

The poster after my next post was an example =)

May 23, 2011 -- 6:15PM, kiseki wrote:

I lost my sacred wolf 9 days ago when the serra's embrace on it was disenchanted mid combat.  

And that's why hexproof is more interesting that shroud.

May 23, 2011 -- 6:15PM, kiseki wrote:

I also think your last statement is utter nonsense, counterspell is the most interactive, non-creature spell ever printed. Its interaction on a different level than your typical creature combat. - Both players need to consider how they play very carefully if one of them features counterspells.

It probably is and you're right. I should only talk about card-to-card interaction, not the entirety of game interactions. There's a reason payment (à la Mana Leak ) works on counterspells and not on other stuff (Prophecy cough cough). It gives interaction where there was few. I play card X, you play Counterspell . If I'm not playing blue, there's very little I can do to interact with that.

May 23, 2011 -- 6:42PM, Veslfen wrote:

I mean uninteractive as in it boosts the power of the creature (by making it resistant to removal), yet has no complementary downside (you can't equip or enchant it yourself).

This is not a reason, or do you like shadow better than flying. Actually, aren't all creature keywords all-upside? There's a reason they discontinued islandhome =p  

May 23, 2011 -- 6:42PM, Veslfen wrote:

Switching it to all-upside for the caster seems an unnecessary switch, since it's not as if the boost was really needed (creatures with shroud are eminently playable, even in high-level tournaments).

So they should be made weaker but with a more interesting ability.

I do think green needs it through. Calcite Snapper , Inkwell Leviathan , Scion of Oona , Sphinx of Jwar Isle . Blue is doing just fine with shroud. But what shrouded green beast has made an impact of late?

May 23, 2011 -- 6:42PM, Veslfen wrote:

Let me be clear I'm not opposed to its existence, but rather a significant increase in the frequency with which it occurs in sets moving forward. Personally I like the ability a lot (every time I cast a Multani, Maro-Sorceror I inwardly rage that I can't easily give it trample). But I don't think a marked spike in its useage is necessarily good for the game. Games are already decided by creatures overwhelmingly (Jace TMS not withstanding). And it's not clear whether that will be the case yet. 

That is a reason. The eternal debate of game depth versus noob friendly. What do you mean with the last part, the last 'that'?

May 24, 2011 -- 4:01AM, willpell wrote:

Once again, FOESHROUD.

Nae! Ye daft!? Tis worsen "hexproof," verily!

I would think better of a creative writer to not just champion his own concept. I, like not unto the Vorthosian mind you must be beholden to, prefer modular action and keywords, things that allow creative interaction rather than dead ends. For me, and not because I suggested anything of the sort earlier but merely adapting what others said before me, was the use of "[modifier] Shroud." This permits the use of "Enemy Shroud" or "Ally Shroud," where these terms can be used in the lexicon to define their qualities in the game, or "Black Shroud" where the variables are already there, but interacts well with "protection from black" ability phrases.

The teams making up these keywords consistently fail when there tends to be room open for keyword systems rather than blank keywords.

For example, try this on for size: Living Aura. I can think of a host of cards that have effects that should they ever be removed from their "host," they have an additional rule that allows you to do something with them: A living aura can be attached to another creature when the germ would leave play/exile/die, or else do "X," where X is either an action creating a new host or drawing a card when there is no host.

X Shroud has the effective capability of allowing far more realms of build than has been used before, just as Kicker has been modified as a whole word into Multikicker without Multikicker actually being a different keyword itself.

"Hexproof" sounds like something from Harry Potter.

Specifically, it makes me think of Hermione Granger explaining in highly unnecessary detail why I can't kill something very annoying, making me want to kill her too.

I'm glad they finally keyworded the ability, but I would have preferred "hex" mean something established in Magic first. The keyword makes it sound like "hex" should be the word for "targeted spell or ability controlled by an opponent" and I don't want them to go that route.

I'm also not glad to see the ability. It feels more griefer-ish to me than straight-up shroud, though that may not be the case. While I do like Wizards pushing for some use of mass removal, I find it really annoying when this has shroud and that has hexproof and the whole game becomes Wrath after Wrath (and Fresh Meat after Fresh Meat [btw, is anyone else annoyed that Fresh Meat and Beast Within look so similar?])

I really hope this is just about keywording something messy and not about hexproof as something they're hugely going to be pushing. Or that if it is on a lot of cards, most of those are small and likely to die easily in combat. Big hexproof things just make playing un-fun. (And no, I'm not fond of playing with them myself either.)

May 24, 2011 -- 4:16AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

There's a reason payment (à la Mana Leak ) works on counterspells and not on other stuff (Prophecy cough cough). It gives interaction where there was few.

Mana Leak is only played when the opponent can't pay with visible resources, unless an addition error is involved.

I play card X, you play Counterspell . If I'm not playing blue, there's very little I can do to interact with that.

Play the least-essential (but still threatenting) threat first.  If it's countered, chances are good your next threat this turn will stick.  The curiousity of Mana Leak is that this is reversed, exactly because nobody plays it when the opponent has three mana open.

Counterspell only really punishes eggs-in-one-basket decks that depend on one or two specific cards to win, or decks that have top-heavy mana curves and cannot play multiple threats in a turn.  These two groups have an amazing amount of overlap.

May 24, 2011 -- 6:46AM, Qmark wrote:

May 24, 2011 -- 4:16AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

There's a reason payment (à la Mana Leak ) works on counterspells and not on other stuff (Prophecy cough cough). It gives interaction where there was few. I play card X, you play Counterspell . If I'm not playing blue, there's very little I can do to interact with that.

What "interaction"?  Mana Leak is only played when the opponent can't pay with visible resources, unless an addition error is involved.

Not quite only. There are (admittedly rare) situations where you Leak something knowing they can't do something else if they pay for the Leak and you're trying to set something up.

Or just plain counter wars.

May 24, 2011 -- 6:46AM, Qmark wrote:

Play the least-essential (but still threatenting) threat first.  If it's countered, chances are good your next threat this turn will stick.

Again, I'm talking about interactions with the specific cards. Nothing lets me interact with either card X or counterspell Y. As opposed to many situations of permanent X and answer Y, in which case there are a lot of ways to interact with them.

(Also, on the previous point, double Mana Leak, or Mana Leak + Daze, etc)

May 24, 2011 -- 7:07AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

(Also, on the previous point, double Mana Leak, or Mana Leak + Daze, etc)

The point is, Leak is almost always played when the opponent cannot pay enough extra mana, even if it takes two leaks to do so.

May 23, 2011 -- 3:30PM, Veslfen wrote:

Hexproof - I'm in favor of it. Keywording saves space, and space is important. As for the name, it's not too bad. maybe a 7 out of 10. Those suggesting it be "trollshroud" surely must be joking, because that would be a terrible name for a keyword. "Dying" - I'm in favor of it. Remember how everyone pooped their pants in fury at the M10 changes where "in play" became "battlefield" and "removed from the game" became "exile"? Remember how six months later nobody cared anymore? Yeah. Same here. Bring on the flavor, I say.

Agreed. Personally I still usually say "comes into play" when announcing an ability triggered by that event, and only use "enters the battlefield" when quoting a card or trying to figure out some tricky rules interaction. But that's just because "comes into play" is shorter and simpler to say. However, I understand why they changed it, because "play" was/is such an ambiguous term. There's the played/cast meaning and the played/in play meaning, and of course, in a sense, anything in the game is in play during the game.

May 23, 2011 -- 9:25PM, mrpiddle wrote:

-the wording of "hex" over the past two years has led me to believe that the cards with this name would have the ability to remove counters and probably be black. See: Vampire Hexmage and Hex Parasite . This completely destroys what I have taken for granted as it is now trollshroud and the first card I see is a green treefolk. hrm. I am firmly in the "hex shroud" or "ascetic" camp due to this reason. Core sets are supposed to be about introducing newer players to the basic evergreen mechanics and gameplay, right? Well, it is a heck (hex?) of a lot easier to memorize shroud and "xxx shroud" since they are more related than shoud and hexproof. Also, I thought they were setting up Asceticism for an m12 reprint and that it would be the evergreen keyword. Both of those make immediate sense to me, hexproof is out of nowhere and has no continuity with the game's history.

You aren't the first person saying that you associate "hex" with counters, but I think it's kind of weird. The word has appeared in card names nine times that I can see. Vampire Hexmage and Hex Parasite both remove counters, yes, and they're both recent, but Hexplate golem and Tomb Hex don't, and they're in the same blocks. Of the other five "hex" cards, only Withering Hex mentions counters at all, and that adds counters, it doesn't remove them.

I agree, hexproof doesn't sound great. I'd have preferred some kind of variation on shroud. "Troll shroud" wouldn't do either, but maybe "enemy shroud" or something. At first glance, "asceticism" might have worked, but if you think about it, not really: it's a real word describing a kind of religious devotion which made sense in the case of a certain group of trolls in the storyline of a certain world, but not in general. Rather than being untargetable by abilities, an ascetic creature shouldn't be able to use abilities, but that just describes any vanilla creature, or maybe even not attack.

How about "Veil" instead of Hexproof?

"Trollshroud" is horrible because it's not intuitive. You'd have to be familiar with trolls in the game to know what it means.

"Hexproof" at least sounds vaguely like what it is.

May 24, 2011 -- 7:38AM, Qmark wrote:

May 24, 2011 -- 7:07AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

(Also, on the previous point, double Mana Leak, or Mana Leak + Daze, etc)

The point is, Leak is almost always played when the opponent cannot pay enough extra mana, even if it takes two leaks to do so.

Yes but by having 4 mana untapped I interacted with the first  Mana Leak . By playing those extra sources to have 3 mana extra I can counter your Mana Leak. What I'm saying is that that is more interaction than the interaction with counterspell, which is nothing (once again talking about card specific interaction). This is a good thing. Hence why Spell Pierce is printed and the next Rhystic Lightning is not.

May 24, 2011 -- 11:48AM, ludd_gang wrote:

How about "Veil" instead of Hexproof?

Not a bad replacement, but "Veil" sounds very blue and black to me, whereas trollshroud usually appears on... well, green trolls (unless I'm mistaken, the last nongreen creature to have it was Spirit of the Hearth ). I think Veil and Hexproof sound equally good for the ability (that is, kinda clunky), but hexproof sounds definitively more green.

I appreciate the suggestion though!

EDIT: Oops, misread Spirit of the Hearth . Makes me ask, though, will we see cards with "You are hexproof"?

May 24, 2011 -- 4:07PM, TobyornotToby wrote:

Yes but by having 4 mana untapped I interacted with the first  Mana Leak . By playing those extra sources to have 3 mana extra I can counter your Mana Leak. What I'm saying is that that is more interaction than the interaction with counterspell, which is nothing (once again talking about card specific interaction). This is a good thing. Hence why Spell Pierce is printed and the next Rhystic Lightning is not.

You are going to make me refine the statement again, I see.


Leak is almost always played when there is an assumption that the opponent cannot pay enough extra mana, even if it takes two leaks to do so.
Leak is interractive, even if the intent in playing is not to be so.

May 24, 2011 -- 6:13PM, Qmark wrote:

You are going to make me refine the statement again, I see.


Leak is almost always played when there is an assumption that the opponent cannot pay enough extra mana, even if it takes two leaks to do so.
Leak is interractive, even if the intent in playing is not to be so.

Yeah that sounds about right =)


Then again, isn't that true for all removal? I don't Doom Blade your guy if I know you have regeneration mana up, an untapped Mother of Runes , etc. Unless I have a second Doom Blade to spare.

My original point was that there are many more ways to interact (with the cards themselves) with Doom Blade killing permanent X, than with Counterspell countering spell X.

May 24, 2011 -- 4:01AM, willpell wrote:

You forgot Arcbound Fiend .  Who really doesn't approve of the change because if you replace Fear with Intimidate on him, you don't switch out which one of five colors is now able to block him - you make them ALL able to block him.

I believe you missed an "un" in there--a colorless creature with intimidate can't be blocked by anything but artifact creatures, since no creature can possibly share a color with it.

Right you are.  Otherwise, though, my point stands.  Fear and intimidate are NOT interchangeable, and I still think my "color fear" idea was far better than intimidate.

Forgive me if I'm rehashing something that's already been said: I just wanted to register my discontent on the internet! 

I'm not really a fan of Hexproof as it just seems counter-intuitive. What precisely is the Hex that my permanent is proofed against? If Hex is used as a noun, then why is my opponent's Doom Blade a Hex but mine isn't (maybe I had something to trigger from a permament hitting my graveyard...)?

And if it's used as a verb, then is it suggesting that all my opponent's targetted spells and abilities are Hexes whilst the same targetted spells and abilities that I use are not by virtue of them coming from me? Everything my opponent does is a Hex and everything I do is a...blessing?

The article skirts around this issue by having the opponent casting something obviously negative (Doom Blade) and having the spell the controllers casts as something positive (and non-hex-like) like Flight. But I'm not really sure how this keyword can work linguistically when both cards that want to target the permament are the same but are treated differently. Maybe 'inviolable' might have worked? 
 

Gonna just say again, I'm not actually opposed to the name if the syntax was "Creature is Hexproof". But because of the structure of creature abilities, it needs to be a noun or a verb in the 'gerund' sense (ie. functioning as a noun). Hexproof is an adjective, and though it can be a verb it is not used in gerund sense. Therefore fail.

Someone on the other threads suggested Hexguard, which I think improves its sense.

May 25, 2011 -- 11:08PM, amemorylost wrote:

The article skirts around this issue by having the opponent casting something obviously negative (Doom Blade) and having the spell the controllers casts as something positive (and non-hex-like) like Flight.
 

I think you'll find that your opponent casting Jump on your creatures is never a boon.

May 26, 2011 -- 8:16AM, Kensan_Oni wrote:

May 25, 2011 -- 11:08PM, amemorylost wrote:

The article skirts around this issue by having the opponent casting something obviously negative (Doom Blade) and having the spell the controllers casts as something positive (and non-hex-like) like Flight.
 

I think you'll find that your opponent casting Jump on your creatures is never a boon.

Aphotic Wisps , Cerulean Wisps , Crimson Wisps , Viridescent Wisps . It happened, just to cycle =p

personally i am disappointed with both names of these changes. i would perfer put into the graveyard even if dies creates more space for text. also i would have supported the name troll shroud as it is a name that people are already familiar with and that peoplem have used for a while.

May 26, 2011 -- 8:35PM, iHeartMtg wrote:

personally i am disappointed with both names of these changes. i would perfer put into the graveyard even if dies creates more space for text. also i would have supported the name troll shroud as it is a name that people are already familiar with and that peoplem have used for a while.

There are only two trolls with the ability and one troll based card with it (Asceticism).  There are 17 other cards with the ability so why should an ability be named after a creature type that only appears on 3 out of 20 cards and isn't even the first to have the ability (that honor goes to both Zuo Ci, the Mocking Sage and  Taoist Hermit of Portal Three Kingdoms).

Also, new players would not understand the reasoning behind the name.  If they see a card with the ability "troll shroud" but isn't a troll, it wouldn't make sense.  Even though I understand the reasoning behind the name, I have never used the term "troll shroud" when referring to the ability.  I have always called the ability "good shroud" because that is what it is and does.  It prevents your opponents from targeting your creature but allows you to target it, which is good for you.

I agree with you on "dies", but I can't agree with you on your disappointment of hexproof.  I believe that a different name can be found, however it isn't intuitive to say that a non-troll creature has troll shroud.  It also makes little sense on most enchantments or artifacts that grant the ability.

Well, I think that "dies" is good. To me, it sounds intuitive because everyone (even without having played MtG) knows what that means and it's quite clear that something that died must have been alive before (and therefore on the battlefield, it can't be confused with discarding), so I'm for it.

But I don't still like hexproof. Sounds strange to me. And troll shroud makes no sense either. And is it even necessary to keyword this ability? There are now twice as many keywords than 5 years ago. Even vigilance came with 9th edition in 2005. It just reminds me of explaining the rules to a friend and being actually quite nervous about not forgetting to mention any keyword. Besides, there has always been enough room on cards for explaining everything... 

Well the thing about "reprintability" is that staples like Tarmogoyf and Dark Confidant can be reprinted for the Modern format. If Tarmogoyf jumps to 3 digits you reprint it in like M12. You sell cards,you feed the format, and keep prices manageable. You can't do that with Legacy.

This is a good decision all around.

I can see new players putting leave play abilities on the stack when their spell is countered and "dies".

i approve of 'dies'.  sure, it would take a moment of explanation for a new player, but so did 'draw' the first time you played a card game.

'hexproof' is kind of awkward for reasons already stated about how it implies your opponent's spells are all hexes and your own spells are all good.  sure, you might doom blade your own creature to provide a benefit to yourself, but for the creature in question, it's still definitely a hex.  same for instances where your opponent might use a 'nice' card on your own creatures for the benefit of your opponent. (giant growth on domestication, for example).  there's nothing bad happening to the actual creature.

what might be interesting, though greatly despised by certain groups, would be if they started giving instants/sorceries subtypes based on whether they were good, bad, or neutral spells, flavorfully.  for example, doom blade would be an 'instant - hex', and giant growth could be 'instant - charm'.  then you might have cards which refer to certain flavors of spells.

"Hexproof" is perfectly ok.
"Dies", however is terrible idea. It just creates a total mess when you use cards from different periods of magic - and that's not cool, although someone will of course like it. I do not get it.

May 30, 2011 -- 3:48PM, phaseshifter wrote:

I can see new players putting leave play abilities on the stack when their spell is countered and "dies".

I's say that's covered by the same rule that you can still counter or Rise from the Grave a creature with shroud/hexproof; abilties only work from the battlefield, nowhere else, unless specifically stated.

Something that didn't really catch my attention until the repost this past Monday: 

As you might already know, "Magic 2012" refers to both the Magic 2012 Core Set and Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012.

Umm, that's an awful idea. Duels of the Planeswalkers is an unfun, unwanted hack on the game and Magic 2012 is the third core set since the core set reboot. The major improvements they've made in core set design means it deserves to have its own moniker and doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the half-cocked Duels game.

Hexproof is cool, but "mill" has been a community term for a while; it deserves to appear in card text. Searching the Gatherer for "mill" is more intuitive than "top card graveyard".

Naturally, I'm coming in late. Whoops.

Anyhow, some feedback:

"Dies": Good stuff. It's simple, resonant, intuitive, and not half as confusing in practice as people are making it out to be. Not quite as elegant as the "cast" switch, as it applies to only one card type rather than all but one, but it certainly does make sense in the cases it'll be used in.

"Hexproof": Ugly as sin, I have to say. Of course, I don't envy you for having to have named it - there's not a lot you can do to reach a really intuitive term for it, in the space alotted. At that rate, though, I personally think you were better off not keywording it at all. You can have evergreen mechanics that aren't keywords, after all. It just seems to me that it was a slip for a keyword as generally ugly as "hexproof" to make it through.

On a side note: to everyone suggesting remarkably vague keyword terms for "hexproof" (like "sacred" or "shielded") - you're not actually communicating what the ability does, without reminder text. Part of the job of a good keyword (like "flying", for instance) is that simply reading it gives you an idea of what it does. They were severely hindered in this, that the keyword had to be intuitively distinct from "shroud", which involved specifically pointing out that it only affected "bad" spells. Thus, "hex".

"Asceticism" would've been comically inaccurate, even. An ascetic deprives themselves of nice things (you know, like the spells you target your own creatures with?), not of bad things. If "asceticism" were a keyword, it would more accurately read, "[This] can't be the target of spells or abilities you control." Yes, I realise there is a (very minor) precedent for it in existing cards, but that doesn't reasonably excuse using a keyword that means exactly the opposite of what you're trying to communicate.

"Trollshroud" simply wouldn't work, unless you expect the ability to appear solely on trolls (which it doesn't even currently). For much the same reasons that Haste is not called  Netherspeed .

Finally, all of those "Hexshroud" proponents; while I understand that your intentions are good, and the idea of enabling "Greenshroud" or "Creatureshroud" is actually pretty nifty (though, I can't imagine many cases where it is flavorfully distinct from outright protection), realise that you're defining "hex" as "a spell or ability an opponent controls" - or, I suppose, if "Greenshroud" reads "[This] can't be the target of green spells or abilities," then it follows that "hex" is now an adjective, meaning "that an opponent controls". Even assuming that you limit that definition exclusively to spells and abilities (as narrow as you can make it, for "Hexshroud" to function), you still wind up with ridiculous things like "hex creatures" and "hex artifacts" (while they're on the stack). While I like the potential of it, I don't like what it does to "hex" even more; and (if you want to avoid that) I don't think that "'That an opponent controls'-shroud" has quite the ring you were hoping for.

Anyhow, back on track: I'm not exceptionally keen on Bloodthirst, personally - but I imagine you wouldn't have chosen it as your returning mechanic for the set, if you didn't have some good ideas for it. I almost wish you made it a point to pick mechanics that spread across colours a little better than Scry (which could've, admittedly; but I can see why you would avoid it) and Bloodthirst. I know you're trying to be fair by moving it around from set to set; but I'm not convinced you've really found your balance, yet. "Keep looking," I suppose, is all I can say...

Oh man, I just noticed that it says "Returning Card Type: Planeswalker".  No, really?