|
2 years ago ::
May 29, 2011 - 11:15PM
#11
|
|
|
Why should "unblockable" behave differently than "can only be blocked by two or more creatures?"
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Follow me @TabakRules
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 12:41AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2005
|
Why should "unblockable" behave differently than "can only be blocked by two or more creatures?"
Because it's a clear, single word. That is to say, it feels like a keyword.
Player == Object
Instant = Sorcery - Instant
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 8:30AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Why should "unblockable" behave differently than "can only be blocked by two or more creatures?"
Because it's a clear, single word. That is to say, it feels like a keyword.
Honestly, I think the only true reason people want to see 'unblockable' and 'indestructible' as a keyword is because the confusion came about from a lack of reading and/or a lack of understanding different words.
I've never thought 'indestructible' was, in and of itself, an ability, even before I delved into becoming as well-versed in the actual rules as I have become. That's because I understood the word 'is' was stating a quality, not granting an ability, whereas 'has/have/gain(s)' were obviously giving something, so those must be granting abilities, and as such, 'indestructible' and 'unblockable' must not be abilities.
I'm all for streamlining the game to some degree, but not to the point where people don't have to actually think or actually read. If we get to that point, people start assuming things and not reading the cards even more than they already don't, and then we'd have more so-called "justification" for a further dumbing down of the game to match the expectation of people who don't want to think or read.
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 9:36AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
Spearbreaker Behemoth  taught me a lot about "indestructible". When I first saw the card in an Intro Pack I thought it was stupidly overpowered, so that prompted me to do some research. I quickly found out that being indestructible wasnt as bad as it sounds (since there are lots of ways to get rid of the permanent that dont actually involve destroying it). The card also taught me the difference between "~ is indestructible" and "target creature is indestructible" when it comes to losing abilities etc. ~ Tim
 Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D Sig
Show
That makes no sense to me.
If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?
~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise  in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch  . YAY COLOR IDENTITY 
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 10:22AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2005
|
Why should "unblockable" behave differently than "can only be blocked by two or more creatures?"
Well, part of me says that they shouldn't. But I also think that there is a huge difference between "unblockable" and "indestructible" than "can only be blocked by two or more creatures." They just seem like keywords, and them functioning so differently is just.... I don't know. I understand how they work perfectly.
But it seems that a simple (albiet large in scale) templating change could fix it.
Now, I know giving "quotes" to creatures with spells and auras is rare, but it is definitely done: Bear Umbra  , Verdant Embrace  , and Endless Whispers  . There are other cards, but most of them grant activated abilities to the specific creature. Now, maybe these cards don't work if the enchantment had the ability instead of giving it to the creature. I don't know.
However, it can be done, and I understand why peopel are opposed to it. It's just that I don't think there is a downside from making every single attribute an ability.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 9:08AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2004
|
Now, I know giving "quotes" to creatures with spells and auras is rare, but it is definitely done: Bear Umbra , Verdant Embrace , and Endless Whispers . There are other cards, but most of them grant activated abilities to the specific creature. Now, maybe these cards don't work if the enchantment had the ability instead of giving it to the creature. I don't know.
Each of the three cards you mention grants an ability that refers to "you" - meaning the creature's controller rather than the enchantment's controller. It could be templated so the enchantment does all the work rather than granting an ability to the creature, but it would (in my opinion) slightly reduce the grokkability of the effect - compare:
- Enchanted creature has "Whenever this creature attacks, untap all lands you control."
and
- Whenever enchanted creature attacks, its controller untaps all lands he or she controls.
The former has the key words of the trigger and the effect right next to each other - "attacks, untap" - while the latter sticks a player in the middle (with a reference back to the start of the ability to identify the player, to boot). And when you look at Endless Whispers , imagine rewording that to make it obvious that the player losing a creature targets one of their opponents, rather than one of the enchantment's controller's opponents, to whom to give their freshly dead creature, while making it a triggered ability of the enchantment rather than the dying creature:
- Whenever a creature is put into any graveyard, its controller chooses target player who is his or her opponent. The targeted player returns that creature from that graveyard to the battlefield under his or her control at the beginning of the next end step
compared to the current
- Each creature has "When this creature is put into a graveyard, choose target opponent. That player returns this card from that graveyard to the battlefield under his or her control at the beginning of the next end step."
At present, quoted abilities seem to be used when the difference between the creature's controller and the aura's controller is significant, or when it grants a  -activated ability - both situations where it's a cleaner way of conveying the core functionality of the ability or effect. However, it can be done, and I understand why peopel are opposed to it. It's just that I don't think there is a downside from making every single attribute an ability.
"Every single attribute" would mean that removing all abilities would leave a card nameless, typeless, colourless, etc (except for those attributes granted by the effect responsible, and other effects with later timestamps). There's also a problem with recursion - rules text is an attribute, so cards would have to read "~ has "~ has "~has [...]"""
Even without the overly-literal interpretation, doing everything by granting abilities would make a lot of wordings a lot clunkier for relatively little gain. Compare:
- Creatures can't be blocked by more than one creature.
- All creatures have "This creature can't be blocked by more than one creature."
There are only a few cards that can remove abilities from things, so sweeping changes to the game to make them work are overkill - Gatherer finds 8 cards with the phrase "all abilities", 47 with the word "indestructible" and 102 with the word "unblockable", so any proposed solution should avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
M:tG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:09PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2003
|
FYI, if you searched for "all abilities", you missed Lignify.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:27PM
#18
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
There's also Titania's Song  . That says "loses its abilities" instead of "loses all abilities" (this inconsistency should be corrected).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 13, 2011 - 12:16PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
How about dropping gains/has, then using only the word gets and quotations to indicate gaining an ability? Enchanted creature gets +2/+2 and "flying".
Creatures you control get "  , : Gain 3 life." until end of turn.
Equipped creature gets +1/+1, "protection from black, and trample".If they later decide to make an attribute into a keyword, easy. Target creature is "black".
Enchanted creature is "indestructible".
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 13, 2011 - 1:27PM
#20
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
That's a "terrible" idea.
|
|
|
