Ravage N (Whenever this creature is blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn for each blocking creature.) (Target colors: RG) (yes, Neo-Rampage)
Stalwart N (This creature can block another creature each combat. Whenever this creature blocks, it gets +N/+N until end of turn for each creature it blocks. (Target colors: UWG)
Empowered N (This creature gets +N/+N for each aura or equipment attached to it.
(Target colors: UWG)
These keywords are "cumulative" insofar as multiple instances trigger separately. This is similar to existing keywords, most notably:
Bushido N (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn.)
Rampage N (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn for each creature blocking it beyond the first.)
Amplify N (As this object enters the battlefield, reveal any number of cards from your hand that share a creature type with it. This permanent comes into play with N +1/+1 counters on it for each card revealed this way.)
Devour N (As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures. This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it for each creature sacrificed this way.)
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
Flanking (Whenever a creature without flanking blocks this creature, the blocking creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn.)
Note that at least one mechanic was keyworded specifically so that it would not be cumulative:
Lifelink (Damage dealt by this creature also causes you to gain that much life.)
This occurred, in part, due to the unintuitive nature of multiple Genju of the Fields activations.
Cumulative keywords have a similar unintuitive nature; one that has prevented Wizards from printing cards like Agility, severely cutting off design space. (In other words, it is rare to see equipment or auras or other effects that give cumulative keywords. Similarly, Atogstorm recently pointed out that this has lead to templating issues with cards like Escaped Shapeshifter, Soulflayer, and Odric, Lunarch Marshal.) The reason for this is that Wizards doesn't think it's clear that these keywords are cumulative; this was notable with Agility and any creature with Flanking. Some people thought (non-flanking) blocking creatures got -1/-1, some thought it got -2/-2. In fact, neither is technically true, as the blocker gets -1/-1 then another -1/-1.
Another symptom of this is that "Bushido 1, Bushido 1" are almost mechanically identical to "Bushido 2." Almost, but not quite, as stifle effects stops one trigger. This means that, all else being equal, the first design is functionally superior to the second in most cases: Guy 11W
Creature - Human
Bushido 1, Bushido 1
2/2
Guy 21W
Creature - Human
Bushido 2
2/2
I think this is a strange and unintuitive. But worse, I think that these rules issues limit design space. I'm not saying an equipment that gave Prowess or Flanking would be good; I'm just saying that as-is Wizards will not print it. Is there a solution? I think so. One notable feature of all cumulative keywords (at least the ones I can think of) is that they all have a numerical value. My solution is this:
1. Cumulative Keywords do not stack, they add.
Example: If a creature with Bushido N gains Bushido O, the creature has Bushido N+O.
What this means for Cumulative Keywords:
Prowess-> Prowess N (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +N/+N until end of turn.)
Flanking-> Flanking N (Whenever a creature without flanking blocks this creature, the blocking creature gets -N/-N until end of turn.)
Now, to showcase this "rules change", it strikes me that we should have some commons to illustrate the new, intuitive nature of this:
Vigilant RavagingG
Sorcery (IE, play this ability before combat!)
Creatures you control gain Vigilance and Ravage 2 until end of turn. (Tapping does not cause creatures with vigilance to attack. Whenever a creature with Ravage N is blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn for each blocking creature. Ravage is cumulative. For example, a creature with Rampage 1 that gains Rampage 2 until end of turn has Rampage 3 until end of turn.)
Prowess Blade1
Artifact - Equipment (C)
Equip 1
Equipped creature has Prowess 1. (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, a creature with Prowess N gets +N/+N until end of turn. Prowess is cumulative. For example, a creature with Prowess 1 that gains Prowess 1 has Prowess 2.)
Here's an updated Agility, using the new templating: Agility1R
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and has flanking 1. (Whenever a creature without flanking blocks a creature with flanking N, the blocking creature gets -N/-N until end of turn. Flanking is cumulative. A creature with flanking 1 that gains flanking 1 has flanking 2).
Pros:
* This opens up a lot of design space.
1. Auras can grant cumulative keywords.
2. Equipment can grant cumulative keywords.
3. Global enchantments can grant cumulative keywords.
Cons:
* This is a mechanical change; meaning "Bushido 1, Bushido 1" just is "Bushido 2".
* This draws attention to the rules issues associated with cumulative keywords.
I think this is a strange and unintuitive. But worse, I think that these rules issues limit design space. I'm not saying an equipment that gave Prowess or Flanking would be good; I'm just saying that as-is Wizards will not print it. Is there a solution? I think so. One notable feature of all cumulative keywords (at least the ones I can think of) is that they all have a numerical value.
Everything your proposing hinges on this being true. And there doesn't seem to be a reason to assume this. Cavalry Master, Sublime Archangel, Blade of Selves, as well as more that I won't bother linking to all show that Wizards is willing to print ways of granting stacking keywords. The only stacking evergreen keyword is Prowess, which is quite new. I fully expect them to print a card that grants prowess allowing you to stack them on a single creature.
Your change doesn't really solve any problem, because there isn't a problem to solve. All it does is save a few clicks on MODO and ups the potential power of Stifle effects.
Notice how they give them to all of your creatures, Cavalry Master just the ones with flanking to double flanking, so of course they are going to be higher rarity. How is having reminder text a problem, if you want lower rarity cards like this they would have to have reminder text. How can you take the stance that Wizards wouldn't do something when they have in fact done exactly what you say they won't do on several cards. If you want them to do it every set then that is a completely different problem that won't be solved by your plan.
I'm 99% sure that the reason non-creature spells don't grant prowess is because players play it incorrectly. Specifically, I expect new players to often think that by granting prowess on a noncreature spell, the creature should immediately get the +1/+1 bonus from prowess, when in actuality prowess was never triggered at all. Prowess just isn't the type of keyword that works well to grant to a creature.
I think you have a sollution in search of a problem. The rules don't need to be made more complex to force keywords to somehow merge. No effective design space is gained and many mechanics are forced to become more complicated for no reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
This is very counter intuitive for me. Imagine a creature with flanking 2. Now you cast a spell that gives it flanking 1. Without reading reminder text I have no idea they stack, indeed I would imagine they wouldn't since there is no effect giving it flanking 3.
I would word it
"Enchanted creature gets +1 flanking". However this is harder to make work with the rules and uses a templating usually reserved for power and toughness. However since power and toughness changing always refers to both values, I'd argue the visual cues are different enough.
The reason I mention agility is that it's one of those cards that gave Wizards trouble back in the day, and you can see how it's influenced their design since. user_938036 cites Cavalry Master - clearly a reference to these previous rules difficulties.
Note that your issue with Flanking 2 + Flanking 1 is still there with Flanking + Flanking.
All my wording does is try to make it clearer (the N = the p/t change...). Yeah, you could go the Cavalry Master route, but the reminder text there is rather odd, as it's talking about the rules - it's cumulative - not about the p/t change.
My point is that the current rules templating makes printing cards that give these abilities difficult, and often unworth it, cutting off valuable design space.
Can you provide a source for the claim that agility is "one of those cards that gave Wizards trouble back in the day"?
In any case, I don't see how your sollution fixes anything. If players can be taught that "flanking 1, flanking 1" means flanking 2, then can't it be just as easy to teach people that flanking stacks? Or teach them the more general principle that separate abilities trigger separately? In either case, its one more rule that we need to make clear to players.
I understand your solution, I don't understand what 'problem' it is attempting to solve.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Notice the lack of equipment or auras that grant these abilities, apart from the maligned agility.
The reason there are no Auras/spells adding prowess and similar abilities has more to do with the fact that stacking those abilities is also a power concern and the timing might be unintuitive. imagine e. g. cobntrolling a 1/1 creature with prowess and you cast a spell that gives it +2/+2 and then an Aura that gives it +1/+1 and prowess (you presumably drew from the cantrip on your first pump spell). Now you have triggered the first prowess twice, while the second prowess has not triggered yet.
For a similar reason we don't get triggered or activated abilities that grant prowess (or bushido AFAIK). As a triggered ability it is preferable to be "on" during the whole existence of the permanent it affects to keep complexity down.
Your proposed change to the rules doesn't solve any of those design & development issues which come to mind far before cards being able to counter triggered abilities.
If anything you right now made the keywords less consistent with existing nonkeyworded triggered abilities like e. g. Sixth Sense which will - as a triggered ability *should* - trigger separately from the ability of the enchanted Hystrodon.
---
The stacking of cumulative keywords also makes granting the keyword developmentally more risky (which is the actual problem old-lifelink had, combined with some unpleasent interactions dealing with players dying to SBEs with the lifelink trigger on the stack). Behind the scenes there might also have been a lot more going on - around the change of lifelink the rules for damage-based abilities were in stronger flux in general to accomodate wither and planeswalkers.
---
So if I have seven instances of stalwart 1 on a creature it can still block only two creatures since it now has stalwart 7? Who thinks that's a good idea?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Notice the lack of equipment or auras that grant these abilities, apart from the maligned agility.
The reason there are no Auras/spells adding prowess and similar abilities has more to do with the fact that stacking those abilities is also a power concern and the timing might be unintuitive. imagine e. g. cobntrolling a 1/1 creature with prowess and you cast a spell that gives it +2/+2 and then an Aura that gives it +1/+1 and prowess (you presumably drew from the cantrip on your first pump spell). Now you have triggered the first prowess twice, while the second prowess has not triggered yet.
For a similar reason we don't get triggered or activated abilities that grant prowess (or bushido AFAIK). As a triggered ability it is preferable to be "on" during the whole existence of the permanent it affects to keep complexity down.
Your proposed change to the rules doesn't solve any of those design & development issues which come to mind far before cards being able to counter triggered abilities. (And making these designs things you would do only at higher rarities.)
If anything you right now made the keywords less consistent with existing nonkeyworded triggered abilities like e. g. Sixth Sense which will - as a triggered ability *should* - trigger separately from the ability of the enchanted Hystrodon.
---
The stacking of cumulative keywords also makes granting the keyword developmentally more risky (which is the actual problem old-lifelink had, combined with some unpleasent interactions dealing with players dying to SBEs with the lifelink trigger on the stack). Behind the scenes there might also have been a lot more going on - around the change of lifelink the rules for damage-based abilities were in stronger flux in general to accomodate wither and planeswalkers.
---
So if I have seven instances of stalwart 1 on a creature it can still block only two creatures since it now has stalwart 7? Who thinks that's a good idea?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Something about the links to gatherer don't work w/ mtgsalvation. Cut + paste works(sorry, tried several things; none worked...)
That's because gatherer uses non-sane syntax for their URLs. I suggest using magiccards.info instead which has a much better syntax and isn't in love with overdevelopped UIs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I think my position is relatively clear: Wizards is reluctant to do this. # speaks louder than words.
The most telling numbers are Prowess VS Menace, as Menace came later (and only a few of the noncreature cards were errataed to Menace.)
Your position is clear, and unfounded. You are making a lot of assumptions in your claims, you say it is telling that menace has 13 non creature cards while prowess has none but menace has only got 5 new non creatures since it became a keyword(More than twice as many non creature cards were errated to Menace than have been printed since it became a keyword) so they were already using it far more than they were using prowess. There are 75 cards with menace to 34 with Prowess, this uncovers a reluctance to use Prowess(in comparison to Menace) at all not specifically to put it on non creatures.
I'm not making assumptions; I'm making an assessment of facts.
It is not up for dispute that Wizards doesn't print things because the current rules are confusing.
You agree Menace gets printed differently than Prowess. One solution is to retire things like Prowess. I think that's a mistake; they need to fix the rules. How to do it is a matter of debate. That they need to do it is not.
I'm not making assumptions; I'm making an assessment of facts.
It is not up for dispute that Wizards doesn't print things because the current rules are confusing.
You agree Menace gets printed differently than Prowess. One solution is to retire things like Prowess. I think that's a mistake; they need to fix the rules. How to do it is a matter of debate. That they need to do it is not.
is this a fact? Aren't we disputing it right here? You seem to be the only one who's sees this problem. There are other problems that people have pointed out. Prowess being granted by a non creature doesn't immediately trigger the prowess that it gave. But your problem of stacking keywords triggering separately seems to be a problem only you see.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ravage N (Whenever this creature is blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn for each blocking creature.) (Target colors: RG) (yes, Neo-Rampage)
Stalwart N (This creature can block another creature each combat. Whenever this creature blocks, it gets +N/+N until end of turn for each creature it blocks. (Target colors: UWG)
Empowered N (This creature gets +N/+N for each aura or equipment attached to it.
(Target colors: UWG)
These keywords are "cumulative" insofar as multiple instances trigger separately. This is similar to existing keywords, most notably:
Bushido N (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn.)
Rampage N (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn for each creature blocking it beyond the first.)
Amplify N (As this object enters the battlefield, reveal any number of cards from your hand that share a creature type with it. This permanent comes into play with N +1/+1 counters on it for each card revealed this way.)
Devour N (As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures. This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it for each creature sacrificed this way.)
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
Flanking (Whenever a creature without flanking blocks this creature, the blocking creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn.)
Note that at least one mechanic was keyworded specifically so that it would not be cumulative:
Lifelink (Damage dealt by this creature also causes you to gain that much life.)
This occurred, in part, due to the unintuitive nature of multiple Genju of the Fields activations.
Cumulative keywords have a similar unintuitive nature; one that has prevented Wizards from printing cards like Agility, severely cutting off design space. (In other words, it is rare to see equipment or auras or other effects that give cumulative keywords. Similarly, Atogstorm recently pointed out that this has lead to templating issues with cards like Escaped Shapeshifter, Soulflayer, and Odric, Lunarch Marshal.) The reason for this is that Wizards doesn't think it's clear that these keywords are cumulative; this was notable with Agility and any creature with Flanking. Some people thought (non-flanking) blocking creatures got -1/-1, some thought it got -2/-2. In fact, neither is technically true, as the blocker gets -1/-1 then another -1/-1.
Another symptom of this is that "Bushido 1, Bushido 1" are almost mechanically identical to "Bushido 2." Almost, but not quite, as stifle effects stops one trigger. This means that, all else being equal, the first design is functionally superior to the second in most cases:
Guy 11W
Creature - Human
Bushido 1, Bushido 1
2/2
Guy 21W
Creature - Human
Bushido 2
2/2
I think this is a strange and unintuitive. But worse, I think that these rules issues limit design space. I'm not saying an equipment that gave Prowess or Flanking would be good; I'm just saying that as-is Wizards will not print it. Is there a solution? I think so. One notable feature of all cumulative keywords (at least the ones I can think of) is that they all have a numerical value. My solution is this:
1. Cumulative Keywords do not stack, they add.
Example: If a creature with Bushido N gains Bushido O, the creature has Bushido N+O.
What this means for Cumulative Keywords:
Prowess-> Prowess N (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +N/+N until end of turn.)
Flanking-> Flanking N (Whenever a creature without flanking blocks this creature, the blocking creature gets -N/-N until end of turn.)
Now, to showcase this "rules change", it strikes me that we should have some commons to illustrate the new, intuitive nature of this:
Vigilant Ravaging G
Sorcery (IE, play this ability before combat!)
Creatures you control gain Vigilance and Ravage 2 until end of turn. (Tapping does not cause creatures with vigilance to attack. Whenever a creature with Ravage N is blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn for each blocking creature. Ravage is cumulative. For example, a creature with Rampage 1 that gains Rampage 2 until end of turn has Rampage 3 until end of turn.)
Prowess Blade 1
Artifact - Equipment (C)
Equip 1
Equipped creature has Prowess 1. (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, a creature with Prowess N gets +N/+N until end of turn. Prowess is cumulative. For example, a creature with Prowess 1 that gains Prowess 1 has Prowess 2.)
Here's an updated Agility, using the new templating:
Agility 1R
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and has flanking 1. (Whenever a creature without flanking blocks a creature with flanking N, the blocking creature gets -N/-N until end of turn. Flanking is cumulative. A creature with flanking 1 that gains flanking 1 has flanking 2).
Pros:
* This opens up a lot of design space.
1. Auras can grant cumulative keywords.
2. Equipment can grant cumulative keywords.
3. Global enchantments can grant cumulative keywords.
Cons:
* This is a mechanical change; meaning "Bushido 1, Bushido 1" just is "Bushido 2".
* This draws attention to the rules issues associated with cumulative keywords.
Your change doesn't really solve any problem, because there isn't a problem to solve. All it does is save a few clicks on MODO and ups the potential power of Stifle effects.
Notice the lack of equipment or auras that grant these abilities, apart from the maligned agility.
28 Deathtouch + Non-creature:
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[deathtouch]&type=+![creature]
49 Lifelink + Non-creature:
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [lifelink]&type=+![creature]
40 Reach + non-creature:
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [reach]&type=+![creature]
174 Haste + non-creature:
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [haste]&type=+![creature]
13 Menace + non-creature:
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [menaace]&type=+![creature]
...
0 Prowess + non-creature
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [prowess]&type=+![creature]
0 Bushido + ~creature:
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [bushido]&type=+![creature]
3(2) Flanking + ~creature:
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [flanking]&type=+![creature]
The most telling numbers are Prowess VS Menace, as Menace came later (and only a few of the noncreature cards were errataed to Menace.)
I'm 99% sure that the reason non-creature spells don't grant prowess is because players play it incorrectly. Specifically, I expect new players to often think that by granting prowess on a noncreature spell, the creature should immediately get the +1/+1 bonus from prowess, when in actuality prowess was never triggered at all. Prowess just isn't the type of keyword that works well to grant to a creature.
I think you have a sollution in search of a problem. The rules don't need to be made more complex to force keywords to somehow merge. No effective design space is gained and many mechanics are forced to become more complicated for no reason.
- Manite
I would word it
"Enchanted creature gets +1 flanking". However this is harder to make work with the rules and uses a templating usually reserved for power and toughness. However since power and toughness changing always refers to both values, I'd argue the visual cues are different enough.
Note that your issue with Flanking 2 + Flanking 1 is still there with Flanking + Flanking.
All my wording does is try to make it clearer (the N = the p/t change...). Yeah, you could go the Cavalry Master route, but the reminder text there is rather odd, as it's talking about the rules - it's cumulative - not about the p/t change.
My point is that the current rules templating makes printing cards that give these abilities difficult, and often unworth it, cutting off valuable design space.
In any case, I don't see how your sollution fixes anything. If players can be taught that "flanking 1, flanking 1" means flanking 2, then can't it be just as easy to teach people that flanking stacks? Or teach them the more general principle that separate abilities trigger separately? In either case, its one more rule that we need to make clear to players.
I understand your solution, I don't understand what 'problem' it is attempting to solve.
- Manite
The reason there are no Auras/spells adding prowess and similar abilities has more to do with the fact that stacking those abilities is also a power concern and the timing might be unintuitive. imagine e. g. cobntrolling a 1/1 creature with prowess and you cast a spell that gives it +2/+2 and then an Aura that gives it +1/+1 and prowess (you presumably drew from the cantrip on your first pump spell). Now you have triggered the first prowess twice, while the second prowess has not triggered yet.
For a similar reason we don't get triggered or activated abilities that grant prowess (or bushido AFAIK). As a triggered ability it is preferable to be "on" during the whole existence of the permanent it affects to keep complexity down.
Your proposed change to the rules doesn't solve any of those design & development issues which come to mind far before cards being able to counter triggered abilities.
If anything you right now made the keywords less consistent with existing nonkeyworded triggered abilities like e. g. Sixth Sense which will - as a triggered ability *should* - trigger separately from the ability of the enchanted Hystrodon.
---
The stacking of cumulative keywords also makes granting the keyword developmentally more risky (which is the actual problem old-lifelink had, combined with some unpleasent interactions dealing with players dying to SBEs with the lifelink trigger on the stack). Behind the scenes there might also have been a lot more going on - around the change of lifelink the rules for damage-based abilities were in stronger flux in general to accomodate wither and planeswalkers.
---
So if I have seven instances of stalwart 1 on a creature it can still block only two creatures since it now has stalwart 7? Who thinks that's a good idea?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
The reason there are no Auras/spells adding prowess and similar abilities has more to do with the fact that stacking those abilities is also a power concern and the timing might be unintuitive. imagine e. g. cobntrolling a 1/1 creature with prowess and you cast a spell that gives it +2/+2 and then an Aura that gives it +1/+1 and prowess (you presumably drew from the cantrip on your first pump spell). Now you have triggered the first prowess twice, while the second prowess has not triggered yet.
For a similar reason we don't get triggered or activated abilities that grant prowess (or bushido AFAIK). As a triggered ability it is preferable to be "on" during the whole existence of the permanent it affects to keep complexity down.
Your proposed change to the rules doesn't solve any of those design & development issues which come to mind far before cards being able to counter triggered abilities. (And making these designs things you would do only at higher rarities.)
If anything you right now made the keywords less consistent with existing nonkeyworded triggered abilities like e. g. Sixth Sense which will - as a triggered ability *should* - trigger separately from the ability of the enchanted Hystrodon.
---
The stacking of cumulative keywords also makes granting the keyword developmentally more risky (which is the actual problem old-lifelink had, combined with some unpleasent interactions dealing with players dying to SBEs with the lifelink trigger on the stack). Behind the scenes there might also have been a lot more going on - around the change of lifelink the rules for damage-based abilities were in stronger flux in general to accomodate wither and planeswalkers.
---
So if I have seven instances of stalwart 1 on a creature it can still block only two creatures since it now has stalwart 7? Who thinks that's a good idea?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
That's because gatherer uses non-sane syntax for their URLs. I suggest using magiccards.info instead which has a much better syntax and isn't in love with overdevelopped UIs.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
It is not up for dispute that Wizards doesn't print things because the current rules are confusing.
You agree Menace gets printed differently than Prowess. One solution is to retire things like Prowess. I think that's a mistake; they need to fix the rules. How to do it is a matter of debate. That they need to do it is not.