I had a showerthought this morning that Vehicles could provide a way for the Tribal card type to stand on its own (though I still firmly believe it should've been a supertype if anything).
Melvin the Giant1RR
Tribal - Giant (R) (This card has a frame similar to vehicles.)
Melvin the Giant is a creature as long as you control two or more other Giants. "Vorthos will not be happy about this."
5/5
The problem with tribal isn't the frame. It's the fact that Goblin Grenade isn't a goblin card.
This.
One needs to keep an eye out for wotc when they make new stuff. For every good, there's a bad and 3 lazy of late.
What does that have to do with Stairc's comment? Tribal didn't exist until over a decade after Goblin Grenade was printed. The problem with Tribal isn't new things, it's that there was and will always be over a decade's worth of type-themed spells that won't have the type added to them.
Tribal didn't exist until over a decade after Goblin Grenade was printed. The problem with Tribal isn't new things, it's that there was and will always be over a decade's worth of type-themed spells that won't have the type added to them.
What if tribal was part of Magic's origins?
Or, what if it was just a digital game and frames could the be retroactively altered?
Could it then be (or have been) implemented in such a way?
Abso-freakin-lutely. It's the way things should have been done from the beginning. There should be cards that reduce the cost of your "fire spells" and Goblin War Strike should be a a goblin card. It would open up a lot of richly thematic design space, with low comprehension complexity as well. When mining for design space, that's striking gold.
Abso-freakin-lutely. It's the way things should have been done from the beginning. There should be cards that reduce the cost of your "fire spells" and Goblin War Strike should be a a goblin card. It would open up a lot of richly thematic design space, with low comprehension complexity as well. When mining for design space, that's striking gold.
Interesting.
Can you (or someone) explain why R&D went with "Tribal Sorcery - Goblin" rather than just "Goblin Sorcery"? (This question isn't rhetorical. There's a design motive to it.)
It was printed after a dash because Goblin is a subtype not a supertype. Every card type has a list of subtypes that are allowed for it. More specifically, Goblin is a creature subtype (also called just a "creature type"), so it can only go on creature cards. To put creature types on non-creature cards, the WotC designers needed to invent a new card type "tribal" that shared the list of creature types.
Tribal affiliated spells don't really affect the game that much. Neither does Devoid(I'm talking to you, Maro!) If you want creature types to be applied to Instants, it should be more like Energy - cardswith the mechanic should make Tribal useful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BRGMy Deck(Modern): Bolts'n'Burns WMy other, WIP casual deck: Zero to Hero
Protection from Will-O'-the-Wisps, Ali-from-Cairos, and Uncle-Istvans
Legendary snow landwalk
---------------------------------------
On the reserved list: Wizards won't remove it. Only we can. In other words: Play Modern, Pauper, or No-RL Eternal.
So, assuming the following can't be done, why can't it be done?
Goblin Bonfire (Rare) 2R
Goblin Enchantment
At the beginning of your end step, Goblin Bonfire deals 3 damage to each opponent.
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice a Goblin permanent.
So, assuming the following can't be done, why can't it be done?
Goblin Bonfire (Rare) 2R
Goblin Enchantment
At the beginning of your end step, Goblin Bonfire deals 3 damage to each opponent.
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice a Goblin permanent.
Because Goblin is a subtype and neither is there a supertype nor card type named goblin. You also do not want to introduce a new supertype or cardtype with the same name as an existing subtype. Also it gets really confusing - card types and supertypes are not capitalized, but subtypes are. Now people will think Goblin Bonfire will need to be sacrificed to its own upkeep trigger unless you can sacrifice another Goblin permanent, but it isn't a Goblin permanent itself. See, it's a goblin permanent. And people would be really confused by that.
If you want to verhaul the whole templating system, you better be more specific than "What about this example?" because there are endless possible implications of what you have written up there.
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 assume it's because they didn't want super- and sub-types to have the same words. You'll notice that each English word is assigned to no more than one type category.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
card types and supertypes are not capitalized, but subtypes are.
I had considered this, but didn't think it actually meant anything. I can however see the logic of it. I don't think it would be an insurmountable obstacle to using creature subtypes as supertypes (more-or-less interchangeably). As you know, "Legend" was once a creature subtype and all creatures were "Summon"s.
You also do not want to introduce a new supertype or cardtype with the same name as an existing subtype.
Is there an actual reason as to why not? What I mean is, would doing so "break the game" or is the delineation between supertype and subtype merely arbitrary (mechanically speaking and excepting visual clarity)?
card types and supertypes are not capitalized, but subtypes are.
I had considered this, but didn't think it actually meant anything. I can however see the logic of it. I don't think it would be an insurmountable obstacle to using creature subtypes as supertypes (more-or-less interchangeably). As you know, "Legend" was once a creature subtype and all creatures were "Summon"s.
Yes this is true but each of those changes was very significant and yet insignificant when compared to what is being asked here. Also notice how legend is no longer a creature type, it is exclusively a supertype.
Right now cards are seperated into “Type” “SuperType” and “SubType” each of which has their own list of what they are and these lists are exclusive. SubTypes are further broken down into lists for each of the card types: Artifacts, Lands, Planeswalker, Enchantments, Creatures/Tribal, and Instant/Sorcery. Basically what you are asking here is to remove the distinction between these three groups so that a card can have any kind of type regardless of its other types. IE. Goblin Enchantment, Arcane Artifact, or Mountain Curse. While this might seem cool or interesting one only needs to look at the wealth of cards that change types to understand that this could get ugly fast.
To really understand why they are needed as separate types you would have to the entire 205 Type Line section of the comprehensive rules. But I’m just going to point out a few very important distinctions currently made. Cards are broken down into 2 types, permanent and nonpermanent, the rules are built upon the idea that only permanents can be on the battlefield this falls apart if you mix types. Currently Supertypes carry rules baggage while subtypes do not, if you remove the distinction between the types then the Comprehensive rules get a lot muddier.
The rules can be rewritten to allow instants to have creature types without the need of a new card type, but it can cause a lot of unnecessary fallout on the clarity and length of the Comprehensive rules, so it isn’t worth the headache. Remember the rules are completely made up so they ‘can’ do anything but the question that has to be asked is ‘is this good for the game’ and when doing this requires that nearly all current cards receive errata that can effect power level it doesn’t seem worth it, especially when you make so many cards function differently from how they are printed (see the great creature type update and peoples current and past opinions on it).
card types and supertypes are not capitalized, but subtypes are.
I had considered this, but didn't think it actually meant anything. I can however see the logic of it. I don't think it would be an insurmountable obstacle to using creature subtypes as supertypes (more-or-less interchangeably). As you know, "Legend" was once a creature subtype and all creatures were "Summon"s.
Right now cards are seperated into “Type” “SuperType” and “SubType” each of which has their own list of what they are and these lists are exclusive.
*snip*
Cards are broken down into 2 types, permanent and nonpermanent, the rules are built upon the idea that only permanents can be on the battlefield this falls apart if you mix types.
I’m not saying “mix types”. Nor am I suggesting Mountain Sorcery (at this point) (though I like the idea). I’m asking, what’s the mechanical problem with “Goblin Enchantment” or “Elf Sorcery”?
… if you remove the distinction between the types then the Comprehensive rules get a lot muddier.
The mechanical distinction would remain – denoted by its positioning on the type line. If it comes before the card type, then it’s a supertype. If it comes after the card type, then it’s a subtype.
What you want is different from what I explained but I'll cover that topic for you. You want overlap between the lists of subtypes and supertypes, meaning essentially adding every creature type or even every subtype to the supertype list. Right now supertypes denote some kind of extra rules baggage attached to the card, while changing this isn't a big problem having things in the same category act differently is off-putting. The rules can be rewritten to allow what you ask for, but it mostly just removes the need for subtypes. It would be easier to make every single subtype an interchangeable piece on the Supertype slot, but if you do this then that opens weirdness because now the old supertypes are valid choices for creature types with type changing effects. So subtypes becomes a redundant list that is only necessary to stop weird shenanigans.
While there are many problems that can arise from doing something like this there are little inherent problems. Its mostly a matter of is this worth it, and most of the time the answer is no. Which was actually Tribal's real problem. Adding creature types to cards almost never matters and it is awkward with the many cards already in print that aren't the creature types already. If you went back and remade magic with appropriate types for everything thing then people would accept it as part of the game but to change it at this point is to add extra words to cards that rarely ever matter, so it isn't worth doing.
It is as I said, the rules can be rewritten to do almost anything and what you ask is more or less simply adding the 234 creature types to the list of possible supertypes. This by itself doesn't inherently break anything but it opens the doors for confusion about why this Goblin(a supertype) can't be affected the same way as this Goblin(a creature type). Because you asked for cards this would effect Artificial Evolution, this is actually a weird thing because this card wouldn't be effected by such a change but everyone would think you could change your "Goblin Land - Mountain" into an "Elf Land - Mountain" when you couldn't.
The mechanical reasons for distinct lists are in CR "205. Type Line"
An object gaining or losing card types can affect its subtypes. Whereas gaining or losing a subtype does not affect its type. And neither of those affects its supertypes.
The logistic reasons are in CR "205.2 Card Types", "205.3 Subtypes", and "205.4 Supertypes"
All of the existing card types, subtypes, and supertypes are very strictly organized into separate lists. If every type, suptype, and supertype is accessible for every possible combination, what you essentially want would just combine all those lists into one jumbled list of all possible values. Imagecrafter can now change a creature into a "Creature - Forest", allowing that creature to now tap for G. Dream Thrush can now change a land into a "Land - Goblin", which could prevent basic lands from tapping for any mana. Fire-Belly Changeling is now legendary, but as compensation can tap for any color of mana, fully enables your Urza's Tower, and triggers your Kiln Fiend. Amoeboid Changeling ... ... can wreck all kinds of havoc.
The problem with tribal isn't the frame. It's the fact that Goblin Grenade isn't a goblin card.
This.
One needs to keep an eye out for wotc when they make new stuff. For every good, there's a bad and 3 lazy of late.
What does that have to do with Stairc's comment? Tribal didn't exist until over a decade after Goblin Grenade was printed. The problem with Tribal isn't new things, it's that there was and will always be over a decade's worth of type-themed spells that won't have the type added to them.
I don't see the difference with either one. The preconceptions that Tribal brings are a worry for cards from the past as much as from the future. For instance, take something as innocuous as Sure Strike. Should that card get Goblin Tribal tagged on it? It has a picture of a Goblin on it, after all. But what if you want to reprint it later on down the line, but you can't because your world has no Goblins on it? Or what about Savage Punch? Should that get Human tribal or Warrior tribal or both? In all, tribal creates an unnecessary layer in card design that has very very little payoffs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Melvin the Giant 1RR
Tribal - Giant (R)
(This card has a frame similar to vehicles.)
Melvin the Giant is a creature as long as you control two or more other Giants.
"Vorthos will not be happy about this."
5/5
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Tribal is neither permanent nor non-permanent.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
This.
One needs to keep an eye out for wotc when they make new stuff. For every good, there's a bad and 3 lazy of late.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
What if tribal was part of Magic's origins?
Or, what if it was just a digital game and frames could the be retroactively altered?
Could it then be (or have been) implemented in such a way?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Interesting.
Can you (or someone) explain why R&D went with "Tribal Sorcery - Goblin" rather than just "Goblin Sorcery"? (This question isn't rhetorical. There's a design motive to it.)
WMy other, WIP casual deck: Zero to Hero
Protection from Will-O'-the-Wisps, Ali-from-Cairos, and Uncle-Istvans
Legendary snow landwalk
---------------------------------------
On the reserved list: Wizards won't remove it. Only we can. In other words: Play Modern, Pauper, or No-RL Eternal.
Goblin Bonfire (Rare)
2R
Goblin Enchantment
At the beginning of your end step, Goblin Bonfire deals 3 damage to each opponent.
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice a Goblin permanent.
Because Goblin is a subtype and neither is there a supertype nor card type named goblin. You also do not want to introduce a new supertype or cardtype with the same name as an existing subtype. Also it gets really confusing - card types and supertypes are not capitalized, but subtypes are. Now people will think Goblin Bonfire will need to be sacrificed to its own upkeep trigger unless you can sacrifice another Goblin permanent, but it isn't a Goblin permanent itself. See, it's a goblin permanent. And people would be really confused by that.
If you want to verhaul the whole templating system, you better be more specific than "What about this example?" because there are endless possible implications of what you have written up there.
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
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
I had considered this, but didn't think it actually meant anything. I can however see the logic of it. I don't think it would be an insurmountable obstacle to using creature subtypes as supertypes (more-or-less interchangeably). As you know, "Legend" was once a creature subtype and all creatures were "Summon"s.
Is there an actual reason as to why not? What I mean is, would doing so "break the game" or is the delineation between supertype and subtype merely arbitrary (mechanically speaking and excepting visual clarity)?
Right now cards are seperated into “Type” “SuperType” and “SubType” each of which has their own list of what they are and these lists are exclusive. SubTypes are further broken down into lists for each of the card types: Artifacts, Lands, Planeswalker, Enchantments, Creatures/Tribal, and Instant/Sorcery. Basically what you are asking here is to remove the distinction between these three groups so that a card can have any kind of type regardless of its other types. IE. Goblin Enchantment, Arcane Artifact, or Mountain Curse. While this might seem cool or interesting one only needs to look at the wealth of cards that change types to understand that this could get ugly fast.
To really understand why they are needed as separate types you would have to the entire 205 Type Line section of the comprehensive rules. But I’m just going to point out a few very important distinctions currently made. Cards are broken down into 2 types, permanent and nonpermanent, the rules are built upon the idea that only permanents can be on the battlefield this falls apart if you mix types. Currently Supertypes carry rules baggage while subtypes do not, if you remove the distinction between the types then the Comprehensive rules get a lot muddier.
The rules can be rewritten to allow instants to have creature types without the need of a new card type, but it can cause a lot of unnecessary fallout on the clarity and length of the Comprehensive rules, so it isn’t worth the headache. Remember the rules are completely made up so they ‘can’ do anything but the question that has to be asked is ‘is this good for the game’ and when doing this requires that nearly all current cards receive errata that can effect power level it doesn’t seem worth it, especially when you make so many cards function differently from how they are printed (see the great creature type update and peoples current and past opinions on it).
I’m not saying “mix types”. Nor am I suggesting Mountain Sorcery (at this point) (though I like the idea). I’m asking, what’s the mechanical problem with “Goblin Enchantment” or “Elf Sorcery”?
The mechanical distinction would remain – denoted by its positioning on the type line. If it comes before the card type, then it’s a supertype. If it comes after the card type, then it’s a subtype.
Okay. Name one card.
While there are many problems that can arise from doing something like this there are little inherent problems. Its mostly a matter of is this worth it, and most of the time the answer is no. Which was actually Tribal's real problem. Adding creature types to cards almost never matters and it is awkward with the many cards already in print that aren't the creature types already. If you went back and remade magic with appropriate types for everything thing then people would accept it as part of the game but to change it at this point is to add extra words to cards that rarely ever matter, so it isn't worth doing.
It is as I said, the rules can be rewritten to do almost anything and what you ask is more or less simply adding the 234 creature types to the list of possible supertypes. This by itself doesn't inherently break anything but it opens the doors for confusion about why this Goblin(a supertype) can't be affected the same way as this Goblin(a creature type). Because you asked for cards this would effect Artificial Evolution, this is actually a weird thing because this card wouldn't be effected by such a change but everyone would think you could change your "Goblin Land - Mountain" into an "Elf Land - Mountain" when you couldn't.
An object gaining or losing card types can affect its subtypes. Whereas gaining or losing a subtype does not affect its type. And neither of those affects its supertypes.
The logistic reasons are in CR "205.2 Card Types", "205.3 Subtypes", and "205.4 Supertypes"
All of the existing card types, subtypes, and supertypes are very strictly organized into separate lists. If every type, suptype, and supertype is accessible for every possible combination, what you essentially want would just combine all those lists into one jumbled list of all possible values.
Imagecrafter can now change a creature into a "Creature - Forest", allowing that creature to now tap for G.
Dream Thrush can now change a land into a "Land - Goblin", which could prevent basic lands from tapping for any mana.
Fire-Belly Changeling is now legendary, but as compensation can tap for any color of mana, fully enables your Urza's Tower, and triggers your Kiln Fiend.
Amoeboid Changeling ... ... can wreck all kinds of havoc.