How I'm reading Grimlock is that Vehicles and creatures with Transform count as "Transformer creatures." This implies that for the purpose of the cost of his Transform ability, you can change the mode of a Vehicle or creature with Transform, as they are, inherently, toys, and therefore, Transformer toys. Is this correct?
Well as we are in Silver-boarder territory here we will need to wait for MaRo's final verdict.
But personally, I wouldn't call any Magic card a "toy", so I wouldn't allow for the interaction you propose. As just looking at the definition of "toy" on Google gives us: "an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something". So I would say you need to have an actual Transformer model/figure/etc, something that can physically change between two distinct forms.
But personally, I wouldn't call any Magic card a "toy", so I wouldn't allow for the interaction you propose. As just looking at the definition of "toy" on Google gives us: "an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something".
I mean, it is a children's card game. And what would you call it rather than a toy? A collectible investment? It's part of a game, which is produced by a toy company.
For starters I wouldn't really call Magic a "children's" card game, since it is aimed at 13+, and most of the player base is quite a bit older than that.
The distinction between a game and a toy is straightforward.
A toy is an object used voluntarily for recreational activity.
A game is voluntary recreational activity with rules and goals.
Ipso facto, an object that is a part of a game is a toy.
The answer given by MaRo makes perfect logical sense. Your argument however doesn't.
Chess is a game. But would you call a chess piece, a rook for example, a toy?
Draughts/Checkers is a game. But would you call those game pieces a toy?
The objects used in a game are game pieces. They must follow the rules prescribed by the game itself. Toys don't have any rules attached to them. They are for recreation, for imaginative play.
While some toys can be used in a game, and some game pieces are very similar to toys, this doesn't mean that all game pieces are toys.
The distinction between a game and a toy is straightforward.
A toy is an object used voluntarily for recreational activity.
A game is voluntary recreational activity with rules and goals.
Ipso facto, an object that is a part of a game is a toy.
The answer given by MaRo makes perfect logical sense. Your argument however doesn't.
Chess is a game. But would you call a chess piece, a rook for example, a toy?
Draughts/Checkers is a game. But would you call those game pieces a toy?
The objects used in a game are game pieces. They must follow the rules prescribed by the game itself. Toys don't have any rules attached to them. They are for recreation, for imaginative play.
While some toys can be used in a game, and some game pieces are very similar to toys, this doesn't mean that all game pieces are toys.
Individual game pieces outside of the context of the game, I would call toys. But in the context of the game, I suppose I can agree that they are not considered as such. I'm also probably trying to rules lawyer this card a little too much. Thanks for your input.
How I'm reading Grimlock is that Vehicles and creatures with Transform count as "Transformer creatures." This implies that for the purpose of the cost of his Transform ability, you can change the mode of a Vehicle or creature with Transform, as they are, inherently, toys, and therefore, Transformer toys. Is this correct?
But personally, I wouldn't call any Magic card a "toy", so I wouldn't allow for the interaction you propose. As just looking at the definition of "toy" on Google gives us: "an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something". So I would say you need to have an actual Transformer model/figure/etc, something that can physically change between two distinct forms.
Hope that helps.
Fair.
I mean, it is a children's card game. And what would you call it rather than a toy? A collectible investment? It's part of a game, which is produced by a toy company.
Yeah, thanks.
I would call a Magic card just a card, or a "playing card". Yes they are used in a game made by a toy company, but that doesn't make it a toy.
But that is all I really have to say on the matter. Will just wait to here back from MaRo now.
"Cards are not toys. Toys are toys."
Huh... This doesn't make sense.
The distinction between a game and a toy is straightforward.
A toy is an object used voluntarily for recreational activity.
A game is voluntary recreational activity with rules and goals.
Ipso facto, an object that is a part of a game is a toy.
The answer given by MaRo makes perfect logical sense. Your argument however doesn't.
Chess is a game. But would you call a chess piece, a rook for example, a toy?
Draughts/Checkers is a game. But would you call those game pieces a toy?
The objects used in a game are game pieces. They must follow the rules prescribed by the game itself. Toys don't have any rules attached to them. They are for recreation, for imaginative play.
While some toys can be used in a game, and some game pieces are very similar to toys, this doesn't mean that all game pieces are toys.
Individual game pieces outside of the context of the game, I would call toys. But in the context of the game, I suppose I can agree that they are not considered as such. I'm also probably trying to rules lawyer this card a little too much. Thanks for your input.