That would mean the answer is "It has no watermark because of complex reasons related to storyline and holistic world elements which lead them to preferring it to be a savage non-domesticated beast, which therefore couldn't be part of a clan". A bit more to it than 'just because'.
There's a difference between a creature that is hard to deal with and one that limits interactivity. This might not be Invisible Stalker, but hexproof in general is a troubled mechanic.
Hexproof only "limits interactivity" if you build a deck without blockers, edicts, sweepers, fogs, and one-sided stuff like Polymorphist's Jest. In other words, hexproof is just fine, and miles more interactive than something like Ætherling
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
That would mean the answer is "It has no watermark because of complex reasons related to storyline and holistic world elements which lead them to preferring it to be a savage non-domesticated beast, which therefore couldn't be part of a clan". A bit more to it than 'just because'.
If that is not saying "just because" in many, many more words, then it's saying "I don't know" in many, many more words. What I'm saying is that observing that the card is not concepted as being part of a clan is the same observation as observing that it is not watermarked (for this card, at least). The exact same questions arise! Oh, complex reasons, were they? Well that explains everything.
It's a good card, no doubt. I don't see why it could not be played in competitve standard, because as a stand alone card, it is very efficient. Minor evasion and hexproof + big body, in my book it's good.
But I don't know if playing it morphed will be a good idea in competitive play. Any morph I see in a green blue deck will be shot on sight.
... then it's saying "I don't know" in many, many more words.
That's kind of true, but only in that I don't know. But my not knowing is very different from the relevant Wizard's staff not knowing. And even if they don't know exactly, because things go through many iterations, and many people are involved, it's still not 'just because'. And that's because, although you're also right in that 'complex reasons' doesn't explain everything, they are still good reasons that are very different from 'just because'. You can even check out 'chaos theory' and 'complexity theory' if interested in the science of the way complex systems like this work, but all I'm really trying to say is that:
Wizards clearly puts a lot of work and effort into things like this, and it's sad when claims suggest they did something 'just because' and end up belittling (intentionally or accidentally) the work they do and the decisions they make.
... then it's saying "I don't know" in many, many more words.
That's kind of true, but only in that I don't know. But my not knowing is very different from the relevant Wizard's staff not knowing. And even if they don't know exactly, because things go through many iterations, and many people are involved, it's still not 'just because'. And that's because, although you're also right in that 'complex reasons' doesn't explain everything, they are still good reasons that are very different from 'just because'. You can even check out 'chaos theory' and 'complexity theory' if interested in the science of the way complex systems like this work, but all I'm really trying to say is that:
Wizards clearly puts a lot of work and effort into things like this, and it's sad when claims suggest they did something 'just because' and end up belittling (intentionally or accidentally) the work they do and the decisions they make.
I made no such suggestion. I asked why it was so, and got exasperated answers to that effect. Or, possibly, to the effect of 'well if I don't know the answer then there's no reason to ask the question' which is not any more helpful. Not knowing is fine but I was hoping to spark some discussion to see if there were plausible ideas for how the watermarks were distributed. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was asserting WotC had no reason.
I made no such suggestion. ... I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was asserting WotC had no reason.
Oo-oh, maybe I see now. I think I misinterpreted your comment "That answer is effectively just "It has no watermark because it has no watermark"." I read it as if YOU were saying 'it has no watermark because it has no watermark'... but actually you were talking about another person's answer. Sorry 'bout that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hexproof only "limits interactivity" if you build a deck without blockers, edicts, sweepers, fogs, and one-sided stuff like Polymorphist's Jest. In other words, hexproof is just fine, and miles more interactive than something like Ætherling
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
If that is not saying "just because" in many, many more words, then it's saying "I don't know" in many, many more words. What I'm saying is that observing that the card is not concepted as being part of a clan is the same observation as observing that it is not watermarked (for this card, at least). The exact same questions arise! Oh, complex reasons, were they? Well that explains everything.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
But I don't know if playing it morphed will be a good idea in competitive play. Any morph I see in a green blue deck will be shot on sight.
That's kind of true, but only in that I don't know. But my not knowing is very different from the relevant Wizard's staff not knowing. And even if they don't know exactly, because things go through many iterations, and many people are involved, it's still not 'just because'. And that's because, although you're also right in that 'complex reasons' doesn't explain everything, they are still good reasons that are very different from 'just because'. You can even check out 'chaos theory' and 'complexity theory' if interested in the science of the way complex systems like this work, but all I'm really trying to say is that:
Wizards clearly puts a lot of work and effort into things like this, and it's sad when claims suggest they did something 'just because' and end up belittling (intentionally or accidentally) the work they do and the decisions they make.
I made no such suggestion. I asked why it was so, and got exasperated answers to that effect. Or, possibly, to the effect of 'well if I don't know the answer then there's no reason to ask the question' which is not any more helpful. Not knowing is fine but I was hoping to spark some discussion to see if there were plausible ideas for how the watermarks were distributed. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was asserting WotC had no reason.
Oo-oh, maybe I see now. I think I misinterpreted your comment "That answer is effectively just "It has no watermark because it has no watermark"." I read it as if YOU were saying 'it has no watermark because it has no watermark'... but actually you were talking about another person's answer. Sorry 'bout that.