I do like when they retemplate to streamline the wordings and make them more elegant. They've been steadily working templates around zones like this between exile, battlefield, dies, create- but what really strikes me as jarring is that its 2016 and creature combat is still a clumsy mess despite so much of the emphasis of the game having been shifted to creature combat. How would you make a new card that says "When this creature dies, put a -1/-1 counter each creature who killed it"? Theres such limited ways to refer to other creatures and combat damage is still handled weirdly. The only current templates, like baron sengir, are clumsy because you could attack, deal damage to a creature, go to the 2nd main phase, cast a few sorceries, go to the end step, lightning bolt that creature at EoT and now the baron finishes drinking his blood with spooky action at a distance?
I think they need to use some of these fancy retemplatings to clean up creature combat
This is a rules issue, though, not a template issue. Remember, damage doesn't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
This is a rules issue, though, not a template issue. Remember, damage doesn't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
Well which of these two designs sounds more like a printable magic card to you?
Ice Hound2U
Creature - Hound Elemental (C)
When Ice Hound is slain, tap each creature that slew it. Those creatures don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
2/2
or
Ice Hound2U
Creature - Hound Elemental (C)
When Ice Hound dies, if it was dealt lethal combat damage and died as a result when state-based actions were checked, tap each creature that marked any of that combat damage on it, but not any other bludgers who nipped away at it during previous combat steps or non-combat damage. Those creatures don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
2/2
Theres actually a pretty wide design space for more vocabulary terms regarding creature combat beyond just this, both in templating existing possible-but-clumsy mechanics and new mechanics. Its a shame that as far as evergreen terms, we don't get such overhauls and some designs aren't really possible. New templates can both simplify wordy and inelegant phrasing like exile and dies and create, but they can also open up new designs like the "Exile until" on banisher priest
Ice Hound 2U
Creature - Hound Elemental
When Ice Hound dies, tap all creatures that dealt combat damage to it this turn. Those creatures don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
Edit: It's not 100% identical but honestly, close enough.
I wonder if ETB effects will now be "Whenever ~ is created" or "When you create ~,"
I hope so, because "create" and "ETB" are going to hit most of the same triggers, so switching up the language for one but not others feels messy and unnecessarily confusing
The ruling for create could easily say that it does enter the battlefield. Alternatively, a lot of triggers specifically say non-token; they could use this new vocabulary to distinguish the two, and from now on tokens don't count by default.
Ice Hound 2U
Creature - Hound Elemental
When Ice Hound dies, tap all creatures that dealt combat damage to it this turn. Those creatures don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
Edit: It's not 100% identical but honestly, close enough.
Yeah thats the templating on cards like baron sengir. Its a rather clumsy and wonky way to handle creature vs creature combat. As a delayed trigger, there might be 20 actions, spells, abilities, second combat step, etc between when that combat damage was dealt and when the trigger activates at end of turn when you sacrifice it to an ashnod's altar. For a game with such a heavy emphasis on creature combat, its kind of silly we don't have templates for directly referring to such a basic clause as "When a creature kills another creature"
I wonder if ETB effects will now be "Whenever ~ is created" or "When you create ~,"
I hope so, because "create" and "ETB" are going to hit most of the same triggers, so switching up the language for one but not others feels messy and unnecessarily confusing
The ruling for create could easily say that it does enter the battlefield. Alternatively, a lot of triggers specifically say non-token; they could use this new vocabulary to distinguish the two, and from now on tokens don't count by default.
Maro clarified that its purely a templating change with no rules difference (at this point), creating a token is functionally identical to having a token enter the battlefield, same as "dies" is same as "put into its owner's graveyard". Anything that triggers on ETB will trigger on create, but there is space for "Whenever you create a token", though it would be functionally identical to the already possible "Whenever a token enters the battlefield under your control". Well maybe not, where forbidden orchard is concerned.
Damage resolves, mook survives combat with baron sengir. Lightning bolt, counter it, resolves, countered, another lightning bolt, play 10 more instants and activate abilities, sacrifice it to ashnod's in response. Baron Sengir gets his +2/+2 from it being sacrificed. A delayed trigger is a delayed trigger, just making the duration shorter doesn't make it less wonky, theres no current existing template for directly referring to creature combat deaths. You could hypothetically make it "Whenever ~ dies, if it was dealt lethal combat damage, {action} each creature that dealt that combat damage" or some similar template, but its wordy and obtuse and might need trickiness in the rules. A direct template can reduce it to one word and sort out everything in the comp. rules.
Thats the strength of having vocabulary terms over explicit instructions, but they need to be instantly grokkable enough not to be confusing. As said on the previous page, thats why "Creating a token" or "When a creature dies" can work, but "Mill 5 cards" is too esoteric an action to get its own phrasing. I think creatures killing creatures is a good candidate for some very simple word choices.
I hope this doesn't create any rules changes (not triggering ETB triggers for example (Soul's Attendant)).
They will just say "Create" is short for "Create token and put it onto the battlefield". Same thing they did for "Dies" meaning "goes to the graveyard from the battlefield"
We're overthinking Create here. It's almost certainly short hand - and helps remove the ambiguity of zone transfer since tokens didn't really exist in another zone before resolution (unlike other cards which "Put" something from one place to another like our hand or graveyard). This will likely be token specific, and absolutely will continue to trigger effects that look for ETB.
For a game with such a heavy emphasis on creature combat, its kind of silly we don't have templates for directly referring to such a basic clause as "When a creature kills another creature"
However, creatures don't kill creatures under the current rules. Creatures die as a state-based effect of having lethal damage marked on them. You would need a substantial rules overhaul to make that wording work. It's certainly possible, but I doubt its worth it.
For a game with such a heavy emphasis on creature combat, its kind of silly we don't have templates for directly referring to such a basic clause as "When a creature kills another creature"
However, creatures don't kill creatures under the current rules. Creatures die as a state-based effect of having lethal damage marked on them. You would need a substantial rules overhaul to make that wording work. It's certainly possible, but I doubt its worth it.
All it needs is a comprehensive rules definition that says that "Killing" is when a creature deals lethal combat damage to another creature and it dies when statebased actions are checked- it simply looks to which creatures marked that damage on them prior to SBA being checked in 704.5g and 704.5h. I'm sure a rules lawyer could figure out the exact phrasing required. As it would be specific to that term, the rules could handle it without overhauling other terms, like how a creature does not destroy another creature. A term can be constructed expressly to work around the current limitation.
For a game with such a heavy emphasis on creature combat, its kind of silly we don't have templates for directly referring to such a basic clause as "When a creature kills another creature"
However, creatures don't kill creatures under the current rules. Creatures die as a state-based effect of having lethal damage marked on them. You would need a substantial rules overhaul to make that wording work. It's certainly possible, but I doubt its worth it.
All it needs is a comprehensive rules definition that says that "Killing" is when a creature deals lethal combat damage to another creature and it dies when statebased actions are checked- it simply looks to which creatures marked that damage on them prior to SBA being checked in 704.5g and 704.5h. I'm sure a rules lawyer could figure out the exact phrasing required. As it would be specific to that term, the rules could handle it without overhauling other terms, like how a creature does not destroy another creature. A term can be constructed expressly to work around the current limitation.
But what about when a creature destroys another creature through the effect of an activated ability? Or because of damage dealt through fight? What if it dealt damage during the first strike damage step, but lethal damage to the creature was dealt during the normal damage step? What about creatures with Wither or Infect, which don't mark damage on creatures? If a Glory Seeker and a Rot Wolf block a Tajic, Blade of the Legion, would the Glory Seeker have "killed" him? What if it does get dealt lethal damage and dies to a state-based action, but the state-based action in question is the legend rule (possible with a Banisher Priest)?
The first few don't seem too complicated- an activated ability isn't combat damage, fight isn't combat damage, the first striker would have been one of the creatures that marked the combat damage that was lethal on it even if it died a step later in the same combat. Wither and infect seems where it would get more complicated. Unless there was a specific exemption for the comp rules, since its not marking damage, the infector wouldn't be one of the creatures dealing the lethal damage and wouldn't be slaying it. Being indestructible, it wouldn't die to lethal damage but to having 0 toughness and wouldn't count as slain. Same with the state-based legend rule
I think a better critical example would be "What if a creature with 5 toughness is dealt 4 combat damage, then three steps later is hit by afflict"?
In that case, the damage wasn't lethal when it was first marked, but later became lethal when its toughness was lowered. This would still count as being killed by the creatures who hit it earlier, by that definition. Or how about "If a 4 toughness creature is lightning bolted, then blocked by eager cadet"? Then it has 1 combat damage and 3 non-combat damage marked on it for lethal. If the inverse isn't to work (combat first, dies to lightning bolt later), then what has to matter is the order they are dealt, and we'd have to look at timestamps of what occured last. So that would restrict it to "Alice is killed by Bob if Alice is dealt lethal damage when state based actions are first checked after combat damage is dealt and Bob dealt any of the combat damage marked on Alice". Then lowering its toughness or bolting it ex post factor wouldn't work, but first strikers who dealt part of the damage would still count.
It would take some real examination to make it workable
The attempts to connect this to contraptions happening just sound desperate. This is something completely independent of them, and if they do or do not happen eventually this has no bearing on it whatsoever. It's shortening a usually otherwise wordy process.
You know what is shorter than "Put on the battlefield?"
Yes, "Put in play" 8D
"Create" is even shorter.
What about 'create' for tokens, and 'summon' for non-tokens.
Soul's Attendant: "Whenever another creature is summoned, you may gain 1 life."
But Soul's Attendant cares about all creatures entering the battlefield, which includes tokens. In fact, the vast majority of triggers are ETB based, very few care about when creature cards are casted. And for those that do, "Whenever a creature is summoned" and "Whenever you play a creature spell" aren't significantly different. If you're saying "whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if you cast it from your hand" is an important and interesting enough distinction to be templated in shorthand, I'd have to disagree. It has only been used a handful of times in Magic history. It's typically only used on big splashy ETB effects on fat creatures to prevent them being cheated in to play.
The attempts to connect this to contraptions happening just sound desperate. This is something completely independent of them, and if they do or do not happen eventually this has no bearing on it whatsoever. It's shortening a usually otherwise wordy process.
There won't be contraptions on kaladesh, but the vehicle spoilers give credence that its not completely independent from them. Kaladesh is going to have a strong emphasis on artifact tokens, at the least thopters, but likely a new subtype, just not contraptions in name. It makes sense to streamline the template to coincide with that
The attempts to connect this to contraptions happening just sound desperate. This is something completely independent of them, and if they do or do not happen eventually this has no bearing on it whatsoever. It's shortening a usually otherwise wordy process.
There won't be contraptions on kaladesh, but the vehicle spoilers give credence that its not completely independent from them. Kaladesh is going to have a strong emphasis on artifact tokens, at the least thopters, but likely a new subtype, just not contraptions in name. It makes sense to streamline the template to coincide with that
But the vehicle spoiler is completely meaningless as we know almost nothing about it. Vehicles could be a nickname for an unrelated card type or mechanic, or they could have been cut completely.
But the vehicle spoiler is completely meaningless as we know almost nothing about it. Vehicles could be a nickname for an unrelated card type or mechanic, or they could have been cut completely.
well we know kaladesh has an artificer/inventor theme and we know its filled with thopters and we just got a new template for making tokens, like artifact or thopter tokens, and we have strong evidence that theres a vehicle mechanic in the set that has something to do with creatures. Connecting those dots doesn't make it a stretch to say we'll see some form of contraptions-in-spirit if not in name. Like if wizards were trying to design around contraptions, but instead went on a tangent and fleshed out a mechanic on a similar vein but different enough to need to segregate it. Happens all the time in worldbuilding, like Arkhos and Mongseng becoming Theros and Tarkir
But the vehicle spoiler is completely meaningless as we know almost nothing about it. Vehicles could be a nickname for an unrelated card type or mechanic, or they could have been cut completely.
well we know kaladesh has an artificer/inventor theme and we know its filled with thopters and we just got a new template for making tokens, like artifact or thopter tokens, and we have strong evidence that theres a vehicle mechanic in the set that has something to do with creatures. Connecting those dots doesn't make it a stretch to say we'll see some form of contraptions-in-spirit if not in name. Like if wizards were trying to design around contraptions, but instead went on a tangent and fleshed out a mechanic on a similar vein but different enough to need to segregate it. Happens all the time in worldbuilding, like Arkhos and Mongseng becoming Theros and Tarkir
Yeah, actually, it is a stretch to say that some form of contraptions will be included in Kaladesh because of a single line from a Multiverse file that makes vague reference to "vehicles". Even if you ignore Rosewater straight up saying that contraptions will not be in Kaladesh it's a stretch.
well we know kaladesh has an artificer/inventor theme and we know its filled with thopters and we just got a new template for making tokens, like artifact or thopter tokens, and we have strong evidence that theres a vehicle mechanic in the set that has something to do with creatures. Connecting those dots doesn't make it a stretch to say we'll see some form of contraptions-in-spirit if not in name. Like if wizards were trying to design around contraptions, but instead went on a tangent and fleshed out a mechanic on a similar vein but different enough to need to segregate it. Happens all the time in worldbuilding, like Arkhos and Mongseng becoming Theros and Tarkir
I think you may be connecting dots that aren't necessarily supposed to connect.
Maro has stated that Contraptions are for-sure not in Kaladesh. I doubt he would say such a thing if they were there "in spirit". He even went on to say that he found a way to make another mechanic of his work for the first time. He made it clear that it was a different mechanic, even if it does fill a similar role.
Also, I doubt the template change has very much to do with this new mechanic. All the template change suggests is that the block likely has a higher frequency of token-making effects, just like how colorless mana in Oath of the Gatewatch, modal spells in Fate Reforged, legends in Theros block, and death-effects in Innistrad block each led to their own minor template-changes.
And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that "vehicles" have anything to do with this mechanic. As someone said before, we know absolutely nothing about "vehicles" other than it somehow gets "turned off" by Choking Restraints.
Until we know more, we should assume that these puzzle pieces do not necessarily belong to the same puzzle.
If a Rigger you control would assemble a Contraption, it assembles two Contraptions instead.
Under those new rules, new Doubling Season wording would be:
If an effect you control would create a token, it creates twice that many of those tokens.
This...this is a very deliberate Contraption setup.
This is what I was thinking.
One of my Contraption brainstorming sessions involved changing the token-generating template to "assemble," i.e. "Put X Contraption artifact tokens onto the battlefield" becomes "Assemble X Contraption artifact tokens."
My guess is that Contraptions will be a mechanic in Æther Revolt rather than Kaladesh, and "create" will refer to generating creature tokens while "assemble" refers to generating Contraption artifact tokens. EDIT: Ugh, MaRo said that Contraptions won't be appearing in the block at ALL. Scratch the Æther Revolt part, then.
This hypothesis would make Second Harvest rather awkward, though.
(What if you have Contraption tokens when you cast Second Harvest? How are you "creating" something that SHOULD, from a rules standpoint, be "assembled?")
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
I like how they have time to shorten things like "put X token(s) into play" into "create X token(s)" and yet still haven't keyworded or made something to shorten mill yet.
"Create" has inherent meaning to new players because it's more or less used in the same way as the word in English. "Mill" or any replacement for it would just become a new jargon term that new players have to learn. They don't make milling cards often enough that the space saving would matter. Token generation DOES need the space savings and they do token generation multiple times per set.
I'm not saying token generating doesn't deserve its own word, but mill has been around forever and many sets have seen many cards with it on it. Fight is only seen about 2 cards a set, and barely that sometimes, just like mill and yet "fight" exists. When you can turn....
"Target player/opponent puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard" into....
"Target player/opponent Mills X"...
....that saves quite a bit of space on a mechanic that is used frequently.
Seems to be a logical step as was done with "die".
It simply is shorter and fairly understanable.
Especially a lot of players allready use the word anyway "I create 5 tokens" , way shorter than "I put 5 tokens onto the battlefield".
With the new rules you "create" tokens only for yourself , just as the rules state that you put tokens onto the battlefield for a player (either your control or the opponents, so that would say "an opponent creates token x").
Rules probably wont change, its a name thing just like "dies" on creatures, this does the trick for tokens.
You sir was not around for the Lifelink change? That was a name thing too.
At the very first it started out as exactly a short version of the old trigger , why they changed many cards in oracle to lifelink, just to revert back that change as they actually changed the rules for lifelink to be different from the trigger.
Its still one of the better examples, as the old trigger was not intuitive how players would "assume" it works, as it is now its better (having the old cards around obvisiously makes things a little more complicated, but not much you can/should change here).
This is a rules issue, though, not a template issue. Remember, damage doesn't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
Well which of these two designs sounds more like a printable magic card to you?
or
Theres actually a pretty wide design space for more vocabulary terms regarding creature combat beyond just this, both in templating existing possible-but-clumsy mechanics and new mechanics. Its a shame that as far as evergreen terms, we don't get such overhauls and some designs aren't really possible. New templates can both simplify wordy and inelegant phrasing like exile and dies and create, but they can also open up new designs like the "Exile until" on banisher priest
2U
Creature - Hound Elemental
When Ice Hound dies, tap all creatures that dealt combat damage to it this turn. Those creatures don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
Edit: It's not 100% identical but honestly, close enough.
The ruling for create could easily say that it does enter the battlefield. Alternatively, a lot of triggers specifically say non-token; they could use this new vocabulary to distinguish the two, and from now on tokens don't count by default.
Yeah thats the templating on cards like baron sengir. Its a rather clumsy and wonky way to handle creature vs creature combat. As a delayed trigger, there might be 20 actions, spells, abilities, second combat step, etc between when that combat damage was dealt and when the trigger activates at end of turn when you sacrifice it to an ashnod's altar. For a game with such a heavy emphasis on creature combat, its kind of silly we don't have templates for directly referring to such a basic clause as "When a creature kills another creature"
Maro clarified that its purely a templating change with no rules difference (at this point), creating a token is functionally identical to having a token enter the battlefield, same as "dies" is same as "put into its owner's graveyard". Anything that triggers on ETB will trigger on create, but there is space for "Whenever you create a token", though it would be functionally identical to the already possible "Whenever a token enters the battlefield under your control". Well maybe not, where forbidden orchard is concerned.
Thats the strength of having vocabulary terms over explicit instructions, but they need to be instantly grokkable enough not to be confusing. As said on the previous page, thats why "Creating a token" or "When a creature dies" can work, but "Mill 5 cards" is too esoteric an action to get its own phrasing. I think creatures killing creatures is a good candidate for some very simple word choices.
"Make"
They will just say "Create" is short for "Create token and put it onto the battlefield". Same thing they did for "Dies" meaning "goes to the graveyard from the battlefield"
Wasn't "put onto battlefield" good enough?
However, creatures don't kill creatures under the current rules. Creatures die as a state-based effect of having lethal damage marked on them. You would need a substantial rules overhaul to make that wording work. It's certainly possible, but I doubt its worth it.
All it needs is a comprehensive rules definition that says that "Killing" is when a creature deals lethal combat damage to another creature and it dies when statebased actions are checked- it simply looks to which creatures marked that damage on them prior to SBA being checked in 704.5g and 704.5h. I'm sure a rules lawyer could figure out the exact phrasing required. As it would be specific to that term, the rules could handle it without overhauling other terms, like how a creature does not destroy another creature. A term can be constructed expressly to work around the current limitation.
But what about when a creature destroys another creature through the effect of an activated ability? Or because of damage dealt through fight? What if it dealt damage during the first strike damage step, but lethal damage to the creature was dealt during the normal damage step? What about creatures with Wither or Infect, which don't mark damage on creatures? If a Glory Seeker and a Rot Wolf block a Tajic, Blade of the Legion, would the Glory Seeker have "killed" him? What if it does get dealt lethal damage and dies to a state-based action, but the state-based action in question is the legend rule (possible with a Banisher Priest)?
The first few don't seem too complicated- an activated ability isn't combat damage, fight isn't combat damage, the first striker would have been one of the creatures that marked the combat damage that was lethal on it even if it died a step later in the same combat. Wither and infect seems where it would get more complicated. Unless there was a specific exemption for the comp rules, since its not marking damage, the infector wouldn't be one of the creatures dealing the lethal damage and wouldn't be slaying it. Being indestructible, it wouldn't die to lethal damage but to having 0 toughness and wouldn't count as slain. Same with the state-based legend rule
I think a better critical example would be "What if a creature with 5 toughness is dealt 4 combat damage, then three steps later is hit by afflict"?
In that case, the damage wasn't lethal when it was first marked, but later became lethal when its toughness was lowered. This would still count as being killed by the creatures who hit it earlier, by that definition. Or how about "If a 4 toughness creature is lightning bolted, then blocked by eager cadet"? Then it has 1 combat damage and 3 non-combat damage marked on it for lethal. If the inverse isn't to work (combat first, dies to lightning bolt later), then what has to matter is the order they are dealt, and we'd have to look at timestamps of what occured last. So that would restrict it to "Alice is killed by Bob if Alice is dealt lethal damage when state based actions are first checked after combat damage is dealt and Bob dealt any of the combat damage marked on Alice". Then lowering its toughness or bolting it ex post factor wouldn't work, but first strikers who dealt part of the damage would still count.
It would take some real examination to make it workable
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
Clearly, some of you haven't been playing this game for very long.
But Soul's Attendant cares about all creatures entering the battlefield, which includes tokens. In fact, the vast majority of triggers are ETB based, very few care about when creature cards are casted. And for those that do, "Whenever a creature is summoned" and "Whenever you play a creature spell" aren't significantly different. If you're saying "whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if you cast it from your hand" is an important and interesting enough distinction to be templated in shorthand, I'd have to disagree. It has only been used a handful of times in Magic history. It's typically only used on big splashy ETB effects on fat creatures to prevent them being cheated in to play.
There won't be contraptions on kaladesh, but the vehicle spoilers give credence that its not completely independent from them. Kaladesh is going to have a strong emphasis on artifact tokens, at the least thopters, but likely a new subtype, just not contraptions in name. It makes sense to streamline the template to coincide with that
But the vehicle spoiler is completely meaningless as we know almost nothing about it. Vehicles could be a nickname for an unrelated card type or mechanic, or they could have been cut completely.
well we know kaladesh has an artificer/inventor theme and we know its filled with thopters and we just got a new template for making tokens, like artifact or thopter tokens, and we have strong evidence that theres a vehicle mechanic in the set that has something to do with creatures. Connecting those dots doesn't make it a stretch to say we'll see some form of contraptions-in-spirit if not in name. Like if wizards were trying to design around contraptions, but instead went on a tangent and fleshed out a mechanic on a similar vein but different enough to need to segregate it. Happens all the time in worldbuilding, like Arkhos and Mongseng becoming Theros and Tarkir
Yeah, actually, it is a stretch to say that some form of contraptions will be included in Kaladesh because of a single line from a Multiverse file that makes vague reference to "vehicles". Even if you ignore Rosewater straight up saying that contraptions will not be in Kaladesh it's a stretch.
Maro has stated that Contraptions are for-sure not in Kaladesh. I doubt he would say such a thing if they were there "in spirit". He even went on to say that he found a way to make another mechanic of his work for the first time. He made it clear that it was a different mechanic, even if it does fill a similar role.
Also, I doubt the template change has very much to do with this new mechanic. All the template change suggests is that the block likely has a higher frequency of token-making effects, just like how colorless mana in Oath of the Gatewatch, modal spells in Fate Reforged, legends in Theros block, and death-effects in Innistrad block each led to their own minor template-changes.
And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that "vehicles" have anything to do with this mechanic. As someone said before, we know absolutely nothing about "vehicles" other than it somehow gets "turned off" by Choking Restraints.
Until we know more, we should assume that these puzzle pieces do not necessarily belong to the same puzzle.
It's a sensible change.
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
This is what I was thinking.
One of my Contraption brainstorming sessions involved changing the token-generating template to "assemble," i.e. "Put X Contraption artifact tokens onto the battlefield" becomes "Assemble X Contraption artifact tokens."
My guess is that Contraptions will be a mechanic in Æther Revolt rather than Kaladesh, and "create" will refer to generating creature tokens while "assemble" refers to generating Contraption artifact tokens.
EDIT: Ugh, MaRo said that Contraptions won't be appearing in the block at ALL. Scratch the Æther Revolt part, then.
This hypothesis would make Second Harvest rather awkward, though.
(What if you have Contraption tokens when you cast Second Harvest? How are you "creating" something that SHOULD, from a rules standpoint, be "assembled?")
I'm not saying token generating doesn't deserve its own word, but mill has been around forever and many sets have seen many cards with it on it. Fight is only seen about 2 cards a set, and barely that sometimes, just like mill and yet "fight" exists. When you can turn....
"Target player/opponent puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard" into....
"Target player/opponent Mills X"...
....that saves quite a bit of space on a mechanic that is used frequently.
At the very first it started out as exactly a short version of the old trigger , why they changed many cards in oracle to lifelink, just to revert back that change as they actually changed the rules for lifelink to be different from the trigger.
Its still one of the better examples, as the old trigger was not intuitive how players would "assume" it works, as it is now its better (having the old cards around obvisiously makes things a little more complicated, but not much you can/should change here).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮