That's a good question. I could only think of two possible explanations, but neither of them seem like great reasons:
A. They wanted to make it easier for newer players.
B. They wanted it to reference/distinguish itself from the original Braids, Cabal Minion.
If they're planning or wanted to leave possibilities for adding new types of permanents, I guess that makes sense, but would make me wonder why they aren't that careful with a bunch of other cards.
If it said "and/or" instead of just "or", that would explain it, but that's not the case either.
In general, a question asking why a particular wording is used on a card, especially if another wording is claimed to be "better", is a question that only Magic R&D can answer, and is out of scope for this forum.
In general, a question asking why a particular wording is used on a card, especially if another wording is claimed to be "better", is a question that only Magic R&D can answer, and is out of scope for this forum.
Its not out of the scope as im trying to discern if the difference impacts gameplay. Giving the benefit of the doubt that there is, and trying to figure out (for the fun of it mind you) what it would be.
Apparently everyone is about as stuck as me and my friends are. Glad to know it wasnt something obvious only in hindsight
Its not out of the scope as im trying to discern if the difference impacts gameplay. Giving the benefit of the doubt that there is, and trying to figure out (for the fun of it mind you) what it would be.
In that case, consider what would happen if a permanent were to lose all its card types, which can happen in rare cases. If Braids's ability were to allow "you" to sacrifice such a permanent, what would it mean for an opponent to sacrifice a permanent that "shares a card type with it"? The rules cover the case of names: an object without a name doesn't have the "same name" as any other object (C.R. 201.2a). The cards Richard Garfield, Ph.D. (a silver-bordered card) and Killer Cosplay (an acorn card) touch on mana costs. This issue is one possible reason for spelling out all permanent types (review C.R. 110.4).
EDIT [after comment 8 was posted]: But compare Braids with Cloudstone Curio. See also:
Its not out of the scope as im trying to discern if the difference impacts gameplay. Giving the benefit of the doubt that there is, and trying to figure out (for the fun of it mind you) what it would be.
In that case, consider what would happen if a permanent were to lose all its card types, which can happen in rare cases. If Braids's ability were to allow you to sacrifice such a permanent, what would it mean for an opponent to sacrifice a permanent that "shares a card type with it"? The rules cover the case of names: an object without a name doesn't have the "same name" as any other object (C.R. 201.2a). The cards Richard Garfield, Ph.D. (a silver-bordered card) and Killer Cosplay touch on mana costs. This issue is one possible reason for spelling out all permanent types (review C.R. 110.4).
Just curious if anyone can think of a reason this card lists each permanent type rather then just saying "permanents"
Bitterblossom
But thats a small nitpick probably.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
A. They wanted to make it easier for newer players.
B. They wanted it to reference/distinguish itself from the original Braids, Cabal Minion.
If they're planning or wanted to leave possibilities for adding new types of permanents, I guess that makes sense, but would make me wonder why they aren't that careful with a bunch of other cards.
If it said "and/or" instead of just "or", that would explain it, but that's not the case either.
Its not out of the scope as im trying to discern if the difference impacts gameplay. Giving the benefit of the doubt that there is, and trying to figure out (for the fun of it mind you) what it would be.
Apparently everyone is about as stuck as me and my friends are. Glad to know it wasnt something obvious only in hindsight
EDIT [after comment 8 was posted]: But compare Braids with Cloudstone Curio. See also:
EDIT (Oct. 25): Edited.
interesting point!
MaRo answered a question nine days ago—on August 29, 2022—about this same thing on his blog: Blogatog.
He weighed in on the discussion elsewhere, too; but I can't currently find that. I'll update if I do.
Also, moving this thread.
Oh ill have to look for that. Thanks