Protection from colors is odd. Its sort of a tired fantasy theme where plant dies to fire dies to water dies to etc etc. I'd be okay with seeing it fall by the wayside.
You might as well toss out the color pie all together then, since the whole point of it is to show how each performs with and against the other colors. Yea, it's a trope to be sure, but at the same time it serves a lot of good in the game design.
Jovarid: We know that some kind of landwalk (or was it regeneration?) is in M15, and even though non-evergreen mechanics do find their way into core sets it seems a little counter intuitive to use it in the same set that it is dropped from evergreen status. Since Protection still ranks above them in MaRo's eyes (even if by a little) that seems to take it from consideration too.
That is all simply interpretation. I believe that Protection as evergreen serves a very important role in the balancing of creature and creatureless strategies and while it is hard for some new players to totally grok I think it needs to remain evergreen.
Protection from colors is odd. Its sort of a tired fantasy theme where plant dies to fire dies to water dies to etc etc. I'd be okay with seeing it fall by the wayside.
You might as well toss out the color pie all together then, since the whole point of it is to show how each performs with and against the other colors. Yea, it's a trope to be sure, but at the same time it serves a lot of good in the game design.
Jovarid: We know that some kind of landwalk (or was it regeneration?) is in M15, and even though non-evergreen mechanics do find their way into core sets it seems a little counter intuitive to use it in the same set that it is dropped from evergreen status. Since Protection still ranks above them in MaRo's eyes (even if by a little) that seems to take it from consideration too.
That is all simply interpretation. I believe that Protection as evergreen serves a very important role in the balancing of creature and creatureless strategies and while it is hard for some new players to totally grok I think it needs to remain evergreen.
Yea, I believe indestructible will "replace" protection. Granted both play a little different, but it's similar enough that it doesn't require new players to understand DEBT.
Protection from colors is odd. Its sort of a tired fantasy theme where plant dies to fire dies to water dies to etc etc. I'd be okay with seeing it fall by the wayside.
You might as well toss out the color pie all together then, since the whole point of it is to show how each performs with and against the other colors. Yea, it's a trope to be sure, but at the same time it serves a lot of good in the game design.
The fact that the colour pie includes strengths and weaknesses for each colour is why protection is unnecessary. The argument is that it's a crutch for forcing the colours to "correctly" do well against their enemies when the organic means in the colour pie fail to do that. I'm not sure I buy that argument entirely (Magic doesn't have a rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock interaction of its colours even with stuff like protection and landwalk; it's not like red decks always beat blue decks or vice versa. It's more about individual deck strategies than pure colour) but arguing that the stated reason behind protection is already present in the colour pie in general isn't a very good reason for retaining protection.
Jovarid: We know that some kind of landwalk (or was it regeneration?) is in M15, and even though non-evergreen mechanics do find their way into core sets it seems a little counter intuitive to use it in the same set that it is dropped from evergreen status. Since Protection still ranks above them in MaRo's eyes (even if by a little) that seems to take it from consideration too.
I believe the changes are a bit further down the line than M15. I think I have seen a "cannot be regenerated" clause on a M15 card too (?), so I guess no changes right now.
But when Mark Rosewater writes that he "doesn't believe protection has a place in the game", that is a pretty strong strike against it, it would seem. Of course, he doesn't run R&D as a dictator, so there could be a case that he personally is strictly against it, while other R&D peeps like what they are able to do with it.
The fact that the colour pie includes strengths and weaknesses for each colour is why protection is unnecessary. The argument is that it's a crutch for forcing the colours to "correctly" do well against their enemies when the organic means in the colour pie fail to do that.
Protection is of course not the whole reason, but it is part of the package. The notion that a Black Knight might develop a way to nullify the attacks of and bypass the defense of one of the colors that fundamentally opposes it does not seem at all at odds with how the color pie is set up. 6jerfz calls it a tired trope, but to me finding ways to stop and circumvent your enemy is basic common sense. Indestructible works for the blocking portion, but "can't be blocked" is a blue trait outside of Intimidate and Landwalk (which MaRo likes even less). You could expand that to all colors, but then you are adding two things to a card- Indestructible and Can't be blocked (both of which have no enemy color flavor), and you still have a card that can be targeted by removal spells of the given color.
It's not like it is a broken mechanic either. Is Paladin en-Vec a broken creature? How about Phyrexian Crusader? No, they just represent a creature that has been magically buffed to do harm to the enemy color.
I believe the changes are a bit further down the line than M15. I think I have seen a "cannot be regenerated" clause on a M15 card too (?), so I guess no changes right now.
But when Mark Rosewater writes that he "doesn't believe protection has a place in the game", that is a pretty strong strike against it, it would seem. Of course, he doesn't run R&D as a dictator, so there could be a case that he personally is strictly against it, while other R&D peeps like what they are able to do with it.
Perhaps, but MaRo has been unhappy with Protection and Regeneration for as long as I have been reading his articles, so I tend to dismiss most of his comments about them.
MaRo (and the rest of creative) can be unhappy with mechanics, until a replacement is devised and put into play, there isn't a reason to stop using what's on the table.
Protection, for instance, exists in all five colors to varying degrees of use:
- White: (Protection from basically anything)
- Blue: (Protection from Red/Green, Protection from things that are not a color)
- Black: (Protection from White/Green)
- Red: (Protection from White/Blue)
- Green: (Protection from Blue/Black)
While almost all of these are rather low appearance items in a given set (usually in the range of 0-5, Theros had six) they are tools that help flesh out any given set. And without something to replace them weakens the overall ability creative has on hand. They are also good trinket text options for flavor (Master of Waves, Stormbreath Dragon, Polis Crusher, Guildscorn Ward, Enemy of the Guildpack) while not being terribly useful (both creatures are just fine without having pro-red and pro-white respectively). Polis Crusher and the Pro-Multicolors from either Ravnica block exist as a way to represent something that would take a lot more text to do otherwise.
I am sure, once Protection and Regeneration have more... streamlined and unclunky mechanics (Regeneration wants something that's triggered by death, and not a Regen Shield. Not sure what Protection needs, maybe just preventing targetting and damage without the attack/block). Landwalk and Intimidate need a more interactive way to get damage through, since Landwalk is entirely luck based, and Intimidate requires decking Artifacts. (Intimidate is a brand new shortcoming from Fear, Fear was just narrowly designed.)
The fact that the colour pie includes strengths and weaknesses for each colour is why protection is unnecessary. The argument is that it's a crutch for forcing the colours to "correctly" do well against their enemies when the organic means in the colour pie fail to do that.
Protection is of course not the whole reason, but it is part of the package. The notion that a Black Knight might develop a way to nullify the attacks of and bypass the defense of one of the colors that fundamentally opposes it does not seem at all at odds with how the color pie is set up. 6jerfz calls it a tired trope, but to me finding ways to stop and circumvent your enemy is basic common sense. Indestructible works for the blocking portion, but "can't be blocked" is a blue trait outside of Intimidate and Landwalk (which MaRo likes even less). You could expand that to all colors, but then you are adding two things to a card- Indestructible and Can't be blocked (both of which have no enemy color flavor), and you still have a card that can be targeted by removal spells of the given color.
It's not like it is a broken mechanic either. Is Paladin en-Vec a broken creature? How about Phyrexian Crusader? No, they just represent a creature that has been magically buffed to do harm to the enemy color.
That's an interesting perspective. It's largely flavour-oriented yet it's a very Melviny outlook. I think in both senses, though, this perspective misses the point. You're looking at Black Knight and saying "It makes sense that a black knight would learn to exploit his enemies [flavour argument], how can I replicate that function without using protection [Melvin argument]?" This isn't about whether black knight makes flavourful sense and it's certainly not about precisely imitating it using different mechanics. There will not be a one-to-one correspondence of protection and whatever mechanics might "replace" it if it's removed. It also won't be removed because it's "broken" (it's not, although the fact that creatures with protection "represent" something has nothing to do with whether or not they're broken), it will be removed (if it is) because it's needlessly complicated and potentially because it's noninteractive (it can be noninteractive without being broken).
That's an interesting perspective. It's largely flavour-oriented yet it's a very Melviny outlook. I think in both senses, though, this perspective misses the point. You're looking at Black Knight and saying "It makes sense that a black knight would learn to exploit his enemies [flavour argument], how can I replicate that function without using protection [Melvin argument]?" This isn't about whether black knight makes flavourful sense and it's certainly not about precisely imitating it using different mechanics. There will not be a one-to-one correspondence of protection and whatever mechanics might "replace" it if it's removed. It also won't be removed because it's "broken" (it's not, although the fact that creatures with protection "represent" something has nothing to do with whether or not they're broken), it will be removed (if it is) because it's needlessly complicated and potentially because it's noninteractive (it can be noninteractive without being broken).
I agree that it is complicated, and from a certain point of view it can be seen as non-interactive (in much the same way that some people say counters are non-interactive), but there has never been a single mechanic proposed that fills the same role that I have ever seen. I was responding directly to the assertion that was made that it was a tired fantasy idea, so my response was tailored to the efficiency of the mechanic and the flavor of it. To some extent it is a well worn idea, but it also has a logical explanation in flavor and achieves what it does with a minimum of text box space.
Could it be replaced? Theoretically sure, but not with existing mechanics without weakening it severely or taking up more space. The non-interactivity is debatable, but we agree it is clearly not broken so why weaken it? Making things easier to grok for new players should always be an ideal, but the cost is not always worth moving closer to that ideal.
As far as regeneration, couldn't a new but similar keyword be along the lines of;
Undead Zombie BB
Recreate (The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Remove all combat damage from it. A creature can only be recreated once a turn.)
2/2
I think this would be simpler for an evergreen mechanic. It doesn't have any timing issues by being an activated ability and removes the extra tapping part. I think it also would make it slightly more interactive as it's similar to Kira, Great Glass-Spinner.
I always felt like "Whenever this creature deal damage to an opponent, you may draw a card" should have a keyword. It's on many card and it's long to read and explain.
I vote for thievery or theif as the keyword.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former DCI Tournament Organizer
What is the standard organisational structure of shadow organisation?(Gotta love 4Chan)
Current MTGO Player and paper reseller/speculator.
But what if the flavor is meant to be espionage or reconnaissance instead?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
As far as regeneration, couldn't a new but similar keyword be along the lines of;
Undead Zombie BB
Recreate (The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Remove all combat damage from it. A creature can only be recreated once a turn.)
2/2
I think this would be simpler for an evergreen mechanic. It doesn't have any timing issues by being an activated ability and removes the extra tapping part. I think it also would make it slightly more interactive as it's similar to Kira, Great Glass-Spinner.
This is like better persist/undying. It should have a cost associated with it.
Maybe something like "Heal 1G (If this creature would be destroyed, you may bay 1G and tap it. If you do, remove all damage from it and remove it from combat instead.)" (I like Heal better as a name for it. Recouperate and Rejuvinate also came to mind. Something a bit more organic than Recreate, ya know?)
As far as regeneration, couldn't a new but similar keyword be along the lines of;
Undead Zombie BB
Recreate (The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Remove all combat damage from it. A creature can only be recreated once a turn.)
2/2
I think this would be simpler for an evergreen mechanic. It doesn't have any timing issues by being an activated ability and removes the extra tapping part. I think it also would make it slightly more interactive as it's similar to Kira, Great Glass-Spinner.
This is like better persist/undying. It should have a cost associated with it.
Maybe something like "Heal 1G (If this creature would be destroyed, you may bay 1G and tap it. If you do, remove all damage from it and remove it from combat instead.)" (I like Heal better as a name for it. Recouperate and Rejuvinate also came to mind. Something a bit more organic than Recreate, ya know?)
How is that different from Regenerate functionally? The point I was making was to attempt to simplify Regenerate as WOTC stated their possible interest in possibly replacing it as they feel Regenerate is slightly complicated. It has timing issues and also causes it to tap. I merely made a suggestion to fix those, I'm not trying to create a new fantasy mechanic and try to balance it out. (Undying is actually better than it and requires no cost but that doesn't really matter.)
As far as regeneration, couldn't a new but similar keyword be along the lines of;
Undead Zombie BB
Recreate (The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Remove all combat damage from it. A creature can only be recreated once a turn.)
2/2
I think this would be simpler for an evergreen mechanic. It doesn't have any timing issues by being an activated ability and removes the extra tapping part. I think it also would make it slightly more interactive as it's similar to Kira, Great Glass-Spinner.
This is like better persist/undying. It should have a cost associated with it.
Maybe something like "Heal 1G (If this creature would be destroyed, you may bay 1G and tap it. If you do, remove all damage from it and remove it from combat instead.)" (I like Heal better as a name for it. Recouperate and Rejuvinate also came to mind. Something a bit more organic than Recreate, ya know?)
How is that different from Regenerate functionally? The point I was making was to attempt to simplify Regenerate as WOTC stated their possible interest in possibly replacing it as they feel Regenerate is slightly complicated. It has timing issues and also causes it to tap. I merely made a suggestion to fix those, I'm not trying to create a new fantasy mechanic and try to balance it out. (Undying is actually better than it and requires no cost but that doesn't really matter.)
The most problematic thing about regeneration is that it's unintuitive. You have to regenerate your creature before anything happens. If you use deidarakoon's keyword, the game would check the regeneration ability at the very moment the creature would be destroyed and you would pay the cost of the regeneration exactly when you have to. This would also make away with the "hovering regen shield" thing, which is just not possible to explain to a new player without adding "no really, I'm not messing with you".
As far as regeneration, couldn't a new but similar keyword be along the lines of;
Undead Zombie BB
Recreate (The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Remove all combat damage from it. A creature can only be recreated once a turn.)
2/2
I think this would be simpler for an evergreen mechanic. It doesn't have any timing issues by being an activated ability and removes the extra tapping part. I think it also would make it slightly more interactive as it's similar to Kira, Great Glass-Spinner.
This is like better persist/undying. It should have a cost associated with it.
Maybe something like "Heal 1G (If this creature would be destroyed, you may bay 1G and tap it. If you do, remove all damage from it and remove it from combat instead.)" (I like Heal better as a name for it. Recouperate and Rejuvinate also came to mind. Something a bit more organic than Recreate, ya know?)
How is that different from Regenerate functionally? The point I was making was to attempt to simplify Regenerate as WOTC stated their possible interest in possibly replacing it as they feel Regenerate is slightly complicated. It has timing issues and also causes it to tap. I merely made a suggestion to fix those, I'm not trying to create a new fantasy mechanic and try to balance it out. (Undying is actually better than it and requires no cost but that doesn't really matter.)
The most problematic thing about regeneration is that it's unintuitive. You have to regenerate your creature before anything happens. If you use deidarakoon's keyword, the game would check the regeneration ability at the very moment the creature would be destroyed and you would pay the cost of the regeneration exactly when you have to. This would also make away with the "hovering regen shield" thing, which is just not possible to explain to a new player without adding "no really, I'm not messing with you".
So why not just keep Regenerate: Cost and simply change the rules of Regenerate? Then you don't need to change anything.
Jovarid: We know that some kind of landwalk (or was it regeneration?) is in M15, and even though non-evergreen mechanics do find their way into core sets it seems a little counter intuitive to use it in the same set that it is dropped from evergreen status. Since Protection still ranks above them in MaRo's eyes (even if by a little) that seems to take it from consideration too.
That is all simply interpretation. I believe that Protection as evergreen serves a very important role in the balancing of creature and creatureless strategies and while it is hard for some new players to totally grok I think it needs to remain evergreen.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
It was landwalk, not regeneration.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
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
The fact that the colour pie includes strengths and weaknesses for each colour is why protection is unnecessary. The argument is that it's a crutch for forcing the colours to "correctly" do well against their enemies when the organic means in the colour pie fail to do that. I'm not sure I buy that argument entirely (Magic doesn't have a rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock interaction of its colours even with stuff like protection and landwalk; it's not like red decks always beat blue decks or vice versa. It's more about individual deck strategies than pure colour) but arguing that the stated reason behind protection is already present in the colour pie in general isn't a very good reason for retaining protection.
I believe the changes are a bit further down the line than M15. I think I have seen a "cannot be regenerated" clause on a M15 card too (?), so I guess no changes right now.
But when Mark Rosewater writes that he "doesn't believe protection has a place in the game", that is a pretty strong strike against it, it would seem. Of course, he doesn't run R&D as a dictator, so there could be a case that he personally is strictly against it, while other R&D peeps like what they are able to do with it.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
It's not like it is a broken mechanic either. Is Paladin en-Vec a broken creature? How about Phyrexian Crusader? No, they just represent a creature that has been magically buffed to do harm to the enemy color.
Perhaps, but MaRo has been unhappy with Protection and Regeneration for as long as I have been reading his articles, so I tend to dismiss most of his comments about them.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Protection, for instance, exists in all five colors to varying degrees of use:
- White: (Protection from basically anything)
- Blue: (Protection from Red/Green, Protection from things that are not a color)
- Black: (Protection from White/Green)
- Red: (Protection from White/Blue)
- Green: (Protection from Blue/Black)
While almost all of these are rather low appearance items in a given set (usually in the range of 0-5, Theros had six) they are tools that help flesh out any given set. And without something to replace them weakens the overall ability creative has on hand. They are also good trinket text options for flavor (Master of Waves, Stormbreath Dragon, Polis Crusher, Guildscorn Ward, Enemy of the Guildpack) while not being terribly useful (both creatures are just fine without having pro-red and pro-white respectively). Polis Crusher and the Pro-Multicolors from either Ravnica block exist as a way to represent something that would take a lot more text to do otherwise.
I am sure, once Protection and Regeneration have more... streamlined and unclunky mechanics (Regeneration wants something that's triggered by death, and not a Regen Shield. Not sure what Protection needs, maybe just preventing targetting and damage without the attack/block). Landwalk and Intimidate need a more interactive way to get damage through, since Landwalk is entirely luck based, and Intimidate requires decking Artifacts. (Intimidate is a brand new shortcoming from Fear, Fear was just narrowly designed.)
That's an interesting perspective. It's largely flavour-oriented yet it's a very Melviny outlook. I think in both senses, though, this perspective misses the point. You're looking at Black Knight and saying "It makes sense that a black knight would learn to exploit his enemies [flavour argument], how can I replicate that function without using protection [Melvin argument]?" This isn't about whether black knight makes flavourful sense and it's certainly not about precisely imitating it using different mechanics. There will not be a one-to-one correspondence of protection and whatever mechanics might "replace" it if it's removed. It also won't be removed because it's "broken" (it's not, although the fact that creatures with protection "represent" something has nothing to do with whether or not they're broken), it will be removed (if it is) because it's needlessly complicated and potentially because it's noninteractive (it can be noninteractive without being broken).
Could it be replaced? Theoretically sure, but not with existing mechanics without weakening it severely or taking up more space. The non-interactivity is debatable, but we agree it is clearly not broken so why weaken it? Making things easier to grok for new players should always be an ideal, but the cost is not always worth moving closer to that ideal.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/89765745483/i-thought-you-said-r-d-was-moving-away-from-landwalk
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Undead Zombie BB
Recreate (The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Remove all combat damage from it. A creature can only be recreated once a turn.)
2/2
I think this would be simpler for an evergreen mechanic. It doesn't have any timing issues by being an activated ability and removes the extra tapping part. I think it also would make it slightly more interactive as it's similar to Kira, Great Glass-Spinner.
I vote for thievery or theif as the keyword.
Current MTGO Player and paper reseller/speculator.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
This is like better persist/undying. It should have a cost associated with it.
Maybe something like "Heal 1G (If this creature would be destroyed, you may bay 1G and tap it. If you do, remove all damage from it and remove it from combat instead.)" (I like Heal better as a name for it. Recouperate and Rejuvinate also came to mind. Something a bit more organic than Recreate, ya know?)
How is that different from Regenerate functionally? The point I was making was to attempt to simplify Regenerate as WOTC stated their possible interest in possibly replacing it as they feel Regenerate is slightly complicated. It has timing issues and also causes it to tap. I merely made a suggestion to fix those, I'm not trying to create a new fantasy mechanic and try to balance it out. (Undying is actually better than it and requires no cost but that doesn't really matter.)
The most problematic thing about regeneration is that it's unintuitive. You have to regenerate your creature before anything happens. If you use deidarakoon's keyword, the game would check the regeneration ability at the very moment the creature would be destroyed and you would pay the cost of the regeneration exactly when you have to. This would also make away with the "hovering regen shield" thing, which is just not possible to explain to a new player without adding "no really, I'm not messing with you".
So why not just keep Regenerate: Cost and simply change the rules of Regenerate? Then you don't need to change anything.
If you have any comments, or notice any mistakes, please let me know.
Basically every card that regenerates something other than itself needs the "hovering shield" to work properly.