Now for the bit that got me excited enough to post here: regeneration. I personally love regeneration as a mechanic and have huge nostalgia for it as it was a key player in my first ever magic deck, but it's sort of a problem-child mechanic since it can be easy to assume it doesn't do all the things it does. A lot of the posters here either think it should go (that would suck for me, but whatever, I'd still keep playing) or that it should be changed/functionally replaced. There've been some pretty cool suggestions in this thread, but so far they've all come with some baggage that, while not stopping them from being okay replacements, should definitely be addressed. The first thing that I noticed was that everyone redesigned it as a creature keyword, when it isn't; regeneration is an action word like fight or clash. Making it a creature keyword makes it messier— not bad necessarily, just messier— to have a noncreature spell use it (think of how Death Ward or Wrap in Vigor would look with several of the suggested mechanics).
I think this hits on an important point. A lot of the proposed "fixed" versions of regeneration don't work under the current rules. A "shield" representing a replacement effect is the only way to make it work, without adding even more unnecessary complexity to the rules, or allowing ETB/death triggers which is NOT, I assume, something they want to work with regen.
The main thing that doesn't work (at least to my rules understanding) is the "if X would die" replacement effects that require a mana payment. In order to require a mana payment, it would need to be a triggered ability upon death. Which means auras fall off, LTB/ETB triggers go, and DRS can nom it before regeneration takes place. At that point, it's just a persist/undying variant, and not anything close to regeneration.
The only thing I could see them doing, is replacing regeneration with a new keyword that's identical to regeneration, except it doesnt tap/remove from combat.
(PS: If my rules assumptions are wrong please feel free to correct me)
About Protection, it is very flavorful, basically means that if it have protection from X, X cant interact with it (will not do any damage, cant target it, cant try to block it, cant be together aka attached with it).
And the global effects affect all things, so no complications here.
The problem is that, in a rule perspective, it have to many things to 1 word that is easy to forget something in the game. This is bad because of it, but will not disapear cuz it is a great ability to have and is easy to put in a card (flavor and mechanic speaking)
Now, a question, WHY PEOPLE WANT SHROUD BACK???
Really, I see a lot of people saying "not Hexproof I want Shroud". I understand that hexproof can be irritating when the oponent has it, but there are a lot of ways to escape it and is interactive since you can still making that card better, Shroud seems like isnt interactive enough since all you can do with it is block and attack and use global effect...
I somehow find it tragic when an attacking Traveling Philosopher gets blocked by another Traveling Philosopher, which normally results in two dead philosophers. Shouldn't they just sit aside and start discussing?
"This is really exciting, so much to find out about, so much to look forward to, I'm quite dizzy with anticipation . . . Or is it the wind? There really is a lot of that now, isn't there? And wow! Hey! What's this thing suddenly coming toward me very fast? Very, very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide-sounding name like . . . ow . . . ound . . . round . . . ground! That's it! That's a good name- ground! I wonder if it will be friends with me? Hello Ground!"
Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the Sprouting Phytohydra as it fell was Oh no, not again.
^Having access to a butt-ton of keywords in a single set drastically increases the learning curve for newer Magic players. MaRo has repeatedly said how the Time Spiral block did as you're suggesting and the new player count stagnated as a result. Also, if all keywords are open season and can show up here and there, I feel that just muddles the identity of each sets.
Except none of the above is relevant to removing the Evergreen status of any keyword. Each set can still have a limited number of keywords. Core sets generally feature a new keyword each set anyway, so having a core set with both, say, Exalted and some Scry lands isn't a show-stopper. Also, expert set identities won't be muddled, since they will continue to show off new mechanics as always. Adding one Undying card to Journey Into Nyx does NOTHING to muddle the set, but it does do away with the hard and fast rule of Evergreen status.
Hexproof is a pure upside mechanic; thus, any creature that has Hexproof must be weaker than its non-Hexproof counterpart. Shroud, on the other hand, is a double-edged sword; your opponent can't buff them up (directly), for example. Shroud is a good way to create strong creatures that counter aura-deck creatures, without those creatures finding their way into the aura decks themselves.
Shroud and hexproof should both exist. I'd rather see more shroud, though, because hexproof is a non-interactive all upside mechanic. I'm fine with hexproof existing, but not at the cost of shroud.
Why is everyone speculating about this? There is nothing in Maro's post that suggests a big change to the evergreen mechanics is incoming. He's just saying that evergreen's /can/ change. After all, we just had a minor change with Indestructible and Unblockable and a larger change with Fight and Hexproof/Shroud.
^Having access to a butt-ton of keywords in a single set drastically increases the learning curve for newer Magic players. MaRo has repeatedly said how the Time Spiral block did as you're suggesting and the new player count stagnated as a result. Also, if all keywords are open season and can show up here and there, I feel that just muddles the identity of each sets.
Except none of the above is relevant to removing the Evergreen status of any keyword. Each set can still have a limited number of keywords. Core sets generally feature a new keyword each set anyway, so having a core set with both, say, Exalted and some Scry lands isn't a show-stopper. Also, expert set identities won't be muddled, since they will continue to show off new mechanics as always. Adding one Undying card to Journey Into Nyx does NOTHING to muddle the set, but it does do away with the hard and fast rule of Evergreen status.
You're defeating the purpose of evergreen keywords, then. Evergreen keywords are ones that all players must learn at one point or another due to their frequency of use. What you're asking for is a whitelist of all keywords, which I'm not convinced has any significant impact to MTG.
Take your hypothetical single Undying card in JOU, for example. The keyword would do nothing for new players and those that are responsible for teaching new players, save for burden these people. You may as well spell out the mechanic or something similar on the card rather than use the keyword. In fact, that has been done by the MTG devs many times already. Sure, Ichorclaw Myr could have been printed with Bushido 2, but what good does that do anyone? I guess it could have helped little Guillermo and his niche EDH Bushido deck?
Global effects is a powerbalance feature to prevent it from being unmanageable, otherwise protection (from certain colors, like White and Black) is impossible to overcome. Targetting is there to prevent even more butthurt players because making it illegal to throw all your mana into a fireball on a pro-red creature means that the event doesn't happen, instead of your Fireball being wasted and in an action you cannot take back. And there is a functional difference between a creature walking through an army to get at the enemy planeswalker (attacking), and the same creature walling another creature from coming through (blocking).
Flavor does need to be marshaled by function time to time. Protection is one of them.
I know why protection works like it does from a rules perspective. The problem with it is that it doesn't do what it logically says it does like pretty much every other evergreen keyword. Regenerate also logically works like Reassembling Skeleton. It would play very poorly on anything bigger than 1/2 or has most abilities, though. What I'd personally do is get rid of both and have [color] hexproof and [cost]: gains indestructible. Really, hexproof works pretty much like the sensible flavor of protection for most cards anyway. White Knight doesn't have some kind of zombie deflecting field or anything.
Global effects is a powerbalance feature to prevent it from being unmanageable, otherwise protection (from certain colors, like White and Black) is impossible to overcome. Targetting is there to prevent even more butthurt players because making it illegal to throw all your mana into a fireball on a pro-red creature means that the event doesn't happen, instead of your Fireball being wasted and in an action you cannot take back. And there is a functional difference between a creature walking through an army to get at the enemy planeswalker (attacking), and the same creature walling another creature from coming through (blocking).
Flavor does need to be marshaled by function time to time. Protection is one of them.
I know why protection works like it does from a rules perspective. The problem with it is that it doesn't do what it logically says it does like pretty much every other evergreen keyword. Regenerate also logically works like Reassembling Skeleton. It would play very poorly on anything bigger than 1/2 or has most abilities, though. What I'd personally do is get rid of both and have [color] hexproof and [cost]: gains indestructible. Really, hexproof works pretty much like the sensible flavor of protection for most cards anyway. White Knight doesn't have some kind of zombie deflecting field or anything.
The problem with Hexproof from Red et al, much like the reason people want Shroud back, is that it's an all upside mechanic that would lead to even less Protection than we see now. As occasionally protection from your own color limits you (which, ironically, is part of the list of unintuitive aspects). It also makes the game even more non-creature unfriendly, when that's really what we need to move away from.
I do think Regeneration could use a replacement/heavy fix, but I don't think indestructible is it. Mostly due to how much stronger temporary indestructible would be. You can hose Regeneration simply because killing the creature once taps it, even if it survives. Making the creature temp-indestructible means... it can block, and generally threaten for the turn and stall the game out more.
Unrelated to your response, this is more in general, people who think that Protection is unfair due to how Green and Red have a lot less choice as to how to deal with it. Green really isn't in trouble. Because in the entire history of the game there are 18 instances of "Protection from Green" compared 50+ Protection from Red or Protection from Black. So yes, Green has a lot fewer options for Pro-Green, other than trampling over the generally tiny Pro-Green creatures (except for Sphinx of the Gruul Hate, which is relatively hard to step over, but honestly without Pro-Green it'd still be kinda hard to kill).
Why is everyone speculating about this? There is nothing in Maro's post that suggests a big change to the evergreen mechanics is incoming.
What was said:
What's the likelihood of an ability we know (and perhaps love) going evergreen? If it's high, are there any contenders?
I can’t give details so I’ll just throw out this little tease. The evergreen world of the future is not identical to the evergreen world of the present.
This suggests a big change of some sort. If he simple wanted to say, "Yes, new evergreen mechanics get added" he would have answer the question directly thus.
Well, lets reflect on what MaRo has said about evergreen keywords in the past.
Maro has stated both Protection and Regenerate are keywords they have talked about replacing in the past, but it was felt both were too entrenched to remove without a strong replacement (and even with a strong replacement, Wizards would be worried about the reaction at their replacement).
MaRo has stated that Blue needs a combat keyword.
An evergreen spell keyword is unlikely, as MaRo has said it doesn't really fulfill a necessary role. Keywords are most necessary in creature cycles spanning all 5 colors. He has given this answer for kicker and cycling in the past.
So with that behind us, here is what I think. Blue will be getting a new combat keyword, not a returning one. While regenerate getting replaced is a possibility, we know they have been working on Blue getting a combat keyword, so that is the most likely. Everything else, while something they have considered doing, isn't a priority.
I agree that blue needs a mechanic and I could see Curiosity being a keyword mechanic. But even more impressive would be a Kira, Great Glass-Spinner mechanic. I was always a fan of this mechanic back in Kamigawa block and it could be a fair version of hexproof/shroud.
Nothing prevents them from doing a set without Flying (and making it evergreen doesn't mean it has to be in every set, anyway).
Nothing prevents them from making a set without destroy. They actually have done sets lacking certain evergreen mechanics - e. g. deathtouch is rather redundant with wither and was entirely cut from Shadowmoor. Appearing in every single set is not the point of evergreen.
Yes, absolutely; getting rid of Evergreen defeats the purpose of Evergreen. Evergreen is only restrictive.
The issue is: Evergreen mechanics weren't introduced on a whim. The list of evergreen mechanics is the list of mechanics for which Design said: These are the keywords we are comfortable using again and again in every set even in small numbers.
Such a list didn't strictly exist in the beginning of the game, but emerged from the process of making sensible design choices. An implicit list of such mechanics will emerge again once the game has existed for a while in "everything is evergreen" land.
Writing down the implicit list and making it explicit is nothing more than a reference for the designers to see what the consensus up to that point is for mechanics they are fine with putting into sets repeatedly. The decision what is fine and what is not will still have to be made for a game which is designed by a large amount of people. A reference document is crucial for a project the size of this game.
The point is that if you want to have, say, Scry lands in your next core set, you have to have Scry on other cards as well, and you might not want that. Or maybe I want to staple Undying onto a creature in Journey Into Nyx; why can't I do that for just one card, instead of having to say, "Well, now it's a set mechanic; we gotta feature it"? No, designating certain mechanics evergreen and others not doesn't make evergreen mechanics easier to use; it makes non-evergreen mechanics hard to use.
There are design reasons that already prevent stapling a single mechanic onto a card in a set when the mechanic otherwise doesn't exist in the environment. Undying would be jarring all by itself.
Creating the expectation that a single card with a mechanic implies further cards with that mechanic is actually a feature to the design team. That feature is lost if they randomly insert single instances of keywords into an environment.
Not to mention that the reverse is also true: Having a card with a keyword always in an environment with more instances of that keyword is also a beneficial choice since the keyword becomes familiar to the players.
---
Ergo: A restriction to evergreen keywords exists, but it is not arbitrary; it stems from a wish to design sets in a way that is accessible and a conscious effort to streamline the design process. The things that are restricted by it are meant to be restricted by it. A designer would have to make their case to include a single card with a keyword into a set without the keyword either way - the evergreen list just gives a free pass on letting a few keywords in.
Giving too many keywords a free pass has proven empirically to be a bad call. "All keywords" falls into "too many keywords".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Nothing prevents them from making a set without destroy. They actually have done sets lacking certain evergreen mechanics - e. g. deathtouch is rather redundant with wither and was entirely cut from Shadowmoor. Appearing in every single set is not the point of evergreen.
Exactly, so your objection about Flying no longer being evergreen was a red herring.
There are design reasons that already prevent stapling a single mechanic onto a card in a set when the mechanic otherwise doesn't exist in the environment. Undying would be jarring all by itself.
The "design reasons" are overruled Evergreen, and the point is Evergreen is too restrictive to be a hard rule. Right now your choices are either feature the mechanic in the set, or make it an Evergreen keyword just to use it on a few cards. By removing the Evergreen restriction, you are free to add them or not for actual "design reasons", and not be forced into a box by Evergreen.
Creating the expectation that a single card with a mechanic implies further cards with that mechanic is actually a feature to the design team. That feature is lost if they randomly insert single instances of keywords into an environment.
It's a bad feature, which is why they should dispense with it. Yes, we know you disagree; no need to reiterate it.
Not to mention that the reverse is also true: Having a card with a keyword always in an environment with more instances of that keyword is also a beneficial choice since the keyword becomes familiar to the players.
Except no keyword is always in an environment, so there's no benefit. It's also restrictive if it were (e.g. having to have Flying in the set, which we already agreed before was not required).
To sum up: I explained what would be a major change to Evergreen and why they might make it. You disagree. You have your opinion; there's no need to keep arguing about it. You're not going to change my mind, as I'm simply guessing at what they might do.
They could simplify [protection] by not having enchant be separate from target when it comes to Protection's rule text.
So in your post about how protection is totally intuitive you reveal that you don't actually know what protection does? That's not a good sign.
The number of cases where being enchanted/equipped to a specific permanent where you aren't first targeting with the enchantment or artifact is rather limited. I do understand they are technically different rules so it would be a functional errata. But if you're attempting to simplify protection that would be a change to make it less to explain to new players.
The only issue is that DBT doesn't stand for anything, and DEBT is slightly easier to remember.
I prefer regenerate over indestructible for two major reasons, a)flavour and b)usage.
Regenerate can be stopped with little effort by many s p e l l s, there are no destroy spells that say destroy target creature, it can't be indestructible this turn. Regeneration only works once for every time you activate it, making it more costly to use over again then indestructible. Regeneration can be used on low cmc creatures/spells without having to make them higher rarity due to the fact that there are many answers to it.
The flavour of regeneration is better, nothing is truly indestructible, there is always a way of making a scar on a piece of metal or skin. Regeneration is something that has always been magical, regrowing lost limbs or damaged tissues. I believe that it is easier to make a warrior immortal through regeneration then to make him indestructible.
Regeneration is to indestructible as first strike is to double strike, one is clearly better but also harder to put on lower rarity cards. Why can't we have both?
The problem with Hexproof from Red et al, much like the reason people want Shroud back, is that it's an all upside mechanic that would lead to even less Protection than we see now. As occasionally protection from your own color limits you (which, ironically, is part of the list of unintuitive aspects). It also makes the game even more non-creature unfriendly, when that's really what we need to move away from.
I do think Regeneration could use a replacement/heavy fix, but I don't think indestructible is it. Mostly due to how much stronger temporary indestructible would be. You can hose Regeneration simply because killing the creature once taps it, even if it survives. Making the creature temp-indestructible means... it can block, and generally threaten for the turn and stall the game out more.
Unrelated to your response, this is more in general, people who think that Protection is unfair due to how Green and Red have a lot less choice as to how to deal with it. Green really isn't in trouble. Because in the entire history of the game there are 18 instances of "Protection from Green" compared 50+ Protection from Red or Protection from Black. So yes, Green has a lot fewer options for Pro-Green, other than trampling over the generally tiny Pro-Green creatures (except for Sphinx of the Gruul Hate, which is relatively hard to step over, but honestly without Pro-Green it'd still be kinda hard to kill).
I really doubt the hosing yourself thing is that big of a drawback.It's never actually come up in all the years I've played Magic other than pro white which leads to really stupid cases where they have to add text to an aura so it doesn't remove itself. That's the exact reason they swapped out shroud for hexproof to begin with.
Indestructible isn't really much different than regen anymore, though. "Can't be regenerated" has been nearly phased out and they can just print some exile answers to indestructible anyway, just like they did in Scars and this very block. It also makes sense that the creature can still fight. If you chop off a troll's arm, it doesn't run away. It just starts growing it back right in front of you and gets even more pissed off. That zombie/skeleton doesn't stop either. They'll fight to the end. The having to regen more than once a turn thing is also pretty irrelevant because it almost never comes up in actual gameplay. Of course, obviously nothing is truly indestructible. They even poke fun at it in Scars/Theros block by specifically mentioning indestructible things on exile effects. Indestructible flavorfully just means pretty hard to destroy like the hydra that grows new heads or the troll that grows new parts.
Now, as for the hexproof debate, it actually adds something back to the game people have been begging for for years. It adds a new type of combo deck, but one that isn't just answered by discard/counterspells. It's answered by destroying the buffs, sweepers, edicts, deathtouch, big dudes in some cases, and it actually lets people build that voltron that noobs always want to build in a somewhat reasonable way. It's also been featured on actual tournament playable creatures for once. Shroud has had what? Blastodermback in Masques block and Simic Sky Swallower in block constructed in the whole history of the game? Sphinx of Jwar Isle saw a little play, but was beaten out almost always by Baneslayer Angel with no real protection at all. I guess the biggest problem with hexproof is control players that are pissed that they're printing tournament playable protection mechanics that make it hard to have one size fits all answers. Hexproof is good, but it has some kind of answer in every color for most of them. It's not storm combo where it's counters/discard or gtfo.
The number of cases where being enchanted/equipped to a specific permanent where you aren't first targeting with the enchantment or artifact is rather limited.
Protection will make anything Aura or Equipment attached to creature that it has protection from fall off. That's a very important aspect of the ability. You can use it to rescue a creature from Pacifism or disarm an attacker carrying a sword.
Again, an ability that requires this much discussion about how it works is clearly not a good ability.
I do understand they are technically different rules so it would be a functional errata. But if you're attempting to simplify protection that would be a change to make it less to explain to new players.
The issue isn't the length of the rules text, its that people have zero chance of guessing the four essentially random things it does. The "can't be blocked" part trips people up constantly. I have experienced friends who pause and ask me "How does protection work when attacking?". Improving protection means fundamentally rewriting it.
I am betting that they are making Kicker and evergreen mechanic. It is well-loved, simple, and makes sense flavorfully. It also is a mechanic that they can easily put on noncreature cards, which is something that they don't really have.
Probably not happening. MaRo has said how Kicker is too broad of a mechanic, which is why we are seeing narrow Kicker-like keywords such as Overload and Strive.
My guess is that Landwalk is no longer gonna be evergreen, and Intimidate will show up far more in B as well as slightly more in R. Landwalk only showed up twice in M14, and not even once in the Theros block.
Also possible is a tweak on Protection and/or Regeneration.
What I would like to see is for "Can't be blocked except by X or more creatures" to get keyworded and able to be phrased in a way that both U and R could share the same keyword.
Not trolling here. IMHO, you're spot-on. "protection" is branching off. I can see them splintering Progenitus/TNN "protection" from color "protection" and damage "protection", which most likely ties into regeneration.
Since MTG introduced "battlefield", "exile", and "dies" wordings, my other guess would be "undying"/"persist" possibly coming into core sets. It's easy enough to understand and there are some very casual/new player cards that are core-set friendly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
What exactly is the hard Evergreen rule in your mind?
The same one that is in reality: Evergreen keywords are for abilities that can be used in any set (without necessitating a set feature that keyword just to include it).
Evergreen keywords are also the ones they can print without reminder text. They wouldn't be able to print a singleton creature with Undying without reminder text, even at rare (they can only do it at rare if there are multiple Undying creatures at common)
I also have a strong feeling that Undying is coming back in M15, but this is unrelated to the evergreen discussion.
Restrictions are not necessarily bad things when it comes to game design. In the case of evergreen, it accomplishes something very important to Wizards: preventing complexity creep from an overabundance of keywords. Having one-off keywords show up in sets raises the level of background knowledge a player needs to have to play with the set. It's not an efficient way to spend the "complexity budget" for a set: thus the evergreen policy. I think it's important to re-evaluate what keywords are evergreen at regular intervals, but as a design principle it's an excellent policy.
The same one that is in reality: Evergreen keywords are for abilities that can be used in any set (without necessitating a set feature that keyword just to include it).
See? That's not a restriction. The rule doesn't restrict undying from appearing in JOU or any other stuff. It seems that the actual problem you have is not with the rule that evergreen abilities can be used anywhere.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I think this hits on an important point. A lot of the proposed "fixed" versions of regeneration don't work under the current rules. A "shield" representing a replacement effect is the only way to make it work, without adding even more unnecessary complexity to the rules, or allowing ETB/death triggers which is NOT, I assume, something they want to work with regen.
The main thing that doesn't work (at least to my rules understanding) is the "if X would die" replacement effects that require a mana payment. In order to require a mana payment, it would need to be a triggered ability upon death. Which means auras fall off, LTB/ETB triggers go, and DRS can nom it before regeneration takes place. At that point, it's just a persist/undying variant, and not anything close to regeneration.
The only thing I could see them doing, is replacing regeneration with a new keyword that's identical to regeneration, except it doesnt tap/remove from combat.
(PS: If my rules assumptions are wrong please feel free to correct me)
And the global effects affect all things, so no complications here.
The problem is that, in a rule perspective, it have to many things to 1 word that is easy to forget something in the game. This is bad because of it, but will not disapear cuz it is a great ability to have and is easy to put in a card (flavor and mechanic speaking)
Now, a question, WHY PEOPLE WANT SHROUD BACK???
Really, I see a lot of people saying "not Hexproof I want Shroud". I understand that hexproof can be irritating when the oponent has it, but there are a lot of ways to escape it and is interactive since you can still making that card better, Shroud seems like isnt interactive enough since all you can do with it is block and attack and use global effect...
ps: sorry any gramar mistake
Except none of the above is relevant to removing the Evergreen status of any keyword. Each set can still have a limited number of keywords. Core sets generally feature a new keyword each set anyway, so having a core set with both, say, Exalted and some Scry lands isn't a show-stopper. Also, expert set identities won't be muddled, since they will continue to show off new mechanics as always. Adding one Undying card to Journey Into Nyx does NOTHING to muddle the set, but it does do away with the hard and fast rule of Evergreen status.
Hexproof is a pure upside mechanic; thus, any creature that has Hexproof must be weaker than its non-Hexproof counterpart. Shroud, on the other hand, is a double-edged sword; your opponent can't buff them up (directly), for example. Shroud is a good way to create strong creatures that counter aura-deck creatures, without those creatures finding their way into the aura decks themselves.
Take your hypothetical single Undying card in JOU, for example. The keyword would do nothing for new players and those that are responsible for teaching new players, save for burden these people. You may as well spell out the mechanic or something similar on the card rather than use the keyword. In fact, that has been done by the MTG devs many times already. Sure, Ichorclaw Myr could have been printed with Bushido 2, but what good does that do anyone? I guess it could have helped little Guillermo and his niche EDH Bushido deck?
The problem with Hexproof from Red et al, much like the reason people want Shroud back, is that it's an all upside mechanic that would lead to even less Protection than we see now. As occasionally protection from your own color limits you (which, ironically, is part of the list of unintuitive aspects). It also makes the game even more non-creature unfriendly, when that's really what we need to move away from.
I do think Regeneration could use a replacement/heavy fix, but I don't think indestructible is it. Mostly due to how much stronger temporary indestructible would be. You can hose Regeneration simply because killing the creature once taps it, even if it survives. Making the creature temp-indestructible means... it can block, and generally threaten for the turn and stall the game out more.
Unrelated to your response, this is more in general, people who think that Protection is unfair due to how Green and Red have a lot less choice as to how to deal with it. Green really isn't in trouble. Because in the entire history of the game there are 18 instances of "Protection from Green" compared 50+ Protection from Red or Protection from Black. So yes, Green has a lot fewer options for Pro-Green, other than trampling over the generally tiny Pro-Green creatures (except for Sphinx of the Gruul Hate, which is relatively hard to step over, but honestly without Pro-Green it'd still be kinda hard to kill).
What was said:
This suggests a big change of some sort. If he simple wanted to say, "Yes, new evergreen mechanics get added" he would have answer the question directly thus.
Yes, absolutely; getting rid of Evergreen defeats the purpose of Evergreen. Evergreen is only restrictive.
I agree that blue needs a mechanic and I could see Curiosity being a keyword mechanic. But even more impressive would be a Kira, Great Glass-Spinner mechanic. I was always a fan of this mechanic back in Kamigawa block and it could be a fair version of hexproof/shroud.
UWRUWR MidrangeUWR
BUGSultai MidrangeBUG
BUGRTraverse MidrangeBUGR (currently brewing)
So in your post about how protection is totally intuitive you reveal that you don't actually know what protection does? That's not a good sign.
actually his post points out everything that protection does. maybe you're not understanding his post?
........................
Nothing prevents them from making a set without destroy. They actually have done sets lacking certain evergreen mechanics - e. g. deathtouch is rather redundant with wither and was entirely cut from Shadowmoor. Appearing in every single set is not the point of evergreen.
The issue is: Evergreen mechanics weren't introduced on a whim. The list of evergreen mechanics is the list of mechanics for which Design said: These are the keywords we are comfortable using again and again in every set even in small numbers.
Such a list didn't strictly exist in the beginning of the game, but emerged from the process of making sensible design choices. An implicit list of such mechanics will emerge again once the game has existed for a while in "everything is evergreen" land.
Writing down the implicit list and making it explicit is nothing more than a reference for the designers to see what the consensus up to that point is for mechanics they are fine with putting into sets repeatedly. The decision what is fine and what is not will still have to be made for a game which is designed by a large amount of people. A reference document is crucial for a project the size of this game.
There are design reasons that already prevent stapling a single mechanic onto a card in a set when the mechanic otherwise doesn't exist in the environment. Undying would be jarring all by itself.
Creating the expectation that a single card with a mechanic implies further cards with that mechanic is actually a feature to the design team. That feature is lost if they randomly insert single instances of keywords into an environment.
Not to mention that the reverse is also true: Having a card with a keyword always in an environment with more instances of that keyword is also a beneficial choice since the keyword becomes familiar to the players.
---
Ergo: A restriction to evergreen keywords exists, but it is not arbitrary; it stems from a wish to design sets in a way that is accessible and a conscious effort to streamline the design process. The things that are restricted by it are meant to be restricted by it. A designer would have to make their case to include a single card with a keyword into a set without the keyword either way - the evergreen list just gives a free pass on letting a few keywords in.
Giving too many keywords a free pass has proven empirically to be a bad call. "All keywords" falls into "too many keywords".
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Exactly, so your objection about Flying no longer being evergreen was a red herring.
That's not an issue. No one said they were, nor is anyone saying they should be dismissed on a whim.
The "design reasons" are overruled Evergreen, and the point is Evergreen is too restrictive to be a hard rule. Right now your choices are either feature the mechanic in the set, or make it an Evergreen keyword just to use it on a few cards. By removing the Evergreen restriction, you are free to add them or not for actual "design reasons", and not be forced into a box by Evergreen.
It's a bad feature, which is why they should dispense with it. Yes, we know you disagree; no need to reiterate it.
Except no keyword is always in an environment, so there's no benefit. It's also restrictive if it were (e.g. having to have Flying in the set, which we already agreed before was not required).
To sum up: I explained what would be a major change to Evergreen and why they might make it. You disagree. You have your opinion; there's no need to keep arguing about it. You're not going to change my mind, as I'm simply guessing at what they might do.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
The number of cases where being enchanted/equipped to a specific permanent where you aren't first targeting with the enchantment or artifact is rather limited. I do understand they are technically different rules so it would be a functional errata. But if you're attempting to simplify protection that would be a change to make it less to explain to new players.
The only issue is that DBT doesn't stand for anything, and DEBT is slightly easier to remember.
Indestructible isn't really much different than regen anymore, though. "Can't be regenerated" has been nearly phased out and they can just print some exile answers to indestructible anyway, just like they did in Scars and this very block. It also makes sense that the creature can still fight. If you chop off a troll's arm, it doesn't run away. It just starts growing it back right in front of you and gets even more pissed off. That zombie/skeleton doesn't stop either. They'll fight to the end. The having to regen more than once a turn thing is also pretty irrelevant because it almost never comes up in actual gameplay. Of course, obviously nothing is truly indestructible. They even poke fun at it in Scars/Theros block by specifically mentioning indestructible things on exile effects. Indestructible flavorfully just means pretty hard to destroy like the hydra that grows new heads or the troll that grows new parts.
Now, as for the hexproof debate, it actually adds something back to the game people have been begging for for years. It adds a new type of combo deck, but one that isn't just answered by discard/counterspells. It's answered by destroying the buffs, sweepers, edicts, deathtouch, big dudes in some cases, and it actually lets people build that voltron that noobs always want to build in a somewhat reasonable way. It's also been featured on actual tournament playable creatures for once. Shroud has had what? Blastodermback in Masques block and Simic Sky Swallower in block constructed in the whole history of the game? Sphinx of Jwar Isle saw a little play, but was beaten out almost always by Baneslayer Angel with no real protection at all. I guess the biggest problem with hexproof is control players that are pissed that they're printing tournament playable protection mechanics that make it hard to have one size fits all answers. Hexproof is good, but it has some kind of answer in every color for most of them. It's not storm combo where it's counters/discard or gtfo.
Protection will make anything Aura or Equipment attached to creature that it has protection from fall off. That's a very important aspect of the ability. You can use it to rescue a creature from Pacifism or disarm an attacker carrying a sword.
Again, an ability that requires this much discussion about how it works is clearly not a good ability.
The issue isn't the length of the rules text, its that people have zero chance of guessing the four essentially random things it does. The "can't be blocked" part trips people up constantly. I have experienced friends who pause and ask me "How does protection work when attacking?". Improving protection means fundamentally rewriting it.
Not trolling here. IMHO, you're spot-on. "protection" is branching off. I can see them splintering Progenitus/TNN "protection" from color "protection" and damage "protection", which most likely ties into regeneration.
Since MTG introduced "battlefield", "exile", and "dies" wordings, my other guess would be "undying"/"persist" possibly coming into core sets. It's easy enough to understand and there are some very casual/new player cards that are core-set friendly.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
The same one that is in reality: Evergreen keywords are for abilities that can be used in any set (without necessitating a set feature that keyword just to include it).
I also have a strong feeling that Undying is coming back in M15, but this is unrelated to the evergreen discussion.
See? That's not a restriction. The rule doesn't restrict undying from appearing in JOU or any other stuff. It seems that the actual problem you have is not with the rule that evergreen abilities can be used anywhere.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO