MTG Salvation

Quote from boombox_smk »

Quote from Schondetta »

Braids, Arisen Nightmare

Just curious if anyone can think of a reason this card lists each permanent type rather then just saying "permanents"

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.

Quote from peteroupc »

Quote from Schondetta »

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).

Quote from peteroupc »

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.

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »

Quote from rowanalpha »

I can't think of one of the companions where its requirement is so simple (Lutri aside, and why it was banned) that a deck will simply stumble into and be the correct color identity for (because last I checked color identity still applies). You have to consciously build around the restriction and you're going to lose out on good options somewhere. Three basically say "You can't play sol ring", for instance. (Gyruda, Keruga, and Umori if you want to play any non-artifacts.)

Thats not the point.

If you have a deck that "could" play a companion you simply have to play it, as there is no reason not to.

For literally any card in your actual deck you make a decision to play the card, but for Companion, if you CAN play them, theres simply no reason not to have them as a Companion

----

Jegantha, the Wellspring if your deck is 5 color and happens to have no double mana cost cards, theres no reason not have have this Companion.
So everyone that just happens to have a deck like this, is pretty much forced to have this one.

Kaheera, the Orphanguard if your tribal deck happens to support this, there is again no reason not to have this.


----

As said, no matter the restriction, if your deck CAN play a Companion you will feel very forced to do so (especially as there isnt really much of a choice of Companion if one happens to be viable, the others usually are not, so they are even exclusive, which reduces your viable options to choose form to just that one).

If you make a concentrated effort to play one of them and make your deck "terrible" to do so, fine, but some decks will not need to do that, and in that case the Companion is just added value to that deck for no cost at all.

Quote from awesomer phantasm »

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »

Quote from rowanalpha »

I can't think of one of the companions where its requirement is so simple (Lutri aside, and why it was banned) that a deck will simply stumble into and be the correct color identity for (because last I checked color identity still applies). You have to consciously build around the restriction and you're going to lose out on good options somewhere. Three basically say "You can't play sol ring", for instance. (Gyruda, Keruga, and Umori if you want to play any non-artifacts.)

Thats not the point.

If you have a deck that "could" play a companion you simply have to play it, as there is no reason not to.

For literally any card in your actual deck you make a decision to play the card, but for Companion, if you CAN play them, theres simply no reason not to have them as a Companion

----

Jegantha, the Wellspring if your deck is 5 color and happens to have no double mana cost cards, theres no reason not have have this Companion.
So everyone that just happens to have a deck like this, is pretty much forced to have this one.

Kaheera, the Orphanguard if your tribal deck happens to support this, there is again no reason not to have this.


----

As said, no matter the restriction, if your deck CAN play a Companion you will feel very forced to do so (especially as there isnt really much of a choice of Companion if one happens to be viable, the others usually are not, so they are even exclusive, which reduces your viable options to choose form to just that one).

If you make a concentrated effort to play one of them and make your deck "terrible" to do so, fine, but some decks will not need to do that, and in that case the Companion is just added value to that deck for no cost at all.

I think it's very hard to accidentally build a deck that matches a companion's conditions without trying. Looking at the two examples you use, I have an Elementals based Morophon, the Boundless EDH deck, and at first I thought that Jegantha, the Wellspring was a perfect fit. But then I realized that Avenger of Zendikar and Soul of the Harvest and all of the Cavaliers didn't work. Then I thought, cool, I'll run Kaheera, the Orphanguard! But the deck runs Jodah, the Avenger and Oracle of Mul-Daya and a few other creatures that throw it all off.

My point is just that almost any deck will have to adjust at least a little to make the companions work. I even looked at Kaheera, the Orphanguard for my Gishath deck, but too many of the Dinosaur support cards are humans, and at the end of the day, that companion isn't strong enough to take them out.

Quote from Artaud »

I wonder what happens when someone copies Arixmethes, Slumbering Isle with Thespian's Stage...