So yet again R&D/Rosewater act like something that isn't a problem really is, and a ton of idiots jump on the bandwagon and agree with him.
This is the 3rd time he has made an issue out of something that wasn't an issue. Its just like he did with "legendary" permanents. Just like he did with color identity in EDH.
And don't BS. I know that 99% of you saying this is a problem only think it is because wizards of the coast said so. It never crossed your mind until they mentioned it.
Bottom line: tribal as a concept is way too overarching. Pretty much every other spell could be construed as Tribal if you tried hard enough. There is no clear dividing line on whether something should be tribal or not (see loose examples like Favor of the Mighty or Faerie Trickery).
Incidentally, this is also why I dislike the Snow supertype. It gets very weird to see Snow cards and then realize neither Frost Titan nor Frost Breath or Glacial Ray or even Frozen Solid are Snow spells themselves. Both Snow and Tribal only really work from an unified flavor standpoint if they become evergreen.
So what if there is no clear dividing line? We make decisions all the time when there is no clear dividing line, and it works out. No hitches, no one dying, nothing bad. So why can't they do that with tribal?
Oh noes! Frost Titan isn't a snow creature! How dare they not always yield to flavor. Don't they know that all the eldrazi should have reach? They are TALL!
There is always going to be a disconnected between mechanics and flavor to some degree. Deal with it. If you let it restrict what mechanics/abilities/whatever you are going to put on cards then you are a lazy designer/developer. Also, that would be a whole holy hell of alot of mechanics that wouldn't see print if they decided not to print them for flavor reasons.
The fact that only about one in three people in this thread - a thread about a particular card type on a website frequented by a more-invested-than-average subsection of the playerbase - seem to know what that card type was or why it mattered or had to exist or even that it was a card type at all suggests that its role in the game wasn't really clear.
To be fair, it's not necessary most of the time to know why Tarfire can't just be Instant - Goblin, but the extra clunkiness of having the word "tribal" on there - and yes, it had to be on there - is only half of the problem. The other half is a consistency issue, as other people have mentioned. It's one thing to say "Duh, sorcery that makes a lot of zombies should be a zombie", but even in the block it was introduced in, that wasn't a rule that they used. Bitterblossom makes as many rogues as faeries, but it's not a rogue. Why? There's nothing mechanical about the card whatsoever that makes it any less rogue-y than faerie-y. It's purely a flavor call. Skeletonize makes a Skeleton token, but it sure doesn't feel like a skeleton spell.
And that's a major issue. There's no way to draw a clean line regarding what should or shouldn't be a tribal spell.
That's not to say that tribal has no benefits; it clearly does. It's just got a lot of clunk for what it buys you.
(Additionally, they're certainly not going back to get rid of Tribal on cards that already have it. All the column says is that, from their perspective, tribal is so unworth the issues it causes that they're not eager to revisit it.)
Yes, it was really that difficult. Instant - Goblin, means that Goblin is now a subtype of instants and sorceries, as well as creatures. But because if one subtype is shared between types, they all must be, you now could have a Creature - Trap. Or a Creature - Aura. Or a Creature - Contraption.
So? What's the problem with universal subtypes? Thanks to Tribal, we have to specify "Goblins" vs "Goblin Creatures" in lots of places already. Why not specify "Arcane Instant or Sorcery" and "Aura Enchantments" in cards that care about those? Universal subtypes doesn't introduce any problem that can't be solved by rephrasing old cards, and they've already rephrased most of them since creature vs non-creature is by far the most cared about distinction. Subtypes as a universal #tag system would work fine.
[COLOR=blue]
Incidentally, this is also why I dislike the Snow supertype. Both Snow and Tribal only really work from an unified flavor standpoint if they become evergreen.
I agree with this. New card types and supertypes work best with full commitment in every future set.
Speaking of Snow, its purpose is similar to Tribal. Snow first appeared only on lands. Then in Coldsnap they expanded it onto other types.
The fact that people don't understand what's wrong with universal subtypes is amazing to me.
If there were universal subtypes, Imagecrafter would be a mana accelerant and fixer. You could make your creature into a Forest and it would tap for green mana. All changelings would tap for mana. You could errata basic lands, duals, Ravnica duals, and the Leechridden Swamp cycle and remove the rules baggage attached to basic land types, but this causes a whole host of other problems with cards that change the types of lands. How would you ever print Convincing Mirage under these rules? Imagine fitting this on a card:
Enchant Land
As Convincing Mirage enters the battlefield, choose a basic land type.
Enchanted land is the chosen type.
If the chosen type is Plains, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add W to your mana pool." If the chosen type is Island, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add U to your mana pool." If the chosen type is Swamp, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add B to your mana pool." If the chosen type is Mountain, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add R to your mana pool." If the chosen type is Forest, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add G to your mana pool."
Every single card of this type would have to be reworded to this. Every single land type changing effect, and most of the ones like this that fix mana are common. I don't know about you, but I don't think most people would like to see commons that looked like this:
What about this beautiful piece of limited mana fixing?
I'm sure looking forward to Wizards printing cards that look like this in the future!
So? What's the problem with universal subtypes? Thanks to Tribal, we have to specify "Goblins" vs "Goblin Creatures" in lots of places already. Why not specify "Arcane Instant or Sorcery" and "Aura Enchantments" in cards that care about those? Universal subtypes doesn't introduce any problem that can't be solved by rephrasing old cards, and they've already rephrased most of them since creature vs non-creature is by far the most cared about distinction. Subtypes as a universal #tag system would work fine.
It means tons of extra errata, though. Otherwise "Search your library for a Forest" can nab Changelings all of a sudden. The upside would have to be worth it.
Just make creature types universal. There are effects that make you choose a creature types. so you still have to mind those. since there is already a list of legal creature types.
What's a creature type? How do you define this in the rules when there's no actual way to extrapolate the list of creature types from a list of Oracle texts?
With tribal, Magic would probably have required tons of errata. Without tribal, tribal and non-tribal cards from however many blocks and expansions that had tribal cards stick out like a sore thumb. Cards not from those sets also have more errata; formerly, it was implied that to search for a Rebel card was to search for a Rebel creature card but, with tribal, any such card had to specify creature card.
How inelegant of Wizards to probably kill off the supertype. Should it be killed off, I will mourn this loss, and I yearn for the day that it is brought back.
Hilarious. I thought Goblin Grenade's additional cost was sac a Goblin creature, not a Goblin.
When a card refers to a creature type such as goblin without the word card or spell immediately afterward it only refers to a creature of that type so you may not sacrifice your boggart shennanigens to goblin grenade
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A wild haze frog appears your party stumbles around in a daze
What's a creature type? How do you define this in the rules when there's no actual way to extrapolate the list of creature types from a list of Oracle texts?
A lot of things on a card is already implied that you know or understand its meaning or purpose. For instance, of an Artifact Creature - Construct, is Construct a creature or artifact type?
There already is an explicit list of words that are legal subtypes of creature type. Most importantly is, how often does one need to consult that list?
Tribal is a label; in practice creature types are already universal. say When you're looking at a Tribal card, do you really care about that particular word or the word after the dash?
Look at it another way.
Where does tribal appear? On the card type line. Who puts it there? R&D, obviously. But it's not like other card types. It doesn't enforce rules on game play, like say Planeswalker or Instant does. In other words, the player has zero consideration during game play and deck building whether the word is there. I mean, who really cares whether it says "Tribal Instant - Human" or just "Instant - Human"?
So, rather than wasting space on the card, just explicitly say it in the comp rules that they intend to make creature types be printable on all cards regardless of card type. All the things are already in place: the explicit list of creature subtypes; the fact that creature subtypes have no inherent rules baggage; the proper, explicit templating (e.g. sacrifice a Goblin creature, not just any permanent), etc.
Tribal doesn't really qualify as a mechanic to me, its purely a shortcoming of the way MTG is designed and templated. The fact we needed such a ridiculously clunky supertype that basically asks people to consult a tome of rules to understand wtf is going on, was horrible. At the same time, it enabled things that were dead necessary, in terms of extending tribe support from just creatures to other permanents & spells.
Honestly, tribal should never have existed. It doesn't bug me that it does, but I don't mourn its passing either.
As he said, it overcomplicates the game, and while what it gives is a nice bonus, it just wasn't worth the headaches, hence, ding dong the witch is dead.
...I really don't get this. Of all the things to complain about with tribal, in particular the flavor (which, again, in this game, considering Auras and Equipment and +1/+1 counters and countless other material, is small potatoes), what rules are you people taking issue with? Seriously, what is the problem? It's just one other word on a typeline that is only something relevant to consider with cards that care about card type (Tarmogoyf is NOT alone there, f.y.i.), and all it does is let you apply one type's subdivisions to any other card. What is so complicated about this? "Headaches"? ...sheesh, no one give these people a programming assignment, they'll develop migraines.
This would not have mattered in this particular situation. The problem isn't just whether or not you explain the tribal type - it's that the majority of sorceries/instants in this set would have a creature type on them, and there'd be almost zero cards that take advantage of it. Since creature types will never be the "always there" thing on sorceries/instants that they are on creatures (as not all of them will have creature types) it's still added complexity for minimal gain.
Right. Because as we all know, a dozen or so cards a year with a seldom-used fundamental will completely overwhelm everyone's comprehension of the game. Absolutely.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
The fact that only about one in three people in this thread - a thread about a particular card type on a website frequented by a more-invested-than-average subsection of the playerbase - seem to know what that card type was or why it mattered or had to exist or even that it was a card type at all suggests that its role in the game wasn't really clear.
To be fair, it's not necessary most of the time to know why Tarfire can't just be Instant - Goblin, but the extra clunkiness of having the word "tribal" on there - and yes, it had to be on there - is only half of the problem. The other half is a consistency issue, as other people have mentioned. It's one thing to say "Duh, sorcery that makes a lot of zombies should be a zombie", but even in the block it was introduced in, that wasn't a rule that they used. Bitterblossom makes as many rogues as faeries, but it's not a rogue. Why? There's nothing mechanical about the card whatsoever that makes it any less rogue-y than faerie-y. It's purely a flavor call. Skeletonize makes a Skeleton token, but it sure doesn't feel like a skeleton spell.
And that's a major issue. There's no way to draw a clean line regarding what should or shouldn't be a tribal spell.
That's not to say that tribal has no benefits; it clearly does. It's just got a lot of clunk for what it buys you.
(Additionally, they're certainly not going back to get rid of Tribal on cards that already have it. All the column says is that, from their perspective, tribal is so unworth the issues it causes that they're not eager to revisit it.)
Ah Joyd, the constant voice of sanity. Even when I disagree with you(and today is not such an occasion) you always seem to be the most level headed person in a room to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out the thread for my cube if you have the time, and tell me how terrible it is.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
You know, I think this is actually a shame. Aside from the word "tribal" itself (which inherently conjures up images of hunter-gatherering humans), I thought the idea of tribal was actually really flavorful. The idea of elf-magic or faerie-magic is actually pretty legit fantasy stock...I'm pretty sure Tolkien's elves had their own brand of magic, as did his dwarves, Ents (treefolk), etc.
Race magic is pretty cool flavor, though implementing it this late in Magic's career and only implementing it here and there leaves a lot of flavor gaps. Some spells seem to clearly belong to a race--shouldn't Firebolt or Torrent of Fire be "Sorcery - Dragon" type, since they look like dragon-magic? Or something like Taste of Blood - "Sorcery - Vampire"? Call to the Grave: "Enchantment - Zombie"?
But since they've never done that, it'd take a lot of backwards implementation, as well as lots of unintentional interactions with cards that name creature types. (My Dragonspeaker Shaman makes Firebolt flashback for only 2R.) Besides, it's a slippery slope...does the rest automatically qualify as Human type? Or Wizard type, since you're using it, and you're some sort of Wizard?
Oh well, if they ever make a Magic 2.0, they can nail race magic from the start.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On MTGO as Protoman.
On 7/14/10, broke 1900 mark! <3 ROE.
What's a creature type? How do you define this in the rules when there's no actual way to extrapolate the list of creature types from a list of Oracle texts?
Creatures types are listed in the comprehensive rules... and Creature type is defined in the rules. I'm not sure what point you're trying to argue... You would need to modify rule 302.3 to show that creature subtypes can modify any card type.. and then it would be supported by rule 204.3k with the list of creatures.
302.3. Creature subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash: “Creature — Human
Soldier,” “Artifact Creature — Golem,” and so on. Creature subtypes are also called creature types.
Creatures may have multiple subtypes. See rule 204.3k for the complete list of creature types.
Example: “Creature — Goblin Wizard” means the card is a creature with the subtypes
Goblin and Wizar
302.3.1. Creature subtypes may appear on non-creature cards, listed after a long dash: "Instant - Sphinx", "Enchantment - Beast", and so on.
Non-creature cards with creature types are counted and recognised by any other card that explicitly names its listed creature type.
Your wording makes it sound like everything after a dash is a creature type, which isn't the case. i.e. Enchantment - Aura.
For reference. Key information that people might want to read:
From the Comprehensive Rules as of October 1, 2010
308 Tribals
308.1. Each tribal card has another card type. Casting and resolving a tribal card follows the rules for casting and resolving a card of the other card type.
308.2. Tribal subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash: “Tribal Enchantment — Merfolk.” The set of tribal subtypes is the same as the set of creature subtypes; these subtypes are called creature types. Tribals may have multiple subtypes. See rule 204.3k for the complete list of creature types.
Subtypes exist in strict correlation with their types. Except for instants and sorceries, which share subtypes, there is strictly no crossover between one type's subtypes and another type's subtypes. The game has been built this way for 13 years. What has this meant?
Assumptions
Since the correlations are unique, all subtypes imply their types. If a card is a Goblin, it is by definition a creature, so "creature" hasn't needed to be said.
--Example: Fever Charm says "Deal 3 damage to target Wizard." Damage can't be dealt to a noncreature permanent, yet this card doesn't say "Deal 3 damage to target Wizard creature." It doesn't have to. "Wizard," by definition, implies "creature," so this shortcut can be taken.
Tools
Due to these correlations, unique subtypes can be used mechanically. Look at how the Shrine subtype was used on the Hondens, or the Locus subtype on Cloudpost. In the discussion about Planeswalkers, using their subtypes as a means to denote identity and uniqueness seemed quite promising. (All Planeswalker cards that represented Jace would have subtype "Jace," and their uniqueness rule would be based on their subtype, not their name.)
Flavor
Each subtype makes flavor sense for its type. Furthermore, the subtypes don't merely describe or classify their cards, they say what those cards actually are in the Magic realm. A "Creature — Goblin Shaman" is a goblin shaman in the same way that I'm a human gamer. Honden of Infinite Rage is a Shrine.
As soon as "Land — Goblin" is printed, these distinctions crumble.
Do you guys seriously want to have your cards say, "When [this] comes into play, search for target creature - zombie and put it into play." or "Tap three creature - wizards: draw a card" or "During your upkeep put a +1/+1 counter on all creature - soldiers" just so you can have "Sorcery - Goblin" on some card named "Goblin Boom"?
And Tribal joins Interrupt in the card type graveyard. Good riddance! It was a clunky implementation anyways (not that I have a better one off-hand).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Here only miracles. Here, only the rising of spirit. And yes, love if it was pertinent (which it was so often); and sometimes bloodletting. But never the prosaic, never the trivial. Here the man who brought the strangest tale was the most welcome. Here every excess was celebrated if it brought visions, and every vision analyzed for the hints it held to the nature of the Everlasting." - Clive Barker's Imajica
Anyone who thinks that we won't be seeing Tribal cards again is crazy.
What I read out of the statement MaRo made was that they're not likely to print more Tribal cards in the future, but it's something they have available in the event that it's needed again. (see: Tribal Eldrazi spells from Rise of the Eldrazi)
The only thing that bothers me is that they keep printing "Tribal" spells but they seem reluctant to add the Tribal type. Army of the Damned is the perfect example of this. They have nothing to lose by making it a Tribal spell; they would actually gain from it, because it would resonate more, and it might have some interesting interactions in a Zombie deck. They did it for some Eldrazi spells, and it didn't add anything mechanically, but it did nicely tie those spells to the Eldrazi.
I would enjoy that aswell.
It makes so much sence that a card that just puts a token into play is a tribal spell of that kind ; also makes it easier to track the token type right away.
They have nothing to lose really by making those spells Tribal Spells, but mechanically there is no way that the cards interact with the rest of the set. So other than flavor reasons... whats the point?
Well, there is no way of knowing who likes it and who doesn't.. claiming one way or the other is guessing. But I bet a majority of magic players liked the mechanic. However, what they liked about it was that you could play a card that said "when this creature enters the battlefield, search your library for a goblin card and put it in your hand"... and they could grab a Tribal Goblin burn spell OR a goblin creature card. That's why people liked the mechanic. That's why I like the mechanic at least.
But in Innistrad, you would have to have a reason to make spells tribal... another card or series of cards that interacted with these Tribal cards. And so far all we are seeing is stuff that is only relevant to creatures, and not spells. So putting "Tribal" on these cards mechanically does nothing.
I'm willing to be a lot of these people don't like having unneeded text that has no mechanical relevance in standard just for flavor reasons.
Cards reading, ''Sacrifice a Goblin Creature'' to add more interaction in the mechanical use of cards, such as the way tribal would do is something i can cope with. A whole extra word, wether in the text box or the on the typeline, doesnt really bother me for the net gain.
Also, its only do difficult to mechanise when you overcomplicate the rules and under-estimate the general intelligence of players.
Literally, cut and paste the rules for tribal into the section on creature types, and walla, with a bit of english fiddling (which i am not qualified to do), you would be able to make it work with perfect ''grokkability'' by the players.
And like i said, if they are willing to mutilate the fundamental rules of the game to implement a one time gimmick that does not provide a level of mechanical depth across the spectrum of play (double faced cards), then this by comparison should be a general expectation, rather than an exception.
And before anyone says that they had to Tribal to make it work, they didnt. Tribal was a clunky, badly intrepretted way of instigating the mechanic to force flavour with a block mechanic (Tribal - Tribal Block Theme)(Hence choice of word), while working within a design/develepment time constraint that people here are unshackled by.
Okay, so they change the rules, making it so now non-creatures can have creature types, and then print an "Instant - Goblin" and everyone is happy. Then they print an "Instant - Arcane". Is Arcane a creature type now? And more importantly, how do you tell the difference?
Yes, they can do it, but the benefits of having subtypes be unique to types far outweighs the benefits of giving noncreatures creature types without using Tribal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll hold myself to this. I'll get fancy dishes and everything.
This is the 3rd time he has made an issue out of something that wasn't an issue. Its just like he did with "legendary" permanents. Just like he did with color identity in EDH.
And don't BS. I know that 99% of you saying this is a problem only think it is because wizards of the coast said so. It never crossed your mind until they mentioned it.
So what if there is no clear dividing line? We make decisions all the time when there is no clear dividing line, and it works out. No hitches, no one dying, nothing bad. So why can't they do that with tribal?
Oh noes! Frost Titan isn't a snow creature! How dare they not always yield to flavor. Don't they know that all the eldrazi should have reach? They are TALL!
There is always going to be a disconnected between mechanics and flavor to some degree. Deal with it. If you let it restrict what mechanics/abilities/whatever you are going to put on cards then you are a lazy designer/developer. Also, that would be a whole holy hell of alot of mechanics that wouldn't see print if they decided not to print them for flavor reasons.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
To be fair, it's not necessary most of the time to know why Tarfire can't just be Instant - Goblin, but the extra clunkiness of having the word "tribal" on there - and yes, it had to be on there - is only half of the problem. The other half is a consistency issue, as other people have mentioned. It's one thing to say "Duh, sorcery that makes a lot of zombies should be a zombie", but even in the block it was introduced in, that wasn't a rule that they used. Bitterblossom makes as many rogues as faeries, but it's not a rogue. Why? There's nothing mechanical about the card whatsoever that makes it any less rogue-y than faerie-y. It's purely a flavor call. Skeletonize makes a Skeleton token, but it sure doesn't feel like a skeleton spell.
And that's a major issue. There's no way to draw a clean line regarding what should or shouldn't be a tribal spell.
That's not to say that tribal has no benefits; it clearly does. It's just got a lot of clunk for what it buys you.
(Additionally, they're certainly not going back to get rid of Tribal on cards that already have it. All the column says is that, from their perspective, tribal is so unworth the issues it causes that they're not eager to revisit it.)
So? What's the problem with universal subtypes? Thanks to Tribal, we have to specify "Goblins" vs "Goblin Creatures" in lots of places already. Why not specify "Arcane Instant or Sorcery" and "Aura Enchantments" in cards that care about those? Universal subtypes doesn't introduce any problem that can't be solved by rephrasing old cards, and they've already rephrased most of them since creature vs non-creature is by far the most cared about distinction. Subtypes as a universal #tag system would work fine.
I agree with this. New card types and supertypes work best with full commitment in every future set.
Speaking of Snow, its purpose is similar to Tribal. Snow first appeared only on lands. Then in Coldsnap they expanded it onto other types.
........................
If there were universal subtypes, Imagecrafter would be a mana accelerant and fixer. You could make your creature into a Forest and it would tap for green mana. All changelings would tap for mana. You could errata basic lands, duals, Ravnica duals, and the Leechridden Swamp cycle and remove the rules baggage attached to basic land types, but this causes a whole host of other problems with cards that change the types of lands. How would you ever print Convincing Mirage under these rules? Imagine fitting this on a card:
Enchant Land
As Convincing Mirage enters the battlefield, choose a basic land type.
Enchanted land is the chosen type.
If the chosen type is Plains, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add W to your mana pool." If the chosen type is Island, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add U to your mana pool." If the chosen type is Swamp, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add B to your mana pool." If the chosen type is Mountain, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add R to your mana pool." If the chosen type is Forest, enchanted land loses all abilities and gains "T: Add G to your mana pool."
Every single card of this type would have to be reworded to this. Every single land type changing effect, and most of the ones like this that fix mana are common. I don't know about you, but I don't think most people would like to see commons that looked like this:
What about this beautiful piece of limited mana fixing?
I'm sure looking forward to Wizards printing cards that look like this in the future!
It means tons of extra errata, though. Otherwise "Search your library for a Forest" can nab Changelings all of a sudden. The upside would have to be worth it.
........................
I loved it thought for the time it lasted...
What's a creature type? How do you define this in the rules when there's no actual way to extrapolate the list of creature types from a list of Oracle texts?
When a card refers to a creature type such as goblin without the word card or spell immediately afterward it only refers to a creature of that type so you may not sacrifice your boggart shennanigens to goblin grenade
Snow is a supertype not a subtype
A lot of things on a card is already implied that you know or understand its meaning or purpose. For instance, of an Artifact Creature - Construct, is Construct a creature or artifact type?
There already is an explicit list of words that are legal subtypes of creature type. Most importantly is, how often does one need to consult that list?
Tribal is a label; in practice creature types are already universal. say When you're looking at a Tribal card, do you really care about that particular word or the word after the dash?
Look at it another way.
Where does tribal appear? On the card type line. Who puts it there? R&D, obviously. But it's not like other card types. It doesn't enforce rules on game play, like say Planeswalker or Instant does. In other words, the player has zero consideration during game play and deck building whether the word is there. I mean, who really cares whether it says "Tribal Instant - Human" or just "Instant - Human"?
So, rather than wasting space on the card, just explicitly say it in the comp rules that they intend to make creature types be printable on all cards regardless of card type. All the things are already in place: the explicit list of creature subtypes; the fact that creature subtypes have no inherent rules baggage; the proper, explicit templating (e.g. sacrifice a Goblin creature, not just any permanent), etc.
........................
...I really don't get this. Of all the things to complain about with tribal, in particular the flavor (which, again, in this game, considering Auras and Equipment and +1/+1 counters and countless other material, is small potatoes), what rules are you people taking issue with? Seriously, what is the problem? It's just one other word on a typeline that is only something relevant to consider with cards that care about card type (Tarmogoyf is NOT alone there, f.y.i.), and all it does is let you apply one type's subdivisions to any other card. What is so complicated about this? "Headaches"? ...sheesh, no one give these people a programming assignment, they'll develop migraines.
Right. Because as we all know, a dozen or so cards a year with a seldom-used fundamental will completely overwhelm everyone's comprehension of the game. Absolutely.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
Ah Joyd, the constant voice of sanity. Even when I disagree with you(and today is not such an occasion) you always seem to be the most level headed person in a room to me.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
Race magic is pretty cool flavor, though implementing it this late in Magic's career and only implementing it here and there leaves a lot of flavor gaps. Some spells seem to clearly belong to a race--shouldn't Firebolt or Torrent of Fire be "Sorcery - Dragon" type, since they look like dragon-magic? Or something like Taste of Blood - "Sorcery - Vampire"? Call to the Grave: "Enchantment - Zombie"?
But since they've never done that, it'd take a lot of backwards implementation, as well as lots of unintentional interactions with cards that name creature types. (My Dragonspeaker Shaman makes Firebolt flashback for only 2R.) Besides, it's a slippery slope...does the rest automatically qualify as Human type? Or Wizard type, since you're using it, and you're some sort of Wizard?
Oh well, if they ever make a Magic 2.0, they can nail race magic from the start.
On 7/14/10, broke 1900 mark! <3 ROE.
Creatures types are listed in the comprehensive rules... and Creature type is defined in the rules. I'm not sure what point you're trying to argue... You would need to modify rule 302.3 to show that creature subtypes can modify any card type.. and then it would be supported by rule 204.3k with the list of creatures.
302.3. Creature subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash: “Creature — Human
Soldier,” “Artifact Creature — Golem,” and so on. Creature subtypes are also called creature types.
Creatures may have multiple subtypes. See rule 204.3k for the complete list of creature types.
Example: “Creature — Goblin Wizard” means the card is a creature with the subtypes
Goblin and Wizar
204.3k Creatures and tribals share their lists of subtypes; these subtypes are called creature types.
The creature types are Advisor, Ally, Angel, Anteater, Antelope, Ape, Archer, Archon,
Artificer, Assassin, Assembly-Worker, Atog, Aurochs, Avatar, Badger, Barbarian, Basilisk, Bat,
Bear, Beast, Beeble, Berserker, Bird, Blinkmoth, Boar, Bringer, Brushwagg, Camarid, Camel,
Caribou, Carrier, Cat, Centaur, Cephalid, Chimera, Citizen, Cleric, Cockatrice, Construct,
Coward, Crab, Crocodile, Cyclops, Dauthi, Demon, Deserter, Devil, Djinn, Dragon, Drake,
Dreadnought, Drone, Druid, Dryad, Dwarf, Efreet, Egg, Elder, Elemental, Elephant, Elf, Elk,
Eye, Faerie, Ferret, Fish, Flagbearer, Fox, Frog, Fungus, Gargoyle, Giant, Gnome, Goat, Goblin,
Golem, Gorgon, Graveborn, Griffin, Hag, Harpy, Hellion, Hippo, Homarid, Homunculus,
Horror, Horse, Hound, Human, Hydra, Hyena, Illusion, Imp, Incarnation, Insect, Jellyfish,
Juggernaut, Kavu, Kirin, Kithkin, Knight, Kobold, Kor, Kraken, Lammasu, Leech, Leviathan,
Lhurgoyf, Licid, Lizard, Manticore, Masticore, Mercenary, Merfolk, Metathran, Minion,
Minotaur, Monger, Mongoose, Monk, Moonfolk, Mutant, Myr, Mystic, Nautilus, Nephilim,
Nightmare, Nightstalker, Ninja, Noggle, Nomad, Octopus, Ogre, Ooze, Orb, Orc, Orgg, Ouphe,
Ox, Oyster, Pegasus, Pentavite, Pest, Phelddagrif, Phoenix, Pincher, Pirate, Plant, Prism, Rabbit,
Rat, Rebel, Reflection, Rhino, Rigger, Rogue, Salamander, Samurai, Sand, Saproling, Satyr,
Scarecrow, Scorpion, Scout, Serf, Serpent, Shade, Shaman, Shapeshifter, Sheep, Siren,
Skeleton, Slith, Sliver, Slug, Snake, Soldier, Soltari, Spawn, Specter, Spellshaper, Sphinx,
Spider, Spike, Spirit, Splinter, Sponge, Squid, Squirrel, Starfish, Surrakar, Survivor, Tetravite,
Thalakos, Thopter, Thrull, Treefolk, Triskelavite, Troll, Turtle, Unicorn, Vampire, Vedalken,
Viashino, Volver, Wall, Warrior, Weird, Whale, Wizard, Wolf, Wolverine, Wombat, Worm,
Wraith, Wurm, Yeti, Zombie, and Zubera
I'd love input and advice!
Your wording makes it sound like everything after a dash is a creature type, which isn't the case. i.e. Enchantment - Aura.
For reference. Key information that people might want to read:
From the article Working for Peanuts written in 2007
Do you guys seriously want to have your cards say, "When [this] comes into play, search for target creature - zombie and put it into play." or "Tap three creature - wizards: draw a card" or "During your upkeep put a +1/+1 counter on all creature - soldiers" just so you can have "Sorcery - Goblin" on some card named "Goblin Boom"?
What I read out of the statement MaRo made was that they're not likely to print more Tribal cards in the future, but it's something they have available in the event that it's needed again. (see: Tribal Eldrazi spells from Rise of the Eldrazi)
I would enjoy that aswell.
It makes so much sence that a card that just puts a token into play is a tribal spell of that kind ; also makes it easier to track the token type right away.
Strange strange , i would like to see tribal.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Well, there is no way of knowing who likes it and who doesn't.. claiming one way or the other is guessing. But I bet a majority of magic players liked the mechanic. However, what they liked about it was that you could play a card that said "when this creature enters the battlefield, search your library for a goblin card and put it in your hand"... and they could grab a Tribal Goblin burn spell OR a goblin creature card. That's why people liked the mechanic. That's why I like the mechanic at least.
But in Innistrad, you would have to have a reason to make spells tribal... another card or series of cards that interacted with these Tribal cards. And so far all we are seeing is stuff that is only relevant to creatures, and not spells. So putting "Tribal" on these cards mechanically does nothing.
I'm willing to be a lot of these people don't like having unneeded text that has no mechanical relevance in standard just for flavor reasons.
For the record, I for one don't care much about tribal, for reasons I stated in previous posts.
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
Okay, so they change the rules, making it so now non-creatures can have creature types, and then print an "Instant - Goblin" and everyone is happy. Then they print an "Instant - Arcane". Is Arcane a creature type now? And more importantly, how do you tell the difference?
Yes, they can do it, but the benefits of having subtypes be unique to types far outweighs the benefits of giving noncreatures creature types without using Tribal.