The thing is, Reach can just be a dummy keyword and Flying can be the one reworded.
Flying (This creature can't be blocked except by creatures with flying or reach.)
R_E: Canopy Spider was in multiple core sets. Did you mean another spider?
-Pharmalade.
Flying is a more basic keyword than reach. There's a sense in which it almost has the status of a "plain text" effect. It's the single simplest keyword in the game, I would argue.
Similar to how some sentences are about other sentences, Reach is about Flying. If there were no creatures around with Reach but some with flying, flying would matter. If there were some around with Reach but none with flying, Reach would do nothing.
Inescapably, Reach is beyond, above, behind (or whatever spatial metaphor works for you) Flying. Flying is the more atomic rules construction.
So, Reach should be the one that has to point to Flying; Flying should never change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I am aware that there is a large difference between 'can' and 'may' block as though it had flying. Does this mean there will be a keyword for both?
The other one may be called Web, and this one 'Reach'.
Thank you for explaining to us (and all the flavour people at WotC) how big a mistake the archers were. I can see it so clearly now! If only I had been lucky enough to see the light before, my life would've been so different.
Additionally, thank you for blaming the people who make the game you play for making this mistake. I'm sure this will serve as a great lesson to them. Man, if they didn't have you to chide them, what mess would they get into? I shudder at the thought.
Yup. No problem. When archers do TWO RADICALLY DIFFERENT THINGS in magic, that's a problem.
As for your life being different, change is good. Learning is good. Consistency is good.
Sure thing. They make mistakes all the time. Like when they had Goblin King not be a goblin. Lord of Atlantis be a better weenie than goblin king. When they messed up the wording on threshold, on echo, etc - the whole mercadian masques block was a mistake. WOTC has admitted mistakes. Maybe YOU should pay attention to what THEY say - at least before defending things they themselves wish they hadn't done. Oh, wait, you're more interested in poking fun at me. Forget what I said. Go ahead and keep saying things that are objectively false, foolish, or misguided. I won't stop you.
P.S. I've been told that sarcasm doesn't come out on the boards. If you need help figuring out what's sarcastic and what's not, pm me. I'm here to help.
The futureshifted cards in this set are the only ones with new keywords.
Hurrah. So instead of making a keyword for their set, they prematurely printed a dozen keywords in development and named them however they wanted to, huh? That seems rather dishonest - or, at least, lazy. I'm not going to do the work here, and I am too lazy to make 6 cards with the same "keyword" - so I'll make one, make it futureshifted, and let the next design team worry about it.
This is something somewhat established, while flavorwise, they should be pinging or having first strike...
(Elvish Archers' flavor text makes me laugh in light of 300)
Web means "I block you" - they "stand in the way" - with a web, etc.
"Ranged" combat, like Crossbow Infantry, means "I shoot you, I don't stand in your way".
Now, explain to me why/how ARCHERS "stand in the way". They don't. They shoot. Mechanically, this is represented by the ranged pinging ability of CROSSBOW INFANTRY.
Prima facie example why, flavorwise, a spider can block something with flying and an archer cannot. Unless that archer, say, shoots the flying creature with some kind of rope/net and drags it down and fights it. In which case, it can be called WEB.
This is why I hold the position I do. You seem to hold the position you do because they printed an archer last year that can block as though it had flying. But can't shoot people with arrows. Go figure.
Yeah, pretty much all your reasons for hating what they are doing with these Keywords were explained by the man who decided to put them in the game. Its cheesy, but I like it.
So what if some of them arent going to be in the future of magic, I got to play with them now. If they dont print it, then oh well.
If anyone knows why G0-DRAW was banned I would love it if they would PM me. That guy was pure entertainment 100% of the time. Plus he never publicly responded to his Contraptions "Proof" that never panned out.
Not to rehash an argument that has been going on for pages, but I have one thing about the word "reach" that I would like to say.
I don't like it as a keyword, because the word "reach" already has a definition in the game of magic. It generally refers to the ability to damage your opponent outside of the combat phase. More specifically, it refers to end game burn potential.
I.E. Red deck wins has reach, while 8 land stompy does not.
the root of all the argument here is this question: when should we keyword an ability?
i think you should only keyword it when the flavor of the ability can be consistently described by that keyword, for example: Flying, Fear, Haste.
and this is the problem with Reach. while it is an interesting compromise between Web and Shoot Down (which both "reach" away from the creature who utilizes the ability and aren't integral to the creature's form), it doesn't really provide a consistent description of what's happening, but a rather generic placeholder.
i think they should have left this one alone since the cards that use this ability are so varied in their interpretation of it, it's better to write out the ability's full description and let the player's imagination name what's happening ("my spider's spinning a web" or "my archer's shooting an arrow" or "my giant is swatting it down" etc.)
p.s. i've always thought that a good keyword for "can't be the target of spells or abilitis" would be "Cloak" (or "Cloaked" or "Cloaken") anybody like this?
I like absorb, presumbly it's a future block mechanic, and way more interesting than say busido or flanking.
The ability to absorb 1 or more damage over and over again in the same turn could lead to fun interactions with pingers, and with mass damage cards. I can imagine having a lot of fun casting what becomes a one sided pyroclasm with absorb 2 creatures.
/em wanders off to look for abilities that have 'deal 1 damage to a creature you control' as a cost or drawback.
Q: "[S]Have you ever thought about giving the ability 'whenever this creature deals damage you gain that much life' a key word, like calling it spirit link? Kind of similar to what you did with fear?"
A: From Devin Low, Magic R&D:
"Good question. We've talked about the possibility of keywording this ability, but we decided not to do it....
"If there were too many keywords without reminder text, new players might feel like they need a rulebook just to read their cards and that would be bad. So we only add long-term keywords when the ability comes up enough that players will see it again and again. In the current Standard environment, there are 34 cards that mention haste, and 12 cards that mention fear, but only 6 with the text of 'spirit link.' So the ability 'whenever this creature deals damage you gain that much life' just doesn't come up often enough to be worth keywording. In fact, the ability 'this creature may block as though it had flying' comes up 8 times in Standard (more often than spirit link's 6), but we don't get many people asking us to keyword 'Web.'"
It's funny that he brought up Web. I thought I had also read somewhere that the reason they didn't make the Web ability into the keyword Web, was because it associated the ability with spiders, which would limit their design and flavor space. It makes sense that if they're going to keyword Spirit Link, then they should keyword the Web ability too, since it seems to appear just as often. I'm sure they didn't take the naming of these keywords lightly either, and they most likely poured over the thesaurus to come up with the best name that would not limit design in the future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sigs are tech.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Flying (This creature can't be blocked except by creatures with flying or reach.)
R_E: Canopy Spider was in multiple core sets. Did you mean another spider?
-Pharmalade.
Banner by Topher!
Flying is a more basic keyword than reach. There's a sense in which it almost has the status of a "plain text" effect. It's the single simplest keyword in the game, I would argue.
Similar to how some sentences are about other sentences, Reach is about Flying. If there were no creatures around with Reach but some with flying, flying would matter. If there were some around with Reach but none with flying, Reach would do nothing.
Inescapably, Reach is beyond, above, behind (or whatever spatial metaphor works for you) Flying. Flying is the more atomic rules construction.
So, Reach should be the one that has to point to Flying; Flying should never change.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I am aware that there is a large difference between 'can' and 'may' block as though it had flying. Does this mean there will be a keyword for both?
The other one may be called Web, and this one 'Reach'.
Oh look, it's snowing outside.
I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT!!!!
Vines can't form webs? Don't work with plants much, do thee?
Taproot Kami is a bunch of vines...
Essentially, sure. Why not? Not a biological web, but a web of some sort... think of "Web" as a net.
Yes. Why should one archer only be able to shoot his arrows at flyers - when others can hit islandwalkers or shadow creatures?
Nope. You just don't know the meaning of the word "web"
Something like this?
If by desperate attempts you mean fully rational arguments that I've presented in the beginning? Arguments from empirical evidence only go so far.
Thanks for proving my point. Well, one of them.
There's web...
I have yet to see one "reason" you pointed out. All you did was try to make fun of me. Not cool man, not cool.
Good, then I won't have to return to argue with others.
Yup. No problem. When archers do TWO RADICALLY DIFFERENT THINGS in magic, that's a problem.
As for your life being different, change is good. Learning is good. Consistency is good.
Sure thing. They make mistakes all the time. Like when they had Goblin King not be a goblin. Lord of Atlantis be a better weenie than goblin king. When they messed up the wording on threshold, on echo, etc - the whole mercadian masques block was a mistake. WOTC has admitted mistakes. Maybe YOU should pay attention to what THEY say - at least before defending things they themselves wish they hadn't done. Oh, wait, you're more interested in poking fun at me. Forget what I said. Go ahead and keep saying things that are objectively false, foolish, or misguided. I won't stop you.
P.S. I've been told that sarcasm doesn't come out on the boards. If you need help figuring out what's sarcastic and what's not, pm me. I'm here to help.
Sure, why not. Does this bear on the conversation at all?
Hurrah. So instead of making a keyword for their set, they prematurely printed a dozen keywords in development and named them however they wanted to, huh? That seems rather dishonest - or, at least, lazy. I'm not going to do the work here, and I am too lazy to make 6 cards with the same "keyword" - so I'll make one, make it futureshifted, and let the next design team worry about it.
Which means there could be a keyword that appears on ONE and only ONE card. In which case, why is it a keyword?
Could be. But that's like lying. Lying is bad. WOTC shouldn't lie to players, it looses them business.
Sounds like a plan.
Sounds like what they're asserting... being FUTURE shifted and all.
But we do know some things, right?
If by "testing the waters" you mean making promises they never intend to keep, that's an awefully bold claim.
No, it doesn't. Wanna just state assertions w/o arguments all day? (Joke)
That's what I want to know.
Crossbow Infantry begs to differ.
Because they shoot things... like Crossbow Infantry?
You mean they SHOOT things, like Crossbow Infantry.
Web means "I block you" - they "stand in the way" - with a web, etc.
"Ranged" combat, like Crossbow Infantry, means "I shoot you, I don't stand in your way".
Now, explain to me why/how ARCHERS "stand in the way". They don't. They shoot. Mechanically, this is represented by the ranged pinging ability of CROSSBOW INFANTRY.
Prima facie example why, flavorwise, a spider can block something with flying and an archer cannot. Unless that archer, say, shoots the flying creature with some kind of rope/net and drags it down and fights it. In which case, it can be called WEB.
This is why I hold the position I do. You seem to hold the position you do because they printed an archer last year that can block as though it had flying. But can't shoot people with arrows. Go figure.
All my comments about Futureshifts came straight from the MaRo's mouth.
Drop the argument, it has nothing to do with this thread.
WoTC is calling it reach.
And time will tell if (other) people get irritated or not.
Twitter
So what if some of them arent going to be in the future of magic, I got to play with them now. If they dont print it, then oh well.
QFT!
My Extendo Sig! Because I want to be Cool!!
If anyone knows why G0-DRAW was banned I would love it if they would PM me. That guy was pure entertainment 100% of the time. Plus he never publicly responded to his Contraptions "Proof" that never panned out.
I don't like it as a keyword, because the word "reach" already has a definition in the game of magic. It generally refers to the ability to damage your opponent outside of the combat phase. More specifically, it refers to end game burn potential.
I.E. Red deck wins has reach, while 8 land stompy does not.
i think you should only keyword it when the flavor of the ability can be consistently described by that keyword, for example: Flying, Fear, Haste.
and this is the problem with Reach. while it is an interesting compromise between Web and Shoot Down (which both "reach" away from the creature who utilizes the ability and aren't integral to the creature's form), it doesn't really provide a consistent description of what's happening, but a rather generic placeholder.
i think they should have left this one alone since the cards that use this ability are so varied in their interpretation of it, it's better to write out the ability's full description and let the player's imagination name what's happening ("my spider's spinning a web" or "my archer's shooting an arrow" or "my giant is swatting it down" etc.)
p.s. i've always thought that a good keyword for "can't be the target of spells or abilitis" would be "Cloak" (or "Cloaked" or "Cloaken") anybody like this?
not sure that I like giving keywords to literally, everything.
Like, eventually, they might say:
Consume Spirit
Drain X
and the like. ie Blaze X, etc.
The ability to absorb 1 or more damage over and over again in the same turn could lead to fun interactions with pingers, and with mass damage cards. I can imagine having a lot of fun casting what becomes a one sided pyroclasm with absorb 2 creatures.
/em wanders off to look for abilities that have 'deal 1 damage to a creature you control' as a cost or drawback.
EDIT: I think that Reach should be Range instead.
Think about it
1G - Spiderclimb
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
The enchanted creature has range (It may block as though it has flying).
In memory of Richie Proffitt
aka PolarBearGod
(1978-2008)
...everything a Mod could ever hope to be...
Ask Wizards, April 6, 2004
It's funny that he brought up Web. I thought I had also read somewhere that the reason they didn't make the Web ability into the keyword Web, was because it associated the ability with spiders, which would limit their design and flavor space. It makes sense that if they're going to keyword Spirit Link, then they should keyword the Web ability too, since it seems to appear just as often. I'm sure they didn't take the naming of these keywords lightly either, and they most likely poured over the thesaurus to come up with the best name that would not limit design in the future.