Firstly, in a properly built sliver deck WUBRG is not that hard to get (gemhide sliver) and even then any sliver deck running green can just spend GGG5 to Chord of Calling it up.
Anyways, my main point is that the change of templating makes perfect sense. They've had to constantly put rules answers into Gatherer for cards like Goblin Warchief to state that the card only works for creatures with the type "goblin", so this simply makes that obvious to all those people not bright enough to realise that Dragonspeaker Shaman doesn't make Dragonstorm cheaper.
Anyways, my main point is that the change of templating makes perfect sense. They've had to constantly put rules answers into Gatherer for cards like Goblin Warchief to state that the card only works for creatures with the type "goblin", so this simply makes that obvious to all those people not bright enough to realise that Dragonspeaker Shaman doesn't make Dragonstorm cheaper.
True wouldn't want us to think that Sliver Legion gives the Sliverstorm sorcery +1/+1 for each Sliver in play?
Just throwing this out there, I think that Sliver Legion is going to make an awesome foil.
Read my mind.
I was playtesting a sliver deck earlier today with a copy of Sliver Legion and it worked out okay. It's pretty good if you can Chord it up at end of turn (already been stated but I thought I'd bring it up). I'm really hoping future sight brings a playable flash sliver because that will give me an incentive to try to make a sliver deck that will be competitive at my FNMs. Playing good decks every week is getting a little boring.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
Flying men shaper? Hah! I could make a casual UG aggro with psy blast, flying men, flying men shaper, and echoing courage!
The spark elemental shaper could be useful, as a stoppable lightning bolt every turn.
If some poor soul thought of doing Mblack madness, the Festering Shaper would go in nice.
About the sliver legion, it's probably just a transcription error, or perhaps maybe there is a sliver totem, or maybe even something as obscure as a reprint of soul sculpter, probably not though...
I was playtesting a sliver deck earlier today with a copy of Sliver Legion and it worked out okay. It's pretty good if you can Chord it up at end of turn (already been stated but I thought I'd bring it up). I'm really hoping future sight brings a playable flash sliver because that will give me an incentive to try to make a sliver deck that will be competitive at my FNMs. Playing good decks every week is getting a little boring.
They already have Quick Sliver, so if they're going to make ANOTHER Sliver that grants flash, it will probably cost 5 mana just like the crappy retread Slivers in PC.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Nirvava »
you can generally tell the easiest road to victory by how many players congregate on it; and the road of counterspells/control has been the freeway of choice in magic for quite some time.
Quote from photodyer »
What I find offensive is not that Wizards is endeavoring to make the game more accessible, but the attitudes of elitists who act as though no one of any age should show their face in the Magic public without first having mastery over the complexities of the game.
prerelease art has always sucked more than normal (except for guildpact. The djinn is SWEET in his release version.). Or at least that is my hope.
Because if they print an art that disappointed me more than purple rarity, someone's going to pay.
What are you talking about? The pre-release Oros, the Avenger had some of the sweetest art I've ever seen, and I loved the Gleancrawler.
To answer the question on everyone's minds: No, it's not possible to have a noncreature Sliver. Sliver is a creature subtype. To have it, an object must be creature.
Okay, back to the original topic: Saying "Sliver creatures" isn't incorrect. It's not even necessarily redundant. It's redundant under the current system, which allows "a [type]" to stand in for "an object with [type] in the typical zone."
Perhaps that practice is changing - which I believe is a good thing. It should be more clear that there is no such thing as "a Sliver" - there are only objects of type Sliver. It's like saying there's "a big" - when there are only things which are big.
... well, either I'm right, or it was a typo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
They already have Quick Sliver, so if they're going to make ANOTHER Sliver that grants flash, it will probably cost 5 mana just like the crappy retread Slivers in PC.
exactly, I mean they made a 1RG sliver that granted haste and another ability, then they made a PC sliver with haste that costs 4.
When a sliver's primary domain is outside of T2, this just made me go: WTF?
It's like they're trying to make slivers mora blanced. Sliver's were never blanaced, their weakness was their color and cost diversity. That balanced them. Making a 4/4 sliver giving other's trample that costs 5R is just an excuse to keep people from playing Sliver's in T2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
I bet thats it. The way its worded is not the way it should be worded under the CURRENT system, but this is to be a set with previous on what is to come in the next few years. So i bet it makes sense with the way the next few sets will be.
They might be giving other permanents creature types.
I still wish they had worded the Legion:
All other slivers have "All slivers get +1/+1"
Okay, back to the original topic: Saying "Sliver creatures" isn't incorrect. It's not even necessarily redundant. It's redundant under the current system, which allows "a [type]" to stand in for "an object with [type] in the typical zone."
Perhaps that practice is changing - which I believe is a good thing. It should be more clear that there is no such thing as "a Sliver" - there are only objects of type Sliver. It's like saying there's "a big" - when there are only things which are big.
... well, either I'm right, or it was a typo.
While I understand what you are saying in terms of how the rules work, your comparison is wrong. Saying there is "a Slver" makes more sense than "a big" because sliver is a noun, not an adjective. "a big" is more comparible to "a legendary", which is given a noun (eg "a legendary permanent") even under the current system. In a rules sense you could make the case that there is no such thing as "a Sliver", but the rules say that a creature of type sliver is "a sliver".
Would you say there are no chairs, only objects which have type chair?
The "a Sliver" phrasing is used because it is easy to understand, and matches the way we actually refer to things ("a chair"). I think it would be a shame if we lost this as it is a very simple thing which would become slightly (admittedly not much) more complicated, and harder to understand for new players.
And if the templating is changing, why does it still refer simply to slivers the second time? shouldn't that be "for each sliver creature in play"?
I don't know what the change in formatting means. But I can't wait to find out.
Insect is a subtype of both artifact creatures and non-artifact creatures;
No, it's a subtype of creatures. An artifact creature is an artifact and a creature. Artifact creature has no subtypes to itself, because it isn't a type. It's two types.
I disagree that subtypes as they currently stand is a templating mess. There is certainly no rules problem with "Land Creature - Forest Elf," and it's not the least bit confusing either once you accept that something is both a creature and a land. There is nothing in the rules, nor is there any need, to force Forest to be linked to the land type, nor Elf to the creature type. For instance, the rules are perfectly happy with:
Creature - Forest
It would be a creature that has the ability "T: Add G to your mana pool" without the text (since the rules specify that anything with the subtype "Forest" has that ability).
(emphasis mine)
Nope, only lands:
Quote from comprules »
212.6d The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has an intrinsic ability to produce colored mana. (See rule 406, “Mana Abilities.”) The land is treated as if its text box included, “{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain text or the card has no text box. Plains produce white mana; Islands, blue; Swamps, black; Mountains, red; and Forests, green.
Nor would the comprehensive rules as they currently stand have any problem with
Land - Elf
It's been debated (I was on your side, FWIW). The rules say that no land can be granted the type of "Elf" (unless it's also a creature, and this is kind of a moot point as there's no card in existance that could do such a thing anyway), but they don't really prevent one from being printed (that's the golden rule in play there). Were one printed, "Elf" would be treated as a land type and not a creature type, although because of the way templating works there would be no real functional difference.
And so we come to the point: Templating. This does seem to be where it's going, the question is why. And more importantly, why now? Especially after that whole Echo thing. Makes that bit seem kind of arbitrary in the face of it all.
I go for the second one. Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one. Well, this is just my opinion;), although it will be cool that word has a hidden secret with which Wizards wants us to specule :Psyduck:. You may think that kind of mistake (in the text box, adding extra words) is hard to be "really" a mistake, but here in Spain we've seen lots of them. E.g. our Strangling Soot destroys target attacking creature with power 3 or less. In this case is the translator, not the original editor, who makes the mistake, but why not?
Why not? Because WotC is an English speaking company. Every person who ever sees the text of a card while it's being developed doubles as a proof reader. Granted, most of them aren't very good, but a lot more attention is given. The cards are all made up, and then translated. English cards haven't had consistant errors (consistant meaning for every copy of that card in the set, so as to exclude individual printing errors) for over a decade. They don't put that kind of resources into translations, I guess. But they do in English, almost automatically, because it's designed in English.
elfs and druids should play a big role in Lorwyn right..?
sooooooooo elves are making a late sudden death come back... sweet
my friend will just be giddy(a friend of his was murdered st. patties day)
so i wouldn't count this guy out, but what will be the omgness about it i dunno
turn 2/3 power glove?
Wurmcalling crazyness? no one uses Evangelize?
return of giant growth stye saving? but hey elvs at madness speed LoL
The tides of fate procreate disaster
and awakens thy master
the gates explode and the seals anulled
between the dust lyes a fold
of unimaginal minds untold
i duress in death's caress
where the unknow take hold
Through a portal of the past
I regress past a river blazing cold
It would be a creature that has the ability "T: Add G to your mana pool" without the text (since the rules specify that anything with the subtype "Forest" has that ability).
You know if they did that you could sac a Wooded Foothills to get a Mistform Ultimus which now also taps for green. And WtoC got ride of "racial" ablitys.. much to my sadness.
exactly, I mean they made a 1RG sliver that granted haste and another ability, then they made a PC sliver with haste that costs 4.
When a sliver's primary domain is outside of T2, this just made me go: WTF?
It's like they're trying to make slivers mora blanced. Sliver's were never blanaced, their weakness was their color and cost diversity. That balanced them. Making a 4/4 sliver giving other's trample that costs 5R is just an excuse to keep people from playing Sliver's in T2.
Actually theres reason for the slivers to be that way.
The Multicolor slivers present in time spiral (ally) and Planar Chaos (enemy) all represent popular spells in the shape of slivers,:
The mono colored slivers in PC are based off old slivers that had their abilities in the color they should thanks to the color pie and got switched around due to the planar chaos. The reason for the mana cost bump in those slivers is the fact that if they cost less they would've caused too much trouble since they would give slivers too much synergy (the original haste sliver cost 1R, making a green sliver that grants haste at 1G would be too powerful)
----on topic---
I like the mentor A LOT, its a card that ive always thought about: something that turns dead cards into mana advantage and a creature to boot at instant speed. It is costed aggressively and can easily give great advantage. At the very least it will be played in elf decks at tribal.
The sliver legion I dont like a lot, fact is that Coat of Arms does a much better job than the legion. Personally I don't think a 7/7 (+) body warrants bending over for a all color casting cost since coat of arms can do the same ability at the same cost without the tedious mana requirements.
Sliver queen was good since it started pumping out slivers at a simple cost at instant speed (all of which got the other slivers abilities so they usually weren't 1/1) and was 7/7 (+) to boot. The overlord was so so since you got a cheap reusable tutor and a control magic machine in the mirror on top of the 7/7 body. This one just gives an ability another card already gave .
The mono colored slivers in PC are based off old slivers that had their abilities in the color they should thanks to the color pie and got switched around due to the planar chaos.
Except for Synchronous Sliver. That's the first Sliver to grant vigilance.
I think the Sliver Legion is wayyy better than coat of arms. Unless my opponent is playing a Sliver Deck, my Sliver Legion is not gonna help him. I play a Coat of Arm and my opponent has and elf, goblin or rebel deck or equivalent I just played a double edged sword. In those situations you wouldn't want to play a Coat of Arms, you'd pretty much always want to play Sliver Legion. Why bend over for a mana requirement when you can just use a gemhide sliver? My GRb (Where a Tomb of Yawgmoth and a Sedge sliver goes a long way) sliver deck gets out the Queen just fine. And this is on MWS where I am famous for not drawing lands.
Wow, the mentor is going to see play in dredge for standard and possibly U/G madness in extended.
Legion, well five colors is tough to pull off in TSB.
I think there is a templating change and i have an idea why they would do that.
I think, they want to have the rules for the subtypes the same as supertypes.
For example: any basic land search card now says "search for a basic land". if the rules were similar to subtypes it would have just said "search for a basic" and that just sounds stupid while its actually how subtypes are treated now. so it is actually more logical to do the same for subtypes by naming the cardtype.
You're missing the point here. It would be either "<Supertype> <Type>" or "<Supertype> card", because most supertypes are adjectives. You don't say "Search for a Legendary/Snow". And Basic is supertype that is used only on lands due to mechanics. WoTC guys even said they considered templating Relentless Rats as "Basic Creature". Subtypes are entirely different thing. When you're told to search for a land with a basic land [sub]type, you can find any land with P/I/S/M/F subtypes, not only one of five basics.
Cool cards, Sliver Legion is downright nasty in a sliver deck, 1st turn 1cc sliver 2nd turn Gemhide Sliver 3rd turn Sliver Legion is very achievable and painful to play against for any non wrath/damnation deck.
Llanowar Mentor is great allowing useless cards to turn into llanowar elves at a cheap cost of G and as a G cost 1/1 elf itself. I wouldn't call it tournament playable but its very flavorful and a lot of fun(not exactly good mana acceleration though).
Man, that art on sliver legion is not nearly as cool as I was hoping it would be. I mean honestly, if you look at sliver overlord's and sliver queen's art, you feel so ripped off. But at least it should be a good, valuable card worth opening packs for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
With all, put the same thing except with / in front of what type of tags they are (like [/card]) to close them.
Card: [card]
Hybrid: :symub: = order doesn't matter
You're missing the point here. It would be either "<Supertype> <Type>" or "<Supertype> card", because most supertypes are adjectives. You don't say "Search for a Legendary/Snow". And Basic is supertype that is used only on lands due to mechanics. WoTC guys even said they considered templating Relentless Rats as "Basic Creature". Subtypes are entirely different thing. When you're told to search for a land with a basic land [sub]type, you can find any land with P/I/S/M/F subtypes, not only one of five basics.
No, you're missing the point. He was saying that it would make sense to apply the same sort of grammar to subtypes and supertypes. So now instead of:
"All <supertype> permanents get [blahdiblah]"
or
"All <subtype>s get [blahdiblah]"
It becomes the sleek, multipurpose:
"All <super/subtype> permanents get [blahdiblah]"
You follow? It's hypothetical. It's talking about the future. Whatever, it's not talking about how it currently works.
Anyways, my main point is that the change of templating makes perfect sense. They've had to constantly put rules answers into Gatherer for cards like Goblin Warchief to state that the card only works for creatures with the type "goblin", so this simply makes that obvious to all those people not bright enough to realise that Dragonspeaker Shaman doesn't make Dragonstorm cheaper.
True wouldn't want us to think that Sliver Legion gives the Sliverstorm sorcery +1/+1 for each Sliver in play?
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
Read my mind.
I was playtesting a sliver deck earlier today with a copy of Sliver Legion and it worked out okay. It's pretty good if you can Chord it up at end of turn (already been stated but I thought I'd bring it up). I'm really hoping future sight brings a playable flash sliver because that will give me an incentive to try to make a sliver deck that will be competitive at my FNMs. Playing good decks every week is getting a little boring.
The spark elemental shaper could be useful, as a stoppable lightning bolt every turn.
If some poor soul thought of doing Mblack madness, the Festering Shaper would go in nice.
About the sliver legion, it's probably just a transcription error, or perhaps maybe there is a sliver totem, or maybe even something as obscure as a reprint of soul sculpter, probably not though...
Casual/fun:
UR Wheels of hell
They already have Quick Sliver, so if they're going to make ANOTHER Sliver that grants flash, it will probably cost 5 mana just like the crappy retread Slivers in PC.
What are you talking about? The pre-release Oros, the Avenger had some of the sweetest art I've ever seen, and I loved the Gleancrawler.
Templating is changing in the future.
To answer the question on everyone's minds: No, it's not possible to have a noncreature Sliver. Sliver is a creature subtype. To have it, an object must be creature.
Okay, back to the original topic: Saying "Sliver creatures" isn't incorrect. It's not even necessarily redundant. It's redundant under the current system, which allows "a [type]" to stand in for "an object with [type] in the typical zone."
Perhaps that practice is changing - which I believe is a good thing. It should be more clear that there is no such thing as "a Sliver" - there are only objects of type Sliver. It's like saying there's "a big" - when there are only things which are big.
... well, either I'm right, or it was a typo.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
exactly, I mean they made a 1RG sliver that granted haste and another ability, then they made a PC sliver with haste that costs 4.
When a sliver's primary domain is outside of T2, this just made me go: WTF?
It's like they're trying to make slivers mora blanced. Sliver's were never blanaced, their weakness was their color and cost diversity. That balanced them. Making a 4/4 sliver giving other's trample that costs 5R is just an excuse to keep people from playing Sliver's in T2.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
I bet thats it. The way its worded is not the way it should be worded under the CURRENT system, but this is to be a set with previous on what is to come in the next few years. So i bet it makes sense with the way the next few sets will be.
They might be giving other permanents creature types.
I still wish they had worded the Legion:
All other slivers have "All slivers get +1/+1"
While I understand what you are saying in terms of how the rules work, your comparison is wrong. Saying there is "a Slver" makes more sense than "a big" because sliver is a noun, not an adjective. "a big" is more comparible to "a legendary", which is given a noun (eg "a legendary permanent") even under the current system. In a rules sense you could make the case that there is no such thing as "a Sliver", but the rules say that a creature of type sliver is "a sliver".
Would you say there are no chairs, only objects which have type chair?
The "a Sliver" phrasing is used because it is easy to understand, and matches the way we actually refer to things ("a chair"). I think it would be a shame if we lost this as it is a very simple thing which would become slightly (admittedly not much) more complicated, and harder to understand for new players.
And if the templating is changing, why does it still refer simply to slivers the second time? shouldn't that be "for each sliver creature in play"?
I don't know what the change in formatting means. But I can't wait to find out.
No, it's a subtype of creatures. An artifact creature is an artifact and a creature. Artifact creature has no subtypes to itself, because it isn't a type. It's two types.
Correct.
(emphasis mine)
Nope, only lands:
It's been debated (I was on your side, FWIW). The rules say that no land can be granted the type of "Elf" (unless it's also a creature, and this is kind of a moot point as there's no card in existance that could do such a thing anyway), but they don't really prevent one from being printed (that's the golden rule in play there). Were one printed, "Elf" would be treated as a land type and not a creature type, although because of the way templating works there would be no real functional difference.
And so we come to the point: Templating. This does seem to be where it's going, the question is why. And more importantly, why now? Especially after that whole Echo thing. Makes that bit seem kind of arbitrary in the face of it all.
Why not? Because WotC is an English speaking company. Every person who ever sees the text of a card while it's being developed doubles as a proof reader. Granted, most of them aren't very good, but a lot more attention is given. The cards are all made up, and then translated. English cards haven't had consistant errors (consistant meaning for every copy of that card in the set, so as to exclude individual printing errors) for over a decade. They don't put that kind of resources into translations, I guess. But they do in English, almost automatically, because it's designed in English.
elfs and druids should play a big role in Lorwyn right..?
sooooooooo elves are making a late sudden death come back... sweet
my friend will just be giddy(a friend of his was murdered st. patties day)
so i wouldn't count this guy out, but what will be the omgness about it i dunno
turn 2/3 power glove?
Wurmcalling crazyness? no one uses Evangelize?
return of giant growth stye saving? but hey elvs at madness speed LoL
a piece of my soul, through poetic sows.
The tides of fate procreate disaster
and awakens thy master
the gates explode and the seals anulled
between the dust lyes a fold
of unimaginal minds untold
i duress in death's caress
where the unknow take hold
Through a portal of the past
I regress past a river blazing cold
You know if they did that you could sac a Wooded Foothills to get a Mistform Ultimus which now also taps for green. And WtoC got ride of "racial" ablitys.. much to my sadness.
Actually theres reason for the slivers to be that way.
The Multicolor slivers present in time spiral (ally) and Planar Chaos (enemy) all represent popular spells in the shape of slivers,:
Necrotic Sliver - vindicate
Firewake Sliver - Fires of Yavimaya
Harmonic Sliver - Aura Fracture
The mono colored slivers in PC are based off old slivers that had their abilities in the color they should thanks to the color pie and got switched around due to the planar chaos. The reason for the mana cost bump in those slivers is the fact that if they cost less they would've caused too much trouble since they would give slivers too much synergy (the original haste sliver cost 1R, making a green sliver that grants haste at 1G would be too powerful)
----on topic---
I like the mentor A LOT, its a card that ive always thought about: something that turns dead cards into mana advantage and a creature to boot at instant speed. It is costed aggressively and can easily give great advantage. At the very least it will be played in elf decks at tribal.
The sliver legion I dont like a lot, fact is that Coat of Arms does a much better job than the legion. Personally I don't think a 7/7 (+) body warrants bending over for a all color casting cost since coat of arms can do the same ability at the same cost without the tedious mana requirements.
Sliver queen was good since it started pumping out slivers at a simple cost at instant speed (all of which got the other slivers abilities so they usually weren't 1/1) and was 7/7 (+) to boot. The overlord was so so since you got a cheap reusable tutor and a control magic machine in the mirror on top of the 7/7 body. This one just gives an ability another card already gave .
Except for Synchronous Sliver. That's the first Sliver to grant vigilance.
Oops.
That scan is on this thread already, I guess I thought I added it to the spoiler but forgot.
Twitter
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
Legion, well five colors is tough to pull off in TSB.
You're missing the point here. It would be either "<Supertype> <Type>" or "<Supertype> card", because most supertypes are adjectives. You don't say "Search for a Legendary/Snow". And Basic is supertype that is used only on lands due to mechanics. WoTC guys even said they considered templating Relentless Rats as "Basic Creature". Subtypes are entirely different thing. When you're told to search for a land with a basic land [sub]type, you can find any land with P/I/S/M/F subtypes, not only one of five basics.
Llanowar Mentor is great allowing useless cards to turn into llanowar elves at a cheap cost of G and as a G cost 1/1 elf itself. I wouldn't call it tournament playable but its very flavorful and a lot of fun(not exactly good mana acceleration though).
Machius proudly supports R_E's right to Rumour!
Card: [card]
Hybrid: :symub: = order doesn't matter
Spoiler: [spoiler]
Deck: [deck]
No, you're missing the point. He was saying that it would make sense to apply the same sort of grammar to subtypes and supertypes. So now instead of:
"All <supertype> permanents get [blahdiblah]"
or
"All <subtype>s get [blahdiblah]"
It becomes the sleek, multipurpose:
"All <super/subtype> permanents get [blahdiblah]"
You follow? It's hypothetical. It's talking about the future. Whatever, it's not talking about how it currently works.
You can't search for a permanent, period.