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.
Quote from Flame Master AxelYes, 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.
Quote from RickCorgan[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.
Quote from MapacheSo? 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.
Quote from Lord of AtlantisJust make creature types universal.
Quote from Zochreinu L"ChaimWith 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.
Quote from Shale WarBringerThey should have made Tribal a subtype in the first place rather than a card type (ala Snow or Arcane).
I loved it thought for the time it lasted...
Quote from charlequinWhat'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?
Quote from clan_iraqTribal 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.
Quote from FoxBatThis 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.
Quote from JoydThe 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.)
Quote from LeyasuSo, in example, something like this?
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.
From the Comprehensive Rules as of October 1, 2010
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?
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.
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.)
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.
Quote from YamikiriOr, you know, use Tribal.
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.
Quote from CorrodedTemplarBecause a lot of people like it?
Quote from DarkRitualWell, there is no way of knowing who likes it and who doesn't..
Quote from LeyasuCards 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.
Quote from Flame Master AxelFoW will never be re-printed for standard use. If it is, I will eat a playset of Alliance copies.