Pyrehammer Arsonist 2R
Creature - Viashino Shaman (Uncommon) 1, T: Pyrehammer Arsonist deals X damage to any target, where X is the number of permanents you sacrificed this turn. Everything, from damaged furniture to inconvenient corpses, becomes fuel for the ever-active foundry of Ziatora.
2/2
Forge Boss 2BR
Creature - Human Warrior (Uncommon)
Whenever you sacrifice one or more other creatures, Forge Boss deals 2 damage to each opponent. This ability triggers only once each turn. "A furnace of this size can reduce anything to ashes. Is there something you need reduced to ashes?"
3/4
We have two different ways to power down a Mayhem Devil, but both should still be serviceable for any sacrifice-based strategies.
No surprise I once again see “once per turn” they just never want let go of that for todays standard sets. (This is all your fault war of the spark/C21/eldraine/theros beyond death/Ikoria/C22)
But thr viashino now we’re cooking we know the existence of one of many, infinite sac outlets with ,untappers, ability copying, and for the fun of it damage enhancers.
'Once per turn' has turned so many potentially interesting cards into boring draft chaff that wouldn't see play in the most casual, theme based EDH deck. worst 3 words in the game. I can't remember the last time I saw those words on a card that didn't go in my box of 'coasters'
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
'Once per turn' has turned so many potentially interesting cards into boring draft chaff that wouldn't see play in the most casual, theme based EDH deck. worst 3 words in the game. I can't remember the last time I saw those words on a card that didn't go in my box of 'coasters'
That seems to be an odd take on things. If something happening once per turn makes it terrible, I guess that land tax and sylvan library are terrible cards because they generally happen only once per turn and etb effects are even worse as you only get the effects once period.
I don’t think that “once each turn” is a mechanical problem. I have not heard many people complaining how esper sentinel, Kess, wirewood symbiont, Quirion Ranger, or As Foretold are worthless because of a once per turn limit. There have been effects printed that would legitimately be broken if not limited in this way.
The main problem with “once per turn” is purely psychological, IMO. You read the ability thinking that a random uncommon will let you kill the entire table with ease (because that seems likely?) and you hit the restriction right at the end. If this type of card read “at the beginning of your end step, if you sacrificed one or more permanents this turn, CARDNAME deals 2 damage to each opponent”, the card would be weaker but feel stronger (or at least get fewer complaints).
And to repeat the argument that keeps happening every time this comes out, the wording that wizards is using is the only wording that currently does what they want it to do. Checking for a condition at the beginning of a phase stops those effects from being used as “tricks” (no whispering
Wizards making a surprise blocker at instant speed, for example) which wizards wants for limited purposes. Saying “whenever XYZ the first time each turn” would lead to counterintuitive misplays (casting the forge boss using treasure would stop it from triggering on the turn you played it because you already had your first sacrifice, for example), which wizards wants to avoid. The current rules and wording templates give wizards no good options to signal the once per turn limitation at the start of an ability without making that ability mechanically worse in some way. I do not begrudge wizards for valuing quality of play over the psychology of how a card feels.
On the one hand I can see that certain combos going infinite can suck the joy out of an individual game. On the other hand, the phrase "this ability triggers only once each turn" sucks the joy out of the *entire* game. I get it, Wizards--you want people to be able to play MTG, but that "only once each turn" is not the way to do that.
On the one hand I can see that certain combos going infinite can suck the joy out of an individual game. On the other hand, the phrase "this ability triggers only once each turn" sucks the joy out of the *entire* game. I get it, Wizards--you want people to be able to play MTG, but that "only once each turn" is not the way to do that.
What alternative would you use?
1. Would you have a single 2 damage trigger check at each player's end step if you sacrificed anything, having the card feel better because it starts with the 'powerful' words "at the beginning of each end step" but stopping you from using it at instant speed (and thus actually making the card weaker)?
2. Would you have this card start out with "Whenever you sacrifice one or more permanents the first time each turn" and make this card dead for a turn if you sacrificed a card (such as a treasure) before this comes out (and thus making this card weaker)?
I am not saying that I like "only once each turn" but I do not see better alternatives. I get it. People want to live in a mental state of excitement and optimism where the new card is exciting and you are wondering how it might be useful. I can think of no other wordings of this ability that remove the dreaded "once each turn" and maintain its functionality that would actually be good, though. Even though this feels bad, it is probably the most powerful and versatile wording possible. If you can't get excited about it, that means that you had an easier time appraising its actual power level rather than having the card be made "worse".
At the end of the day, infinite combos, while a lot of fun can be very tedious to slog through. So, the only other option is, instead of gating these abilities is to not print them at all. So I for one am grateful for this particular clause.
Hipster haircut and beard, check.
Forearm tattoo, check.
Me quickly losing interest in this set, check.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
On the one hand I can see that certain combos going infinite can suck the joy out of an individual game. On the other hand, the phrase "this ability triggers only once each turn" sucks the joy out of the *entire* game. I get it, Wizards--you want people to be able to play MTG, but that "only once each turn" is not the way to do that.
What alternative would you use?
1. Would you have a single 2 damage trigger check at each player's end step if you sacrificed anything, having the card feel better because it starts with the 'powerful' words "at the beginning of each end step" but stopping you from using it at instant speed (and thus actually making the card weaker)?
2. Would you have this card start out with "Whenever you sacrifice one or more permanents the first time each turn" and make this card dead for a turn if you sacrificed a card (such as a treasure) before this comes out (and thus making this card weaker)?
I am not saying that I like "only once each turn" but I do not see better alternatives. I get it. People want to live in a mental state of excitement and optimism where the new card is exciting and you are wondering how it might be useful. I can think of no other wordings of this ability that remove the dreaded "once each turn" and maintain its functionality that would actually be good, though. Even though this feels bad, it is probably the most powerful and versatile wording possible. If you can't get excited about it, that means that you had an easier time appraising its actual power level rather than having the card be made "worse".
Oh, you're probably correct--the phrasing "only once each turn" is the most efficient way of wording/limiting the ability and infinite combos do warp formats into "you have a choice: play the combo deck, play the only deck which can interact with or disrupt the combo, or lose" and no one likes that.
As for the card itself....excellent in Limited and I would use it gladly. Sacrificing devil or pest tokens seems like a good way to annoy your opponent.
really disappointing that these guys show up in the same set together. the br guy is just so stifled by that once per turn clause, and then that other guy basically just says **** it lets do it even better than he can.
the synergy with treasures as they push that even further going forward is just bonkers stupid with the tap guy
Hipster haircut and beard, check.
Forearm tattoo, check.
The Tiffany effect hitting a period-accurate (to the source material) street gang look? Check.
And people wonder why we don't get Saviors of Kamigawa-style deep cuts anymore.
If you can find me some (actual/real) images of any 20's or 30's union boss sporting that look, post/link it up, I'd love to see it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Hipster haircut and beard, check.
Forearm tattoo, check.
The Tiffany effect hitting a period-accurate (to the source material) street gang look? Check.
And people wonder why we don't get Saviors of Kamigawa-style deep cuts anymore.
If you can find me some (actual/real) images of any 20's or 30's union boss sporting that look, post/link it up, I'd love to see it.
Since most of the photos online are either German soldiers or from the set of Peaky Blinders (historically accurate, but buries older photos), here's an academic paper on the look. The gang leaders themselves wouldn't get this haircut, since they can afford better ones and don't have to worry about lice or getting their hair grabbed in street fights.
The main problem with “once per turn” is purely psychological, IMO. You read the ability thinking that a random uncommon will let you kill the entire table with ease (because that seems likely?) and you hit the restriction right at the end. If this type of card read “at the beginning of your end step, if you sacrificed one or more permanents this turn, CARDNAME deals 2 damage to each opponent”, the card would be weaker but feel stronger (or at least get fewer complaints).
And to repeat the argument that keeps happening every time this comes out, the wording that wizards is using is the only wording that currently does what they want it to do. Checking for a condition at the beginning of a phase stops those effects from being used as “tricks” (no whispering
Wizards making a surprise blocker at instant speed, for example) which wizards wants for limited purposes. Saying “whenever XYZ the first time each turn” would lead to counterintuitive misplays (casting the forge boss using treasure would stop it from triggering on the turn you played it because you already had your first sacrifice, for example), which wizards wants to avoid. The current rules and wording templates give wizards no good options to signal the once per turn limitation at the start of an ability without making that ability mechanically worse in some way. I do not begrudge wizards for valuing quality of play over the psychology of how a card feels.
I totally agree with all this.
As for pyrehammer arsonist - a pinger is still good, but when is this ever realistically going to deal more than 1 damage? Sweet art though.
The main problem with “once per turn” is purely psychological, IMO. You read the ability thinking that a random uncommon will let you kill the entire table with ease (because that seems likely?) and you hit the restriction right at the end. If this type of card read “at the beginning of your end step, if you sacrificed one or more permanents this turn, CARDNAME deals 2 damage to each opponent”, the card would be weaker but feel stronger (or at least get fewer complaints).
And to repeat the argument that keeps happening every time this comes out, the wording that wizards is using is the only wording that currently does what they want it to do. Checking for a condition at the beginning of a phase stops those effects from being used as “tricks” (no whispering
Wizards making a surprise blocker at instant speed, for example) which wizards wants for limited purposes. Saying “whenever XYZ the first time each turn” would lead to counterintuitive misplays (casting the forge boss using treasure would stop it from triggering on the turn you played it because you already had your first sacrifice, for example), which wizards wants to avoid. The current rules and wording templates give wizards no good options to signal the once per turn limitation at the start of an ability without making that ability mechanically worse in some way. I do not begrudge wizards for valuing quality of play over the psychology of how a card feels.
I totally agree with all this.
As for pyrehammer arsonist - a pinger is still good, but when is this ever realistically going to deal more than 1 damage? Sweet art though.
Any treasure you produce is a free sacrifice. Blitz looks to be a sacrifice effect that lowers the cost of the card being played, increasing the odds of playing more than one. Also, there's one round of lands that sacrifice themselves to draw a cards and there seems to be a cycle of "panorama-esque" cards that sacrifice themselves when they etb (I assume that not just Maestros gets one, at least). I'd say that you might get a couple of shots for 2-3 in the right deck.
Hipster haircut and beard, check.
Forearm tattoo, check.
The Tiffany effect hitting a period-accurate (to the source material) street gang look? Check.
And people wonder why we don't get Saviors of Kamigawa-style deep cuts anymore.
There is also the fact that this is a "hipster look" because hipsters mix in vintage styles to their own looks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Hipster haircut and beard, check.
Forearm tattoo, check.
The Tiffany effect hitting a period-accurate (to the source material) street gang look? Check.
And people wonder why we don't get Saviors of Kamigawa-style deep cuts anymore.
If you can find me some (actual/real) images of any 20's or 30's union boss sporting that look, post/link it up, I'd love to see it.
Since most of the photos online are either German soldiers or from the set of Peaky Blinders (historically accurate, but buries older photos), here's an academic paper on the look. The gang leaders themselves wouldn't get this haircut, since they can afford better ones and don't have to worry about lice or getting their hair grabbed in street fights.
Thanks for the pictures. I take it the first shot is a vintage photo and the others are from the set of modern TV show?
Notice that NONE of them have a full beard. (Which went out of style at the turn of the century) and none have forearm tattoos. Yes this is fantasy but to represent this look of one of the 20's and 30's is inaccurate. The hairstyle is close. Facial hair was out at the time. Also having a full beard in a forge/smelter would be frowned upon due to the heat and possibility of it catching fire. Tattoos were sported mostly by sailors and circus folk during that period as well. The artist has taken artistic license and that is fine, but to represent this as a common look of the art-deco period is false. I stand by my hipster statement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Complaining about 'hipsters' in 2022 qualifies you to join the AARP, btw.
1. Who is "complaining"? I am just pointing out an historical inaccuracy.
2. Age-ism much?
3. Nearly anyone can join AARP it is not age dependent. Although reaching a certain age can reap you certain benefits. And NO I do not belong to it even though I could qualify for those age benefits.
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Hipster haircut and beard, check.
Forearm tattoo, check.
The Tiffany effect hitting a period-accurate (to the source material) street gang look? Check.
And people wonder why we don't get Saviors of Kamigawa-style deep cuts anymore.
If you can find me some (actual/real) images of any 20's or 30's union boss sporting that look, post/link it up, I'd love to see it.
Since most of the photos online are either German soldiers or from the set of Peaky Blinders (historically accurate, but buries older photos), here's an academic paper on the look. The gang leaders themselves wouldn't get this haircut, since they can afford better ones and don't have to worry about lice or getting their hair grabbed in street fights.
Thanks for the pictures. I take it the first shot is a vintage photo and the others are from the set of modern TV show?
The second one is of some German officer. They started the trend (as seen with nearly every photo of every soldier and politician from Germany in the 1930s.) Plus, if this guy was based off the Glasgow gangs, forearm tattoos were still very popular on that side of the Atlantic at the time . . . assuming it is a tattoo. It might just be some brace or general covering to avoid getting burned by the anvil inside the forge.
Part of the problem is this interjection at the end of the ability, that causes undue "psychological issues", is its verbosity. It would sound much smoother, lighter tone, if it was something like "When you sacrifice for the first time this turn, ...". 1) It reads better. 2) It sounds less harsh.
Part of the problem is this interjection at the end of the ability, that causes undue "psychological issues", is its verbosity. It would sound much smoother, lighter tone, if it was something like "When you sacrifice for the first time this turn, ...". 1) It reads better. 2) It sounds less harsh.
I totally agree. It would feel better to read that way. The card would also be weaker, though.
if someone cracks a treasure to throw this out (not beyond imagination for limited where gruul has a treasure theme) and sacs another creature expecting to deal 2 damage immediately, though, they will have someone else point out that the sacrificed creature was actually the second permanent they sacrificed, the first being the treasure. The player feels Gotcha’d by a counterintuitive mechanic, making a play that plenty of new players may try.
That’s why the language isn’t used. While I hate the language on a psychological level like many people, I have yet to see a wording change that wouldn’t impair gameplay in some way.
Part of the problem is this interjection at the end of the ability, that causes undue "psychological issues", is its verbosity. It would sound much smoother, lighter tone, if it was something like "When you sacrifice for the first time this turn, ...". 1) It reads better. 2) It sounds less harsh.
3) You then have to learn the hardw way when you play the card, then realize you already fulfilled the trigger earlier in the turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pyrehammer Arsonist 2R
Creature - Viashino Shaman (Uncommon)
1, T: Pyrehammer Arsonist deals X damage to any target, where X is the number of permanents you sacrificed this turn.
Everything, from damaged furniture to inconvenient corpses, becomes fuel for the ever-active foundry of Ziatora.
2/2
Forge Boss 2BR
Creature - Human Warrior (Uncommon)
Whenever you sacrifice one or more other creatures, Forge Boss deals 2 damage to each opponent. This ability triggers only once each turn.
"A furnace of this size can reduce anything to ashes. Is there something you need reduced to ashes?"
3/4
We have two different ways to power down a Mayhem Devil, but both should still be serviceable for any sacrifice-based strategies.
Source: Nannitwitch
But thr viashino now we’re cooking we know the existence of one of many, infinite sac outlets with ,untappers, ability copying, and for the fun of it damage enhancers.
That seems to be an odd take on things. If something happening once per turn makes it terrible, I guess that land tax and sylvan library are terrible cards because they generally happen only once per turn and etb effects are even worse as you only get the effects once period.
I don’t think that “once each turn” is a mechanical problem. I have not heard many people complaining how esper sentinel, Kess, wirewood symbiont, Quirion Ranger, or As Foretold are worthless because of a once per turn limit. There have been effects printed that would legitimately be broken if not limited in this way.
The main problem with “once per turn” is purely psychological, IMO. You read the ability thinking that a random uncommon will let you kill the entire table with ease (because that seems likely?) and you hit the restriction right at the end. If this type of card read “at the beginning of your end step, if you sacrificed one or more permanents this turn, CARDNAME deals 2 damage to each opponent”, the card would be weaker but feel stronger (or at least get fewer complaints).
And to repeat the argument that keeps happening every time this comes out, the wording that wizards is using is the only wording that currently does what they want it to do. Checking for a condition at the beginning of a phase stops those effects from being used as “tricks” (no whispering
Wizards making a surprise blocker at instant speed, for example) which wizards wants for limited purposes. Saying “whenever XYZ the first time each turn” would lead to counterintuitive misplays (casting the forge boss using treasure would stop it from triggering on the turn you played it because you already had your first sacrifice, for example), which wizards wants to avoid. The current rules and wording templates give wizards no good options to signal the once per turn limitation at the start of an ability without making that ability mechanically worse in some way. I do not begrudge wizards for valuing quality of play over the psychology of how a card feels.
What alternative would you use?
1. Would you have a single 2 damage trigger check at each player's end step if you sacrificed anything, having the card feel better because it starts with the 'powerful' words "at the beginning of each end step" but stopping you from using it at instant speed (and thus actually making the card weaker)?
2. Would you have this card start out with "Whenever you sacrifice one or more permanents the first time each turn" and make this card dead for a turn if you sacrificed a card (such as a treasure) before this comes out (and thus making this card weaker)?
I am not saying that I like "only once each turn" but I do not see better alternatives. I get it. People want to live in a mental state of excitement and optimism where the new card is exciting and you are wondering how it might be useful. I can think of no other wordings of this ability that remove the dreaded "once each turn" and maintain its functionality that would actually be good, though. Even though this feels bad, it is probably the most powerful and versatile wording possible. If you can't get excited about it, that means that you had an easier time appraising its actual power level rather than having the card be made "worse".
Oh it also counts treasures. Didn't think of that at first
For others there's Mythos of Snapdax and Liliana, Dreadhorde General.
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Forearm tattoo, check.
Me quickly losing interest in this set, check.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
And people wonder why we don't get Saviors of Kamigawa-style deep cuts anymore.
Oh, you're probably correct--the phrasing "only once each turn" is the most efficient way of wording/limiting the ability and infinite combos do warp formats into "you have a choice: play the combo deck, play the only deck which can interact with or disrupt the combo, or lose" and no one likes that.
As for the card itself....excellent in Limited and I would use it gladly. Sacrificing devil or pest tokens seems like a good way to annoy your opponent.
the synergy with treasures as they push that even further going forward is just bonkers stupid with the tap guy
If you can find me some (actual/real) images of any 20's or 30's union boss sporting that look, post/link it up, I'd love to see it.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Since most of the photos online are either German soldiers or from the set of Peaky Blinders (historically accurate, but buries older photos), here's an academic paper on the look. The gang leaders themselves wouldn't get this haircut, since they can afford better ones and don't have to worry about lice or getting their hair grabbed in street fights.
I totally agree with all this.
As for pyrehammer arsonist - a pinger is still good, but when is this ever realistically going to deal more than 1 damage? Sweet art though.
Any treasure you produce is a free sacrifice. Blitz looks to be a sacrifice effect that lowers the cost of the card being played, increasing the odds of playing more than one. Also, there's one round of lands that sacrifice themselves to draw a cards and there seems to be a cycle of "panorama-esque" cards that sacrifice themselves when they etb (I assume that not just Maestros gets one, at least). I'd say that you might get a couple of shots for 2-3 in the right deck.
There is also the fact that this is a "hipster look" because hipsters mix in vintage styles to their own looks.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Thanks for the pictures. I take it the first shot is a vintage photo and the others are from the set of modern TV show?
Notice that NONE of them have a full beard. (Which went out of style at the turn of the century) and none have forearm tattoos. Yes this is fantasy but to represent this look of one of the 20's and 30's is inaccurate. The hairstyle is close. Facial hair was out at the time. Also having a full beard in a forge/smelter would be frowned upon due to the heat and possibility of it catching fire. Tattoos were sported mostly by sailors and circus folk during that period as well. The artist has taken artistic license and that is fine, but to represent this as a common look of the art-deco period is false. I stand by my hipster statement.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
1. Who is "complaining"? I am just pointing out an historical inaccuracy.
2. Age-ism much?
3. Nearly anyone can join AARP it is not age dependent. Although reaching a certain age can reap you certain benefits. And NO I do not belong to it even though I could qualify for those age benefits.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I totally agree. It would feel better to read that way. The card would also be weaker, though.
if someone cracks a treasure to throw this out (not beyond imagination for limited where gruul has a treasure theme) and sacs another creature expecting to deal 2 damage immediately, though, they will have someone else point out that the sacrificed creature was actually the second permanent they sacrificed, the first being the treasure. The player feels Gotcha’d by a counterintuitive mechanic, making a play that plenty of new players may try.
That’s why the language isn’t used. While I hate the language on a psychological level like many people, I have yet to see a wording change that wouldn’t impair gameplay in some way.