I really like the Restless Vinestalk, as you can target an opponents creature... Hey, big boy 6/6 dragon over there... You shrank! Yo! Emrakul! Lookin' tiny over there...
Please, mill me. Mill my important cards. Mill my lands. Mill it all. Because I will still deal 20 damage before you can mill 45 cards most every time.
the Crag doesn't lose it's abilties the equiped creature loses the abilites
The Crag loses its abilities.
It says
If you do, it gains equip 3 and "Equipped creature gets +3/+3" and loses all other abilities.
Expressed more generally: "If you do, it gains [ability] and [second ability] and loses all other abilities."
The "loses all other abilities" is outside the quotation marks for the second ability.
then that’s the most poor wording I have ever seen atleast I’m not the only one who made the mistake
Nope, it's actually about the only way to word this short of making it a DFC. A DFC would probably have been a cleaner solution but I don't see them doing it as a one off.
the Crag doesn't lose it's abilties the equiped creature loses the abilites
The Crag loses its abilities.
It says
If you do, it gains equip 3 and "Equipped creature gets +3/+3" and loses all other abilities.
Expressed more generally: "If you do, it gains [ability] and [second ability] and loses all other abilities."
The "loses all other abilities" is outside the quotation marks for the second ability.
then that’s the most poor wording I have ever seen atleast I’m not the only one who made the mistake
Nope, it's actually about the only way to word this short of making it a DFC. A DFC would probably have been a cleaner solution but I don't see them doing it as a one off.
Could also have been "you may have it become a legendary equipment artifact with [abilities] named [name]. If you do, it loses all other abilities." Not sure if that's all that much clearer.
Aside, since we're discussing syntax anyway, couldn't it have just said it becomes an equipment? I thought a new subtype would only overwrite other subtypes without needing to specify the type and supertype again.
the Crag doesn't lose it's abilties the equiped creature loses the abilites
The Crag loses its abilities.
It says
If you do, it gains equip 3 and "Equipped creature gets +3/+3" and loses all other abilities.
Expressed more generally: "If you do, it gains [ability] and [second ability] and loses all other abilities."
The "loses all other abilities" is outside the quotation marks for the second ability.
then that’s the most poor wording I have ever seen atleast I’m not the only one who made the mistake
Nope, it's actually about the only way to word this short of making it a DFC. A DFC would probably have been a cleaner solution but I don't see them doing it as a one off.
Could also have been "you may have it become a legendary equipment artifact with [abilities] named [name]. If you do, it loses all other abilities." Not sure if that's all that much clearer.
Aside, since we're discussing syntax anyway, couldn't it have just said it becomes an equipment? I thought a new subtype would only overwrite other subtypes without needing to specify the type and supertype again.
I think you are functionally right but it would be quite confusing to many players. The current version is verbose but clear.
why in hell isn't the Irencrag a dual faced card that may transform when a legendary creature etbs? haha
The incredibly boring answer to that is that dual faced cards generally have to be printed on a sheet of other dual faced cards. The printing process for almost every card involves using big preprinted sheets of the standard mtg card back, so any sheet where a DFC is needs to be custom printed to include the reverse side and can't use the normal bulk sheets, which makes it more expensive to produce. So when they do use DFCs its usually something where they do a lot of them at once bc it's a cost commitment and hopefully a big seller for the set.
so we can always keep it as a rock if we wanted to then we could turn it into the equipment later game when we don't need it anymore just like with mind stone and commander sphere
why in hell isn't the Irencrag a dual faced card that may transform when a legendary creature etbs? haha
The incredibly boring answer to that is that dual faced cards generally have to be printed on a sheet of other dual faced cards. The printing process for almost every card involves using big preprinted sheets of the standard mtg card back, so any sheet where a DFC is needs to be custom printed to include the reverse side and can't use the normal bulk sheets, which makes it more expensive to produce. So when they do use DFCs its usually something where they do a lot of them at once bc it's a cost commitment and hopefully a big seller for the set.
I mean the issue is not that is impossible to do it. Nicol Bolas as the only DFC in M19 proved that they can indeed. Is just that tbey don't want because it's not practical / more expensive, but not that they can't.
why in hell isn't the Irencrag a dual faced card that may transform when a legendary creature etbs? haha
The incredibly boring answer to that is that dual faced cards generally have to be printed on a sheet of other dual faced cards. The printing process for almost every card involves using big preprinted sheets of the standard mtg card back, so any sheet where a DFC is needs to be custom printed to include the reverse side and can't use the normal bulk sheets, which makes it more expensive to produce. So when they do use DFCs its usually something where they do a lot of them at once bc it's a cost commitment and hopefully a big seller for the set.
I mean the issue is not that is impossible to do it. Nicol Bolas as the only DFC in M19 proved that they can indeed. Is just that tbey don't want because it's not practical / more expensive, but not that they can't.
This post confuses me because it sounds like it's meant to correct an error in the quoted post, but ultimately says the same thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Spoiler EditorSource: Weekly MTG
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Spoiler EditorThe Crag loses its abilities.
It says
Expressed more generally: "If you do, it gains [ability] and [second ability] and loses all other abilities."
The "loses all other abilities" is outside the quotation marks for the second ability.
then that’s the most poor wording I have ever seen atleast I’m not the only one who made the mistake
Nope, it's actually about the only way to word this short of making it a DFC. A DFC would probably have been a cleaner solution but I don't see them doing it as a one off.
Or you just tap it to help cast the legendary creature
Could also have been "you may have it become a legendary equipment artifact with [abilities] named [name]. If you do, it loses all other abilities." Not sure if that's all that much clearer.
Aside, since we're discussing syntax anyway, couldn't it have just said it becomes an equipment? I thought a new subtype would only overwrite other subtypes without needing to specify the type and supertype again.
I think you are functionally right but it would be quite confusing to many players. The current version is verbose but clear.
Exactly, thank you.
The incredibly boring answer to that is that dual faced cards generally have to be printed on a sheet of other dual faced cards. The printing process for almost every card involves using big preprinted sheets of the standard mtg card back, so any sheet where a DFC is needs to be custom printed to include the reverse side and can't use the normal bulk sheets, which makes it more expensive to produce. So when they do use DFCs its usually something where they do a lot of them at once bc it's a cost commitment and hopefully a big seller for the set.
so we can always keep it as a rock if we wanted to then we could turn it into the equipment later game when we don't need it anymore just like with mind stone and commander sphere
I mean the issue is not that is impossible to do it. Nicol Bolas as the only DFC in M19 proved that they can indeed. Is just that tbey don't want because it's not practical / more expensive, but not that they can't.
This post confuses me because it sounds like it's meant to correct an error in the quoted post, but ultimately says the same thing.