Note: I. DO NOT. CARE. if anyone thinks that there shouldn't be extrapolation of Towers, Lairs, Power-Plants and so forth. I do not CARE if anyone thinks that instants and sorceries shouldn't have subtypes for flavoring and potential later mechanics. This thread is for discussing what could be, what potential there is in certain subtype ideas, what subtypes make sense, etc. Please. DO NOT. post. if you have nothing to say on the subject.
And...with that disclaimer out of the way, I posit Exactly What It Says On the Tin: what types might there or should there be for cards that aren't creatures, planeswalkers, or lands whose main defining characteristic is a basic land type? Here some ideas I've had lately with an example for each:
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
Adding things like Tribal and Arcane work, because they are part of a mechanical theme. These have nothing going for them, other than adding confusion for no reason. It's needless complication.
Instead try actual subtypes, that can actually mean something. Like one for Burn spells, and one for pump spells, where they describe what the spell is doing. It's still a poor addition to the game, but it's better than "spring" and "stick".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
Pretty much all of the non-creature subtypes exist either because there's rules baggage directly associated with them, or that subtype is called out by other cards. So it's not that I think they shouldn't exist; I just don't see the value in putting "Candle" on Candelabra of Tawnos unless you're going to do something that actually cares about that subtype being there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Adding "Battlement" to Darksteel Garrison seems a terrible idea. It's already the only card in the game with the Fortification subtype, and Fortification fits the flavor of the card just fine already.
I can see subtypes on equipment, since there are some easily defined "items". Instants/Enchantments I just can't see the value in. Land could have some cool subtypes though.
Yeah, most these subtypes are really unnecessary it seems. You shouldn't just add subtypes onto cards unless the game is going to mechanically care about those subtypes.
Unless we're about to see a "Candles matter" set, then there's no point in making an "Artifact - Candle".
But I think that point has been already brought up, so allow me to add something new to the conversation.
I have mixed feelings about Equipment subtypes. I mean, yeah, making a card that says "Artifact - Equipment Sword" is pretty cool flavor-wise, and could potentially make for some cool flavorful cards that interact with them.
But Equipment is already a subtype, and it just seems excessive to add more subtypes for no real reason other than cool flavor.
So, if we're going to be adding new subtypes to Artifacts, I feel that they need to be something new, not just adding more subtypes to already subtyped Artifacts.
For example, Fortifications. Sure, they're just Equipment for land, but they're still a different subtype from Equipment that does something different, and while we don't have any cards right now that interact with Fortifications, they wouldn't be that hard to make cards that mechanically care about the subtype.
So....does anybody have any good ideas for new Artifact subtypes that would actually do something?
I like the idea of equipment, and maybe certain other artifacts having their types expanded on, it could lead to some cool cards that wouldn't really make sense otherwise.
Adding things like Tribal and Arcane work, because they are part of a mechanical theme. These have nothing going for them, other than adding confusion for no reason. It's needless complication.
Instead try actual subtypes, that can actually mean something. Like one for Burn spells, and one for pump spells, where they describe what the spell is doing. It's still a poor addition to the game, but it's better than "spring" and "stick".
Sigh. Disclaimers mean nothing anymore it seems.
The point I'm trying to make is not trying to make things complicated, it's in providing another possible path to follow in either set or deck design. And as I keep trying to point out, this argument falls flat when you consider that few creature types are specifically designed to be a mechanic, and even more so when you consider the number of creature types that have ZERO mechanical support, or that often seem superfluous. Do we need to have both Angels and Archons, or Hippos and Phelddagrifs, or Atogs and Frogs? Heck, outside of Atogatog, nothing I just mentioned has ANY tribal support.
Even if you're worried about people taking mechanical implications that don't yet exist too seriously, then again take lessons from how creature types were standardized: from 8th through Dissension, reprints of older creatures had refined typelines that better fit their concept (usually just adding Human, admittedly), culminating in the Grand Creature Type Update in 10th. Just do the same for other types: put new subtypes on each subsequent card (where appropriate) and on reprints where there wouldn't be any functional change, keep it up for a few years, then go back update all of the old stuff. Considering how few lands there are, and how many subtypes exist there as is outside of the basics, that one in particular could easily undergo this process.
Pretty much all of the non-creature subtypes exist either because there's rules baggage directly associated with them, or that subtype is called out by other cards. So it's not that I think they shouldn't exist; I just don't see the value in putting "Candle" on Candelabra of Tawnos unless you're going to do something that actually cares about that subtype being there.
Flavor and the possibility of there being mechanics. Did anyone think beforehand that the Fox or Snake types would ever get any real support? Or the Kithkin and Treefolk types? Phyrexia, to use a recent example, did anyone ever think the Human type would ever amount to anything? Even I didn't think so, and I'm one of the most dedicated people you will ever see when it comes to taking material that already exists and expanding upon it any realistic way I can.
Yes, making cards Candles, Dolls, Havens, Battlements, Songs and so forth may not hold water right when you do so, but it provides the option later, and really isn't going to be all that distracting. Old players will know to ignore subtypes if they don't see a new card that exploits it, and new players will see something alongside creature types to catch the eye and stimulate ideas for deck design, even if only for a theme. I honestly see no fault in doing so.
I didn't post an example of a Shrine because most people already know about that actual subtype and...well, the only other Shrines that I could figure were from the cycle in Odyssey block. I'm sure other enchantments would work, but that type was harder for me to grok than the others.
I have mixed feelings about Equipment subtypes. I mean, yeah, making a card that says "Artifact - Equipment Sword" is pretty cool flavor-wise, and could potentially make for some cool flavorful cards that interact with them.
But Equipment is already a subtype, and it just seems excessive to add more subtypes for no real reason other than cool flavor.
So, if we're going to be adding new subtypes to Artifacts, I feel that they need to be something new, not just adding more subtypes to already subtyped Artifacts.
For example, Fortifications. Sure, they're just Equipment for land, but they're still a different subtype from Equipment that does something different, and while we don't have any cards right now that interact with Fortifications, they wouldn't be that hard to make cards that mechanically care about the subtype.
Me personally, I'd actually get rid of the Equipment subtype, and the Aura and Fortification subtypes while I'm at it. It would free up the typeline for other subtypes. And before anyone says that it would throw things off, no it wouldn't; change Oracle text that refers to Equipment to refer to cards with equip, and Auras instead to cards with enchant. Simple.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
Flavor and the possibility of there being mechanics.
The latter of those is fine; the former is not (in my opinion) sufficient justification for changing rules-relevant features of a card.
Yes, making cards Candles, Dolls, Havens, Battlements, Songs and so forth may not hold water right when you do so, but it provides the option later, and really isn't going to be all that distracting. Old players will know to ignore subtypes if they don't see a new card that exploits it, and new players will see something alongside creature types to catch the eye and stimulate ideas for deck design, even if only for a theme. I honestly see no fault in doing so.
Then I wouldn't have a problem with those subtypes being added at the same time such cards are printed. Adding a subtype to a card now just so that something relevant can be done with that subtype years from now seems like adding another degree of separation between the printed card and the Oracle text with no real added benefit.
Me personally, I'd actually get rid of the Equipment subtype, and the Aura and Fortification subtypes while I'm at it. It would free up the typeline for other subtypes. And before anyone says that it would throw things off, no it wouldn't; change Oracle text that refers to Equipment to refer to cards with equip, and Auras instead to cards with enchant. Simple
Those subtypes actually reflect something that the card does; in my opinion those subtypes are far more useful than what you're proposing here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
I do have to admit, subtypes for equipment etc would allow cards like:
Valiant Blacksmith3W
Creature - Human Soldier (C)
When Valiant Blacksmith enters the battlefield, you may search your library for an Armor card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. If you do, shuffle your library.
2/2
Sage of the College1U
Creature - Wizard (C)
As long as Sage of the College is equipped with a Staff, it has "U, T: Tap target creature."
2/2
Frontline Imperial2W
Creature - Human Warrior (C)
As long as Frontline Imperial is equipped with a Polearm, it gets +1/+1 and has first strike.
2/2
Jack of Blades3W
Creature - Human Soldier (R)
Jack of Blades gets +1/+1 for each equipment type among equipments you control. 1WW: Attach target equipment you control to Jack of Blades.
2/3
They are pretty parasitic but the flavour is nice. However without a total reset of the game they would probably never be implemented.
EDIT: These are fun.
Swordsoul Sage2UU
Creature - Human Warrior (R) U: Until end of turn, target Sword you control becomes an artifact Construct creature with power and toughness equal to its converted mana cost.
2/2
Siege Marshal1WR
Creature - Human Warrior (R)
Tap an untapped Catapult you control: Siege Marshal deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
2/2
Dashing Charioteer2R
Creature - Human Warrior (C)
As long as you control a Chariot, Dashing Charioteer gets +1/+1 and has haste.
2/2
I keep hearing this...you people do realize I'm not saying that subtypes should in turn have subtypes, right? I just want to expand upon available options and properly represent every cards' elements in the same way creatures' elements are represented, as that opens up design space in a way that isn't overtly complex.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And...with that disclaimer out of the way, I posit Exactly What It Says On the Tin: what types might there or should there be for cards that aren't creatures, planeswalkers, or lands whose main defining characteristic is a basic land type? Here some ideas I've had lately with an example for each:
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
Instead try actual subtypes, that can actually mean something. Like one for Burn spells, and one for pump spells, where they describe what the spell is doing. It's still a poor addition to the game, but it's better than "spring" and "stick".
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Unless we're about to see a "Candles matter" set, then there's no point in making an "Artifact - Candle".
But I think that point has been already brought up, so allow me to add something new to the conversation.
I have mixed feelings about Equipment subtypes. I mean, yeah, making a card that says "Artifact - Equipment Sword" is pretty cool flavor-wise, and could potentially make for some cool flavorful cards that interact with them.
But Equipment is already a subtype, and it just seems excessive to add more subtypes for no real reason other than cool flavor.
So, if we're going to be adding new subtypes to Artifacts, I feel that they need to be something new, not just adding more subtypes to already subtyped Artifacts.
For example, Fortifications. Sure, they're just Equipment for land, but they're still a different subtype from Equipment that does something different, and while we don't have any cards right now that interact with Fortifications, they wouldn't be that hard to make cards that mechanically care about the subtype.
So....does anybody have any good ideas for new Artifact subtypes that would actually do something?
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
Sigh. Disclaimers mean nothing anymore it seems.
The point I'm trying to make is not trying to make things complicated, it's in providing another possible path to follow in either set or deck design. And as I keep trying to point out, this argument falls flat when you consider that few creature types are specifically designed to be a mechanic, and even more so when you consider the number of creature types that have ZERO mechanical support, or that often seem superfluous. Do we need to have both Angels and Archons, or Hippos and Phelddagrifs, or Atogs and Frogs? Heck, outside of Atogatog, nothing I just mentioned has ANY tribal support.
Even if you're worried about people taking mechanical implications that don't yet exist too seriously, then again take lessons from how creature types were standardized: from 8th through Dissension, reprints of older creatures had refined typelines that better fit their concept (usually just adding Human, admittedly), culminating in the Grand Creature Type Update in 10th. Just do the same for other types: put new subtypes on each subsequent card (where appropriate) and on reprints where there wouldn't be any functional change, keep it up for a few years, then go back update all of the old stuff. Considering how few lands there are, and how many subtypes exist there as is outside of the basics, that one in particular could easily undergo this process.
Flavor and the possibility of there being mechanics. Did anyone think beforehand that the Fox or Snake types would ever get any real support? Or the Kithkin and Treefolk types? Phyrexia, to use a recent example, did anyone ever think the Human type would ever amount to anything? Even I didn't think so, and I'm one of the most dedicated people you will ever see when it comes to taking material that already exists and expanding upon it any realistic way I can.
Yes, making cards Candles, Dolls, Havens, Battlements, Songs and so forth may not hold water right when you do so, but it provides the option later, and really isn't going to be all that distracting. Old players will know to ignore subtypes if they don't see a new card that exploits it, and new players will see something alongside creature types to catch the eye and stimulate ideas for deck design, even if only for a theme. I honestly see no fault in doing so.
I didn't post an example of a Shrine because most people already know about that actual subtype and...well, the only other Shrines that I could figure were from the cycle in Odyssey block. I'm sure other enchantments would work, but that type was harder for me to grok than the others.
Me personally, I'd actually get rid of the Equipment subtype, and the Aura and Fortification subtypes while I'm at it. It would free up the typeline for other subtypes. And before anyone says that it would throw things off, no it wouldn't; change Oracle text that refers to Equipment to refer to cards with equip, and Auras instead to cards with enchant. Simple.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
The latter of those is fine; the former is not (in my opinion) sufficient justification for changing rules-relevant features of a card.
Then I wouldn't have a problem with those subtypes being added at the same time such cards are printed. Adding a subtype to a card now just so that something relevant can be done with that subtype years from now seems like adding another degree of separation between the printed card and the Oracle text with no real added benefit.
Those subtypes actually reflect something that the card does; in my opinion those subtypes are far more useful than what you're proposing here.
I want equipment to have subtypes now...
I keep hearing this...you people do realize I'm not saying that subtypes should in turn have subtypes, right? I just want to expand upon available options and properly represent every cards' elements in the same way creatures' elements are represented, as that opens up design space in a way that isn't overtly complex.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.