The intent of this to clarify and simplify the wording around mill. I'm going to call it mill to distinguish from destroy.
If the purpose is to make the game easier to understand, then I imagine it likely there would be errata or phrasing changes to cards like Armageddon. After all, you have a word that originally meant to target cards in play. Now the word means to mill as well? When does a card mean to destroy from the battlefield or to mill from the library? How much errata would need to be added and how many players be confused or abuse this? How many more rule changes are required for this kind of change? We're aware of the rules, but isn't the point of the cards wording such that one does not have to know the rules in their entirety to play?
Currently, many players use the word mill to pop the cards off the library into the graveyard. This explanation takes less than a few minutes, a little less if Millstone is handy. Even my nine year old child understands what mill really means yet immediately understood how it's used on one go through in the game despite not being keyworded. I think the difference here is that it's not keyworded. These cards literally explain what is to be done.
My problem here isn't the ousting of mill but rather giving dual meanings to destroy. I don't seeing it simplifying the game as intended, but rather making it more complex as card wording has to be altered to accommodate the intent.
I see what you're saying, but like Tim_T was doing, you're too stuck on what "destroy" currently means. You're looking at my suggestion as though "destroy" would now mean two different things: "put target permanent on the battlefield into its owner's graveyard," and "put the top N cards of target player's library into its owner's graveyard," when in reality it would still mean exactly the same thing: "put something into its owner's graveyard." The only difference is that it's from two different sources.
I can see how that might be weird to players who are used to the way things are and especially to players who use the word "mill," but I'd like you to try a little thought experiment. Take my suggested wording for mill, "destroy the top N cards of target player's library," and compare it to something like Armageddon, like you mentioned. You're worried that Armageddon could now be misunderstood to destroy land cards in libraries, and that's understandable considering how your mind is trained to understand "destroy."
Now take those same two effects, "destroy the top N cards of target player's library," and "destroy all lands," and replace the word "destroy" in both of them with "exile." Suddenly, it works fine. Both of those effects can exist perfectly well under Magic's current templating and there would be no misinterpretation of either effect.
What's the difference, then, between "destroy" and "exile?" I argue that there shouldn't be a difference. One means "put into its owner's graveyard" and the other means "put into exile." Following that logic, it shouldn't matter whether they're being destroyed/exiled from the battlefield or the library.
Now I finally understand how you feel it makes sense to replace it. It really does make sense that it could reasonably make sense as destroy, but I feel it will make too much confusion
I did. However having the same keyword for two different actions really doesn't make sense IMO.
What if they just changed the keyword to "mill", since that's what everyone calls it now anyway.
It would also create less confusion with cards such as narcomeaba as you said
Because of all of the real-world definitions of the word "mill," not a single one means anything that could even loosely be translated in-game to "put the top N cards of a library into its owner's graveyard." That's the whole reason it hasn't been keyworded yet. And, again, it would force new players to have to learn extra vocabulary, not to mention every card with the keyword "mill" would need reminder text for it anyway, so it actually fails at its original intended purpose of saving space.
Again, I go over all of this in the OP.
Yes but it's not destroying creatures. It's putting them into gy before even getting cast. I just don't understand your reasoning behind renaming it destroy.
It really doesn't make sense intuitively either. When people discard stuff, should it be called destroy because it goes to the yard?
Should counters read "destroy target spell on the stack". Idk that's just my two cents
I'm not sure if you know this but "destroy" is already used as a keyword in almost all kill spells Terminate
What if it was something like "pillage"
That's the point. The idea is that mill would play off the fact that "destroy" already means "put into its owner's graveyard." I'm not sure you read my whole post, but I suggest you do so.
I did. However having the same keyword for two different actions really doesn't make sense IMO.
What if they just changed the keyword to "mill", since that's what everyone calls it now anyway.
It would also create less confusion with cards such as narcomeaba as you said
I guess the real question we should be asking ourselves is how long until President Trump gets impeached from office since he's already treading on thin ice with the recent executive order on immigration by banning Muslim refugees from entering the country let alone state governments trying to pass hate speech bills into law that would be considered unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. An acquittal is more than likely unless something comes up in his tax returns that he's hiding for some apparent reason especially in regards to his conflicts of interest and his business ties across the globe though he could end up being forced to resign If the pressure of being POTUS gets too out of hand.
One could argue that the reason why Donald Trump got elected POTUS was due to a lie perpetrated by Russian propaganda that Hillary Clinton would've started World War III by implementing a no-fly zone in Syria when Chris Christie said he'd do the same thing as POTUS If elected as Rand Paul pointed out in the Republican Primaries last year. While it's true that the Democrats didn't reach out to the Middle Class far enough they still paid a heavy price partially due to false information of Hillary's e-mail server that the FBI believed to be true when it was all just Russian propaganda made up by Vladimir Putin to help get Donald Trump elected.
How do you think he's going to get impeached? He's done nothing wrong, and to be honest he has followed up on all of his campaign promises, which is something most politicians (ahem, Obama) have not done.
I may be biased as a conservative, but he seems to be doing a great job so far. You must've been reading a little too much of the propaganda known as CNN my friend...
It triggers, because curses "enchant target player".
I'm not a judge or anything but I'm 99% sure the curse will be assigned to a random player.
Also, that sounds like a funny play in a multiplayer match
Hey guys, I was wondering what deck I should create. I like any sort of play style and am not picky, but being very budget on the new cards is what I prefer.
The two decks I already have is grixis delver and ad nauseam. Therefore, I have a playset of snapcaster mages, and the lands for the two decks (minus scalding tarn) The things I am missing in these decks are: AV for delver sideboard, and 3 (out of 4) pact of negation in ad naus. The manabase for ad nauseam is all fastlands, but two hallowed fountains. The delver deck has a typical manabase with fetches shocks and spirebluff canal.
So, my question is, what deck should I begin to build into, that will cost me the least amount of money, considering the cards I already possess? Thanks so much!
I am reposting this as I did not get a response last time. Can you guys help me out? Thanks!
So you have spirebluff, hallowed fountains, the grixis (I presume) delver manabase, and want to try something new? Go Jeskai with the manabase you have, pick up 4 copies of Saheeli and Felidar Guardian, and play twinless twin. Possible purchases u may need to make are path and helix if you dont have these staples already.
Lol that deck looks hilarious. I have most of those and it looks funny to play
Hey guys, I was wondering what deck I should create. I like any sort of play style and am not picky, but being very budget on the new cards is what I prefer.
The two decks I already have is grixis delver and ad nauseam. Therefore, I have a playset of snapcaster mages, and the lands for the two decks (minus scalding tarn) The things I am missing in these decks are: AV for delver sideboard, and 3 (out of 4) pact of negation in ad naus. The manabase for ad nauseam is all fastlands, but two hallowed fountains. The delver deck has a typical manabase with fetches shocks and spirebluff canal.
So, my question is, what deck should I begin to build into, that will cost me the least amount of money, considering the cards I already possess? Thanks so much!
I am reposting this as I did not get a response last time. Can you guys help me out? Thanks!
I'd reccomend Delver. AV isn't necessary, it's good but there are some pretty good lists that don't run it (the same can't be said about pact in ad nauseam).
Hey guys, I was wondering what deck I should create. I like any sort of play style and am not picky, but being very budget on the new cards is what I prefer.
The two decks I already have is grixis delver and ad nauseam. Therefore, I have a playset of snapcaster mages, and the lands for the two decks (minus scalding tarn) The things I am missing in these decks are: AV for delver sideboard, and 3 (out of 4) pact of negation in ad naus. The manabase for ad nauseam is all fastlands, but two hallowed fountains. The delver deck has a typical manabase with fetches shocks and spirebluff canal.
So, my question is, what deck should I begin to build into, that will cost me the least amount of money, considering the cards I already possess? Thanks so much!
I am reposting this as I did not get a response last time. Can you guys help me out? Thanks!
Karlov is positive? He is a decadant and corrupt ghost.
He's pretty good in edh though...
Why does it matter whether or not people are obese in magic? Most people are warriors and have no choice but to be fit.
Hey guys, I was wondering what deck I should create. I like any sort of play style and am not picky, but being very budget on the new cards is what I prefer.
The two decks I already have is grixis delver and ad nauseam. Therefore, I have a playset of snapcaster mages, and the lands for the two decks (minus scalding tarn) The things I am missing in these decks are: AV for delver sideboard, and 3 (out of 4) pact of negation in ad naus. The manabase for ad nauseam is all fastlands, but two hallowed fountains. The delver deck has a typical manabase with fetches shocks and spirebluff canal.
So, my question is, what deck should I begin to build into, that will cost me the least amount of money, considering the cards I already possess? Thanks so much!
Now I finally understand how you feel it makes sense to replace it. It really does make sense that it could reasonably make sense as destroy, but I feel it will make too much confusion
Yes but it's not destroying creatures. It's putting them into gy before even getting cast. I just don't understand your reasoning behind renaming it destroy.
It really doesn't make sense intuitively either. When people discard stuff, should it be called destroy because it goes to the yard?
Should counters read "destroy target spell on the stack". Idk that's just my two cents
I did. However having the same keyword for two different actions really doesn't make sense IMO.
What if they just changed the keyword to "mill", since that's what everyone calls it now anyway.
It would also create less confusion with cards such as narcomeaba as you said
What if it was something like "pillage"
How do you think he's going to get impeached? He's done nothing wrong, and to be honest he has followed up on all of his campaign promises, which is something most politicians (ahem, Obama) have not done.
I may be biased as a conservative, but he seems to be doing a great job so far. You must've been reading a little too much of the propaganda known as CNN my friend...
I'm not a judge or anything but I'm 99% sure the curse will be assigned to a random player.
Also, that sounds like a funny play in a multiplayer match
https://imgur.com/gallery/V11En
Also if any of you guys have any extra alters laying around pm me, I'll trade for them, thanks!
Lol that deck looks hilarious. I have most of those and it looks funny to play
I already said I have delver :/
The two decks I already have is grixis delver and ad nauseam. Therefore, I have a playset of snapcaster mages, and the lands for the two decks (minus scalding tarn) The things I am missing in these decks are: AV for delver sideboard, and 3 (out of 4) pact of negation in ad naus. The manabase for ad nauseam is all fastlands, but two hallowed fountains. The delver deck has a typical manabase with fetches shocks and spirebluff canal.
So, my question is, what deck should I begin to build into, that will cost me the least amount of money, considering the cards I already possess? Thanks so much!
I am reposting this as I did not get a response last time. Can you guys help me out? Thanks!
He's pretty good in edh though...
Why does it matter whether or not people are obese in magic? Most people are warriors and have no choice but to be fit.
The two decks I already have is grixis delver and ad nauseam. Therefore, I have a playset of snapcaster mages, and the lands for the two decks (minus scalding tarn) The things I am missing in these decks are: AV for delver sideboard, and 3 (out of 4) pact of negation in ad naus. The manabase for ad nauseam is all fastlands, but two hallowed fountains. The delver deck has a typical manabase with fetches shocks and spirebluff canal.
So, my question is, what deck should I begin to build into, that will cost me the least amount of money, considering the cards I already possess? Thanks so much!