I think the fact that people can't seem to agree whether or not reducing by reduces it to makes it unlikely that the card is real. I think Wizards would realize that many people would find the reminder text ambiguous, and would probably have specified.
It's quite unlikely that Wizards would hard-code relations between the colors and five specific creature types in a keyword's definition. And note that the keyword as presented is not "Kinship for Wizards," but simply "Kinship."
They did the same thing for Amplify, so I see no problem with it.
No, they didn't. Amplify n means it gets n +1/+1 counters for each other card sharing a creature type with it that you reveal from your hand as it comes into play. No creature type/color hardcoded relations anywhere.
EDIT: What I mean is, Kinship on a card may mean "this card costs one colored mana for each permanent that shares a color with it", and they'd just play it the user-friendly way and spell out the variables on the reminder text.
That template doesn't fit the supplied reminder text (assuming you mean "one colored mana less"). It says for each Wizard you control, not each blue permanent you control; and Wizards aren't even necessarily blue.
One possible template for Kinship that would fit with the supplied reminder text would be "This spell costs you one mana of any color less to play for each permanent you control that shares a creature type with it" - since the only colored mana in Mental Block's cost is :symu:, it works, if we assume that Wizards thinks people will realize that reduced by is :0mana:. The only case when this reminder text would not fit the template is if the card's cost were somehow increased by mana of a non-blue color, which is not possible with current cards. (The only cards that increase mana costs by colored mana are the Leech cycle, so to increase it by a color other than blue, it would have to be made non-blue; but current cards can only change the color of permanents and spells (as well as any cards for the forseeable future, as changing the color of other cards would just be too confusing, I think it's safe to say). So for such a thing to apply, you would have to play this, someone would have to change its color while it was on the stack, and then you would have to have some way of playing it again from the stack itself (!), which of course does not currently exist.
...yeah, that was a bit of a tangent. Point is, the template I have suggested does fit the supplied reminder text except in corner cases that do not currently exist and are unlikely ever to, if we assume Wizards thinks players realize :1mana:-:symu:=:0mana:.
Of course I suppose it's all sort of moot if the cards are fake, and if this really is what Kinship is, this seems like an unlikely way of implementing it. Consider - WotC probably isn't going to be changing the creature types of these cards in the future, but they've done it before. Daru Stinger got way better because of the Grand Creature Type Update; chances are, they'd do something like "Kinship with Wizards" to prevent such a thing. And are they really going to bring back Affinity so soon, in a form that's potentially even more powerful?
Well, if we look strictly at creatures with largest P/T, i.e., those such that no other creature in the set has larger power or larger toughness, then not every set has one. But if we look instead at creatures with maximal P/T, i.e., those creatures such that no other creature in the set has both larger power and larger toughness, then there are in fact several that are mono-white:
"The good news is that affinity has proven itself to be an interesting and popular mechanic. This means it will come back (and I predict closer to the cycling end of the spectrum than the snow-covered land end). And next time it will do some cool things we won’t do this time around."
Of course, that "popular" bit would later prove untrue... still, while I don't expect it in Morningtide for the reasons Charlequin has pointed out, if it really does have as much design space as he suggests, we probably will see it again sometime - just probably in more wacky/less reliable forms like the "affinity for cards in your hand" he suggests.
IIRC, back in 5th edition rules cards set aside or placed underneath another card - or anything that would not be in one of the usual zones, but was intended to come back - went not to the RFG zone but rather to a separate "removed from play" zone. Wonder why they merged the two?
As for the Unglued hint he dropped, I'm wondering if we're going to see more "teammate" cards. If that is what he is hinting at, Maro needs to get a life
Oh man! You beat me by 2 minutes. I started writing before you finished and thought I was the first one to suggest that.
IIRC, we've already been told that Lorwyn will have cards for team play. So I'm guessing that the resource introduced in Unglued will be either your teammates' life (Get a Life) or their creatures (Organ Harvest).
I have Experiment Kraj, Garruk, Mycosynth Lattice, and March of the Machines in play. What happens if I use Kraj's ability to put a +1/+1 counter on Garruk, then use one of Garruks abilities from Kraj? Will the Kraj get Loyalty counters? And does it have the once per turn restriction that the planeswalker has? Does it even have the sorcery speed restriction? OMG WTF SUPER PLANESWALKER FTW!
Amazing! Of course, Kraj starts with no loyalty counters, but...
People seem to be confused about this, so let's clear this up - if you have a PW out, your opponent shocks you, and you healing salve yourself, you decide which order to apply the replacement effects in. This means you can prevent the damage before it's redirected to one of your planeswalkers. However you can also choose to let him redirect it first, in which case the damage will only be prevented if he deals it to you.
Also, some people seem to be forgetting this, so it's probably worth noting that in addition to vindicates and burn, there is a third way of removing planeswalkers: attacking them. It's relatively slow, to be sure, allowing them to regenerate a bit if you don't destroy them, and it means those creatures aren't attacking the actual enemy, but it does remove loyalty counters, so even if you don't destroy them this way, there's a good chance you can somewhat neutralize them. Well, except for those pesky +1 abilities.
Animate Dead
{1}{B}
Enchantment -- Aura
Enchant creature card in a graveyard
When Animate Dead comes into play, if it's in play, it loses "enchant creature card in a graveyard" and gains "enchant creature put into play with Animate Dead." Return enchanted creature card to play under your control and attach Animate Dead to it. When Animate Dead leaves play, that creature's controller sacrifices it.
Enchanted creature gets -1/-0.
Interesting. It looks like the combo with Worldgorger Dragon still works, though. I wonder what the point of the "if it's in play" rider is? If it's not in play, changing what it can enchant won't affect anything, surely?
Oubliette
{1}{B}{B}
Enchantment
When Oubliette comes into play, remove target creature and all Auras attached to it from the game. Note the number and kind of counters that were on that creature.
When Oubliette leaves play, return the removed card to play under its owner’s control tapped with the noted number and kind of counters on it. If you do, return the removed Aura cards to play under their owner’s control attached to that permanent.
Tawnos's Coffin
{4}
Artifact
You may choose not to untap Tawnos’s Coffin during your untap step.
{3}, {T}: Remove target creature and all Auras attached to it from the game. Note the number and kind of counters that were on that creature. When Tawnos’s Coffin leaves play or becomes untapped, return the removed card to play under its owner’s control tapped with the noted number and kind of counters on it, and if you do, return the removed Aura cards to play under their owner’s control attached to that permanent.
They got rid of the "phases out" templating? But it was so much simpler! Boo... :-P
No, it says the world of Lorwyn.
I think it is a fair enough observation.
She is either in 'the world of Lorwyn' or not.
If she isn't, she is a Planeswalker, and if she is, she wouldn't be 'drawn to it' because she would be in it already.
Well, I think it reads more as drawn to this "greater force" rather than drawn to "the world of Lorwyn", but I'm going to have to agree that it suggests she is a Planeswalker, based on the statement that she "seeks [it] in the world of Lorwyn".
No, they didn't. Amplify n means it gets n +1/+1 counters for each other card sharing a creature type with it that you reveal from your hand as it comes into play. No creature type/color hardcoded relations anywhere.
That template doesn't fit the supplied reminder text (assuming you mean "one colored mana less"). It says for each Wizard you control, not each blue permanent you control; and Wizards aren't even necessarily blue.
One possible template for Kinship that would fit with the supplied reminder text would be "This spell costs you one mana of any color less to play for each permanent you control that shares a creature type with it" - since the only colored mana in Mental Block's cost is :symu:, it works, if we assume that Wizards thinks people will realize that
...yeah, that was a bit of a tangent. Point is, the template I have suggested does fit the supplied reminder text except in corner cases that do not currently exist and are unlikely ever to, if we assume Wizards thinks players realize :1mana:-:symu:=:0mana:.
Of course I suppose it's all sort of moot if the cards are fake, and if this really is what Kinship is, this seems like an unlikely way of implementing it. Consider - WotC probably isn't going to be changing the creature types of these cards in the future, but they've done it before. Daru Stinger got way better because of the Grand Creature Type Update; chances are, they'd do something like "Kinship with Wizards" to prevent such a thing. And are they really going to bring back Affinity so soon, in a form that's potentially even more powerful?
Too bad if they are fake, they're kind of cool.
Inveigle
1UU
Sorcery
Gain control of target planeswalker with loyalty at most 1.
"What's he ever done for you, anyway?"
From Legends, Akron Legionnaire; from Exodus, Wall of Nets and Exalted Dragon; and from Prophecy, Avatar of Hope.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr107
"The good news is that affinity has proven itself to be an interesting and popular mechanic. This means it will come back (and I predict closer to the cycling end of the spectrum than the snow-covered land end). And next time it will do some cool things we won’t do this time around."
Of course, that "popular" bit would later prove untrue... still, while I don't expect it in Morningtide for the reasons Charlequin has pointed out, if it really does have as much design space as he suggests, we probably will see it again sometime - just probably in more wacky/less reliable forms like the "affinity for cards in your hand" he suggests.
Oh man! You beat me by 2 minutes.
Amazing! Of course, Kraj starts with no loyalty counters, but...
Also, some people seem to be forgetting this, so it's probably worth noting that in addition to vindicates and burn, there is a third way of removing planeswalkers: attacking them. It's relatively slow, to be sure, allowing them to regenerate a bit if you don't destroy them, and it means those creatures aren't attacking the actual enemy, but it does remove loyalty counters, so even if you don't destroy them this way, there's a good chance you can somewhat neutralize them. Well, except for those pesky +1 abilities.
Interesting. It looks like the combo with Worldgorger Dragon still works, though. I wonder what the point of the "if it's in play" rider is? If it's not in play, changing what it can enchant won't affect anything, surely?
They got rid of the "phases out" templating? But it was so much simpler! Boo... :-P
Well, I think it reads more as drawn to this "greater force" rather than drawn to "the world of Lorwyn", but I'm going to have to agree that it suggests she is a Planeswalker, based on the statement that she "seeks [it] in the world of Lorwyn".