Your example doesn't quite work by that metric. However, it also doesn't work by a different metric. This set wasn't made by Aztecs. They're all dead, for one. But it also wasn't made by the modern Indigenous cultures. It was made by mostly white people, of a mostly Jewish or Christian background. It's Westerners adding their culture to media that is largely pulled from a different culture. One they're treating with, from my admittedly ignorant eyes, with some amount of respect.
You should watch some of the discussion by Ovidio Cartena, the set’s creative lead, before you talk about “Westerners adding their culture”
(And, ironically, Seattle is further west than anywhere in central and South America)
There's kind of a big history of white western fantasy taking whatever the hell concepts it likes from nonwestern, nonwhite cultures and religions and just doing whatever the hell they want with it
While factually correct, it's intellectually dishonest to put the words "nonwestern" and "nonwhite" etc in front, because this isn't specifically something that happens when western fiction adapts nonwestern mythology. Elves, dwarves and goblins are all vastly different from what they are in original mythology and folklore (across works of fiction, not just talking about MtG here). Same with many creatures from greek mythology.
Yes, it's true that it happens, but it's not specific to western culture adapting non-western mythology for fictional purposes. It also happens the other way around.
It's just a normal thing that happens. Whether or not that's a good thing and whether or not Wizards is right in avoiding doing that is another issue entirely, but wording it like it was done here is just intellectually dishonest.
The difference being that elves/goblins/dwarves aren't part of a living and practiced religion as Rakshasa are a part of Hinduism.
WotC have not stated there reasoning for the Rakshasa change. If the assumed reasoning is theirs, I personally think a different approach solves the issue as well without errata: Tarkir Rakshasa are Cat Demons, D&D Rakshasa are Cat Devils, other Rakshasa are just Demons. We have seen cases where a plane treats a kind of creature to a different set of creature types before e. g. Dryads are also Nymphs, but only on Theros.
As mentioned above even Rakshasa is not yet handled consistently due to D&D flipping Demons and Devils. If the stated assumed reason is the whole story... but how will we know?
Maro confirmed that the Rakshasa change is because Rakshasas in actual Hindu mythology aren’t cats, just shapeshifting demons. Since Hinduism is a living religion, they want to be more respectfully accurate with their reference than something like Greek mythology with isn’t practiced in a meaningful religious way in the present.
This is similar to how Kiora was originally introduced as Kiora Atua, but the last name was dropped when they learned it was a religious term to Polynesian cultures.
I didn't knew the rules allowed permanents that aren't creatures to make damages to other things. Interesting.
Any effect can define something to deal damage to something else. Having the land do it here instead of the spell is just a silly flavor bit to rep the creature getting dropped by the pteranodon.
Yeah but then you'd be paying 3 per trigger, 2 for cracking the Food token to gain 3 life and 1 to get an additional effect which seems less efficient IMO.
User is right, the card draw should have a cost attached to it, when you consider the number of ways to sacrifice food for free rather than using Food’s activated ability. However, adding that cost to the trigger does mean your card can actually make a food on ETB so you’re guaranteed at least on draw if you miss on your other food production.
Similar effects like Fact or Fiction don’t target, so this shouldn’t either.
The effect should be correctly worded as
(When you cast this spell, you may have an opponent look at your hand and exile a card from it. When they exile a card this way, draw three cards then discard two cards.)
There was originally a clause that said, "if you do, and a card is exiled this way". However, it makes no sense that you will get an effect without the conditions being fulfilled (a card being exiled). Also, a more elegant way to solve this would be to simply have it target the card in your hand, yes?
Otherwise, just [If a card is exiled, draw three cards then discard two cards].
It makes no sense to you, but it’s how the card actually works. Your wording specifically says
“As you cast this spell, you may have an opponent look at your hand and exile a card from it. If you do, draw three cards then discard two cards.”
“IF YOU DO…” refers to your choice to let them look at your hand, irrespective if there are cards for them to see or exile. If you want to make it actually conditional, the IF clause has to refer to the card itself getting exiled
This should be written the other way, "If you would tap three creatures to pay a cost for a spell or ability, you may tap one untapped creature instead."
That said, user is right that this is such a niche ability that its not really going to be relevant. Plus, your deus ex machina ability needs to be reworded because you can currently choose to let your opponent look at your hand of no cards to let you draw three and discard two for no loss of your own.
Reminder to everyone that just because its a Marvel crossover, it isn't definitionally tied to the MCU. We can reasonably expect to see Avengers, Xmen, Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Inhumans, and any mix of storylines and teams. It is far more likely that the reference point will be the comics in general rather than the disney films/tv in particular.
and for heroes we know by default we will get atleast iron man, captain America, spider man, hulk, most members of X-men. Also these heroes main allys/sidekicks/villains
Given the Sony licensing things around Spider-man, there’s always some semblance of a chance he may not make it
Sony only has film rights, Marvel Comics can license Spidey (and anyone else) to anyone they want for games
(And, ironically, Seattle is further west than anywhere in central and South America)
This is similar to how Kiora was originally introduced as Kiora Atua, but the last name was dropped when they learned it was a religious term to Polynesian cultures.
Similar effects like Fact or Fiction don’t target, so this shouldn’t either.
The effect should be correctly worded as
(When you cast this spell, you may have an opponent look at your hand and exile a card from it. When they exile a card this way, draw three cards then discard two cards.)
“As you cast this spell, you may have an opponent look at your hand and exile a card from it. If you do, draw three cards then discard two cards.”
“IF YOU DO…” refers to your choice to let them look at your hand, irrespective if there are cards for them to see or exile. If you want to make it actually conditional, the IF clause has to refer to the card itself getting exiled
That said, user is right that this is such a niche ability that its not really going to be relevant. Plus, your deus ex machina ability needs to be reworded because you can currently choose to let your opponent look at your hand of no cards to let you draw three and discard two for no loss of your own.