Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Discussion - Tribal qualifications

  1. #1

    Discussion - Tribal qualifications

    Just curious how the rest of the community feels on this topic. For something to be considered "tribal" does that mean all creatures have to have that type? What about the shapeshifters or the "this is all creature types" type cards? What about something that is out of flavor? For example, a Mark of the Vampire in a tribal pirates deck?

    This doesn't really mean anything in the scope of the game, but was just curious on other's thoughts. I personally try not to include a "vampire" type card in a pirate deck, at the detriment to competitiveness and was just curious where everyone else drew the line. Obviously this is in the casual forum for a reason.

  2. #2

    Re: Discussion - Tribal qualifications

    I would qualify a deck "tribal" if and only if its main engine/gameplan more than significantly relies on synergy between cards sharing a card type.

    Meaning whatever else you do "on the side" (utility, protection, ...) would not prevent it from "qualifying". It may feel a bit "inelegant" if there is some card directly referencing another tribe (either in name or type) and would try to avoid it (this is casual world after all). But in the end, and for the same reason, who cares really if your whatever tribe deck has a whatever else card in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    140x Relentless Rats
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Bleiweiss
    I wish that Wizards would have just gone ahead and done away with the Reserved List entirely. It is nothing but a blight on the game and one that long outlived its purpose. [...] I am wholeheartedly in favor of getting rid of the Reserved List and reprinting higher-dollar staple cards from EDH and Legacy. Pete Hoefling the owner of agrees with my point of view as well.
    - Ben Bleiweiss, SCG General Manager, Feb 2010

  3. #3

    Re: Discussion - Tribal qualifications

    I always try to stay as close to the chosen tribe as I can, counting in creature types, related spells and flavour texts. E.g. the latter convinced me that playing Basilisk Collar in my zombie deck is fine.
    I just take so much joy in creating these little worlds inside my decks, that I'd call myself an extremist when it comes to this topic.
    To me shapeshifters are a creature type for themselves, I wouldn't play them in other casual decks but pure shapeshifter tribal. Taurean Mauler in my legacy goblin deck -> sure, give it a try. But for a casual version I'd rather go for Battle Squadron. If I was building an illusion tribal deck and Mistform Ultimus had some kind of playability through interaction with other cards, why not.. But then again I think I can be more creative than playing Phantasmal Image in a casual merfolk deck

  4. #4

    Re: Discussion - Tribal qualifications

    "inelegance" is probably the perfect word to describe what I was trying to explain in the OP. Thanks!

    And stormflogger, the card in question was adaptive automaton after seeing it in the new explorers pack. I feel like that would fall into the "inelegance" category, but I am new to the tribal world so wanted to just poll the audience here. And I think I have my answer!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)