The unexecuted Magic 2010 changes

[SilverGreen]

By that time, we’re all used – agreed or not – to the terminology changes attached to the Magic 2010 rules changes. In which concerns to me, that was always an enthusiastic of the fantasy flavor of the game, I’m not only glad with the changes, but also feel that even more could be done. I consider the name changes of the “in play” and “removed from the game” zones to “battlefield” and “exile”, as well as the dissection of the term “play” in “cast”, “play” and “activate”, things extremely pertinent and profitable to the game, as long as people get used to them. But I also see this change as an started and unfinished job.

We all were also beginners one day, and the majority of us must remember the time we were put in contact with the game for the first time. Furthermore, as someone that has presenting – and teaching – the basis of the game to many laic people over fourteen years, I consider myself a person with at least a reasonable perception of how a beginner sees – and understands – the game. Based on it, I think that many changes could be implemented, changes that have the exact same pertinence degree than the executed ones, and wasn’t. I think Wizards is throwing away a very nice opportunity to end some ambiguities and unnecessary confusions, as well as condense and clarify some important game terms. Old and flavorful terms, like “summon” (cast a creature spell) or “bury” (destroy a creature without the possibility of regeneration) are – or have been – considered by Wizards’ R&D “obsolete”, although they fall into the exact same category of terms like the new “exile” or the new-old “cast”: they’re all keyword actions (a verb that implies an action inherent to the game). I think this terms have an incredible potential in which concerns to functionality, in the presentation of the game to new players, as well as a design tool. These keyword actions are flavorful and intuitive (Alpha-level flavorful and intuitive!) and save a lot of text space on cards. For example, until the 5th Edition, the text on Wrath of God ( may God keep’it – pardon the pun!) was only three words short (Bury all creatures), and was perfectly and instantly understandable. Under a didactic and empyrean perspective, it’s much, much easier for a beginner to understand the meaning of “bury” a creature than “destroy it without it can regenerate” (furthermore, a long, wide phrase, with even an unnecessary keyword action attached).

All without even speak about the confusion created by the two meanings of the word “counter” in English-written Magic (other languages do not suffer from it), the verb and the substantive. An ambiguity easily addressable with the substitution of one of the terms: possibly cancel for the verb, or marquee for the substantive (I vote for the later).

And the change I would really love to see happening, that would be a lot useful and functional, although cataclysmal, would be the extinction of the instant kind, which would become a sorcery subtype (as auras are an enchantment subtype now). The exact same kind of change that was done before with interrupts becoming instants, and the enchant <type> becoming auras. Changes that made a lot of noise in their time but nowadays are totally integrated to the game. One of the major problems I find when teaching new players the game is the difference between sorceries and instants. The “sorcery” concept is very simple to understand, something inherent to the fantasy genre. Sorceries are quite the opposite of the permanents. But instants ends more often as just “sorceries you may cast anytime”. This compressing would cut off this problem, with no losses to the game beyond the necessity of another massive actualization on Oracle database (and in our synapses). Plus, it would have a HUGE impact on Legacy, as long as fetchland>cantrip and the like would be very less effective ways to feed Tarmogoyfs.

We all know this unexecuted changes were exhaustively debated by Wizards during M10 rules elaboration (as MaRo and Tom LaPille said more than one time), but I would like a lot to hear (or read) from them the motivations that let these changes out. What do you think about it?

[JeroenC]

I never understood the problems with counter. Okay, it's the same word twice, but it's always perfectly clear through the wording of a card.
I never played with pre-6th Ed, but turning Interrupt into Instant seems less gamechanging than Instant into Sorcery. I played with Portal a couple of time, and the difference between Instant and Sorcery is one that makes a lot of sense. Since 6th Ed, enough cards has been printed that distinct Sorcery and Instant (Anarchist, Tarmagoyf, Burning or Cunning Wish, etc.) for it to be something they probably shouldn't do.
Enchant <X> was always a subspecies of enchantments, so creating Aura was just a logical move.

[DrJones]

I'm all in favor of an instant supertype, that would allow for instant sorceries, instant creatures, instant lands and instant coffee.

I'm also all in favor of having things like protection from a color and shroud work while the spell is on the stack (and optionally in the graveyard). I don't like how it works now.

[JeroenC]

Oh, and also, the summon thing is just confusing, because a card is summon in hand/stack, and creature in play.

[ScatmanX]

I'm all in favor of an instant supertype, that would allow for instant sorceries, instant creatures, instant lands and instant coffee.

That is called Flash.

[SilverGreen]

I never understood the problems with counter. Okay, it's the same word twice, but it's always perfectly clear through the wording of a card.
I never played with pre-6th Ed, but turning Interrupt into Instant seems less gamechanging than Instant into Sorcery. I played with Portal a couple of time, and the difference between Instant and Sorcery is one that makes a lot of sense. Since 6th Ed, enough cards has been printed that distinct Sorcery and Instant (Anarchist, Tarmagoyf, Burning or Cunning Wish, etc.) for it to be something they probably shouldn't do.
Enchant <X> was always a subspecies of enchantments, so creating Aura was just a logical move.

(...)

Oh, and also, the summon thing is just confusing, because a card is summon in hand/stack, and creature in play.
Summon is a keyword action here, not a card type. A player would summon a creature the same way he plais a land, he scries, he clashes or he sacrifices something. "Whenever a player summons a creature" would have the same meaning of "whenever a player casts a creature spell", for example. Shorter, flavorful and intuitive.

Cards that care about instants or sorceries wouldn't change their functionalities nor receive any functional errata in this case. Cunning Wish would still fetch instants; Envelop would still counter non-instant sorceries (although now that Negate obsoleted Flash Counter, it could get a power boost and keep its Oracle text unchangeg); Nucklavee would still regrowing red non-instant sorceries and blue instants. It would be just another terminology change.

I played long before and during 6th Edition rules advent, and belive me, changing instants into sorceries would be nothing in front of changing interrupts into instants. The former is just a matter or terminology, with no greater implications; the later was about an entire functional change, with lots of previous rules baggage suddenly disappearing. Kind of like the new combat rules change, more or less (that I also liked a lot).

And you never understood the problem with counter because you're used to it, as simple as that. Under a begginer standpoint, it would be much more simple to understand that a counter "counters" (or cancels) a spell, and that a marquee "marks" a permanent. In the exact same fashion as a player now casts a spell, plays a land and activates an activated ability.

[Nihil Credo]

Cards that care about instants or sorceries wouldn't change their functionalities nor receive any functional errata in this case. Cunning Wish would still fetch instants; Envelop would still counter non-instant sorceries (although now that Negate obsoleted Flash Counter, it could get a power boost and keep its Oracle text unchangeg); Nucklavee would still regrowing red non-instant sorceries and blue instants. It would be just another terminology change.

I played long before and during 6th Edition rules advent, and belive me, changing instants into sorceries would be nothing in front of changing interrupts into instants.

I don't know if it would look/feel better or worse, but it's a great way to give -1/-1 to Tarmogoyf without using power-level errata!

[SilverGreen]

I don't know if it would look/feel better or worse, but it's a great way to give -1/-1 to Tarmogoyf without using power-level errata!
It would be the Holy Grail for all the "ban Tarmogoyf now!!!" advocates. An elegant and clever way of hose it without actualy hose it.

And it would also make room for interesting "splice onto sorceries" abilities in the future, I guess.

[ScatmanX]

So, if I understand right, what you would like them to do is: All Instant spells became Sorceries, and have the ability Flash, right?

If yes, it does sound interesting.

[sorrel]

And you never understood the problem with counter because you're used to it, as simple as that. Under a begginer standpoint, it would be much more simple to understand that a counter "counters" (or cancels) a spell, and that a marquee "marks" a permanent. In the exact same fashion as a player now casts a spell, plays a land and activates an activated ability.
That's not true. I only learned how to play about two years ago, and that was never confusing. When I noticed that counter had two meanings, I thought about it for about ten seconds, shrugged, and went back to playing. People, especially the type of people most likely to play magic, are smart enough to understand the difference between a noun and a verb.

[beastman]

That's not true. I only learned how to play about two years ago, and that was never confusing. When I noticed that counter had two meanings, I thought about it for about ten seconds, shrugged, and went back to playing. People, especially the type of people most likely to play magic, are smart enough to understand the difference between a noun and a verb.


This.

[Atwa]

That's not true. I only learned how to play about two years ago, and that was never confusing. When I noticed that counter had two meanings, I thought about it for about ten seconds, shrugged, and went back to playing. People, especially the type of people most likely to play magic, are smart enough to understand the difference between a noun and a verb.

I have to agree eith this, but only to a lesser extent.

Normally I can understand the meaning of the word "counter"from the way it is used in a sentence, however I did have some trouble understanding it when I just started the game. I learned the game when I was 15, and my knowledge of english wasn't too great at that time.

For the people who have english as a native language, it shouldn't be a problem. However, there are also people living in countries in who's language there haven't been cards made (dutch in my case) and it can be (a little) confusing for those people.

I wouldn't change it just for those cases though, I understood it soon enough, but it can be a little confusing.

[morgan_coke]

I literally cannot explain how fully I support bringing back "bury" instead of the clunky "can't be regenerated". The bury term was so elegant and simple and descriptive.

Terror

Bury target non-black, non-artifact creature.

Wrath of God

Bury all creatures.

So simple, so awesome.

[JeroenC]

That's not true. I only learned how to play about two years ago, and that was never confusing. When I noticed that counter had two meanings, I thought about it for about ten seconds, shrugged, and went back to playing. People, especially the type of people most likely to play magic, are smart enough to understand the difference between a noun and a verb.

This, too. And English is not my mother tongue, either (Dutch too).:wink:


Summon is a keyword action here, not a card type. A player would summon a creature the same way he plais a land, he scries, he clashes or he sacrifices something. "Whenever a player summons a creature" would have the same meaning of "whenever a player casts a creature spell", for example. Shorter, flavorful and intuitive.
Actually, this would not be shorter or intuitive. This differs the playing of a creature spell from playing a sorcery spell. But they're actually just the same, with the only difference kicking in upon resolution. The "actions" taken to cast a creature spell are the same as for a sorcery spell (or instant). Lands get play, abilities get activate, because they require different actions.

[Skeggi]

That's not true. I only learned how to play about two years ago, and that was never confusing. When I noticed that counter had two meanings, I thought about it for about ten seconds, shrugged, and went back to playing. People, especially the type of people most likely to play magic, are smart enough to understand the difference between a noun and a verb.

Ok, fine, I'll admit to be the dumb one then. When I first started the game, I didn't even understand the word counter in a counterspell sort of way. But you wouldn't fix that problem by replacing it with a word like 'cancel', I'm not sure I would have understood that meaning. Let alone 'marquee'. But I am in favor of the distinction, if it were only that when I look at a card database like magiccards.info and want to search for interesting counterspells for a certain deck. I would like to use the keyword "counter" but I can't because of the other meaning of the word.


Terror

Bury target non-black, non-artifact creature.

You could take it further:

Terror

Bury target non-fearless (fearfull/fearing) creature.

Fearless (non-fearfull/fearing) being black or artifact creatures ofcourse... but that's probably taking it too far :wink:

I understand you need to be careful when introducing too many keywords to a game. Magic already has its entire own lingo, and how more you keyword, how more difficult it becomes to learn. I'm all for the Summon wording, I think it's awesome and adds alot of flavor, but Bury has been confusing I remember. So I think it was a good idea to cut it.

[herbig]

We should make all cards instants, and then grant a "can only be played during your main phase" clause to some of them. Disrupting Scepter would say "play this ability as an instant which can only be played during your main phase." Oh, also, all cards should be permanents, but some of them don't count as permanents. Cards would say "this card stays in play after resolution" just to be sure.

[Skeggi]

http://www.geneseo.edu/~pogo/images/DilbertSarcasm.jpg

[SilverGreen]

That's not true. I only learned how to play about two years ago, and that was never confusing. When I noticed that counter had two meanings, I thought about it for about ten seconds, shrugged, and went back to playing. People, especially the type of people most likely to play magic, are smart enough to understand the difference between a noun and a verb.The question isn't if people are smart enough or not, because they are. For the last two years you had also playing spells, playing lands and playing abilities, and you certainly thought about it for just a couple of seconds and kept going. But now, think about that little kid going to the game shop, wondering for the first time with that booster display loaded with dragons and zombies and elves and angels artwork, then buying and cracking a pair of them. What do you think is more amazing to him, read the cards for the first time and figure out what they do by himself, or search for a rules guide and ask for advice to the shop owner?

We're ok with the ambiguity of many MtG terms for a long time now, and certainly would still be ok with them forever if all remained the same. It isn't if we like or dislike the changes, neither. But if they're doing such big change now (if it's a worth or unworth change, and at which degree, I also don't know, neither it's the point here) under the argument of simplification and clarification, so why didn't they make it to the entire thing?

So the question is: is really necessary keep this kind of ambiguity in the game, in a moment when, at least in theory, they're removing the ambiguities, clearing up the game and adding intuitive stuff to the whole thing? I think no. Will be there other changes of such kind in the future? We don't know, but if they do so, why don't make them all at once?


For instance: I learned the game with Portuguese Ice Ages and 4th Edition cards, so the "counter" thing doesn't bothered me. But I think it could bother that Dutch, Korean, Filipine, English or North American little kid now. :wink:

[tivadar]

But now, think about that little kid going to the game shop, wondering for the first time with that booster display loaded with dragons and zombies and elves and angels artwork, then buying and cracking a pair of them. What do you think is more amazing to him, read the cards for the first time and figure out what they do by himself, or search for a rules guide and ask for advice to the shop owner?

First off, let me say, after he sees the display loaded with dragons and zombies and elves and angels, I think he'll be quite disappointed to crack one of those sorcery: instants...

This argument doesn't work anyways. If WotC really wanted to simplify things, they would print the rules on the card. They moved away from this model a long time ago, when "Whenever this creature deals damage, you gain that much life" became lifelink.

Heck, I still can't always remember what many of the less useful mechanics are. Radiate, Ripple, and that other one that lets you play a card with a lesser casting cost still confuse me occasionally.

[coraz86]

When I first started the game, I didn't even understand the word counter in a counterspell sort of way. But you wouldn't fix that problem by replacing it with a word like 'cancel', I'm not sure I would have understood that meaning. Let alone 'marquee'. But I am in favor of the distinction, if it were only that when I look at a card database like magiccards.info and want to search for interesting counterspells for a certain deck. I would like to use the keyword "counter" but I can't because of the other meaning of the word.

My friend recently taught two of his nephews how to play (the kids are in middle school, somewhere between 11-15 years old), and they had no idea what it meant to counter a spell either. Not that they, or anybody else who gets confused by Magic's cornerstones, are dumb, but I'm not aware of many other games that feature anything like countermagic. Also, not a lot of people are familiar with, say, combat counter-moves or anything else even remotely analogous, so it's not the kind of connection everybody makes quickly. If they ever quit printing countermagic or nerfed it to unplayability, I'd quit; as annoying as it can be, it's an integral part of the game. I do agree with the opinions that it isn't easy for everybody to understand and probably could benefit from clarification.

[Wrath_Of_Houlding]

Not that they, or anybody else who gets confused by Magic's cornerstones, are dumb, but I'm not aware of many other games that feature anything like countermagic. Also, not a lot of people are familiar with, say, combat counter-moves or anything else even remotely analogous, so it's not the kind of connection everybody makes quickly.

The key here is not the amount of games that contain some sort of "countering" mechanic, but which games. I know I never had a problem with the concept, but I also had been playing D&D for years previous. Counter is either completely intuitive and logical (if the person has any experience with classic fantasy games/literature) or not. I'm not in any way trying to say those who don't know are "dumb" or anything like that, its just a simple black and white line between those who have encountered "countering" before, and those who haven't.

[scrow213]

The key here is not the amount of games that contain some sort of "countering" mechanic, but which games. I know I never had a problem with the concept, but I also had been playing D&D for years previous. Counter is either completely intuitive and logical (if the person has any experience with classic fantasy games/literature) or not. I'm not in any way trying to say those who don't know are "dumb" or anything like that, its just a simple black and white line between those who have encountered "countering" before, and those who haven't.

This. I understood immediately what counter meant, because I just linked the term with "countering" an attack or "countering" a move, etc.

The other thing here is that countering is not hard to explain. You say "Oh, it means your spell does nothing and goes to the graveyard" and they go "Oh, ok."

I will also sign the petition for the switch back to "Bury" instead of the clunky clause. Also, supertrample should be keyworded.

[chmoddity]

This. I understood immediately what counter meant, because I just linked the term with "countering" an attack or "countering" a move, etc.

The other thing here is that countering is not hard to explain. You say "Oh, it means your spell does nothing and goes to the graveyard" and they go "Oh, ok."What about for people who do not have veterans to explain it to them? There is no reason to worry about the people who have resources to help them. The 13 year-olds who crack a starter and ask "What are all these terms?" are the ones the changes are for.

[DrJones]

Another change I would like to see, is permanents with X in their casting cost. Right now X is zero while they are in play, and card interactions would be more intuitive if they kept the value of X while in play.

[SilverGreen]

This argument doesn't work anyways. If WotC really wanted to simplify things, they would print the rules on the card. They moved away from this model a long time ago, when "Whenever this creature deals damage, you gain that much life" became lifelink.

Yet speaking of simplifying things.

Take a look at those hypothetical FCC cards:

http://i28.tinypic.com/x4otq0.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/28wmoee.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/2u6dvvc.jpg

There really would exist any dificulty in older and newer players understand what a card like this does? At this point, newer players would be used to the turn structure already - it's one of the first concepts learned in Magic. Starting here, they would learn the "main phase" is the phase where they "play his/her cards". They would learn that permanent cards stay in the battlefield, while Sorcery cards make their thing and go to the graveyard, period. Turning instants into sorceries with flash would make them the exact same thing that permanents with flash are, and the instants themselves always were in practice: exceptions to the rules. And most importantly: with absolutely no functional changes and no rules baggage added.

[JeroenC]

And it looks clunky as hell. The next thing you can do is make all permanents
Permanent- Land
Basic Permanent- Land Forest
Permanent- Creature
Legendary Permanent- Enchantment

and such.

Another reason not to do this: Legendary was changed to a supertype for creatures. Changing instant to a subtype would result in the exact opposite, which hardly seems consistent.

[SilverGreen]

And it looks clunky as hell. The next thing you can do is make all permanents
Permanent- Land
Basic Permanent- Land Forest
Permanent- Creature
Legendary Permanent- Enchantment

and such.

Another reason not to do this: Legendary was changed to a supertype for creatures. Changing instant to a subtype would result in the exact opposite, which hardly seems consistent.JeroenC, it's clear you dislike this kind of changes and I understand why people don't like them too, and also understand that things don't necessarily NEED to change. But overall, it's just an exercise for the mind, and I like to shake the things up a little.

Besides looking clunky or ugly or disgusting, is there technical reasons you see to NOT (hypothetically, remember) make changes to the current system? Not just for the sake of continuity of the (nice and functional) status quo, I mean. Continuously reevaluating things (not necessarily changing, but reevaluating them anyway) is the main reason we make things evolve. So I ask you: why not?

[JeroenC]

You're right, I do indeed dislike templating changes. ^^

[bruno_tiete]

Silvergreen, in those reminder texts for Flash, I believe "you may play this card whenever you receive priority" would be more appropriate, as Untap step and Cleanup step would be exceptions to what's written.

Of course this new template would suck whenever R&D wanted to print an instant with timing restriction, but so would yours. Think Seed Time, for instance. Or even Berserk.

[Wrath_Of_Houlding]

But at least it would nerf 'Goyf a bit.

[Malchar]

Another change I would like to see, is permanents with X in their casting cost. Right now X is zero while they are in play, and card interactions would be more intuitive if they kept the value of X while in play.

I'd agree if it were easy to implement. I foresee nightmares involving two different types of counters sitting on a engineered explosives to keep track of X= and sunburst.




And it looks clunky as hell. The next thing you can do is make all permanents
Permanent- Land
Basic Permanent- Land Forest
Permanent- Creature
Legendary Permanent- Enchantment

and such.

This is a fair point. Everything could be further dumbed-down or categorized needlessly until things were 100% obvious (and 100% clunkier). Where to draw the line?

Basic Snow Card Permanent Land - Forest
Legendary Token Permanent Creature - Demon Spirit
Card Tribal Spell Sorcery - Instant Goblin

The line is fine where it is now. There is a realizable creative difference between sorceries and instants. The same is true for the difference between enchantments and artifacts. Those types also very close but share a functional difference, similar to sorcery vs. instant, in that enchantments don't usually tap. Maro talks about the importance of these creative differences all the time. It helps people to immediately understand the function of the card and how it works. Sorceries are so fundamentally different from instants that a new type is justified. Only having a single rules difference between them increases the confusion, which is why there must remain a bright line.

If anything, it would probably confuse people even more because the difference between a sorcery and an instant would be less obvious. Should spells have "abilities" like creatures do? The change starts to blur the line between all card types.

Further, it's redundant, confusing, and inefficient to have instant be both a subtype while also giving the card flash. Also, it clutters up the type line and the text box, which can be a serious issue for complex rares or future introduction of super/subtypes or tribal spells.

[Jason]

We should make all cards instants, and then grant a "can only be played during your main phase" clause to some of them. Disrupting Scepter would say "play this ability as an instant which can only be played during your main phase."

This would be amazing! Tarmogoyf_On_A_Stick.dec sounds incredible! /sarcasm

[SilverGreen]

This is a fair point. Everything could be further dumbed-down or categorized needlessly until things were 100% obvious (and 100% clunkier). Where to draw the line?

Basic Snow Card Permanent Land - Forest
Legendary Token Permanent Creature - Demon Spirit
Card Tribal Spell Sorcery - Instant Goblin

The line is fine where it is now. There is a realizable creative difference between sorceries and instants. The same is true for the difference between enchantments and artifacts. Those types also very close but share a functional difference, similar to sorcery vs. instant, in that enchantments don't usually tap. Maro talks about the importance of these creative differences all the time. It helps people to immediately understand the function of the card and how it works. Sorceries are so fundamentally different from instants that a new type is justified. Only having a single rules difference between them increases the confusion, which is why there must remain a bright line.Man, there's a lot of overcomplication in this dumbing-down example... I really think, after some years teaching the game for new players, this line is crystal clear: we can just stress the difference between cards that remain in play (the permanents) and cards that don't (the "spells"). The timing involving Instants and Sorceries is just a MtG's mechanical issue. You don't need to think about priority or an empty stack while casting a Fireball in D&D, for example. I really think flavor may cover the general concepts of the game the more they can, and additional rules may cover just the more complex and corner case ones.


If anything, it would probably confuse people even more because the difference between a sorcery and an instant would be less obvious. Should spells have "abilities" like creatures do? The change starts to blur the line between all card types.I think the matter is the exact opposite here.

Sorceries and instants do have abilities, like creatures do, for over a decade now. Many of them - like Splice, Buyback, or Flashback - are exclusive for spells. Others - like Trample, Lifelink, or Flanking - we can only see on creatures. There's abilities shared by all permanent card types - like Imprint or Phasing. And other abilities are shared by all card types - like Kicker or Suspend, for instance. Furthermore, there isn't anything, in any corner of the Comprehensive Rules, that could prevent putting "spell" abilities like Scry, Clash or others onto creatures, or putting Flash onto sorceries.

I dare to say there's no confusion in the matter here, but a loss of focus instead. Such kind of changes would not be for experienced players like or dislike them; they wouldn't be so confusing to such players neither, as long as they become used to them; this kind of change would be adressed to the newcomers. The "obvious" diference between Sorcery and Instant types can be obvious to us now, but it isn't so obvious to the novice. So it's true, that Wizards released all three Portal sets - sets designed to teach the basics of the game for new players, remember - with only Sorceries, turning some of them into "pseudo-instants". So it's true, MaRo said in his column "Tweet Talk (http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/42)" he would make instant a Sorcery supertype if he was in the design team of Alpha (a much more correct approach over mine, I guess now - a shame I just remembered it a few minutes ago). I'm not saying that the novice can't figure the difference between the card types with relative ease - for sure they can. But I really think the experience could be even easier.



Further, it's redundant, confusing, and inefficient to have instant be both a subtype while also giving the card flash. Also, it clutters up the type line and the text box, which can be a serious issue for complex rares or future introduction of super/subtypes or tribal spells.While the cluttering issue already happens at some extend now for consistency sake (walls always have defender, birds always have flying, auras always have "enchant something"), I agree the flash issue would be a great one. So now I think MaRo's supertype solution would be the best to apply.

In time: the reminder text I sugested above doesn't cover the act of casting a spell in response to another spell or ability. Perhaps could be more productive specify the time windows you can play a flashy spell, that are basically anytime other than during a pair of game steps:

Flash You may cast this anytime from an upkeep step to an end of turn step

[Malchar]

Here is the current rule regarding instants: "A player who has priority may cast an instant card from his or her hand."

Here is the current rule regarding flash: "You may play this card any time you could cast an instant."

Combining them yields the following: "You may play this card any time you have priority."

Between adding a supertype/subtype or adding a keyword, I like the idea of adding a keyword the most.



My "dumbing-down" example was poorly explain on my part. Disregard "Everything could be further dumbed-down or categorized needlessly until things were 100% obvious..." The purpose of the example was hyperbole.

I guess the only remaining part of my argument that I can correctly articulate is as follows: Are there really any advantages to merging the two types? Also, after having two types for so long, wouldn't the initial confusion and possible loss of flavor outweigh any advantage to the merge?

[SilverGreen]

(...)Combining them yields the following: "You may play this card any time you have priority."

Silvergreen, in those reminder texts for Flash, I believe "you may play this card whenever you receive priority" would be more appropriate, as Untap step and Cleanup step would be exceptions to what's written.

Of course this new template would suck whenever R&D wanted to print an instant with timing restriction, but so would yours. Think Seed Time, for instance. Or even Berserk.Serious issue here. In this early stage of game learning, it isn't supposed a beginner knows what priority is yet, so I don't think the priority stuff would work well (hence I also think it's the most elegant, general and interesting of all of them). And the time restriction issue hurts the other suggested options a lot. So we need a better one...


Between adding a supertype/subtype or adding a keyword, I like the idea of adding a keyword the most.I think it would be the most elegant idea for the instant spells themselves, but also the most impacting for the game as a whole. It would remove the instant type entirely from the type line, and move all the mechanical burden of cards that care about card types to their textbox. It shoud be a much more careful move to make, and I personally think it shoud be much over.


I guess the only remaining part of my argument that I can correctly articulate is as follows: Are there really any advantages to merging the two types? Also, after having two types for so long, wouldn't the initial confusion and possible loss of flavor outweigh any advantage to the merge?I see some advantages: it simplifies the act of teaching and learning Magic; is opens design space (Splice onto Sorceries comes to mind); in many cases, it shortens card text (instead of "protection from sorceries and instants", just "protection from sorceries", for instance); and the most important one for me: it adds, not removes, flavor to the game. There's two important and well defined stages in time and space during a magical duel when planeswalkers may normally cast the spells they keep in mind, summon their creatures from aether, make their manalinks and recruit other planeswalkers to fight by their side - in other words, make magic -, and in MtG they're called Main Phase and the Battlefield. The focus of the game action resides in its majority in these two stages: if a MtG duel would be a movie, they'll be the climax, and the other "adjacent" stages would just, well, set the stage for them. I treat all action that happens outside these stages as exceptions, that no ordinary planeswalking ability covers, and demands specialized knowledge. The graveyard isn't the main place of the game's action, although specialized mages can make good use of it. The same is true for spells and abilities done outside the Main Phase: they demand extra knowledge and dexterity from their summoner, that must be able to manipulate time windows other than those he/she's normally allowed to do.

[SilverGreen]

I guess the reminder text looks fine now, both mechanically and aesthetically:

Flash (You may cast this at any step, phase, or turn, even in response to other spells or abilities.)

Taking the opportunity, I would like so much to know some of Legacy player's thougths on the following issue. I hope you enjoy it:

http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/node/1332