General Fight Club
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
All your examples are okay, these are conditionally permanents. Breach is written as a condition but that condition is inevitable and it is gone at the end of the turn, just like the effect of a sorcery or growth variant. Hence, breach is not a permanent. Breach is just a very inelegant way of an until the end of turn effect (the pro that it has going for it is that you can interact with it). The front loading of a permanent which it is not is just what bugs me.I'm totally on the same page as dbs regarding flavor. A door to hell opens for a day, spews out all these underworldly horrors, and then collapses.
Also, many, many, many permanents sacrifice themselves either at end of turn or via some other mechanism (including almost every saga). This is not even that rare a feature amongst non-saga enchantments:
I could keep going. Obviously not all "at end step". But enchantments that aren't permanent permanent are very common in MTG.
I think the majority of MTG players are already familiar with this common mechanic of enchantments, and the Breach saccing is nothing unusual at all.
I and many people I play with do forget end of turn triggers, but have no such issue with until end of turn.
similar examples of breach in other types are
The following is not written with a snappy mind. I am just doing it briefly but I care about the discussion <3
When I said ability initially I actually meant ability. Static, activated or triggered ability. Being a creature is not an ability. I hope this makes sense as to what we are discussing now.
If you scroll up to the beginning you can see this
Love you Onde <3
When I said ability initially I actually meant ability. Static, activated or triggered ability. Being a creature is not an ability. I hope this makes sense as to what we are discussing now.
If you scroll up to the beginning you can see this
Love you Onde <3
Just to make everything more complicated, remember that this was the first-ever enchantment creature:
Wasn’t an enchantment
I’m sticking to my point of view haha Buh seriously Future Sight was sort of a testing set. They did all sorts of crazy things that were mostly underpowered to see how people would react.
Lucent Liminid is a great example of how much they need a creature to look like an enchantment before it even enters the maybe-okay zone. It truly looks magical. Just like artifact creatures truly look mechanical.
Why aren’t Illusions Enchantment Creatures? Teyo’s Lightshield looks as if it is made out of magic (whatever that means). Many other Illusions have a similar appearance.
To be honest, I’m not too bothered by the inconsistent approach. If you want type: artifact/enchantment to matter in draft, it needs to be attached to creatures. I don’t see the dog as a design flaw, though, rather a flavour flaw.
To be honest, I’m not too bothered by the inconsistent approach. If you want type: artifact/enchantment to matter in draft, it needs to be attached to creatures. I don’t see the dog as a design flaw, though, rather a flavour flaw.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Yeah, I don't think we're getting closer to some sort of agreement here, because people just feel different about this kind of thing. I will say it takes guts to "accuse" WotC of a design mistake when enchantment creatures are causing no obvious problems in any format. Like, the only real argument I see people make against enchantment creatures is that they don't get them conceptually. In my mind that can never be a design mistake, for me that term is reserved for shit like Skullclamp or Oko, Thief of Crowns that adversely affects the balance of a format simply because the card does more than it ought to do at that mana cost. I'll politely agree to disagree with people who want to use that term for cards that they just don't get the flavor of as well, especially when those cards seeve an important (and balanced) role in their respective formats.
Thank you for praising me and saying I have guts. It is easy to have guts when you know you are 100 % objectively right
No one has completed the trial of answering the questions so therefore the statement still stands. Wizards didn’t evolve. They devolved. And they know it deep down but they obviously can’t say it to the public because that would mean to anti-marketing their product.
Nyxborn Courser
Enchantment (C)
Nyxborn Courser without the creature.
No one has completed the trial of answering the questions so therefore the statement still stands. Wizards didn’t evolve. They devolved. And they know it deep down but they obviously can’t say it to the public because that would mean to anti-marketing their product.
Nyxborn Courser
Enchantment (C)
Nyxborn Courser without the creature.
Last edited:
Flavor is an integral part of Magic's design. Without the fantasy skin over the game, everything would just be a bunch of numbers and markers to indicate game function. That's not a flaw, it's arguably the reason why Magic was able to become successful in the first place.
Likewise, there are actual mechanically relevant reasons why one might wish to make artifact or enchantment creatures that are essentially just creatures with the extra type. If you're trying to build a set around artifacts or enchantments, it is important to give players cards to help reach a critical mass of that card type. Having simple creatures with the extra type is a great way to do this, as those cards would usually be in the set anyway and this makes them relevant to more people. Sometimes you want a creature that can cost
less thanks to your Etherium Sculptor or counts towards your Mox Opal's metalcraft.So there actually is a good answer here: flavor can justify a creature's status as an artifact or an enchantment when other mechanical needs demand an artifact or enchantment creature.
By this logic, all supertypes are design flaws. "Legendary," "tribal," and "snow" don't have any inherent meaning, and are simply used as markers to indicate status for mechanical purposes.
As I said above, even if something like Nyxborn Courser had all of the creature attributes stripped away, it would still function as an enchantment that could trigger constellation or have it's cost reduced by Jukai Naturalist.
I think it's interesting that you're trying to frame your opinion as fact here. You're not automatically correct just because you don't like or understand something.
Nice straw man. Instant and Enchantment can't exist on the same card type under the current rules of magic. This is in stark opposition to Artifact, Enchantment, and Creature which are all permanent types that have been able to exist on the same card since magic's inception.
The only way what you're suggesting here would happen is if WOTC pulls another 6th edition rules change and completely overhauls several of the game's rules. While this isn't necessarily impossible, if they were to make a change like this, it wouldn't just be for the limited environment of one set. Whether or not this could happen or is a good thing isn't really relevant to this conversation, though, because enchantment creatures existing don't alter any rules of the game as they stand currently.
Also, why are you attacking limited so much here? You seem to have contempt for cards designed for an entire format. It's really weird.
I have answered your question in a way that should satisfy any reasonable person. However, you have not provided any real evidence to support any of your arguments.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that adding permanent types to cards for flavor and game balance reasons is a design flaw.
You’re trolling Train. Please stop. It hurts my eyes. Every sentence you said is wrong hence I have to believe you’re just arguing to argue. This I do not like.
There is nothing I do not understand, please. I did prove it several times. And Wizards know it too. If we don’t voice our concern when they screw up, they will continue to do so. In the future you will get enchantment instants that are just normal spells but with the enchantment type becaus “We want players to be able to cast enough instants in a game of Magic.” The drain of stupidity is endless if we don’t voice our concern.
There is nothing I do not understand, please. I did prove it several times. And Wizards know it too. If we don’t voice our concern when they screw up, they will continue to do so. In the future you will get enchantment instants that are just normal spells but with the enchantment type becaus “We want players to be able to cast enough instants in a game of Magic.” The drain of stupidity is endless if we don’t voice our concern.
Last edited:
Why do you always accuse people of trolling when they disagree with you? You asked for additional evidence to pass the trial you set, and I did that. That's not trolling, I was trying to engage in this conversation in good faith. It's like you don't want to admit that my position has merit so instead of trying to defend your stance you call me a troll. It's really frustrating and quite rude.
So, okay, it's a token, and yes, it draws on death, but this is pretty similar to the dog's effect and I think it goes to show that enchantments can just draw a card upon state change.
Also, even more than that, I think the fact that it took us so long to remember that these exist goes to show how forgettable Niko Aris was, which is a shame because I though their card was kind of nifty.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Everything in Train's post makes sense from my side of the conversation. You are extremely unwilling to budge on the matter, even saying "It is easy to have guts when you know you are 100 % objectively right". You might feel you are 100% right, but there are clearly people here who feel very differently on the matter (myself included), and despite multiple arguments in favor of enchantment creatures, you won't hear any of it. That's fine, but don't get all uptight when people hold a different point of view. I think you were in fact very rude to Train when you called him a troll, and it's beyond rude calling for a ban for someone who was actually arguing in good faith
Edit: If a mod wants to delete the relevant posts that's fine with me, but I'm not going to let Velrun smear and oust a respected member of this forum like this. I'm actually mad.
I think there are good arguments in favour and good arguments against just tacking an additional type unto something.
What is sad is that people (me included) start talking over each other’s head. Personally, I found Trains post rude and not helping the discussion and neither was the reply from Vel.
It is hard to communicate on screen, I always assume people mean the best.
What is sad is that people (me included) start talking over each other’s head. Personally, I found Trains post rude and not helping the discussion and neither was the reply from Vel.
It is hard to communicate on screen, I always assume people mean the best.
So, okay, it's a token, and yes, it draws on death, but this is pretty similar to the dog's effect and I think it goes to show that enchantments can just draw a card upon state change.
Also, even more than that, I think the fact that it took us so long to remember that these exist goes to show how forgettable Niko Aris was, which is a shame because I though their card was kind of nifty.
That’s a token. Obviously we can make tokens that have the value of less than a Magic card.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Last edited:
Dear Velrun, I agree the post you are referring to went too far. However, I strongly believe that people should get second chances. Banning will not help for, no learning is done, and it would be a severe loss to lose you. Often you have a different view which can broaden our views. Sadly, different viewpoints often get a lot of flack because it can be uncomfortable for many people to get out of their comfort zone. What furthermore does not help is that it is online instead of face to face.
There must be something for sorceries like this too. My scryfall is rusty toughI mean... Is it?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
There is, but for every Anarchist there's an Auramancer. In the end, the fact is they did it as an enchantment, and there are obviously some play patterns that choice enables that a sorcery wouldn't enable. The reverse is also true, but generally there are less ways for the opponent to interact with a sorcery than there are to interact with an enchantment. So, we ended up with the more interactive variant of the card, I feel.
One additional tiny difference we didn't talk about yet is that if it had been a sorcery, it would go to the graveyard after resolving, meaning you have one more card in the graveyard that you can exile as part of escaping another card. Of course you could add in an exile clause to prevent that, but that would be just as 'inelegant' as the sacrifice at end of turn clause on the enchantment version is.
I was more thinking in the line of rebound or something similar. Yes they did it as an enchantment but so could they have done many others, e.g.,
could be breached. Is it more elegant? Not in my opinion and that was the discussion.
Yes, putting breach as a sorcery would put it in the graveyard, in some instances it makes a difference.
Breach at its core is just like yeah will, a constructed card. In most cubes it can be good but not back braking.
I've got James visiting right now and can't really look into this at the moment. Everybody play nice! If you've been involved in an argument here, I kindly ask you not to post in this thread for 48 hours while people cool off
@Jason Waddell , I'd like to voice my opinion because this whole discussion has irked me for a few days now. For @Velrun , let met try to give you the perspective from a 3-party reader:
You're calling the designers of (one of) the most succesful cardgames ever producer bad game designers. You're claiming you can design this game better than them, while Magic is currently the most popular its ever been, giving a set that's be widely applauded for it's (limited) design as an example. You're claiming they did this on purpose(!?) You're not stating this as an opinion, but as a fact; claiming you have "proof" for that opinion. Every counterargument made against you is dismissed for unclear reasons. For me, that really seems like arguing in bad faith.
While I don't agree with calling anyone arrogant (or an internet jackass for that matter), I also don't agree with arguing the way you did here. This discussion was already hostile before @TrainmasterGT jumped in.
You're calling the designers of (one of) the most succesful cardgames ever producer bad game designers. You're claiming you can design this game better than them, while Magic is currently the most popular its ever been, giving a set that's be widely applauded for it's (limited) design as an example. You're claiming they did this on purpose(!?) You're not stating this as an opinion, but as a fact; claiming you have "proof" for that opinion. Every counterargument made against you is dismissed for unclear reasons. For me, that really seems like arguing in bad faith.
While I don't agree with calling anyone arrogant (or an internet jackass for that matter), I also don't agree with arguing the way you did here. This discussion was already hostile before @TrainmasterGT jumped in.
Last edited:
Arcanist, BUT both are quite nice. one pitfall of arcanist though is that you MUST have a density of 1 mana spells to make it work, but if you do, it is so so good.
Channeler is a little easier in terms of cube structure needed to accommodate it, but still enjoys a low overall curve so that 1. you can reliably cast stuff off the top and 2. you can start pitching lands earlier in the game as fewer lands are needed if your curve is lower.
EDIT: interestingly while both are good “spells deck” cards, they tend to be more suited to a RB shell than an RU shell, because B spells tend to be more
proactive than U spells. a doom blade or thoughtseize type spell suits the timing of the exile-then-cast trigger for both creatures better than a counterspell. (cantrips are just always good ofc)
Channeler is a little easier in terms of cube structure needed to accommodate it, but still enjoys a low overall curve so that 1. you can reliably cast stuff off the top and 2. you can start pitching lands earlier in the game as fewer lands are needed if your curve is lower.
EDIT: interestingly while both are good “spells deck” cards, they tend to be more suited to a RB shell than an RU shell, because B spells tend to be more
proactive than U spells. a doom blade or thoughtseize type spell suits the timing of the exile-then-cast trigger for both creatures better than a counterspell. (cantrips are just always good ofc)