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 know, but you're focusing on the wrong thing here. Being a creature is an ability in an of itself is what I meant, because you get to affect the battlefield directly.
If artifact creatures can exist, then why not enchantment creatures
A better question would be to ask: "Why can artifact creatures be artifacts simply because of flavor?"
There is no good answer. Because it's a design flaw. If one disagrees, then one only has to answer the question: What would this Magic card do if you took all of its creature parts out of it Nyxborn Courser. And again there is no good answer to this question, hence the design flaw. The card would be a blank 3 mana card with no card text or attributes or any kind.
Just to make everything more complicated, remember that this was the first-ever enchantment creature:
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.For all those reasons, this is why it is a design mistake. They can justify it however they like but they are still mistakes. A better question would be to ask: "Why can artifact creatures be artifacts simply because of flavor?"
There is no good answer. Because it's a design flaw.
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.If one disagrees, then one only has to answer the question: What would this Magic card do if you took all of its creature parts out of it Nyxborn Courser. And again there is no good answer to this question, hence the design flaw. The card would be a blank 3 mana card with no card text or attributes or any kind.
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.I want you all to remember that just because Mark Rosewaters answers an intelligent question, doesn't mean he's automatically correct. He was right the first time around.
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.Maybe they'll attach the enchantment card type to some instants at some point with no real reason why except it makes you be able to cast enough enchantment spells in a game for a certain archetype in a limited format to be viable
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.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.
And I could do it better than Wizards. That shouldn't be the case.
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.You’re trolling Train. Please stop. It hurts my eyes.
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 faithPlease stop. You are the rude one Mr. “Straw man” “Tragic Arrogance” “Just because you don’t understand something”
You are EXTREMELY rude and should get banned for that. I thought you were joking but appearently you need some time off. Reported.
All your questions have been answered previously in this thread. None of your comments make any sense since they have already been answered. Yes, flavors matter. This is why dog is not an enchantment. They can’t just say something is an enchantment when it doesn’t feel like one flavorly or mechanically.
I don’t mind discussing the topic further or until 2022 becomes 2023. But not with you. You should be banned.
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.
is it?Breach is written as a condition but that condition is inevitable
I mean... Is it?is it?
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.Dear mods
I am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good. If mods wants me to step back, then I will do so.
I want to never EVER(!) be talked to like that by an internet jackass gain. So if the ban hammer does not fall, then I will sacrifice myself to avoid this kind of situation again in my life. To me that is not acceptable.
There must be something for sorceries like this too. My scryfall is rusty toughI mean... Is it?
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.There must be something for sorceries like this too. My scryfall is rusty tough
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.,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.