Posted on March 31, 2019, 9:53 p.m. by MontaukMonster
In the centuries after the Guild Wars, the world has forgotten why the willows of Ksaria weep. The Guildmaster, however, has not. In his quest for power and greed, he shared the Book of Knowledge with his minions, forever yoking their strength to himself but making powerful servants out of each. Never before has such power been shared with so many...
Hahaha more to come...
This is exactly what I'm talking about. There are obvious problems with literally every card. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not trolling. Here's what you did wrong:
Planeswalkers don't use creature types.
Planeswalkers must be Legendary.
Planeswalkers should have more than one ability.
Farmer is not currently a creature type. It should have a real creature type, unless you'll be adding support for the Farmer tribe with more cards.
Use of the phrase "target creature or player" is deprecated. Use "any target".
Creatures can't have Druid, Wizard, Priest, or Knight as the only creature type. Add a species, along with their job.
"Elf Vampire" is an invalid creature type combination. Choose either Elf or Vampire and give it a job.
Regeneration has been deprecated. Use Indestructible instead.
Burn is not a subtype of Instant spells.
Don't specify an arbitrary number of copies, it is recommended to remove the limit entirely: "A deck can have any number of cards named ~."
April 1, 2019 12:33 a.m.
1) why the hell not?
2) is that a rule change I'm unaware of? I've been out of the game a while
3) says who?
4) is there any reason it can't be? You know, before there were Homarids, Homarids weren't a creature type either.
5) hmm. It used to be 'any target' then they changed it. Look at Me, I'm the DCI
6) I guess.
7) But he is a vampire elf. A drow, a specific cult of drow that worship vampires and only those who prove themselves get the honor. Long story.
8) I it's newer than 2011 I have no idea.
9) WTF but they're not the same thing! It matters! This is how I felt when they got rid of interrupts.
10) well it should be. I've always felt certain types of spells could take on that or something else as a subtype. It would open up some interesting possibilities I think.
11) why not? It allows for greater flexibility of design IMHO. You know, just becaus something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it can't, won't, or shouldn't. I still remember when you couldn’t have a multi-colored card. Then, a multi-colored card had to be legendary. Then only creatures and lands could be legendary and legends had to be multicolored. Then monochrome legends were suddenly OK.
April 1, 2019 12:58 a.m.
1) planeswalkers aren't creatures. thats why they can't have creature types.
2) planeswalkers now follow the same legendary rule as creatures and have gained the legendary supertype.
3) planeswalkers have always had more than one ability until the "war of the spark" set, which hasn't been released yet and only walkers printed at uncommon have only one ability.
4) he never said farmer "can't" be a creature type, only that it is currently not one.
5). show me a card printed before dominaria that said "any target"...
6) finally one you understand...
7) now i gotta ask Funkydiscogod why elf/vampire is "invalid". i've never heard of elves being immune to vampirism. its completely possible in "Dungeons & Dragons", another game made by WOTC.
9) Funkydiscogod: wotc may have stated they're not printing more cards with regeneration, but this guy probably doesn't work for wotc. cards with regeneration are still legal in tournaments. wotc only stopped making more because it was "too confusing" for new players.
10) "burn" definitely does not need to be a subtype. it does not open up any possibilities we don't already have.
11) a restriction is literally the opposite of flexibility. but as for your "gleeful pyre", the game already has a bunch of burn spells with that same effect (minus "build 8" of course) or even better. see Lightning Bolt , Incinerate , Lightning Strike , Searing Spear . all of them deal 3 damage to any target, at instant speed for 2 mana, with no restrictions or downside. furthermore, i kinda doubt you "remember" any of that stuff.
April 1, 2019 2:09 a.m.
The problem with these designs is three-fold:
you have not said what product are they are for - a standard set, a supplementary set, something else - all products have different requirements for the cards in them;
design core principles, already metioned by others - just because it can exist, doesn't mean it should exist, like planeswalkers with creature types or cars with square tires;
explanations - why are those cards you made the way they are? Offer some insights and people will be naturally more receptive and constructive.
Most importantly - do not dismiss people's criticism just because it is criticism. When you post "says who?" as a reply, you are not helping anybody.
April 1, 2019 6:14 a.m. Edited.
2) my point exactly. Why change the rule and add the legendary supertype to planeswalkers if not to dissociate the two? IOW planeswalkers w/o legendary supertype moving forward will no longer mutually anihilate. Pure speculation on my part...
3) I haven't read the spoilers. I've just always kinda wondered why they had to be elite-only cards. So my mind started asking 'what if' and dreamed up a common cycle.
5) Lightning Bolt it's not showing. Look at the Alpha version.
9) Banding was too confusing for noobs. So was tapped creatures not dealing damage, artifacts switching off when tapped, and interrupts. Not to mention good-ol' "damage on the stack" Morphling . The game changes. You get used to it. The structure is a lot better now than it used to be I think.
10) it's more about the concept. One could have a goblin "when this dude comes into play, regrowth a burn spell" or something to that effect. Subtypes in general allow for more flexibility in card manipulation, that's all. If this weren't true they wouldn't have made Lord of Atlantis a me folk.
11) also, about the concept. From a design perspective, you don't want to make a card too powerful because everyone is going to run four of them. But if you add a self-restriction it mitigates the possibility it will warp the meta game. Also, it allows for cards that while not necessarily broken would be too complicated in multiples, such as Teferi's Undoing I'd posted the other day. That was supposed to have "Build:1" but I ran out of space.
BTW you forgot Chain Lightning not instant but it used to go in 'that' deck.
I started playing with Antiquities. I wasn't ready to spend $7 on a pack of Arabian Nights just to have the older cards I'd missed out on but I made sure to get in on Legends. The first rare I cracked in that set was The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale . I got $20 for it. When gold cards came out, we were all wowed. And yes, I do remember.
April 1, 2019 6:31 a.m.
Boza do you work for wotc? Does he? Do I? Does anyone here? Does anyone on their design team actually read this forum that I should care about preconceived, arbitrary design constraints?
I see no reason to limit the imagination. It's not for any set that will ever exist nor any card that will ever see the light of day. So then, for the same reason why when I realize I'm dreaming I go and have sex, I am going to dream up the cards I want to exist. Simply because I want them to and screw your core principles.
Now your turn: can you name one good reason why a planeswalker can't be a druid/wizard/goblin/dragon, aside from "they just can't?"
April 1, 2019 6:43 a.m.
April 1, 2019 6:52 a.m.
I design for concept. I push envelopes and reach for the impossible. It's what I do. The finished product is not going to be anywhere near my inception point and I'm fine with that. Here's a card I designed back in 1994:
I played this card in a proxy league some 25 years ago. It absolutely warped the meta because I could counter crap like Channel , Dark Ritual , and Black Lotus , not to mention all the broken made-up cards everyone else was using. EVERYBODY wanted it and I was the only one who had it.
Then a year later Force of Will came out. The finished product is vastly different, better IMO. I'm happy I had the concept down.
April 1, 2019 7:11 a.m.
"It's not for any set that will ever exist nor any card that will ever see the light of day."
I have to ask - then why? If it will never see the light of day - why post it in a forum?
"can you name one good reason why a planeswalker can't be a druid/wizard/goblin/dragon, aside from "they just can't?"
Yes - there is no point.
- there are literally only 2 (or 3, if you count Karn) - the twin dragons Bolas and Ugin - non-human planeswalkers. Planeswalking is kind of the human thing.
- planeswalkers usually have a name or some sort of identity as they serve as protagonists in the story. So a random goblin being a planeswalker does not make sense.
- Additionally, it has no meaning within the rules of the game, so it is no more than flavor text.
- Speaking of, what difference does it make that goblin is a planeswalker? As presented currently, planeswalker are run-of-the-mill mages that can travel between planes, but nothing more than that.
"I push envelopes and reach for the impossible." - There is a difference between pushing the envelope and being unreceptive of criticism.
April 1, 2019 9:05 a.m.
MontaukMonster - as the person designing the proposed cards, the onus is on you to defend their creation. You are the one opening up your cards for critique, after all. It is not enough to just say "because I can," particularly given the abnormal nature of these proposed cards. You also really need to work on your tone--as has been mentioned already, you're coming off very aggressive, and that's not fair to those who took the time to respond.
In the interest of discussion, however, I will offer what you have yet been reluctant to do--a defense of your core concept. Personally, I agree with what others have said--that planeswalkers need to be limited in scope, but I want to move the conversation past the discussion of the core concept so we can address the actual cards themselves.
- What is the justification for the game design, and the creation of common planeswalkers?
As of right now, Pauper does not have access to any planeswalkers. This proposal would give pauper access to additional cards, as well as make planeswalker-matters cards that are currently at uncommon viable options in pauper, expanding the card pool and increasing diversity.
- What is the lore justification for common planeswalkers?
The issue here is that Planeswalkers are, by definition, legendary. After all, only a minuscule number of people have a spark, and only a fraction of those have their spark ignited.
The justification here is that someone has figured out how to artificially create the ability to planeswalk (akin to the Planar Bridge or Weatherlight, but embedded in a creature). However, this is a temporary situation, and burns out the person's body (hence why they only have minus abilities).
- Creature types on Planeswalkers
These are just generic individuals who have an artificial spark; they are not great heroes. We've already seen tribal cards, such as instants and enchantments, which show there can be some mix-ups between creature subtypes and others.
I think a better option would be to come up with a single planeswalker type that could apply to all of these, and then flavour them through the art. Something like "Planeswalker - Ensparked" that captures the essence of what you're trying to do, without getting into the messy situation of adding creature types.
- Non-humans as planeswalkers.
Boza's point is invalid. In addition to Bolas, Ugin, and Karn, there's Ashiok, Tibalt, Kiora, Sorin, Angrath, Dovin Baan, Ajani Goldmane, Ob Nixilis, Mowu (sort of), Nahiri, Vraska, Kaya, Nissa, and so many more. So, that's not really an issue.
- Multiple creature types
I think that covers a lot of the basics, and at least gets us to the point where we can address the individual cards.
Pyrenisian Druid - this card is costed too aggressively. It's the same cost as Rampant Growth, for effectively the same effect, but repeatable twice.
I think a fair price would be . This is the same CMC as Cultivate , accounting for the fact you can get multiple lands, with the additional green added to offset any potential planeswalker synergies, such as proliferate or The Chain Veil .
Disciple of Raojan - this is a very powerful effect, as it's basically Shock with rebound. That card already exists in the form of Staggershock , and is costed three. Basing this on Staggershock , I think sounds reasonable.
I might also consider reducing this to "target player or planeswalker" to further limit its utility and make it more reasonable as a common.
I might reduce the starting loyalty to two, and change the mana cost to (so far, I think they're all pretty consistent at the 1XX level, provided the loyalties are adjusted accordingly). I would consider bumping this up to , due to the card being at common, depending on the removal situation in the hypothetical set.
One, with the potential for three, +1/+1 counters should probably cost more than . Again, I think you can probably get away with , and even keep the loyalty at 3.
Norina's Apprentice - five loyalty is way, way too high for this effect. That's a whole lot of cards it could potentially draw. To keep with the theme I have been using, I think 2 or 3 loyalty would be appropriate for that cost. Leaning toward 2 to make this more palatable as a common.
Moving on to the creatures:
Elvish Mulchkeeper - while Green can draw cards, it's usually in conjuction with lands ( Abundant Growth ), creature power ( Abzan Beastmaster ), or a combat trick ( Aggressive Urge ). It's a pretty big bend of the colour pie to have this type of card draw on a Green creature.
The repeatable shuffling your library is also not ideal--shuffling takes time and is not fun for anyone, and there are enough ways to untap creatures that you could have multiple shuffles in a single turn. That's a nightmare to play with or against.
You could probably do something a bit more green. : Reveal the top card of your library. If it is a land you may put it in your hand."
Counters are players are a bit annoying to keep track of, but there is precedent for it. White also has the ability to search for basic Plains, so, while it's a bit of a bend, it's on the acceptable side.
It's hard to evaluate this card in a vacuum, as I don't know how easy it would be to get service counters. I kind of like the concept, in that it's a decent card at any point in the game.
Scaletian Dreadbeast - the proper language is "Spend only mana produces by basic lands to cast Scaletian Dreadbeast." (Source: Imperiosaur I think this might be too aggressively costed and could be either a 4/2 or one mana more, just to avoid a Tarmogoyf situation, but I think you could probably get away with this in a non-standard set.
Drow Ascendant - As others mentioned, Regenerate has fallen out of use because it was not an intuitive mechanic (removing the creature from combat does not follow from the word itself; replacement effects trip up players; etc.).
This is an extremely problematic card though. Turn 4, Drow Ascendant into a turn 5 Fatal Push for a blood counter, then Damnation with regenerate/indestructible means you can keep this from being wrathed and then swing for a huge amount of damage.
I would probably leave it with the firebreathing and ping ability.
Gleeful Pyre - Nope. There is no reason for this card to exist. Functionally, it's the same as "You may have four copies of Gleeful Pyre and four copies of Lightning Strike in your deck." There might be some use for it in Standard, but standard usually has enough two mana burn spells floating about that I don't see the first ability as ever being all that relevant.
Book of knowledge - the language should read:
[mana cost], tap: Search target player's library for a card and exile it face down. Then that player shuffles their library. (source Praetor's Grasp
Then, as a separate static ability:
You may look at and play cards exiled with Book of Knowledge.
April 1, 2019 10:23 a.m.
PlatinumOne The reason why "Elf Vampire" is invalid, is that once they become a vampire, they lose their previous species identity: This is the reason a vampire that was once an human is classified as a "vampire", not a "human vampire".
There are always the examples of the old cards that break the current rules, so yes, Irini Sengir is currently classified as a "Vampire Dwarf", as well as cards with the Sengir Vampire ability, like Mirri the Cursed or Vampiric Dragon .
Aetherborn are a special case, with vampires like Gifted Aetherborn , because the flavor text explains that Vampire is actually their job, not their species.
April 1, 2019 11:59 a.m.
Funkydiscogod good point about losing species identity.
cdkime good eye on the druid; I didn't do the math on that. At 3 it's more comparable to a Far Wanderings with threshold, which on turn 2 is downright abusive. As for the blue one, remember it's draw+discard so copare to a Merfolk Looter which is perpetual, I don't think 5 is too high.
As for the green card drawing, to be sure all colors 'ought' to have card drawing. That blue has grown to have a de facto monopoly on card-drawing is a travesty IMHO; not only does it give the color pie imbalance but it also doesn't make sense flavor-wise. Black gets card drawing because it trades anything for power a la Necropotence , Dark Confidant , Minions' Murmurs and the like. Red being the color of power, chaos, and resources has its own mechanics like Wheel of Fortune and Browbeat . White 'ought' to have its own if it reflects the idea of patience being rewarded with blessing or soemthing to that effect. Green has traditionally had its own in cards like Natural Selection , Sylvan Library , Wall of Blossoms , Recycle , Ohran Viper and even Harmonize . The idea being the abundance of resources, renewal, refreshing, and regrowth. It does fit. As for the farmer, I patterned him after Merfolk Looter but I do see your point about the shuffling. Perhaps bottom of library instead.
I forgot about Imperiosaur . It's been a while.
Yes, I agree with you Gleeful Pyre is a terrible way to showcase the design mechanic.
The issue with the book, now that I think about it, is that thi scard doesn't reflect what the thing actually does, from a flavor perspective. The Book of Knowledge was held in the City of Hoffu after the great uprising in which the demon Onawantue was imprisoned and mortals won their freedom. Shortly thereafter, it became lost and at the same time, the Guild grew seemingly out of nowhere. The way it works is that when you read a page, you gain knowledge but you also imprint a page of knowledge onto it, so that anyone who reads the book after you can gain your knowledge. The Guild initially consisted of the Guildmaster and the six Guild Wizards. But they shared the book among themselves and in so doing grew extremely powerful. Too powrerful for the Guildmaster to control and so he sparked division among them that tore the region apart. The most powerful of them all was Meekay (, but he was also profoundly schizophrenic. Meekay had discovered the Guildmaster's plan: to use the Book of Knowledge to gain the key to unlocking Onawantue, the evil nasty demon that he secretly served so that she could re-enslave the mortal world. And so, the Guildmaster destroyed Meekay's thought receptacle which had previously allowed him to function more or less normally.
Centuries later, the original six became known as gods: Raojan the god of Fire, Norina the goddess of deception, you get the idea. The Guildmaster still needed minions to carry out his whims, but instead of talented mages he chose common folk with a propensity to greed and kept their knowledge on a tight leash---allowing them just enough knowledge to spark but not enough to challenge his control.
Boza if the requirement is that the card will eventually see print else don't bother why do we even have this forum? Is this a secret wotc R&D lab that I don't know about? The point is as with anything else with this game: to entertain and have fun.
As for being unreceptive to criticism, please understand that I thank all of you for your feedback. Thank you. Sincerely. If I come across as aggressive that's because I'm an asshole in general and I'm too old to apologize for that.
April 1, 2019 1:18 p.m.
Your first point goes to a very fundamental issue of the Colour Pie, and one I find quite interesting to discuss. There are two different ways to interpret the Colour Pie--in terms of flavour and in terms of game design.
You are looking at the colour pie from a flavour perspective, by showing any colour can hypothetically justify card draw. From a gameplay perspective, each colour needs its weaknesses and strengths. I would argue that giving each colour a distinct gameplay feel is far more important than "we can justify the flavour of this."
In fact, with card draw, I think Wizards has created a perfect situation, where each colour has access to flavorfully appropriate card draw.
Blue, the colour of the mind, has access to unrestricted card draw as well as card draw where you discard after seeing your options. This is in-line with the idea of Blue as a mental colour, with a plethora of spells easily at one's disposal. Blue might be the best at card draw, but it's also very bad at other aspects of the game, such as closing out games or removal.
Black allows you to exchange creatures or life for cards, which is consistent with its character.
Green is generally tied to creatures or lands, and takes the form of combat tricks, combat damage, having large creatures in play, etc. All these line up with its identity.
Red has discard then draw--you are taking on a risk, rather than Blue's draw then discard, where you have more information before you take the detriment. Red is increasingly getting "exile and then you can cast until end of turn" effects, which lines up with the chaos theme.
White is the worst at card draw, though it's getting more options tied to small creatures or lifegain.
Overall, rather than be a "travesty", I would argue the distinct way each colour approaches card draw is a triumph of game design.
April 1, 2019 1:56 p.m.
Funkydiscogod: can you show me mtg related documentation that specifically states anything about "losing species identity"?
April 1, 2019 9:59 p.m.
cdkime: nvm i missed his other (uninformed) comment.
April 1, 2019 10:04 p.m.
PlatinumOne For proof, just look at some cards from planes where elves and vampires coexist, like Mirrodin or Zendikar. Look for the characteristic pointy ears of elves. It's quite common. Once you realize that none of them have the creature type elf, feel free to come back and move the goalpost again, and say something like "the cards are not a reliable source of information about the way cards are designed."
April 1, 2019 10:47 p.m.
Funkydiscogod: thats not proof at all. you still have not given any proof of your claim. thats not "moving the goalpost" in the slightest.
April 1, 2019 10:53 p.m.
Just to chime in on the vampire creature-type issue. Every creature subtype is usually composed of two parts. Creature - Species Job. Vampire replaces the species portion of a creatures subtype in every modern instance. I think flavor-wise this references how becoming a vampire would involve forsaking your previous species both in self-identity and physiologically.
April 1, 2019 11 p.m. Edited.
April 1, 2019 11:03 p.m.
Ah two good examples as counterpoints, but allow me to rebut. Frilled Mystic is a Simic guild member/creature. Several Simic cards have multiple species to emphasize the guild’s focus on hybridization. E.g. Vorel of the Hull Clade . Mirri is a Planar Chaos’d Crovax the Cursed . That card comes from a time before the great subtype update, but similar cards, Irini Sengir being most notable, have Vampire X subtypes. This strikes me more as an exception to the rule for throwback/nostalgia/Planar Chaos “What-could’ve-been” reasons than anything else.
April 1, 2019 11:13 p.m.
LordBlackblade: and what is this "great subtype update"? the fact that Frilled Mystic is a simic card is irrelevant. if the simic cards can "break the rule" so to speak, then so can anything else. is it really so difficult to bring back vampires that are also of another species? like Vampiric Dragon ? what about Gisela, the Broken Blade who is both an angel and a horror?
April 1, 2019 11:26 p.m.
Here’s a link to the announcement about the update. I think it will answer a lot of your questions. The point with the Simic creatures was to illustrate that there needs to be a lore reason for a creature to have two races. In WoTC’s eyes Vampire is a stand-alone race just like Human or Elf. I’m not saying multi-type vampires can’t exist, but there would have to be a definitive lore reason to do so. For example, the corruption of Gisela by the eldrazi giving her the horror subtype indicative of all corrupted creatures in the Eldritch Moon block.
April 1, 2019 11:36 p.m.
LordBlackblade: nowhere in that article does it state anything about a creature being unable to have multiple races.
April 1, 2019 11:49 p.m.
also, "definitive lore reason" is incredibly easy. elf gets bitten by vampire. boom done. literally the same reason we have minotaur zombies. minotaur dies and is reanimated. boom done.
April 1, 2019 11:50 p.m.
PlatinumOne Doesn't work like that. I already proved 100% the game's elf vampires have the creature type "Vampire" and not "Elf Vampire".
April 1, 2019 11:54 p.m.
Funkydiscogod: does work like that. and you actually didn't prove anything. you havent actually proven that any of the games "elf vampires" are only listed as "vampire". furthermore, the vampires of zendikar do not prove your point at all, as they were created by ulamog. again, Mirri the Cursed disproves your entire point.
April 1, 2019 11:58 p.m.
You’ve obviously already made up your mind so there’s no point in discussing this further. I’m going to leave you with two parting thoughts. First, Mirri the Cursed is the exception to, not the example of the “rule.” Second, part of the MTG NWO is that they want to simplify things when possible. Vampires with additional, unnecessary racial subtypes go against that philosophy in my opinion.
April 2, 2019 12:04 a.m.
Thank you for your help, LordBlackblade in trying to explain the current design standards, but obviously PlatinumOne just doesn't understand that past design standards are not the same as current design standards, or thinks elves are immune to vampirism.
Some people are unwilling to understand. Obviously, they can make whatever custom cards they want, and nobody is going to stop them. At some point, you just have to declare victory and move on.
April 2, 2019 12:13 a.m.
Funkydiscogod i never said elves are immune to vampirism. i've literally been saying the exact opposite. its YOU who are unwilling to understand. so yeah, i'll declare victory and move on. you're the one making the claim that there is some rule a creature cannot be a vampire as well as something else. burden of proof is on you.
LordBlackblade: there are several very recent creatures that directly contradict everything you've been saying. furthermore, the article you linked does not validate your point either. reducing the amount of creature types on a creature does not significantly simplify anything, nor is there any evidence of wotc even doing such a thing in the first place. you have yet to provide any evidence that Mirri the Cursed is the exception. you only claim it as such because it perfectly refutes the idea that a creature cannot be both a vampire as well as something else.
April 2, 2019 12:18 a.m.
April 2, 2019 12:33 a.m.
Funkydiscogod: clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. do you actually believe i ever stated Mirri the Cursed is a recent card? you do realize there were multiple sentence between the words "very recent" and "mirri the cursed" right? you realize they werent in the same sentence? can we move on now? i remember very clearly Mirri the Cursed being spoiled. i was in high school. are you seriously trying to insinuate i'm not even 12 years old, when you're the one acting (and reading) like a child?
April 2, 2019 12:47 a.m.
PlatinumOne: Since you knew Mirri the Cursed wasn't a recent card, then you must have known your argument against LordBlackblade was invalid because the old card was not made with current design standards the he was trying to explain to you.
Do you understand why you're wrong yet?
April 2, 2019 1:08 a.m.
Funkydiscogod: i know my argument is perfectly valid because you are trying to make a claim of current design standards that don't exist. do you understand why you're wrong yet? see the newly spoiled "ahn-crop invader". a minotaur zombie. according to you, it should not be allowed to be both a zombie and minotaur. check. and. mate.
April 2, 2019 1:17 a.m.
I'm going to lay it all on the table here to make my train of thought as clear as possible, and back up my statements with source material. I spent way too much time on this already, so I might as well post it!
Here's a Scryfall search showing all creatures with the Vampire subtype. Of them, thirteen (a mere 5.8% of all vampires) have an additional race subtype. Of those thirteen, three are undead Vampires ( Vampire Revenant , Nirkana Revenant , and Skeletal Vampire ), four are from the Eldritch Moon block and are Vampire Horrors ( Weirded Vampire , Voldaren Pariah Flip, Stromkirk Occultist , and Stromkirk Condemned ), and four were printed before the Grand Creature Type Update (hencefore GCTU) ( Vampiric Dragon , Vampire Hounds , Mirri the Cursed , and Irini Sengir ). The final two are Aetherborn Vampires from Kaladesh ( Yahenni, Undying Partisan and Gifted Aetherborn ).
All of this points to Vampires with two races being the vast minority (again 5.8%) of all Vampires ever printed. Aside from the pre-GCTU Vampires, they all have set-specific reasons for having two racial subtypes or are undead (which seems counter intutive as I've always considered Vampires to be undead already...but I digress).
Here again (for posterity) is the link to the GCTU Announcement. This clarifies what the stance is or R&D in their approach to creature subtypes. From the article, "...we implemented the "race class" model for Magic creatures..." This establishes a baseline for every single MTG creature from September 2007 onward. Elf Druid, Human Warrior, Zombie Knight, etc. This is a framework for card design.
I want to be clear, its a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. In general, they wanted to keep it simple as part of the New World Order of MTG which you can find in an article here. While the article doesn't explicitly state that creatures typing is part of the NWO, it can be inferred from it that simplicity is important in MTG going forward. With that in mind it only makes sense that they would try very hard while designing cards to keep to the "race class" system for both consistency and simplicity. Are they never going to print a card with two races? Of course not, as you mentioned Frilled Mystic and as I mentioned Vorel of the Hull Clade . Wizards isn't afraid to work outside their own general guidelines if it suits their purposes, fits with the lore (this one is important for this argument), and doesn't unbalance the game.
By your argument, every Vampire would have the "Pre-Vampire-Race Vampire Class" e.g. Elf Vampire Druid, Human Vampire Warrior, Vampire Zombie Knight. Could they do it? Sure, but it goes against R&D's stated goal for what they want for MTG going forward by adding needless complexity (and letterhead) to cards.
Your example of Ahn-Crop Invader brings up an interesting point though and I have a thought about it. Let's use some cards with current links as examples. For you side I produce Marauding Boneslasher . A Zombie Minotaur 'Race Race" just like your example. For my side I produce Merciless Eternal . A Zombie Cleric "Race Class." I think what this shows is that when Wizards does put two races on a card it is unlikely be two "Common" races. E.g. Zombie Human, Elf Goblin, etc., unless there are extreme circumstances (Looking at you Vorel). Again I think it comes back to complexity. If every undead or mutated creature had to state its pre-death/mutation type, there'd be way too many of the core tribes in the game. The vast majority of Vampires and Zombies were originally humans judging from their art. By giving cards like that the Human subtype, Humans as a tribe would become overly powerful simply from having a large pool to draw cards from. Keeping the number of races/classes on a card to a minimum could potentially be balance related.
1) Multi-Race Vampires are small percentage of all Vampires ever printed.
2) Wizards wants to consistent in its product and has chosen the "Race Class" model for subtypes
3) Wizards wants to keep the game simple when possible. Extra subtypes go against this and as such are only used when crucial mechanically (e.g. Horrors for the Eldritch Moon block) or from a lore perspective (e.g. Yahenni, Undying Partisan )
April 2, 2019 1:49 a.m.
1) just because its a small percentage doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
2) as you've already stated, wotc can and has gone outside the "race/class" model.
3) extra subtypes are not "only" used for mechanics or "because of lore". as already stated, the "lore" need not be anything more than simply "because its possible". is there a crucial lore reason for "vivien's grizzly" (a bear/spirit recently spoiled from "war of the spark") to be both bear and spirit? not really, other than simply "because viven can conjure bear spirits".
April 2, 2019 2:03 a.m.
In hindsight, I really should have said "Humanoid" planeswalkers instead of "Human" planeswalkers.
April 2, 2019 6:42 a.m.
Yikes, the Vampire discussion got a little out of hand. I think the general conciseness seems to be that, in very rare situations, vampire can be combined with other creature types, with the Aetherborn Vampires being the most recent (and the most relevant for the preseent matter). In such a case, one has to look at the totality of circumstances to see if a bend from regular card design is worthwhile. Having established there are rare, and even recent, examples of Vampire + other race, the issue then turns to the proposed card itself to see if there are sufficient justifications for such a bend to occur.
From the card's name, we know that this creature is a Drow. Drow are the dark elves of Dungeons & Dragons, and have been present in the game since First Edition. Their fey origin, as twisted by the goddess Lloth, is fundamental to their character, and is an important part of their iconic design.
In this present example, the idea is not just to create a drow, but an "Ascendant" Drow--i.e. to show that the Drow has become more than it previously was. Having it be "Elf Vampire" would perfectly capture the flavour of the card--after all, it is an elf that has ascended to something more, while retaining parts of its earlier identity.
Finally, and I think most important to this issue, Drow are not part of Magic's Intellectual Property, but rather another branch of Wizards of the Coast. While there is a lot of overlap between D&D players and Magic players, that does not mean the average Magic Player is going to be familiar with D&D terms, such as "drow". To preserve the flavour of D&D, the subtype "Elf" is necessary to accurately convey the essence of these creatures to an audience who might not immediately think "drow = dark elf."
So, ultimately, I think the creature type here should be "Elf Vampire" with no class, keeping in line with the Aetherborn Vampires we recently were introduced to.
April 2, 2019 9:11 a.m. Edited.
Wow such a discussion.
As for the abilities, indestructible simply doesn't work. All we had to do is make one creature die, then Damnation and swing for some god-awful amount of damage. Regeneration worked. It wasn't unbalanced and without it he's not all that great. But I do see the point about regeneration being confusing for stupid players
April 2, 2019 10:03 a.m.
Regeneration has the exact same problem that you said for Indestructible. You have one creature die. You regenerate your creature. The next step is to cast any of the other wraths in the game that don't have moratoriums on regeneration. Using Regenerate over Indestructible limits the options some, but the effect is still the same--after all, there are plenty of other wrath cards .
April 2, 2019 10:28 a.m. Edited.
The difference is giving your opponent one turn to figure out how to stop him. It's still strong, but it's fair.
April 2, 2019 11:33 a.m.
PlatinumOne Strawman Violation. Nobody was talking about zombies. The discussion was about vampires. Specifically, the claim that 'elf vampire' is an invalid creature type combination. Thus far, I have proved:
Wizards could create the 'elf vampire' type if it wanted.
No creatures have the creature type 'elf vampire'.
Creatures with art depicting elf vampires have the creature type 'vampire'.
This means they did not create any 'elf vampire' creatures, even though they had opportunity and cause. We conclude the current design guidelines forbid the 'elf vampire' and 'human vampire' creature type combinations.
You're nothing if not predictable, so I'll just finish the argument for you:
"But, muh Mirri the Cursed !"
This card was made prior to the grand creature type update. Even if it wasn't, it would still be the only creature card with art depicting a cat vampire, and it is legendary no less. It would seem that 'cat vampire' is so unusual that the extra type can be justified.
For contrast, human and elf vampires are so common, that the other type is not worth the mention.
"But, muh Vampiric Dragon !"
It is also worth noting here that Vampires for a long time prior to the great creature type update, were defined by Sengir Vampire 's ability, and all creatures with that ability had the type "Vampire" before "Vampire" was expanded from a simple mechanic-bound tribe (much like the recent Processor tribe).
But, in this case, vampirism among dragons is so rare that the extra type can be justified.
"But, muh Marauding Boneslasher !"
Irrelevant. We are discussing vampires. Zombies have their own rules.
"But, muh Frilled Mystic !"
Irrelevant. We are discussing vampires. Simic-themed cards have their own rules.
"But, muh Gifted Aetherborn !"
In this case, the flavor text makes it clear that they are not actually a vampire: their race is Aetherborn, and they drain the life out of living beings like a vampire would. This makes their class Vampire (notice how it occupies the traditional "class" part of the creature's type).
"A ha! So, an 'elf vampire' would be an elf who discovered a way to sustain their own existences at the cost of an insatiable hunger for the life essence of other beings."
If they were never bitten by a vampire to acquire their vampiric powers, then yes: this could be one way to justify the existence of an elf vampire, but their race would be elf and their class would be vampire.
"Ah, but that's still technically an Elf Vampire, so I have won an internet argument!"
Yes, you have successfully moved the goal posts far enough to find the single technical loophole. Your dishonest debate tactics have paid off. So, go ahead and land that aircraft on the carrier, President Bush: Mission Accomplished.
You earned it.