Why not Plainswalk?
General forum
Posted on June 7, 2013, 7:20 p.m. by acbooster
Why did they continue every other kind of basic land walk except plains? Only 4 creatures in Magic have Plainswalk. Zodiac Rooster , Righteous Avengers , Graceful Antelope and Boggart Arsonists .
What Epochalyptik said. It just doesn't make sense, flavor wise. The things that could move across Plains undetected have other evasion abilities, like flying, shadow, etc.
June 7, 2013 7:48 p.m.
gnarlicide says... #4
true statement.
I may reference the book titled: The Zombie Survival Guide. Max Brooks says somewhere in it that the best place to go to during zombie apocalypse, (zombies being the off color to white or flavor wise "the plains") you should go to an open area like the plains, so that you may see the undead from a great distance, allowing you to dispatch them before they can get to you.
I hope that helps.
June 7, 2013 7:49 p.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #5
Plainswalk could be confused with Planeswalk - but thats a rather bad excuse.
And that Plainswalk wouldn't make logical sense is simply wrong: If you adapt to your surroundings and utilize certain camouflage techniques, Plainswalk is rather possible, even in real-life situation - albeit, it is much harder than swamp, forest, mountain or island walk, logically. However, Plains are also not always sunny. The cover of darkness night grants you makes plainswalk rather easy to imagine.
Personally, I think it's simple randomness: They just didn't think about it too much(Especially as basic-landtype-walk is no important mechanic in magic: It's usually rather situational and noone would really "rely" on walk.abilities. It is simply a useful extra).
June 7, 2013 8:04 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
Actually, the confusion of two homonyms with very different (and relevant) game purposes is not a bad excuse at all. It's something any competent design team would at least consider when dealing with a game like Magic, which relies on lore and flavor to create a richer experience.
It is far likelier that your counterargument is the one that is wrong. Plains are, by definition, open, flat expanses. The only real way to get over a plains other than walking is by flying, using shadow, etc. You'll notice these kinds of things have already been keyworded and applied in broader situations. Also, the argument that you could cross under the cover of darkness is irrelevant; at that point, your being undetectable has nothing to do with some kind of skilled traversal of terrain.
And to say the dev team didn't think about it is not only wrong, it's a discredit to those who have designed such an immensely complex and rich game. They put thought into each aspect of each card. Landwalk, while comparatively insignificant, is not thrown haphazardly onto cards. It's less believable to think the plainswalk question wasn't brought up at some point than it is to think the dev team didn't like it for one reason or another.
June 7, 2013 8:21 p.m.
I see why they would refrain from using it, but the "cycle" just feels incomplete to me like this.
June 7, 2013 8:23 p.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #8
@Epochalyptik: Well, didn't "think" of it was formulated incorrectly. "Didn't think too much of it" would be more appropriate: As landwalk is just not all that important, there is no need to think hard about it. Also, the confusions of two homonyms may be not a good thing - but still a poor excuse... If it is used to excuse something more relavant than simple landwalk. One also has to take into account, that magic is played in many many languages, which wouldweaken the argument of being confusing a tad. It is something to take into account, but still not very important.
And my argument is most definetely not wrong~ Landwalk is the following: Using terrain to your advantage AND using certain camouflage techniques to your advantage. As I said, it is a bit hard to do with plains, however, still not impossible. A chameleon-like creature, for example, could very well traverse plains without being seen - and with the game magic, we also have.. well magic at our disposal, which broadens the possibilities by a lot.Using night to your advantage does not completely cast out the fact, that you are traversing plains. It still is rather difficult to do at night and requires you to know the terrain rather well. On the other hand, due to our broadened possibilities in a fantasy-universe, the sun can also be used to camouflage yourself. As plains are pretty much the most sunny of the basic-lands, with only few shadows, this has to be taken into account, too.
While I might have sounded a tad discrediting, simple blunders still happen - the possibility for that exists with humans. The fact that landwalk is not all that important simply increases the probability of the possibility. I did also not mean to be discrediting - my personal opinion is only, what I see as the most likely possibility in terms of pure chance, albeit, with this one, the chances are close to eachother.
June 7, 2013 8:35 p.m.
Plainswalk would be a skill. The idea in each scenario is to pass by undetected. We think of plains today in terms of mowed lawns and golf courses. A more accurate depiction would more along the lines of chest high grass or areas with rolling hills. There are numerous examples through history of large groups of Indians here in America or Zulus in Africa melting away into the plains.
With that said Plainswalk versus Planeswalk would confuse some people so I u derstand why the mechanic isn't used.
June 7, 2013 9:05 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
I think you're missing why your argument doesn't hold. At the point where you start using magic or camouflage to cross land, you're no longer using a landwalk ability. You're using something like shadow or pure unblockability. Stealth applies to more situations than just plainswalk or mountainwalk. Your chameleon-like creature could just as easily traverse a forest with the same ability.
Take Cliff Threader - a card that exemplifies the idea of landwalk. Cliff Threader uses certain skills to traverse certain terrain. These skills are limited to this form of terrain. You wouldn't see Cliff Threader crossing a plains or a swamp with the same expertise while using mountaineering equipment.
However, something that goes invisible, stealthed, or what have you would just as easily cross a plains as anything else.
By extension of your night argument, all creatures should have landwalk because they do in fact cross terrain somehow at some point.
June 7, 2013 9:10 p.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #11
You are broadening my argument to invalidate it, however. Lets say the chameleon like creature is a creature that only is found in plains and thus, it body suited itself to living in a plains and utilizing it's chameleon-like camouflage abilities only there - then it would make perfect sense. Other creatures camouflage themselves, for example, in deserts - or even plains. They are not able to change their color, but their natural color makes them camouflaged in this special area. Both of these things are camouflage bound to terrain.
Magic, on the other hand, can also be specialized like that. Or you could have some tools to use the bright sun on plains to your advantage and thus, it is terrain-bound once again.
If we now take camouflage skills into account... Your camouflage skill could be especially suited and trained to camouflage yourself on plains, thus, it is terrain-bound once again. Also, this argument is definetely valid, as there are real-life equivalents.
Utilizing the cover of the night may be an additional advantage, however, this is probably still bound to the terrain - after all, can you walk all stealthy around on any kind of ground? Probably not - the terrain makes a lot of difference.
Landwalk also needs to take into account, to some extents, the sound you make. A forest, a place where it is very easy to accidently make a sound due to wood and branches, is still very different from plains and cannot be compared directly. This makes the pure ninja-esque skill rather terrain bound. And this also applies to the night - as especially at night, sound is much more important.
As I said, you broadened my arguments to counter them, which is a fallacy - I never mentioned complete invisibility or the like. You either actively tried to invalidate or misunderstood me a bit - Your invalidation argument is, that my arguments are not terrain-bound. I now gave a number of examples to simply explain myself.
And on another note... Look at the cards mentioned by the starter of this topic - for most of them, the sense behind it is rather hard to grasp, don't you think? If you disagree, please state why you disagree.
June 7, 2013 9:23 p.m.
KrazyCaley says... #12
Look. Obviously it's because Great Wall destroyed Plainswalk so badly that they can't even print cards with that on it anymore. What are you going to do, build a Plainswalk deck when Great Wall , that eternal staple, is just sitting out there waiting to shut you down?
June 7, 2013 9:29 p.m.
This thread went from fun to depressing. Now I hate all land walking. In fact they should ban all creatures and just have walls.
June 7, 2013 9:29 p.m.
I can see it now: a man in a ghillie suit with plainswalk. He could crawl at ludicrously low speeds on the ground to avoid detection, and then get trampled by horses from the enemy camp.
Darting about in swamps? Fair enough. Scaling mountains? Likely. Swimming through seas? Necessary. Hiding in forests? A staple.
I have a feeling that white mana-producing lands wouldn't allow much stealth, because white is usually a colour dedicated to honest combat.
June 7, 2013 9:30 p.m.
Ok KrazyCaley made it fun again. I'm back in and pro-creature. Burn the walls. Set my ninja free!!!
June 7, 2013 9:32 p.m.
June 7, 2013 9:43 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #17
@Lucy_Is_Scary: At the point where something is so specialized it can only exist in one location, then I concede that it does make sense. But the degree of specialization you describe is exactly the reason there are almost no creatures with plainswalk.
As for the creatures that do have plainswalk:
Zodiac Rooster
is part of a cycle and needed to have plainswalk by design.
Righteous Avengers
is part of a cycle and needed to have plainswalk by design.Graceful Antelope
is believable, but plainswalker doesn't need to exist on it.
Boggart Arsonists
would presumably burn through the plains (hence its flavor and other ability).
And no, I'm not broadening your argument to counter it in the sense you purport that I am. Your arguments were themselves general; I applied the concepts you provided to another situation because you originally gave no limiters that would restrict their application. In the context of post #7, your chameleon-like creature could just as easily exist in a forest as it could on a plains because the message of your argument, as the argument is written, is that a creature with some kind of camouflage could conceivably cross a plains undetected. That concept is true and it's also true for other forms of terrain as well. Camouflage as a skill can help any creature cross any terrain. You only added a qualifier (specifically: this kind of creature is only found in plains) after I pointed out that your original example didn't support your argument, and the message of the modified scenario is not congruent with the message of the original.
Regarding your "clarification" on the cover of night scenario, you're warping your own argument there. The cover of night is not by itself peculiar to any one kind of terrain. Night blankets everything. Your argument is instead that the creature using the cover of night already has an innate familiarity with the land; the cover of night is therefore an unnecessary and distracting addition to your example. If the cover of night were the operative factor, your creature would have "time-of-day-walk," which would still mechanically apply to most creatures that have familiarity with their own terrain.
Regarding paragraph 5 of post #10, your argument about stealth actually proves my point, not yours. Stealth is a broad skill; it does not apply solely to creatures with plainswalk. Your argument that stealth is terrain-bound is wrong; stealth is a category of skills that can apply in any terrain. What you seem to want to argue is that a creature with stealth capabilities in plains environments probably can't apply those capabilities in different environments. This is true, but the implication here is that a creature with plainswalk does not necessarily also have forestwalk. My argument is that stealth does not apply solely to one kind of landwalk because it represents the ability of any creature to traverse terrain while undetected; stealth is not a measure solely of the ability of a creature to traverse plains. You instead seem to want to say that I am arguing that a creature with plainswalk should also have other kinds of landwalk. That is wrong.
I am not arguing against the principles by which creatures might become unstoppable in their respective terrains. What I am actually arguing is that there is comparatively more difficult for a creature to cross a plains environment while undetected or unstoppable than it is for a creature to cross a forest environment (or any other) while undetected because of the geographical nature of plains.
And it is still possible for creatures to have plainswalk, clearly, but the distinct lack of such creatures lends credence to the idea that another factor is at least partly responsible here. Which is where the homonym argument comes in. You instead seem to think that the dev team made a mistake in forgetting about plainswalk, which is far less likely, especially if there are only four creatures with plainswalk, two of which come from cycles of landwalkers.
June 7, 2013 10:23 p.m.
June 7, 2013 10:36 p.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #19
@Epochalyptik: From the beginning, I argued about rather specific situations - after all, landwalk is one specific thing. I did not start out stating this clearly, however, I always mentioned that Plainswalk would definetely be a hard terrain to "stealth" over. However, as you may be able to see, too: The creatures that already have Plainswalk do not directly make logical sense to have it.
As I mentioned, too: Either misinterpretation(One thing that easily happens over the internet) or broadening of my arguments to counter them. In this case, it was probably small misinterpretation and using this misinterpretation for your cause. You applied my arguments to different situations, as I gave no clear restrictions. However: My argument, right from the beginning, was: It is possible and logical, albeit a tad harder, to have the ability "Plainswalk". As my base argument is "It is possible and logical, albeit hard", specific qualifiers are no fallacy - a skill of any sort always requires certain specification, on how and where it does apply. So you did not counter my argument - you talked about something completely else, in a sense. However, I must concede that I misunderstood you a tad, but well~ I have excuses up my sleeve for that to seem intelligent(note that breeze of pessimistic sarcasm~).
The darkness argument may be a tad flimsy, that's true. And it can be applied to any kind of landwalk, that is true, too. However, even though I do not know which card uses the "cover-of-the-night"-logic, I am rather sure that there are a few examples to be found - correct me if I am wrong. If you can apply this darkness-advantage for one land type, you can probably also do it for another landtype - even plains. As I said, the darkness-argument is a bit flimsy, however, it still is not invalid - a assassin that has to traverse plains will be much more used and skilled within "Plainswalk", even if only at night, than at "Islandwalk" or "Mountainwalk". This makes the night argument valid enough.
I do prove my point with my stealth argument, though~ While stealth is a broad skill, it can and should be specified to certain terrain. If it is not specified, it is simply not as effective as it could be(Except one is perfect in everything). I am saying that stealth can apply to every terrain and can also be bound to every terrain - even plains. It seems like you misunderstood me a bit there.And this what I meant by "broadening my arguments". Just because I say that stealth can be terrain bound - even plains bound - I do not say that stealth has to be terrain bound - it's after all a general classification of skill. I should have probably detailed this fact a bit better, but we already throw walls of text over walls of text against our heads~ It does seem like I am arguing that you say, that if you have one walk, you also should logically have another. This is however not what I mean.
If you are arguing that it is only harder, then our argument was a tad trivial, now was it not? I am arguing that plainswalk is definetely possible and logical, albeit hard.
In terms of why the lack exists, I am simply pointing out, that a simple blunder is a possibility which is not all that impossible. The simple homonym problem alone probably wouldn't have stopped them from creating more plainswalk creatures. Combined with the "plainwalk is hard" problem, it becomes more possible, yet, in my opinion, still not most possible. If you add, that they probably simply did not care much about the few plainswalk creatures - as Landwalk abilities simply are not all that "important" - the combination of these few possibilities gives rise to the most reasonable possibility - in my opinion. However, I only tried to defend my opinion as a valid possibility, not that I am correct with this opinion.
June 7, 2013 11:12 p.m.
Lol @ KevinBasham...
I can see it now: a man in a ghillie suit with plainswalk. He could crawl at ludicrously low speeds on the ground to avoid detection, and then get trampled by horses from the enemy camp.
This reminds me of CoD 4 when you're playing as Price crawling through the field and there are tons of soldiers and tanks rolling around by you... squished by a tank ftl :)
June 8, 2013 12:02 a.m.
You know I'm just going to come out and say your logic fails.... It maybe totally correct, but you are all wrong. the real reason is white is a douche bag color.... They remove all obstructions from view so they can see the incomming kegs of beer and spot their hotties with wings aka the sorority sisters keyworded as angel.... That's my truth and I'm sticking to it
June 8, 2013 12:14 a.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #23
Close, but no cigar :3 In fact, not even close~ heck, I do not even know the gender of this one person --
June 8, 2013 1:12 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #24
@Lucy_Is_Scary: It's neither misinterpretation nor purposeful broadening. I took exactly what you said and applied it. If what you said is not what you meant, then it's a wording error on your part.
I also maintain that, while technically possible, a blunder is highly unlikely. Although landwalk is a marginalized ability, it is not randomly put onto cards. Every card has to be specifically designed, and the design process for whole sets involves looking at each card in context. This means a comparative lack of plainswalk would likely have been noticed within one set and would certainly have been noticed across multiple sets. I doubt that WotC would have realized plainswalk was rare and decided not to do anything about that - unless there was and still is some external factor at play. If it were a blunder, it would likely have been corrected in the interest of improving and rebalancing the game. That it hasn't is more a testament to there being other reasons for the dev team's choices.
@Apoptosis: No, I just enjoy arguments of logic.
@Lucy_Is_Scary: Male, not that it matters.
June 8, 2013 6:25 a.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #25
My wording was not wrong, per se - it was just too vague. I've been pretty tired at that time, but the discussion kept me awake" In any case, you did not take my words exactly - you took them as you understood them and also as what would be a favorable meaning for you. This is a fallacy on your side, albeit, some more thought put into my words would have probably been appropriate.
Talking about balance, I would argue that the existence, or rather, non-existence of Plainswalk does not add or take much to the current balance of the game. While external factors definitely factorize into the probability by a good bit, I still argue it was sort of a blunder - a "don't care" situation, to be exact. I could very well imagine, that dealing with the lack of Plainswalk is pretty near the bottom of the list of things to-do for WotC. This makes it a thing that is easy to forget for them. The possibility for a simple kind of "blunder" definetely exists and rises in probability due to Plainswalk being of low concern. Combine that with the external factors you have brought into play, which are rather flimsy as a reasoning in terms of game balance, and it makes the possibility of a simple "blunder" rise. They surely are aware of this lack of Plainswalk, but they simply do not find it important enough to consistently fix right away. Also, I definetely assume that at least part of the reason, why Plainswalk still is nigh non-existent, is that they simply do not care about it enough, to put it blunt. At some point, this will probably fixed - but definetely not now.
June 8, 2013 6:53 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #26
It was a wording issue. I took your argument as written; it wasn't a matter of interpreting it differently or distorting it to make it untrue.
I do agree that plainswalk as a whole is on the bottom of the dev team's to-do list. Again, your second paragraph is clarifying your position in a way that makes sense. The previous posts opined that the dev team made a mistake and implied they didn't consider it. This post is saying something else, so if this is your actual position, your prior one was incorrectly worded.
Plainswalk would also be a relatively easy fix if they wanted to fix it. I still maintain that it would not be beneficial to do so, especially because planeswalkers and planechase both exist now. (The latter isn't a huge barrier, admittedly, but it's still a consideration.)
June 8, 2013 7:11 a.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #27
First off, my wording for explaining why plainswalk is perfectly logical was not incorrect. You used my fallacy of being too vague to your advantage - which is "distortion" or "misinterpretation". Secondly, I asserted a position to counter the "Plains-Planes" argument. First off I used the phrase "bad excuse" for it - but even a bad excuse is an excuse. By now I have specified it to "Flimsy argumentation, especially in terms of game balance" - which is essentially the same as "bad excuse", even if the secondary is rather vague. Again, my own vagueness allowed you to distort/misinterpretate my arguments. Number three, my simple opinion was that it was a sort of a blunder. I stated "They just didn't think about it" and later correct this into "They did not think too much about", which still stands. Again, the wording can be mistook easily if one wishes to nitpick at it, so I asserted arguments as to how I actually came to this statement. For example, I explained how I actually came to have the opinion that it is a sort of blunder. One thing which is interesting: As you said, my previous implied a mistake on part of the dev team - I did not directly state that. A blunder is not essentially the same as a mistake, especially if taking into account that a very mild blunder is oftentimes not even noticable. I used other phrases, simply to make myself more clear on my meaning - after all, I have to admit, that I was rather vague in my first few posts. For example "Didn't care about it" is still a valid equivalent to a sort of blunder. I do concede that I oftentimes have been to vague - however, you definitely distorted the meaning of my words to your understanding - which is either misinterpretation or targeted distortion. As mentioned, you used some of my vague wordings to counter my arguments - by relying on someone's vague wording, you definitely broaden their argument simply by interpretating vague wording as you see fit. This is a fallacy on my side for using vague wording, but a fallacy on your side by relying on it.
Oh and also: What possible arguments, except that Plainswalking is harder to do/imagine(However, I think I surely established that it is well logical enough, both through "reallife"-methods and through "fantasy"-methods), what external reason could you bring up for WotC not fixing the Plainswalking-Problem before Planeswalkers came out? After all, they are still relatively new(Especially to someone like me, who had a bit of a pause, yet played magic for around 7-8 years before).
June 8, 2013 7:48 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
@Lucy_Is_Scary: The thing about logical arguments: everything is in the wording. You classify my argument as a "distortion" or "misrepresentation," but those claims are based on the stance you have in your mind. My posts are about the stance you present in your writing. If you have to keep clarifying what you mean, that's a sign you aren't conveying something critical about your perspective. My arguments are based on what evidence I have, and, based solely on the content your posts, I have not distorted or misrepresented anything.
My vagueness allowed you to distort/misrepresentate [sic, I assume you mean misrepresent] my argumentsThat phrase is categorical proof of my above assertation. You cannot claim that I am misrepresenting anything when you are not providing any solid representation of your own views. A misrepresentation case comes into play if I take what you have written and skew it, not if you fail to properly express your view, yet still judge others' counterarguments based on that view and not what has actually been expressed.
This is effectively what has happened here:
A: "That's a boy."
B: "No, that's a woman."
A: "She's pregnant. I was talking about the baby."
B: "Why didn't you say that?"A: "I did."
If there is a misrepresentation here, it is your misrepresentation of your own argument.
Second, labeling something a "bad excuse" is not the same as refuting something. It's not even asserting a position. It's dancing around the point using a "because I said so" argument, which doesn't prove or disprove anything. Your statement:
"Flimsy argumentation, especially in terms of game balance" - which is essentially the same as "bad excuse"This argument is also categorically wrong. The first is a legitimate concern. The second is the rhetorical equivalent of blowing raspberries at your opponent. Nothing here is even an excuse - the homonym argument is a legitimate theory about the reason, or part of the reason, why plainswalk is not contextually favorable.
As you said, my previous implied a mistake on part of the dev team - I did not directly state that. A blunder is not essentially the same as a mistake, especially if taking into account that a very mild blunder is oftentimes not even noticable.This is, again, a fallacious argument. You can't play convoluted semantic word games as a defensive tactic. And even if you do not directly state something, you are responsible for any inferences that can be drawn from your own argument. It's fine if you don't directly state something, but if you word your argument such that that statement may easily and logically be inferred from your argument, that is tantamount to stating it.
I stated "They just didn't think about it" and later correct this into "They did not think too much about", which still stands. Again, the wording can be mistook easily if one wishes to nitpick at it . . .Your two statements have completely different meanings. The former is an assertion that the dev team did not ever consider something, and the latter is an assertion that the dev team did acknowledge something, but didn't highly prioritize it. These arguments have totally different contextual implications here, and you can't say it's nitpicking for interpreting exactly what you've stated. This is a case of poor wording, not distortion.
by relying on someone's vague wording, you definitely broaden their argument simply by interpretating [sic] vague wording as you see fit. This is a fallacy on my side for using vague wording, but a fallacy on your side by relying on it.All I have to go by is what you post here. If your argument is vague, of course I must rely on a vague argument - nothing else is available. You could have the most eloquent and minute understanding of something in your mind, but if you represent that understanding poorly, nobody will know what you actually think.
To your last point: Planeswalking is a central element of the game's foundation, even if planeswalker cards are disregarded. Admittedly, the argument does lose some tangible implications when you consider the period before planeswalkers were printed, but it is still viable. Additionally, I never stated that the homonym argument was the only legitimate answer or even that it was an answer. It's a theory that happens to make sense. I don't know what the dev team's considerations were for any one period or set, let alone the entirety of Magic's history. Therefore, all I (or anyone else) can do is speculate based on available information.
June 8, 2013 9:06 a.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #29
Now to defend myself then, eh?Firstly, I accidently wrote misinterpretate... Numerous times. I actually meant "misinterpreted". Don't ask me how I got this wrong, sometimes I am stupid o.o
So now, my very first arguments were not meant to be discussable to such an extent - as to which, of course, I had to specify them after that. This is rather obvious, actually - while not necassarily a given. You may argue that my first comment still is very vague - however, I can not account for everyone to understand it the way it is meant. The foundation of my argument is thus not my first comment per se, but rather the clarification I gave later on - this is no fallacy by the book, per se, as it is not a given that I would need to specify it more, as I could not account for the fact that you, the gentleman in question, would not directly understand what I mean. While a friend of mine, for example, understood what I meant. This is a matter of subjectivism - not accounting for it is no definite fallacy, albeit a blunder. But due to still not being a given(I know, this gets repetitive - it tends to happen when I am deprived of sleep), you cannot pin me down on this one. Difference in conversation "types" call for a different way of wording. If you do not expect the conversation end up in type X, your first comments may not be perfectly suited to the conversation type.
With that out of the way, lets get into why I clarified and also over-clarified so much. First clarification was simply necassary. Further clarification, however, has happened. Lets take examples:"I think you're missing why your argument doesn't hold. At the point where you start using magic or camouflage to cross land, you're no longer using a landwalk ability. Your chameleon-like creature could just as easily traverse a forest with the same ability."
"You are broadening my argument to invalidate it, however. Lets say the chameleon like creature is a creature that only is found in plains and thus, it body suited itself to living in a plains and utilizing it's chameleon-like camouflage abilities only there - then it would make perfect sense. Other creatures camouflage themselves, for example, in deserts - or even plains. They are not able to change their color, but their natural color makes them camouflaged in this special area. Both of these things are camouflage bound to terrain. "
In this example you made a number of fallacies: 1. You are devalidating magic and camouflage techniques as assets for landwalk, ignoring the fact that camouflage techniques and magic could be bound to terrain. I did not specify exactly that magic could be bound to the terrain, like a watermage is bound to water, because I did not think it was necassary~ It is obvious that, while talking about landwalk, the magic used to do so needs to be bound to the land. You then, however, proceeded to invalidate my argument by saying, simplified: "It's too specified". In that case, mountain climbing skill is not too specified? It is specified. Also, you ignored that I only named a few possibilities for Plainswalk to make sense - I did not name ALL possibilities and generalized the possibilities. Obviously, I need to be vague while generalizing. If you fail to grasp given specifiers that my arguments come with, I of course have to repeatedly specify them. 2. Yes, a chameleon-like creature could probably have all-landwalk: But I did not say it has. I did not specify that it's camouflage techniques only work on plains - which is, however, another given. By ignoring this rather obvious factor, you assumed a different point of view to devalidate my argument. 3. You are not following the mental definition for landwalk in this example. Why? You completely devalidated sources like camouflage or magic to be assets for landwalk. If we are talking about plainswalk, lets now classify plainswalk: The ability to either traverse plains especially stealthy OR in an unstoppable manner. The methods of how to traverse the land in question are not of much matter, except for a mental image - the only important thing is, that this ability is bound to the landtype: Plains. Heck, a fast runner would have enough reason to have plainswalk even.
In any case, this concludes the first part, as I am running out of writing time. I hope you now understand why it was a necessity to over-clarify myself.
A bad excuse is still to be understood as phrase and not as an excuse. Also, I did not directly state that the theory is a bad excuse - which would be sort of very stupid of me... I targeted the outcome of the theory, Id Est, if the theory were true, the reason of Homonyms is what I would call a bad excuse to not fix the Plainswalk "problem". And as mentioned before, it still is painfully obvious that my first comment was not written as a discussion base. Flimsy argumentation=Bad excuse. The latter one just does not sound as nice. "especially in terms of game balance" is simply a sentence to emphasize and is not the same as "Bad Excuse" in any sense. This was, yet again, no fallacy of formulation.
Convoluted Semantics~ Well, everyone has their own definitions of words, usually dictated by the surroundings, generally spoken. We have a different vocabulary and thus use different words for the same things - something rather unpreventable, sadly. It's annoying, yes, but convoluted semantics sometimes are necessary to clean up a misunderstanding, which we had. Defense and clarification are not the same thing - clearing a misunderstanding may serve as a defense but still is no real one, as defending an obvious misunderstanding ends in only more of em, not getting to any result. In any case, I am rather fond of semantics and tend to use words rather exact - many people cannot cope well with that. In our discussion though, I've got a number of bad excuses for my occassionally bad wording: I am not used to talk english anymore, as I haven't had internet access for a good amount of time until recently - I am simply a bit rusty and had no one to talk english with. Tiredness is my bad excuse number 1 for the day~ And the last bad excuse I stutter out is, that I simply cannot stand to write such big walls of texts, yet always end up doing it. I rather talk than write if I am discussing, except with a few certain people which know me well enough to not repeatedly misunderstand me - additionally, writing per forum is a lot more annoying than simple chatting per skype or the like.
"Didn't think about it" and "did not think much about it"... While these two may sometimes be worlds apart, they sometimes also are rather close. Yes, you are right with the implications - poor wording? Possible - I already mentioned that my first comment is obviously not as serious. Completely different? Wrong.Didn't think about it implies, that you know it, but forgot or simply did not care enough. Did not think much about it implies the same, actually - this is the way I meant it and it also is understandable the way I formulated it, albeit not fully clear. The main difference between the two phrases is that the first one can implicate more than the second, making the first one indeed too vague and the second one more spot on, yet they still can convey the same message. As a proof for my own(and proof that semantics at least work to an extent), I have shown this to a number of friends and acquaintances of mine, that happened to come by today. The result is clear: It was too vague and sounded a tad mean, but was not wrong, as you make it out to be. I have no proof to give to you, but I hope you understand my point of view now. Semantics are annoying, yet important - and I know a good bit of them.
"Relying on vague wording" alone may not be clear enough, as it seems. The main point is that you have read my vague wording, probably realized it's vague, interpreted it as you saw fit, but ignoring that you actually interpreted it. This means: If I say camouflage, you say camouflage could always be applied. This may not seem wrong, but is wrong in this special context, as there is a base-specifier of plains. The base specifier specifies vague wording indirectly simply by context. Logic has always be put into the right frame to be perfect, after all~ By ignoring the base specifier, the context, the metaphorical frame, the only thing you do is: Forcing me to clarify and drawing things out, simply making things more complicated for me even though they should not be.
To your last point commenting on my last point: Yes, the argument still holds some viability, but I did not argue that. As it is now, my main point against the Homonym-theory is, that I simply do not think that it adds enough value to justify the Plainswalking-problem. And I know we can just speculate - which is another reason why I generalize a lot with this topic. In the end, no matter who arguments what, it could still boil down to nothing of what we discussed. But well, this is just another base-foundation.
June 8, 2013 11:31 a.m.
Is there a tl;dr version of the conversation here? It hurts my eyes to try and read the wall of text.
June 8, 2013 11:53 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #31
@Lucy_Is_Scary: Given what you've written, I fail to see how the average reader could have gotten your meaning by going through your first post. While it's fair to say that clarification expands on the meaning of an idea, you need to give a sufficient presentation of the original idea to claim that clarification is extraneous rather than necessary. You're taking for granted the basic assumptions of argument, which is why it's difficult to communicate with you.
The second paragraph of your post is difficult to get through. I assume you're going for a defense of your writing style or something similar, which is fine. Different people have different writing styles. But again, you cannot claim that unnecessary vagueness is stylistically defensible. It's just poor writing. If an athlete greets his mates with a slap on the bum, then greets someone on the street the same way, it's not defensible as a "style" of greeting because it's not contextually appropriate or adequate.
Getting to your first case, it's clear that you still don't understand what I'm arguing.
Point 1: You presented a broad position: stealth is a viable means of crossing terrain. That much is true. However, you never originally limited your proposal to the case of a creature using stealth as it pertains to only a single environment. This changes the meaning of your argument. Stealth as a broad skill, which is how you initially presented it, are more suited to an explanation of why something should be unblockable or have shadow than it is suited to an explanation of why something might only be unblockable in a very limited context. Moving on, I didn't "invalidate" your idea for being specified. I, as I continually try to get you to realize, claimed that your end point was absent or only faintly present in your initial posts - so much so that it was clearly not the first conclusion I reached from reading your post.
Point 2: You can't claim I ignored it if you never presented it in the first place. Yet again, clarifying later on is fine. However, you cannot clarify something later on and then criticize me for not having some clairvoyant knowledge of what you were actually trying, yet failing to say.
Point 3: I am following that definition of landwalk, but your initial post never clarified that we were speaking in so limited a context. When you present a broad argument, then I comment on that broad argument, you cannot accuse me of broadening your argument. I'm working with what you give me.
As I said before, your actual idea is sound, but your presentation of the idea is flawed to the point that your actual idea can't be perceived. I'm not saying you over-clarified anything. I'm saying you under-clarified your initial post so much that it failed to sufficiently convey your thoughts. If you don't communicate in the beginning, you can't communicate it later and hold against anyone their not taking your uncommunicated message into account in the meantime.
To your second major premise:
Also, I did not directly state that the theory is a bad excuseYes you did:
Plainswalk could be confused with Planeswalk - but thats a rather bad excuse.I must make a brief note before we continue: You claim that your first post was not meant for discussion. Why post it, then? Clearly you are trying to convey an argument, and logically it follows that people who read that argument will respond in one way or another.
Flimsy argumentation=Bad excuse. The latter one just does not sound as nice. "especially in terms of game balance" is simply a sentence to emphasize and is not the same as "Bad Excuse" in any sense.So "flimsy argumentation" is equal to "bad excuse," yet it isn't?
Your statement about convoluted semantics is, perhaps fittingly, convoluted.
I am rather fond of semantics and tend to use words rather exact - many people cannot cope well with that.You're currently debating with a researcher of rhetoric and literature.
Regarding your case about "did not think about it" versus "did not think much about it," I will concede that they can mean the same thing. But why not, if you are so fond of semantics, go for the phrasing that is absolutely correct rather than conditionally correct? Such an approach would have prevented a misunderstanding.
If I say camouflage, you say camouflage could always be applied. This may not seem wrong, but is wrong in this special contextGiven that you never specified the context when you presented that argument, I find it difficult for you to conceive a legitimate case against me for interpreting it how I did.
Again, I have not interpreted your arguments as I see fit. I interpret them as they are written, then point out their flaws. You then later confine the arguments and criticize me for not earlier adhering to those then-unissued constraints. Those criticisms are illegitimate. You can't say that I've ignored a context you haven't provided, especially when the context that exists in lieu of your own is one of a general discussion about landwalking abilities (read post #5 on page 1, to which you responded).
June 8, 2013 1:03 p.m.
Smith_and_Tonic says... #32
In the current standard legal sets, there is 3 instances of Islandwalk, 2 instances of swampwalk, 2 instances of forestwalk, and 1 instance of mountainwalk. WotC has already expressed their concerns with creating cards that decrease the learning curve for newcomers to the game. Landwalk is a confusing concept when a new player is first being introduced. Another confusing concept is planeswalkers since they don't look like other magic cards and are unique in how they are used.
There are two concepts that are confusing to new players, planeswalkers and landwalk (which includes plainswalk). Creating a set with both planeswalkers and creatures with plainswalk would be too confusing for new players. The R&D team over at WotC puts lots of time and effort into making cards that are not only clear but easily understood by new players. The reason that planewalkers and plainswalk are too similar is most definitely a logical reason for getting rid of plainswalk.
From a lore perspective, it also makes since cards are not printed with plainswalk anymore. Lets compare plainswalk to mountainwalk. In order for a creature to have mountainwalk, it would have to either live in the mountains and be able to easily traverse them or have adapted to moving in the mountains. A mountain is obviously difficult terrain, since the creature would have to be able to climb and be able to find sure footing on the uneven surfaces. The creature would need the ability to traverse the terrain easily, hence mountainwalk. Now looking at plainswalk. The plains are a flat, open expanse with tall grasses. Any creature which can walk on dry land could easily traverse the plains since there is nothing hostile or difficult about the environment. So then every creature should have plainswalk? Obviously not, that would not make sense from a gameplay perspective. When stealth is introduced into the equation, you are changing the parameters in which landwalk is understood. Landwalk is a creatures' ability to move across the land easily (and quicker then others since it cannot be block). When you introduce stealth, that is simply saying the creature is unblockable or has shroud. If a creature can move across the plains under the cover of darkness, that would not make sense since they would only be unblockable during the night and not in any situation involving the plains.
June 8, 2013 1:45 p.m.
Ah yes, I remember that drakanar. Goooood times. I actually did die like that the first time, I think...
June 8, 2013 2:43 p.m.
Epochalyptik and Lucy_Is_Scary, how about you two agree to disagree and end this before the whole tappedout community goes on suicide watch?
I hate all land walking abilities again. I also hate all creatures that walk. Wizards should ban all non flying creatures with legs. And all flying creatures with legs for that matter (just to be safe). That way we'll have a world of ooze and paraplegics. We can keep the walls. In fact I think we need lots of walls. Especially with pointy teeth. Victory will only be achieved by milling, the Black Vise , direct damage, and Underworld Dreams . That's it.
Unless KrazyCaley can talk me off the ledge... I'm going with: Black Lotus , Mountain , Channel , Fireball . And if someone tries to cast Force of Will , I'm coming over the table at em.
June 8, 2013 2:50 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
It's a civil discussion, if a bit long-winded. Not like some of the meltdowns we've seen.
Also, Channel 's art has legs in it. And the old art depicts something that presumably has legs.
June 8, 2013 2:57 p.m.
My Channel are all from Revised any latter printing are fabrications that will be banned in my legless new world order. And I'll state... off the record and just between friends... that the old man in the original artwork was a paraplegic in a wheelchair, who for purposes of pride and dignity, didn't want his disability shown on the card (somewhat akin to FDR).
June 8, 2013 3:09 p.m.
Lucy_Is_Scary says... #37
@Epochalyptik: That my first post was not clear enough was a mistake on my part - but I still stand that it was not meant for a discussion of this "level". I conceded that it was fallacious, but I simply did not expect to have the need to watch my words to this extent. And while you may say that the average reader would not be able to decipher the meaning of what I wanted to convey - why did people whom I showed this understand what I mean? Maybe they did not understand exactly, but that is not even necessary, as it was merely an opinion of mine - after all, it was a simple comment and not the start of a discussion of this level - I, for one, have not pictured it to be. If you wish to pin me down on this one, then continue - but it still does not invalidate my point.
Taking basic assumptions for granted is something rather usual, actually. If I am talking about maths, I assume that the other person knows that "x" is a variable for a number. If I am talking with someone about magic, I assume that they know what discard means, for example. If we are talking about plainswalk, I assume that you are aware that I am binding the possibilities of how to actually "plainswalk" to the terrain - Plains. I can see how you can misunderstand it, however, this is no fallacy on my part, even though also no fallacy on your part.
Yes, I did not specifically bind "camouflage" plains, except by naming it as a possibility. I also did not directly state, at first, that stealth-techniques could be terrain bound. I did it in an indirect manner - which is, once again, no fallacy. Yes, I probably should have specified it right away - but well, this is a blunder. In discussions, I tend to talk directly rather than to write - or at least chat. THings get much easier then~So, while I may not have specified it directly, I have stated that stealth is possible to utilize for plainswalk and I assumed that you know that I understand what the difference between Plainswalk and Unblockability is - I have been a bit vague at first, simply because I did not wish to specify all of the possibilities of why Plainswalk can be logically done. Later on, you commented on the broadness of the word "stealth" and I clarified as to why it could be bound to terrain. Later on, however, you wanted to devalidate, for example, my more specified stealth argument by saying "At the point where something is so specialized it can only exist in one location, then I concede that it does make sense. But the degree of specialization you describe is exactly the reason there are almost no creatures with plainswalk."You gave to me that it works, if specialized - but then devalidated my argument by saying that it is too specialized - and that this is the reason why no plainswalk exists. This is a fallacy in this context, as Landwalk abilities often are specialized to such a degree.
If I use a broad argument and you comment on that broad argument: Why not use exactly what I write instead of using one possible point of view of the argument? You repeatedly used a certain point of view of the argument - which is not a fallacy per se. However, by doing this, you ignored other points of view as if they weren't there. By this, you ignore the other point of view - be it unwittingly or not.
While my first posts definitely had been flawed in their presentation - I tested out your premise. That means, that most could not understand me~ I, of course, tested then with random people I know who happened to have been here this weekend or with whom I happened to phone/chat with or something. In the end, the result is: Why it is possible to misunderstand me, they easily understood what I meant for the most part - without me explaining it further, of course. You may not believe this, but I see no reason to lie.
I did not mention the theory directly. Wether I was calling the theory OR the positive outcome of the theory(Id Est: Theory=True Reason) a "bad excuse" is still in the open with that sentence alone. However, a theory in this sense can't really be an excuse and as such, it lies near that I would label the reason a "bad excuse". I should have probably made this clear more, however, everyone understood this correctly after I showed them. One can always clarify, but one does not always need to. Additionally, I also had to clarify on the meaning of the phrase "bad excuse" and how I used it: I did not make a mistake in using that phrase, after all. So this is a misunderstanding~ Most misunderstandings can be prevented - however, as I did not think I would cause such a misunderstanding, I apologize for that - I, however, still had not much of a reason to think I would cause such a misunderstanding, so I am not regarding this as a mistake or fallacy on my part, but a blunder.
"Flimsy Argumentation" can be equal to "Bad Excuse", while "Bad Excuse" could also be understood different way.
As I conceded several times, the first comment of mine was not formulated well enough. While I may be rather fond of semantics, I do not always think as much about every word in every situation - which is perfectly usual.
Accuse is such a hard word~ But well, while I might not have given the context, the place where we are having the conversation gives the context, to be exact, the name of the thread itself. At this point, we have been driven far away from the original topic, though. I probably should have specified a bit more and give the context myself - however, I assumed that the context was given simply due to the theme we were discussing. This sort of logic usually holds foot on a forum and has proved to be understood by others usually(Subjective empirical research).
In any case, if you call yourself a researcher of rethoric of literature~ Anything more specific in terms of what you work as or still studying? Just curious.
June 10, 2013 12:56 a.m.
What. The. Fuck.
I feel like if there was any unspoken rule on this site, it would be
- Dont tell Epoch he is wrong, ebcause it means YOUR wrong.
its like reading two college kids thesis papers about two contrasting ideals. Jesus H Christ.
but hey gives me something to do while im at work.
NOW. FINISH HIM!!!!!!!!!
June 10, 2013 2:31 a.m.
I think the argument that a Plains would be difficult to walk through undetected is a complete farce.
Forests - Twigs, animals, moving branches... nearly impossible to move though undetected.
Mountain - High altitude exposure, lose rocks, long journey... nearly impossible to move through undetected.
Swamps - Stuck in mud, highly exposed, slow pace... nearly impossible to move through undetected.
Islands - This one makes the most sense. - Underwater... sill need to worry about clear oceanic waters and wave/ripple effects, but fairly effective cover.
Plains - Tall grass = great cover. Low noise, completely unseen, would only need the ability to slowly or in synchrony with wind to make oneself invisible. - Many animals use tall grass for ambush attacks because it is very effective.
In reality, every type of land has some versions that could crossed stealthily, and some that cannot. - Plains would be no exception.
The second argument, stating that it is because of potential confusion between plainswalk and planeswalk... well, that makes sense... now. But the first Planeswalker cards were printed in 2007.... Leaving a lot of room for possible plainswalkers before then.
But the real clincher.... the real reason why plainswalkers would make sense in this game comes from the name of the game... MAGIC! - Go figure!
June 10, 2013 8:20 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #40
At this point I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying or you are choosing to not acknowledge it in an attempt to maintain a footing.
Regarding your first paragraph, I never claimed that your point was invalidated merely because your first post was not meant for discussion. I said it was at least shortsighted to not expect discussion to develop from it, but I never said that your point was invalid because of this reason.
Regarding the second paragraph, it is common to make assumptions. You're simply making the wrong ones, especially regarding the scope and implications of the arguments at hand here.
You gave to me that it works, if specialized - but then devalidated [sic] my argument by saying that it is too specialized - and that this is the reason why no plainswalk exists. This is a fallacy in this context, as Landwalk abilities often are specialized to such a degree.I'm not invalidating anything. I'm commenting on landwalk's need for relative specialization of skills or attributes. Because plains are easy to walk across, it logically follows that most creatures would simply walk across them. Few creatures would have needed to develop the specialized skills or attributes to allow them to cross plains more effectively because plainswalk is comparatively unnecessary. Your claim that my argument is "fallacy" is not only incorrect, it's misguided. You are failing to comprehend the argument - I am not saying that specialized skills are not a valid explanation for landwalk. In fact, I am saying the exact opposite. What my post was actually arguing is that few creatures have a present need for further refining their ability to walk over flat, open terrain.
I should address the fact that you're clinging to words and phrases like "fallacy" and "per se" as though they were rhetorical life preservers to be used whenever you think you have found a loophole or glimmer of validation. Instead of trying to dance around my comments and use irrelevant points to claim validity, you should instead read what I am continually stressing to you.
For example, your claims that you don't speak English often anymore or that your friends all understand you are both irrelevant straw man arguments that do nothing to further your position and that fail to address my actual points.
If I use a broad argument and you comment on that broad argument: Why not use exactly what I write instead of using one possible point of view of the argument?It's clear from this very sentence that you don't understand what exactly a broad argument is. First, I did use exactly what you wrote for all of my posts; I did not make generalizations that were not already present within your presentation of your own point. Second, because I shall here assume that you mean to suggest I should respond to your intent, it is impossible to glean your exact intent from a general statement. This is a definition of generality. Third, Using exactly what you write is the same as "using one possible point of view of the argument." It's using your point of view of the argument. That, however, is somewhat irrelevant. The real problem here is that this comment demonstrates to me that you will not properly acknowledge any comments that do not adhere to your perspective.
Furthermore, I did not ignore other points of view. In fact, I have been responding to every point that has arisen, and I have also acknowledged the few parts of your statements that actually hold.
Regarding your paragraph on the "bad example" comment: It is irrelevant which aspect of the theory you label "bad excuse." That does nothing to change the fact that saying something is a "bad excuse" is tantamount to ignorance, whether intentional or unintentional.
Again, the real problem here is that you refuse to properly debate. You attempt to refute the claim that deeming something a "bad excuse" is illegitimate (it is), then hide behind that attempted refutation as though it will shield you from the remainder of the discussion.
Furthermore, you are still trying to play semantic games in an attempt to create loopholes. Trying to draw distinctions between "blunders" and "mistakes" and "fallacies" is a defensive mechanism that debaters tend to use when they have been called out on a relevant issue, have either an improper understanding of the argument or no proper rebuttal to the argument, and feel the need to respond and save face.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph: I should briefly note that appending the phrase "subjective empirical research" to the end of your argument does nothing to legitimize it. Also, the context of the argument was derived from the arguments themselves. You made an initial statement:
And that Plainswalk wouldn't make logical sense is simply wrong: If you adapt to your surroundings and utilize certain camouflage techniques, Plainswalk is rather possible, even in real-life situation - albeit, it is much harder than swamp, forest, mountain or island walk, logically. However, Plains are also not always sunny. The cover of darkness night grants you makes plainswalk rather easy to imagine.I then refuted that "cover of darkness" was a legitimate explanation for plainswalk on the basis that it did nothing to justify the specific skill of plainswalking. You justified the camouflage techniques" bit by presenting a vague example from which your perceived context could not be determined, especially since the example was provided amidst a discussion about why certain broad skills or conditions do not justify plainswalk in particular.
Actually, I will return to this post because I want to once more attempt to demonstrate to you the point of my argument. You maintained that conditions like the cover of night are justification for plainswalk because they allow creatures to cross plains more easily. You also made the statement "Using night to your advantage does not completely cast out the fact, that you are traversing plains." Neither of these reasons justify cover of night as an explanation for plainswalk. They instead justify landwalk as it pertains to all lands, time-of-day-walk, or "this creature is unblockable as long as your opponent controls no creatures that can see in the dark." If these sound ludicrous, remember that they are the implications of your own argument.
Regarding the camouflage argument, I provided two points:
- If the creature is generally adept at camouflage, this is cause for unblockability, not a single, specific kind of landwalk.
- If the creature is good at a specific kind of camouflage as it pertains to only a single set of lands, this is cause for landwalk of that particular set of lands.
Nowhere within those points do I refute that camouflage specific to plains is a legitimate reason for plainswalk. Instead, I present the argument that if a creature needs to have such specialized skills and the environment is not logically conducive to a need for creatures to develop those skills, then it follows that few creatures would have developed any kind of specialization that would lead to plainswalking.
I'm all for a reasoned debate, but if you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and vehemently defending irrelevant, already acknowledged, or already refuted points, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
June 10, 2013 11:22 a.m.
Everyone does realize that it's a game and this arguement is akin to the arguement "who would win in a fight Superman or the Incredible Hulk"?
June 10, 2013 11:26 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #42
@Apoptosis: In a sense. It's like entertainment for me, though; I love a good debate.
June 10, 2013 11:27 a.m.
when reading the topic of this blog, it came to my mind the African's Savannah with dryed tall grass and a lion/cheetah stealthy ambushing its prey before the sprint race.......................so yes i do think there still may be certain creature cards with plainswalk, no excuse and even more in red or black creatures, would be real nice
June 10, 2013 11:43 a.m.
@Apoptosis: That's a dumb fight, anyhow. Superman wins, hands down.
June 10, 2013 11:57 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #47
I wonder what the extension of that is, though. If hiding in grass is a way to plainswalk (I'm not disagreeing that it is), then presumably the smaller creatures would be the ones that have plainswalk. A large part of white's slice of the color pie is weenie creatures, and plainswalk on small creatures means white just straight loses the aggro race to a field of small plainswalkers. WOTC therefore has to be careful about printing plainswalk cards because of their potential power. (Remember Phyrexian Crusader against mono-red? It's worse than that.)
One or two plainswalkers per set or per block would probably be alright, but given that they haven't printed any since the ancient days of the game, there is likely another reason for their design choices.
June 10, 2013 12:11 p.m.
i remember times of the Silver Knight goblins had rough battles back then....T_T
June 10, 2013 12:17 p.m.
@Ruric -- Agree to disagree? Lol.
(tries to contribute to actual conversation but doesn't know what has and hasn't been said already)
June 10, 2013 12:31 p.m.
i post my opinion about this topic already erabel so i will not repeat it again....
Epochalyptik says... #2
I feel like it's at least partly due to the potential confusion between plainswalk and planeswalk.
Additionally, it doesn't really make sense from a flavor perspective. There's really no way to stealthily or skillfully move across a plains; the other landwalk abilities all represent, lorewise, some kind of ability to traverse unwelcoming or impassable terrain. Anything can walk across flat land.
June 7, 2013 7:29 p.m.