Caerwyn Esquire -

• Edit User
• Edit Profile
• Enable styles
• Disable styles
• Unblock user
• Block user
• Disable chat
• Enable chat
• Remove friend
• Add as friend
• Gift Tokens
• Settings

MaRo's "card that kills with poison" (from his hint post) has been spoiled.

Card

Wonderful trolling on his part, particularly since he knew Vorinclex would complete the Poison Counter misdirection.

You should add Shahrazad, the Dexterity cards (things like Chaos Orb that involve throwing or otherwise moving cards), and cards Wizards has deemed culturally insensitive to the banned list. Shahrazad is banned in every format as it leads to unfun, long play environments. Dexterity cards exclude people with some physical disabilities. The final category is to be banned in all formats at Wizards’ direction.

In the future, please remember to hit the green "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved. Since this matter has been resolved for a few days without follow-up questions, I have marked an answer on your behalf.

DemonDragonJ - Your post got me curious, so I looked into the errata for adding Dinosaur--while a much smaller scale than adding Phyrexian is going to be, I think it is informative as to how Wizards will handle a large-scale addition of a creature type that should have existed in the past.

There are around 14 old Dinosaurs that were updated to have the Dinosaur subtype. Of those 14, 8 only gained Dinosaur as a subtype--most were Beasts that became Dinosaur Beast, though there were others as well (Fungus Dinosaur, Spirit Dinosaur, Dinosaur Zombie Beast). The remaining 6 were all Lizards--these ones lost the Lizard subtype and became Dinosaurs.

Extrapolating from this, it looks like they will not remove a subtype unless that subtype is mutually exclusive with the newly-added subtype. A Lizard Dinosaur does not make sense; but a Dinosaur Beast does, since Beast is such a generic term.

Phyrexian is not going to be mutually exclusive with anything--I would be surprised if we saw substantial, if any, removals of subtypes.

Mcat1999 - Adding an artifact typing would be a much bigger change than a subtype update. Implicating Affinity or the plethora of other artifact synergies; being vulnerable to additional removal; etc. It would fundamentally change each and every one of them in unexpected and unpredictable ways. It would be a disaster for each and every format where Phyrexians are legal--a type update, particularly a type addition without retroactively removing existing types, is not that big of a deal.

legendofa - I think Phyrexia's bio-augmentation is fundamentally different than Esper's. Phyrexian Compleation is defined by transformation and loss of identity--you become part of the collective and now exist to serve Phyrexia. On Esper, they're infusing races with Etherium, but they are not trying to create a single new perfected race in the same way Phyrexia is.

I would say that is why Phyrexia is specially deserving of a creature type--their primary purpose is subjugation and transformation into a new existence, not simple augmentation.

TriusMalarky - I think Sharks were a mistake, seeing as they could be covered by the existing creature type "fish". Dogs was not a new creature type--they merely decided it was stupid to use "Hound" as a creature type since most of the dog cards were not hounds, so they updated the phrase they already used. Warlocks are distinct from other types of magic users within the greater Wizards canon, and I expect we will see some interesting Warlock cards when we go to Faerûn later this year.

Dinosaur was added as a creature type because it made sense to do so--obviously they would retroactively apply that.

The Zombie to Mummy update happened with the Grand Creature Type Update of 2007 where they eliminated a whole host of unnecessary card types, so really is not relevant to the point you are making.

Their reason for doing it now is likely so they can have a cross-set theme of the forerunners to a more wide-scale Phyrexian incursion. The lack of a Phyrexian subtype worked when you had dozens of Phyrexian creatures in a set - their relationship to one another was obvious. But if you have one creature in one set, one in another, maybe two or three in a third, their all being part of a collected unit might not be so obvious.

As for them being bound by purpose, not biology, their bio-mechanical corruption is the most fundamental part of their identity.

The creature type should have been implemented ages and ages ago; it’s going to be a massive undertaking to errata all the existing cards, but the scale of the task is no excuse for putting off something that should be done.

RambIe - Exile being a zone is irrelevant; Rule 101.1 specifies something is only a "permanent" when it is in the Battlefield Zone. When the card is in any other Zone, be it Exile, the Graveyard, the Stack, the Library, the Hand, the Command Zone, or Ante Zone (if playing for Ante) it is a "Permanent Card" not a "Permanent". Rule 110.4a.

The intended function is explicitly that Vorinclex only interacts with players or permanents on the battlefield. There is no room for interpretation and no room for Wizards to rule differently--this is about as black letter as things come.

Had Wizards wanted Vorinclex to interact with suspend, they would have said something like: If an opponent would put one or more counters on a permanent, player, or permanent card . . ."

I will also note that Exile has been referred to as such (rather than "removed from the game") since 2010--hardly a recent development.

RambIe - A card is only a "permanent" when it is on the battlefield. See Rule 101.1. Since Vorinclex only halves counters on "permanents" or "players", cards that receive counters in exile doe not have their effects halved.

Keqing420;

You have been warned countless times across your uncounted alternate accounts to stop making off-topic posts specifically designed to insult or otherwise deride other users. That includes your frequent posts correcting grammar for the exclusive purpose of correcting grammar.

Mortlocke; Omniscience_is_life; RambIe

Generally, it is best to ignore folks like this; they do not add anything to the conversation and you are only feeding their inexplicable desire for attention by responding. I know it can sometimes be hard to avoid responding when you or an acquaintance is being attacked, but responding to trolls never makes the situation better.

RambIe in particular, it is generally not a good idea to respond to trolling with insults. You can hide behind the grammatical argument that you are not technically calling them the name; but the intent behind your words is clear from context. Textual construction is only a part of communication, and phrases can certainly have meanings beyond what grammar alone would imply. No need to make things worse by escalating the situation.

Lets just try to get back on topic, moving beyond this whole mess!

This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)

I do not think Red or White need their identity expanded - just for Wizards to explore under utilised aspects of their identity. Take ramp, something White is supposed to be bad at, and Red should be erratic with. Players often complain that these colours should have their identity modified to provide more consistent ramp, but there is another in-identity path Wizards could explore.

You don’t need to match someone else’s ramp to make the playing field even; you can also drag others down to your level or punish people for their dominance over you. White has asymmetrical taxes to drag others down to its nonexistent ramp; Red has land destruction to do the same and various effects that hinder mana generation like Blood Moon or War's Toll. Red also has burn effects related to opponent’ mana generation.

There are solutions to these colours problems in-identity; Wizards just doesn’t really like to do them.

Now that this card has been officially spoiled, I am unlocking this thread. My the discussion commence anew!

When we first saw this was a tribal set with both Angels and Dragons, and then saw low-costed Angels spoiled, my first thought was that we would get a few low-costed dragons. After all, for tribal to be effective in Limited you need a good curve within that tribe and a sufficient number of cards in that tribe (fixed by Changelings).

It looks like, rather than make low-costed dragons, Wizards is going to make non-Dragon cards with Dragon payoffs (like the legendary Dwarf spoiled at 2 mana) fill up the lower part of the "Dragon Tribal Limited curve" rather than utilize low-costed dragons themselves. We might see a few low-costed dragons, but I do not expect there to be a great number of them as we are seeing with Angels.

That said, I would not mind in the slightest if Wizards defied my above expectations and we got a fair number of playable low-costed dragons.

I am going to go ahead and lock this thread. I would have hoped that the community could have moved past the--frankly inexplicable--vitriol when discussing these cards, but it seem time has not yet softened reactions.

Let us all remember that words have meaning. I see far too many people trying to justify an honest-to-goodness ethnic slur. It does not necessarily matter what the history of a word, phrase, or symbol might be--words can become symbols of hate and vitriol, even if they were innocent.

The simple fact is this phrase looks at the Muslim practice of stone-throwing, which, while also done for religion, in the context of the word as an ethnic slur, also invokes images of the punishment of stoning, which is still done in some Muslim countries. Though government policies are a reflection on the governments that implement them, stoning is often cited by racists and bigots--completely unfairly--to show all Muslims are barbaric.

The Devil is also a figure in Islam, just as it is in its slightly older Abrahamic brother Christianity. But that is not the image invoked by the phrase "devils" with that all-important plural. Again, racists and bigots often call those with different religious practices "devils" since it invokes images that their religion is wrong.

Taken together, the phrase clearly identifies a specific group of people, stereotyping the entire group based on the actions of some of their governments, and then calls them "devils". It's an targeted double-insult, and one that has no place in this game.

That is the reality; Wizards knew that and though it took them a bit too long to take action and purge the slur from the game, they finally did the right thing and did so. So let's not decry them for their action, and not try to ignore reality to justify the existence of bigotry in the game we all love.

One day, I hope someone can ask a question of this nature--which is not an entirely unfair question if one was not following the game closely when Wizards made the ban announcement--without it devolving into fighting and misdirection so as to justify hate. That day has not yet come, and I will not hold my breath, but I hope for it nonetheless.

You should cut Day's Undoing - because it ends the turn, you don’t end up getting any of the damage triggers.

In the future, please remember to hit the green "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved. As this thread has been resolved for a couple of days, I have gone ahead and marked an answer on your behalf.

In the future, please remember to hit the green "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved. As this thread has been resolved for a couple of days, I have gone ahead and marked an answer on your behalf.

In the future, please remember to hit the green "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved. As this thread has been resolved for a couple of days, I have gone ahead and marked an answer on your behalf.

In the future, please remember to hit the green "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved. As this thread has been resolved for a couple of days, I have gone ahead and marked an answer on your behalf.