If you're a Magic: the Gathering judge, player, organizer, or someone who just wants a better handle on Magic rules, policy, philosophy, and best practices, then you're in the right place!
I guess we never started calling them Runeclaw Bears. I'd suggest we start calling these Treason effects but that'd cause confusion with Treachery. What I don't get is why they stopped printing Treachery. The text is different, but functionally identical, right?
It kind of relates to this topic but how would party work with this, a lot of cards ask about the number of creatures in your party which obviously wouldn’t work but some cards like arch priest of iona have effects if you have a full party if I had say, the archpriest, Linvala and tazri with cloak and dagger would my archpreist get +1/+1 and flying
I have a lot of respect for you, but it feels like you're making this video just to voice your disagreement with tribal being changed to kindred, refusing to use its current name in the rules? As someone who is so keen on details, this just seems weird to me. Fwiw, I have no personal stake in the matter of whether it should have been changed or not, all I know is that this is what it's called now, so I'm concerned why even someone like Dave would refuse to use the proper name.
I honestly wondered if the title was backwards, but this makes sense now that I've seen it. Outlaws are definitely not a creature type, and thus you could argue it's not a tribal deck. It's a tribal grouping, or what I call a supertribe. Party is another one and (though they have yet to give it a formal name) Sea Monsters seems to be another one. I think you could argue that Blex is perhaps giving us another grouping. Maybe we call it Creepy-crawlies? Anyways, it seems magic is doing this more often for unsupported tribes to make them more interesting. So while Outlaws don't count as tribals, tribals count as outlaws.
Could you clarify whether having morsel theft on the stack would count? It’s an object with the relevant type that you control, and the rule you referenced didn’t mention it being a permanent so my assumption is that it would work.
@@laytonjr6601 Yes, neither Crew nor Saddle are inherently associated with their respective subtypes. Worth noting is that unlike Crew, the only thing Saddle does is cause the permanent to be Saddled. Any other effect requires other abilities
Still frustrating trying to explain to new players the difference between creature types, and other subtypes that can be on creatures (like Vehicle or Shrine). Would be so much less frustrating if "is a subtype on a creature" meant creature type
There's not actually any creatures with the Vehicle subtype. All Vehicles are Artifacts, with a printed P/T, that turn themselves into creatures. But there is no "Artifact Creature - Vehicle"
@@avengerwolf646 There are also artifact creatures that are food. Do you know why there are no non-artifact creatures that are food? That's right, because food is an artifact subtype, and has never been a creature type.
I was waiting for the follow up… What if I have an Instant/Sorcery Rogue on the stack (rather than an Artifact Rogue on the battlefield), does that still count? (I would assume so, but my initial assumptions had me thinking about objects specifically on the battlefield)
This is a great question. Based on the definition shown onscreen in the video, the answer to that question would be that a Rogue instant spell on the stack would count as an outlaw also. Unfortunately, the fun police had to show up and put a stop to that. There's another rule that says effects that check for outlaws a player controls only count outlaw permanents [CR 700.12a].
i really dislike the change from tribal -> kindred. I'm not like, some weirdo right winger who gets upset when ppl ask me to not use slurs or anything, but did anyone actually feel like the game term tribal was insensitive? kindred is a less intuitive term for the card's function.
Neither player is playing in good, honest faith to the purity of the game. Left player thinks they are slick, but it's a total scumbag move. Right player thinks they are slick by pretending to be ignorant and cheating the true state of the game. I'd DQ both players for being disingenuous to the very core. SCUM like them live an egotistical lie, they don't deserve to experience real, true Magic. I bet they smile to themselves in the mirror after every match/tournament they cheat and "win" their "prizes" and think of new ways to cheat the game thinking they are so smart and smarter than the judges and the other players and smarter than the game... scum dont even deserve a glimpse and they shall only experience the darkness of the lies they perpetrate. Meanwhile, true fans/players of the game are experiencing the true magic of Magic and that's the real prize.
I would say it's extremely likely they plan to use this space in the rules going forward. I present as evidence the return of Tribal as Kindred. We're also going back to Lorwyn. It makes sense.
Honestly I'm just trying to go with the flow. Communities aren't monolithic and certain things can offend some but not all. It's frustrating to see something changed because corporations think it's offensive to others when a majority of those whom it is believed to offend aren't offended.
The fact that Back in Town specifies that it only returns outlaw creatures, while other spells don’t, definitely seems to imply that they created these cards with an awareness of tribal implications in mind.
Anyone who has played a lot of goblins will be familiar with this, since goblins are a mess of specifically caring about goblin creatures, goblin creature cards, or just ANY goblin, and there are nonreature goblin tribal/ kindred cards. Goblin Recruiter can get Boggart Shenanigans but Muxxus won't put it into play, for example.
Good one. I thought it wouldn't work as one was a creature subtype, and the other is a tribal/kindred subtype. Didn't know they were the same thing, although it makes sense. :)
@@JasonOshinko they did it because it has a racial connotation irl, but all they had to do was keep the real life out of the game's fantasy and all would have remained neutral as it's always been. nothing racist about a tribe of elves don't you think?
@@Antimonium The part I still have yet to understand is how it is somehow racist. "Tribes" have existed across civilizations of all races. Kinda makes me wonder if the people who say it is racist are really trying to hide something about themselves 🤔
Hi, Dave. I have a question related to creature subtypes: Amy controls a Werewolf Pack Leader equipped with Runed Stalactite. She casts Artificial Evolution, targeting Pack Leader. It resolves, so she changes “Human” to “Brushwagg”. She activates Pack Leader’s activated ability. She casts Embiggen, targeting Pack Leader. It resolves. Amy and Nick consult the Comprehensive Rules, to determine Pack Leader’s power and toughness; Section 205.3m lists the creature subtypes. How should they determine Pack Leader’s power and toughness? Would they have to manually count all the creature subtypes (and add one for ‘Creature’, but subtract one for ‘Human’), or could they just paste a list of creature types into a word processor file and figure it out that way? On a related note, would they have to do this each time Amy achieves the combo and a new set has been released, in case creature types were added or removed? Excluding creature types exclusive to Unstable and other joke expansions, I think Magic: The Gathering currently has 296 creature types. Artificial Evolution {U} Instant Change the text of target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one creature type with another. The new creature type can’t be Wall. (This effect lasts indefinitely.) Embiggen {G} Instant Until end of turn, target non-Brushwagg creature gets +1/+1 for each supertype, card type, and subtype it has. Runed Stalactite {1} Artifact - Equipment Equipped creature gets +1/+1 and is every creature type. Equip {2} Werewolf Pack Leader {G}{G} Creature - Human Werewolf Pack tactics - Whenever Werewolf Pack Leader attacks, if you attacked with creatures with total power 6 or greater this combat, draw a card. {3}{G}: Until end of turn, Werewolf Pack Leader has base power and toughness 5/3, gains trample, and isn’t a Human. TLDR: If Amy plays a combination of Maskwood Nexus, Werewolf Pack Leader, Artificial Evolution and Embiggen, do Amy and Nick have to count all the creature types in the Comprehensive Rules? Hope you have a great day :) Irelandwalk
The only answer they would need in 99% of games is "a lot," they don't need the Comprehensive rules to know that there are a lot of creature types. That said if Amy is playing Embiggen on an "almost changeling" then she should have already done the research on how many creature types there are beforehand.
It’s a little unfortunate that Tribal never took off as a card type because it can create some interesting situations with cards that normally apply to creatures.
@@Greg501- I don't think every noncreature spell would be, just ones that seem really based in a certain creature's tribe. For Example, Play with Fire and Counterspell hardly feel like they belong to a certain creature type. And it's not like they slammed it on everything they could way back when anyway. It was only put on 2 Kithkin cards, an enchantment that made more Kithkin and an Instant that let you draw if you controlled a Kithkin.
Actually, this brought me to a thought. Since there's been an... amount of kindred cards (mostly old reprints) recently, wasn't the omission of the "tribal" as a type from the latest Atraxa's reminder just a thought of "we shouldn't spoil the change, but we can't say tribal anymore", but some people freaked out over "oh god no more tribals?"? I know it's not rule related, but still, I'm curious
There weren't that many kindred cards to begin with, the mechanic was discontinued because it could lead to "why isn't this card a kindred?" for almost any noncreature card. As for Atraxa, that type had last been seen in MH2, but she was a standard card, where the relevant types for standard were in the reminder text.
@Greg501- there's a number of kindreds in MH3 (Eldrazi mostly, but there's also Llurgoyf's Nest). But yeah, placing it in modern-only sets kinda makes sense, since sometimes it can be difficult to properly parse (say, Nameless Inversion on Baneslayer Angel as a common example) (even though I think battles would be a better omission from the list, but that's a personal opinion)
@@bananamancer ONE Atraxa's reminder text is simply a list of examples of card types. It never claimed to be THE list of ALL card types. Nothing about that reminder text is false or misleading if you read it as it is.
This got me thinking… If I cast a Notorious Throng for its Prowl cost while I control a Double Down, would I only get one extra turn? Because the copied Notorious Throng wouldn’t have had any cost, let alone a Prowl cost, paid to cast it.
It will remember the original was prowled. 707.10: To copy a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; a copy of a spell isn't cast and a copy of an activated ability isn't activated. A copy of a spell or ability copies both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs. (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.") Choices that are normally made on resolution are not copied. If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability. A copy of a spell is owned by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell or ability is controlled by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell is itself a spell, even though it has no spell card associated with it. A copy of an ability is itself an ability.
@@seandun7083 Weird then that Firespout's ruling says that a copy will count as having neither {R} nor {G} paid to cast it, and thus will basically do nothing.
@@TheMagicRat933 It specifically refers to "objects" used to pay it's costs and mana isn't an object. 109.1: An object is an ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, a token, a spell, a permanent, or an emblem. I assume that part is there for various additional costs such as with cards like Disaster Radius
@@voltcorp at 0:48 he does catch himself and changes it to Kindred. As a Judge it is an easy to make mistake, and may not be intentional. We have transitioned from Tribal which has been around for over 15 years, to Kindred last year. That, along with the physical card still saying "Tribal" makes it easy to forget there was a change.
I thought this was going to be a question about animating the one ring, removing the burden counters and then tapping it over and over without extra counters being added to it.
I came here to comment and say ferkin nerds lmao jk it’s America I love how humans are all different.. not my type of fun time but doesn’t mean it’s not fun.. I just came to run my mouth all fun an games lmao 🤣
Well Nick would be a really scummy player if they did this on purpose, especially if they are a professional MtG player that definitely knows what they are doing, but this is all hypothetical right? Riiiiiight?
This is were the meme of "did you pay the one?" stems from. As the controller, you have to pay attention to all of your triggers and make note of them. Even the redundant triggers that annoy everyone. If someone gets mad at you for mentioning the triggers, that's on them because you're actually doing your job
That is why you should always anounce triggers. I’ve learned that playing with tabernacle. Every upkeep I place every creature trigger on the stack by talking. If he had just said “i place the etb trigger that gives me pfe” the action would be illegal to target him. I think those rules are dumb and cheap, also it leads to too much talking.
