(2*) Would Cloak and Dagger count as an outlaw because it's a Rogue? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2qrQqTL18rRsJ9 A: Yes
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
Have definitely been enjoying the rules with friends segments. I like the live aspect, and seeing people puzzle things out in real time Cool interaction here
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.
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
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.
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
CR 700.8c says a player has a full party if there are four creatures in that player’s party. There's no way to have a full party with only three creatures.
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 word Tribal gets used in a racist way more to refer to South American or African indigenous people these days. Yall use the word in the official names of your nations, so the context is a little different.
The rules for Split Second are nicely clear here: > CR 702.61a Split second is a static ability that functions only while the spell with split second is on the stack. “Split second” means “As long as this spell is on the stack, players can’t cast other spells or activate abilities that aren’t mana abilities.” > CR 702.61b Players may activate mana abilities and take special actions while a spell with split second is on the stack. Triggered abilities trigger and are put on the stack as normal while a spell with split second is on the stack. Split second won't prevent Forbidden Orchard from being activated, and its triggered ability triggers just fine afterwards.
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 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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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 made this video because the underlying question (whether noncreature permanents still counted as outlaws) is interesting and potentially relevant in an upcoming Standard. I consider myself an educational channel rather than a Magic drama or outrage channel, but I still allow myself an occasional indulgence when the topic is aligned. Expressing my own opinions and personality from time to time proves that I'm not a robot or a paid shill. Even after I get over the fact that they made such a dramatic change for such dubious value, I'll probably still sometimes refer to these cards as tribals simply out of habit. If you go through my previous videos, you'll find plenty of times where I say "comes into play", and that template hasn't been used in over a decade.
@@JudgingFtW Thank you for the response, I appreciate it! Of course, I wouldn't want to consider you a robot or anything, and you're free to have your own opinions regarding any matters. Although I would have liked to think of this as an educational channel first and foremost, in which case referring to a non-existent card type in the title specifically seemed the most egregious to me, I think. As far as I know, MaRo has stated that the card type would not be returning in a Standard set anytime soon; and while it did appear in MH3, there weren't even that many cards with it. Not sure I'd call the change dramatic, but I trust the best judgement of whoever they have as a culture expert, having no experience with the matter myself.
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.
@@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 🤔
