For a while now what I've been doing in fanmade cards is including the mount in the creature types. For example, for a knight that rides a pegasus, I'd say "Creature - Human Knight Pegasus" rather than "Human Knight"
Two reasons I would do this. First, I think it makes sense that an Engineered Plague against horses should affect all Knights as well, since they ride horses. What, does the horse invincible when it's begin ridden? If you choose a fireball through the horse, the knight is basically out of commision, right? Does the knight somehow have an infinite supply of horses?
The other big reason (possibly the biggest reason) I would do this is simply to compensate for the lack of artwork, especially if the creature types aren't implied in the card's name. For example, I had an idea for a Jhovall Queen remake in green, ridden by a anthropomorphic bee instead of a human. While the name might be "Jhovall something" it might be a "Creature - Insect Soldier Cat".
but only this week I was wondering how to typeset this, because I realized I can make it like this Creature - Human Knight and Pegasus Creature - Human Knight, Pegasus
^ but which of the two is better?
Also do you think it's a good idea to do this, or worth it?
and do you think Wotc should do this?
That's an interesting thought. I kinda like it, actually.
It could work for duos of different creature types as well.
It shouldn't have any bearing on mechanics, of course.
One possible problem: If something said "All Pegasus Knights get +1/+1" would it affect a creature with the type "Human Knight and Pegasus"? Technically, I'd think it would, but it's counterintuitive.
That's an interesting thought. I kinda like it, actually.
It could work for duos of different creature types as well.
It shouldn't have any bearing on mechanics, of course.
The Jhovall is is clearly the cat-thing. When you play Johvall Rider, you're summoning a battle-hardened dude to ride a regular johvall. When you play Johvall Queen, you're summoning a battle-hardened jhoval to kill things while a regular dude rides about on her back. It seems the creature types depend on which character is doing most of the fighting. In Nightmare, it's the Horse from Hades. In Silver Knight, it's the dude in tin foil.
In general, it's a good idea to keep creature types as removed from the art as possible. This way, if they wanted to reprint Silver Knight riding a Grizzled Leotau or a Goat or an anthropomorphic bee, they can.
In general, it's a good idea to keep creature types as removed from the art as possible. This way, if they wanted to reprint Silver Knight riding a Grizzled Leotau or a Goat or an anthropomorphic bee, they can.
It's a good point, but it works in reverse too. By retroactively adding Human types to everything, Wotc prevented themselves from making a Samite Healer or White Knight in a race that isn't human, such as druid, cat, kor, angel, etc.
So I don't think the argument makes sense.
And if you wanted to make a Silver Knight that's not a human, or a Silver Knight riding a bear, you could just come up with a new card. (even if it is a functional reprint)
Luminum makes a good point in how various editions of Elven Riders portray different mounts. So applying the change retroactively would be complicated. (note however that Elven Riders was originally "Summon Riders" before finally becoming "Creature - Elf" in 6th edition. Silly Wotc, now what if you wanted to make an Elven Riders that isn't an elf? wait...)
In card like Jhovall Rider it seems like the cat is doing all the work.
(and to a point the boar in Daru Lancer looks like the more threatening half)
If I used a magic that gives all cats +1/+1, I would think Jhovall Rider would benefit from it whether or not some guy is riding it. yadda yadda yadda
Ah, but guys, if I did this anyway, which would you say is the better method of typesetting it? Comma or the word "and"? I'd like to hear from people who voted choice 4.
I'm opposed to this for reasons mentioned above.
You're gonna do it anyway, though, so I recommend not using either "," or "and." Just list all the types.
Well, I'd probably do with simply listing all types without any separation. But if you look at foreign cards, French cards already use "et" for 'and', and German cards already have the comma, so there's a bit of translation dilemma here.
(And if you applied this to some cards in my set, "Human Elemental Soldier Bird" probably would not fit a typeline.)
Well, I'd probably do with simply listing all types without any separation. But if you look at foreign cards, French cards already use "et" for 'and', and German cards already have the comma, so there's a bit of translation dilemma here.
That's interesting. Why would they use "et" and commas?
I've wondered how well-translated foreign MtG cards are, after playing Eye of Judgment Legends. (which is that not well translated, and I don't know whether to attribute that to the quality of MtG in general or the simple fact that MtG is american whereas EoJL was translated to english.)
(And if you applied this to some cards in my set, "Human Elemental Soldier Bird" probably would not fit a typeline.)
it would fit, it would just be really, really flavorful
But you make me think, makes me realize that comma is definitely the right choice here. (over the word "and" that is)
Other languages have different conventions with regard to lists of types apparently. I don't speak those languages so I don't know if it's because it just seems more natural to them than a bunch of words in a row without separation.
Commas, etc. are a bad idea. There are already cards that have multiple creature types for depicting multiple creatures. The entire Duo cycle from Shadowmoor, for instance. Conversely, you have another Shadowmoor cycle, the "Crowds," which have only a race and no class because they depict a crowd of creatures of varying types, too many to be listed on a single typeline.
Creature types can be flavorful, but sometimes have to be sacrificed for practicality's sake.
Commas, etc. are a bad idea. There are already cards that have multiple creature types for depicting multiple creatures. The entire Duo cycle from Shadowmoor, for instance. Conversely, you have another Shadowmoor cycle, the "Crowds," which have only a race and no class because they depict a crowd of creatures of varying types, too many to be listed on a single typeline.
Those are both interesting cycles (with cool art) so thanks for pointing them out.
As for the droves I wonder if they don't have a creature types partly because the characters in them (such as for Kithkin Rabble) don't really have a class. (no more Townsfolk after all..) I just checked, and Folk of An-Havva is just Human.
For the translations, I am myself a native french speaker and for looking at a few french cards (I play magic in english) it is RIDICULOUS. I did not find any errors but all feels just forced and wrong. They almost translate the names word for word, removing all the coolness and all... and for the creature types separated with 'et'... I don't **** know why they are doing this... I mean the good translation for a 'human soldier' would be a 'Soldat Humain'... not a 'Soldat et Human'.
And I think you should just list all types without any separation, as WOTC would do.
Those are both interesting cycles (with cool art) so thanks for pointing them out.
As for the droves I wonder if they don't have a creature types partly because the characters in them (such as for Kithkin Rabble) don't really have a class. (no more Townsfolk after all..) I just checked, and Folk of An-Havva is just Human.
I think that's a fairly stubborn view. You're so driven to this point that you think the problem isn't the space on the typeline, it must be the inability to identify those types. With several of the duos the artwork isn't clear what class an individual is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out the thread for my cube if you have the time, and tell me how terrible it is.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
Some things are hard to give a type, as-is. See also Order of the Ebon Hand. Is it a Centaur? Is it a Human? And I don't know what version 3 is supposed to be.
They don't print Human Zombies, while they could easily have done so. They just decided that they want the least amount of stuff on the card...
As for the droves I wonder if they don't have a creature types partly because the characters in them (such as for Kithkin Rabble) don't really have a class. (no more Townsfolk after all..) I just checked, and Folk of An-Havva is just Human.
That's what I always thought... and really I don't think it would have been too much of a stretch to call them Warriors or Berserkers or something, anyway.
That's what I always thought... and really I don't think it would have been too much of a stretch to call them Warriors or Berserkers or something, anyway.
Right. Horde of Boggarts could easily have been a Goblin Warrior, since it's believable that all those in the art are Goblin Warriors. But it's not, because the intention is that this represents a huge, faceless mob, the most common thread between them being that they are Goblins. Some of them are shamans, some are probably Rogues and Barbarians. The concept is that this crowd is identified more by its shared race than by the individual classes within it. The duos have both classes because it has only two individuals, for which their classes are important, because each offers a different effect/bonus for the combined whole.
For the majority of mounted creatures in Magic, the race of the mount doesn't matter to the concept. It's the rider who is directing the mount, and who is responsible for the creature's effectiveness. In some cases where the race of the mount does matter, the card mentions itappropriately.
Some things are hard to give a type, as-is. See also Order of the Ebon Hand. Is it a Centaur? Is it a Human? And I don't know what version 3 is supposed to be.
ok that's odd, I thought every creature must have a race at least.
glad you brought it up because Order of the Ebon Hand indicates to me how Elven Riders might be handled if Wotc somehow did this. Elven Riders would simply remain and Elf, the mount's type would be ignored just like the race of Order of the Ebon Hand is ignored.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Daru Lancer is a Human Soldier, but not a Boar.
Nightmare is a horse, Silver Knight is not a horse
For a while now what I've been doing in fanmade cards is including the mount in the creature types. For example, for a knight that rides a pegasus, I'd say "Creature - Human Knight Pegasus" rather than "Human Knight"
Two reasons I would do this. First, I think it makes sense that an Engineered Plague against horses should affect all Knights as well, since they ride horses. What, does the horse invincible when it's begin ridden? If you choose a fireball through the horse, the knight is basically out of commision, right? Does the knight somehow have an infinite supply of horses?
The other big reason (possibly the biggest reason) I would do this is simply to compensate for the lack of artwork, especially if the creature types aren't implied in the card's name. For example, I had an idea for a Jhovall Queen remake in green, ridden by a anthropomorphic bee instead of a human. While the name might be "Jhovall something" it might be a "Creature - Insect Soldier Cat".
but only this week I was wondering how to typeset this, because I realized I can make it like this
Creature - Human Knight and Pegasus
Creature - Human Knight, Pegasus
^ but which of the two is better?
Also do you think it's a good idea to do this, or worth it?
and do you think Wotc should do this?
It could work for duos of different creature types as well.
It shouldn't have any bearing on mechanics, of course.
One possible problem: If something said "All Pegasus Knights get +1/+1" would it affect a creature with the type "Human Knight and Pegasus"? Technically, I'd think it would, but it's counterintuitive.
• Recent Card Ideas • My Drawings at DeviantArt
That's right! Like what if there was a Tibor and Lumia, but one of them was a Minotaur Illusionist? Human Minotaur Wizard? x)
Type lines get cramped enough as it is. This is unnecessary and doesn't add enough to the game to be worth it.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
The Jhovall is is clearly the cat-thing. When you play Johvall Rider, you're summoning a battle-hardened dude to ride a regular johvall. When you play Johvall Queen, you're summoning a battle-hardened jhoval to kill things while a regular dude rides about on her back. It seems the creature types depend on which character is doing most of the fighting. In Nightmare, it's the Horse from Hades. In Silver Knight, it's the dude in tin foil.
In general, it's a good idea to keep creature types as removed from the art as possible. This way, if they wanted to reprint Silver Knight riding a Grizzled Leotau or a Goat or an anthropomorphic bee, they can.
It's a good point, but it works in reverse too. By retroactively adding Human types to everything, Wotc prevented themselves from making a Samite Healer or White Knight in a race that isn't human, such as druid, cat, kor, angel, etc.
So I don't think the argument makes sense.
And if you wanted to make a Silver Knight that's not a human, or a Silver Knight riding a bear, you could just come up with a new card. (even if it is a functional reprint)
Luminum makes a good point in how various editions of Elven Riders portray different mounts. So applying the change retroactively would be complicated. (note however that Elven Riders was originally "Summon Riders" before finally becoming "Creature - Elf" in 6th edition. Silly Wotc, now what if you wanted to make an Elven Riders that isn't an elf? wait...)
A white knight will feel more war ready with a coat of arms and some humans, but why would being surrounded by horses inspire confidence in him?
Likewise, a Johvall queen isn't inspired by seeing one of her followers used as a work horse.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
(and to a point the boar in Daru Lancer looks like the more threatening half)
If I used a magic that gives all cats +1/+1, I would think Jhovall Rider would benefit from it whether or not some guy is riding it. yadda yadda yadda
Ah, but guys, if I did this anyway, which would you say is the better method of typesetting it? Comma or the word "and"? I'd like to hear from people who voted choice 4.
You're gonna do it anyway, though, so I recommend not using either "," or "and." Just list all the types.
(And if you applied this to some cards in my set, "Human Elemental Soldier Bird" probably would not fit a typeline.)
Official Quizmaster of The Crafters!
Follow Lasersharp on Facebook
That's interesting. Why would they use "et" and commas?
I've wondered how well-translated foreign MtG cards are, after playing Eye of Judgment Legends. (which is that not well translated, and I don't know whether to attribute that to the quality of MtG in general or the simple fact that MtG is american whereas EoJL was translated to english.)
it would fit, it would just be really, really flavorful
But you make me think, makes me realize that comma is definitely the right choice here. (over the word "and" that is)
Commas, etc. are a bad idea. There are already cards that have multiple creature types for depicting multiple creatures. The entire Duo cycle from Shadowmoor, for instance. Conversely, you have another Shadowmoor cycle, the "Crowds," which have only a race and no class because they depict a crowd of creatures of varying types, too many to be listed on a single typeline.
Creature types can be flavorful, but sometimes have to be sacrificed for practicality's sake.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Those are both interesting cycles (with cool art) so thanks for pointing them out.
As for the droves I wonder if they don't have a creature types partly because the characters in them (such as for Kithkin Rabble) don't really have a class. (no more Townsfolk after all..) I just checked, and Folk of An-Havva is just Human.
And I think you should just list all types without any separation, as WOTC would do.
I think that's a fairly stubborn view. You're so driven to this point that you think the problem isn't the space on the typeline, it must be the inability to identify those types. With several of the duos the artwork isn't clear what class an individual is.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
They don't print Human Zombies, while they could easily have done so. They just decided that they want the least amount of stuff on the card...
• Recent Card Ideas • My Drawings at DeviantArt
Right. Horde of Boggarts could easily have been a Goblin Warrior, since it's believable that all those in the art are Goblin Warriors. But it's not, because the intention is that this represents a huge, faceless mob, the most common thread between them being that they are Goblins. Some of them are shamans, some are probably Rogues and Barbarians. The concept is that this crowd is identified more by its shared race than by the individual classes within it. The duos have both classes because it has only two individuals, for which their classes are important, because each offers a different effect/bonus for the combined whole.
For the majority of mounted creatures in Magic, the race of the mount doesn't matter to the concept. It's the rider who is directing the mount, and who is responsible for the creature's effectiveness. In some cases where the race of the mount does matter, the card mentions it appropriately.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
ok that's odd, I thought every creature must have a race at least.
glad you brought it up because Order of the Ebon Hand indicates to me how Elven Riders might be handled if Wotc somehow did this. Elven Riders would simply remain and Elf, the mount's type would be ignored just like the race of Order of the Ebon Hand is ignored.