This Blog is dedicated to the concept of only planeswalker if it were to be a card type actually delved into in either Lorwyn of the neer future. You are all openly invited to express your thoughts regarding this topic in any manner you see fit. No one (including myself) will critisize you for your beliefs about the concept of planeswalker and if anyone should :mad1:FLAME:mad1: you for any such ideas they will be reported to the appropriate resident Gargoyles so consider yourselves warned.
[ If you wish to skip the long intro follow the :mad1:FLAME:mad1: to the begining of the topic.]
I turn off the computer and drive to my local gas station to get some gas or else I'll be walking to work, while getting there I grumble to myself how much the price of gas is these days. Suddenly I hear knocking and pinging occuring from under the engine and realize that this is not going to be a gas issue. Just as I break down off the side of the road a BIG TOW truck pulls along side with the best monogram ever, "Urza's Towing Service."
A rather bulky man hops out of the cab with what appears to be a little green man with pointy ears. "Squee... go fetch the man's car and prep it for tow while I haggle a price." Sneering a smile he runs off towards my car. "WHY hello Urza I am a bit poor at the moment but how much do you want for a tow to the nearest mechanic?" Urza looks squarely at me and then says, "Your in LUCK my boy I'm a new mechanic and a planeswalker too and I'll do it for free... if you allow me the option to change the destiny of magic forever." I think to myself for just a second, "We'll since I don't own magic... (YET!) Why not?" Then I say, "OKAY! It's a DEAL!"
Squee finishes hitching up my jaloppy of a rusting vehicle and then he makes the electric wench screech as if 10 cats slid down a 15 foot chalkboard slide. "I really should have him grease that when we get back to the shop." I nod as I get into the Truck. "So what do you plan to do to Magic Urza?" Urza looks at me with a wink and says, "Buckle up sonny!" Suddenly we peel out from being parked before I get a chance to take my next breath and we lift off the ground and into the air. While in the air Urza boasts, "To bring fresh new life to Magic by introducing the Planeswalker mechanic of course." "Urza I hate to break this to you but I think some people think you are not going to be a mechanic because of the fooey about contraptions." Then suddenly behind those very eyes of his there is a :mad1:FLAME:mad1:!
Planeswalker - it can go to the graveyard... this I know this for sure because of Tarmogoyf. Apart from that I only know its a type of card in Magic because of this:
The card types are artifact, creature, enchantment, instant, land, planeswalker, sorcery, and tribal.
Here are the general options that we have to consider for planeswalker:
Type of Theory:...............................Casting Cost:.......Permanent?:
Just say 'no' to the theories about planeswalker being a permanent that is put directly into the 'removed from play' zone. Because Pull from Eternity would severly underscore what planeswalker would possibly do but this is speculation because it is possible to write planeswalker so that it may be able to avoid targeted spells and ability effects but this is unintuitive and highly unlikely as this might lead to stack issues. Another card that helps to disprove the 'Graveyard Theory' would be the slew of gravyard removal thats amuck to counteract Bridge from Below decks... care for some Extirpate anyone? Again The theory about planeswalker getting a new play zone may as well go to the trash because we already have a lot of zones to consider; adding one more may confuse new players or overwhelm them.
Remember the less complex a mechanic is the easier it is for new people to learn the game. So having planeswalker gain the untargetable status demands rules text which takes up precious space from the design of the card. How about giving all planeswalker the ability to avoid spells and abilities from non-planeswalker spells and permanents? Neat idea but it will also likely lead to some confusion and requires too much rules text for this ability to remain simple.
Thats why most of you people seem to gravitate towards the concept of having planeswalker as either a Vangaurd card or a permanent in/out of play. To set the correct record straight Vangaurd is a non-magic card that effects your side of the board generally and starts with you at the beginging of the game. I have to say this is a very attractive form of design and until its written incorrectly (i.e. Wizards chances it by lowering the power bar so to speak) it would then become instantaneously abused.
This is why something generally for free can be a bad thing. Ask those whom hate affinity or storm decks they'll no doubt agree. So this leaves us with the simplest design. You pay for it. Ok possibility to have it cast like an artifact? Very not likely as thats so out of flavor for planeswalkers whom generally represent colors of magic however muticolored planeswalkers seems likely jiven Jhoira of the Ghitu and Nicol Bolas. How much would we expect to pay? Any cost... from 0 (alternate) to highly unreasonable as its all gonna cost you to see a planeswalker on your side.
Others have speculated that the planeswalker mechanic may infact not use the stack when it is cast (face down doesnt use the stack anymore remember?) so blue mages cant counter it and since it's uncounterable this requires too much rules text but the reminder text of (planeswalker isn't a spell.) would be small enough for a at least a couple of years until it becomes ingrained. Where is support for this? The urge to see a mechanic that doesnt bow to counterspells yet again and also how could a counterspell destroy or say, "a planeswalker never happened in the first place?" from as low as Force of Will and Mana Tithe or Force Spike it just plane should not be able to thats why.
This line of thought is reverse engineering in my opinion and is theoretical proofing despite how wrong it sounds.
At this time I would like to open up the panel for discussion:
There's also the theory that planeswalkers function as your teammates, only you control their actions ala mindslaver - they have their own life total and take their own turn but draw cards from your library.
There's also the theory that planeswalkers function as your teammates, only you control their actions ala mindslaver - they have their own life total and take their own turn but draw cards from your library.
I haven't heard that last part. Sounds interesting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
having planeswalker gain the untargetable status demands rules text which takes up precious space from the design of the card. How about giving all planeswalker the ability to avoid spells and abilities from non-planeswalker spells and permanents? Neat idea but it will also likely lead to some confusion and requires too much rules text for this ability to remain simple.
Planeswalkers are already untargetable by most things.
The only things that can possibly target planeswalkers in play at this point are 'target permanent' spells. So Vindicate, Boomerang, what else sees play? Not much.
Putrefy doesn't target planeswalkers. Wrath of God doesn't destroy planeswalkers. This is the case without any additional rules. They won't write a rule to say planewalkers can't be affected by non-planeswalkers because it is near as dammit true already.
New play zones also seem to be of dubious merit, why create a zone when you could just make the cards that impact planeswalkers do what you want them to do directly. Just as Lands and Creatures share a zone despite the fact that they rarely interact, there is no reason planeswalkers can't do the same.
Here's a question, do we think Planeswalkers will have a P/T? Personally I hope not.
I am finding more people that are getting into showing cards they create and they are coming to the possible same conclusion that you can cast something and it is not a spell.
A different approache to the same conclusion. This doesn't use the stack and can't be countered and ends up being Vangaurd-ish after you pay the appropriate costs. While Freyalise makes it most unfair for your opponent to play spells which in my opinion is kind of harsh HOWEVER if the last part where omitted (about your opponent) then I would say it is a balanced card.
Planeswalker - it can go to the graveyard... this I know this for sure because of Tarmogoyf. Apart from that I only know its a type of card in Magic because of this:
The card types are artifact, creature, enchantment, instant, land, planeswalker, sorcery, and tribal.
We do NOT know that Planeswalker can go to the graveyard.
We do know that it is a card type.
Consider the following card.
Adam's Folly BB
Sorcery
Chose a card type other then land. Target player reveals thier hand. Chose a card of the chosen type, that player discards that card. (The card types are Artifact, Creature, Enchantment, Instant, Land, Planeswalker, Sorcery, and Tribal.)
Just because you can't pick land doesn't make it not a card type, so the reminder text that lists card types will list land... Reminder text of this nature is so rare that it is hard to find an example, but you won't find a card that says "the card types are x, y, z" that doesn't list them all (well Planeswalker and Tribal will be missing pre-futuresight).
So we do NOT know that Planeswalker can go to the 'yard (it is still highly likely that it can, but we don't *KNOW* that).
Type of Theory:...............................Casting Cost:.......Permanent?:
if your trying to write a comprehensive theoretical guide you might want to outline each of these theories so people can understand each of them, probably give each of them their own post. List pros and cons for each...
Oh and is 'Tribal Planeswalker' my idea? Might be fun to add the person who originaly posted an idea to the outline of each idea.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
First, he DID outline each idea's basics in the first post. Second, I've heard any number of folks throw out insane ideas about Planeswalker. I have no idea where any came from. Do I have to track them all down and give credit to them all to discuss them? I hope not, otherwise this'll be a long, boring afternoon.
I like the idea of Planeswalkers having costs. Think of it as the cards being manifestations of the individual planeswalker, and you have to pay a cost to summon these manifestations.
*Raises hand* I wanna submit a new theroy. I'm takeing this idea from enchantment week at MTG.com, where they spent a bit of time going over enchant worlds. What if planes walkers where similar to that? Consider this:
Serra 1WW
Planeswalker
Attacking creatures get +1/+0
Blocking cretures get +0/+2
Not as flashy or high powered but would work in a much cleaner way. Some more example:
Yawgmoth BBB
Planeswalker
Whenever a creature goes to the grave yard it's owner puts a 2/2 zombie token in to play under their control.
Whenever a creature is delt damage destroy it, it can't be regenerated.
Urza 2UU
Planeswalker
Each player draws an addition card during their draw phase.
3, Put a card from your hand on the bottom of your libary: Draw a card.
Jaya Ballard 2RR
Planeswalker
Damage can not be prevented.
All sorceries and instants cost 1 more to play and gain "deal 2 damage to target creature or player" to their rules text.
Similar to global enchantent rule when another planeswalker card comes in to play it destroys the current one. They will be on the feild like all permanents and could hold an additional type like enchantment or creature in the text box. Example:
Venser, Assended UU
Planeswalker
Creature
Whenever a player plays a spell they may pay an additional 2, if they do they may draw a card.
This would allow things like wrath to destroy them and remove soul to counter them while things like pyroclasim would not effect them, and also prohibit them from attacking.
It isn't really that new of a theory but it's one not talked about much.
if your trying to write a comprehensive theoretical guide you might want to outline each of these theories so people can understand each of them, probably give each of them their own post. List pros and cons for each...
Oh and is 'Tribal Planeswalker' my idea? Might be fun to add the person who originaly posted an idea to the outline of each idea.
I agree that the outline of each idea should be somewhat more explicit and detailed. I've read the first post, and I still don't quite know what some of the ideas on that list are, even though I've been fairly involved in the discussions of what the planeswalker type might be.
By the way, I don't think you were the first to come up with the idea. So far as I know the first mention was henry_ys, in this post. Others of us have expanded, clarified and championed the idea. Personally, it's the only one that I see that doesn't have major integration problems and works perfectly well with the rules as they stand without turning the game into something else. I think that trying to credit the first to come up with the idea is likely to be somewhat counter productive, lead to arguments and not actually add anything to the discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Than and then are very different words.
"I'm going to have more than Natalie Portman" is quite different from "I'm going to have more, then Natalie Portman".
I think that creating planeswalkers is a bad move on WoTC part. But if they were used to showcase a new zone, then it solves many problems with that sort of card (similarity to other card types [enchantment, legend, etc.]). Plus I would get a new zone to play with and a heap of new cards that interact with it, like what TS did to the RFG zone Lorwyn should do to a new zone.
Edit: I actually mentioned this when FS was coming out, that it could work like a flip card. You ignite their "spark" and they gain some sort of awesome powers. Whether or not they are actually flips or RFG or whatever it think it would be cool.
I agree that the outline of each idea should be somewhat more explicit and detailed. I've read the first post, and I still don't quite know what some of the ideas on that list are, even though I've been fairly involved in the discussions of what the planeswalker type might be.
By the way, I don't think you were the first to come up with the idea. So far as I know the first mention was henry_ys, in this post. Others of us have expanded, clarified and championed the idea. Personally, it's the only one that I see that doesn't have major integration problems and works perfectly well with the rules as they stand without turning the game into something else. I think that trying to credit the first to come up with the idea is likely to be somewhat counter productive, lead to arguments and not actually add anything to the discussion.
But then you just have Tribal with a new name.
I can see the design meeting.
Hey! Lets make it so PLaneswalker is dependent on other types!
Isnt that what Tribal is?
Well yeah! Where did you think I got the idea from??
If anyone knows why G0-DRAW was banned I would love it if they would PM me. That guy was pure entertainment 100% of the time. Plus he never publicly responded to his Contraptions "Proof" that never panned out.
By now most of you have eluded to the fact I did not fully cover each and every theory that is in place. So give me a chance to let me clear my throat. *uuuuHghh* Ok... Here goes:
Type of Theory:...............................Casting Cost:.......Permanent?:
1. Planeswalker Permanent Theory - You'll be paying a casting cost and if not then thats means it falls in league with the Planeswalker Vangaurd classification. Does it stay in play? Yes and it's possibly why we have noticed lots of Oracle errata that has been added to cards of late and the term added is " Permanent." What type of permanent you say? Why a Planeswalker of course because if Planeswalker would be added to the other permanent type youll need to move your theory down to the Tribal Planeswalker section please.
2. Planeswalker Vangaurd Theory - Its FREE wether you begin in play or you have to draw it... ITS... ITS... FREEEEE. OK ill stop swinging my arms and dancing around like I'm in the movie, "The Sound of Music." I am joking as such because this theory didn't catch on very well nor was it widely accepted when it was first introduced. And still today garners much apathy to its current reformulation into a planeswalker concept. Harpys harp on how broken it will be if free and especially if Planeswalker changes any portion of a player's hand size, draw capability, draw manipulation, 'In Play' permanent manipulation like adding addendums that have: add perms. &/or tokens... 'exchange with opponent'... destroy... remove from play, put stuff in graveyards as almost any one of these free effects can DRASTICALLY change the landscape FOREVER for type 1. And would most certainly be Banned in those regards as such. And now we come to why many will lament over the Planeswalker Vangaurd Theory because it will be written and labeled as, "Weak Sauce." (Also its not a permanent because its NOT a magic card... *PooF*... I disapear!)
3. Planeswalker Removed from Play Theory - A camp that huddles behind the banner, "Timespiral Block JUST covered this topic as a 'Get Ready' tool so why NOT?"..... Pull from Eternity is a responce to why not. Any form of Couter-Reaction Rules or Text towards creating ANY PLANESWALKER card will have to default to having to immediately take Pull from Eternity with some serious and mandatory consideration, can I GET SOME MORE RULES TEXT PLEASE... LOTS MORE! (i.e. Untargetable, Unmoveable, Unglued?) Otherwise the mechanic will ultimately ask this card be BANNED? (See Planeswalker Graveyard Theory for a similar debate.) So adding more rules text to a card makes less room for writing lengthy mechanics and this hampers future design space that is until it becomes widely accepted and they allow JUST the mechanic word to summ up what the card does and leave off the reminder text. (Note 10th edition foils has no reminder text on them and offer different flavor text as well, you cant deny this opens up more room to have lengthy flavor text.) Too complex already sorry!
4. Planeswalker New Play Zone Theory - How many zones are there? Lets count them shall VEEE?... Hand!... One!...*(LIGHTNING CRASHES)*... blah ha ha.. Ok I'm not going to count them all like 'The Count' so here we go: 1.Hand 2.Graveyard 3.In play 4.Removed from Play 5.Library... so by this count it is 5. So if we were to add another zone where exactly would it reside? Options highly point more to the creation of an 'In Play New Zone' as thats the most natural and easiest to deal with and some say that is a Plane for our Planeswalker Race to be able to PlanesWALK to and from the Magic Multiverse although highly attractive flavorwise we begin to see the possibility of card design to not being able to write trigger effects when our Planeswalkers slip stream back and FROTH from da Planes. (A design short comings someone might abuse if written incorr3ctly.)
5. Planeswalker Graveyard Theory - A camp that huddles behind the banner, "Graveyard is a place to have a Planeswalker mechanic why NOT?" Tormod's Crypt and Extirpate is a responce to why not. Also having planeswalkers in your graveyard sounds to Black Mana-ish and thats only avoidable with changing the name of the gravyard... SO NOT GONNA HAPPEN. And did you know any form of Couter-Reaction to creating ANY card will default to having to immediately take Tormod's Crypt with some serious and mandatory consideration, can I GET SOME MORE RULES TEXT PLEASE... LOTS MORE! (i.e. Untargetable, Unremovable, Unglued?) Otherwise the mechanic will ultimately ask these cards be BANNED? (See Planeswalker Removed from Play Theory for a similar debate.)
6. Tribal Planeswalker - Since Tribal broke the creature type barrier and added the tribe to ALL permanents we could go from being resonable and saying, "Oh planeswalker the permanent in play as a Creaure and Tribal supertype" (i.e. Tribal - Planeswalker -ADD YOUR DESIRED TYPE HERE-Phyrexian) to "Planeswalker as a similar Supertype like WHAT Tribal already is" (i.e. Planeswalker Enchantment, Planeswalker Instant, Planeswalker Tribal etc.) what ever the case this doesn't make much sense to actually do. And seems to be more a 'smoking mirrors and lasers' effect than creating a true new mechanic. It also fuses two new mechanic ideas which is a DEFAULT 'NO GO' UNTIL ITS DELVED INTO MUCH LATER IF AT ALL. (WAY WAY TOO COMPLEX!)
One way with the Vanguard aspect is merely to look at cards like Serum Powder and, most recently and most directly related, Gemstone Cavern. Perhaps the vanguard could being in play given certain conditions are met, like the previous two cards mentioned in this post.
Also: G0-DRAW: it's a POSt you're making. Not a blog. Just thought I'd clarify that up for you
Edit: there's also the "Phased-out zone" too. That would be 6 different zones I believe
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
By the way, I don't think you were the first to come up with the idea. So far as I know the first mention was henry_ys, in this post. Others of us have expanded, clarified and championed the idea. Personally, it's the only one that I see that doesn't have major integration problems and works perfectly well with the rules as they stand without turning the game into something else. I think that trying to credit the first to come up with the idea is likely to be somewhat counter productive, lead to arguments and not actually add anything to the discussion.
Henry suggests using planeswalker as a place to store a sub-type but never talks about what the planeswalker type would do with that sub-type. Infact he seems to be implying that the planeswalker type would be an advantage.
My suggestion is that it is a disadvantage. If you can show someone else showing that idea before me (the link is not my first post with the idea) by all means throw it to someone else, or if you feel it doesn't add to the discussion don't credit at all. My thought process was that by mentioning one or more of the champions of the idea people interested in it could search for that person's posts and get more information then was included in the guide.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Mostly... but some sample cards would clear it up a little.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Henry suggests using planeswalker as a place to store a sub-type but never talks about what the planeswalker type would do with that sub-type. Infact he seems to be implying that the planeswalker type would be an advantage.
My suggestion is that it is a disadvantage. If you can show someone else showing that idea before me (the link is not my first post with the idea) by all means throw it to someone else, or if you feel it doesn't add to the discussion don't credit at all. My thought process was that by mentioning one or more of the champions of the idea people interested in it could search for that person's posts and get more information then was included in the guide.
I hadn't seen the "only one type of planeswalker card" restriction. I think it's a potential, definitely flavourful subset of the idea that I've been championing.
I think there are some design issues with it, ie. Why are you restricting it, beyond flavour reasons? If it's to suppress powerful combos, I think it's short sighted, since combos always seem to rock up eventually, and if you make cards that are obviously abusable with some other planeswalker card, then the chances are that they'll eventually be busted with something else.
People like to be able to play with whatever cards they choose. Restrictions like this only appeal to Johnny and Vorthos, who are quite capable of dreaming up weird and wonderful restrictions to place on themselves. Even if this restriction didn't exists, many casual deckbuilders would act like it did, just because it's cool.
@Thrawnkkar: Planeswalker (under this scheme) is not tribal, simply because they have different subtypes. If a type exists for the sole purpose of adding subtypes, then if the subtypes are different, then it's obviously a different type.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Than and then are very different words.
"I'm going to have more than Natalie Portman" is quite different from "I'm going to have more, then Natalie Portman".
I think there are some design issues with it, ie. Why are you restricting it, beyond flavour reasons? If it's to suppress powerful combos, I think it's short sighted, since combos always seem to rock up eventually, and if you make cards that are obviously abusable with some other planeswalker card, then the chances are that they'll eventually be busted with something else.
If your running Serra's Anthem (check my post history for details) it is because you *ARE* Serra, and thus you can use any of her unique tricks, if you are running Urza's Hammer then you ARE Urza and can run his tricks, but because your Urza you can't run Serra's tricks.
Yes one thing this lets you do is make two cards that would combo with eachother in degenerate ways, and yes there is a risk that one or the other could be replaced by a non-planeswalker version. But realisticaly it would be used much like legend is... you can make cards that are a little bit stronger then without it.
If you really want a better defence of the mechanic then above, I would ask you to provide one for Legendary first...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Well, legendary is a play restriction, not a deckbuilding one. In fact, at one stage, Legends were restricted to one per deck. The DCI decided that it was stupid to have a deckbuilding restriction that only existed for flavour reasons and rescinded the rule.
I do understand the flavour reason for it, but I don't understand the mechanical reasons for it. Legendary has definite, mechanical gameplay reasons for its existence, at least these days. It is a genuine disadvantage that means that Wizards can push legendary permanents to do interesting things that would be broken in multiples. The best example that I can think of is the Shrine series of enchantments from Kamigawa block. These could not exist but for the legend rule, but Kamigawa block, in particular is littered with examples.
I can't see what design space the restriction of a deck to only one subtype of planeswalker would bring. It also closes off what could be an interesting, if infrequent, flavourful idea. Say the Mightstone and Weakstone were fused into a powerstone (I couldn't find anything in a quick search to say that this happened, but I could be wrong). The resulting artifact could be considered as:
The Powerstone
Legendary Planeswalker Artifact - Urza Mishra
Personally, I think that's kind of cool. It could be something that evolves over a block, like the Kaldra pieces.
There are also some big issues with limited formats. In sealed, it just creates another restriction on deckbuilding, in a format where decks are already the least powerful in existence, partially because they can't play all of the cards in the pool. In draft, it's more complex. Say there's a few reasonable Serra cards in set one of the block, but in set two there's a really powerful Jaya Ballard burn spell at common. You're drafting red and white... Do you avoid the reasonable Serra cards in the hope of getting the Jaya Ballard one? I don't know if this is a good thing or not, I think only playtesting would show, but it's definitely an issue.
As I briefly said before, I do believe it's possible that Wizards would do this, but I feel it's completely unnecessary and simply eats up possible card interactions and hence player discoveries and experiences for no real gain.
I think that your extension of the "tribal planeswalker" (I don't much like that title, but it is fairly evocative) idea would make an excellent variant format, along the lines of tribal wars, but I'm not convinced that it's the right idea for the basic planeswalker type.
Than and then are very different words.
"I'm going to have more than Natalie Portman" is quite different from "I'm going to have more, then Natalie Portman".
Well, legendary is a play restriction, not a deckbuilding one. In fact, at one stage, Legends were restricted to one per deck. The DCI decided that it was stupid to have a deckbuilding restriction that only existed for flavour reasons and rescinded the rule.
The way I heard it, they didn't like how swingy the game gets when you have lots of restricted cards... not to mention the first wave of legends didn't deserve a drawback at all, much less being restricted. But I guess I should look for the quote.
The Planeswalker rules that I outlined would let you do things like:
Serra Channeler 1W
Planeswalker Creature - Serra Cleric 1: add W to your mana pool.
2/1
Urza Channeler 2
Planeswalker Artifact Creature - Urza Golem 1: add one mana of any color to your mana pool, play this ability only once a turn.
1/2
Yawgmoth Channeler 1B
Planeswalker Creature - Yawgmoth Cleric 1: add B to your mana pool.
2/1
without enabling crazy multi-color decks. You could splash with them, but you couldn't use Urza's to play all the others, then splash groundbreaker in a non-green deck.
Also much like Legendary I would keep them in the Rare sheet, with some appearance in the uncommon sheet so that in draft you just take it and assume you won't get another of a different type.
Also note: I wouldn't align them with colors, I would align them with play style and often try to re-use the same planeswalkers between sets to help them play better.
If one walker has a number of neat wennie cards (small cheep effective creatures, like White Knight or Savana Lions) while another 'walker gets the "All creatures get +1/+1 and vigilance." and the next Daybreak Coronet then you get a nice pull between playing the walker with the good creatures, or play normal creatures and the walker with good creature enhancement spells, or play the walker with nice card draw, but you don't get the best of the creature stuff.
Think if Tarmogoyf, Mystic Teachings and Damnation were all on different 'walkers... Also you could print a card with multiple 'walker types on it, then a deck with any one of those walkers could use it...
or how about...
Champion of the Guildpact 3WW
Planeswalker Creature -- Guildpact Cleric (where Guildpact is a 'walker type)
Creatures you control have protection from mono-colored.
2/3
Champion of Chaos 3RR
Planeswalker Creature -- Chaos Cleric (where Chaos is a 'walker type)
Creatures you control have protection from multi-colored.
3/1
Also include some cheeper creatures with the protection on just themselves and maybe a creature that can grant the protection to other like Mother of Runes.
I don't know that its a great idea, but I do think its worthy of playtesting... however that requires a lot of good card ideas to give it a fair shot, and well there is a reason I haven't made an entire magic set...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Does nobody really realise that this Planeswalker thing can take thousands of blocks before we will actually see one?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
hey i have managed to evolve my axolotls by feeding them thyroid glands the thyroxine contained in these gland is enough to change these water dwelling creatures into land based creatures
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
[...]Also much like Legendary I would keep them in the Rare sheet, with some appearance in the uncommon sheet so that in draft you just take it and assume you won't get another of a different type.
Also note: I wouldn't align them with colors, I would align them with play style and often try to re-use the same planeswalkers between sets to help them play better.
If one walker has a number of neat wennie cards (small cheep effective creatures, like White Knight or Savana Lions) while another 'walker gets the "All creatures get +1/+1 and vigilance." and the next Daybreak Coronet then you get a nice pull between playing the walker with the good creatures, or play normal creatures and the walker with good creature enhancement spells, or play the walker with nice card draw, but you don't get the best of the creature stuff.
Think if Tarmogoyf, Mystic Teachings and Damnation were all on different 'walkers... Also you could print a card with multiple 'walker types on it, then a deck with any one of those walkers could use it...
or how about...
Champion of the Guildpact 3WW
Planeswalker Creature -- Guildpact Cleric (where Guildpact is a 'walker type)
Creatures you control have protection from mono-colored.
2/3
Champion of Chaos 3RR
Planeswalker Creature -- Chaos Cleric (where Chaos is a 'walker type)
Creatures you control have protection from multi-colored.
3/1
Also include some cheeper creatures with the protection on just themselves and maybe a creature that can grant the protection to other like Mother of Runes.
I don't know that its a great idea, but I do think its worthy of playtesting... however that requires a lot of good card ideas to give it a fair shot, and well there is a reason I haven't made an entire magic set...
Firstly, I'm continuing this discussion only because I think your idea does have merit and I'd like to explore it further. Like you, I think it's probably worth playtesting, but I still think it has issues.
If you keep planeswalker cards most on the rare sheet, then you're almost negating the very drawback that you're talking about. I realise this also happens with legends, but the design of the legendary supertype is something steeped in the history of the 3rd ever Magic expansion, when the entire concept of a TCG, let alone MtG was a very new thing. We've moved on from there and R&D have learned from some of their mistakes.
The first set of cards that you outlined as very unexciting at rare, and pretty bland at uncommon. This shows another problem with restricting the rarity of this cards. It removes even more design space.
I can't see how you could play a card with multiple 'walker types. As soon as you put it in your deck, you have two different 'walker types, so your deck is illegal. Oh... yeah, I get it: All cards in your deck with a planewalker subtype must share a single planeswalker subtype... Ok. Almost like hybrid mana in a very round-about way.
I see no problem at all with printing both of your Champions in the same set without the restriction of your rule. Both have CC in the cost so would be a little difficult to get together anyway. Even when they both come out, they're no worst together than, say Plantium Angel and Leonin Abunas.
Notice that Tarmogoyf, Mystic Teachings and Damnation are all already different colours. There is already a mechanism for separating the abilities of cards. I guess that Wizards could introduce this as a way to balance out decks if they ever do a block with heavy colour pie bleeding again. I'm not sure if it would actually keep things under control enough for crazy ideas like red enchantment destruction, but it definitely potentially could.
I do like the idea of the tension of two 'walker types that have complementary foci. It's the only solid design/mechanical reason that I've noticed you put forward. Your idea also opens up some interesting ideas regarding multiplayer, especially in the only officially supported multiplayer format - two headed giant.
I know that you don't align the 'walker to a colour. But in practice, any walker developed by Wizards is going to be fairly heavily aligned to either a single colour or a pair of colours, simply through their philosophy and "playstyle".
@limmepie: Of course we all realise that. That doesn't mean that we can't toss some ideas around as to what it might be like, if and when we finally see it. Also, there's a rumour that a "reliable source" has said that there will be Planeswalker cards in Lorwyn.
Edit: I've been trying to work out what it is that irks me about this idea and I think I've got it. It feels, to me, like an awkward, overly restrictive reinvention of the colour pie. Colour already does pretty much every positive thing that we've discovered in the idea, in a more subtle, less prescriptive manner.
Than and then are very different words.
"I'm going to have more than Natalie Portman" is quite different from "I'm going to have more, then Natalie Portman".
The fewer Planeswalker types you print, the easier it is to put them on the uncommon and common sheets, and I would lean to printing only 2 or 3 'walker types... with no more then 20 cards of any one type. Then if your playing red and a walker card shows up, but you know the next pack your gonna open this draft might have a common of another 'walker type you have to chose to risk this one being a dead draft card (kinda like drafting a dark banishing when you have already pulled 3 strong red cards, and really like a green common in the next set).
But really when it comes down to it the idea would need to be playtested to find the best uses of it, run those uses up and continue looking for new space for it...
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
1. Planeswalker Permanent Theory - You'll be paying a casting cost and if not then thats means it falls in league with the Planeswalker Vangaurd classification. Does it stay in play? Yes and it's possibly why we have noticed lots of Oracle errata that has been added to cards of late and the term added is " Permanent." What type of permanent you say? Why a Planeswalker of course because if Planeswalker would be added to the other permanent type youll need to move your theory down to the Tribal Planeswalker section please.
I'm sorry, but huh? This question/answer thing is no doubt easier for you to write, but it's incredibly difficult to understand when those aren't the questions I'm asking. The errata thing is, as far as I know, because of tribal. "What kind of permanent?" doesn't make sense, they tell you what kind of permanent! I thought Planeswalker Permanent Theory seemed pretty simple, but it doesn't sound like I have any clue what it is after all.
2. Planeswalker Vangaurd Theory - Its FREE wether you begin in play or you have to draw it... ITS... ITS... FREEEEE. OK ill stop swinging my arms and dancing around like I'm in the movie, "The Sound of Music." I am joking as such because this theory didn't catch on very well nor was it widely accepted when it was first introduced. And still today garners much apathy to its current reformulation into a planeswalker concept. Harpys harp on how broken it will be if free and especially if Planeswalker changes any portion of a player's hand size, draw capability, draw manipulation, 'In Play' permanent manipulation like adding addendums that have: add perms. &/or tokens... 'exchange with opponent'... destroy... remove from play, put stuff in graveyards as almost any one of these free effects can DRASTICALLY change the landscape FOREVER for type 1. And would most certainly be Banned in those regards as such. And now we come to why many will lament over the Planeswalker Vangaurd Theory because it will be written and labeled as, "Weak Sauce." (Also its not a permanent because its NOT a magic card... *PooF*... I disapear!)
That I understand, and it is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. I like this theory because:
a) It manages to actually serve a unique purpose rather than being a somewhat lame enchantment lookalike.
b) Anyone who says something is broken without knowing what it is should not be taken seriously.
c) Vanguard rocks.
3. Planeswalker Removed from Play Theory - A camp that huddles behind the banner, "Timespiral Block JUST covered this topic as a 'Get Ready' tool so why NOT?"..... Pull from Eternity is a responce to why not. Any form of Couter-Reaction Rules or Text towards creating ANY PLANESWALKER card will have to default to having to immediately take Pull from Eternity with some serious and mandatory consideration, can I GET SOME MORE RULES TEXT PLEASE... LOTS MORE! (i.e. Untargetable, Unmoveable, Unglued?) Otherwise the mechanic will ultimately ask this card be BANNED? (See Planeswalker Graveyard Theory for a similar debate.) So adding more rules text to a card makes less room for writing lengthy mechanics and this hampers future design space that is until it becomes widely accepted and they allow JUST the mechanic word to summ up what the card does and leave off the reminder text. (Note 10th edition foils has no reminder text on them and offer different flavor text as well, you cant deny this opens up more room to have lengthy flavor text.) Too complex already sorry!
As far as I can determine this is mostly your own personal opinions, though I can't figure out what your argument is supposed to be based on.
4. Planeswalker New Play Zone Theory - How many zones are there? Lets count them shall VEEE?... Hand!... One!...*(LIGHTNING CRASHES)*... blah ha ha.. Ok I'm not going to count them all like 'The Count' so here we go: 1.Hand 2.Graveyard 3.In play 4.Removed from Play 5.Library... so by this count it is 5. So if we were to add another zone where exactly would it reside? Options highly point more to the creation of an 'In Play New Zone' as thats the most natural and easiest to deal with and some say that is a Plane for our Planeswalker Race to be able to PlanesWALK to and from the Magic Multiverse although highly attractive flavorwise we begin to see the possibility of card design to not being able to write trigger effects when our Planeswalkers slip stream back and FROTH from da Planes. (A design short comings someone might abuse if written incorr3ctly.)
You missed The Stack and the Phased Out Zone. But relevantly, there doesn't seem to be a point. This is definitely a Speculation Original, it makes sense from the perspective of someone who has only a marginal understanding of how the game works on the higher levels.
5. Planeswalker Graveyard Theory - A camp that huddles behind the banner, "Graveyard is a place to have a Planeswalker mechanic why NOT?" Tormod's Crypt and Extirpate is a responce to why not.
Stop giving responses! Seriously, it polutes your explainations, and you're not explaining why "Planeswalkers can never be destroyed EVER" is an assumed fact.
Also having planeswalkers in your graveyard sounds to Black Mana-ish and thats only avoidable with changing the name of the gravyard... SO NOT GONNA HAPPEN. And did you know any form of Couter-Reaction to creating ANY card will default to having to immediately take Tormod's Crypt with some serious and mandatory consideration, can I GET SOME MORE RULES TEXT PLEASE... LOTS MORE! (i.e. Untargetable, Unremovable, Unglued?) Otherwise the mechanic will ultimately ask these cards be BANNED? (See Planeswalker Removed from Play Theory for a similar debate.)
The hell are you talking about? "Oh noes! These cards can disable other cards! This is totally grounds for banning, with no furthur explaination!" And what is the relevance of your Un triumvirate? You haven't explained anything!
6. Tribal Planeswalker - Since Tribal broke the creature type barrier and added the tribe to ALL permanents we could go from being resonable and saying, "Oh planeswalker the permanent in play as a Creaure and Tribal supertype" (i.e. Tribal - Planeswalker -ADD YOUR DESIRED TYPE HERE-Phyrexian) to "Planeswalker as a similar Supertype like WHAT Tribal already is" (i.e. Planeswalker Enchantment, Planeswalker Instant, Planeswalker Tribal etc.) what ever the case this doesn't make much sense to actually do. And seems to be more a 'smoking mirrors and lasers' effect than creating a true new mechanic. It also fuses two new mechanic ideas which is a DEFAULT 'NO GO' UNTIL ITS DELVED INTO MUCH LATER IF AT ALL. (WAY WAY TOO COMPLEX!)
Tribal isn't a supertype, and the dashes are confusingly misplaced, but I think I grasp the general idea. Yeah, not going to happen, how unoriginal do people think WotC is?
I'm sorry, but huh? This question/answer thing is no doubt easier for you to write, but it's incredibly difficult to understand when those aren't the questions I'm asking. The errata thing is, as far as I know, because of tribal. "What kind of permanent?" doesn't make sense, they tell you what kind of permanent! I thought Planeswalker Permanent Theory seemed pretty simple, but it doesn't sound like I have any clue what it is after all.
Regarding Theory #1.:
If Planeswalker has a casting cost and is an In Play "permanent" then it would not be a Vangaurd card it would be a new type of permanent. It just so happens that they have added "Permanent" to a lot of text of late... I believe this is to help keep things straight for any tribal tutoring which is why there is HEAVY speculation the next set is Tribal. What does this have anything to do with Planeswalker?
Some have speculated that Planeswalker could be a new creature type and if this is so then it isn't a Planeswalker Permanent Theory it is a tribal theory and if Planeswalker is to be added to the other spell types it too is a brand of Tribal Theory and would need to be taken down there as well. Which leads us back to Planeswalker a "new TYPE of permanent" theory and has a casting cost and is now free of any similar theories... thats all that statement was.
As far as I can determine this is mostly your own personal opinions, though I can't figure out what your argument is supposed to be based on.
There are those that believe Planeswalker (cards) will be placed into the removed from play zone as this is a freshly done mechanic because the design space to COMPREHEND this sort of removed from play mechanic is a easy to understand possibility. HOWEVER you must take into account Pull from Eternity which would fastly become an UBER annoying card for the 'REMOVED FROM PLAY' PLANESWALKER CARDS. As Pull from Eternity would effectively put a Planeswalker card directly into your opponent's graveyard and it if Planeswalker would still functioned in the grave then why not have it go to the graveyard originally? It is then reasonable to assume that Planeswalker will not be THAT easily removed from play if it were to be plaved in the"Removed from Play Zone." It would need extra text to protect it (untargetable, unremovable, unglued?) OR the need for a new zone in the 'removed from play' zone which in any case would mandate that a New Zone theory be carried over to the "New Zone" Theorists. If you go the pathway to saying its NOT a card at all then it defaults to a Vangaurd theory so without banning Pull from Eternity all together the Planeswalker theory will not be removed from play at all.
Regarding Theory #4.:
I may have missed the two least relevant zones in the discussion for Planeswalker but I did not miss the MOST relevant zones for placement of a Planeswalker card. Remember new players will be subject to the new material in these advanced sets and Wizards always takes them into consideration first. (This might explain why some advanced players grumble about how Un-Exciting a new mechanic generally is.) Also telling a new player that thier planeswalker is hidden in a stack can be too much for a new mind to handle... yo! Let alone introduce a new zone of play... remember they might want to stick things in there because they absolutely hate that you keep destroying thier stuff. Or there will be a need to put reminder text on every card telling the new players where to put things after you cast them.
Stop giving responses! Seriously, it polutes your explainations, and you're not explaining why "Planeswalkers can never be destroyed EVER" is an assumed fact.
Because making something Indestructable is very expensive and requires text that lessens space for the mechanic and or flavor text and assuming its Indestructible makes its inherently Vangaurdish anyways. This is logically sound. Thats why were caught in the same problem as Theory #3 it is NO DIFFERENT. Further explanation into why changing the name of the graveyard to accomodate the planeswalker mechanic is also an unreasonable substitution as well results in further missunderstandings. Despite all this... placing a planeswalker into your graveyard DOES sound very GOTHIC-ish and Black Mana-ISH... don't you agree... MU-HAWhaw!!!
So why ban cards that remove any cards from graves? Because anything written that doesnt require lengthy mechanics text to help it avoid from being removed from any grave would essentially require you to make it a non-magic card at this point and that would be a Vangaurd thing now wouldnt it? (now now new zoners you had your chances shooo!)
I hope to clear up the sticky points. Otherwise thanks for reading!
Regarding Theory #1.:
If Planeswalker has a casting cost and is an In Play "permanent" then it would not be a Vangaurd card it would be a new type of permanent. It just so happens that they have added "Permanent" to a lot of text of late... I believe this is to help keep things straight for any tribal tutoring which is why there is HEAVY speculation the next set is Tribal. What does this have anything to do with Planeswalker?
Some have speculated that Planeswalker could be a new creature type and if this is so then it isn't a Planeswalker Permanent Theory it is a tribal theory and if Planeswalker is to be added to the other spell types it too is a brand of Tribal Theory and would need to be taken down there as well. Which leads us back to Planeswalker a "new TYPE of permanent" theory and has a casting cost and is now free of any similar theories... thats all that statement was.
Apparently the reason I couldn't understand what you were talking about is the theory itself doesn't make any sense. Thanks for clearing that up. We know that Planeswalker is a card type, so I can't imagine why anyone would think it wasn't. That shouldn't even be given recognition as a theory.
Regarding Theory #3.:
There are those that believe Planeswalker (cards) will be placed into the removed from play zone as this is a freshly done mechanic because the design space to COMPREHEND this sort of removed from play mechanic is a easy to understand possibility. HOWEVER you must take into account Pull from Eternity which would fastly become an UBER annoying card for the 'REMOVED FROM PLAY' PLANESWALKER CARDS. As Pull from Eternity would effectively put a Planeswalker card directly into your opponent's graveyard and it if Planeswalker would still functioned in the grave then why not have it go to the graveyard originally? It is then reasonable to assume that Planeswalker will not be THAT easily removed from play if it were to be plaved in the"Removed from Play Zone." It would need extra text to protect it (untargetable, unremovable, unglued?) OR the need for a new zone in the 'removed from play' zone which in any case would mandate that a New Zone theory be carried over to the "New Zone" Theorists. If you go the pathway to saying its NOT a card at all then it defaults to a Vangaurd theory so without banning Pull from Eternity all together the Planeswalker theory will not be removed from play at all.
I understand all that. What I don't understand is why you assume that Planeswalkers must not be allowed to be destroyed.
Regarding Theory #4.:
I may have missed the two least relevant zones in the discussion for Planeswalker but I did not miss the MOST relevant zones for placement of a Planeswalker card.
No, no. I know they're not relevant, which is why I began my next sentence with "But relevantly".
Let alone introduce a new zone of play... remember they might want to stick things in there because they absolutely hate that you keep destroying thier stuff. Or there will be a need to put reminder text on every card telling the new players where to put things after you cast them.
Exactly. It's completely pointless! Not to mention confusing.
Regarding Theory #5.:
Because making something Indestructable is very expensive and requires text that lessens space for the mechanic and or flavor text and assuming its Indestructible makes its inherently Vangaurdish anyways. This is logically sound.
Further explanation into why changing the name of the graveyard to accomodate the planeswalker mechanic is also an unreasonable substitution as well results in further missunderstandings. Despite all this... placing a planeswalker into your graveyard DOES sound very GOTHIC-ish and Black Mana-ISH... don't you agree... MU-HAWhaw!!!
I understand that perfectly. If I didn't, I would have said something. Something like "What the hell are you talking about?", only related the graveyard and not to destroying cards that don't exist.
So why ban cards that remove any cards from graves? Because anything written that doesnt require lengthy mechanics text to help it avoid from being removed from any grave would essentially require you to make it a non-magic card at this point and that would be a Vangaurd thing now wouldnt it? (now now new zoners you had your chances shooo!)
No it wouldn't! Look at this:
Bogardan Mage: Why do you think Planeswalkers have to be indestructable?
G0-DRAW: Because they have to be indestructable.
Bogardan Mage: That's not an answer. Why?
G0-DRAW: They require lengthy mechanics text to be indestructable.
Bogardan Mage: But WHY?
G0-DRAW: They have to be indestructable.
YOU'RE NOT EXPLAINING WHY!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I turn off the computer and drive to my local gas station to get some gas or else I'll be walking to work, while getting there I grumble to myself how much the price of gas is these days. Suddenly I hear knocking and pinging occuring from under the engine and realize that this is not going to be a gas issue. Just as I break down off the side of the road a BIG TOW truck pulls along side with the best monogram ever, "Urza's Towing Service."
A rather bulky man hops out of the cab with what appears to be a little green man with pointy ears. "Squee... go fetch the man's car and prep it for tow while I haggle a price." Sneering a smile he runs off towards my car. "WHY hello Urza I am a bit poor at the moment but how much do you want for a tow to the nearest mechanic?" Urza looks squarely at me and then says, "Your in LUCK my boy I'm a new mechanic and a planeswalker too and I'll do it for free... if you allow me the option to change the destiny of magic forever." I think to myself for just a second, "We'll since I don't own magic... (YET!) Why not?" Then I say, "OKAY! It's a DEAL!"
Squee finishes hitching up my jaloppy of a rusting vehicle and then he makes the electric wench screech as if 10 cats slid down a 15 foot chalkboard slide. "I really should have him grease that when we get back to the shop." I nod as I get into the Truck. "So what do you plan to do to Magic Urza?" Urza looks at me with a wink and says, "Buckle up sonny!" Suddenly we peel out from being parked before I get a chance to take my next breath and we lift off the ground and into the air. While in the air Urza boasts, "To bring fresh new life to Magic by introducing the Planeswalker mechanic of course." "Urza I hate to break this to you but I think some people think you are not going to be a mechanic because of the fooey about contraptions." Then suddenly behind those very eyes of his there is a :mad1:FLAME:mad1:!
Planeswalker - it can go to the graveyard... this I know this for sure because of Tarmogoyf. Apart from that I only know its a type of card in Magic because of this:
The card types are artifact, creature, enchantment, instant, land, planeswalker, sorcery, and tribal.
Here are the general options that we have to consider for planeswalker:
Just say 'no' to the theories about planeswalker being a permanent that is put directly into the 'removed from play' zone. Because Pull from Eternity would severly underscore what planeswalker would possibly do but this is speculation because it is possible to write planeswalker so that it may be able to avoid targeted spells and ability effects but this is unintuitive and highly unlikely as this might lead to stack issues. Another card that helps to disprove the 'Graveyard Theory' would be the slew of gravyard removal thats amuck to counteract Bridge from Below decks... care for some Extirpate anyone? Again The theory about planeswalker getting a new play zone may as well go to the trash because we already have a lot of zones to consider; adding one more may confuse new players or overwhelm them.
Remember the less complex a mechanic is the easier it is for new people to learn the game. So having planeswalker gain the untargetable status demands rules text which takes up precious space from the design of the card. How about giving all planeswalker the ability to avoid spells and abilities from non-planeswalker spells and permanents? Neat idea but it will also likely lead to some confusion and requires too much rules text for this ability to remain simple.
Thats why most of you people seem to gravitate towards the concept of having planeswalker as either a Vangaurd card or a permanent in/out of play. To set the correct record straight Vangaurd is a non-magic card that effects your side of the board generally and starts with you at the beginging of the game. I have to say this is a very attractive form of design and until its written incorrectly (i.e. Wizards chances it by lowering the power bar so to speak) it would then become instantaneously abused.
This is why something generally for free can be a bad thing. Ask those whom hate affinity or storm decks they'll no doubt agree. So this leaves us with the simplest design. You pay for it. Ok possibility to have it cast like an artifact? Very not likely as thats so out of flavor for planeswalkers whom generally represent colors of magic however muticolored planeswalkers seems likely jiven Jhoira of the Ghitu and Nicol Bolas. How much would we expect to pay? Any cost... from 0 (alternate) to highly unreasonable as its all gonna cost you to see a planeswalker on your side.
Others have speculated that the planeswalker mechanic may infact not use the stack when it is cast (face down doesnt use the stack anymore remember?) so blue mages cant counter it and since it's uncounterable this requires too much rules text but the reminder text of (planeswalker isn't a spell.) would be small enough for a at least a couple of years until it becomes ingrained. Where is support for this? The urge to see a mechanic that doesnt bow to counterspells yet again and also how could a counterspell destroy or say, "a planeswalker never happened in the first place?" from as low as Force of Will and Mana Tithe or Force Spike it just plane should not be able to thats why.
This line of thought is reverse engineering in my opinion and is theoretical proofing despite how wrong it sounds.
At this time I would like to open up the panel for discussion:
I haven't heard that last part. Sounds interesting.
There is an imposter among us...
Planeswalkers are already untargetable by most things.
The only things that can possibly target planeswalkers in play at this point are 'target permanent' spells. So Vindicate, Boomerang, what else sees play? Not much.
Putrefy doesn't target planeswalkers. Wrath of God doesn't destroy planeswalkers. This is the case without any additional rules. They won't write a rule to say planewalkers can't be affected by non-planeswalkers because it is near as dammit true already.
New play zones also seem to be of dubious merit, why create a zone when you could just make the cards that impact planeswalkers do what you want them to do directly. Just as Lands and Creatures share a zone despite the fact that they rarely interact, there is no reason planeswalkers can't do the same.
Here's a question, do we think Planeswalkers will have a P/T? Personally I hope not.
http://media-dominaria.cursecdn.com/attachments/40/570/635032482023888335.jpg
A different approache to the same conclusion. This doesn't use the stack and can't be countered and ends up being Vangaurd-ish after you pay the appropriate costs. While Freyalise makes it most unfair for your opponent to play spells which in my opinion is kind of harsh HOWEVER if the last part where omitted (about your opponent) then I would say it is a balanced card.
We do NOT know that Planeswalker can go to the graveyard.
We do know that it is a card type.
Consider the following card.
Adam's Folly BB
Sorcery
Chose a card type other then land. Target player reveals thier hand. Chose a card of the chosen type, that player discards that card. (The card types are Artifact, Creature, Enchantment, Instant, Land, Planeswalker, Sorcery, and Tribal.)
Just because you can't pick land doesn't make it not a card type, so the reminder text that lists card types will list land... Reminder text of this nature is so rare that it is hard to find an example, but you won't find a card that says "the card types are x, y, z" that doesn't list them all (well Planeswalker and Tribal will be missing pre-futuresight).
So we do NOT know that Planeswalker can go to the 'yard (it is still highly likely that it can, but we don't *KNOW* that).
if your trying to write a comprehensive theoretical guide you might want to outline each of these theories so people can understand each of them, probably give each of them their own post. List pros and cons for each...
Oh and is 'Tribal Planeswalker' my idea? Might be fun to add the person who originaly posted an idea to the outline of each idea.
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
I like the idea of Planeswalkers having costs. Think of it as the cards being manifestations of the individual planeswalker, and you have to pay a cost to summon these manifestations.
Radha, Heir to Keld, Vorel of the Hull Clade, Kemba, Kha Regent, Vela the Night-Clad, Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Barrin, Master Wizard, Slobad, Goblin Tinkerer, Patron of the Orochi, Oloro, Ageless Ascetic, Thraximundar, Roon of the Hidden Realm, Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, Marath, Will of the Wild, Teneb, the Harvester
If you did this, tell me and I'll credit you!
Serra 1WW
Planeswalker
Attacking creatures get +1/+0
Blocking cretures get +0/+2
Not as flashy or high powered but would work in a much cleaner way. Some more example:
Yawgmoth BBB
Planeswalker
Whenever a creature goes to the grave yard it's owner puts a 2/2 zombie token in to play under their control.
Whenever a creature is delt damage destroy it, it can't be regenerated.
Urza 2UU
Planeswalker
Each player draws an addition card during their draw phase.
3, Put a card from your hand on the bottom of your libary: Draw a card.
Jaya Ballard 2RR
Planeswalker
Damage can not be prevented.
All sorceries and instants cost 1 more to play and gain "deal 2 damage to target creature or player" to their rules text.
Similar to global enchantent rule when another planeswalker card comes in to play it destroys the current one. They will be on the feild like all permanents and could hold an additional type like enchantment or creature in the text box. Example:
Venser, Assended UU
Planeswalker
Creature
Whenever a player plays a spell they may pay an additional 2, if they do they may draw a card.
This would allow things like wrath to destroy them and remove soul to counter them while things like pyroclasim would not effect them, and also prohibit them from attacking.
It isn't really that new of a theory but it's one not talked about much.
I agree that the outline of each idea should be somewhat more explicit and detailed. I've read the first post, and I still don't quite know what some of the ideas on that list are, even though I've been fairly involved in the discussions of what the planeswalker type might be.
By the way, I don't think you were the first to come up with the idea. So far as I know the first mention was henry_ys, in this post. Others of us have expanded, clarified and championed the idea. Personally, it's the only one that I see that doesn't have major integration problems and works perfectly well with the rules as they stand without turning the game into something else. I think that trying to credit the first to come up with the idea is likely to be somewhat counter productive, lead to arguments and not actually add anything to the discussion.
"I'm going to have more than Natalie Portman" is quite different from "I'm going to have more, then Natalie Portman".
Edit: I actually mentioned this when FS was coming out, that it could work like a flip card. You ignite their "spark" and they gain some sort of awesome powers. Whether or not they are actually flips or RFG or whatever it think it would be cool.
But then you just have Tribal with a new name.
I can see the design meeting.
Hey! Lets make it so PLaneswalker is dependent on other types!
Isnt that what Tribal is?
Well yeah! Where did you think I got the idea from??
QFT!
My Extendo Sig! Because I want to be Cool!!
If anyone knows why G0-DRAW was banned I would love it if they would PM me. That guy was pure entertainment 100% of the time. Plus he never publicly responded to his Contraptions "Proof" that never panned out.
1. Planeswalker Permanent Theory - You'll be paying a casting cost and if not then thats means it falls in league with the Planeswalker Vangaurd classification. Does it stay in play? Yes and it's possibly why we have noticed lots of Oracle errata that has been added to cards of late and the term added is " Permanent." What type of permanent you say? Why a Planeswalker of course because if Planeswalker would be added to the other permanent type youll need to move your theory down to the Tribal Planeswalker section please.
2. Planeswalker Vangaurd Theory - Its FREE wether you begin in play or you have to draw it... ITS... ITS... FREEEEE. OK ill stop swinging my arms and dancing around like I'm in the movie, "The Sound of Music." I am joking as such because this theory didn't catch on very well nor was it widely accepted when it was first introduced. And still today garners much apathy to its current reformulation into a planeswalker concept. Harpys harp on how broken it will be if free and especially if Planeswalker changes any portion of a player's hand size, draw capability, draw manipulation, 'In Play' permanent manipulation like adding addendums that have: add perms. &/or tokens... 'exchange with opponent'... destroy... remove from play, put stuff in graveyards as almost any one of these free effects can DRASTICALLY change the landscape FOREVER for type 1. And would most certainly be Banned in those regards as such. And now we come to why many will lament over the Planeswalker Vangaurd Theory because it will be written and labeled as, "Weak Sauce." (Also its not a permanent because its NOT a magic card... *PooF*... I disapear!)
3. Planeswalker Removed from Play Theory - A camp that huddles behind the banner, "Timespiral Block JUST covered this topic as a 'Get Ready' tool so why NOT?"..... Pull from Eternity is a responce to why not. Any form of Couter-Reaction Rules or Text towards creating ANY PLANESWALKER card will have to default to having to immediately take Pull from Eternity with some serious and mandatory consideration, can I GET SOME MORE RULES TEXT PLEASE... LOTS MORE! (i.e. Untargetable, Unmoveable, Unglued?) Otherwise the mechanic will ultimately ask this card be BANNED? (See Planeswalker Graveyard Theory for a similar debate.) So adding more rules text to a card makes less room for writing lengthy mechanics and this hampers future design space that is until it becomes widely accepted and they allow JUST the mechanic word to summ up what the card does and leave off the reminder text. (Note 10th edition foils has no reminder text on them and offer different flavor text as well, you cant deny this opens up more room to have lengthy flavor text.) Too complex already sorry!
4. Planeswalker New Play Zone Theory - How many zones are there? Lets count them shall VEEE?... Hand!... One!...*(LIGHTNING CRASHES)*... blah ha ha.. Ok I'm not going to count them all like 'The Count' so here we go: 1.Hand 2.Graveyard 3.In play 4.Removed from Play 5.Library... so by this count it is 5. So if we were to add another zone where exactly would it reside? Options highly point more to the creation of an 'In Play New Zone' as thats the most natural and easiest to deal with and some say that is a Plane for our Planeswalker Race to be able to PlanesWALK to and from the Magic Multiverse although highly attractive flavorwise we begin to see the possibility of card design to not being able to write trigger effects when our Planeswalkers slip stream back and FROTH from da Planes. (A design short comings someone might abuse if written incorr3ctly.)
5. Planeswalker Graveyard Theory - A camp that huddles behind the banner, "Graveyard is a place to have a Planeswalker mechanic why NOT?" Tormod's Crypt and Extirpate is a responce to why not. Also having planeswalkers in your graveyard sounds to Black Mana-ish and thats only avoidable with changing the name of the gravyard... SO NOT GONNA HAPPEN. And did you know any form of Couter-Reaction to creating ANY card will default to having to immediately take Tormod's Crypt with some serious and mandatory consideration, can I GET SOME MORE RULES TEXT PLEASE... LOTS MORE! (i.e. Untargetable, Unremovable, Unglued?) Otherwise the mechanic will ultimately ask these cards be BANNED? (See Planeswalker Removed from Play Theory for a similar debate.)
6. Tribal Planeswalker - Since Tribal broke the creature type barrier and added the tribe to ALL permanents we could go from being resonable and saying, "Oh planeswalker the permanent in play as a Creaure and Tribal supertype" (i.e. Tribal - Planeswalker -ADD YOUR DESIRED TYPE HERE-Phyrexian) to "Planeswalker as a similar Supertype like WHAT Tribal already is" (i.e. Planeswalker Enchantment, Planeswalker Instant, Planeswalker Tribal etc.) what ever the case this doesn't make much sense to actually do. And seems to be more a 'smoking mirrors and lasers' effect than creating a true new mechanic. It also fuses two new mechanic ideas which is a DEFAULT 'NO GO' UNTIL ITS DELVED INTO MUCH LATER IF AT ALL. (WAY WAY TOO COMPLEX!)
Also: G0-DRAW: it's a POSt you're making. Not a blog. Just thought I'd clarify that up for you
Edit: there's also the "Phased-out zone" too. That would be 6 different zones I believe
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Henry suggests using planeswalker as a place to store a sub-type but never talks about what the planeswalker type would do with that sub-type. Infact he seems to be implying that the planeswalker type would be an advantage.
My suggestion is that it is a disadvantage. If you can show someone else showing that idea before me (the link is not my first post with the idea) by all means throw it to someone else, or if you feel it doesn't add to the discussion don't credit at all. My thought process was that by mentioning one or more of the champions of the idea people interested in it could search for that person's posts and get more information then was included in the guide.
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Mostly... but some sample cards would clear it up a little.
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
I hadn't seen the "only one type of planeswalker card" restriction. I think it's a potential, definitely flavourful subset of the idea that I've been championing.
I think there are some design issues with it, ie. Why are you restricting it, beyond flavour reasons? If it's to suppress powerful combos, I think it's short sighted, since combos always seem to rock up eventually, and if you make cards that are obviously abusable with some other planeswalker card, then the chances are that they'll eventually be busted with something else.
People like to be able to play with whatever cards they choose. Restrictions like this only appeal to Johnny and Vorthos, who are quite capable of dreaming up weird and wonderful restrictions to place on themselves. Even if this restriction didn't exists, many casual deckbuilders would act like it did, just because it's cool.
@Thrawnkkar: Planeswalker (under this scheme) is not tribal, simply because they have different subtypes. If a type exists for the sole purpose of adding subtypes, then if the subtypes are different, then it's obviously a different type.
"I'm going to have more than Natalie Portman" is quite different from "I'm going to have more, then Natalie Portman".
If your running Serra's Anthem (check my post history for details) it is because you *ARE* Serra, and thus you can use any of her unique tricks, if you are running Urza's Hammer then you ARE Urza and can run his tricks, but because your Urza you can't run Serra's tricks.
Yes one thing this lets you do is make two cards that would combo with eachother in degenerate ways, and yes there is a risk that one or the other could be replaced by a non-planeswalker version. But realisticaly it would be used much like legend is... you can make cards that are a little bit stronger then without it.
If you really want a better defence of the mechanic then above, I would ask you to provide one for Legendary first...
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
I do understand the flavour reason for it, but I don't understand the mechanical reasons for it. Legendary has definite, mechanical gameplay reasons for its existence, at least these days. It is a genuine disadvantage that means that Wizards can push legendary permanents to do interesting things that would be broken in multiples. The best example that I can think of is the Shrine series of enchantments from Kamigawa block. These could not exist but for the legend rule, but Kamigawa block, in particular is littered with examples.
I can't see what design space the restriction of a deck to only one subtype of planeswalker would bring. It also closes off what could be an interesting, if infrequent, flavourful idea. Say the Mightstone and Weakstone were fused into a powerstone (I couldn't find anything in a quick search to say that this happened, but I could be wrong). The resulting artifact could be considered as:
The Powerstone
Legendary Planeswalker Artifact - Urza Mishra
Personally, I think that's kind of cool. It could be something that evolves over a block, like the Kaldra pieces.
There are also some big issues with limited formats. In sealed, it just creates another restriction on deckbuilding, in a format where decks are already the least powerful in existence, partially because they can't play all of the cards in the pool. In draft, it's more complex. Say there's a few reasonable Serra cards in set one of the block, but in set two there's a really powerful Jaya Ballard burn spell at common. You're drafting red and white... Do you avoid the reasonable Serra cards in the hope of getting the Jaya Ballard one? I don't know if this is a good thing or not, I think only playtesting would show, but it's definitely an issue.
As I briefly said before, I do believe it's possible that Wizards would do this, but I feel it's completely unnecessary and simply eats up possible card interactions and hence player discoveries and experiences for no real gain.
I think that your extension of the "tribal planeswalker" (I don't much like that title, but it is fairly evocative) idea would make an excellent variant format, along the lines of tribal wars, but I'm not convinced that it's the right idea for the basic planeswalker type.
Oh... And please read my sig
"I'm going to have more than Natalie Portman" is quite different from "I'm going to have more, then Natalie Portman".
The way I heard it, they didn't like how swingy the game gets when you have lots of restricted cards... not to mention the first wave of legends didn't deserve a drawback at all, much less being restricted. But I guess I should look for the quote.
The Planeswalker rules that I outlined would let you do things like:
Serra Channeler 1W
Planeswalker Creature - Serra Cleric
1: add W to your mana pool.
2/1
Urza Channeler 2
Planeswalker Artifact Creature - Urza Golem
1: add one mana of any color to your mana pool, play this ability only once a turn.
1/2
Yawgmoth Channeler 1B
Planeswalker Creature - Yawgmoth Cleric
1: add B to your mana pool.
2/1
without enabling crazy multi-color decks. You could splash with them, but you couldn't use Urza's to play all the others, then splash groundbreaker in a non-green deck.
Also much like Legendary I would keep them in the Rare sheet, with some appearance in the uncommon sheet so that in draft you just take it and assume you won't get another of a different type.
Also note: I wouldn't align them with colors, I would align them with play style and often try to re-use the same planeswalkers between sets to help them play better.
If one walker has a number of neat wennie cards (small cheep effective creatures, like White Knight or Savana Lions) while another 'walker gets the "All creatures get +1/+1 and vigilance." and the next Daybreak Coronet then you get a nice pull between playing the walker with the good creatures, or play normal creatures and the walker with good creature enhancement spells, or play the walker with nice card draw, but you don't get the best of the creature stuff.
Think if Tarmogoyf, Mystic Teachings and Damnation were all on different 'walkers... Also you could print a card with multiple 'walker types on it, then a deck with any one of those walkers could use it...
or how about...
Champion of the Guildpact 3WW
Planeswalker Creature -- Guildpact Cleric (where Guildpact is a 'walker type)
Creatures you control have protection from mono-colored.
2/3
Champion of Chaos 3RR
Planeswalker Creature -- Chaos Cleric (where Chaos is a 'walker type)
Creatures you control have protection from multi-colored.
3/1
Also include some cheeper creatures with the protection on just themselves and maybe a creature that can grant the protection to other like Mother of Runes.
I don't know that its a great idea, but I do think its worthy of playtesting... however that requires a lot of good card ideas to give it a fair shot, and well there is a reason I haven't made an entire magic set...
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
Firstly, I'm continuing this discussion only because I think your idea does have merit and I'd like to explore it further. Like you, I think it's probably worth playtesting, but I still think it has issues.
If you keep planeswalker cards most on the rare sheet, then you're almost negating the very drawback that you're talking about. I realise this also happens with legends, but the design of the legendary supertype is something steeped in the history of the 3rd ever Magic expansion, when the entire concept of a TCG, let alone MtG was a very new thing. We've moved on from there and R&D have learned from some of their mistakes.
The first set of cards that you outlined as very unexciting at rare, and pretty bland at uncommon. This shows another problem with restricting the rarity of this cards. It removes even more design space.
I can't see how you could play a card with multiple 'walker types. As soon as you put it in your deck, you have two different 'walker types, so your deck is illegal. Oh... yeah, I get it: All cards in your deck with a planewalker subtype must share a single planeswalker subtype... Ok. Almost like hybrid mana in a very round-about way.
I see no problem at all with printing both of your Champions in the same set without the restriction of your rule. Both have CC in the cost so would be a little difficult to get together anyway. Even when they both come out, they're no worst together than, say Plantium Angel and Leonin Abunas.
Notice that Tarmogoyf, Mystic Teachings and Damnation are all already different colours. There is already a mechanism for separating the abilities of cards. I guess that Wizards could introduce this as a way to balance out decks if they ever do a block with heavy colour pie bleeding again. I'm not sure if it would actually keep things under control enough for crazy ideas like red enchantment destruction, but it definitely potentially could.
I do like the idea of the tension of two 'walker types that have complementary foci. It's the only solid design/mechanical reason that I've noticed you put forward. Your idea also opens up some interesting ideas regarding multiplayer, especially in the only officially supported multiplayer format - two headed giant.
I know that you don't align the 'walker to a colour. But in practice, any walker developed by Wizards is going to be fairly heavily aligned to either a single colour or a pair of colours, simply through their philosophy and "playstyle".
@limmepie: Of course we all realise that. That doesn't mean that we can't toss some ideas around as to what it might be like, if and when we finally see it. Also, there's a rumour that a "reliable source" has said that there will be Planeswalker cards in Lorwyn.
Edit: I've been trying to work out what it is that irks me about this idea and I think I've got it. It feels, to me, like an awkward, overly restrictive reinvention of the colour pie. Colour already does pretty much every positive thing that we've discovered in the idea, in a more subtle, less prescriptive manner.
"I'm going to have more than Natalie Portman" is quite different from "I'm going to have more, then Natalie Portman".
But really when it comes down to it the idea would need to be playtested to find the best uses of it, run those uses up and continue looking for new space for it...
I do agree that color pie gives a lot of this same feeling, but this is a harder line, and gives another level to play that divide out over. It probably isn't enough to do something like Red enchantment removal on, but you could do black artifact control with it (Like tapping an artifact and preventing it from un-tapping as long as this effect is on it, or removing an artifact from the game as long as this enchantment stays in play)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
I'm sorry, but huh? This question/answer thing is no doubt easier for you to write, but it's incredibly difficult to understand when those aren't the questions I'm asking. The errata thing is, as far as I know, because of tribal. "What kind of permanent?" doesn't make sense, they tell you what kind of permanent! I thought Planeswalker Permanent Theory seemed pretty simple, but it doesn't sound like I have any clue what it is after all.
That I understand, and it is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. I like this theory because:
a) It manages to actually serve a unique purpose rather than being a somewhat lame enchantment lookalike.
b) Anyone who says something is broken without knowing what it is should not be taken seriously.
c) Vanguard rocks.
As far as I can determine this is mostly your own personal opinions, though I can't figure out what your argument is supposed to be based on.
You missed The Stack and the Phased Out Zone. But relevantly, there doesn't seem to be a point. This is definitely a Speculation Original, it makes sense from the perspective of someone who has only a marginal understanding of how the game works on the higher levels.
Stop giving responses! Seriously, it polutes your explainations, and you're not explaining why "Planeswalkers can never be destroyed EVER" is an assumed fact.
The hell are you talking about? "Oh noes! These cards can disable other cards! This is totally grounds for banning, with no furthur explaination!" And what is the relevance of your Un triumvirate? You haven't explained anything!
Tribal isn't a supertype, and the dashes are confusingly misplaced, but I think I grasp the general idea. Yeah, not going to happen, how unoriginal do people think WotC is?
Oh, rest assured, it's quite that clear.
Regarding Theory #1.:
If Planeswalker has a casting cost and is an In Play "permanent" then it would not be a Vangaurd card it would be a new type of permanent. It just so happens that they have added "Permanent" to a lot of text of late... I believe this is to help keep things straight for any tribal tutoring which is why there is HEAVY speculation the next set is Tribal. What does this have anything to do with Planeswalker?
Some have speculated that Planeswalker could be a new creature type and if this is so then it isn't a Planeswalker Permanent Theory it is a tribal theory and if Planeswalker is to be added to the other spell types it too is a brand of Tribal Theory and would need to be taken down there as well. Which leads us back to Planeswalker a "new TYPE of permanent" theory and has a casting cost and is now free of any similar theories... thats all that statement was.
Regarding Theory #3.:
There are those that believe Planeswalker (cards) will be placed into the removed from play zone as this is a freshly done mechanic because the design space to COMPREHEND this sort of removed from play mechanic is a easy to understand possibility. HOWEVER you must take into account Pull from Eternity which would fastly become an UBER annoying card for the 'REMOVED FROM PLAY' PLANESWALKER CARDS. As Pull from Eternity would effectively put a Planeswalker card directly into your opponent's graveyard and it if Planeswalker would still functioned in the grave then why not have it go to the graveyard originally? It is then reasonable to assume that Planeswalker will not be THAT easily removed from play if it were to be plaved in the"Removed from Play Zone." It would need extra text to protect it (untargetable, unremovable, unglued?) OR the need for a new zone in the 'removed from play' zone which in any case would mandate that a New Zone theory be carried over to the "New Zone" Theorists. If you go the pathway to saying its NOT a card at all then it defaults to a Vangaurd theory so without banning Pull from Eternity all together the Planeswalker theory will not be removed from play at all.
Regarding Theory #4.:
I may have missed the two least relevant zones in the discussion for Planeswalker but I did not miss the MOST relevant zones for placement of a Planeswalker card. Remember new players will be subject to the new material in these advanced sets and Wizards always takes them into consideration first. (This might explain why some advanced players grumble about how Un-Exciting a new mechanic generally is.) Also telling a new player that thier planeswalker is hidden in a stack can be too much for a new mind to handle... yo! Let alone introduce a new zone of play... remember they might want to stick things in there because they absolutely hate that you keep destroying thier stuff. Or there will be a need to put reminder text on every card telling the new players where to put things after you cast them.
Regarding Theory #5.:
Because making something Indestructable is very expensive and requires text that lessens space for the mechanic and or flavor text and assuming its Indestructible makes its inherently Vangaurdish anyways. This is logically sound. Thats why were caught in the same problem as Theory #3 it is NO DIFFERENT. Further explanation into why changing the name of the graveyard to accomodate the planeswalker mechanic is also an unreasonable substitution as well results in further missunderstandings. Despite all this... placing a planeswalker into your graveyard DOES sound very GOTHIC-ish and Black Mana-ISH... don't you agree... MU-HAWhaw!!!
So why ban cards that remove any cards from graves? Because anything written that doesnt require lengthy mechanics text to help it avoid from being removed from any grave would essentially require you to make it a non-magic card at this point and that would be a Vangaurd thing now wouldnt it? (now now new zoners you had your chances shooo!)
I hope to clear up the sticky points. Otherwise thanks for reading!
Apparently the reason I couldn't understand what you were talking about is the theory itself doesn't make any sense. Thanks for clearing that up. We know that Planeswalker is a card type, so I can't imagine why anyone would think it wasn't. That shouldn't even be given recognition as a theory.
I understand all that. What I don't understand is why you assume that Planeswalkers must not be allowed to be destroyed.
No, no. I know they're not relevant, which is why I began my next sentence with "But relevantly".
Not what I was trying to say. There are 7 zones, but it doesn't matter. I was merely pointing that out.
Exactly. It's completely pointless! Not to mention confusing.
Um, sure, yeah, but it doesn't mean anything.
And you didn't explain it there either!
I understand that perfectly. If I didn't, I would have said something. Something like "What the hell are you talking about?", only related the graveyard and not to destroying cards that don't exist.
No it wouldn't! Look at this:
Bogardan Mage: Why do you think Planeswalkers have to be indestructable?
G0-DRAW: Because they have to be indestructable.
Bogardan Mage: That's not an answer. Why?
G0-DRAW: They require lengthy mechanics text to be indestructable.
Bogardan Mage: But WHY?
G0-DRAW: They have to be indestructable.
YOU'RE NOT EXPLAINING WHY!