Supertypes are pointless and needlessly take up valuable space on the type line. Turn existing super types into keywords.

The ensuing issue is how to address them since older cards reference them directly. So a companion rule is that keywords may be referred before a card type. So not only can rules still say basic land, but they can also say flying creature and indestructible creature.

Ex. Mingyun, Aerial Commander

An alternative suggestion is to put the supertypes above the type line. They sit on top, extending into the art. The type-line box will have a tab to house supertypes as necessary. Separates clearly supertypes from card type and makes sorting cards easier.

Keywords before card types is a very sensible thing to allow. People write "flying creature" all the time, and it's even more grammatical in non-MtG-English than "creature with flying". So I definitely support allowing that.

"Supertypes are pointless" - heh.

It's not just that older cards reference supertypes. Most supertypes mean something. In other words, supertypes mostly have rules baggage, in a way that WotC sensibly decided to remove from creature types (Wall, Legend). Indeed, legendary and basic even have rules baggage that applies at deck construction time. It's a bit of a conceptual shift to move that to keywords. Not entirely without precedent, though; Relentless Rats and Shadowborn Apostle would presumably receive the keyword basic under your scheme?

Changing supertypes into keywords comes with annoying rules baggage and errata, and I don't see any real benefit. You're just moving the space they take up from the type line into the rules text, where space is generally more important to conserve anyway.

Really, you hate legendary that much? Because I doubt basic, snow, or world have any relevance to this discussion.

As for Alex's "basic" comment, the rules specifically say you get any number of "basic land cards," so a) putting basic on nonlands wouldn't do anything, and b) Wizards doesn't like the connotations basic would have on those creatures. There's nothing inherent to Magic about them, unlike the basic lands.

I'm in agreement with Link here. Space in the rules text is at a much higher premium than text in the type-line, and if the legend doesn't have any keywords then being legendary adds an additional line of text. Given that legends already tend to be more complex than non-legendary cards, I feel like having the first line of text always having to be set aside for keywords closes up more design space than the extra room for creature types can open.

dude1818 - thing is, that's not true of most basic lands either. There are 11 basic lands, of which five are inherent to Magic; the other six (Wastes and the Snow-Covered lands) are exactly the same as Relentless Rats and friends. You don't get to go to the land station and pick up Wastes or Snow-Covered Islands, so nor would you get to pick up six Shadowborn Apostles.

I had used the term "conventional basic land" to mean one of the five (database) cards Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, or Forest.

That basic lands aren't usually printed as such has been a problem all the way since Alpha. Thanks Phantasmal Terrain.

Honestly, making 'keyword' and 'supertype' be the same thing makes sense to me. Then put the resulting superkeytypeword in the type line.

Please, Akroma, you heard what they said.

I do not want to remove supertypes, but I don't like that "legendary" does two unrelated things (it seems illogical to me), and would change what legendary currently means for instants/sorceries (205.4e) to a keyword ability (I don't know what this keyword ability should be called), although those cards would still be legendary, too. The fact that they are legendary does not do anything by itself since it isn't a permanent card, but does mean that it is historic, can be found by things that find legendary cards, etc. The existing legend rule would still be applicable to legendary permanents.

I would also generalize ongoing. Currently, the ongoing supertype makes an object immune to the state-based actions for schemes (rule 704.6e). Rules 704.6f, 704.5s, and 704.5t are similar, so I would have ongoing make it immune to those state-based actions too. (Note that rule 309.5b can still get rid of a dungeon even if rule 704.5t is suppressed in this way.)

Can you at least link to the rules?

https://yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/ It is hypertext you can select the numbers from the list (which I had mentioned above) in order to find a specific rule. You can also download the non-hypertext rules from Wizards of the Coast (although they change the URL according to the version of the rules, and Yawgatog doesn't change the URL).