Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics

CardName: Supertypes & Subtypes Cost: WUBRG Type: Supertype - Subtype Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Regarding the idea of Instants being a subtype of Sorcery rather than a Supertype unto itself (or worse, in combination with another, i.e. Instant Creature, yuck!) Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Conversation None

Supertypes & Subtypes
{w}{u}{b}{r}{g}
 
Supertype – Subtype
Regarding the idea of Instants being a subtype of Sorcery rather than a Supertype unto itself (or worse, in combination with another, i.e. Instant Creature, yuck!)
Updated on 2 Dec 2017 by DrugsForRobots

History: [-]

2017-12-01 15:30:47: DrugsForRobots created the card Supertypes & Subtypes

I thinking have multiple supertypes is self-defeating. A supertype should be the broadest possible category something [a card] can fall under, so having two supertypes doesn't make any sense to me. I also dislike it aesthetically.

The idea of making instant a subtype seems much more natural to me, and the point of having Flash is that the subtype draws attention to the rules text and the two become linked, generally. This is the design Fantasy Flight Games (FFG) adopts with their Living Card Game (LCG) model. In Android: Netrunner, the subtypes almost always come with particular rules text associated with them. I will link you examples if you are curious.

This idea of making Instant a subtype of Sorcery is something I'd been thinking about for a while, as well as some other subtypes for the Sorcery type:

Cantrips always have 'draw a card' after all other text.

Arcane cards could have something unique to them... I'm not quite sure yet.

Charms could always be on cards that offer two or more modular options;

Rituals always play with mana, either adding it or filtering it, etc.

Traps are another example - they always have a specific condition relying on your opponent doing stuff.

WotC does a lot of weird things I don't understand. For example, the only subtypes of Enchantments are Auras and Curses, and as you'll notice Auras always come with specific rules text: "Enchant X". Curses work much the same way, always affecting a specific player. But then there were the 'Quest' Enchantments from 1st Zendikar block which would've been a really cool subtype for Enchantments except they weren't legitimized as a subtype.

To be fair, Wotc are deliberately moving away from implicit rules text from the type-line. Wall->Defender being the most obvious one.

But I personally like "Instant Creature" it's clear. "Instant Flying Creature - Just Add Water" is even better :)

If flying became a Supertype I'd have to write them a letter expressing my dissatisfaction!

I've also been thinking about this. MaRo has said before that while he wishes everything was sorcery speed, and that sorceries with Flash would be the occasional exciting exception. But he's also concurred that that ship has sailed because so much of the game is tied into the words Sorcery and Instant. It would fundamentally change too many cards.

That said, I've wondered if the best course of action would be to just make a new type--Let's call it Hex for now--that was identical to Sorceries. From that point forward, all past cards that referenced Sorceries, like Envelop would only affect cards made the year before Hex was introduced. In the future, whenever one would make a sorcery, they'd make a Hex. If they wanted to make an Instant, they'd make a Hex with flash.

I don't know. I think it solves the potential power-level problems that arise. But I also think that I'd be burned at the stake for a number of Hex's transgressions.

Supertypes are allowed to be shared with other card types while subtypes are tied to a card types, so if you make instant a subtype (or rather "Instant") you could make cards with the typeline "Sorcery - Instant", but would lose out on "Creature - Instant".

I personally would conider replacing "instant" with another term for any reboot situation. "Flash" has been suggested.


This all to me is a discussion entirely separate to other spell subtypes to me e. g. I have pondered repeatedly to adopt at the very least a rudimentary system of Arcane and Divine.

I have posted a list of several subtypes (including artifact type) here. It also contains Cantrip and Charm, but also Command, Tutor and Summon.

The idea is that there is a priority system that says the type depends strongest on belonging to a group of mechanical relevant aspects as an identifier within the set (e. g. Traps) and cycles/megacycles (Charm/Command). Then you have some fallback-types for your generic spells like Divine for your white life gain and Arcane for your blue card draw and Primal for your green creature pump (white creature pump may be a Tactic).

Enchantments have more subtypes than you give them credit for: Shrine exists. :) But I also expand upon artifact types and enchantment types in the above link.

Creating a consistent system though is not always easy and will eventually lead to similar issues like Battle for Zendikar's Ally creatures; there the formerly mechanically tight tribe was interpreted creatively and used much more loosely - and at some point typeline space becomes an issue.

I actually am pondering using this system exclusively for digital custom card creation, because I generally agree with the reduced cost/reward situation for noncharacter card type (i. e. noncreature, nonplaneswalker).

Players as a whole instinctively care more about subtypes of living things, because they themselves are living things and care about speciasation within their own representive group.

This is also, btw, why we are fine to have creature type Plant rather than distinguishing between e. g. Tree and Herb, and why we have a lot of mammalian subdivision (Sable, anyone?), but outside of that use blanket terms like Fish and Lizard (though there is a catch-all term for fantasy mammals that also serves for some fantasy-animals of other classe: Beast).

I could write a lot more on the topic - and have done so in the past. Just gonna force myself to stop for now. ;)

EDIT: Note that the linked forum post is not up-to-date as it doesn't mention e. g. Oath as an obvious option.

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
What is this card's power? Canyon Minotaur
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)