East vs West: Recent Activity
| East vs West: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to East vs West: (Generated at 2025-10-15 22:47:43)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
Answer: Put "You may only..." in parenthesis. It's a rule, so it should be reminder text.
I didn't realize you were going for functional changes outside of subtypes - I would obviously have expected the card to gain flash in the process. Any reason this is not an Arcane Instant sorcery?
This still doesn't answer how this spell works. You have a static ability on a spell that does not specify a zone it is working from, so it is entirely ineffective.
@Tahazzar: No. You could view it as a distant cousin to Legendary though, but the rules are pretty different. Also, I reserve the right to take certain liberties with a hypothetical duel deck / custom sets. :p
@Vitenka: I hadn't even realized that, but that's true.
@SecretInfiltrator: No, nope, and not at all. It isn't Instant speed anymore which is why it lacks Flash like Deflecting Palm.
Coming back to the watermarks once more: I was having trouble distinguishing them on cards with more card text because they have the same outer shape.
While it is really cool to have two different yet similar images with a western/eastern dragon design in a circular shape, the two circles are kinda defeating the purpose unless the texture of the inside is more distinct.
Is this missing "For the rest of the game"? Or is it missing "When ~ enters the battlefield" and supposed to be an enchantment?
Shouldn't this have subtype Instant instead if it works like Deflecting Palm?
Nice idea though. Makes 'splice onto' much more important.
Shame about the name clashes though, yes.
Is this like legendary for spells? It's a bit silly. Also, that's not the Meditate I know.
Irrelevant, but snow does have rules meaning. Snow mana costs can only be paid by mana produced by snow permanents.
Really, they just should have used a specialized color indicator rather than a keyword or supertype. The only reason they failed at making a good colorless indicator is because they backed themselves into a corner by their insistence not to introduce the colorless symbol one set earlier - if they introduce the symbol for colorless in the same set (highly visible on all the Scions) and use it to create a symbolic (color-blindness friendly even) indicator they save space bost on type line and text box - of all the small accumulated misses of that block the one I'm probably most bitter about.
And I don't even "hate" devoid.
There is nothing wrong with introducing subtypes as one-ofs. Some you will pick up again sooner, some later. Curse was introduced for use in a single set once, now it appeared in the return to the plane, another plane and a supplemental product.
But not every type has the same pickup rate. We got a lot of Atogs, but only one Sable. How many years were there between the first Gremlin in Antiquities and the second in Mirrodin Besieged?
Really surprised about the hate for Obsianus Golem.
I really think there are better subtypes to plaster on your cards than "Instant". Heck, I'd consider renaming the keyword before the proposed solution.
Reminder: Deflecting Palm is a REPRINT.
Devoid: "This doesn't have a thing which is irrelevant in modern magic? Woo."
Colour-hate isn't really a thing, so what did devoid actually bring to the table that artifacts with "sacrifice this:" did not already do?
Colour as supertype - I can see it. We already say "Red Creature" and (sometimes) have a little colour blob where the word red word go. It does seem a bit redundant, though.
Anyway, regarding this card. Literally Reverse Damage but dual-colour and one cheaper? Seems legit.
@Tahazzar: I'm surprised Devoid was poorly recieved - I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the mechanic and I thought it was a cool idea. I think Devoid Creature would be hideous. Also, the color indicator is what precedes some card types where the creature has no casting cost but still retains a color, i.e. Ancestral Vision.
> "Why is Devoid rules text and not a supertype?"
That's a good question. Devoid was poorly received and MaRo agrees that it might have been better as a supertype:
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/161121156268/do-you-think-devoid-would-have-been-better
> "Similarly, why have 'color indicators' and not just say 'Red Creature' when needed? "
You mean colors as supertypes? What? You would always have to have them for consistency's sake so they would be horrendous with multicolored creatures. Besides, the card's colors are determined in vast majority of cases by the mana used to cast them so it would be pointless.
@Mal: I was thinking West would be W/G and East would be WUBRG. Making that work though is challenging me.
@Tahazzar: I just really don't like the aesthetic / visual design of having two or more types before the "-" separating them (either the [supertype] [basetype] model or the dual [basetype] [basetype] model). However, I want to point out that Snow doesn't have any actual rules associated with the supertype. It is used merely as a tag for certain spells or card effects. You make an interesting point though about having "Creature - Goblin Legend" or "Legendary Creature - Goblin" or "Counts as a Goblin". The ideal aesthetic, for me, is having "Legendary" be rules text, i.e. Legendary (No more than one creature with this name can be on the battlefield.) Or something to that effect, anyways. Let me pose a hypothetical to you then, a counterpoint: Why not have "Devoid Creature"? Why is Devoid rules text and not a supertype? Similarly, why have 'color indicators' and not just say 'Red Creature' when needed? (I personally think that would be hideous visually, but as you can see I'm against having supertypes.) :P
@SecretInfiltrator: The suggestion has always been "Instant Sorcery" in the MTG community (MaRo himself prefers this, but I think it's ugly design.) As I explained to Tahazzar, I think supertypes preceding basetypes or having two basetypes (i.e. Artifact Creature) is just not pleasing to me. I think basetypes should be the base and that any further differentiation should come from subtypes. I had considered the effect of linking 'Instant' with the Flash keyword and what that means for creatures with Flash but I don't think it'd really be a problem because the subtype 'Instant' is only partially as a marker for Flash on Sorcery cards, the other part of it is as a tag for relevant effects, i.e. "number of Instants in your graveyard", etc. An example might be how all Walls have Defender but not every creature with Defender is a Wall.
@dude1818: I also think that subtypes should be for flavor, but I think it's distasteful to have subtypes appear only as a 'one off' thing, like 'Shrines' or 'Cartouches' for Enchantments.
As for why things like quests don't get subtypes, Wizards has a strict policy of only giving non-creatures subtypes if they're mechanically relevant. I think that's dumb, subtypes should be for flavor
Sorcery is a card type... and nobody suggests that you put sorcery as a card type and instant as a card type on the same card. But clearly you are changing the rules here in a way that makes instant no longer a card type, so the question is why you turn it into a subtype rather than a supertype?
The problem with making it a subtype is that using it as a linked marker for flash only works on sorceries, while flash will continue to appear on permanents sans marker. That's why usually a supertype is used.
I do not understand the criticism of artifact creatures and legendary creatures.
(BTW: With Wizards now releasing more supplemental preconstructed products that are meant for standalone play (Archenemy: Nicol Bolas, Explorers of Ixalan) it mimics the distribution method of LCGs, so maybe... Topical Constructed/PreConstructed is interesting?)
Supertypes are used for functional types such as legendary, snow, and basic. Why would you undo that tech? Ie. Would you rather have "Creature - Goblin Legend" or "Legendary Creature - Goblin" or whatever that "Counts as a Goblin" shenanigan was back in the day? Mixing functional types with nonfunctional types would be a mistake IMO. Since base types are the ones that tell you how to play with it, isn't logical to apply all types that would affect that play as a super type, a modifier if you will, before the said basic type? Subtype, as indicated by "-" before, tells it something that comes after all that, in an abstractly rules hierarchy way.
To me it looks clear that subtypes are preferably the flavorful ones, though they might have tribal implications. So for spells, stuff like "ritual" or maybe along the lines of d&d spell schools such as "necromancy" or "illusionism". Perhaps "elementalism", "psychic/mental", "Fire/ice/lightning", etc? This is actually something I've spent a lot of time thinking - as in, what kind of environment would properly play into this so as to justify this kind of "grand noncreature type update".
Are these supposed to be two duel decks? Seems odd for them to be 3+ colors each.
Right, my mistake. Sorcery is the base type. Even so, I dislike supertypes aesthetically and I dislike having multiple base type cards: I think like it clashes with the idea of the base type.
What do you mean with two supertypes? You are aware that sorcery is not a supertype, right?