Does this template change mean anything? Besides being confusing?

Does this template change mean anything? Besides being confusing?

Create is just a new shorthand like "dies" or "exiled"
All it does is save space on cards.

Please tell me that's not real

>Let's show off a new template for wording tokens on an FNM promo!
It seems like such an odd timing, EMN would have been fine with this, they've made worse decisions when it comes to putting new templating into sets.

Yuck! Was this really necessary?

Sweet let's save some space and have judge calls double.

I get the feeling it's something they decided to do for Kaladesh, but didn't squeeze it in early enough to get it into EMN. You'll probably be "creating" a lot of artifact creature tokens.

So, how are you guys liking "dies" as wording? Has it noticeably caused a lot of confusion or judge intervention?

This is probably correct.

I like it better this way. Its just as comprehensible and more to the point.

This is a good change because saying the same thing in less space opens room for more complex card design.

Source? Checked twitter, FNM promos for August and September, googled it, and nothing

I, for one, like anus and wish it received support every other set if not a few cards every expansion.

The only thing would be the need something to run with colorless that is not Eldrazi. Maybe true Colorless artifacts?

Makes a lot of sense, considering how "dies" immediately preceded Innistrad.

Note how "dies" streamlines the wording for Morbid, so there's probably a pretty good chance we'll be getting some sort of effect that interacts or cares about "creating" tokens.

They are rewording things so they can have riggers assembling contraptions in Kaladesh.

>Inb4 create contraptions

Dies is intuitive. It makes sense logically. And is easy to explain shorthand when compared to other older cards that reference the graveyard.

This makes it sound like a whole new mechanic or a rules change. Mostly people questioning if things still etb.

See when dies came around. All creatures "die". But with create not all things that etb are created.

Honestly, "summoning" a creature vs "creating" a token seems fairly intuitive to me.

And not all things that are put into your graveyard from the battlefield "die".

>Dies is intuitive
>Yet Create is not
You are just a sad little man scared of change.

When is that?

They technically do, actually. What did is shorthand for all permanennts can do. You could have an enchantment card refer to itself dying if you wanted. The action is the same. It's mostly for flavor that it is creature only. Well that and common sense.

Noncreature permanents.

Everyone is. Stop projecting you dumb faggot.

>projecting
>calls someone a faggot

Silly me, I didn't notice what you meant before.

At least this makes some reprints like Endrek Sahr and Geralf sound cooler.

Yet 'mill' is still not a thing.

I see no problem with this, we've all just been saying things "make" tokens for years anyway.

"Projecting" would mean I too am scared of change.

But even if I were to be afraid of it, it's not so bad that I can't even stand a minor vocabulary change in my favourite children's card game.

I pity you.

Mill is not as intuitive as "die" or "create".

Mill is slang originated within the community, it wouldn't make the first bit of sense for it to appear in the cards because they'd be much harder to understand for newcomers.

>i need to whine on every single innane bullshit because muh wijjard make magic deeeeeeddddd

Half of it is that they don't have a good word for it. You need something that accurately describes the action to someone who is opening their first set of packs and has not ever used a "mill" card before, otherwise you're going to have to slap it in as reminder text and waste more space than you saved. They've said in the past they regret not structuring the game in such a way that you can "discard" cards from the top of your library.

I can see why they won't do that, since mill as a term is slang that comes from a card and not the actual word's definition. Having a different word would be fine, but there isn't really a word that's intuitive to the action of mill that comes to mind.

Ah the classic "insult someone by insulting the game I play"
Children's card game just makes you sound petty AF. I'm assuming you're really poor and just bitter at magic in general.

Also every human on earth is afraid of any change in the slightest. Especially when its unexpected. Stop trying to act tough. Everyone knows you's a bitch.

>implying we'll get anything cool from future sight
>ever

>Everyone knows you's a bitch
Said the nigger freaking out over a templating change.

We got Delve.

Look how that went.

Why isn't it 4UB?

Said like someone who just made 5 dollars based on your response.

I told a freind how easy it is to be called a nigger on 4 Chan and he didn't beleive me.

Thanks for the $5 new friend.

Because that would make it significant;y worse in draft, where it functions as a build-around uncommon for three different color pairs.

Because zombies on Innistrad are also Blue, and caring about Instants & Sorceries in the graveyard is Blue and Red.

Anything you say then, wonderbread. Enjoy your fin.

>Ah the classic "insult someone by insulting the game I play"
This is either poor grammar or logic simply does not follow. There is no way in which calling magic a 'children's card game' is an insult towards you, specially not when the expression is a dank meme and I play the game too.

Assuming I'm bitter or poor are also ad hominem assumptions based on your own prejudice towards other magic players and, particularly other Veeky Forums users rather than my circumstance (which you know nothing of) or any basis on reality.

And even if everyone really is afraid of change in some way deep inside (which A) I did not deny and B) Cannot be proved or refuted), only a handful could be so terrified of it to have the sort of visceral reactions towards a wording change that are displayed on this thread.

In chanspeak, you could say you are "delusional", "autistic", "reaching" and yes, "projecting" too, since you seem so adamant on inscribing your own insecurity onto myself. Everybody's scared to a point, but men are not born equal. Your weakness and cowardice are your own and they have nothing to do with me.

>reaching
Not the user you're responding to, but thank you for reminding me that word exists.

So we you want to get all hot shit on me. Let's have a pissing contest then.

I'll bust out how much cash I have in my possession at this moment and my top 10 most valuable cards. Time stamp and post.
This is a challenge. You may choose to decline.

As for prooving if you ate scared. I can't prove this change has any degree of effect on you. But it's proven any change however large or small can cause simple anxiety to full fledge panic attacks.

While I simply dislike change for the sake of it being change. You will never admit your true feelings on the subject.

Let me know of the challenge is accepted.

Ah, this is perfect proof of what I was talking about. You just ascribed some traits to a fictitious construct of representing me and then proceeded to take anyone replying to you as if it were said person due to anonymity. That's quite the definition of projecting.

For more evidence, let me point at your last sentence, "new friend". With this, you are shaping, defining the construct without actually caring wether those traits are applicable in the least. In other words, its all a big strawman for you to beat on and make you feel better about yourself.

Which, no matter how you look at it, is incredibly petty.

>that challenge
ha ha what am i even reading

The amount of autism in this thread in amazing.

Dunno if this is the poor fag I'm argueing with. If it is I assume the challenge is declined?

I said you were petty because you can't afford cards. You said I was wrong. Here's where you prove it.

you're not very smart my dude

Not all things that ETB are created but all things that are created ETB. This is not confusing, stop whining about things that are clearly positive or neutral at worst.

And this, fa/tg/uys of the world, is the definition of childishness. Not only its pointless to determine who is richer in the conversation's context, but it also shows a very bleak, white and black vision of the world where money / might makes right.

Still, I'll take you up on that so that I may humilliate you. On one condition, out with magic cards, show me your most valuable possession of them all.

Poor or rich has nothing to do with Magic cards after all.

Cool.
*continues counting cash*

>he does not have someone to count cash for him
fucking poorfag

That's not what I challenged.

You could take a shit and call it sentimental value.

This argument is about magic. I said you were bitter about the game because the lack of valueable cards. You said "ad hominem"
The cash is irrelevant really. Just stack up top 10 cards and let the winner take it.

I'm gracious in defeat.

I'd like to ad. Money is what keeps this world and the people in it going. Don't act like it doesn't.

itt: The Amazing Autismo confuses the entire thread by arguing with himself

he said "strawman," too, interestingly

Hell, they could even call it "dump" to avoid any references to cards from which the slang originated. "Cast Balustrade spy, etb trigger targets me, dump my deck?"

Actually it doesn't, social status does. A lot of money will gain you a lot of social status (itself actually being an abstract system designed to calculate status) but that isn't the only route and as long as you have a high enough social status you will never be wanting. If you're an American with an unimportant job it's easy to see how you'd miss the distinction since the only way you can really get social status is money but the circumstances aren't the same for everyone.

Well. I'm not american. Guess that ends your theory.

>m-money isn't everything
>y-yoi don't need it to get by

True poorfag.

It's far clearer than it used to be.

When you put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield, you take it from your hand and put it on the table. When you put a creature card from your opponent's graveyard onto the battlefield, you take it out of their graveyard and put it on the table. When you create a token that's a copy of target creature, where do you take the copy from? Do you get it from your hand? Do you search your library? Your opponent's library? For us experienced players this is obvious, but it's quite counterintuitive for new players who've never heard of 'tokens' in the context of Magic before.

Besides obvious newbie misunderstandings ("nuh-uh! My enchantment is no longer a creature so it didn't die when going to the graveyard!", exile != dies, how does a creature not die from Remove Soul, etc), there are edge cases where creatures, counterintuitively enough, do not die. Progenitus, for example, never hits the graveyard and thus does not die, nor does any creature while Leyline of the Void is on the table. Tricks like flicker -> put into graveyard also do not count as 'dies' even though it definitely feels like it.

Shut the fuck up.

Yeah, that was an example of why you might not understand how things work, not the only context in which in you might not understand things. It was a way of giving you an out, not an attack. If you'd prefer to be dumb for no reason that's fine too.

How is 'create' any more confusing than 'put' in that context? All of those questions apply just as much if a card tells you to put a token that's a copy onto the battlefield.

If anything, create is better, because it carries the implication that you're getting an object that wasn't in the game at all up until this point, rather than looking through your hand or library for it.

>all change of any sort is always bad and triggering to everyone in the world
>everyone who is not affected by change is a liar

Are you legit on the spectrum? You're obviously having problems with both forming empathetic bonds and adapting to changes in your environment just like an autist would.

You look like you were trying to argue against him, but you're actually in agreement.

That's what I'm saying. It makes no sense to 'put onto the battlefield' something that doesn't exist yet.

So with this new wording, do the tokens ETB, or are they just manifested inside the battlefield with no ETB abilities being triggered?

Yes, tokens enter the battlefield when created. It is not a functional change, just a cosmetic one. Everything works exactly the same as it already did.

What the hell is going on in this thread

It actually has, mostly on wether a creature dies when it leaves the battlefiel or is put in the graveyard since those are different times that affect different cards and can be messed with.

People being angry at very inconsequential things.

Ah, sorry. I must have misread. Then yeah, we agree. Create makes way more sense in the context of tokens, since they're taken from outside the game.

thhhiiiiiiiisssssssss for me

I like this wording change more than "dies", and I didn't mind "dies" that much to begin with.

Anyone asking "do tokens still enter the battlefield?" is obviously retarded and it should be easy for people who don't already know to understand.

Are you saying someone is so stupid they have to ask if a creature dies when it's unsummoned?

So indestructible creatures can now die from combat damage?

How does someone reach that conclusion?

I backpack between spain and s.korea on odd years, without money.
Money only makes your world go round when you're an office drone with more debts than net worth. The good ol' jewless system of helping others and building community links is still very prevalent and will live on beyond our modern economy to the bankster's woe.

>I Doom Blade your shit.
>Ok, Blood Artist goes off because my shit died.
>Lol no, Rest in Peace removes it before it touches the graveyard!
>BUT IT DIED!
>JUDGE!
Don't be dense, there's a lot of other situations that make "when does a creature actually -DIE-?" a sensible question.

Can the people that were having a pissing contest earlier agree on the challenge and provide their images? I know they were derailing the thread, but I know that I'm not the only user who is interested in seeing how this all turns out.

get out of here you fucking hippie

And those are all clear cut and take barely any explanation.

There are people complaining that NWO is insulting and it shouldn't matter how complex the game is, then there are people complaining that "dies" and "create" are too complicated and shouldn't have been introduced. Just how smart does the average MtG player believe the average MtG player is?

>Besides being confusing?
Maybe if your mom heavily abused substances while she was pregnant and your dad used to smack you in the head.

I'd love to see what the guy issuing the challenge had for his trump cards. It'll probably be the most straightforward "look at me, Vintage Player Jim", some embarrassingly basic shit, or just Judge Foils.

I can see it being the power 9 printed in comic sans.

>create ... creature token
What if
>assembly... artifact token

But contraptions aren't created, they're assembled.

I scrolled a bit through the thread but all I saw was pic related. Is this confirmed or has someone merely taken their shitposting to new heights?

>We got Delve.

And it was awesome. They banned everything fun that was Delve before Legacy had a chance to adapt.

When I first read this card it sounded gross and wrong. Here's the thing, though.

Years and years ago when I first started playing collectible card games, I remember reading shit like "Put a token into play" or "put a counter on etc." And thinking that those were actual physical objects that I did not have any of, and thus didn't play those cards. It kinda fucked me up for a bit there. I think that while Create sounds abhorrent to current me, past me would have understood it a lot easier.

Look, good on you and all for traveling on a budget.

But here's the deal, if you want to experience some really cool shit, you need money. The best experiences I've had traveling I needed money to access it: hot springs, fine food and wine, massages, transportation to far off places, cooking lessons, access to craftsmanship that no longer exists in North America, and so on and so forth.

Quite frankly I will never stay at a hostel again. The precautions you have to go through to make sure nobody steals your shit is ridiculous in addition to the fact that you're essentially camping. I will pay money for a locked door and private closet to myself. I will pay money to ensure that the friends I'm staying with have a good time with me.

I didn't travel across the world to walk everywhere. I didn't travel to go camping in urban areas (unless it was specifically to go camping). I didn't take precious time out of my free time to travel to limit my experiences based on money - I wouldn't have gone if I was broke.

The thing about backpacking is that you come back with fucking nothing. You were just there. You tell some stories about having some drinks with people, about random people you met, maybe some friends you made, and some photos. It may impress the average person who doesn't travel but it doesn't impress me when you can't give me a compelling reason to visit a place because you didn't really do anything unique. I mean if you make friends that's great. But I already made my friends before going because I'm going to visit them. And the friends I make are friends of friends.

Go back to the oven shekelstein.

Create sounds way more flavorful. It just "clicks". You're a wizard, creating your zombies, thopters, carnivores, pests. It's way cooler.

I liked it as well I just wish they introduced in bfz instead of gatewatch it fits with the otherness of eldrazi more than ingest.

Dosent being a vintage player come automatically with some bragging rights? I mean if your packing heat of course.

I detest the change to the colorless icon BECAUSE they didn't continue to use it as an evergreen mechanic after Eldrazi. Thanks for fucking nothing Wizards. It's just another mechanic that is thrown out there as a flavor-of-the-month and they're going to revisit sometime years down the line.

All it did was shit up draft. Fantastic.

Yeah, you're not getting the point.
Money looks so important to you because it lets you escape from your monotonous life into luxury. I travel without a dime once a couple years because the travel life you're describing is my everyday life.

Unless you're really caught in the jew's game (through debts mostly), the more money you have, the less meaningful it is past the covering of necessities, there is a limit to how much better money can make your life despite american capitalism's fanatical devotion to wealth hoarding. On the other hand the experience of having to find alternative ways to become worth a bed or a dinner to someone else when you don't have a cent on you builds you up as a person.

Are you saying you travel so you can experience what it is like to live off nothing because you live a regular life of relative luxury regularly? I'm just working under the premise that you must live in Paris or New York or the equivalent.

I'm not poor but I grew up poor. But I live a life of self-imposed frugalness just so I can do outrageous things in my free time.

It makes no sense to me why you would find it a worthwhile experience struggling off no money traveling instead of using the money you obviously have to experience the best those countries have to offer.

Being poor is being poor, it doesn't matter where you live it's the same. Trying to find cheap food every day is the same in this country as it is in the next. I completely fail to see how the challenges of being completely broke while traveling builds character and how being poor is a novelty. Like I say, having nothing is the same no matter what part of the world you're in; "adventures in poverty" sounds ridiculous.

I'm not responding to your anti-capitalist statements. I don't really care what you think on that front. I just don't agree that there is any novelty in being poor.

Because indestructible creatures are immune to being destroyed, not killed.

It shows you have money, but it doesn't really make you that distinct.