WotC Gets rid of Regeneration as a mechanic

markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/150524883138/re-regeneration-turning-into-indestructible-eot

From now on, anything that would regenerate a creature usually will instead make indestructible till end of turn.

THIS IS NOT A RETROACTIVE CHANGE.

what
WHAT

I get it but
>THIS IS NOT A RETROACTIVE CHANGE.
Good job buffing white and nerfing white and red further in the future, then.

This image makes my dick indestructible UEOT.

So? Seems fine to me. Indestructible is a lot easier to understand than regeneration. I just hope green gets some of this too.

They seem to have phased out damage prevention too.

My concerns for the future of Magic are less mechanical and more about how they're increasingly censoring the game, like that Garruk rape card and the GP playmat they banned from going out because it was too sexy.

Yeah, we knew this yesterday. The consensus is, "So, what?"

It's a lateral change that no one really cares about. Indestructible is more easily understood, and they don't have to print "Can not be regenerated" on future cards, saving space.

At the same time, regeneration is pretty cool and super easy to bluff with. It just hasn't had any relevance in quite a whike.

Yay magic is dying more!
Knew it was turning shit when my deck was tournament banned for having Artifact Lands instead of them just banning bullshit 7/7 Affinity cards

Except the artifact lands really were the biggest problem and they were right to ban them.
Just because YOU might not have been abusing them with your pet deck doesn't mean they weren't the most abusable things in a highly abusable block.

What 7/7s does Affinity run? There aren't any 7/7's with affinity anyways, are you sure you're not thinking of Myr Enforcer, which is a 4/4 for 7? Hell, the modern Affinity deck basically doesn't even run cards with Affinity anymore anyways. The reason the artifact lands are banned (and were from the start of Modern) is because they give you a shitton of artifacts on the field basically for free, which makes not just the affinity mechanic much better, but also helps fuel Metalcraft (3 artifacts in play) and makes cards like Ravager and Cranial Plating better.

Veeky Forums, bad at magic, etc.

I kind of expected this from the spoilers, but I can't say I'm happy about it.

Regeneration WAS kind of a complicated mechanic, yes, probably too complicated. I liked it, but the keyword itself doesn't exactly suggest
>tap this creature, remove it from combat, and remove all damage marked on it
or whatever the exact order was. You had a lot of new players paying the Regenerate cost for creatures in the graveyard and returning them to play. I was guilty of this when I first started, in fact. Regenerate as a keyword was even more frequently misread than "shroud" was, and Wizards axed shroud a while ago for the same thing. The removal was inevitable, and, in my view, probably should have been done before the shroud change.

Plus, the ability itself managed to be irrelevant about 50% of the time anyway thanks to the proliferation of effects that read "That creature can't regenerate this turn" as a cheap and usually harmless way of buffing a given burn/kill spell (except, of course, for how those effects made regenerate worse).

On the other hand... I don't think indestructible is a good fit. Regenerate has a different flavor that may be mechanically similar to Indestructible, but this effectively means that Avacyn, Liches, and Oozes all have the same ways of protecting themselves from destruction, which to me seems a bit dumb. Plus, indestructible is cool enough that I think it should be rarer than regenerate. It works for the time being, but I hope that in the future they'll be able to come up with a better keyword.

>They seem to have phased out damage prevention too.
I really hope they don't phase that out too! I really like damage prevention, and that mechanic is very understandable.

I think they'd need to keep it occasionally, a bit like protection, since indestructible doesn't work as a replacement for players and planeswalkers, only creatures.

This. The word "Regenerate" doesn't exactly grok very well into what it actually does in-game.The fact that it has to be explained like a "shield" to protect the creature once is already a strike against it. We'll have to see how well they do the flavor on indestructible, but I could see it working a bit like the difference between black and white Lifelink, where the result is the same, but the flavor behind it is different.

Well that's going to be an interesting change.

Will they wind up printing "Loses indestructible and can't gain indestructible" instead, though?

I am hoping that what's going on is that they're still looking for a new thing to replace Regenerate, and that the indestructable til EoT effect is just what they're using temporarily until they find something good (and they dropped Regen for it for the reasons you explained)

See Burn From Within for what it'll probably look like. I can't imagine they'll do it too often, though.

Needlessly pedantic, etc etc

>It's a lateral change that no one really cares about.

I care about it. Makes the game way easier to teach to new people.

Quality of life improvements are well worth celebration.

>Will they wind up printing "Loses indestructible and can't gain indestructible" instead, though?
They've printed one of those so far, which I liked, but they'd better not start slapping that shit on every mediocre burn spell from now on like they did with Regenerate to render it irrelevant. That was a mistake, no matter how you look at regeneration as a comprehensible mechanic or not.

>You can Regenerate this thing
>Well, it's not actually Regenerting per say, it actually puts up a kind of shield that prevents it from dying.

>The thing is Indestructible
>Well, it takes damage, but doesn't die. But it's not actually indestructible because it can still be exiled or destroyed with - X/- X abilities.

How are they different to explain? It takes about the same amount time and leads to the same amount of (small) confusion.

No, he has a point. user doesn't know what he's talking about if he can't even remember cards that are involved in his deck that he thinks was unjustly banned and thinks there's a connection between the wrong card getting banned over a decade ago and a relatively small change to which mechanic gets printed in which circumstance now.

>"Destroy means too much damage or the phrase 'destroy that creature'. Nasty effects that don't do either of those still work."
There, explained.

>Well, it takes damage, but doesn't die.
What part of "indestructible" are you reading as "can't take damage"?

>But it's not actually indestructible because it can still be exiled or destroyed with - X/- X abilities.
-X/-X abilities don't "destroy," and neither does "exiling." "Indestructible" literally means that damage cannot "destroy" a creature, nor can effects that say "destroy." It means exactly what it says.

Honestly, I hated Regeneration. At least 50% of the best removal had "Destroy bluh. It/they cant' be regenerated." anyway, and Indestructible beats that. Indestructible doesn't tap you. Indestructible doesn't remove you from combat. It's better in every way, has less baggage, and just is more fun to bust out onto the table.

I imagine they'll just keep using the "return from your graveyard to the battlefield" thing for black that they did every so often with cards in SOI and EDM.

Fucking finally.

Most good removal had the "and cannot be regenerated" already, and they haven't been printing regenerating stuff for a while now.

Dark Banishing and Terror have had that forever, regenerate was never really any good