To any target

Yes, any card that says "creature or player" will. IIRC, card that only refer to players will continue to do so, and therefore not hit planeswalkers anymore.

• Abilities that read "target creature or player" have been changed to "any target."
• Abilities that read "target player" have been changed to "target player or planeswalker." However, if the amount of damage is calculated by using information about that player or objects they control, the ability remains unchanged and can now damage only the player.
• Abilities that read "target opponent" have been changed to "target opponent or planeswalker" with the same exception listed above. These spells and abilities can target a planeswalker you control.
• Abilities that deal damage but don't call for a target haven't received errata, with one exception (Vial Smasher the Fierce).

There's the specifics.

Because they get rid of the damage redirection rules. The new wording is completely fine.

>if the amount of damage is calculated by using information about that player or objects they control
Like you can't redirect Price of progress?

>tfw half of all red cards in existence dont have the correct text printed in them

Seems like, yeah.

>Lightning and Retort depict two wizards dueling with a town caught in the crossfire
They really do have no sense of right and wrong.

>that fucking flavor text

Attached: 1425781419940.png (201x178, 54K)

I figure this is probably either going to end up being a reference to a specific planeswalker, or the person quoted is doing that thing where they use their own pronouns when the actual subject's identity is unknown.

Um sweetie don't you know that magic is female?

That would explain why wizards wear dresses.

Attached: Mystra_symbol_1.png (231x231, 23K)

>first spell casted was a red spell
>red is the color of emotion
>first person to cast a spell was a women
>women are emotional
>wizards retort was the second spell
>second spell stops wizard's lightning
>first spell ever made was by a women and it failed

card is redpilled if you think about it

I'm upset about the flavortext mostly because I knew you were all going to be insufferable cunts about it.

"Any target" is the original wording, which was clarified as "target creature or player" shortly afterwards, and now is being reversed back to its original state because "target creature or player or planeswalker" is too fucking long to have on 100 new cards in every set. Main problem with this thing is that every single card now requires you to check the year it was printed, and if it was printed before Dominaria you have to google the Oracle text to find out what it actually does.

Planeswalker redirection WAS bullshit that they had to get rid of one way or another (it's a rule that literally nobody played right, with all the wird corner cases involved with it), but my preferred way to do so would have been just make planeswalkers count as players for the purposes of spells and abilities that deal damage.

>Main problem with this thing is that every single card now requires you to check the year it was printed, and if it was printed before Dominaria you have to google the Oracle text to find out what it actually does.
This really isn't going to make much difference for the new player because planeswalker redirection is already something they only occasionally run into, and it's not something everyone is aware of as soon as they start playing. There's already confusion when a new player is told their Lightning Strike can hit Vraska even though that's not what the card says and it was printed in the same set.

But in the long run the new wording will slowly push out the old and it'll only crop up in Modern or Legacy where the average player's comprehension of the game and its history is expected to be higher.

>every single card now requires you to check the year it was printed
No. If the card has any card frame other than the most recent one you already know that the wording has been erratad. There's only something three years worth of cards that could possibly cause any confusion.

>This really isn't going to make much difference for the new player

Dude.

FUCK new players. FUCK THEM TO HELL.

>There's only something three years worth of cards that could possibly cause any confusion

You do realize "three years of cards" means literal thousands of cards? You say it like it's not a big deal, but it's a shitton of cards.

If you're saying you're an experienced player and this is going to trip you up then I'm just gonna laugh and tell you to git gud.

Should be xirself, I'm so triggered now I can't even

that's how you get a ded game

Most of those cards won't ever see play in a situation where their wording might cause confusion. Not to mention that the old rule about redirecting damage already caused confusion.

>If you're saying you're an experienced player and this is going to trip you up

It's going to trip everyone up since every fucking time you see a card printed between M15 and Dominaria you cannot actually know what it does by reading the card. I've grown to expect having to consult the Oracle on shit printed in Legends, not shit printed in Khans.

>Most of those cards won't ever see play in a situation where their wording might cause confusion

Literally any boardstate where a planeswalker exists on the board the wording is relevant. Are you telling me planeswalkers don't see play? In every single format and setting including super casual kitchen table between six-year-olds?

>you cannot actually know
Yes you can. There's a very finite amount of sets printed within that time and you tell me you can't memorize their set symbols? Fucking hell, I don't know why the fuck you think Magic is the game for you if that's the case.

I'm saying that most of the burn spells printed in those sets won't ever see play.

>I deal three damage to your forest
>I deal three damage to your library
>I deal three damage to your graveyard

What then

It doesn't have toughness/life/loyality and thus no state-based conditions where damage matters associated to them?

If I can remove your loyalty counters by dealing damage to your planeswalker, why can't I remove lore counters from your enchantments the same way?

Why would it? It does not remove experience, -1/-1, +1/+1 or any other kind of counters from creatures. Also, you know, the rules say so.

Then refer them to rule 121 Counters (121.1-121.6a) and tell them the shut the fuck up.

>the problem for new players when you change the wording of cards without clarifying what 'ANY' is on the FIRST set you decide to make the change without ANY reminder text.
we all know the rules but making things vague will leave new and learning players lost

Cry some more you pathetic fucking manlet pissbaby.

I think it's a bigger risk that they don't know that planeswalkers can be targeted. It's not obvious that "loyality" is a thing damage removes. It's quite nonsensical to try and target something that lacks anything vaguely resembling hp with damage.

Oh boy, they brought this terrible wording back. Can't wait to start zapping people's enchantments for laughs again!

Attached: 2ec.png (600x580, 572K)

What would that accomplice other than making you look dumb?

>bring up planswalkers
dude i have had new and returning players attempt to block with planswalkers, planswalkers are not new player friendly to begin with and require there own day to teach how they work for new players anyway.
>upheaving the basics of the game;in the form of text change, for a single card type that new players shouldn't and wont understand unless given hours of instruction seems like a bad idea

Looking dumb is the point, user. It's a silly move pulled for laughs. "That land has been annoying me all game, I'm swinging for the win this turn but while I do I'm going to Bolt the land as a joke to express how annoying that land was." That kind of thing.

Attached: 02b.jpg (1111x597, 145K)

This desu. Planeswalkers are bad design, flavorless and incredibly mechanically narrow. The Mending was a mistake.

That does not sound like something people would actually laugh at.

The Mending has nothing to do with the card type. Ugin's card features him as a pre-Mending walker for example. The Mending was created entirely for the purpose of getting Hollywood to buy the movie rights.

Once upon a time Magic was fun and played by people who could have a laugh. I know this is hard to grasp for those who have only started playing in the last decade or so, but it is nonetheless true.

Attached: 4e349487baad811746c02a09fcea0f56.png (120x120, 11K)

NuWalkers were a mistake, yes.

It sounds more like your sense of humor has evolved since you were 10 than anything, my dude. I have been playing this game since 2000.

Where did they say this?

You can only target things that are targetable.

>The Mending has nothing to do with the card type.
It was created with the intention of making more marketable "face" walkers, which the card type was created to support. If the Mending had not happened and Planeswalkers were still distant and capricious gods, it's unlikely they would have introduced the card type.
>Ugin's card features him as a pre-Mending walker for example.

Pre-Mending walkers were also nerfed by the Mending. This is essentially Bolas' entire motivation, actually.

Literaly the first hit if you google it.

magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/dominaria-frame-template-and-rules-changes-2018-03-21

>card says 'any target'
>card doesnt say 'any targetable target'
>doesn't take the time to clarify targetable targets

and this is the core of the problem, you need to look online

>Pre-Mending walkers were also nerfed by the Mending
Ugin's card feature him before the actual Mending, you retard.

>It sounds more like your sense of humor has evolved since you were 10
Well, thanks, kind of you to say.
>I have been playing this game since 2000.
And hopefully someday you'll figure out how to have fun with it!

Attached: BjkgpxD.jpg (2448x3264, 1.58M)

Then why's he a "Spirit Dragon?" That doesn't really follow logically. Fair enough, though. Khans' story was garbage and I didn't follow it.

>what is target permanent or player

But really all it takes is a small change to rules text implying pws are players too.
>mfw I target Liliana with Mind Rot and nothing happens.

>hopefully someday you'll figure out how to have fun with it!
By acting like a complete and total retard? No thanks. Quiet honestly, dude, if people do laugh when you do something like that they are probably laughing at you rather than with you.

Willful misinterpretation is grounds for disqualification. You know damn well what it says.

That would have been a hilarious flavor text for Wizard's Retort.

>Then why's he a "Spirit Dragon?" That doesn't really follow logically.
Why wouldn't he be?

Jeez you suck. Im glad Im not you. I bet you play to win too.

No you fucking faggot. You are wrong. Go suck the cock of WotC some more.

Since it says "any target", does that mean I can bolt Lumbering Falls in response to it being fired up? If so, will damage be marked on it even before the ability resolves, the implication being that after it animates state-based actions will check damage and kill it?

>119.1. Objects can deal damage to creatures, planeswalkers, and players. This is generally detrimental to the object or player that receives that damage. An object that deals damage is the source of that damage.
>119.1a Damage can’t be dealt to an object that’s neither a creature nor a planeswalker.
nope

>"I bolt face"
>Proceeds to throw the card at my opponent

>Bolas wants to end nuWalkers
Bolas, again, doing nothing wrong

Just every walker, not just the nu ones.

Bolas wants to be an immortal oldwalker again. He hates being finite. He doesn't care if other walkers stay mortal at all.

>getting this upset about people you don't even know joking about hitting a land with a lightning bolt

Attached: 1518888617839.jpg (250x241, 7K)

It's shitty because they used a dry, history lesson for chucking bolts of lightning.

Tsktsk Wotc, I thought it was supposed to "themself"

Blatantly bigoted towards non-binary things

Go read the flavor text on Alpha Verduran Enchantress. Girls were the first wizards.

>frogposting

I might, but new players probably won't, and isn't that the whole fucking point behind these changes?

>Some say magic was first practiced by women, who have always felt strong ties to the land.

Sounds like the kind of bullshit that women would say and no one would call them out on because it just wasn't worth the fight.

oh fuck off with your shitty attempt at false-flagging.

>why can't i blow up the smugglers copter?
>why can't i shoot at it before it resolves?
>why can't i shoot that manland before you turn it on?
Too many thing can target non-creature/PW/player targets to simply say "target".

To be fair, a lightning bolt should really be able to destroy a copter while it's on the ground.

I tested a different game with similar wording to this and the old WotC wording verbatim, and found that it was actually easier for new players to understand because it reduces the amount of text on more complicated cards.

Wow some of you guys are really triggered over pronouns

Fair enough, although I think that comes down more to reading comprehension than anything else. I generally tend to read quickly at a fairly high level, and I sometimes forget that not everyone else does. Personally, I'm more concerned about the sheer amount of errata that's going to be in place going forward.

Just check the copyright date

The last one is just pretending but the other two are legit autistic.

I think the biggest problem is that new players will, absolutely, target things they can't target simply because they don't know what are legal targets. But the thing is, other players will teach them. New players always do dumb things, how many newbies have you seen reach for the library to grab forests because their Elvish Mystic gives them Green Mana? I just saw that yesterday with someone. I've seen newbies scoop their planeswalker into the GY when someone "destroys all creatures". New people do dumb things and experience with other players will teach them otherwise.

So while the new wording adds a hump to the initial learning curve, its not like this is new. Magic is a complex game that you constantly have to learn in and there's a decent chance that this wording will help in the longer run in someone's education of the game.

However, its not in any way aesthetically pleasing. Its ugly as shit, "3 damage to any target" sounds fucking dumb.

This is the only sensible response to this card I've seen from either side.

That's why it was my first example, i can't really think of a non game mechanic reason you can't damage uncrewed vehicles.

wouldn't it be grounded in an electric sense if it were grounded in an aeronautic sense?

I'm trying really hard to figure out why this doesn't work. But screw it, I'm just gonna convince my game group to houserule it.

I suppose that requires considering the question of why no amount of damage can smash a non-creature, non-vehicle artifact.

The intent and functionality of most cards is still literally the same, and for cards that are change there are easy, intuitable rules to follow.

You fucking retard.

I ship it.

Only in the sense that its on the ground, which most creatures are.