i just wanna make it clear to the wizards writer that wrote that, an annex equivilent was already around during ice age in conquer. pretty bad lapse of memory on their part.
You think maybe that has something to do with Conquer being red?
I wanna see how they explain the fact you would be able to Vindicate a planeswalker, but not me.
Or boomerang them...
or confiscate them...
or whatever else tickles your fancy.
If anything, MaRo's article implies that there WON'T be any planeswalker stealing. He says that he found a NEW card idea from writing the article, which implies there won't be theivery goin on. Also, we are assuming they won't put MORE than one new card type in Lorwyn ...
I think it's a bit early to assume they will print a "control target planeswalker" card or rule out that they will have shroud from that little joke... though it does make the shroud seem less likely.
They CAN be creature.
After Time Spiral's story line, all the new 'Walkers will just be EXTREMELY powerful mages and not god-like beings.
They already did a card for a Planeswalker, just because of that.
Ehh, Venser is a "creature" spell and not a "planeswalker" spell. By definition planeswalkers can not be creatures if they are truly a "new" permanent type and not a sub type. (Which they are new types) That was sort of what I was getting at. Edit2: They could have a power and toughness but, they couldn't be a "creature" spell when they are on the board. The extened rules text behind planeswalkers must be ghastly.
Edit: And btw, Vindicate was printed as a balance to that entire gold block. =p
Edit3: It is really hard not to confuse yourself when you are writing this stuff about planeswalkers.
[card=Dismal Failure]"Two magi could trade spells all day and never crown a victor.
The real battle is not one of power but of will.
If your confidence breaks, so too shall you." —Venser[/card]
Seriously, everyone, please try to read and understand the information we receive. What we've been told in this article:
Planeswalker is a permanent type.
It is conceivable to steal control of one (they don't have any rules that make the idea of changing control nonsensical)
Blue would be the color likely to steal them (and if it doesn't get that ability in Lorwyn, it probably will soon).
After going back and re-reading the article, he never actually says there will be a way to steal Planeswalkers. The points are made that there is a cycle of 'gain control of target...' spells in blue, and that there is a new permanent coming. He never actually connects the two.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's one at the door, at the gate to damnation...
Is it thief, thug or whore? There's one at the door...
And there's room for one more till the end of creation. Neil Gaiman, Sandman #4 - A Hope in Hell
After going back and re-reading the article, he never actually says there will be a way to steal Planeswalkers. The points are made that there is a cycle of 'gain control of target...' spells in blue, and that there is a new permanent coming. He never actually connects the two.
Sure he does: "There are four permanent types after all (well, for now; number five is coming soon—hey, I have a card idea!)."
The "card idea" is not "planeswalkers", it's clearly "gain control of target planeswalker" from the context in which it was said.
After going back and re-reading the article, he never actually says there will be a way to steal Planeswalkers. The points are made that there is a cycle of 'gain control of target...' spells in blue, and that there is a new permanent coming. He never actually connects the two.
There's a technique in literature called "reading between the lines". Sometimes it's subtle, like in various social novels such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (well, some of it was subtle, anyways...) and other times it's not quite as subtle. Maro's article was definitely the latter.
Line 1:
"We have a game called "Complete the cycle" where we like to print cards that do what older cards do but make them target other types of cards!"
Line 2:
"There's a new card type coming out- I'll give you a hint, it's Planeswalkers- and there isn't a "Steal Planeswalker" yet!"
There's definitely something implied between these two lines. I'll let you see if you can figure out what it is.
After going back and re-reading the article, he never actually says there will be a way to steal Planeswalkers. The points are made that there is a cycle of 'gain control of target...' spells in blue, and that there is a new permanent coming. He never actually connects the two.
Yes, he does: he says that there being a new permanent type gives him an idea for a new card (in the "blue steals permanents" cycle.) It's completely unambiguous. There really is only one appropriate interpretation of that part of the article.
...trying to type while dodging bolts of sarcasm...
Missed the 'time to finish out the cycle' thing. My bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's one at the door, at the gate to damnation...
Is it thief, thug or whore? There's one at the door...
And there's room for one more till the end of creation. Neil Gaiman, Sandman #4 - A Hope in Hell
They already did a card for a Planeswalker, just because of that.
Not really. Venser in the card is in his pre-planeswalking days. No fully-powered planeswalker have ever been printed.
If planeswalkers are indeed permanents as it seems they are, that will really suck. They're supposed to be special uber-mages, not something you can easily Boomerang.
i just wanna make it clear to the wizards writer that wrote that, an annex equivilent was already around during ice age in conquer. pretty bad lapse of memory on their part.
Conquer being red has been addressed already, but additionally, the "wizards writer that wrote that" is lead designer for the game. He's lapsed more than you'll ever remember and has every right to. We're not talking about some random staffer or a PR guy here.
edit: additionally, we don't know anything about them. For all you guys know, they all have autoshroud. We just don't know, so stop complaining about facts that you don't know yet. This isn't something they would go into lightly. I'm not gonna assume that they would just whip something up for fun here. Serious deliberation went into this, so mabye we should wait and see what they came up with before passing judgement on the entire concept.
Boomerang probably won't matter cause Wizards will probably have some kind of targeting clause on them. I figured all spells that cost less that 7 mana can't target them but thats just me
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RnD during Time Spiral:
Rosewater: "Color Pie, WTF is that, If I want Black to be able to wrath, counter and have green creatures then I will damnit!"
Random RnD guy: "RED AKORMA! FTW!"
Gleemax: "Rosewater has broken out of my mind control!"
RnD after 2008:
MaRo: Hmm how do we fix the problems of pricing with cards like Tarmogoyf and Thoughtsieze
Random RnD Guy: OO lets make a new RED RARITY SYMBOL!
MARO: OMGWTFBBQ! Thats a great idea, we'll call it Mythic Rarity!
Gleemax: NOT AGAIN! CELEB
As expected, he also has just a plethora of information for Tribal in Lorwin. The one that sparked to me was the idea of cards that benefit them selfs as much as their allies. So a lord would be +1/+1 to all critters of his type, not other than him self. Sounds interesting...
I wanna see how they explain the fact you would be able to Vindicate a planeswalker, but not me.
I have not seen them explain why it wouldn't target a planeswalker. We also have them explain how they are no longer like player and are weaker versions of walkers. Urza and Mishra they are not. People have assumptions and than comment on other things with their assumption treated as fact. They nerfed plainswakers. From what we do know they are no longer omnipotent. The thing that seems to distinguish planeswakers now, is the fact that they can travel between worlds. Nothing, but our imagination is leading to these walkers being treated like players.
They never told us it shouldn't. They don't need to explain why it should. It's just a permanent. From what they are saying and sticking to the easiest rules and game interaction. To me, it feels like they will be legendary creatures that can not be targeted by spells which specifically target creatures or legends, because they are planeswakers. They will have out of this world abilities, in a since that their abilities do not have to reflect those of the set they appear on. Instead they will reflect their inner demons from their world and other worlds traveled. It seems to me that the new card frame and the effect of the walker on the frame (I feel is responsible for most of these assumptions) is not a reflection of a super complicated mechanic, but flavor. The walker is busting out of the frame (card world) to another. The frame color is to distinguish it from what ever current permanent it will resemble. So that you don't mistake one for the other due to some similarity. But none the less, all just speculation.
Or they'll be targetable by those spells that target permanents. Why is that so hard to fit one's mind around? Once upon a time ago, you could remove just about anything (or stop it from ever being) with a couple of mana and at at least instant speed. (Yes..I'm looking at you, great removal spells of the past; Swords to Plowshares, Terror, Lightning Bolt(s), and Counterspell) The whole point of Magic (and games in general) is BALANCE. You can't just make up "super-powerful-almighty-cardtype" so that when someone whips one out the whole world stops and the game basically ends. You have to allow for answers. And those answers have to readily available and fairly cheap and common. (If everyone has the option of having the "answer" spells to everything at their disposal, it balances the game out by stopping people with access to 4-of all the rares to make decks that simply route their opponents in a couple of turns...not to mention, it is a necessity to even the field in limited play) That's basic game design.
I wanna see how they explain the fact you would be able to Vindicate a planeswalker, but not me.
Or boomerang them...
or confiscate them...
or whatever else tickles your fancy.
If anything, MaRo's article implies that there WON'T be any planeswalker stealing. He says that he found a NEW card idea from writing the article, which implies there won't be theivery goin on. Also, we are assuming they won't put MORE than one new card type in Lorwyn ...
No... In my prediction you won't be able to Boomerang, Confiscate, or Vindicate planeswalkers. They're not coming into play. In fact, they're leaving the game altogether. This will be a new utilization of the RFG zone. When you play the planeswalker, you remove it from the game and from there it does its dirty work. Should this be the case, I expect to see a certain rare from TS become very good very quickly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yo Mama! UU
Instant
Return target player to its mother's arms crying like a baby about the unfairness of counterspells and how they're never playing Magic again. "Dude, it's just a game."
I see no reason why Planeswalkers cannot be destroyed by permanent-destroying cards.
It's because, if you can vindicate a planeswalker, the logical thought would be that you're also able to vindicate players, since players are planeswalkers. I think a planeswalker card should have a specialness about it that prevents it from being a simple permanent. It should feel like a new player has joined the game.
If you read through the "You are a Planeswalker" article posted in the Planeswalker minisite, you'll see that there are also a lot of clues detailing why it is a permanent, and that it can in fact be killed. It also mentions that planeswalkers may even gather their mana from outside your own mana base, and that planeswalkers come in various power and toughness levels. From what I can gather, it's kind of like a super-legendary creature in power level.
Here's an excerpt with comments:
"Planeswalkers now age normally, however, and although their spells protect them from far more harm than a normal being could endure, they can be wounded, and they can die."
(They're destructible permanents, and more importantly, they can take damage)
"Planeswalkers must eat, drink, breathe, and sleep. They cannot inherently change shape at will, and they must draw mana from the land like any mage."
(They use mana for activated abilities or "spells")
"Planeswalkers remain much, much more powerful than mundane mages, however. Their connection to the æther makes them savants of sorcery. Their access to mana is not limitless, but because they can move across the planes, they can tap into the mana of lands their mundane counterparts will never see."
(They _may_ have mechanics similar to Sakiko - free mana added to your mana pool each turn for performing spells.)
"Above all, the planeswalker's arsenal of spells dwarfs that of the average mundane mage. Although nonplaneswalking archmages can achieve great power, over time a planeswalker's explorations of the Multiverse will result in a far greater breadth of magical knowledge."
(They will have really powerful or unique spells/activated abilities on hand)
And in another excerpt they basically say that Planeswalkers will have various casting cost, possibly with "As an additional cost", or "Suspend" and other mechanics tied to their entering play:
The act of planeswalking requires full concentration and no small amount of mana.
(i.e. some may be unplayable lol :))
"The act itself differs from planeswalker to planeswalker, because each planeswalker's identity is an essential part of the ability. For one planeswalker, a shamanistic ritual must be performed. For another, planeswalking is the culmination of a long, dreamlike trance. The details of a given planeswalker's method are dependent on who they are, how much of the Multiverse they have seen, and perhaps most importantly, what color(s) of mana they can wield."
So obviously their color dictates their casting cost (A blue mage that wields blue spells such as Jace will cost blue to cast)
It is possible that to avoid rules complications, planeswalkers will be targetable by spells that say "Damage to target creature" - but there will probably be new spells that specifically say "planeswalker" (If Planeswalkers have a subtype of "Player", then cards that say "Target player" can affect them (i.e. Lava Axe, Soul Feast).
It's because, if you can vindicate a planeswalker, the logical thought would be that you're also able to vindicate players, since players are planeswalkers. I think a planeswalker card should have a specialness about it that prevents it from being a simple permanent. It should feel like a new player has joined the game.
Venser, while a Planeswalker, is a still a girly man whom is deserving of being killed off-screen. Why his card wasn't in TS or PC annoys me. Anyways! Planeswalkers in the old school sense could still be Vindicated of sorts. They had to reform afterwards; something that I'm guessing won't be too common in Neo-Walkers.
I love that Planeswalkers skirt around Obliterate though.
Edit: I'm a little out of touch. *RTFS*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Underling Ethu's 263rd report read simply "Yes, my lord.Overwhelmingly, my lord." This marked the end of the Mirran-Phyrexian War.
It's because, if you can vindicate a planeswalker, the logical thought would be that you're also able to vindicate players, since players are planeswalkers. I think a planeswalker card should have a specialness about it that prevents it from being a simple permanent. It should feel like a new player has joined the game.
But it was never said that THE planeswalker card type is a player. I know this whole we as players are planeswalkers and actually having planeswalker cards is a confusing thing. How about approaching it this way:
Say Jace Beleren is an archmage, but he's too arrogant and became careless. It would be understandable that a well timed Saltblast would kill him. Planeswalkers are mortal now.
Maybe it's about time we stop thinking of them as players. MaRo has confirmed that the planeswalker card type is a permanent. You (as the player con planeswalker) obviously isn't considered a permanent by game rules and terminology.
I agree though a Planeswalker card should be a special permanent.
WHEN WILL WE HAVE CLEARER INFORMATION!!!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Good news! Right handed people live 9 years longer than their left handed counterparts!
....Wait, I'm a LEFTIE!!!
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
Issues like 'but why can't I vindicate a player' can be answered truthfully...
"Because you aren't a permanent, and anyway, if they aren't going to cost 25 mana, and are actually going to be playable we need planeswalkers to be easier to kill than players"
...or flavourfully...
"Because it really says 'destroy summoned permanent' on Vindicate. 'Summoned' is written really really small"
...or another way flavourfully....
"Because you are more powerful than these jackassess who get summoned for a mere 5 mana"
...or yet another way...
"Vindicate doesn't work on planeswalkers you are directly duelling with"
...or another way...
"Nobody cares"
In other words, it is not hard to make flavour that fits mechanics.
It would however, be completely ridiculous for R&D to suggest you are going to summon something as powerful as another player for just 5 mana.
Anyway, why would R&D restrict something like stealing or targetting planeswalkers? Why would they do that? All it does is increase the cmc they have to put on PWers. You want them to do something good don't you? Well they can't have all these bizarre protections people keep thinking up AND have decent abilities AND only cost 5 mana.
For what it is worth, my guess remains that these things act like enchantments with a toughness (so burn kills them too). I expect they'll heal at end of turn like creatures, in order to save memory issues. I also think their abilities will be copies of iconic mtg spells.
In short, Planeswalkers will be better versions of spellshapers, possibly without the tap and/or the discard cost. This is speculation, feel free to disagree with this bit.
But please. For me. Please please stop going on about how PWers should be ZOMG invulnerable to everything. The lore doesn't even support it anymore, and the need balance things certainly doesn't.
The likely lore explanation is 'you are more powerful than them'. Those 6 simple words explain every single concern people have brought up.
"Because you are more powerful than these jackassess who get summoned for a mere 5 mana"
Absolutely. I think this is the main issue. If we're Planeswalkers, let's make the assumption that we were unaffected by the events of Time Spiral. We're powerful enough now to control other Planeswalkers ( the new ones at least). Consequently, our opponents are powerful enough to shape their magic to deal with them.
Why can't you steal a planeswalkers? I know they are powerfull mages but..
Bribery also 'steals' cards yet have you read the flavortext? In Mercadia City, loyalties extend only as far as your purse can stretch.
Stealing PW's is more like buying their loyalty, I think.
And actually Vindicate can destroy PW's because it's the most awesome card ever.
Period.
(Being the most awesome card ever is flavor-wise enough reason to actually wipe players away. But because that'd be too strong, they only let it remove permanents.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You think maybe that has something to do with Conquer being red?
Or boomerang them...
or confiscate them...
or whatever else tickles your fancy.
If anything, MaRo's article implies that there WON'T be any planeswalker stealing. He says that he found a NEW card idea from writing the article, which implies there won't be theivery goin on. Also, we are assuming they won't put MORE than one new card type in Lorwyn ...
No. You are wrong. Read the article again.
Seriously, everyone, please try to read and understand the information we receive. What we've been told in this article:
Ehh, Venser is a "creature" spell and not a "planeswalker" spell. By definition planeswalkers can not be creatures if they are truly a "new" permanent type and not a sub type. (Which they are new types) That was sort of what I was getting at. Edit2: They could have a power and toughness but, they couldn't be a "creature" spell when they are on the board. The extened rules text behind planeswalkers must be ghastly.
Edit: And btw, Vindicate was printed as a balance to that entire gold block. =p
Edit3: It is really hard not to confuse yourself when you are writing this stuff about planeswalkers.
:symr::symu: Reality Bites
:symr::symu: Delver Cyclops
:symr::symu: Niv Control EDH
:symg::symw: Sigarda EDH
The real battle is not one of power but of will.
If your confidence breaks, so too shall you."
—Venser[/card]
After going back and re-reading the article, he never actually says there will be a way to steal Planeswalkers. The points are made that there is a cycle of 'gain control of target...' spells in blue, and that there is a new permanent coming. He never actually connects the two.
Is it thief, thug or whore? There's one at the door...
And there's room for one more till the end of creation.
Neil Gaiman, Sandman #4 - A Hope in Hell
Sure he does: "There are four permanent types after all (well, for now; number five is coming soon—hey, I have a card idea!)."
The "card idea" is not "planeswalkers", it's clearly "gain control of target planeswalker" from the context in which it was said.
B Can you solve The Enigma Puzzle ?
There's a technique in literature called "reading between the lines". Sometimes it's subtle, like in various social novels such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (well, some of it was subtle, anyways...) and other times it's not quite as subtle. Maro's article was definitely the latter.
Line 1:
"We have a game called "Complete the cycle" where we like to print cards that do what older cards do but make them target other types of cards!"
Line 2:
"There's a new card type coming out- I'll give you a hint, it's Planeswalkers- and there isn't a "Steal Planeswalker" yet!"
There's definitely something implied between these two lines. I'll let you see if you can figure out what it is.
Thanks IM
Yes, he does: he says that there being a new permanent type gives him an idea for a new card (in the "blue steals permanents" cycle.) It's completely unambiguous. There really is only one appropriate interpretation of that part of the article.
Missed the 'time to finish out the cycle' thing. My bad.
Is it thief, thug or whore? There's one at the door...
And there's room for one more till the end of creation.
Neil Gaiman, Sandman #4 - A Hope in Hell
If planeswalkers are indeed permanents as it seems they are, that will really suck. They're supposed to be special uber-mages, not something you can easily Boomerang.
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
Conquer being red has been addressed already, but additionally, the "wizards writer that wrote that" is lead designer for the game. He's lapsed more than you'll ever remember and has every right to. We're not talking about some random staffer or a PR guy here.
edit: additionally, we don't know anything about them. For all you guys know, they all have autoshroud. We just don't know, so stop complaining about facts that you don't know yet. This isn't something they would go into lightly. I'm not gonna assume that they would just whip something up for fun here. Serious deliberation went into this, so mabye we should wait and see what they came up with before passing judgement on the entire concept.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
Rosewater: "Color Pie, WTF is that, If I want Black to be able to wrath, counter and have green creatures then I will damnit!"
Random RnD guy: "RED AKORMA! FTW!"
Gleemax: "Rosewater has broken out of my mind control!"
RnD after 2008:
MaRo: Hmm how do we fix the problems of pricing with cards like Tarmogoyf and Thoughtsieze
Random RnD Guy: OO lets make a new RED RARITY SYMBOL!
MARO: OMGWTFBBQ! Thats a great idea, we'll call it Mythic Rarity!
Gleemax: NOT AGAIN!
CELEB
I have not seen them explain why it wouldn't target a planeswalker. We also have them explain how they are no longer like player and are weaker versions of walkers. Urza and Mishra they are not. People have assumptions and than comment on other things with their assumption treated as fact. They nerfed plainswakers. From what we do know they are no longer omnipotent. The thing that seems to distinguish planeswakers now, is the fact that they can travel between worlds. Nothing, but our imagination is leading to these walkers being treated like players.
They never told us it shouldn't. They don't need to explain why it should. It's just a permanent. From what they are saying and sticking to the easiest rules and game interaction. To me, it feels like they will be legendary creatures that can not be targeted by spells which specifically target creatures or legends, because they are planeswakers. They will have out of this world abilities, in a since that their abilities do not have to reflect those of the set they appear on. Instead they will reflect their inner demons from their world and other worlds traveled. It seems to me that the new card frame and the effect of the walker on the frame (I feel is responsible for most of these assumptions) is not a reflection of a super complicated mechanic, but flavor. The walker is busting out of the frame (card world) to another. The frame color is to distinguish it from what ever current permanent it will resemble. So that you don't mistake one for the other due to some similarity. But none the less, all just speculation.
Cheers,
Austin
No... In my prediction you won't be able to Boomerang, Confiscate, or Vindicate planeswalkers. They're not coming into play. In fact, they're leaving the game altogether. This will be a new utilization of the RFG zone. When you play the planeswalker, you remove it from the game and from there it does its dirty work. Should this be the case, I expect to see a certain rare from TS become very good very quickly.
Instant
Return target player to its mother's arms crying like a baby about the unfairness of counterspells and how they're never playing Magic again.
"Dude, it's just a game."
Mishra was not a planeswalker.
I see no reason why Planeswalkers cannot be destroyed by permanent-destroying cards.
Sideboard Saltblast for the win?
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
Here's an excerpt with comments:
"Planeswalkers now age normally, however, and although their spells protect them from far more harm than a normal being could endure, they can be wounded, and they can die."
(They're destructible permanents, and more importantly, they can take damage)
"Planeswalkers must eat, drink, breathe, and sleep. They cannot inherently change shape at will, and they must draw mana from the land like any mage."
(They use mana for activated abilities or "spells")
"Planeswalkers remain much, much more powerful than mundane mages, however. Their connection to the æther makes them savants of sorcery. Their access to mana is not limitless, but because they can move across the planes, they can tap into the mana of lands their mundane counterparts will never see."
(They _may_ have mechanics similar to Sakiko - free mana added to your mana pool each turn for performing spells.)
"Above all, the planeswalker's arsenal of spells dwarfs that of the average mundane mage. Although nonplaneswalking archmages can achieve great power, over time a planeswalker's explorations of the Multiverse will result in a far greater breadth of magical knowledge."
(They will have really powerful or unique spells/activated abilities on hand)
And in another excerpt they basically say that Planeswalkers will have various casting cost, possibly with "As an additional cost", or "Suspend" and other mechanics tied to their entering play:
The act of planeswalking requires full concentration and no small amount of mana.
(i.e. some may be unplayable lol :))
"The act itself differs from planeswalker to planeswalker, because each planeswalker's identity is an essential part of the ability. For one planeswalker, a shamanistic ritual must be performed. For another, planeswalking is the culmination of a long, dreamlike trance. The details of a given planeswalker's method are dependent on who they are, how much of the Multiverse they have seen, and perhaps most importantly, what color(s) of mana they can wield."
So obviously their color dictates their casting cost (A blue mage that wields blue spells such as Jace will cost blue to cast)
It is possible that to avoid rules complications, planeswalkers will be targetable by spells that say "Damage to target creature" - but there will probably be new spells that specifically say "planeswalker" (If Planeswalkers have a subtype of "Player", then cards that say "Target player" can affect them (i.e. Lava Axe, Soul Feast).
Venser, while a Planeswalker, is a still a girly man whom is deserving of being killed off-screen. Why his card wasn't in TS or PC annoys me. Anyways! Planeswalkers in the old school sense could still be Vindicated of sorts. They had to reform afterwards; something that I'm guessing won't be too common in Neo-Walkers.
I love that Planeswalkers skirt around Obliterate though.
Edit: I'm a little out of touch. *RTFS*
But it was never said that THE planeswalker card type is a player. I know this whole we as players are planeswalkers and actually having planeswalker cards is a confusing thing. How about approaching it this way:
Say Jace Beleren is an archmage, but he's too arrogant and became careless. It would be understandable that a well timed Saltblast would kill him. Planeswalkers are mortal now.
Maybe it's about time we stop thinking of them as players. MaRo has confirmed that the planeswalker card type is a permanent. You (as the player con planeswalker) obviously isn't considered a permanent by game rules and terminology.
I agree though a Planeswalker card should be a special permanent.
WHEN WILL WE HAVE CLEARER INFORMATION!!!
....Wait, I'm a LEFTIE!!!
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
"Because you aren't a permanent, and anyway, if they aren't going to cost 25 mana, and are actually going to be playable we need planeswalkers to be easier to kill than players"
...or flavourfully...
"Because it really says 'destroy summoned permanent' on Vindicate. 'Summoned' is written really really small"
...or another way flavourfully....
"Because you are more powerful than these jackassess who get summoned for a mere 5 mana"
...or yet another way...
"Vindicate doesn't work on planeswalkers you are directly duelling with"
...or another way...
"Nobody cares"
In other words, it is not hard to make flavour that fits mechanics.
It would however, be completely ridiculous for R&D to suggest you are going to summon something as powerful as another player for just 5 mana.
Anyway, why would R&D restrict something like stealing or targetting planeswalkers? Why would they do that? All it does is increase the cmc they have to put on PWers. You want them to do something good don't you? Well they can't have all these bizarre protections people keep thinking up AND have decent abilities AND only cost 5 mana.
For what it is worth, my guess remains that these things act like enchantments with a toughness (so burn kills them too). I expect they'll heal at end of turn like creatures, in order to save memory issues. I also think their abilities will be copies of iconic mtg spells.
In short, Planeswalkers will be better versions of spellshapers, possibly without the tap and/or the discard cost. This is speculation, feel free to disagree with this bit.
But please. For me. Please please stop going on about how PWers should be ZOMG invulnerable to everything. The lore doesn't even support it anymore, and the need balance things certainly doesn't.
The likely lore explanation is 'you are more powerful than them'. Those 6 simple words explain every single concern people have brought up.
Absolutely. I think this is the main issue. If we're Planeswalkers, let's make the assumption that we were unaffected by the events of Time Spiral. We're powerful enough now to control other Planeswalkers ( the new ones at least). Consequently, our opponents are powerful enough to shape their magic to deal with them.
It's really not that complicated. Just move on.
-E
Bribery also 'steals' cards yet have you read the flavortext?
In Mercadia City, loyalties extend only as far as your purse can stretch.
Stealing PW's is more like buying their loyalty, I think.
And actually Vindicate can destroy PW's because it's the most awesome card ever.
Period.
(Being the most awesome card ever is flavor-wise enough reason to actually wipe players away. But because that'd be too strong, they only let it remove permanents.)