I'm struggling to understand the point of having the Tribal supertype for cards. A Tribal sorcery is still a sorcery. Being a Tribal Sorcery gives it an additional property, but that could just as easily be a subtype like Arcane was.
I just don't get the point of calling this a "new card type". It's still a sorcery/instant/Enchantment etc. it just has an extra property. Why is this considered a different card type? Tarmogoyf lists the card types that pump it, one of which is Tribal. so does a Tribal Sorcery give it +2/+2?
If Tribal cards are considered a different csrd type, why aren't Legendary cards considered one? I know that giving cards another property like Tribal can be worthwhile as it allows you to do things like tutor for a Tribal card, or reduce/increase the cost of Tribal cards (not just say Goblin or Kithkin cards, but all Tribal cards)
Couldn't Tarfire just as easily have been: Instant - Tribal Goblin?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm old school, about as OLD school as they get. think 4th Edition/Ice Age old school. Unfortunatley in the "Real world" you cant Incinerate your bank manager and sadly now I have joined the ranks of the older population, and my time is taken up by things like reasearching Mortgage Refinance Rates and where to get the best possible mortgage quotes. I have however discovered the joys of Online Forex Trading which at least allows me to keep the bills in check!
If Legendary, Basic, and Snow were card types as opposed to supertypes that would make Tarmogoyf too awesome. Tribal makes Tarmogoyf just awesome enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
They explained it on the MTG.com website, it has something to do with what subtypes certain card types can have. I don't know the exact article, but it was maybe 2 weeks ago.
Yes, it counts as both Tribal and Sorcery.
Legendary is a supertype, not a type. It is a completly different category, like "non-basic" vs "basic" on land cards.
No, in the article I mentioned earlier they explained that instants and enchantments, etc. cannot have creature types and that's why they had to create "tribal".
No, because you're breaking a very important rule: A card has three values of type. Supertype, type, and subtype. A card's type must be compatible with its supertype (No Legendary Instants.). A card's subtype must be compatible with its type. This means that creatures are only able to have creature types, and that artifacts can only have artifact types, etc.
This is really important. Do you know what Mistform Ultimus does? If there could be an Instant-Goblin, then is it a Forest? Can it tap for mana? Does it count as a Locus? The answer is *no*, because it is only every creature type.
Tribal on a card means "This card may have creature subtypes".
No, because you're breaking a very important rule: A card has three values of type. Supertype, type, and subtype. A card's type must be compatible with its supertype (No Legendary Instants.). A card's subtype must be compatible with its type. This means that creatures are only able to have creature types, and that artifacts can only have artifact types, etc.
This is really important. Do you know what Mistform Ultimus does? If there could be an Instant-Goblin, then is it a Forest? Can it tap for mana? Does it count as a Locus? The answer is *no*, because it is only every creature type.
Tribal on a card means "This card may have creature subtypes".
Ok so Mistform Ultimus is every creature type. I still don't see why this is a problem. It's a Creature with all creature types. Why does this stop you having Instants with creature types too? I gather what you're saying is that some subtypes have inherent properties. Swamps always allow you to tap for B for example so creatures aren't supposed to have these types.
So you have creature types and non creature types, some of which have inherent properties. Tribal means the card is allowed to have creature subtypes. great. Where is the list of Creature subtypes and non creature ones? Does this mean there will never be an Arcane Warrior creature type?
This just seems clunky as hell. Create a new card type just so that you can give creature types to an existing card type? seems very cumbersome. New card types should do new things. Planeswalkers for example justify a new card type. They are something new and revolutionary. Tribal cards do exactly the same thing as non tribal ones, just like Arcane spells did the same thing as non arcane ones. they just had other cards that could interact with them in a positive or negative way.
I still don't understand what the difference between a Tribal Sorcery - Goblin and a Sorcery - Goblin is in practical terms. Can you give me a practical example of how this would be different?
If you want to have subtypes with inherent properties like Forest, Locus etc. don't put them on those permanents that aren't supposed to have them. Even better, don't have subtypes with inherent characteristics or "unwritten rules". To me that makes the best sense.
Quote from Beherit »
Even though other card types can be mixed (for instance artifact creature) each of them can be on its own and the tribal card type doesn't really mean anything at all.
Looks to me like they just made it into a card type just to put another new word on tarmogoyf's reminder text.
I'm old school, about as OLD school as they get. think 4th Edition/Ice Age old school. Unfortunatley in the "Real world" you cant Incinerate your bank manager and sadly now I have joined the ranks of the older population, and my time is taken up by things like reasearching Mortgage Refinance Rates and where to get the best possible mortgage quotes. I have however discovered the joys of Online Forex Trading which at least allows me to keep the bills in check!
yeah, i've hashed and re-hashed this isue on other threads.
it boils down to this:
WotC decided to make Tribal a Type for 2 reasons: 1-Hype, and 2-Obscure rules interactions (that could just as easily have been solved by making Tribal a supertype but you'll never get the rules jockeys to agree with you on that one. of course Wotc could have made Tribal a supertype: it's their freakin game! so, really, it's all about the Hype.)
Sure, they could have made it a supertype. The thing is, it's much easier for it to be a card type. This way, they don't really have to alter the rules that much. A card type that doesn't do anything but shares its subtypes with creatures fits right into the rules.
Maby you will be able to play tribal cards in a deck in the tribal format instead of a creature of that tribe. Instead of 20 creatures of that subtype, 20 tribal cards of any type of that subtype?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
Tribal is a type by necessity, based on the more or less new rules of card types.
Take, for example, artifact creatures. You get "Artifact Creature - Golem", yet Golem is clearly not an artifact type. You cannot have "Artifact - Golem". Same with lands. You can have "Land Creature - Forest Dryad", but you cannot have "Land - Dryad" or "Creature - Forest". Therefore, the Tribal type was added to allow noncreature cards to have creature subtypes. This way, you can have "Tribal Artifact - Goblin" without having to make it an artifact creature. It also allows "Tribal Land - Merfolk Island" to exist, without having to make the land able to attack, etc. Also, as an added bonus, Tribal allows instants and sorceries to get in on the creature action. So you can have "Tribal Instant - Goblin" or "Tribal Sorcery - Arcane Spirit". It also allows for Auras and Equipment to have creature types without having to be a creature itself (because Auras and Equipment that are creatures can't be attached to a creature, as per the rules). So you can have a "Tribal Enchantment - Treefolk Aura" or a "Tribal Artifact - Giant Equipment".
Basically, it makes a lot more possible without messing up the rules.
Indeed. Tribal is necessary to allow non-creature types to have creature-types. Otherwise you'll get a rules nightmare.
I'm not denying that it may be a bit of a mess, but it's a much smaller mess than it might have been otherwise.
Why? the only reason that regular Sorceries or instants can't have creature types is that Wizards says so. They made Sorcery - Arcane so why not Sorcery - Goblin? Because the rules they themselves made up says that only permanents can have creature subtypes? Why not just change that rule? Why create a whole new card type to do this?
If you want to attach cetain new rules to a card type, give that card a supertype. Legendary permanents are exactly the same as regular ones, they just have additional rules (only one in play at a time, if a second comes into play both get killed etc.).
If there were some inherent characteristics about Tribal Spells like "you must control a ..... to play this" (which there realistically can't be given that Bound in Silence has been playable for ages and there are no Tribal specific rules attached to it's use. It plays exactly like a normal Aura with a subtype that allows it to interact with other cards that affect that subtype) create a supertype and give it to that card, just like they did with Legendary. If you really consider it necessary to justify making non permanent cards be able to have creature types, make tribal a supertype.
I think Beherit said it best. If Tribal is a card type then I would expect to be able to play a Tribal. Not a Tribal Sorcery, a Tribal. that's the cards type afterall isn't it? I can play artifacts, instants, enchantments, planeswalkers etc. a card type should stand alone. If it's needs another card type to give it meaning it should really be a supertype. Each card type should be playable in of itself. Dryad Arbor is a land and creature. You can play lands, and you can play creatures. Bound in Silence is a Tribal enchantment. You can play enchantments, but you can't play Tribals. You can only play Tribal somethings. You can't play a Legendary, but you can play a Legendary Creature.
To clarrify my understanding:
1. The only reason that you can't have Sorcery - Goblin is that Wizards decided that non creatures can't have creature subtypes. This is something the could simply change. Not so long ago it was believed that Sorceries, Enchantments and Instants couldn't have subtypes at all and then came along Aura's and Arcane. Wotc decide to change the rules for non creature permanents.
2. There is nothing inherntly different about Tribal Sorceries etc to regular ones except that they have a creature subtype.
3. If it was deemed necessary that you couldn't just change the rules to allow creature subtypes on no creature cards, this could have been done by creating a supertype that granted inherent characteristics to cards with that supertype.
4. Tribal as a separate card type is counter intuitive, as you can only ever have a tribal something, not just a Tribal.
Quote from sbq92 »
Basically, it makes a lot more possible without messing up the rules
It's a cards Type that defines it, not it's subtype right? A Creatue - Merfolk Island could attack because it's card type is Creature. A Land - Merfolk Island can't attack because it's card type is Land. A Creature Land - Dryad Forest can attack because one of it's types is creature.
The only reason you can't have an Artifact - Golem is that Wizards says so. Why can't you? Just because it has a subtype golem doesn't mean it has to be a creature unless they want it that way.
Aside from the argument that tribal is just not necessary if you change the existing rules, ther's no reason why it couldn't be a supertype just like Legendary. All it does is attach additional rules to the card it's on. Just like Legendary.
I'm old school, about as OLD school as they get. think 4th Edition/Ice Age old school. Unfortunatley in the "Real world" you cant Incinerate your bank manager and sadly now I have joined the ranks of the older population, and my time is taken up by things like reasearching Mortgage Refinance Rates and where to get the best possible mortgage quotes. I have however discovered the joys of Online Forex Trading which at least allows me to keep the bills in check!
They made Tribal so that this Block can be a full immersion in the Tribal themes. Now you don't only have Tribal-themed creatures, but spells too. I like it, personally.
"Otherwise" being something like "Cards with the Tribal supertype may have creature types in adition to their other types."?
Far less confusing really.
Truth is that tribal has far less sense as a card type than as a sypertype.
Try explaining to someone what a Tribal is...
Even the word 'tribal' is an adjective ( like 'basic', and 'legendary'... that's weird )
That works fine in gameplay, but it still adds that creature type to the list of (say) enchantment subtypes, which is what Tribal was invented to prevent.
1. The only reason that you can't have Sorcery - Goblin is that Wizards decided that non creatures can't have creature subtypes. This is something the could simply change. Not so long ago it was believed that Sorceries, Enchantments and Instants couldn't have subtypes at all and then came along Aura's and Arcane. Wotc decide to change the rules for non creature permanents.
There is a difference between adding type-specific subtypes (Aura, Arcane) and allowing a type to have subtypes that don't belong to it. A sorcery isn't a creature. Therefore, it can't be a Goblin, or a Merfolk. A creature isn't an enchantment. Therefore, it can't be a Shrine, or an Aura. An artifact isn't an instant. Therefore, it can't be an Arcane. Tribal, attached to these types, allows them all to belong or be associated with creatures. A "Tribal Sorcery - Goblin" belongs to Goblins or was invented by Goblins. A "Tribal Enchantment - Treefolk Aura" belongs to or was invented by Treefolk.
I do agree that not being able to cast a Tribal spell on it's own is weird, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to disown it as a type. What if the only types of Artifacts ever to exist were Artifact Creatures? Would we disown artifacts, and say it should be a supertype instead? There are probably cards that specifically affect Tribal cards (or at least there probably will be in the future) so that the type will actually feel more like a type. Hey, maybe someday Tribal will have some subtypes of its own. Magic is an evolving game. Who knows what Wizards will eventually do/try ("Tribal - Contraption" anyone? :p).
As an aside, I wonder if there will be more types added to allow, say, creatures to have instant and sorcery types: "Spellbound Creature - Arcane Human Soldier"...hmm...
I'm struggling to understand the point of having the Tribal supertype for cards. A Tribal sorcery is still a sorcery. Being a Tribal Sorcery gives it an additional property, but that could just as easily be a subtype like Arcane was.
I just don't get the point of calling this a "new card type". It's still a sorcery/instant/Enchantment etc. it just has an extra property. Why is this considered a different card type? Tarmogoyf lists the card types that pump it, one of which is Tribal. so does a Tribal Sorcery give it +2/+2?
If Tribal cards are considered a different csrd type, why aren't Legendary cards considered one? I know that giving cards another property like Tribal can be worthwhile as it allows you to do things like tutor for a Tribal card, or reduce/increase the cost of Tribal cards (not just say Goblin or Kithkin cards, but all Tribal cards)
Couldn't Tarfire just as easily have been: Instant - Tribal Goblin?
The reason that tribal is a type, and not a super or sub type, is because only types have any say in what subtypes a card can have. Sorceries cannot be goblins under normal circumstances, and no amount of subtyping or supertyping will ever change that. However, if you give it a new type that happens to share all the subtypes of the creature type, suddenly you can add it on to noncreatures to endow them with natures based on what manner of being produced them. It's a matter of logistics. From an aesthetic standpoint, Tribal really looks like a supertype, since it only finds itself in the typeline when accompanying another type, but it grants subtyping, which means that for rules reasons it's a type. A very narrow type, but a type nonetheless.
There is a difference between adding type-specific subtypes (Aura, Arcane) and allowing a type to have subtypes that don't belong to it. A sorcery isn't a creature. Therefore, it can't be a Goblin, or a Merfolk. A creature isn't an enchantment. Therefore, it can't be a Shrine, or an Aura. An artifact isn't an instant. Therefore, it can't be an Arcane. Tribal, attached to these types, allows them all to belong or be associated with creatures. A "Tribal Sorcery - Goblin" belongs to Goblins or was invented by Goblins. A "Tribal Enchantment - Treefolk Aura" belongs to or was invented by Treefolk.
So it's a flavour decision now? a spell is tribal to reflect it's history or origins? The thing that really gets me is that all of this revolves around what card types are allowed what subtypes, when this seems like a totally unneccesary point. You could just allow non creature spells to have creature types. I can see the logic of not allowing creatures non creature spell types afterall having creatures that are Aura's, Equipment and Shrines doesn't make sense but I don't see why the reverse can't work. the only difference between a Tribal Sorcery - Goblin and Socery - Goblin is that Wizards has decided that it needs to for some reason. I'm all for Race related spells, but his seems a really backwards way of doing them. You don't have to give them a subtype but there's no reason you can't aside from Wizards saying they can't break their own rules.
I do agree that not being able to cast a Tribal spell on it's own is weird, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to disown it as a type. What if the only types of Artifacts ever to exist were Artifact Creatures? Would we disown artifacts, and say it should be a supertype instead? There are probably cards that specifically affect Tribal cards (or at least there probably will be in the future) so that the type will actually feel more like a type.
No we wouldn't disown non creature Artifacts if they were brought out because they'd be something completely new. They'd be Artifact Creatures that couldn't attack or block, had no P/T and couldn't be removed by creature removal. They'd be something radically different and it would make sense that they weren't Arifact Creatures because all of their "Creatureness" had been removed. They wouldn't be a new type of Artifact creatures, because they wouldn't be creatures at all, they'd be something completely different.
A closer argument might be having coloured artifacts I think. Artifact are inherently colourless, but this doesn't mean Wizards couldn't bring out something like:
Buring brand
Artifact
Burning Brand is Red.
3, T: deals 2 damage to target creature.
Or course that'd be a change to the existing rules that a cards Mana cost defines it's colour. They could just rely on the fact that a cards text overrules all else (a la Ghostfire a Red mana spell this is actually colourless because of it's text), but if they felt the need to create a justification that allows for this they could make:
Giving it a supertype that grants the card special rules such as a specified colour and the ability to have a colour when it otherwiswe wouldn't. This would allow you to have Aligned Sorceries etc. where the colur is different to it's mana cost. BUT THEY'D STILL BE SORCERIES, ARTIFACTS, INSTANTS ETC and not a whole new type of card.
The reason that tribal is a type, and not a super or sub type, is because only types have any say in what subtypes a card can have. Sorceries cannot be goblins under normal circumstances, and no amount of subtyping or supertyping will ever change that.
So sayeth Wizards, who could change this any time they wanted, just as they have done numerous times in the past.
However, if you give it a new type that happens to share all the subtypes of the creature type, suddenly you can add it on to noncreatures to endow them with natures based on what manner of being produced them. It's a matter of logistics. From an aesthetic standpoint, Tribal really looks like a supertype, since it only finds itself in the typeline when accompanying another type, but it grants subtyping, which means that for rules reasons it's a type. A very narrow type, but a type nonetheless.
Or assuming that you don't want to just change your former stance you could give them a supertype "Tribal" that grants the follwoing additional rules: This card may have creature subtypes". Just the same as having the Legendary supertype gives otherwise normal permanents: "If you one of these is in play and another comes into play, put both into their owners graveyards" I'm sure that wording is well and truely off but you get the idea.
The point remains the same. they could do it by either changing the rules to allow sorceries etc. to have creature types (simplest), or by giving some cards a Tribal Supertype that gives them this ability (ugly and cumbersome but doable). Finally you can create a "new" card type that does exactly the same thing (worst by far).
I'm old school, about as OLD school as they get. think 4th Edition/Ice Age old school. Unfortunatley in the "Real world" you cant Incinerate your bank manager and sadly now I have joined the ranks of the older population, and my time is taken up by things like reasearching Mortgage Refinance Rates and where to get the best possible mortgage quotes. I have however discovered the joys of Online Forex Trading which at least allows me to keep the bills in check!
@Heidrek: Many of your arguments seem to point out that things are only the way they are because Wizards says they're that way.
...
Doesn't that statement seem a little...pointless? Creatures have P/T and can attack and block because Wizards says so. Instants and sorceries go to the graveyard on resolution because Wizards says so. Artifacts and Enchantments can't attack or block, but have generally lasting effects on the overall game because Wizards says so. Different card types can't share subtypes (with the exception of instants and sorceries, but that could even change in the future) because Wizards says so.
This is Wizards' game. Of course they say so. The entire game is the way it is because Wizards says so. If they don't say so, it isn't that way. Tribal is a type and has to be because Wizards says so. It isn't a supertype because Wizards didn't say so.
(Sorry for the apparent harshness; I don't intend to be harsh. But, the argument "it's only because Wizards says so" seems to be a very weak argument to me.)
tribal doesn't have any rules associated with it, its just a label. it behaves in many ways like other label supertypes like Snow that are only relevant in there interactions with other cards that mention them specifically. For obscure rules reasons tribal had to be a card type even though it behaves like a supertype. Its not strictly necessary from a game play perspective, but it is for very obscure technical reasons.
Is there really a solid mechanical reason why a supertype couldn't append subtypes from another type? "Because the rules don't allow it" isn't very convincing, because the rules can easily be updated *to* alllow it- the only obstacle is what kind of rules craziness it might cause, and I'm not seeing any besides weaker Goyfs.
First of all, thanks to everyone who's posted and for keeping the posts reasonable and not turning this thread into a flame fest.
@ sbq92: that's not harsh, though I appreciate the sentiment, and yes it is wizards's game - I agree fully. All I'm trying to point out is that there are simpler ways to achieve the same end result that to me make good sense. Having Tribal as a supertype for example makes better sense to me than making it a whole new card type.
Remember that at the end of the day the end result is the same. We have Sorceries with creature subtypes so it's not a case of can it be done, but how makes the best sense. Creating whole new card types that by themselves are exactly the same asanother card type in order to sidestep a rule that you could easily amend doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
@ LevitateMe: I know where you're going with this - I had the same hought myself and yes, I get the resoniing why different cards have different subtypes. Having your Mistform Ultimus count as an Arcane Shrine doesn't make a great deal of sense afterall! However, just because you grant non creature cards a creature subtype doesn't mean that it stops being a creature Subtype!
Thats a bit wordy, but to simply it, there's a list of creature subtypes. That list doesn't change just because other cards share those subtypes. The list of creature types that Mistform Ultimus is doesn't change because there are now Goblin Sorceries. It just means that sorceries now have different subtypes.
What would be the difference between a Sorcery - Goblin (if it were possible) and a Tribal Sorcery - Goblin to Mistform Ultimus. Nothing because whether or not these cards exist, Mistform Ultimus still has the same creature types. They could even print a instant called Ultimus Blast that costs R and does 2 damage to anything and has all creature types and it still couldn't affect Mistform Ultimus.
I could understand them saying "Only creatures will ever have creature subtypes and nothing else ever will, that why they are CREATURE subtypes afterall!" but that's not what's hapepned. We have creature sorceries/instants/enchantments and the only question is why do it the way they have when there seems to be much simpler options.
It just seems to me to be totally unneccesary to create a new card type to achieve the end goal of allowing non creature cards to have creature subtypes. Like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
I'm old school, about as OLD school as they get. think 4th Edition/Ice Age old school. Unfortunatley in the "Real world" you cant Incinerate your bank manager and sadly now I have joined the ranks of the older population, and my time is taken up by things like reasearching Mortgage Refinance Rates and where to get the best possible mortgage quotes. I have however discovered the joys of Online Forex Trading which at least allows me to keep the bills in check!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just don't get the point of calling this a "new card type". It's still a sorcery/instant/Enchantment etc. it just has an extra property. Why is this considered a different card type? Tarmogoyf lists the card types that pump it, one of which is Tribal. so does a Tribal Sorcery give it +2/+2?
If Tribal cards are considered a different csrd type, why aren't Legendary cards considered one? I know that giving cards another property like Tribal can be worthwhile as it allows you to do things like tutor for a Tribal card, or reduce/increase the cost of Tribal cards (not just say Goblin or Kithkin cards, but all Tribal cards)
Couldn't Tarfire just as easily have been: Instant - Tribal Goblin?
There is an imposter among us...
And yeah Tribal Soreceries would give Tarmy +2/+2
Yes, it counts as both Tribal and Sorcery.
Legendary is a supertype, not a type. It is a completly different category, like "non-basic" vs "basic" on land cards.
No, in the article I mentioned earlier they explained that instants and enchantments, etc. cannot have creature types and that's why they had to create "tribal".
Hope that helps.
This is really important. Do you know what Mistform Ultimus does? If there could be an Instant-Goblin, then is it a Forest? Can it tap for mana? Does it count as a Locus? The answer is *no*, because it is only every creature type.
Tribal on a card means "This card may have creature subtypes".
I don't know if it could have been a supertype, according to the rules, maybe?
But I like it because my 'goyfs are bigger.
Ok so Mistform Ultimus is every creature type. I still don't see why this is a problem. It's a Creature with all creature types. Why does this stop you having Instants with creature types too? I gather what you're saying is that some subtypes have inherent properties. Swamps always allow you to tap for B for example so creatures aren't supposed to have these types.
So you have creature types and non creature types, some of which have inherent properties. Tribal means the card is allowed to have creature subtypes. great. Where is the list of Creature subtypes and non creature ones? Does this mean there will never be an Arcane Warrior creature type?
This just seems clunky as hell. Create a new card type just so that you can give creature types to an existing card type? seems very cumbersome. New card types should do new things. Planeswalkers for example justify a new card type. They are something new and revolutionary. Tribal cards do exactly the same thing as non tribal ones, just like Arcane spells did the same thing as non arcane ones. they just had other cards that could interact with them in a positive or negative way.
I still don't understand what the difference between a Tribal Sorcery - Goblin and a Sorcery - Goblin is in practical terms. Can you give me a practical example of how this would be different?
If you want to have subtypes with inherent properties like Forest, Locus etc. don't put them on those permanents that aren't supposed to have them. Even better, don't have subtypes with inherent characteristics or "unwritten rules". To me that makes the best sense.
Precisely. Glad I'm not alone on this.
Other than the rules saying that Sorcery-Goblin can't exist there isn't really a difference.
it boils down to this:
WotC decided to make Tribal a Type for 2 reasons: 1-Hype, and 2-Obscure rules interactions (that could just as easily have been solved by making Tribal a supertype but you'll never get the rules jockeys to agree with you on that one. of course Wotc could have made Tribal a supertype: it's their freakin game! so, really, it's all about the Hype.)
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
We know exactly what tribal does, it gives non creature cards creature types.
If they make tribal a card type then they should make legendary a card type.
http://tinystrokes.blogspot.com/view/classic
Of course we know what it does.
We don't know what Wizards wants to do with it, is what I meant.
Take, for example, artifact creatures. You get "Artifact Creature - Golem", yet Golem is clearly not an artifact type. You cannot have "Artifact - Golem". Same with lands. You can have "Land Creature - Forest Dryad", but you cannot have "Land - Dryad" or "Creature - Forest". Therefore, the Tribal type was added to allow noncreature cards to have creature subtypes. This way, you can have "Tribal Artifact - Goblin" without having to make it an artifact creature. It also allows "Tribal Land - Merfolk Island" to exist, without having to make the land able to attack, etc. Also, as an added bonus, Tribal allows instants and sorceries to get in on the creature action. So you can have "Tribal Instant - Goblin" or "Tribal Sorcery - Arcane Spirit". It also allows for Auras and Equipment to have creature types without having to be a creature itself (because Auras and Equipment that are creatures can't be attached to a creature, as per the rules). So you can have a "Tribal Enchantment - Treefolk Aura" or a "Tribal Artifact - Giant Equipment".
Basically, it makes a lot more possible without messing up the rules.
Why? the only reason that regular Sorceries or instants can't have creature types is that Wizards says so. They made Sorcery - Arcane so why not Sorcery - Goblin? Because the rules they themselves made up says that only permanents can have creature subtypes? Why not just change that rule? Why create a whole new card type to do this?
If you want to attach cetain new rules to a card type, give that card a supertype. Legendary permanents are exactly the same as regular ones, they just have additional rules (only one in play at a time, if a second comes into play both get killed etc.).
If there were some inherent characteristics about Tribal Spells like "you must control a ..... to play this" (which there realistically can't be given that Bound in Silence has been playable for ages and there are no Tribal specific rules attached to it's use. It plays exactly like a normal Aura with a subtype that allows it to interact with other cards that affect that subtype) create a supertype and give it to that card, just like they did with Legendary. If you really consider it necessary to justify making non permanent cards be able to have creature types, make tribal a supertype.
I think Beherit said it best. If Tribal is a card type then I would expect to be able to play a Tribal. Not a Tribal Sorcery, a Tribal. that's the cards type afterall isn't it? I can play artifacts, instants, enchantments, planeswalkers etc. a card type should stand alone. If it's needs another card type to give it meaning it should really be a supertype. Each card type should be playable in of itself.
Dryad Arbor is a land and creature. You can play lands, and you can play creatures. Bound in Silence is a Tribal enchantment. You can play enchantments, but you can't play Tribals. You can only play Tribal somethings. You can't play a Legendary, but you can play a Legendary Creature.
To clarrify my understanding:
1. The only reason that you can't have Sorcery - Goblin is that Wizards decided that non creatures can't have creature subtypes. This is something the could simply change. Not so long ago it was believed that Sorceries, Enchantments and Instants couldn't have subtypes at all and then came along Aura's and Arcane. Wotc decide to change the rules for non creature permanents.
2. There is nothing inherntly different about Tribal Sorceries etc to regular ones except that they have a creature subtype.
3. If it was deemed necessary that you couldn't just change the rules to allow creature subtypes on no creature cards, this could have been done by creating a supertype that granted inherent characteristics to cards with that supertype.
4. Tribal as a separate card type is counter intuitive, as you can only ever have a tribal something, not just a Tribal.
It's a cards Type that defines it, not it's subtype right? A Creatue - Merfolk Island could attack because it's card type is Creature. A Land - Merfolk Island can't attack because it's card type is Land. A Creature Land - Dryad Forest can attack because one of it's types is creature.
The only reason you can't have an Artifact - Golem is that Wizards says so. Why can't you? Just because it has a subtype golem doesn't mean it has to be a creature unless they want it that way.
Aside from the argument that tribal is just not necessary if you change the existing rules, ther's no reason why it couldn't be a supertype just like Legendary. All it does is attach additional rules to the card it's on. Just like Legendary.
That works fine in gameplay, but it still adds that creature type to the list of (say) enchantment subtypes, which is what Tribal was invented to prevent.
-E
There is a difference between adding type-specific subtypes (Aura, Arcane) and allowing a type to have subtypes that don't belong to it. A sorcery isn't a creature. Therefore, it can't be a Goblin, or a Merfolk. A creature isn't an enchantment. Therefore, it can't be a Shrine, or an Aura. An artifact isn't an instant. Therefore, it can't be an Arcane. Tribal, attached to these types, allows them all to belong or be associated with creatures. A "Tribal Sorcery - Goblin" belongs to Goblins or was invented by Goblins. A "Tribal Enchantment - Treefolk Aura" belongs to or was invented by Treefolk.
I do agree that not being able to cast a Tribal spell on it's own is weird, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to disown it as a type. What if the only types of Artifacts ever to exist were Artifact Creatures? Would we disown artifacts, and say it should be a supertype instead? There are probably cards that specifically affect Tribal cards (or at least there probably will be in the future) so that the type will actually feel more like a type. Hey, maybe someday Tribal will have some subtypes of its own. Magic is an evolving game. Who knows what Wizards will eventually do/try ("Tribal - Contraption" anyone? :p).
As an aside, I wonder if there will be more types added to allow, say, creatures to have instant and sorcery types: "Spellbound Creature - Arcane Human Soldier"...hmm...
The reason that tribal is a type, and not a super or sub type, is because only types have any say in what subtypes a card can have. Sorceries cannot be goblins under normal circumstances, and no amount of subtyping or supertyping will ever change that. However, if you give it a new type that happens to share all the subtypes of the creature type, suddenly you can add it on to noncreatures to endow them with natures based on what manner of being produced them. It's a matter of logistics. From an aesthetic standpoint, Tribal really looks like a supertype, since it only finds itself in the typeline when accompanying another type, but it grants subtyping, which means that for rules reasons it's a type. A very narrow type, but a type nonetheless.
Post Shards of Alara combos here please, for the convenience of the forum-goers
GENERATION 11: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
So it's a flavour decision now? a spell is tribal to reflect it's history or origins? The thing that really gets me is that all of this revolves around what card types are allowed what subtypes, when this seems like a totally unneccesary point. You could just allow non creature spells to have creature types. I can see the logic of not allowing creatures non creature spell types afterall having creatures that are Aura's, Equipment and Shrines doesn't make sense but I don't see why the reverse can't work. the only difference between a Tribal Sorcery - Goblin and Socery - Goblin is that Wizards has decided that it needs to for some reason. I'm all for Race related spells, but his seems a really backwards way of doing them. You don't have to give them a subtype but there's no reason you can't aside from Wizards saying they can't break their own rules.
No we wouldn't disown non creature Artifacts if they were brought out because they'd be something completely new. They'd be Artifact Creatures that couldn't attack or block, had no P/T and couldn't be removed by creature removal. They'd be something radically different and it would make sense that they weren't Arifact Creatures because all of their "Creatureness" had been removed. They wouldn't be a new type of Artifact creatures, because they wouldn't be creatures at all, they'd be something completely different.
A closer argument might be having coloured artifacts I think. Artifact are inherently colourless, but this doesn't mean Wizards couldn't bring out something like:
Buring brand
Artifact
Burning Brand is Red.
3, T: deals 2 damage to target creature.
Or course that'd be a change to the existing rules that a cards Mana cost defines it's colour. They could just rely on the fact that a cards text overrules all else (a la Ghostfire a Red mana spell this is actually colourless because of it's text), but if they felt the need to create a justification that allows for this they could make:
Burning Brand
Aligned Artifact - Red
3, T: deals 2 damage....
Giving it a supertype that grants the card special rules such as a specified colour and the ability to have a colour when it otherwiswe wouldn't. This would allow you to have Aligned Sorceries etc. where the colur is different to it's mana cost. BUT THEY'D STILL BE SORCERIES, ARTIFACTS, INSTANTS ETC and not a whole new type of card.
So sayeth Wizards, who could change this any time they wanted, just as they have done numerous times in the past.
Or assuming that you don't want to just change your former stance you could give them a supertype "Tribal" that grants the follwoing additional rules: This card may have creature subtypes". Just the same as having the Legendary supertype gives otherwise normal permanents: "If you one of these is in play and another comes into play, put both into their owners graveyards" I'm sure that wording is well and truely off but you get the idea.
The point remains the same. they could do it by either changing the rules to allow sorceries etc. to have creature types (simplest), or by giving some cards a Tribal Supertype that gives them this ability (ugly and cumbersome but doable). Finally you can create a "new" card type that does exactly the same thing (worst by far).
...
Doesn't that statement seem a little...pointless? Creatures have P/T and can attack and block because Wizards says so. Instants and sorceries go to the graveyard on resolution because Wizards says so. Artifacts and Enchantments can't attack or block, but have generally lasting effects on the overall game because Wizards says so. Different card types can't share subtypes (with the exception of instants and sorceries, but that could even change in the future) because Wizards says so.
This is Wizards' game. Of course they say so. The entire game is the way it is because Wizards says so. If they don't say so, it isn't that way. Tribal is a type and has to be because Wizards says so. It isn't a supertype because Wizards didn't say so.
(Sorry for the apparent harshness; I don't intend to be harsh. But, the argument "it's only because Wizards says so" seems to be a very weak argument to me.)
@ sbq92: that's not harsh, though I appreciate the sentiment, and yes it is wizards's game - I agree fully. All I'm trying to point out is that there are simpler ways to achieve the same end result that to me make good sense. Having Tribal as a supertype for example makes better sense to me than making it a whole new card type.
Remember that at the end of the day the end result is the same. We have Sorceries with creature subtypes so it's not a case of can it be done, but how makes the best sense. Creating whole new card types that by themselves are exactly the same asanother card type in order to sidestep a rule that you could easily amend doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
@ LevitateMe: I know where you're going with this - I had the same hought myself and yes, I get the resoniing why different cards have different subtypes. Having your Mistform Ultimus count as an Arcane Shrine doesn't make a great deal of sense afterall! However, just because you grant non creature cards a creature subtype doesn't mean that it stops being a creature Subtype!
Thats a bit wordy, but to simply it, there's a list of creature subtypes. That list doesn't change just because other cards share those subtypes. The list of creature types that Mistform Ultimus is doesn't change because there are now Goblin Sorceries. It just means that sorceries now have different subtypes.
What would be the difference between a Sorcery - Goblin (if it were possible) and a Tribal Sorcery - Goblin to Mistform Ultimus. Nothing because whether or not these cards exist, Mistform Ultimus still has the same creature types. They could even print a instant called Ultimus Blast that costs R and does 2 damage to anything and has all creature types and it still couldn't affect Mistform Ultimus.
I could understand them saying "Only creatures will ever have creature subtypes and nothing else ever will, that why they are CREATURE subtypes afterall!" but that's not what's hapepned. We have creature sorceries/instants/enchantments and the only question is why do it the way they have when there seems to be much simpler options.
It just seems to me to be totally unneccesary to create a new card type to achieve the end goal of allowing non creature cards to have creature subtypes. Like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.