What is the deal with Creature Types (tonight!)
Nate Finch
However, against all those pesky canine decks:
I cast an engineered plague, naming bitch.
Bye bye dogs, hounds, wolves, hyenas.. basically anything that is a
canine. And we all know that those dog decks are going to be ruling the
PT, so this would be a great metagame choice. (Sorry for the strategy on
.rules)
On 16 Apr 1999, TSBTMC wrote:
>I know there are certain type of creatures that are the same for the purposes
>of Engineered Plague and Coat of Arms. For instance Orc and Orcs, Elf and
>Elves, and even Brothers and Sisters. But what about these wonderful (need a
>class in Biology, mythical at that) types:
>
>1. Bird, Birds, Mana Birds, and Phoenix
>
>2. Dragon, Drake, Hydra, Serpent, Wurm (and even Snake)
>
>3. Djinn, Efreet, and Marid (Old Man of the Sea)
>
>4. Fish, Whale, and Crab (or Turtle)
>
>5. Snake, Viper, and Lizard
>
>6. Faerie, Nymphs, and
>
>7. Bees, Insects, Spider, and Swarm
>
>8. Cats, Lions, and Tiger
>
>9. Dogs, Hounds, and Wolf
>
>10. Apes, Orangutang, Gorrilla
>
>11. Ogre, Troll, and Giants
>
>12. Townsfolk, Folk, and
>
>13. Phantasm and Illusion
>
>14. King, Lord, and Autocrat (Diplomats)
>
>15. Bats and Vampires
>
>16. Paladin and Knight
>
>17. Elephant, Mammoth, and Rhinos
>
>18. Druids, Gypsies, and Nomads
>
>19. Boars and Bears
>
>20. Specters, Wraiths, and Wights
>
>21. Doppleganger and Shapeshifter
>
>22. Wizard and Sorceress
>
>23. Devil and Demon
>
>24. Poltergeist, Ghost, and Spirit
>
>25. Thief and Robber
>
>26. Aladdin, Sinbad, Abu Jafar (Arabs)
>
>
-Nate
TSBTMC
David DeLaney
>None of those would work.
>However, against all those pesky canine decks:
>I cast an engineered plague, naming bitch.
This only kills "dog" and "bitch" tokens, or whatever you have _chosen_
as the masculine of "bitch". It does not mean "Oh, this suddenly makes
all masculine-names-for-canine the same creature type"; they are _not_ the
same creature type, and thus cannot be _set_ to the same creature type
by "finding something that's the same creature type as each of them".
>Bye bye dogs, hounds, wolves, hyenas..
Nope. Bye bye dogs. [The only one is Snow Hound.] Hounds, wolves, puppies,
hyenas, etc., are not affected by anything that specifically affects
the creature type "dog", and vice versa.
>On 16 Apr 1999, TSBTMC wrote:
>>I know there are certain type of creatures that are the same for the purposes
>>of Engineered Plague and Coat of Arms. For instance Orc and Orcs, Elf and
>>Elves, and even Brothers and Sisters.
Yes. Gender is ignored, and so is number. But that's all.
>>1. Bird, Birds, Mana Birds, and Phoenix
Bird and Birds are the same type. Mana Birds and Phoenix are not the same
type as them, and do not match each other either.
>>2. Dragon, Drake, Hydra, Serpent, Wurm (and even Snake)
None of these are the same type. Serpent is a different creature type from
Snake.
>>3. Djinn, Efreet, and Marid (Old Man of the Sea)
>>4. Fish, Whale, and Crab (or Turtle)
>>5. Snake, Viper, and Lizard
>>6. Faerie, Nymphs, and
Nope. None of these are the same. ["and " what?]
>>7. Bees, Insects, Spider, and Swarm
>>8. Cats, Lions, and Tiger
>>9. Dogs, Hounds, and Wolf
>>10. Apes, Orangutang, Gorrilla
"Gorilla". Nope. None of these are the same as any other, either. "Apes" is
the same as "Ape", but not the same as "Gorilla", "Monkey", "Chimp", or
"Human".
>>11. Ogre, Troll, and Giants
>>12. Townsfolk, Folk, and
>>13. Phantasm and Illusion
>>14. King, Lord, and Autocrat (Diplomats)
>>15. Bats and Vampires
>>16. Paladin and Knight
>>17. Elephant, Mammoth, and Rhinos
>>18. Druids, Gypsies, and Nomads
>>19. Boars and Bears
>>20. Specters, Wraiths, and Wights
Nope. None of these matches any other either. "King" would match "Kings"
or "Queen" or "Queens", but not "Duke", "Princess", "Elvis", "Baroness", etc.
>>21. Doppleganger and Shapeshifter
>>22. Wizard and Sorceress
No. "Sorceress" is the same as "Sorcerer". [There's only one of the latter.]
>>23. Devil and Demon
>>24. Poltergeist, Ghost, and Spirit
>>25. Thief and Robber
>>26. Aladdin, Sinbad, Abu Jafar (Arabs)
Nope. None of these match any other either.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Brian Trosko
: >Bye bye dogs, hounds, wolves, hyenas..
: Nope. Bye bye dogs. [The only one is Snow Hound.] Hounds, wolves, puppies,
: hyenas, etc., are not affected by anything that specifically affects
: the creature type "dog", and vice versa.
I don't even see why "bitch" would kill "dogs." Female dogs are called
bitches, true, but female dogs and male dogs are both "dogs." Gender is
irrelevant, so what would kill the female gender will also take the male,
but "dog" isn't the male counterpart of "bitch"; it's just the name of the
animal, and is gender-neutral.
What's the male-gender term for a dog?
Or to put it another way, Extinction naming "Mare" will also kill
"Stallions." Would it kill "Horses?"
Ingo Kemper
>I know there are certain type of creatures that are the same for the purposes
>of Engineered Plague and Coat of Arms. For instance Orc and Orcs, Elf and
>Elves,
(they only differ in plurality)
> and even Brothers and Sisters.
(they only differ in gender)
> But what about these wonderful (need a
>class in Biology, mythical at that) types:
The _only_ things that are ignored when comparing summon types are
gender and plurality. Nothing else.
>1. Bird, Birds, Mana Birds, and Phoenix
Bird and Birds are the same. Mana Birds are their own subtype, at
least under 5E rules.
>2. Dragon, Drake, Hydra, Serpent, Wurm (and even Snake)
>3. Djinn, Efreet, and Marid (Old Man of the Sea)
>4. Fish, Whale, and Crab (or Turtle)
>5. Snake, Viper, and Lizard
>6. Faerie, Nymphs, and
>7. Bees, Insects, Spider, and Swarm
>8. Cats, Lions, and Tiger
>9. Dogs, Hounds, and Wolf
>10. Apes, Orangutang, Gorrilla
>11. Ogre, Troll, and Giants
>12. Townsfolk, Folk, and
>13. Phantasm and Illusion
>14. King, Lord, and Autocrat (Diplomats)
>15. Bats and Vampires
>16. Paladin and Knight
>17. Elephant, Mammoth, and Rhinos
>18. Druids, Gypsies, and Nomads
>19. Boars and Bears
>20. Specters, Wraiths, and Wights
>21. Doppleganger and Shapeshifter
>22. Wizard and Sorceress
>23. Devil and Demon
>24. Poltergeist, Ghost, and Spirit
>25. Thief and Robber
>26. Aladdin, Sinbad, Abu Jafar (Arabs)
All these are different creature types.
Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
Nate Finch
>Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> writes:
>>None of those would work.
>>However, against all those pesky canine decks:
>>I cast an engineered plague, naming bitch.
>
>This only kills "dog" and "bitch" tokens, or whatever you have _chosen_
>as the masculine of "bitch". It does not mean "Oh, this suddenly makes
>all masculine-names-for-canine the same creature type"; they are _not_ the
>same creature type, and thus cannot be _set_ to the same creature type
>by "finding something that's the same creature type as each of them".
Aww... that's no fun :) So you have to choose what you want to be your
masculine(feminine) form and your plural form (in the cases where there
can be more than one)? Woulda been fun to make a canine/volrath's lab/coat
of arms deck.
Hey, another question... could you then get 2 volrath's labs out, each
making bitches, but have them refer to a different masculine form? (i.e.
this is dog/bitch, and this is wolf/bitch)? Wouldn't that be fun with
dogs and wolves and coats of arms... ok THESE bitches are 3/3, but THESE
bitches over here are 5/5.
I'm assuming then, that one extinction couldn't take out all your bitches,
because you've specified them as different types of bitches (even though
they are both technically just the creature type "bitch")?
-Nate
"I've said it before and I'll say it again, whose dumb idea was all this,
anyway?"
Nate Finch
>David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> writes:
>: >Bye bye dogs, hounds, wolves, hyenas..
>
>: Nope. Bye bye dogs. [The only one is Snow Hound.] Hounds, wolves, puppies,
>: hyenas, etc., are not affected by anything that specifically affects
>: the creature type "dog", and vice versa.
>
>I don't even see why "bitch" would kill "dogs." Female dogs are called
>bitches, true, but female dogs and male dogs are both "dogs." Gender is
>irrelevant, so what would kill the female gender will also take the male,
>but "dog" isn't the male counterpart of "bitch"; it's just the name of the
>animal, and is gender-neutral.
A dog is a dog. A female dog is a bitch, therefor if you name bitch
you'll kill dogs too. it's just because of the dumb way WotC decided to
make these things work.
>What's the male-gender term for a dog?
Umm.. not sure there is one, really.
>Or to put it another way, Extinction naming "Mare" will also kill
>"Stallions." Would it kill "Horses?"
Not really sure. That's the problem with these things :P
-Nate
Graham Downs
news:3718d76...@ingo.news.uni-muenster.de...
> All these are different creature types.
Yes, but WHY were they printed as different creature types. Let's get
logical here - in real life, "Serpent" is a synonym for "Snake", for
example - so make them ALL "Snakes" or ALL "Serpents." They way it's done
now just seems a bit stupid and altogether inconsistent, to me.
--
Thanks
Graham Downs
Data Pro Development (Pty) Ltd. <http://www.datapro.co.za/development>
Ingo Kemper
<gra...@datapro.co.za> wrote:
>> All these are different creature types.
>
>Yes, but WHY were they printed as different creature types.
Why not? It adds to the flavor of the game. Why shouldn't different
creatures be differentiated, like Cobras, Asps, and other snake-like
creatures?
> Let's get
>logical here - in real life, "Serpent" is a synonym for "Snake", for
>example - so make them ALL "Snakes" or ALL "Serpents."
AFAIR in Magic "serpents" is used for things that live in the oceans
while snakes live on continents.
Would you really compare River Boa to Benthic Behemoth, or Ophidian to
Marjhan?
>They way it's done
>now just seems a bit stupid and altogether inconsistent, to me.
The fact that apes and gorillas are different creature types is sort
of a necessity, otherwise the Wizards would have to come up with a
"relation list" to list all related creature types - which would be
way too complicated for tournament play.
Graham Downs
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:36:38 +0200, "Graham Downs"
> while snakes live on continents.
>
> Would you really compare River Boa to Benthic Behemoth, or Ophidian to
> Marjhan?
Yes, but I do see your point anyway. I don't think a long relational list
would be necessary. Something like "Summon Snake (Serpent)" would be fine.
(I.E. A creature type, and a sub-creature type).
David DeLaney
>Aww... that's no fun :) So you have to choose what you want to be your
>masculine(feminine) form and your plural form (in the cases where there
>can be more than one)? Woulda been fun to make a canine/volrath's lab/coat
>of arms deck.
I'm not Exactly Sure; they didn't go into that much detail when the
Ruling was announced.
>Hey, another question... could you then get 2 volrath's labs out, each
>making bitches, but have them refer to a different masculine form? (i.e.
>this is dog/bitch, and this is wolf/bitch)? Wouldn't that be fun with
>dogs and wolves and coats of arms... ok THESE bitches are 3/3, but THESE
>bitches over here are 5/5.
...I don't _think_ they'd want that to work. All "foo" tokens should be the
same creature type. Thus, I think the answer that would come bacl would be
"all your 'bitch' tokens have to match the same mascu-canine word". However,
they _don't_ want to go to the effort [and I can't blame them] of making up
long lists of masculine and feminine forms of words, the more so because they
would have to do it for each _possible_ creature type.
So I think this falls squarely under the "if you're choosing a creature type
simply to try to pull a rules-lawyer argument with it, you can't choose that
creature type period" metarul for creature types... and similarly, if you're
trying to pull a rules-lawyer argument on some existing creature type, or
a type that opponent innocently named, It Won't Work. (Sorry.) They only
agreed to have noun _phrases_ after a little teethpulling anyway, and it
wouldn't take much for them to decide to go back to 'one word only, no
plurals at all', I believe.
>I'm assuming then, that one extinction couldn't take out all your bitches,
>because you've specified them as different types of bitches (even though
>they are both technically just the creature type "bitch")?
No - the "bitch" tokens would all be the same type. So logically they could
only be the feminine of _one_ of the masculine types.
David DeLaney
>> All these are different creature types.
>logical here - in real life, "Serpent" is a synonym for "Snake", for
>now just seems a bit stupid and altogether inconsistent, to me.
You don't want them to do that, Graham. Especially since they seem determined
to do it somewhat in recent expansions -anyway- - Cloudchaser Eagle is a
Summon what? "Summon Bird". Blah. If Old Man of the Sea were printed for the
first time today, he wouldn't have become a Summon Marid - he'd be a
Creature - Djinn. Ditto King Suleiman - he'd turn into Creature - Lord
instead of Summon King, most likely.
Graham Downs
> You don't want them to do that, Graham. Especially since they seem
determined
> to do it somewhat in recent expansions -anyway- - Cloudchaser Eagle is a
> Summon what? "Summon Bird". Blah. If Old Man of the Sea were printed for
the
So, as per my reply to Ingo (sp?), make Cloudchaser Eagle a "Summon Bird -
Eagle." :-) I don't have a card list, to look up Old Man or King Suleiman,
and I don't know what they are/do - so I can't comment.
--
Thanks
Graham Downs
Data Pro Development (Pty) Ltd. <http://www.datapro.co.za/development>
David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote in message
news:7f777k$a41$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu...
Nate Finch
>Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> writes:
>>Hey, another question... could you then get 2 volrath's labs out, each
>>making bitches, but have them refer to a different masculine form? (i.e.
>>this is dog/bitch, and this is wolf/bitch)? Wouldn't that be fun with
>>dogs and wolves and coats of arms... ok THESE bitches are 3/3, but THESE
>>bitches over here are 5/5.
>
>...I don't _think_ they'd want that to work. All "foo" tokens should be the
>same creature type. Thus, I think the answer that would come bacl would be
>"all your 'bitch' tokens have to match the same mascu-canine word". However,
>they _don't_ want to go to the effort [and I can't blame them] of making up
>long lists of masculine and feminine forms of words, the more so because they
>would have to do it for each _possible_ creature type.
Then they shouldn't have made that masculine/feminine clause :P
Personally I think they ought to just dump it. Plural/singular I have no
problem with. Elves should be the same as an elf, and that's relatively
easy to define. This whole masculine/feminine thing is just ridiculous.
>So I think this falls squarely under the "if you're choosing a creature type
>simply to try to pull a rules-lawyer argument with it, you can't choose that
>creature type period" metarul for creature types... and similarly, if you're
>trying to pull a rules-lawyer argument on some existing creature type, or
>a type that opponent innocently named, It Won't Work. (Sorry.)
Heh, kinda like Wish in D&D.. if you ask for something acceptable, then it
works, but if you ask for something ridiculous, no matter how well you
word it, the DM's gonna screw you.
>They only agreed to have noun _phrases_ after a little teethpulling
>anyway, and it wouldn't take much for them to decide to go back to 'one
>word only, no plurals at all', I believe.
All they need to do is drop the damn male/female thing.
>>I'm assuming then, that one extinction couldn't take out all your bitches,
>>because you've specified them as different types of bitches (even though
>>they are both technically just the creature type "bitch")?
>
>No - the "bitch" tokens would all be the same type. So logically they could
>only be the feminine of _one_ of the masculine types.
*grin* I can hear the feminists now "Oh, so the female is only defined by
what male she corresponds to huh? Down with Magic! It's suppressing
women's individuality!"
-Nate
Nate Finch
>"Graham Downs" <gra...@datapro.co.za> writes:
>>Ingo Kemper <kem...@uni-muenster.de> wrote in message
>>news:3718d76...@ingo.news.uni-muenster.de...
>>> All these are different creature types.
>>Yes, but WHY were they printed as different creature types. Let's get
>>logical here - in real life, "Serpent" is a synonym for "Snake", for
>>example - so make them ALL "Snakes" or ALL "Serpents." They way it's done
>>now just seems a bit stupid and altogether inconsistent, to me.
>
>You don't want them to do that, Graham. Especially since they seem determined
>to do it somewhat in recent expansions -anyway- - Cloudchaser Eagle is a
>Summon what? "Summon Bird". Blah. If Old Man of the Sea were printed for the
>first time today, he wouldn't have become a Summon Marid - he'd be a
>Creature - Djinn. Ditto King Suleiman - he'd turn into Creature - Lord
>instead of Summon King, most likely.
I agree 100% Variety of creatures types is a good thing. I don't think
we want it to go back to pre-Alpha where Grizzly Bears were just Bears,
and Drudge Skeletons were just Skeletons. Magic needs a little variety, a
little spice, to keep it interesting. Creatures like Fylamarid and
Electryte keep things interesting... oh wait, those are both beasts.. well
crater hellion then... no.... oh, gang of elk must be... no.
They're making things bad enough as it is... I want more Evil Eyes and
Uncle Istvans, more People of the Woods and Lepers.. (well ok, no more
lepers, but you know what I mean).
-Nate