Mistform Wall

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Hi,

This came up at the Wizards boards and I'm curious whether someone
here has any insight:

Before all walls got Defender it was possible to attack with Mistform
Wall after changing its creature type. This behaviour was lost when it
got Defender. Was this intensional? Why?


Oracle:

Mistform Wall
{2}{U}
Creature -- Illusion Wall
1/4
Defender (This creature can't attack.)
{1}: ~this~'s type becomes the creature type of your choice until end of turn.


Printed:

{2}{U}
Creature -- Illusion Wall
1/4
(Walls can.t attack.)
{1}: Mistform Wall's type becomes the creature type of your choice
until end of turn.

--
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Chances are suprisingly good that David de Kloet was not wearing pants
when he or she said:
> Hi,
>
> This came up at the Wizards boards and I'm curious whether someone
> here has any insight:
>
> Before all walls got Defender it was possible to attack with Mistform
> Wall after changing its creature type. This behaviour was lost when it
> got Defender. Was this intensional? Why?

I don't know if intentional is the word I'd use, but they definitely
know about it.

> Oracle:
>
> Mistform Wall
> {2}{U}
> Creature -- Illusion Wall
> 1/4
> Defender (This creature can't attack.)
> {1}: ~this~'s type becomes the creature type of your choice until end of turn.
>
>
> Printed:
>
> {2}{U}
> Creature -- Illusion Wall
> 1/4
> (Walls can.t attack.)
> {1}: Mistform Wall's type becomes the creature type of your choice
> until end of turn.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> writes:
> Before all walls got Defender it was possible to attack with Mistform
> Wall after changing its creature type. This behaviour was lost when it
> got Defender. Was this intensional? Why?

The Wall/Legend creature-types-no-longer-have-intrinsic-meanings
conversion broke a lot of old cards. The one that bothered me most was
no longer being able to take out duplicates of cards with Unnatural
Selection and the old Legend rule.

It seems like it couldn't be too hard to add "and ~this~ loses
defender" in there, but they probably just didn't bother since it's
not an extremely popular card. You should certainly feel free in your
casual playgroup to play it as though it did, assuming it's okay with
your opponents.

And who knows, they may even update it again someday.

--
Peter C.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Jeff Heikkinen wrote:

> Chances are suprisingly good that David de Kloet was not wearing pants
> when he or she said:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This came up at the Wizards boards and I'm curious whether someone
>> here has any insight:
>>
>> Before all walls got Defender it was possible to attack with Mistform
>> Wall after changing its creature type. This behaviour was lost when it
>> got Defender. Was this intensional? Why?
>
> I don't know if intentional is the word I'd use, but they definitely
> know about it.

But the fact that you could attack with it was the only thing that
crossed my mind when I first saw the card. It's just stupid to reverse
that imho.

--
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:10:18 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>This came up at the Wizards boards and I'm curious whether someone
>here has any insight:
>
>Before all walls got Defender it was possible to attack with Mistform
>Wall after changing its creature type. This behaviour was lost when it
>got Defender. Was this intensional? Why?

As far as I know it was. The idea behind the change was to get rid of the
only -other- rule connected to a creature type (you'll remember they did this
about the same time as "Legend" went away and changed to the "Legendary"
supertype on all such creatures). For almost all cards referencing Walls,
you could get the exact same effect now by referencing cards with Defender ...
but for cards that referenced Wall _because it was a creature type_, rather
than because Walls could not attack, the functionality "Walls cannot attack,
so since this refers to Walls it interacts with cannot-attack" wasn't
something they wanted to preserve, really - they didn't want to leave
"fossil traces" of the old rule in a couple cards here and there. So Artificial
Evolution no longer mentions Wall _or_ Legend in its text, making it work
differently, for another example.

And yes, Mistform Wall's ability was more closely connected with being
unable to attack than some other type-changing abilities. But it still was
a creature-type-change ability, not a "This can attack as though it weren't
a Wall" ability. So it ended up less useful in the brave new world where Walls
-can- attack unless they have defender ... because its ability wasn't about
removing defender, it was about changing creature types.
Notice that for similar reasons, Mistform Ultimus _lost_ its second ability
entirely; being a Wall is now decoupled from being unable to attack or having
defender.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "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://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.