Mixing
Why do cards use the “(ability) / Other creatures you control have (ability)†wording?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
The card Bellowing Tanglewurm has the following two clauses...
Intimidate
Other green creatures you control have intimidate
...and Felhide Petrifier has these two clauses...
Deathtouch
Other Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch
It seems to me that the two above cards are needlessly wordy. Instead of Bellowing Tanglewurm's two clauses, I'm thinking it could just be shortened to
Green creatures you control have intimidate
since Bellowing Tanglewurm is also a green creature.
Same would apply for Fellhide Petrifier,
Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch
since Fellhide Petrifier is also a Minotaur creature.
Is there a reason that the former two wordings are used instead of the latter two? Is there some rule I'm missing that requires the former two be used instead?
magic-the-gathering
edited 5 mins ago
doppelgreener
14.6k850114
asked 18 hours ago
Delfino
1766
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
The card Bellowing Tanglewurm has the following two clauses...
Intimidate
Other green creatures you control have intimidate
...and Felhide Petrifier has these two clauses...
Deathtouch
Other Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch
It seems to me that the two above cards are needlessly wordy. Instead of Bellowing Tanglewurm's two clauses, I'm thinking it could just be shortened to
Green creatures you control have intimidate
since Bellowing Tanglewurm is also a green creature.
Same would apply for Fellhide Petrifier,
Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch
since Fellhide Petrifier is also a Minotaur creature.
Is there a reason that the former two wordings are used instead of the latter two? Is there some rule I'm missing that requires the former two be used instead?
magic-the-gathering
edited 5 mins ago
doppelgreener
14.6k850114
asked 18 hours ago
Delfino
1766
After thinking about it, I can understand the wording on Bellowing Tanglewurm, as the first clause includes the reminder text for the keyword abilityIntimidate.
– Delfino
18 hours ago
2
Although the answer points out that there is a slight functional difference; I think the answer and discussion here about redundant text is relevant.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
There is basically only one case I can think of where those things are put together into a single line of text, and that's slivers
– Arthur
1 hour ago
@Arthur Also the Theros archetypes.
– doppelgreener
17 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
The card Bellowing Tanglewurm has the following two clauses...
Intimidate
Other green creatures you control have intimidate
...and Felhide Petrifier has these two clauses...
Deathtouch
Other Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch
It seems to me that the two above cards are needlessly wordy. Instead of Bellowing Tanglewurm's two clauses, I'm thinking it could just be shortened to
Green creatures you control have intimidate
since Bellowing Tanglewurm is also a green creature.
Same would apply for Fellhide Petrifier,
Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch
since Fellhide Petrifier is also a Minotaur creature.
Is there a reason that the former two wordings are used instead of the latter two? Is there some rule I'm missing that requires the former two be used instead?
magic-the-gathering
edited 5 mins ago
doppelgreener
14.6k850114
asked 18 hours ago
Delfino
1766
The card Bellowing Tanglewurm has the following two clauses...
Intimidate
Other green creatures you control have intimidate
...and Felhide Petrifier has these two clauses...
Deathtouch
Other Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch
It seems to me that the two above cards are needlessly wordy. Instead of Bellowing Tanglewurm's two clauses, I'm thinking it could just be shortened to
Green creatures you control have intimidate
since Bellowing Tanglewurm is also a green creature.
Same would apply for Fellhide Petrifier,
Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch
since Fellhide Petrifier is also a Minotaur creature.
Is there a reason that the former two wordings are used instead of the latter two? Is there some rule I'm missing that requires the former two be used instead?
magic-the-gathering
magic-the-gathering
edited 5 mins ago
doppelgreener
14.6k850114
asked 18 hours ago
Delfino
1766
edited 5 mins ago
doppelgreener
14.6k850114
asked 18 hours ago
Delfino
1766
edited 5 mins ago
doppelgreener
14.6k850114
edited 5 mins ago
doppelgreener
14.6k850114
edited 5 mins ago
doppelgreener
14.6k850114
14.6k850114
asked 18 hours ago
Delfino
1766
asked 18 hours ago
Delfino
1766
asked 18 hours ago
Delfino
1766
1766
After thinking about it, I can understand the wording on Bellowing Tanglewurm, as the first clause includes the reminder text for the keyword abilityIntimidate.
– Delfino
18 hours ago
2
Although the answer points out that there is a slight functional difference; I think the answer and discussion here about redundant text is relevant.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
There is basically only one case I can think of where those things are put together into a single line of text, and that's slivers
– Arthur
1 hour ago
@Arthur Also the Theros archetypes.
– doppelgreener
17 secs ago
add a comment |Â
After thinking about it, I can understand the wording on Bellowing Tanglewurm, as the first clause includes the reminder text for the keyword abilityIntimidate.
– Delfino
18 hours ago
2
Although the answer points out that there is a slight functional difference; I think the answer and discussion here about redundant text is relevant.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
There is basically only one case I can think of where those things are put together into a single line of text, and that's slivers
– Arthur
1 hour ago
@Arthur Also the Theros archetypes.
– doppelgreener
17 secs ago
After thinking about it, I can understand the wording on Bellowing Tanglewurm, as the first clause includes the reminder text for the keyword ability
Intimidate.– Delfino
18 hours ago
After thinking about it, I can understand the wording on Bellowing Tanglewurm, as the first clause includes the reminder text for the keyword ability
Intimidate.– Delfino
18 hours ago
2
2
Although the answer points out that there is a slight functional difference; I think the answer and discussion here about redundant text is relevant.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
Although the answer points out that there is a slight functional difference; I think the answer and discussion here about redundant text is relevant.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
There is basically only one case I can think of where those things are put together into a single line of text, and that's slivers
– Arthur
1 hour ago
There is basically only one case I can think of where those things are put together into a single line of text, and that's slivers
– Arthur
1 hour ago
@Arthur Also the Theros archetypes.
– doppelgreener
17 secs ago
@Arthur Also the Theros archetypes.
– doppelgreener
17 secs ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
The current template is easier for players to understand
From the horse's mouth:
What the point of making creature with "Trample. Other creatures you control have trample" when you can just put it as "áreatures you control have trample"?
The former has proven to be less confusing to a larger number of players. Remember, the number one goal of templating is comprehension, not brevity.
answered 17 hours ago
Arcanist Lupus
2,434519
5
I think this is the more important point. Yes, there is a slight functional difference, but the current templating is driven by player understanding, not by edge cases where a creature's color or type is changed.
– BJ Myers
16 hours ago
I definitely think it's far more likely that they went with what they thought was clearest; not with trying to preserve certain interactions in certain rare cases. With the proposed shorter wording, newer players would ask if the ability applies to itself; and also players would be more likely to forget that a creature has an ability.
– GendoIkari
15 hours ago
While I do agree that it likely was done to provide a clearer understanding it should also be pointed out that there are some edge cases where the wording does make a difference.
– Joe W
13 hours ago
It's very common for cards that say things like "All ... have / gain / get ..." to not include themselves. Either by being a different type (see Glorious Anthem) or by explicitly stating "other" (see Shalai, Voice of Plenty). Thus, when a player (especially an experienced one) reads such an ability, they expect it to not affect that card itself (without characteristic changing shenanigans). Except on slivers.
– Arthur
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
There are other cards that care about abilities on creatures that don't require them to be on the battlefield. For example Soulflayer has the ability (in addition to Delve):
If a creature card with flying was exiled with Soulflayer's delve ability, Soulflayer has flying. The same is true for first strike, double strike, deathtouch, haste, hexproof, indestructible, lifelink, reach, trample, and vigilance.
answered 18 hours ago
JonTheMon
9,14312049
6
In addition you can change a creatures colour through the use cards like [mtg:Purelace] and others. So the change in the OP would be a functional one.
– Malco
18 hours ago
Mwonvuli Beast Tracker (searching libraries for cards with specific abilities) is another great example.
– Alex P
16 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
The proposed wordings are not functionally equivalent. If Tanglewurm's color is changed by some effect, the original wording means it would continue to have Intimidate, while the proposed "shortened" wording would not. Same deal with Petrifier and creature type.
answered 15 hours ago
Anon
811
New contributor
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
The current template is easier for players to understand
From the horse's mouth:
What the point of making creature with "Trample. Other creatures you control have trample" when you can just put it as "áreatures you control have trample"?
The former has proven to be less confusing to a larger number of players. Remember, the number one goal of templating is comprehension, not brevity.
answered 17 hours ago
Arcanist Lupus
2,434519
5
I think this is the more important point. Yes, there is a slight functional difference, but the current templating is driven by player understanding, not by edge cases where a creature's color or type is changed.
– BJ Myers
16 hours ago
I definitely think it's far more likely that they went with what they thought was clearest; not with trying to preserve certain interactions in certain rare cases. With the proposed shorter wording, newer players would ask if the ability applies to itself; and also players would be more likely to forget that a creature has an ability.
– GendoIkari
15 hours ago
While I do agree that it likely was done to provide a clearer understanding it should also be pointed out that there are some edge cases where the wording does make a difference.
– Joe W
13 hours ago
It's very common for cards that say things like "All ... have / gain / get ..." to not include themselves. Either by being a different type (see Glorious Anthem) or by explicitly stating "other" (see Shalai, Voice of Plenty). Thus, when a player (especially an experienced one) reads such an ability, they expect it to not affect that card itself (without characteristic changing shenanigans). Except on slivers.
– Arthur
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
18
down vote
The current template is easier for players to understand
From the horse's mouth:
What the point of making creature with "Trample. Other creatures you control have trample" when you can just put it as "áreatures you control have trample"?
The former has proven to be less confusing to a larger number of players. Remember, the number one goal of templating is comprehension, not brevity.
answered 17 hours ago
Arcanist Lupus
2,434519
5
I think this is the more important point. Yes, there is a slight functional difference, but the current templating is driven by player understanding, not by edge cases where a creature's color or type is changed.
– BJ Myers
16 hours ago
I definitely think it's far more likely that they went with what they thought was clearest; not with trying to preserve certain interactions in certain rare cases. With the proposed shorter wording, newer players would ask if the ability applies to itself; and also players would be more likely to forget that a creature has an ability.
– GendoIkari
15 hours ago
While I do agree that it likely was done to provide a clearer understanding it should also be pointed out that there are some edge cases where the wording does make a difference.
– Joe W
13 hours ago
It's very common for cards that say things like "All ... have / gain / get ..." to not include themselves. Either by being a different type (see Glorious Anthem) or by explicitly stating "other" (see Shalai, Voice of Plenty). Thus, when a player (especially an experienced one) reads such an ability, they expect it to not affect that card itself (without characteristic changing shenanigans). Except on slivers.
– Arthur
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
The current template is easier for players to understand
From the horse's mouth:
What the point of making creature with "Trample. Other creatures you control have trample" when you can just put it as "áreatures you control have trample"?
The former has proven to be less confusing to a larger number of players. Remember, the number one goal of templating is comprehension, not brevity.
answered 17 hours ago
Arcanist Lupus
2,434519
The current template is easier for players to understand
From the horse's mouth:
What the point of making creature with "Trample. Other creatures you control have trample" when you can just put it as "áreatures you control have trample"?
The former has proven to be less confusing to a larger number of players. Remember, the number one goal of templating is comprehension, not brevity.
answered 17 hours ago
Arcanist Lupus
2,434519
edited 8 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
Arcanist Lupus
2,434519
answered 17 hours ago
Arcanist Lupus
2,434519
answered 17 hours ago
Arcanist Lupus
2,434519
2,434519
5
I think this is the more important point. Yes, there is a slight functional difference, but the current templating is driven by player understanding, not by edge cases where a creature's color or type is changed.
– BJ Myers
16 hours ago
I definitely think it's far more likely that they went with what they thought was clearest; not with trying to preserve certain interactions in certain rare cases. With the proposed shorter wording, newer players would ask if the ability applies to itself; and also players would be more likely to forget that a creature has an ability.
– GendoIkari
15 hours ago
While I do agree that it likely was done to provide a clearer understanding it should also be pointed out that there are some edge cases where the wording does make a difference.
– Joe W
13 hours ago
It's very common for cards that say things like "All ... have / gain / get ..." to not include themselves. Either by being a different type (see Glorious Anthem) or by explicitly stating "other" (see Shalai, Voice of Plenty). Thus, when a player (especially an experienced one) reads such an ability, they expect it to not affect that card itself (without characteristic changing shenanigans). Except on slivers.
– Arthur
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
5
I think this is the more important point. Yes, there is a slight functional difference, but the current templating is driven by player understanding, not by edge cases where a creature's color or type is changed.
– BJ Myers
16 hours ago
I definitely think it's far more likely that they went with what they thought was clearest; not with trying to preserve certain interactions in certain rare cases. With the proposed shorter wording, newer players would ask if the ability applies to itself; and also players would be more likely to forget that a creature has an ability.
– GendoIkari
15 hours ago
While I do agree that it likely was done to provide a clearer understanding it should also be pointed out that there are some edge cases where the wording does make a difference.
– Joe W
13 hours ago
It's very common for cards that say things like "All ... have / gain / get ..." to not include themselves. Either by being a different type (see Glorious Anthem) or by explicitly stating "other" (see Shalai, Voice of Plenty). Thus, when a player (especially an experienced one) reads such an ability, they expect it to not affect that card itself (without characteristic changing shenanigans). Except on slivers.
– Arthur
1 hour ago
5
5
I think this is the more important point. Yes, there is a slight functional difference, but the current templating is driven by player understanding, not by edge cases where a creature's color or type is changed.
– BJ Myers
16 hours ago
I think this is the more important point. Yes, there is a slight functional difference, but the current templating is driven by player understanding, not by edge cases where a creature's color or type is changed.
– BJ Myers
16 hours ago
I definitely think it's far more likely that they went with what they thought was clearest; not with trying to preserve certain interactions in certain rare cases. With the proposed shorter wording, newer players would ask if the ability applies to itself; and also players would be more likely to forget that a creature has an ability.
– GendoIkari
15 hours ago
I definitely think it's far more likely that they went with what they thought was clearest; not with trying to preserve certain interactions in certain rare cases. With the proposed shorter wording, newer players would ask if the ability applies to itself; and also players would be more likely to forget that a creature has an ability.
– GendoIkari
15 hours ago
While I do agree that it likely was done to provide a clearer understanding it should also be pointed out that there are some edge cases where the wording does make a difference.
– Joe W
13 hours ago
While I do agree that it likely was done to provide a clearer understanding it should also be pointed out that there are some edge cases where the wording does make a difference.
– Joe W
13 hours ago
It's very common for cards that say things like "All ... have / gain / get ..." to not include themselves. Either by being a different type (see Glorious Anthem) or by explicitly stating "other" (see Shalai, Voice of Plenty). Thus, when a player (especially an experienced one) reads such an ability, they expect it to not affect that card itself (without characteristic changing shenanigans). Except on slivers.
– Arthur
1 hour ago
It's very common for cards that say things like "All ... have / gain / get ..." to not include themselves. Either by being a different type (see Glorious Anthem) or by explicitly stating "other" (see Shalai, Voice of Plenty). Thus, when a player (especially an experienced one) reads such an ability, they expect it to not affect that card itself (without characteristic changing shenanigans). Except on slivers.
– Arthur
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
There are other cards that care about abilities on creatures that don't require them to be on the battlefield. For example Soulflayer has the ability (in addition to Delve):
If a creature card with flying was exiled with Soulflayer's delve ability, Soulflayer has flying. The same is true for first strike, double strike, deathtouch, haste, hexproof, indestructible, lifelink, reach, trample, and vigilance.
answered 18 hours ago
JonTheMon
9,14312049
6
In addition you can change a creatures colour through the use cards like [mtg:Purelace] and others. So the change in the OP would be a functional one.
– Malco
18 hours ago
Mwonvuli Beast Tracker (searching libraries for cards with specific abilities) is another great example.
– Alex P
16 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
There are other cards that care about abilities on creatures that don't require them to be on the battlefield. For example Soulflayer has the ability (in addition to Delve):
If a creature card with flying was exiled with Soulflayer's delve ability, Soulflayer has flying. The same is true for first strike, double strike, deathtouch, haste, hexproof, indestructible, lifelink, reach, trample, and vigilance.
answered 18 hours ago
JonTheMon
9,14312049
6
In addition you can change a creatures colour through the use cards like [mtg:Purelace] and others. So the change in the OP would be a functional one.
– Malco
18 hours ago
Mwonvuli Beast Tracker (searching libraries for cards with specific abilities) is another great example.
– Alex P
16 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
There are other cards that care about abilities on creatures that don't require them to be on the battlefield. For example Soulflayer has the ability (in addition to Delve):
If a creature card with flying was exiled with Soulflayer's delve ability, Soulflayer has flying. The same is true for first strike, double strike, deathtouch, haste, hexproof, indestructible, lifelink, reach, trample, and vigilance.
answered 18 hours ago
JonTheMon
9,14312049
There are other cards that care about abilities on creatures that don't require them to be on the battlefield. For example Soulflayer has the ability (in addition to Delve):
If a creature card with flying was exiled with Soulflayer's delve ability, Soulflayer has flying. The same is true for first strike, double strike, deathtouch, haste, hexproof, indestructible, lifelink, reach, trample, and vigilance.
answered 18 hours ago
JonTheMon
9,14312049
answered 18 hours ago
JonTheMon
9,14312049
answered 18 hours ago
JonTheMon
9,14312049
answered 18 hours ago
JonTheMon
9,14312049
9,14312049
6
In addition you can change a creatures colour through the use cards like [mtg:Purelace] and others. So the change in the OP would be a functional one.
– Malco
18 hours ago
Mwonvuli Beast Tracker (searching libraries for cards with specific abilities) is another great example.
– Alex P
16 hours ago
add a comment |Â
6
In addition you can change a creatures colour through the use cards like [mtg:Purelace] and others. So the change in the OP would be a functional one.
– Malco
18 hours ago
Mwonvuli Beast Tracker (searching libraries for cards with specific abilities) is another great example.
– Alex P
16 hours ago
6
6
In addition you can change a creatures colour through the use cards like [mtg:Purelace] and others. So the change in the OP would be a functional one.
– Malco
18 hours ago
In addition you can change a creatures colour through the use cards like [mtg:Purelace] and others. So the change in the OP would be a functional one.
– Malco
18 hours ago
Mwonvuli Beast Tracker (searching libraries for cards with specific abilities) is another great example.
– Alex P
16 hours ago
Mwonvuli Beast Tracker (searching libraries for cards with specific abilities) is another great example.
– Alex P
16 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
The proposed wordings are not functionally equivalent. If Tanglewurm's color is changed by some effect, the original wording means it would continue to have Intimidate, while the proposed "shortened" wording would not. Same deal with Petrifier and creature type.
answered 15 hours ago
Anon
811
New contributor
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
The proposed wordings are not functionally equivalent. If Tanglewurm's color is changed by some effect, the original wording means it would continue to have Intimidate, while the proposed "shortened" wording would not. Same deal with Petrifier and creature type.
answered 15 hours ago
Anon
811
New contributor
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
The proposed wordings are not functionally equivalent. If Tanglewurm's color is changed by some effect, the original wording means it would continue to have Intimidate, while the proposed "shortened" wording would not. Same deal with Petrifier and creature type.
answered 15 hours ago
Anon
811
New contributor
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The proposed wordings are not functionally equivalent. If Tanglewurm's color is changed by some effect, the original wording means it would continue to have Intimidate, while the proposed "shortened" wording would not. Same deal with Petrifier and creature type.
answered 15 hours ago
Anon
811
New contributor
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 15 hours ago
Anon
811
New contributor
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 15 hours ago
Anon
811
answered 15 hours ago
Anon
811
811
New contributor
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Anon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43671%2fwhy-do-cards-use-the-ability-other-creatures-you-control-have-ability-wo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
After thinking about it, I can understand the wording on Bellowing Tanglewurm, as the first clause includes the reminder text for the keyword ability
Intimidate.– Delfino
18 hours ago
2
Although the answer points out that there is a slight functional difference; I think the answer and discussion here about redundant text is relevant.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
There is basically only one case I can think of where those things are put together into a single line of text, and that's slivers
– Arthur
1 hour ago
@Arthur Also the Theros archetypes.
– doppelgreener
17 secs ago