Voja (Support, Wolf) isn't a wolf?

[Mobyslick]

I was playing an event match with one of the bonus goals being “Summon 2 or more Wolves or Werewolves”. I threw together a deck based on Chord of Calling and Tolsimir Wolfblood, figuring his Voja support qualifies as a wolf since it actually tells you in the Voja popup that it is a wolf. Well, they don’t qualify… so I was unable to meet that goal.

So now it’s simply a case of “ohh, they mean creatures only… hmmk I know for next time”. But is a Wolf a Wolf or not? Because I think it should be. And I think if you watch the goal to only trigger based on creatures, you need to specify that in the goal description. “Summon 2 or more Wolf or Werewolf Creatures”. There’s fixed it for ya

[wereotter]

Summon already implies creatures. Supports are cast, creatures are summoned.

[Laeuftbeidir]

@wereotter

Summon already implies creatures. Supports are cast, creatures are summoned.

But doesn’t the rare ixalan support quality as vehicle after players basically posted the same thing about it?

[wereotter]

@Laeuftbeidir

@wereotter

Summon already implies creatures. Supports are cast, creatures are summoned.

But doesn’t the rare ixalan support quality as vehicle after players basically posted the same thing about it?

I haven’t noticed… though it’s also worth considering Voja is a token created by a creature and as such isn’t cast regardless.

[Tremayne]

Okay, I’ll be the rule lawyer on this and post at length what the rules clearly states on this issue, might even go a little bit beyond the issue at times but everyone will not be in doubt what the rules say.

here we go… oooh wait I got nothing.

[starfall]

@wereotter

Summon already implies creatures. Supports are cast, creatures are summoned.

I disagree. It’s also important to determine whether supports are cast from hand, or whether they are “summoned” into play (e.g.with Whir of Invention), as for the sake of “Play +/- X Supports” objectives.

[starfall]

@Mobyslick

I was playing an event match with one of the bonus goals being “Summon 2 or more Wolves or Werewolves”. I threw together a deck based on Chord of Calling and Tolsimir Wolfblood, figuring his Voja support qualifies as a wolf since it actually tells you in the Voja popup that it is a wolf. Well, they don’t qualify… so I was unable to meet that goal.

So now it’s simply a case of “ohh, they mean creatures only… hmmk I know for next time”. But is a Wolf a Wolf or not? Because I think it should be. And I think if you watch the goal to only trigger based on creatures, you need to specify that in the goal description. “Summon 2 or more Wolf or Werewolf Creatures”. There’s fixed it for ya

Giving creature types to non-creature objects sets a dangerous precedent, and causes rules complications, and therefore complications in the code. WOTC tried this in paper with the ‘Tribal’ card type, and it was abandoned after 2 blocks.

Here’s Mark Rosewater explaining why:

From [https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/scary-stories-part-1-2011-09-19]:

Let me answer the question I keep getting on this card [Moan of the Unhallowed]. The card makes Zombies. Why isn’t it a tribal sorcery – Zombie? The answer is because we decided not to use tribal (I’m talking about the card type here) in Innistrad. But if a set with a strong tribal subtheme doesn’t use it, when would it ever get used? The answer is never. Yes, I am announcing the probable death knell of the tribal card type. (I could imagine a specific use, like the Eldrazi spells in Rise, that might pull it out of mothballs.)

So what happened? Let’s flashback to Innistrad design. As I was doing a set with a tribal theme, I used the tribal card type wherever I could. Moan of the Unhallowed, for example, was a tribal sorcery – Zombie. The problem was that it’s very hard to draw the line. If a set uses tribal then it wants to go on any card that has a definable flavor. As this set is top-down, that meant that a majority of the noncreature cards were using the tribal card type.

The end result was that the cards were getting wordier but it seldom mattered. Most tribal (theme) cards cared about creatures and so weren’t applicable to be tribal (type) cards. The one big exception was Zombies as there are multiple ways to get Zombie cards out of the graveyard, thus I believe the reason that I keep getting asked the question on this card.

We playtested with tribal, and I kept getting the same note that it seldom seemed to matter. In the end, we made the call that it wasn’t adding enough to the game play to offset its inclusion, which both made the cards wordier and caused more confusion.

MTGPQ already contains inconsistencies in this matter: Dragon Egg is a support which (after a condition is met) is destroyed and creates a Dragon token; it itself is a Dragon. Cradle of the Accursed is a support which (after a condition is met) is destroyed and creates a Zombie token; it itself is not a Zombie.

And then further questions suggest themselves. Should Baffling End be a Dinosaur? Hixus was a Human Soldier in paper, should it have those creature types in MTGPQ?

I don’t think Tribal is a very good idea. We can clearly see, in the latest update, the code of the game taking longer to run as it is (forums.505go.com/discussion/77028/games-taking-longer-to-start).

[wereotter]

@starfall

@wereotter

Summon already implies creatures. Supports are cast, creatures are summoned.

I disagree. It’s also important to determine whether supports are cast from hand, or whether they are “summoned” into play (e.g.with Whir of Invention), as for the sake of “Play +/- X Supports” objectives.

Since you referenced Maro on this. Ask yourself. When was the last time in paper magic you summoned an aura or a mana rock? Or even summoned a token?

Summon isn’t really used as a term anymore in game, but was used for non-token creatures. Tokens are “created” rather than summoned.

[starfall]

@wereotter

@starfall

@wereotter

Summon already implies creatures. Supports are cast, creatures are summoned.

I disagree. It’s also important to determine whether supports are cast from hand, or whether they are “summoned” into play (e.g.with Whir of Invention), as for the sake of “Play +/- X Supports” objectives.

Since you referenced Maro on this. Ask yourself. When was the last time in paper magic you summoned an aura or a mana rock? Or even summoned a token?

Summon isn’t really used as a term anymore in game, but was used for non-token creatures. Tokens are “created” rather than summoned.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.

“Summon” used to be what they called creature spells in paper mtg, but that’s not what I’m referencing at all.

I’m referencing the MTGPQ definition of the word “summon”, which is, “to put something into play, not necessarily casting it from your hand”. It is possible to “summon” supports in MTGPQ (e.g. with Whir of Invention, or Tezz1’s second ability). If we limit the terms “summon” and “cast” to refer only to creatures, then we will continue to experience confusion over support based objectives. Why not just extend the definitions of “summon” and “cast” to cover supports as well?