Talk:List of Magic: The Gathering keywords

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Threshold

With the release of Time Spiral, Threshold became an ability word with no meaning attached to it. It denotes cards with extra abilities if a player has seven or more cards in his graveyard. How can it have no meaning, and also denote cards with extra abilities? 76.168.54.146 15:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a marker. It tells you what cards have a specific ability, but it doesn't have any inherent abilities itself. In other words, it's now just like Channel, Sweep, Radiance, and Hellbent. --Grev 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splice

I'm sure that splicing only requires you to reveal the card you are splicing and it remains in your hand. Shouldn't there be a note that it is no discarded as this can cause confusion?

Correct me if I'm wrong. ...in America! 10:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discontinued or otherwise redacted keywords

After reading this list I noticed that the since-removed "landhome" keyword is not mentioned. While it isn't in current use, I feel it should be mentioned in the article. I'll be adding a small "Discontinued keywords" section at the bottom with an landhome entry. (As far as I know that is the only discontinued keyword ability) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I think I will instead add a "Fifth Edition" section, as that is the set in which it first appeared. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
D'oh, make that Mirage. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What About?...

I have recently found cards that mention the keyword "substance". Can anyone explain it and maybe include it in the article.

It's only on errated cards from Mirage, Urza's Saga, Visions, and Alliances. It appears that the errated use "substance" to refer to a state where the card is only in play for a single turn (they all say, "When <cardname> loses substance, (do something that takes <cardname> out of play)." (except Waylay, which puts things into play with sustance). I am submitting a question to Ask Wizards about the change. I think it would be best to wait for an answer before posting a section. --Lifebaka 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It was added due to timing troubles. I found a source, and will add it hopefully soon. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re nonblack fear

The article currently lists only two nonblack creatures with fear, but shouldn't it also include artifact creatures like Dross Golem?

It doesn't really need to be an exhaustive list of them; just indicating that they exist is a good thing, and maybe an example or two. More than that is unnecessary. Titanium Dragon 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspend

I fixed an ambiguity in the description of Suspend: the time counter "countdown" to free play from outside the game applies regardless of how the card was "suspended" — i.e., not just when the suspend ability is used. The reminder text on cards confuses this issue: it looks like the last two sentences apply only if the "Suspend N — (cost)" ability is activated, but they in fact apply regardless of how the card was removed from the game with time counters on it (or how any additional time counters got there). (E.g. "Reality Strobe"). — Aldaron • T/C 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's that much of an ambiguity; that you can do one thing that leads to other things being done doesn't mean those other things can't be done without the first thing. See where I'm going? :D But seriously, the reason I moved it back up is because it explains what the N is in the text of the card. -- Grev 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're doing, but disagree. You're assuming a lot in your version. Admittedly, most experienced players assume the same thing, so I don't think those assumptions lead to much confusion or ambiguity in practice. But, as written, this section does not really explain suspend very well. — Aldaron • T/C 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if we can get any more specific without becoming an instruction manual, though. -- Grev 04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the deepest level of detail we can get into is enough for someone to understand what suspend is. That would be basically what the reminder text says. The "countdown" ability is separate from the ability that removed the card in the first place (which is why cards like Jhoira work), but something like that is a more specific rules question, which should not be covered here. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Sight

I think the section on Future Sight should better cover the concept of the set which had numerous keywords as part of the design. I'm a bit too tired to work on it more fully, but perhaps someone will improve the start I made. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rearrangement

I'm thinking about rearranging this whole article into something that makes a little more sense: namely, putting all the keywords in alphabetical order. Alternately, I could put the common keywords/keyword actions in a section at the top, and the rest below. But I don't like the list-by-set organization that exists now and makes it extremely difficult to find a keyword if you don't know what set it originated from. Any thoughts before I do this? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If somebody wish to search a keyword from a specific set, he must go to that set's page. The timeline is less important here than the organization of a alphabetical order.
Yes, divide common keywords, kw actions, and the rest. For "common", read "those in 10th Edition" ;^) 200.255.9.38 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a (semi-)alphabetical listing is more proper for a page like this. I wouldn't divide keyword actions into their own section - rather, it I feel it should be common keywords (10th Ed keywords plus perhaps the confirmed "new evergreen" deathtouch), then block, set, and defunct/obsolete (banding/landhome) keywords, and finally Type/Supertype/Subtype mechanics (Tribal/Snow/Aura) which aren't quite keywords (if those belong in this article at all). 84.177.165.203 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have done just this, except for the various types. Subtypes are not supposed to have rules baggage (which is why they keyworded defender), and I don't think Tribal has a place here, but we could stand to put something in about basic, legendary, and snow. And maybe we should put a place for Unglued/Unhinged keywords? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Unglued had ANY keyword? I record only Super Haste and Gotcha! (actually an ability word), from Unhinged. A section only for these two? Change the Discontinued Keywords section to englobe these two also. Wildie 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
(Oh, hello, I was that .9.38 IP)
The keywords I find unique to the Unglued/Unhinged sets are Denimwalk, Super Haste, and Gotcha. While they're never going to get printed in a non-Un-set, there haven't been specific announcements saying they're not coming back (such as Phasing, which is probably not returning, but not officially retired, while we know Banding and Bands with Other are not returning). I'd either put them in their own section after the Discontinued, or in a subsection of the Discontinued (and after them). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Fogey & Bands With Other

For "bands with other", it is said that only Wolves-of-the-Hunt natively have it. What about Old Fogey (Unhinged)? 99.245.233.69 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction mentions that cards from the "Un-" sets aren't included in this list, meaning Unglued and Unhinged. Makes sense, since they're really joke expansions. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 04:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Functionally identical?

Minor quibble (and I'll fix it after I post this): "Horsemanship is functionally identical to flying." No, it's not. If it were, then creatures with Horsemanship would only be able to be blocked by creatures with flying. Horsemanship is formally similar to flying. Applejuicefool 03:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Being "functionally identical" means that both habilites work in a identical way (ok, there is no "reach" for horsemanship, but we can ignore this). I see no implication of interaction between the abilities in the setence.
Creatures with X can only be blocked by other creatures with X. X can be either flying OR (and I mean a exclusive "or") horsemanship. X must be the same in both places. That's what the setence clearly says - for me, at least. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 11:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not buying it. By setting up a form, such as "Creatures with X can only be blocked by other creatures with X" indicates that you're talking about formal similarity, not functional identicality. By saying something is functionally identical, you're saying they work exactly the same. In other words, "Creatures with X can only be blocked by creatures with flying" is functionally identical to "Creatures with Y can only be blocked by creatures with flying." Applejuicefool 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think "formally" similar is a bit awkward, so I'm removing just that word. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can see where you're coming from, but just saying that Flying and Horsemanship are "similar" doesn't tell the whole story. What about "similar in form"? I'll try out that one. Applejuicefool 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, after looking at your wording (I came here first!), I like it just the way you have it. Good job! Applejuicefool 16:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Applejuicefool, I just think "Formally similarity" is so... formal for talk about abilities rules of a game. This is not a serious and deep discussion about logic.
Two habilities who say Creatures with this ability can only be blocked with other creatures who also have this ability have identical functions to me, not just the form. The function is restrict the blocks to who also have it.
But, I think this is only rant, Temporarily Insane's version is good enough to me, better than the previous versions, and I can't think nothing in nothing superior. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
But (and I'm not looking at a card, just going from memory) they don't say that! Flying says "This creature may only be blocked by creatures with flying" not "This creature may only be blocked by creatures with this ability". Applejuicefool 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
But this is not the deffinition of the hability, is the reminder text of the card. Your quote is explaining the creature, not the ability.
This creature can only be blocked by creatures with flying. Why? Because it has flying.
This creature can only be blocked by creatures with horsemanship. Why? Because it has horsemanship.
You will not find the concept of the keyword in a card, just a brief description of what the creature can do for having that keyword - or nothing. And this is the objective of we having keywords, by the way.
Without using this "short name", how you would write the ability? I mean, if we don't had the keyword, just a ability shared by a lot of creatures, how it would be wrote?
Now, see has both flying and horsemanship would be wrote in the same way, with no way of telling the difference. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thinking better... look, I don't know what the words mean for you, but for me, "function" is not the same as "what the rules says precisely", it is "how it really works". And the function of both abilities is to make that only creatures with said ability may block each other. Ergo, the functions of the abilities are identical.
If "the functions of the abilities are identical" is not other way of saying that "this ability is functionally identical to this other", I would be glad if you could point my semantical error. Thanks. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to continue this discussion, the start of school delayed me.

Here's a quote from the Magic: The Gathering rules: "A creature with flying can’t be blocked by creatures without flying. Flying creatures can block other creatures with flying. They can also "swoop down" and block creatures without flying."

You say that "...'function' is not the same as 'what the rules says precisely', it is 'how it really works'...". This seems to prove my point! Flying "really works": Creatures with Flying can block other creatures with Flying, creatures without Flying cannot block creatures with Flying. If, somehow through an ability not yet in the game, the *name* of the Flying ability were to change to, say, "Jumping Really High" without changing its functionality, then creatures with "Jumping Really High" would be unblockable to creatures which do not have *Flying,* not creatures which do not have Jumping Really High. The function of Flying (separate from its name) is to allow creatures with that ability to avoid being blocked by creatures which do not have Flying. The functionality is independent of the ability's name. Applejuicefool 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought my edit resolved this argument. In any case, the abilities really aren't exactly similar: Flying creatures can be blocked by creatures with Flying and/or Reach, an ability which does nothing (but is referenced by Flying). There is no similar ability "Trip" for Horsemanship. I have made a note of this on the article. I really don't think semantics are something to get worked up about. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
See, there's where we disagree. Semantics is a fine thing to get worked up about. Applejuicefool 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)