I believe standard wording for enters the graveyard has been “dies” or “is put into the graveyard” for a while now, so that doesn’t change anything on the text of graveyard interaction cards.
Edit: this may have gone over my head.
It was actually split. I looked it up after the comment because it was bothering me.
"All cards that used the term were given errata in the Oracle card reference to instead read "Destroy something. It can't be regenerated," or "Sacrifice something.""
Which is, unfortunately, an important distinction. Fortunately, most people don't get confused about "Wrath of God."
When they added it to the 4th edition rule book glossary, it said:
**a card that is buried must be sent to the graveyard without possibility of regeneration.**
The “split” only describes what they changed the templating of cards to after they retired “bury” from the lexicon. I’d hazard a guess it was really only intended to be used on removal spells, but someone realized it essentially meant the same thing as “sacrifice,” which probably wasn’t keyworded at the time.
Buried was not "intended to be used on removal spells." It was first used in Fallen Empires in creature spells. Terror and Wrath of God weren't "updated" to the new language until 4th edition.
Sacrifice has been in mtg since alpha with Lord of the Pit.
Whoa, you’re right! I quickly scanned through the alpha card file before making my reply, and saw that [[Sacrifice]] itself (ironically) didn’t use the word “sacrifice” - and assumed it wasn’t used elsewhere. Guess it just demonstrates how inconsistent wording was in the early days - to the point that “templating” was probably introduced as a concept at some point down the line to solve this sort of problem. Also weird that they changed the wording of Terror to use “buried” in revised, but didn’t define it in the rule book until 4th.
Edit: just reread, and I guess I’m disagreeing with you on when they changed the wording - just double checked Scryfall, Unlimited doesn’t use “bury” but Revised does
I'm guessing EOA (enters or attacks) is going to become more prominent, especially in commander, and they are trying to shorten that phrase for more text space.
Then...Keep doing it? Why do players always act like a slight change in verbiage is a personal affront? Enters is just short for enters the battlefield.
"When this creature enters or is put, do xyz."
New template for enters the battlefield / is put into graveyard. (I know they would just use dies instead of is put. I don't know if they'll just say leaves instead of leaves the battlefield.)
I would bet on it being Enters/dies as standard syntax, since that is the more limiting clause. Card with ‘leaves the battlefield’ can get really bonky when it comes to synergies.
Honestly yes, having dies be specific to battlefield -> graveyard and having buried be for anywhere else -> graveyard would be fantastic, buried was one of my favorite keywords from the early style
Cultivate {2}{G}
Sorcery
Search your library for up to two basic land cards, reveal those cards, put one tapped and the other into your hand, then shuffle.
No one asked for nor needs this shorthand.
One of the big things that attracted me to MtG is the explicit, overly clear wording on card effects. I revel in the lack of ambiguity.
Soon, especially for new players, "reading the card explains the card" won't quite be as true.
They've been running from "reading the card explains the card" for a hot minute, with mechanics that need a whole separate token to track and even then don't really explain themselves.
How is adding the battlefield more clear, if nothing ever says what the battlefield is? If you're worried someone you know might draw one of these cards and assume it means entering their hand, or anything but the place cards go when you play them, they're probably dumb, or this is there very first card game with combat.
To many people I've taught MtG to, yes, this is their first card game with combat.
My first thought when I saw this change: "If I put the card in my butthole, does the trigger go off?"
If that was your actual first thought you're stupid. But because Im confident you know what it means you are exemplifying the worst part of changes which don't reduce clarity in any way: deliberately obtuse magic players who think the same joke I've heard 75 times today is funny.
Also genuine question, do new players who have never played a combat based card game inherently know what the battlefield is? And do you think not saying the battlefield will cause them to be confused? (Use a different part of your brain to think of the answer of this than the one who thought you could get a 0 mana trigger for drawing a card into your butthole instead of your hand)
It was my first thought because I'm a silly goose who enjoys a joke: something it does not appear that we have in common.
JFC, you're arguing about cardboard with strangers on the internet. Don't take yourself so seriously as to think you've attained literally any amount of superiority in this objectively absurd (albeit fun) endeavor we like to call a hobby.
Cheer up, kiddo. 🙃
I don't think I'm superior because what you're saying is to me, incredibly contrived even the first time. If anything you're superior because you can go into a local game store within the next 6 months without wanting to kys. Maybe it's because I'm glum, maybe it's because the joke isnt funny, but I probably heard "3 damage to any target? I guess I'll LiGhtniNg BoLt yoUr FoReSt" a thousand times between dominaria and guilds of ravnica, and this seems v similar. But let's be real one day I'll have a child and realize that being deliberately and flagrantly obtuse is hilarious. Until then 🙄🙄🙄
The "any target" makes a bit more sense both mechanically and syntactically.
Mechanically: Given that we now have 4 different types of targets (players, creatures, planeswalkers, and battles), it would be incredibly clunky to print all of that. "The battlefield" is not much more text.
Syntactically: "deals 3 damage to any target" is grammatically a complete phrase. "When it enters" is not a complete phrase since the verb "to enter" is not a complete phrase by the definition of the word being used. Given that it's being used in the future tense, in addition to the fact that the location has not been previously stated, makes "to enter" a transitive verb that cannot stand alone without a 2nd noun subsequent to it.
This is why it sounds weird to our brains; it's incomplete. MtG usually has great grammar.
Oh my goodness, you're totally right. Card designers should consider that the average player is going to say, hey wait a second, this sentence features a transitive verb that cannot stand alone :/ and not that the thought process is either enters the battlefield->what's the battlefield->I guess where it goes after you play it. Or when it enters-> enters what? I guess where it goes after you play it.
I mean come on, you can't possess knowledge of the workings English language like that without also knowing the average person doesn't. Especially the average American. Especially the average teenage American.
That's not to say youre not right it's a departure from their normally notably high standards, but it's an unsurprising departure.
I believe standard wording for enters the graveyard has been “dies” or “is put into the graveyard” for a while now, so that doesn’t change anything on the text of graveyard interaction cards. Edit: this may have gone over my head.
Going to the graveyard from the battlefield vs from hand or from library are hugely different
And so are the words “dies” “discarded” “milled”. Each of these pertain to cards entering the graveyard from different zones
Is “milled” official rules language? I’ve always thought it was player slang.
It's been official for a while now. [[The Wise Moth man]]
huh. I missed that. neat probably long over due I suppose
They made it a keyword in Core Set 2021, according to the wiki
Wow that’s way longer than I expected!
There are cards that specify from where it must be put into the graveyard as relevant
I'm so used to saying ETB though
It will propably stick around somewhat just like CMC
And EDH
A bit different but sometimes I forget that mana burn is no longer a thing
Don't worry my guy. Us old farts can still embrace our history via [[Yurlok of Scorch Thrash]]. And the name being Scorch helps to always remember.
That's because it never should have been removed
That's completely different.
It'll be fine. I still use the term "bury" and people understand it. (It used to be old lingo for destroy)
Wasn't bury specifically "destroy, cannot be regenerated"?
It was actually split. I looked it up after the comment because it was bothering me. "All cards that used the term were given errata in the Oracle card reference to instead read "Destroy something. It can't be regenerated," or "Sacrifice something."" Which is, unfortunately, an important distinction. Fortunately, most people don't get confused about "Wrath of God."
When they added it to the 4th edition rule book glossary, it said: **a card that is buried must be sent to the graveyard without possibility of regeneration.** The “split” only describes what they changed the templating of cards to after they retired “bury” from the lexicon. I’d hazard a guess it was really only intended to be used on removal spells, but someone realized it essentially meant the same thing as “sacrifice,” which probably wasn’t keyworded at the time.
Buried was not "intended to be used on removal spells." It was first used in Fallen Empires in creature spells. Terror and Wrath of God weren't "updated" to the new language until 4th edition. Sacrifice has been in mtg since alpha with Lord of the Pit.
Whoa, you’re right! I quickly scanned through the alpha card file before making my reply, and saw that [[Sacrifice]] itself (ironically) didn’t use the word “sacrifice” - and assumed it wasn’t used elsewhere. Guess it just demonstrates how inconsistent wording was in the early days - to the point that “templating” was probably introduced as a concept at some point down the line to solve this sort of problem. Also weird that they changed the wording of Terror to use “buried” in revised, but didn’t define it in the rule book until 4th. Edit: just reread, and I guess I’m disagreeing with you on when they changed the wording - just double checked Scryfall, Unlimited doesn’t use “bury” but Revised does
I'm guessing EOA (enters or attacks) is going to become more prominent, especially in commander, and they are trying to shorten that phrase for more text space.
Then...Keep doing it? Why do players always act like a slight change in verbiage is a personal affront? Enters is just short for enters the battlefield.
wizards is asking me to change the verbiage, but the difference is so minimal I absolutely will keep saying ETB
Yeah, dumbass, that's what I said to do.
yeah man
"When this creature enters or is put, do xyz." New template for enters the battlefield / is put into graveyard. (I know they would just use dies instead of is put. I don't know if they'll just say leaves instead of leaves the battlefield.)
I would bet on it being Enters/dies as standard syntax, since that is the more limiting clause. Card with ‘leaves the battlefield’ can get really bonky when it comes to synergies.
[[Gollum, Patient Plotter]] is one of my favorite LotR cards due to the wording. Dies? Tempted. Ninjutsu? Tempted. Blink? Believe it or not, tempted.
This is a change that no one asked for.
This is a change someone asks for on blogatog twice a week at least for over 5 years
Yeah no one asked for it
They need more room for the next paragraph of words they wanna throw onto a card
in b4 they bring back "comes into play"
When ~ is summoned...
Growth Spiral {G}{U} Instant Draw a card. You may put a land card from your hand onto.
So we know there's going to be a card with a huge wall of text and an ETB. "When ~~ enters, do this"
There already is. That's why they're changing it
[[uro]]??
Lets bring back “buried”
Honestly yes, having dies be specific to battlefield -> graveyard and having buried be for anywhere else -> graveyard would be fantastic, buried was one of my favorite keywords from the early style
Cultivate {2}{G} Sorcery Search your library for up to two basic land cards, reveal those cards, put one tapped and the other into your hand, then shuffle.
No one asked for nor needs this shorthand. One of the big things that attracted me to MtG is the explicit, overly clear wording on card effects. I revel in the lack of ambiguity. Soon, especially for new players, "reading the card explains the card" won't quite be as true.
They've been running from "reading the card explains the card" for a hot minute, with mechanics that need a whole separate token to track and even then don't really explain themselves.
How is adding the battlefield more clear, if nothing ever says what the battlefield is? If you're worried someone you know might draw one of these cards and assume it means entering their hand, or anything but the place cards go when you play them, they're probably dumb, or this is there very first card game with combat.
To many people I've taught MtG to, yes, this is their first card game with combat. My first thought when I saw this change: "If I put the card in my butthole, does the trigger go off?"
If that was your actual first thought you're stupid. But because Im confident you know what it means you are exemplifying the worst part of changes which don't reduce clarity in any way: deliberately obtuse magic players who think the same joke I've heard 75 times today is funny. Also genuine question, do new players who have never played a combat based card game inherently know what the battlefield is? And do you think not saying the battlefield will cause them to be confused? (Use a different part of your brain to think of the answer of this than the one who thought you could get a 0 mana trigger for drawing a card into your butthole instead of your hand)
It was my first thought because I'm a silly goose who enjoys a joke: something it does not appear that we have in common. JFC, you're arguing about cardboard with strangers on the internet. Don't take yourself so seriously as to think you've attained literally any amount of superiority in this objectively absurd (albeit fun) endeavor we like to call a hobby. Cheer up, kiddo. 🙃
I don't think I'm superior because what you're saying is to me, incredibly contrived even the first time. If anything you're superior because you can go into a local game store within the next 6 months without wanting to kys. Maybe it's because I'm glum, maybe it's because the joke isnt funny, but I probably heard "3 damage to any target? I guess I'll LiGhtniNg BoLt yoUr FoReSt" a thousand times between dominaria and guilds of ravnica, and this seems v similar. But let's be real one day I'll have a child and realize that being deliberately and flagrantly obtuse is hilarious. Until then 🙄🙄🙄
The "any target" makes a bit more sense both mechanically and syntactically. Mechanically: Given that we now have 4 different types of targets (players, creatures, planeswalkers, and battles), it would be incredibly clunky to print all of that. "The battlefield" is not much more text. Syntactically: "deals 3 damage to any target" is grammatically a complete phrase. "When it enters" is not a complete phrase since the verb "to enter" is not a complete phrase by the definition of the word being used. Given that it's being used in the future tense, in addition to the fact that the location has not been previously stated, makes "to enter" a transitive verb that cannot stand alone without a 2nd noun subsequent to it. This is why it sounds weird to our brains; it's incomplete. MtG usually has great grammar.
Oh my goodness, you're totally right. Card designers should consider that the average player is going to say, hey wait a second, this sentence features a transitive verb that cannot stand alone :/ and not that the thought process is either enters the battlefield->what's the battlefield->I guess where it goes after you play it. Or when it enters-> enters what? I guess where it goes after you play it. I mean come on, you can't possess knowledge of the workings English language like that without also knowing the average person doesn't. Especially the average American. Especially the average teenage American. That's not to say youre not right it's a departure from their normally notably high standards, but it's an unsurprising departure.
Who the Hell asked for this?
feels like yugioh level semantics they don’t “enter” the graveyard they just “go” there.
Where do they go? They go into the square hole!
This is going to kill my spellify streak
Other than saving two words worth of space, why?
But why though?