You didn't "debunk" anything. If someone says that one ability is another ability with a name change, saying that a third ability reacts differently due only to the name is not a counterargument.
Here are the "two" abilities, with only the reminder reference to reach removed.
702.30. Horsemanship
702.30a Horsemanship is an evasion ability.
702.30b A creature with horsemanship can’t be blocked by creatures without horsemanship. A creature with horsemanship can block a creature with or without horsemanship. (See rule 509, “Declare Blockers Step.”)
702.30c Multiple instances of horsemanship on the same creature are redundant.
702.9. Flying
702.9a Flying is an evasion ability.
702.9b A creature with flying can't be blocked except by creatures with flying . A creature with flying can block a creature with or without flying. (See rule 509, “Declare Blockers Step.”)
702.9c Multiple instances of flying on the same creature are redundant.
Do you notice that if you simply replaced the word flying with horsemanship, or vice versa, the rules text is identical?
That is literally a renamed ability. Full stop. The only reason it has any interesting interactions is that certain other abilities reference flying by it's name.
How other cards and abilities interact with Flying and/or Horsemanship has no bearing on how Flying and Horsemanship work. Basically both of these abilities read "Creatures with 'THIS ABILITY' can only be blocked by other creatures with 'THIS ABILITY'."
The fact that there are other cards and abilities that can override that rule is due to those other cards and abilities - not due to anything inherent to Flying or Horsemanship.
Thanks for reading! I also have most of the cards for Naya and might play that deck because there's nothing better. Control decks are usually satisfying for me but BUG mirrors have to feel miserable, so I would rather avoid them. What do you think about Patrick's Junk vs. BUG? I believe he got lucky and that match-up is not very good...
Thanks for the videos! I agree that G/B was the deck there. I think Sage is not very good, especially with very few heroic enablers. That pool certainly left something to be desired.
Nice article. I've moved from Junk Dredge/Reanimator to RG Elspeth (still two cards short of the 75 though). I wanted to put together Chapin's deck, but my collection was leaning more heavily toward the Naya build. In testing, I've found it to be a pretty good matchup against BUG Control. Most of my losses have been to Mono Red with a nut draw. I think with the BNG version of the Junk Deck out of the fold, RG Elspeth is probably the #2 deck in meta, maybe behind Junk Rares.
Not sure why you are holding on to this so much.
Not held enough as a child? Held too much?
Reach = the ability to block flyers while not actually having the flying ability is a legitimate argument.
Unfortunately (for you) it does not fit your agenda.
Nice article. Cost keeps me from trying much constructed anymore, but articles like this give me hope.
So glad you kept the budget theme when you made some changes.
That's only because Horsemanship was from a special set containing no reach. The cards were considered to be their own sub game, and not even legal for tournament play for years after release.
Reach is a particularly bad example, because it relies purely on the name, and the whole point is that Horsemanship is Flying with a name change.
Spiders don't block creatures with horsemanship because it's flying renamed, and they look for the name, not the ability.
A good indicator on this point is to look at the abilities, and cards that interact with the abilities. When you can change the name of the ability, and nothing mechanical changes, you don't have a new mechanic.
Rolling Earthquake killing creatures with flying is another one, that's not an intended interaction, just an artifact of the kludge they used to implement flying in this set. This should be clear by the fact that the card is just Earthquake with Flying changed to Horsemanship. It's rather telling that these cards were not considered to be tournament legal for years after their release, and at the time they became legal, almost had horsemanship replaced with flying as an errata. If Horsemanship was a real mechanic in and of itself, that wouldn't even have been a point of debate.
I also assumed that horsemanship returning was a joke reference in this podcast, but it seems like I cant look at any MTG forum without hearing people wish it would come back. why, I can't imagine.
Horsemanship is not flying with a new name. It's just a thematic form of evasion in much the same way that Shadow is not "flying renamed."
I really don't see them using it again, but if they were going to then the set coming up this fall looks like it would be a good place to plug it in. As it is, I'm not holding my breath expecting it.
That's a pretty fancy hat. In fact I didn't bother mentioning one of the other advantages of horsemanship in legacy is that Rolling Earthquake exists as a pure board wipe only for their guys. True enough it is a niche spell at that but still a good thing to be aware of. Also spiders don't block creatures with Horsemanship.
As for Trip Wire/Wing Snare both are decidedly poor cards but Wing Snare at least has the advantage of having lots of fairly common targets. Trip Wire is only useful and marginal at that when you KNOW your opponent has horsemanship creatures. (Awkward phrasing that, I know. :))
I did and do agree on the lack of inspiration (hence my comment about the time period it was designed in) in the mechanics of horsemanship (and much of the Rot3k set despite such a richly flavored source material to select from), but that doesn't make me love it less. I agree that the blockable only by guys with horses flavor is just plain silly. Even in ancient warfare there were other means of dealing with horse mounted troops (tripwires not withstanding. :p; Pikes, Ditches, later on Artillery, Elephants... etc)
And for the most part I think we are talking the same points from only slightly different angles. I don't really expect Horsemanship to make a return and neither does Josh I bet. He has a wry sense of humor (read: sarcasm) that should be discernible from his tone but even if it isn't take it from me. He was joking.
And so was I in my original post though I do love using horsemanship at times to screw with opponents, precisely because it is not flying. It has a fancy hat and that makes all the difference. :D
You are right, two a turn. I'm not saying it's not a clock, but you can't do anything really broken with something that's clearly been designed to keep you from going infinite on the spot in any way.
It's flying renamed due to theme reasons, nothing more. It's not even just the mechanic, it's the whole set of cards around it.
Have you ever looked at the cards with horsemanship on them?
Borrowing the East Wind is Hurricane for one extra G.
Riding Red Hare is Angelic Blessing.
Rolling Earthquake is Earthquake.
Trip Wire is Wing Snare.
Horsemanship is not some clever new form of evasion, it's just flying with a hat on it so that it could go in a beginner set where flying didn't fit the theme. The whole reason it is just flying renamed and not it's own real mechanic is that the set was mostly just meant to teach new players the fundamentals of how to play Magic, not an expert set designed to keep experienced players engaged.
It was such a beginner focused set that it included only creatures, sorceries, and lands. The cards weren't even legal for tournament play until 6 years after their release, and when they became legal, almost got errated to just have flying. According to their statement about it, the only reason Wizards didn't make the change was due to the cards with Horsemanship being rare and not good enough to see vintage play for the most part anyway. Wizards has said that Horsemanship is unlikely to ever be seen again.
Even if you want to ignore all that, Horsemanship is simply a crappy mechanic lacking any originality or flavor in and of itself, and there is no compelling reason to ever bring it back. Almost any imagined mechanic you care to explore would offer a more flavorful representation of riding horseback than "I can only be blocked by another guy with a horse and nothing else in the world".
Horsemanship is NOT a functional reprint of Flying. If it was it would be far more likely to return. As it stands it is yet another form of evasion and one that is as hard to block as shadow. I agree that it is unlikely at best. I also think Flanking and Bushido are unlikely for similar reasons.
Horsemanship as flavor could have been done better but keeping in mind that a) the source material makes a huge deal of horses and horsemanship they needed something for it and b) the time the set was developed was a dark ages of design for M:TG (Portal 1, Starter, etc.)
Personally I love horsemanship because it gives an interesting card Riding the Dilu Horse a way to shine (though mostly in the horrible limited environment of Masters Edition). Not many cards give a permanent boost as a sorcery/instant. So that's why I am with Josh on this one. But seriously I'd like to see something *GOOD* return instead.
You didn't "debunk" anything. If someone says that one ability is another ability with a name change, saying that a third ability reacts differently due only to the name is not a counterargument.
Here are the "two" abilities, with only the reminder reference to reach removed.
702.30. Horsemanship
702.30a Horsemanship is an evasion ability.
702.30b A creature with horsemanship can’t be blocked by creatures without horsemanship. A creature with horsemanship can block a creature with or without horsemanship. (See rule 509, “Declare Blockers Step.”)
702.30c Multiple instances of horsemanship on the same creature are redundant.
702.9. Flying
702.9a Flying is an evasion ability.
702.9b A creature with flying can't be blocked except by creatures with flying . A creature with flying can block a creature with or without flying. (See rule 509, “Declare Blockers Step.”)
702.9c Multiple instances of flying on the same creature are redundant.
Do you notice that if you simply replaced the word flying with horsemanship, or vice versa, the rules text is identical?
That is literally a renamed ability. Full stop. The only reason it has any interesting interactions is that certain other abilities reference flying by it's name.
How other cards and abilities interact with Flying and/or Horsemanship has no bearing on how Flying and Horsemanship work. Basically both of these abilities read "Creatures with 'THIS ABILITY' can only be blocked by other creatures with 'THIS ABILITY'."
The fact that there are other cards and abilities that can override that rule is due to those other cards and abilities - not due to anything inherent to Flying or Horsemanship.
Thanks for reading! I also have most of the cards for Naya and might play that deck because there's nothing better. Control decks are usually satisfying for me but BUG mirrors have to feel miserable, so I would rather avoid them. What do you think about Patrick's Junk vs. BUG? I believe he got lucky and that match-up is not very good...
Thanks for the videos! I agree that G/B was the deck there. I think Sage is not very good, especially with very few heroic enablers. That pool certainly left something to be desired.
Thanks again!
Nice article. I've moved from Junk Dredge/Reanimator to RG Elspeth (still two cards short of the 75 though). I wanted to put together Chapin's deck, but my collection was leaning more heavily toward the Naya build. In testing, I've found it to be a pretty good matchup against BUG Control. Most of my losses have been to Mono Red with a nut draw. I think with the BNG version of the Junk Deck out of the fold, RG Elspeth is probably the #2 deck in meta, maybe behind Junk Rares.
Thanks again!
...which I debunked.
Not sure why you are holding on to this so much.
Not held enough as a child? Held too much?
Reach = the ability to block flyers while not actually having the flying ability is a legitimate argument.
Unfortunately (for you) it does not fit your agenda.
I'll be watching for it, and not the least bit surprised if you find something development didn't think of. :)
Nice article. Cost keeps me from trying much constructed anymore, but articles like this give me hope.
So glad you kept the budget theme when you made some changes.
Anarchist would work better, just needs a counter-granting effect (Like, say, Sage of Fables) and a sacrifice outlet.
Because people and forums and internet arguments are all very silly? My theory. :p
Oh right, I was mixing him up with some sort of anarchist effect.
Snapcaster still exiles the card, so even if you can sac him every turn, you aren't getting more than 2 turns out of any given time walk effect.
That's only because Horsemanship was from a special set containing no reach. The cards were considered to be their own sub game, and not even legal for tournament play for years after release.
Reach is a particularly bad example, because it relies purely on the name, and the whole point is that Horsemanship is Flying with a name change.
Spiders don't block creatures with horsemanship because it's flying renamed, and they look for the name, not the ability.
A good indicator on this point is to look at the abilities, and cards that interact with the abilities. When you can change the name of the ability, and nothing mechanical changes, you don't have a new mechanic.
Rolling Earthquake killing creatures with flying is another one, that's not an intended interaction, just an artifact of the kludge they used to implement flying in this set. This should be clear by the fact that the card is just Earthquake with Flying changed to Horsemanship. It's rather telling that these cards were not considered to be tournament legal for years after their release, and at the time they became legal, almost had horsemanship replaced with flying as an errata. If Horsemanship was a real mechanic in and of itself, that wouldn't even have been a point of debate.
I also assumed that horsemanship returning was a joke reference in this podcast, but it seems like I cant look at any MTG forum without hearing people wish it would come back. why, I can't imagine.
Here's one difference:
Reach won't help a creature to block anything with Horsemanship.
There. That was easy.
It seems like there is probably something involving Medomai that goes infinite. Or Snapcaster, sac outlet, and a time walk effect.
If it was really it's own form of evasion and not just flying, there would be some difference, other than the name.
Can you identify one?
To get you started, Shadow is different in that creatures with it can only be blocked by *AND* only block other creatures with shadow.
Horsemanship is not flying with a new name. It's just a thematic form of evasion in much the same way that Shadow is not "flying renamed."
I really don't see them using it again, but if they were going to then the set coming up this fall looks like it would be a good place to plug it in. As it is, I'm not holding my breath expecting it.
Thanks! About Vintage Masters, I am indeed - gotta do something inbetween those World Cup matches! ;)
That's a pretty fancy hat. In fact I didn't bother mentioning one of the other advantages of horsemanship in legacy is that Rolling Earthquake exists as a pure board wipe only for their guys. True enough it is a niche spell at that but still a good thing to be aware of. Also spiders don't block creatures with Horsemanship.
As for Trip Wire/Wing Snare both are decidedly poor cards but Wing Snare at least has the advantage of having lots of fairly common targets. Trip Wire is only useful and marginal at that when you KNOW your opponent has horsemanship creatures. (Awkward phrasing that, I know. :))
I did and do agree on the lack of inspiration (hence my comment about the time period it was designed in) in the mechanics of horsemanship (and much of the Rot3k set despite such a richly flavored source material to select from), but that doesn't make me love it less. I agree that the blockable only by guys with horses flavor is just plain silly. Even in ancient warfare there were other means of dealing with horse mounted troops (tripwires not withstanding. :p; Pikes, Ditches, later on Artillery, Elephants... etc)
And for the most part I think we are talking the same points from only slightly different angles. I don't really expect Horsemanship to make a return and neither does Josh I bet. He has a wry sense of humor (read: sarcasm) that should be discernible from his tone but even if it isn't take it from me. He was joking.
And so was I in my original post though I do love using horsemanship at times to screw with opponents, precisely because it is not flying. It has a fancy hat and that makes all the difference. :D
I like taking statements like that as a challenge.
You are right, two a turn. I'm not saying it's not a clock, but you can't do anything really broken with something that's clearly been designed to keep you from going infinite on the spot in any way.
It's flying renamed due to theme reasons, nothing more. It's not even just the mechanic, it's the whole set of cards around it.
Have you ever looked at the cards with horsemanship on them?
Borrowing the East Wind is Hurricane for one extra G.
Riding Red Hare is Angelic Blessing.
Rolling Earthquake is Earthquake.
Trip Wire is Wing Snare.
Horsemanship is not some clever new form of evasion, it's just flying with a hat on it so that it could go in a beginner set where flying didn't fit the theme. The whole reason it is just flying renamed and not it's own real mechanic is that the set was mostly just meant to teach new players the fundamentals of how to play Magic, not an expert set designed to keep experienced players engaged.
It was such a beginner focused set that it included only creatures, sorceries, and lands. The cards weren't even legal for tournament play until 6 years after their release, and when they became legal, almost got errated to just have flying. According to their statement about it, the only reason Wizards didn't make the change was due to the cards with Horsemanship being rare and not good enough to see vintage play for the most part anyway. Wizards has said that Horsemanship is unlikely to ever be seen again.
Even if you want to ignore all that, Horsemanship is simply a crappy mechanic lacking any originality or flavor in and of itself, and there is no compelling reason to ever bring it back. Almost any imagined mechanic you care to explore would offer a more flavorful representation of riding horseback than "I can only be blocked by another guy with a horse and nothing else in the world".
Glad to hear it and I will listen to that last bit shortly.
Horsemanship is NOT a functional reprint of Flying. If it was it would be far more likely to return. As it stands it is yet another form of evasion and one that is as hard to block as shadow. I agree that it is unlikely at best. I also think Flanking and Bushido are unlikely for similar reasons.
Horsemanship as flavor could have been done better but keeping in mind that a) the source material makes a huge deal of horses and horsemanship they needed something for it and b) the time the set was developed was a dark ages of design for M:TG (Portal 1, Starter, etc.)
Personally I love horsemanship because it gives an interesting card Riding the Dilu Horse a way to shine (though mostly in the horrible limited environment of Masters Edition). Not many cards give a permanent boost as a sorcery/instant. So that's why I am with Josh on this one. But seriously I'd like to see something *GOOD* return instead.