Remake Regeneration: Revitalize

[Sporegorger_Dragon]

All right, we might as well address the Elephant token in the room.

I understand why they retired Regeneration.

I also understand why they gave black temporary indestructibility to make up for a lack of regeneration. From a gameplay point of view it does the job, but it's an awkward fit flavor-wise.

So why not just revamp regeneration?

Revitalize 1g (When this creature dies, you may pay its revitalize cost. If you do, return it from the graveyard to the battlefield tapped under its owner's control.)

Neo-Regenerate
bg
Instant
Target creature gains revitalize 0 until end of turn.

[spacemonaut]

Revitalize causes dies triggers and etb triggers, as well as making things like auras, equipment, and counters fall off and other tracking get lost.

Regenerate and EOT indestructible don't do that. I think EOT indestructible is a very elegant solution; flavor is secondary to that.

[Feyd_Ruin]

In my own custom cards, I simply reworded regenerate:
: The next time Will-o'-the Wisps would be destroyed this turn, regenerate it instead. We keep the keyword, but just remove its timing for in-card-text timing.
I feel like this addresses the current problem (you know you have to activate it before it gets destroyed), while working fine on all existing cards, and still keeps the flavor.

Removing the timing feels right with cards like Clergy of the Holy Nimbus and Mossbridge Troll anyways. I've never understood why the timing was part of the ability when cards explicitly bypass that timing, etc.

[Sporegorger_Dragon]

Regenerate and EOT indestructible don't do that. I think EOT indestructible is a very elegant solution; flavor is secondary to that.

We keep the keyword, but just remove its timing for in-card-text timing.
I feel like this addresses the current problem (you know you have to activate it before it gets destroyed), while working fine on all existing cards, and still keeps the flavor.

My powerfully feeble intellect is inspired:

: Regenerate Cudgel Troll. (This creature gains indestructible until end of turn. Tap it and remove it from combat.)

[spacemonaut]

: Regenerate Cudgel Troll. (This creature gains indestructible until end of turn. Tap it and remove it from combat.)

*chef's kiss*

[Krishnath]

I still reiterate that the only reason that they fubared regeneration to begin with was because with the sixth edition rules update removed the damage prevention step from combat to make combat easier to understand for newer players. And as WotC recently admitted, complexity in sets is not really a problem as most new players actually learn the game from playing commander with their friends. And as a commander player, I can attest to that the format can get really ridiculously complex at times. Fixing regeneration would be as simple as reinstating the damage prevention step so that it works the way it was originally intended.

@Sporegorger_Dragon provides the perfect solution however, it is a fix that is so simple that it's amazing that WotC hasn't implemented it yet.

[user_938036]

And as WotC recently admitted, complexity in sets is not really a problem as most new players actually learn the game from playing commander with their friends.

This is a fairly bold claim as the only thing on the subject I can find is that they are desperately struggling against complexity creep as it keeps pushing higher despite their efforts. Do you have a source that set complexity isn't a big deal.

[SecretInfiltrator]

And as WotC recently admitted, complexity in sets is not really a problem as most new players actually learn the game from playing commander with their friends.

Source not found. I recall reading though an incredibly similar problem that actually talks about the situation as a problem since the players can still be put off by the complexity, but WotC's influence over these first impressions is really low. So I wonder where you got the statement that doesn't mean (in context): "We try to keep down the complexity, but even though that's something we think needs to be done we have this other situation we are aware of that isn't helped by our efforts."

@Sporegorger_Dragon provides the perfect solution however, it is a fix that is so simple that it's amazing that WotC hasn't implemented it yet.

Weird way to misspell "@Feyd_Ruin provides the perfect solution".

Seriously: The replacement effect solution doesn't change how regenerate works, (which SD's proposal does), but how it is worded and changes it to a wording consistent with damage prevention and other replacement effects.

The issue always has been that WotC tried to keep the original wording and make the delayed replacement effect something hidden in the keyword action (not that the concept of keyword action explicitly existed back then). They wanted to continue to use the same wording as before and valued that more than a new wording that would require an Oracle change but in turn would spell out the actual replacement effect. Later once they started to make more Oracle changes and functional edits towards consistency (e. g. making threshold an ability word rather than a keyword) they should have revisited the issue and updated the regeneration template. They had years to do it and didn't.

But then again the use of indestructible this way is fine and I'll tell you that I won't be missing a single "It can't be regenerated." though the use of exile in black now makes that also less necessary. One less evergreen keyword action in black-green is also a benefit.

[Krishnath]

Source not found. I recall reading though an incredibly similar problem that actually talks about the situation as a problem since the players can still be put off by the complexity, but WotC's influence over these first impressions is really low. So I wonder where you got the statement that doesn't mean (in context): "We try to keep down the complexity, but even though that's something we think needs to be done we have this other situation we are aware of that isn't helped by our efforts."

MaRo mentioned it on Blogatog a few weeks back, but it would take more effort than what I want to expend on the issue to find the post.

[user_938036]

Source not found. I recall reading though an incredibly similar problem that actually talks about the situation as a problem since the players can still be put off by the complexity, but WotC's influence over these first impressions is really low. So I wonder where you got the statement that doesn't mean (in context): "We try to keep down the complexity, but even though that's something we think needs to be done we have this other situation we are aware of that isn't helped by our efforts."

MaRo mentioned it on Blogatog a few weeks back, but it would take more effort than what I want to expend on the issue to find the post.

This is a fairly bold claim when his public stance is that complexity is the most likely thing to kill the game and it needs to be kept in check as best they can without limiting the game. I can easily find a source that players are likely to enter via commander but it is part of an article explaining the need to reign in the complexity of premier sets rather than disregard said complexity.

[Krishnath]

Source not found. I recall reading though an incredibly similar problem that actually talks about the situation as a problem since the players can still be put off by the complexity, but WotC's influence over these first impressions is really low. So I wonder where you got the statement that doesn't mean (in context): "We try to keep down the complexity, but even though that's something we think needs to be done we have this other situation we are aware of that isn't helped by our efforts."

MaRo mentioned it on Blogatog a few weeks back, but it would take more effort than what I want to expend on the issue to find the post.

This is a fairly bold claim when his public stance is that complexity is the most likely thing to kill the game and it needs to be kept in check as best they can without limiting the game. I can easily find a source that players are likely to enter via commander but it is part of an article explaining the need to reign in the complexity of premier sets rather than disregard said complexity.

Fair enough.