Turn to Frog & Imprisoned in the Moon - Why do they destroy?

zolesz

Hey,

In my understanding Turn to Frog shouldn't count as destroying a creature. It doesn't kill it, but turns it into a frog.
Imprisoned in the Moon shouldn't count as destroy either. It doesn't kill it, but imprisons it.

This is reflected also in the original MTG cards, as I can see:

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Im ... &type=card
http://media.wizards.com/2016/ouhtebrpj ... zYsSKX.png

As a result, they shouldn't be counted in those subquests where you are not allowed to kill more than X creatures.

Delnai

I agree that it doesn't make much sense thematically that they destroy. I see two reasons it is the way it is:

1) As far as I can tell, there's no straightforward way to implement this in MtGPQ. It would be better if they didn't destroy, but what exactly is the alternative you're proposing?

2) They are very good cards that would be even stronger if they didn't destroy. I'm fine having them destroy for power level reasons.

hawkyh1

should the kill less than x creatures objectives be unbalanced because
you use frog or moon?

HH

AngelForge

They have the transform mechanic in game but I don't know how hard it would be to program that, besides all the other things they should focus on first.

Thematically I totally agree, but blue has already the steal spells, which do the same, but also give the caster a creature in return. So, I think that blue can live with that little "drawback".

Besides, sometimes the objective is to destroy x creatures...

Monkeynutts

Just use bounce spells and creatures.

zolesz

Thanks for all the feedback!
To make it clear, I didn't make this suggestion because I'd have difficulties with the "kill max X creatures" mission, I have my strategy for that. It was rather a thematical suggestion, as some pointed out. I don't have a great history in MTG, but as far as I can see, blue is more about bouncing, weakening, disabling, stealing, controlling than killing. These 2 cards shouldn't "kill" either, although it's not a big deal if they do.

Monkeynutts

I think the programmers cannot or don't know how to code a spell that bounces and creates a token.

turn and moon both do this.
however harbinder of tides and that annoying 12 cost eldrazi...and reflector mage don't create.

This maybe why the mechanics works like this.

Alve

Monkeynutts wrote:

I think the programmers cannot or don't know how to code a spell that bounces and creates a token.

turn and moon both do this.
however harbinder of tides and that annoying 12 cost eldrazi...and reflector mage don't create.

This maybe why the mechanics works like this.

I think that the programmers know how to do that, but as you can see, if you, you know, read the card text, in paper these spells don't bounce either - they transform a creature and then it either transforms back after a turn, or remains 'trapped' until you disenchant it. This particular mechanic doesn't exist in the game, so it's possible that they wanted to work with already existing mechanics instead of creating a new one just for one spell.

Now, it'd be fun if Frogify transformed a creature just for a turn instead of removing it permanently and Imprison was more expensive. If Frog was just temporary, it could cost 3 mana, while Imprison could work like it does now and cost 9.

Monkeynutts

return target creature to its owners hand.

what paper players refer to as a bounce

buscemi

Here's some paper MTG cards which turn things into other things by using the 'Destroy' mechanic.

Monkeynutts

There are many.
I have Terastodon in my mono green EDH.