Setha and Basetha were Khenra twins in Djeru's Tah-Crop. Setha lost his life during the Trial of Ambition, while his sister Basetha survived.
Setha of Tah-Crop3RG
Legendary Creature - Jackal Warrior
First strike, vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, if it isn't a token, create a token that's a copy of it except the token's name is Basetha of Tah-Crop and it has no mana cost.
Partner (You can have two commanders as long as both have partner.)
3/3
Basetha of Tah-Crop (R/G) Token Creature - Jackal Warrior
~ is legendary.
First strike, vigilance
3/3
This started as a legendary Jackal Warrior flavored as a pair of twins with abilities referencing their nature (Double strike, Menace, can block an additional creature). I got the idea to instead make them separate creatures through use of copy token technology, using a little exploit of the legend rule that checks the name of the creatures. Since the token has a different name, the legend rule doesn't apply, so you essentially get two copies of the same legend (however, the token does not count as a commander). They still have First Strike and Vigilance as a nod to the original design, but Menace and "block an extra creature" are no longer necessary since they are not one card.
The Basetha token has rules text stating it's legendary for the same reason as Temmet's mummy token: The type line doesn't have room for all five words.
Since Setha has Partner, it only feels fitting to add a second Partner legend to this topic. And since we missed a chance at Saskia the Unyielding being a BRGW Warrior legend, I think a WB Warrior Partner to go with the RG Setha would be excellent compensation here.
In the old Khans of Tarkir timeline, Gvar Barzeel was an orc born to the Mardu Horde but adopted by Anafenza's family of the Abzan Houses. He saw the Mardu as savages and believed it was his destiny to one day face Zurgo Helmsmasher in battle.
Gvar Barzeel, Abzan Krumar2WB
Legendary Creature - Orc Warrior
Outlast WB(WB, T: Put a +1/+1 counter on this creature. Outlast only as a sorcery.)
Other creatures you control get +1/+1 for each +1/+1 counter on ~.
Partner (You can have two commanders as long as both have partner.)
3/3
Gvar revisits the Outlast mechanic from KTK. Originally he functioned as a lord of sorts who would create 1/1 white Warrior creature tokens whenever a creature you control became tapped (like when attacking or using Outlast). However, I decided to try a less overwhelming effect and went for an anthem bonus that gives each other creature you control +1/+1 for each +1/+1 counter on Gvar.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I'm questioning the necessity for the "no mana cost" clause here. It is consistent with Embalm's wording, and helps clear up confusion where it matters I guess. I wonder if they'll start doing that for future copy token effects like Supplant Form.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I'm questioning the necessity for the "no mana cost" clause here. It is consistent with Embalm's wording, and helps clear up confusion where it matters I guess. I wonder if they'll start doing that for future copy token effects like Supplant Form.
Here's the thing - generic token copies a la Cackling Counterpart don't get official token cards, so there's no worry about the "embalm problem", that being that a token card with a mana cost looks like a nontoken card.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I'm questioning the necessity for the "no mana cost" clause here. It is consistent with Embalm's wording, and helps clear up confusion where it matters I guess. I wonder if they'll start doing that for future copy token effects like Supplant Form.
According to Mark Rosewater (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/odds-ends-amonkhet-part-1-2017-05-22 "Why did so much rules baggage go into Embalm?"), they did it because they knew they would have physical tokens corresponding to each of the embalm cards. They didn't want to confuse players by printing a mana cost on the token cards and making it look like they can be cast. Since you'd presumably have a specific physical token for Basetha, and since Basetha is a copy of a card rather than simply having its traits defined, you should include the "no mana cost" clause.
Supplant Form tokens could be anything, so they can't really make a physical token of it (without printing "is a copy of" somewhere on it, which would imply a mana cost on its own). As such, cards like that will never have the "no mana cost" clause.
I can't help but feel Setha and Basetha could be bigger for the cost though. Maybe 3/4 as a reference to Stangg? Also why are they red-green specifically? I realize Jackals in Amonkhet are red-green, but the vigilance makes them feel more white.
Vigilance is also a green ability. It's a carryover from when they were a single creature card with abilities referencing their dual nature (Double Strike, Menace, and "can block an additional creature" to be exact). Here's the original design, in case anyone's curious:
Setha & Basetha3RG
Legendary Creature - Jackal Warrior
Double strike, menace, vigilance
~ can block an additional creature.
Partner (You can have two commanders as long as both have partner.)
2/4
Vigilance had been added so Menace and the extra block ability could both matter. Granted, those two abilities are no longer part of the picture, so I could consider removing vigilance since the self-copy effect already leans green.
I feel as though two 3/3s with First Strike and Vigilance for 3RG is pushing it as is. Imagine a token spell with those stats; now make one of those tokens flickerable and recastable, essentially allowing you to reset both creatures whenever you please, even if the token counterpart dies. Though saying that, I wonder if I shouldn't try switching them back to the original design? I just wanted to experiment with the idea of a legendary creature being able to copy itself, justified by the flavor of the two creatures being twins, plus I felt that Samut, Voice of Dissent already got the RG "keyword salad creature" niche covered.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
BTW: The "no mana cost" text is due to the fact that we get token cards for these copies (and those cannot have mana costs or it would be confusing to players). So general effects creating token copies wouldn't have that line, but it fits well on [Ba]Setha.
When I brainstormed card designs for Tah Crop characters I went with two (except for name) identical cards with partner, haste and an ability that pumped all creatures with haste (referencing that they were the fastest members of their crop excluding those who are OP because they are main characters and have to be best at everything).
Why do twins always show up in red anyway?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Maybe it's because red is a better creature color than blue and is second to blue at copying stuff? It's probably coincidence that the majority of duos (be they couples or siblings) have been red, but it sure is a funny coincidence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
All the brothers and one out of two sisters are also red. I guess red's just the "family members" color. (Incidentally mothers are in all colors but blue and there are no fathers in MTG.)
I think you should figure out some way to make Basetha also a commander as long as Setha is a commander.
Great stuff here, I don't have critical feedback to offer here but I did want to mention I'm loving the flavor here and this is a balanced interesting design.
All the brothers and one out of two sisters are also red. I guess red's just the "family members" color. (Incidentally mothers are in all colors but blue and there are no fathers in MTG.)
I think you should figure out some way to make Basetha also a commander as long as Setha is a commander.
I don't see much of a point to doing so other than to allow Basetha to deal combat damage in addition to Setha, and quite frankly that just isn't enough of a gain for the added complexity.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
All the brothers and one out of two sisters are also red. I guess red's just the "family members" color. (Incidentally mothers are in all colors but blue and there are no fathers in MTG.)
Also, Tamiyo is a mother of several children (including an adopted Nezumi).
I think what willows means is "Father" in the name and father/child pairs of legends. By that logic Kondo and Konda (oddly enough) are the ones who qualify.
Yes, I was referring strictly to card names. I definitely don't know or care about legendary family trees! Anyway that was the much less important half of my post and I would direct your attention to the other half.
"As long as Setha of Tah-Crop is your commander, effects treat creatures named Basetha of Tah-Crop you control as your commander and damage those creatures deal is commander damage."
Setha of Tah-Crop3RG
Legendary Creature - Jackal Warrior
First strike, vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, create a 3/3 legendary red and green Jackal Warrior token creature named Basetha of Tah-Crop, with first strike, vigilance, and "As long as Setha of Tah-Crop is one of your commanders, Basetha of Tah-Crop is one of your commanders."
Partner (rules)
3/3
Yes, that is problematic. For starters, the token can't start the game in your command zone - tokens can only exist on the battlefield. Therefore, it cannot be your Commander. Commander status is tied to the card, not the permanent. Per the Commander website:
"Being a Commander is not a characteristic [MTG CR109.3], it is a property of the card and tied directly to the physical card. As such, "Commander-ness" cannot be copied or overwritten by continuous effects. The card retains it's commanderness through any status changes, and is still a commander even when controlled by another player."
Not to mention it confuses the wording of partner; Partner says you can have two commanders, yet the text on the card would mean you have three on the battlefield? Sorry, but that's not how it works. You could potentially write text allowing the card to deal commander damage, but again, that's more complexity and words than is worthwhile.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
You could potentially write text allowing the card to deal commander damage, but again, I feel that's more complexity and words than is worthwhile.
I mean, that's what my text is doing. It's a lot of words, of course, but it's very potent - hitting for 6 commander damage across two bodies is a big deal. I would test this to see whether it was worth it, if you have a Commander group you could do it with.
The Commander rules committee doesn't have any power over us, Manite. We can do this if we can figure out how, and I for one think that the solution is not to roll over and give up, but to separate "property of a card" vs "characteristicness" from facts about objects, such that any fact about objects can be defined as a card-property or an alienable characteristic.
Then, your commander that's a card has commanderness-as-a-card-property because of the deck slot you put it in, and your token-commander has commanderness-as-a-characteristic. Everything's hunky-dory.
Seriously. These people don't even understand what hybrid is. We don't need to entertain their ideas about...any things.
These people don't even understand what hybrid is.
They understand perfectly well, because a hybrid mana symbol in a mana cost makes a card all of the colors in that symbol. Giant Solifuge is both red and green at all times even when you spend GGGG to cast it.
The Commander rules committee doesn't have any power over us, Manite. We can do this if we can figure out how, and I for one think that the solution is not to roll over and give up, but to separate "property of a card" vs "characteristicness" from facts about objects, such that any fact about objects can be defined as a card-property or an alienable characteristic.
Then, your commander that's a card has commanderness-as-a-card-property because of the deck slot you put it in, and your token-commander has commanderness-as-a-characteristic. Everything's hunky-dory.
How does the Basetha's commander damage work now? Her 'commander-ness' is an ability of the token so it definitely gets copied. What happens when my Basetha token leaves the battlefield and then I later create a new one, while the Rite copies remain on the battlefield? Which token is Basetha's pre-existing commander damage total 'attached' to, or does it start a new and independent total every time the Basetha token leaves play?
The closest you could get is to word it so that damage dealt by that particular Basetha token counts as commander damage dealt by Setha, so that you add their totals together, but even then you'd need to be careful because anything that is an ability can be negated by Humility and the like.
Maybe "[...] create a 3/3 legendary red and green Jackal Warrior token creature named Basetha of Tah-Crop, with first strike and vigilance. As long as that token is on the battlefield, combat damage it deals to players counts as being dealt by your commander named Setha of Tah-Crop for purposes of commander damage."
That wording would mean that any copies of a Basetha token which were not created by Setha's triggered ability would not deal commander damage, as it is worded as a continuous effect (i.e. just like a Clone would not gain the benefits of a Giant Growth that had been cast earlier on the creature it copies). Still, that's a lot of extra language to tack on when cards like Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun are equally valid commanders but don't have wording to allow them to do the same (with his embalm tokens).
The Commander rules committee doesn't have any power over us, Manite. We can do this if we can figure out how, and I for one think that the solution is not to roll over and give up, but to separate "property of a card" vs "characteristicness" from facts about objects, such that any fact about objects can be defined as a card-property or an alienable characteristic.
Then, your commander that's a card has commanderness-as-a-card-property because of the deck slot you put it in, and your token-commander has commanderness-as-a-characteristic. Everything's hunky-dory.
Seriously. These people don't even understand what hybrid is. We don't need to entertain their ideas about...any things.
I respect the committee's commitment to creating a consistent rules system and I design my cards in compliance with things like the color pie and committee rules.
How does the Basetha's commander damage work now? Her 'commander-ness' is an ability of the token so it definitely gets copied.
As I just quoted above, no, it does not. "Commander-ness" is an attribute of the physical card itself and not any permanents associated with it, copies or otherwise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
As I just quoted above, no, it does not. "Commander-ness" is an attribute of the physical card itself and not any permanents associated with it, copies or otherwise.
Right, I was referring hypothetically to willows's proposal that it be treated as a characteristic of the permanent, and not a physical card.
Setha of Tah-Crop 3RG
Legendary Creature - Jackal Warrior
First strike, vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, if it isn't a token, create a token that's a copy of it except the token's name is Basetha of Tah-Crop and it has no mana cost.
Partner (You can have two commanders as long as both have partner.)
3/3
Basetha of Tah-Crop
(R/G) Token Creature - Jackal Warrior
~ is legendary.
First strike, vigilance
3/3
This started as a legendary Jackal Warrior flavored as a pair of twins with abilities referencing their nature (Double strike, Menace, can block an additional creature). I got the idea to instead make them separate creatures through use of copy token technology, using a little exploit of the legend rule that checks the name of the creatures. Since the token has a different name, the legend rule doesn't apply, so you essentially get two copies of the same legend (however, the token does not count as a commander). They still have First Strike and Vigilance as a nod to the original design, but Menace and "block an extra creature" are no longer necessary since they are not one card.
The Basetha token has rules text stating it's legendary for the same reason as Temmet's mummy token: The type line doesn't have room for all five words.
Since Setha has Partner, it only feels fitting to add a second Partner legend to this topic. And since we missed a chance at Saskia the Unyielding being a BRGW Warrior legend, I think a WB Warrior Partner to go with the RG Setha would be excellent compensation here.
In the old Khans of Tarkir timeline, Gvar Barzeel was an orc born to the Mardu Horde but adopted by Anafenza's family of the Abzan Houses. He saw the Mardu as savages and believed it was his destiny to one day face Zurgo Helmsmasher in battle.
Gvar Barzeel, Abzan Krumar 2WB
Legendary Creature - Orc Warrior
Outlast WB (WB, T: Put a +1/+1 counter on this creature. Outlast only as a sorcery.)
Other creatures you control get +1/+1 for each +1/+1 counter on ~.
Partner (You can have two commanders as long as both have partner.)
3/3
Gvar revisits the Outlast mechanic from KTK. Originally he functioned as a lord of sorts who would create 1/1 white Warrior creature tokens whenever a creature you control became tapped (like when attacking or using Outlast). However, I decided to try a less overwhelming effect and went for an anthem bonus that gives each other creature you control +1/+1 for each +1/+1 counter on Gvar.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
The wording tech you used for S&B is great - might want to use the embalm "with no mana cost" clause too, though? Did you have Stangg in mind?
I love Gvar Barzeel as a card, which is great because I loved his character too. You forgot partner on him though.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I'm questioning the necessity for the "no mana cost" clause here. It is consistent with Embalm's wording, and helps clear up confusion where it matters I guess. I wonder if they'll start doing that for future copy token effects like Supplant Form.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Here's the thing - generic token copies a la Cackling Counterpart don't get official token cards, so there's no worry about the "embalm problem", that being that a token card with a mana cost looks like a nontoken card.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
According to Mark Rosewater (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/odds-ends-amonkhet-part-1-2017-05-22 "Why did so much rules baggage go into Embalm?"), they did it because they knew they would have physical tokens corresponding to each of the embalm cards. They didn't want to confuse players by printing a mana cost on the token cards and making it look like they can be cast. Since you'd presumably have a specific physical token for Basetha, and since Basetha is a copy of a card rather than simply having its traits defined, you should include the "no mana cost" clause.
Supplant Form tokens could be anything, so they can't really make a physical token of it (without printing "is a copy of" somewhere on it, which would imply a mana cost on its own). As such, cards like that will never have the "no mana cost" clause.
Great cards on the whole. Synergy is important in partners, and Gvar Barzeel goes great with Reyhan, Last of the Abzan, Tana, the Bloodsower, and Setha and Basetha, while the twins themselves work well with Ravos, Soultender and potentially Tymna the Weaver.
I can't help but feel Setha and Basetha could be bigger for the cost though. Maybe 3/4 as a reference to Stangg? Also why are they red-green specifically? I realize Jackals in Amonkhet are red-green, but the vigilance makes them feel more white.
- Rabid Wombat
Legendary Creature - Jackal Warrior
Double strike, menace, vigilance
~ can block an additional creature.
Partner (You can have two commanders as long as both have partner.)
2/4
Vigilance had been added so Menace and the extra block ability could both matter. Granted, those two abilities are no longer part of the picture, so I could consider removing vigilance since the self-copy effect already leans green.
I feel as though two 3/3s with First Strike and Vigilance for 3RG is pushing it as is. Imagine a token spell with those stats; now make one of those tokens flickerable and recastable, essentially allowing you to reset both creatures whenever you please, even if the token counterpart dies. Though saying that, I wonder if I shouldn't try switching them back to the original design? I just wanted to experiment with the idea of a legendary creature being able to copy itself, justified by the flavor of the two creatures being twins, plus I felt that Samut, Voice of Dissent already got the RG "keyword salad creature" niche covered.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Actually Basetha is one of the survivors - the first to finish even IIRC.
A Stangg treatment is a cool idea for this pair.
BTW: The "no mana cost" text is due to the fact that we get token cards for these copies (and those cannot have mana costs or it would be confusing to players). So general effects creating token copies wouldn't have that line, but it fits well on [Ba]Setha.
When I brainstormed card designs for Tah Crop characters I went with two (except for name) identical cards with partner, haste and an ability that pumped all creatures with haste (referencing that they were the fastest members of their crop excluding those who are OP because they are main characters and have to be best at everything).
Why do twins always show up in red anyway?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
You're quite right. For some reason, I remembered them both perishing. Well, the card does evidently depict the twins before the Trial of Ambition.
Maybe it's because red is a better creature color than blue and is second to blue at copying stuff? It's probably coincidence that the majority of duos (be they couples or siblings) have been red, but it sure is a funny coincidence.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
That one's coincidence. I'd like to see you design some nonred twins though!
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I think you should figure out some way to make Basetha also a commander as long as Setha is a commander.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
Ahem...
Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa
Father of Vuel (later Volrath)
Adopted father of Gerrard Capashen
Konda, Lord of Eiganjo
Father of Michiko Konda, Truth Seeker
Toshiro Umezawa
Ancestor of Tetsuo Umezawa (ergo, a father at some point)
Jarad vod Savo
Father of Myc
Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur
Father of unnamed larvae (in the webcomics)
Kiran Nalaar
Father of Chandra Nalaar
Also, Tamiyo is a mother of several children (including an adopted Nezumi).
I don't see much of a point to doing so other than to allow Basetha to deal combat damage in addition to Setha, and quite frankly that just isn't enough of a gain for the added complexity.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
I think what willows means is "Father" in the name and father/child pairs of legends. By that logic Kondo and Konda (oddly enough) are the ones who qualify.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
"As long as Setha of Tah-Crop is your commander, effects treat creatures named Basetha of Tah-Crop you control as your commander and damage those creatures deal is commander damage."
Phew.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Setha of Tah-Crop 3RG
Legendary Creature - Jackal Warrior
First strike, vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, create a 3/3 legendary red and green Jackal Warrior token creature named Basetha of Tah-Crop, with first strike, vigilance, and "As long as Setha of Tah-Crop is one of your commanders, Basetha of Tah-Crop is one of your commanders."
Partner (rules)
3/3
"Being a Commander is not a characteristic [MTG CR109.3], it is a property of the card and tied directly to the physical card. As such, "Commander-ness" cannot be copied or overwritten by continuous effects. The card retains it's commanderness through any status changes, and is still a commander even when controlled by another player."
Not to mention it confuses the wording of partner; Partner says you can have two commanders, yet the text on the card would mean you have three on the battlefield? Sorry, but that's not how it works. You could potentially write text allowing the card to deal commander damage, but again, that's more complexity and words than is worthwhile.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
I mean, that's what my text is doing. It's a lot of words, of course, but it's very potent - hitting for 6 commander damage across two bodies is a big deal. I would test this to see whether it was worth it, if you have a Commander group you could do it with.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
When you play A, you may put B from your command zone onto the battlefield.
Mind you, Stangg is good enough as-is. Maybe a version that doesn't die when the token dies...
Then, your commander that's a card has commanderness-as-a-card-property because of the deck slot you put it in, and your token-commander has commanderness-as-a-characteristic. Everything's hunky-dory.
Seriously. These people don't even understand what hybrid is. We don't need to entertain their ideas about...any things.
They understand perfectly well, because a hybrid mana symbol in a mana cost makes a card all of the colors in that symbol. Giant Solifuge is both red and green at all times even when you spend GGGG to cast it.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Mirror Gallery, Rite of Replication kicked, targeting Basetha.
How does the Basetha's commander damage work now? Her 'commander-ness' is an ability of the token so it definitely gets copied. What happens when my Basetha token leaves the battlefield and then I later create a new one, while the Rite copies remain on the battlefield? Which token is Basetha's pre-existing commander damage total 'attached' to, or does it start a new and independent total every time the Basetha token leaves play?
The closest you could get is to word it so that damage dealt by that particular Basetha token counts as commander damage dealt by Setha, so that you add their totals together, but even then you'd need to be careful because anything that is an ability can be negated by Humility and the like.
Maybe "[...] create a 3/3 legendary red and green Jackal Warrior token creature named Basetha of Tah-Crop, with first strike and vigilance. As long as that token is on the battlefield, combat damage it deals to players counts as being dealt by your commander named Setha of Tah-Crop for purposes of commander damage."
That wording would mean that any copies of a Basetha token which were not created by Setha's triggered ability would not deal commander damage, as it is worded as a continuous effect (i.e. just like a Clone would not gain the benefits of a Giant Growth that had been cast earlier on the creature it copies). Still, that's a lot of extra language to tack on when cards like Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun are equally valid commanders but don't have wording to allow them to do the same (with his embalm tokens).
- Rabid Wombat
I respect the committee's commitment to creating a consistent rules system and I design my cards in compliance with things like the color pie and committee rules.
As I just quoted above, no, it does not. "Commander-ness" is an attribute of the physical card itself and not any permanents associated with it, copies or otherwise.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Right, I was referring hypothetically to willows's proposal that it be treated as a characteristic of the permanent, and not a physical card.
- Rabid Wombat