Is Sliver becoming a supertype? Unlikely, as (for one) Sliver Legion itself is a "Legendary Creature — Sliver" not "Sliver Legendary Creature"
Is this a templating change? Also unlikely, as the new format wasn't used for the second mention of Sliver. i.e. it doesn't say "All Sliver creatures get +1/+1 for each other Sliver creature in play."
Does it auger a rules change? If so, it ought not be as big as the change to Echo with TS, as according to Maro, Mago wouldn't allow such a change mid-block.
What's left? Either Wizards messed up or it's something we haven't thought of yet...
Perhaps it's time to stop all this sliver templating stuff. If the legion had: slivers get +1/+1 for each sliver in play, it could be misunderstood as an ability gained by all slivers making only 4 slivers in play grant each other a brutal +12/+12 bonus (I know experienced players would not assume such preposterous things, but it would have raised a lot of stupid questions). Worded like it is now, it works like a coat of arms instead of making each sliver a coat of arms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Banner and avatar by the one and only Craven at Epic graphics. Check them out.
remember the argument about why sliver legion was called "legion"? legion is mostly applied to large ammounts of individuals.
BUT!!!
there is a chapter in the bible ( yea, the holy bible ) featuring a man possesed by a demon who was latter exorcised by jesus ( i think ). The Demon was Called LEGION. this is because the demon actually was a metaphor ( like everything else in the bible ) representing a roman army ( or roman legion ) tormenting a town ( or region, i cant remember ), hereby interpreted by the possesed man.
Maybe ...... just maybe .... this might me tho origin of the LEGION its name, not legion as a mass of people, but as the demon, and what it represents.
Legion wasn't the demon's name, it simply stated "we are legion, we are many"
Actually, you are wrong. The demon(s) in the Bible identified itself as Legion, and if you bother to check the various demonology scriptures, you'll see Legion as a demon's name pop up quite a lot.
Referred to as Legion (or Legia), also mentioned as one of the many names of the devil.
Sorry for the off topic.
Is Sliver becoming a supertype? Unlikely, as (for one) Sliver Legion itself is a "Legendary Creature — Sliver" not "Sliver Legendary Creature"
Is this a templating change? Also unlikely, as the new format wasn't used for the second mention of Sliver. i.e. it doesn't say "All Sliver creatures get +1/+1 for each other Sliver creature in play."
Does it auger a rules change? If so, it ought not be as big as the change to Echo with TS, as according to Maro, Mago wouldn't allow such a change mid-block.
What's left? Either Wizards messed up or it's something we haven't thought of yet...
Indeed, yes... I made a mistake.
Everyone should ignore what I said. It's so riddled with wrongness. I misread the card. Well actually... it's more like I had a lapse of attention.
It says "Sliver creature" for some reason. That has no explanation but two:
typo
'Sliver' will become a subtype of a noncreature card type.
This covers every possibility. Here's how I know:
Either it was intentional, or not (tautological truth)
If it was not, it was a typo.
If it was intentional, then there is a reason to write "Sliver creature" instead of "Sliver." (let's ignore for a moment jwanders' revelation that this is already a contradiction)
"Sliver creature" is supposed to be interpreted as "a permanent of type creature and of type Sliver."
So, the practice of using a type to stand for a permanent of that type is still there ('permanent' isn't written) (above is where I made my mistake)
So then, what has changed is that 'Sliver' no longer implies "a permanent of type creature and type Sliver," because... well, it should have, but clearly, it doesn't.
The 'creature' can't mean 'Sliver'. And if it would mean 'permanent', there was no reason to use 'creature' over 'permanent'. It must have at least taken the 'creature' meaning from Sliver.
So, "Sliver" means "an object/permanent of type Sliver," while 'creature' means "an object/permanent of type creature". (what I'm saying here is that either card types or subtypes will take the role of implying permanence)
So then, because 'Sliver' lost the implication of creatureness, and this was intentional, it must be the case that there are now times when design wants to communicate the idea of a noncreature Sliver object.
So then noncreature Sliver objects will/might exist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Oh? I untap with my Djinn in play? Then I'll cast High Tide 5 times, let the copies resolve, cast Remand 3 times, the first and second targetting the original High Tide, and the third targetting the first Remand. After the stack empties, I'll cast a Turnabout with 1 replicate, and triple-remand again. Net Effect: Draw 4 cards, Islands all produce 4 extra blue, lands untapped. Repeat until I draw Vision Charm and proceed to deck several hundred players.
1) They really made me cry this set with Slivers.. they USED to have cool abilities for their price.. now they cost like 1,000 mana and have just random abilities that they thought were cool in general. I will admit the Rare Slivers and Enemy Color Slivers (BOUT FREAKING TIME) were an interesting addition.
Sliver Legion is a cop-out in my opinion.. wow.. so they get a Coat of Arms sliver.. real inovative.. course since there are about 100 Slivers now they probably have run out of abilities to give.. I would think some sort of mega sacrifice woulda been better.. like Sac 2 Slivers for an effect
Back to reality
2) any news as to the Dragons? I believe I saw a pic a while back but I can't find it
3) Is there any hope to see Venser, Freyalise, or perhaps any of the old Legends mentioned on the PC Timeshifts as cards in this set.. ideas?
Venser's pretty much confirmed in the set (we even have the art), there's a dragon/hellkite/something on one of the booster packs.
meanwhile they've already had legends that make sliver tokens, legends that tutor for slivers and steal slivers, there's not a lot more a lord can do to slivers short of making them amazingly fricken huge.
How sure are we that these are legit? I've never known the mags to show foils and both these cards look like the premium versions. Also the wording doesn't seem correct... "Sliver creatures" and shouildn't mentor read: ...with that "ability"...
Well, first post, just had to mention this though, what if with the Sliver legion if there are non-creature slivers? Like a land, Sliver Den, Legendary Land-Sliver? Any cool thought or is this stupid?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Red
You value freedom, impulse, emotion and fire. You love instant gratification and acting on your gut feeling. At your best, you are passionate and decisive. At your worst, you are shortsighted and destructive. Your symbol is a fireball. Your enemies are white and blue.
they are always tinkering with wording.. i mean they finally Keyword-ed Vigilance, and don't forget the Haste thing a few years back.. they are just keeping things clean for the time being.. they'll change it again probably later.
although what about a "Storm Sliver" you know like --
WGBRU
Sliver Legion
All Slivers have When ~this~ comes into play, put a 1/1 colorless Sliver creature token into play
Uh, that would have to be "All non-token Slivers..." or you would cause a non-breakable infinite loop and force the game to a draw immediately.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
- Jon Finkel Facts: (follow the link at left to see more Facts, or add more Facts!)
- Chuck Norris counted to infinity twice—because he was trying to count how much damage Jon Finkel deals in an average game.
- Jon Finkel believes in maintaining a healthy, balanced diet. He gets all his fiber from eating Magic cards for breakfast, and all his protein from eating Magic players for lunch.
Nah just stifle it and were all set =D I do agree that the slivers are better now then in legions and such, but overall to me still pretty bland. I cant say that I really like the guy that makes Llanowar babies much either. OF the previews I have seen so far the only one i really like is the buyback/convoke token maker. Limited it will be very good and I can almost definetly see it in some of the online formats as well aka prismatic and maybe even tourney formats.
I think part of why the tokens are named is it helps out the cycle of Echoing cards from Darksteel.
Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if they make anothering Echoing card in Future Sight
Considering how Echoing Truth and Echoing Decay basically killed any and all casual token decks (Squirrels.dec, Thallids.dec, Saprolings.dec) that don't run counters, while the rest of the cycle was pretty much forgotten I hope they don't. You could make a case for Echoing Courage but how many times you have 5 enchantments and/or artifacts in play with the same name?
Well, first post, just had to mention this though, what if with the Sliver legion if there are non-creature slivers? Like a land, Sliver Den, Legendary Land-Sliver? Any cool thought or is this stupid?
It's only stupid because you're about the millionth person to suggest it in this thread... Reading is tech.
I think part of why the tokens are named is it helps out the cycle of Echoing cards from Darksteel.
Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if they make anothering Echoing card in Future Sight
Also, it makes it so an Erradicated token removes all real Llanawars in your deck from the game. The reason it has the same name is because it really does make the exact same card. Why should my token llanawar elf not echo with courage along with my other llanawar elves? Why would the other ones not die out when he is erradiacted?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
You know...i bet we could connect this to the full art cards that there have been rumors about. why make them vanilla creatures when you can make them the 'quasi-iconic' creatures that the shapers are creating. This would just be 6 slots (common slot, though maybe they could make them a lot harder to get to make them special), though...if this were the case, it's more than likely that savannah lions would not be the white creature and instead suntail hawk, as all of the other 'rumored' creature makers are common.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This is probably the worst signature in the history of signatures.
I still find it odd that the Tokens have the same name as the creature. It makes sense to a degree, I guess, but it seems like it could lead to a helluva lot of confusion in some decks that already make a lot of tokens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cyme we inne frið, fram the grip of deaþ to lif inne ðis smylte land.
I still find it odd that the Tokens have the same name as the creature. It makes sense to a degree, I guess, but it seems like it could lead to a helluva lot of confusion in some decks that already make a lot of tokens.
I don't see how. What would be the nature of this confusion, and how would both the name and the number of other tokens both make a difference?
I still find it odd that the Tokens have the same name as the creature. It makes sense to a degree, I guess, but it seems like it could lead to a helluva lot of confusion in some decks that already make a lot of tokens.
But it doesn't have the same name. Llanowar elves = the token. Llanowar Elf = the card. So therefore very close, but not the same.
Is Sliver becoming a supertype? Unlikely, as (for one) Sliver Legion itself is a "Legendary Creature — Sliver" not "Sliver Legendary Creature"
Is this a templating change? Also unlikely, as the new format wasn't used for the second mention of Sliver. i.e. it doesn't say "All Sliver creatures get +1/+1 for each other Sliver creature in play."
Does it auger a rules change? If so, it ought not be as big as the change to Echo with TS, as according to Maro, Mago wouldn't allow such a change mid-block.
What's left? Either Wizards messed up or it's something we haven't thought of yet...
Banner and avatar by the one and only Craven at Epic graphics. Check them out.
Offical High Priest of Reign of Blood
remember the argument about why sliver legion was called "legion"? legion is mostly applied to large ammounts of individuals.
BUT!!!
there is a chapter in the bible ( yea, the holy bible ) featuring a man possesed by a demon who was latter exorcised by jesus ( i think ). The Demon was Called LEGION. this is because the demon actually was a metaphor ( like everything else in the bible ) representing a roman army ( or roman legion ) tormenting a town ( or region, i cant remember ), hereby interpreted by the possesed man.
Maybe ...... just maybe .... this might me tho origin of the LEGION its name, not legion as a mass of people, but as the demon, and what it represents.
[ just a thought .... ]
http://alteredartmagic.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicolarre
or in my Humble Alter Gallery at DeviantArt: http://nicolarre.deviantart.com/gallery/
The quote is available on the old Sliver tokens from crazyclowns
Actually, you are wrong. The demon(s) in the Bible identified itself as Legion, and if you bother to check the various demonology scriptures, you'll see Legion as a demon's name pop up quite a lot.
Referred to as Legion (or Legia), also mentioned as one of the many names of the devil.
Sorry for the off topic.
Banner and avatar by the one and only Craven at Epic graphics. Check them out.
Offical High Priest of Reign of Blood
Indeed, yes... I made a mistake.
Everyone should ignore what I said. It's so riddled with wrongness. I misread the card. Well actually... it's more like I had a lapse of attention.
It says "Sliver creature" for some reason. That has no explanation but two:
typo
'Sliver' will become a subtype of a noncreature card type.
This covers every possibility. Here's how I know:
Either it was intentional, or not (tautological truth)
If it was not, it was a typo.
If it was intentional, then there is a reason to write "Sliver creature" instead of "Sliver."
(let's ignore for a moment jwanders' revelation that this is already a contradiction)
"Sliver creature" is supposed to be interpreted as "a permanent of type creature and of type Sliver."
So, the practice of using a type to stand for a permanent of that type is still there ('permanent' isn't written)
(above is where I made my mistake)
So then, what has changed is that 'Sliver' no longer implies "a permanent of type creature and type Sliver," because... well, it should have, but clearly, it doesn't.
The 'creature' can't mean 'Sliver'. And if it would mean 'permanent', there was no reason to use 'creature' over 'permanent'. It must have at least taken the 'creature' meaning from Sliver.
So, "Sliver" means "an object/permanent of type Sliver," while 'creature' means "an object/permanent of type creature". (what I'm saying here is that either card types or subtypes will take the role of implying permanence)
So then, because 'Sliver' lost the implication of creatureness, and this was intentional, it must be the case that there are now times when design wants to communicate the idea of a noncreature Sliver object.
So then noncreature Sliver objects will/might exist.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Looks like it says that on the pic. Hard to read though.
Sliver Legion is a cop-out in my opinion.. wow.. so they get a Coat of Arms sliver.. real inovative.. course since there are about 100 Slivers now they probably have run out of abilities to give.. I would think some sort of mega sacrifice woulda been better.. like Sac 2 Slivers for an effect
Back to reality
2) any news as to the Dragons? I believe I saw a pic a while back but I can't find it
3) Is there any hope to see Venser, Freyalise, or perhaps any of the old Legends mentioned on the PC Timeshifts as cards in this set.. ideas?
Loose Change Pauper Cube-cast
Pauper Cube Article #1
Pauper Cube Article #2
Personal Enjoyment Cube
meanwhile they've already had legends that make sliver tokens, legends that tutor for slivers and steal slivers, there's not a lot more a lord can do to slivers short of making them amazingly fricken huge.
Your Type Is: Spike
Loose Change Pauper Cube-cast
Pauper Cube Article #1
Pauper Cube Article #2
Personal Enjoyment Cube
WGBRU
Sliver Legion
All Slivers have When ~this~ comes into play, put a 1/1 colorless Sliver creature token into play
Loose Change Pauper Cube-cast
Pauper Cube Article #1
Pauper Cube Article #2
Personal Enjoyment Cube
Uh, that would have to be "All non-token Slivers..." or you would cause a non-breakable infinite loop and force the game to a draw immediately.
- Jon Finkel believes in maintaining a healthy, balanced diet. He gets all his fiber from eating Magic cards for breakfast, and all his protein from eating Magic players for lunch.
I don't believe I said you could. Try reading my post again.
Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if they make anothering Echoing card in Future Sight
Considering how Echoing Truth and Echoing Decay basically killed any and all casual token decks (Squirrels.dec, Thallids.dec, Saprolings.dec) that don't run counters, while the rest of the cycle was pretty much forgotten I hope they don't. You could make a case for Echoing Courage but how many times you have 5 enchantments and/or artifacts in play with the same name?
It's only stupid because you're about the millionth person to suggest it in this thread... Reading is tech.
Also, it makes it so an Erradicated token removes all real Llanawars in your deck from the game. The reason it has the same name is because it really does make the exact same card. Why should my token llanawar elf not echo with courage along with my other llanawar elves? Why would the other ones not die out when he is erradiacted?
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I don't see how. What would be the nature of this confusion, and how would both the name and the number of other tokens both make a difference?
But it doesn't have the same name. Llanowar elves = the token. Llanowar Elf = the card. So therefore very close, but not the same.