It's too bad they keep printing these "just for commander" commanders. I really wish they printed these in the core too so that they'd have a more inclusive run in MTG.
what do you mean? "keep printing"? it's only the second commander set. and of course commander is aimed for commander... what is your point? do you want prossh in standard?
Yes. It's a fun and swingy effect that isn't pushed overboard. No hastes give a longer window to kill it, and it comes down late enough to plan for it. At the very least, this type of effect would be fun for Standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
Feel free to post more than two words and explain your point. I'd be interested to hear about "double monocolor" and what it has to do with this thread, never heard of it (however I haven't played for 20 years if that's a determining factor).
"Double monocolor" is an oxymoron, for one thing. No google results for it, either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH: URJhoira of the GhituUR(Under con.) BMaralen of the MornsongB UBLazav, Dimir MastermindUB Standard: UMono U DevotionU Casual: GPrimordial Hydra JankinessG
Your multicolor formula is not quite correct. Double monocolor is usually worth more than two-color because you want to reward monocolor play; there's an inherent advantage with two-color. This becomes even again at three-color, though, because it's much harder to hit three colors reliably. This is assuming cmcs are the same, of course.
Feel free to post more than two words and explain your point. I'd be interested to hear about "double monocolor" and what it has to do with this thread, never heard of it (however I haven't played for 20 years if that's a determining factor).
It is not.
I've been playing since Fallen Empires, but was absolutely a scrub until Eventide. I know a TO who has been playing since Alpha, and another who was in the original playtest group. They are both horrible, horrible magic players. We all know pro-level players who have only been playing for a couple years.
A longer history with the game has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence and very little to do with technical play-skill, card evaluation or in this case ability to debate in such a manner as to -not- come across as a pompous, uninformed jackass.
Feel free to post more than two words and explain your point. I'd be interested to hear about "double monocolor" and what it has to do with this thread, never heard of it (however I haven't played for 20 years if that's a determining factor).
I think that he may be referring to monohybrid, or 2brid.
No need to clarify; it was pretty clear to start with and the rest of you guys figured it out. I have no interest in arguing with you leslak; none of the cards in your list are examples of generally better cards.
G > 1 GG >= GW > 1G GGG ~= WRG
Obviously the game changes over time and power creep is a thing especially with creatures so you can always find bad comparisons.
No need to clarify; it was pretty clear to start with and the rest of you guys figured it out. I have no interest in arguing with you leslak; none of the cards in your list are examples of generally better cards.
G > 1 GG >= GW > 1G GGG ~= WRG
Obviously the game changes over time and power creep is a thing especially with creatures so you can always find bad comparisons.
LOL
if you compare a 2G creature with a 3 artifice creature the more color intensive will be better (sometimes)...
Color intesiviness is synonym to power...
lol how silly you are.
I think i will have to agree to disagree with you about Prossh, Skyraider of Kher being able to cost 3RRR ( wich you take as acceptable with cards that have nothing in common with prossh except for the fact that they are dragons in mind) when a very similar card exists and cost 4RRR ( and have a very similar ability but being much more conditional ) (and without flying) ( Yes there is also Avenger of Zendikar )
LOL
if you compare a 2G creature with a 3 artifice creature the more color intensive will be better (sometimes)...
Color intesiviness is synonym to power...
lol how silly you are.
I think i will have to agree to disagree with you about Prossh, Skyraider of Kher being able to cost 3RRR ( wich you take as acceptable with cards that have nothing in common with prossh except for the fact that they are dragons in mind) when a very similar card exists and cost 4RRR ( and have a very similar ability but being much more conditional ) (and without flying) ( Yes there is also Avenger of Zendikar )
To be fair Chancellor of the Forge is different enough from Prossh that it's hard to compare them in terms of what you get for your mana.
Personally, I believe that Prossh could have cost 3RRR, but I am very happy that he doesn't. He is blatantly designed for Commander, and I am looking forward to using him for that reason. I've already started using him as the new Commander for my Jund deck, and he's far better than Sek'Kuar. He is BGR because it's what the people want, and I'm ok with that. Heck, at least he is more on color than Rhox War Monk.
There is no absolute equation for translating mana costs into power levels. There are some guidelines, but they are often bent, and broken on occasion. The only rule that I was say is 99% true is that you get more bang for you buck with colored mana than with colorless mana. But as you pointed out...Tarmagoyf vs Tusker. Just understand that those are the exceptions. GG vs GW is pretty arbitrary. You usually get fancier effects with multicolor, but not always better.
No need to clarify; it was pretty clear to start with and the rest of you guys figured it out. I have no interest in arguing with you leslak; none of the cards in your list are examples of generally better cards.
G > 1 GG >= GW > 1G GGG ~= WRG
Obviously the game changes over time and power creep is a thing especially with creatures so you can always find bad comparisons.
Well XY > XX and XYZ > XXX.
These are always true. However, mono green gets the most efficient creatures which is where your confusion is coming from. GGG can give you a 4/5 vanilla so it may seem similar to Thocar's WRG, however you will never get a 4/5 or 5/4 for either WWW or RRR without the creature having a drawback.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
Yes. And Tarmogoyf was a mistake, which is why it will not be reprinted in Standard again. Not until power creep eventually pushes expectations up to that level.
However, mono green gets the most efficient creatures which is where your confusion is coming from. GGG can give you a 4/5 vanilla so it may seem similar to Thocar's WRG, however you will never get a 4/5 or 5/4 for either WWW or RRR without the creature having a drawback.
There's no confusion here; when the XY results in the better creature stats than XX it's usually because it draws those those better stats from the relevant color of Y (often G) that's a drawback in X. But it's not just creatures; it applies to other spells as well. It's just that it's easier to show with creatures.
You won't get many WRG creatures with the advantages of WWW or RRR creatures, either. That's just how the color pie works.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
and watchwolf by Call of the Conclave wich creates a token in a block where tokens matter ....
watchwolf has been superceded by
thank you too...
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
Tokens are weaker than cards generally speaking.
You're quite welcome. Glad I could illuminate the finer points of Magic for you. Don't feel bad; some of us have been playing for nearly 20 years now.
Now i really think you re a Troll....
EDIT:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr202
(#2 – The "Venn Diagram" Method)
I fell bad for you ....
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr28
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ct/260
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/278
Thanks, but I'm not. Do you have anything valuable to contribute to the discussion?
I feel bad for your third grade spelling teacher.
Edit: It seems you've confused "monocolor" with "double monocolor". These are entirely different concepts.
No
Monocolor means : one color
"double monocolor" means nothing....
If by DM you mean Hard casting spells then yes they are better
Its Like saying Progenitus is better than Fusion Elemental...
Yes. It's a fun and swingy effect that isn't pushed overboard. No hastes give a longer window to kill it, and it comes down late enough to plan for it. At the very least, this type of effect would be fun for Standard.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
100% wrong.
Feel free to post more than two words and explain your point. I'd be interested to hear about "double monocolor" and what it has to do with this thread, never heard of it (however I haven't played for 20 years if that's a determining factor).
URJhoira of the GhituUR(Under con.)
BMaralen of the MornsongB
UBLazav, Dimir MastermindUB
Standard:
UMono U DevotionU
Casual:
GPrimordial Hydra JankinessG
Soo (for you ) Double monocolored means:
http://magiccards.info/query?q=mana%3DGG+t%3A%22creature%22&v=card&s=cname
?
if so...
there is a list with all 2 colored creatures with CMC 2...:
http://magiccards.info/query?q=c%3Am+cmc%3D2+t%3A%22creature%22&v=card&s=cname
and one can argue that:
are better than kalonian tusker
If you want to be creditable show some thing that confirm your "theory"...
Please explain how you can be correct...
It is not.
I've been playing since Fallen Empires, but was absolutely a scrub until Eventide. I know a TO who has been playing since Alpha, and another who was in the original playtest group. They are both horrible, horrible magic players. We all know pro-level players who have only been playing for a couple years.
A longer history with the game has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence and very little to do with technical play-skill, card evaluation or in this case ability to debate in such a manner as to -not- come across as a pompous, uninformed jackass.
---
BRG Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
WUB Sharuum, the Hegemon
UGEdric, Spymaster of Trest
I think that he may be referring to monohybrid, or 2brid.
- Online -
X Cube Drafts X
GW Pauper Boggle GW
- Paper -
Standard:
RWB Mythic Midrange RWB
He s talking about Kalonian tusker' mc
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
G > 1
GG >= GW > 1G
GGG ~= WRG
Obviously the game changes over time and power creep is a thing especially with creatures so you can always find bad comparisons.
LOL
if you compare a 2G creature with a 3 artifice creature the more color intensive will be better (sometimes)...
Color intesiviness is synonym to power...
lol how silly you are.
I think i will have to agree to disagree with you about Prossh, Skyraider of Kher being able to cost 3RRR ( wich you take as acceptable with cards that have nothing in common with prossh except for the fact that they are dragons in mind) when a very similar card exists and cost 4RRR ( and have a very similar ability but being much more conditional ) (and without flying) ( Yes there is also Avenger of Zendikar )
EDIT:
Also ,
are you saying Kalonian Tusker is better than:
Tarmogoyf
To be fair Chancellor of the Forge is different enough from Prossh that it's hard to compare them in terms of what you get for your mana.
Personally, I believe that Prossh could have cost 3RRR, but I am very happy that he doesn't. He is blatantly designed for Commander, and I am looking forward to using him for that reason. I've already started using him as the new Commander for my Jund deck, and he's far better than Sek'Kuar. He is BGR because it's what the people want, and I'm ok with that. Heck, at least he is more on color than Rhox War Monk.
There is no absolute equation for translating mana costs into power levels. There are some guidelines, but they are often bent, and broken on occasion. The only rule that I was say is 99% true is that you get more bang for you buck with colored mana than with colorless mana. But as you pointed out...Tarmagoyf vs Tusker. Just understand that those are the exceptions. GG vs GW is pretty arbitrary. You usually get fancier effects with multicolor, but not always better.
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
Well XY > XX and XYZ > XXX.
These are always true. However, mono green gets the most efficient creatures which is where your confusion is coming from. GGG can give you a 4/5 vanilla so it may seem similar to Thocar's WRG, however you will never get a 4/5 or 5/4 for either WWW or RRR without the creature having a drawback.
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
Precisely.
Is English not your first language? What you are saying here exactly conforms to and in no way contradicts what I said.
I think you've already made it quite clear from before that you disagree.
Yes. And Tarmogoyf was a mistake, which is why it will not be reprinted in Standard again. Not until power creep eventually pushes expectations up to that level.
No, they are not always true. As I said, XX >= XY and XXX ~= XYZ.
There's no confusion here; when the XY results in the better creature stats than XX it's usually because it draws those those better stats from the relevant color of Y (often G) that's a drawback in X. But it's not just creatures; it applies to other spells as well. It's just that it's easier to show with creatures.
You won't get many WRG creatures with the advantages of WWW or RRR creatures, either. That's just how the color pie works.