Meh. I hate when writers discard continuity, even for relatively trivial things. 300 was an obviously fictionalized version of an actual true story, and I guess that's fine for a writer who can't be arsed to figure out how to tell an interesting story without discarding the facts, but it's another story altogether when you have something like Batman's origin that just keeps getting rehashed a million times in order to keep it "fresh and improved" and all it accomplishes is muddling the lore so badly that no one can agree on any single point of canon. At that point, why even call it the same story?
Retelling a story that was mediocre the first time around might be promising if there was much reason to expect it not also being mediocre the second time around, but there's little reason to think that will be the case. The more likely outcome is that crap will remain crap in version two, except worse because now no one can even tell what parts of the story are canon.
Exploit (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature.)
When this creature exploits a creature, you may...
(or)
When this creature enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature. If you do, you may...
I'm pretty sure they just wanted to be able to say "exploits a creature" on a Magic card. Not that you can exploit anything else as far as I'm aware, so the "a creature" is redundant.
I don't even know why I bother to mention that wording nightmare when there's an even more obvious one in the OP. Profound Journey RETURNS a permanent from your graveyard to the battlefield even though that permanent may never have been on the battlefield at all. And they've been making that wording mistake since Alpha! LOL
Exploit (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature.)
When this creature exploits a creature, you may...
(or)
When this creature enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature. If you do, you may...
I'm pretty sure they just wanted to be able to say "exploits a creature" on a Magic card. Not that you can exploit anything else as far as I'm aware, so the "a creature" is redundant.
I don't even know why I bother to mention that wording nightmare when there's an even more obvious one in the OP. Profound Journey RETURNS a permanent from your graveyard to the battlefield even though that permanent may never have been on the battlefield at all. And they've been making that wording mistake since Alpha! LOL
Well, they could theoretically make a card with "Whenever a creature you control exploits a creature, you may..." or even "When a creature you control exploits this creature, you may..." That would justify using a keyword.
The problem with the Elder Dragon story is that it finalized the lore. There's 5 and no more, ever, for whatever reason.
Usually I'm a continuity purist as well, but in this case there was room for improvement. Also would like to remind you guys that this exists:
Exploit (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature.)
When this creature exploits a creature, you may...
(or)
When this creature enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature. If you do, you may...
I'm pretty sure they just wanted to be able to say "exploits a creature" on a Magic card. Not that you can exploit anything else as far as I'm aware, so the "a creature" is redundant.
I don't even know why I bother to mention that wording nightmare when there's an even more obvious one in the OP. Profound Journey RETURNS a permanent from your graveyard to the battlefield even though that permanent may never have been on the battlefield at all. And they've been making that wording mistake since Alpha! LOL
What verb would you use instead of return? And just saying "exploit" wouldn't work because the exploit ability triggers whether or not you sacrifice a creature. Having the two abilities be separate also opens up design space for checking the characteristics of the exploited creature, or for abilities other than ETB triggers.
You played JESUS?!?! I heard none of his guys stay in the graveyard, and once you think you have him beat he ALWAYS comes back to win within three turns. I like...WORSHIP him.
"What verb would you use instead of return?"
Put! For example:
Return target creature from your graveyard to your hand.
should be...
Put target creature from your graveyard into your hand.
It's actually correct, the wording for it already exists, and you even save a little bit of space in the text box. It's a mistake they missed correcting when the rules were overhauled in the early days, and then again at 6th edition, and several more times in recent years. They've shown they're just going to continue doing it the wrong way forever.... admitting it has been wrong all along is hard I guess.
I guess we'll always be able to enjoy discarding a card from our hands and then "returning" it to the battlefield with Zombify.
I'm baaaaaaaack...... for the first time!
I'm fairly upset with Exploit as a mechanic. When I first read it, I thought it was repeatable in some sense; Zidisi looked really good then, but now he just seems fair. I doubt any other Exploit creatures will see play other than him. He only costs 1 card even with the sacrifice, so he is a typical creature + search. I guess I like that he defends exceptionally well against the whole non-flying meta. I do find it interesting that the Sultai have an EtB mechanic; maybe new life to whip? Just not ecstatic with Exploit.
I'm actually reasonably happy to see Profound Journey. I enjoy cards that are non-blue and give card advantage; my all time favorite being Creeping Renaissance. Just a thought, I know they're very different. This is cool because it gives board state as well! I'll find a way to make it work as a one of to bother control opponents.
I'm torn on Silumgar. Blocks profitably against a huge portion of the meta, steals board presence, but I really think removal is prevalent. Stealing an Ugin before he ults is certainly a thing though, but I doubt it in control vs control; I just see a counter fight, or removal in response to the EtB. Control is big in my area, so I doubt I'll be looking to pick him up in the near future. If he profitably resolves, I would say you're already winning.
Why would it play well with Manifest? You have a reasonable chance to mess up your EtB trigger by manifesting your Exploit creature. Manifest also generally costs a card to do anyway, so you're not exactly avoiding the sacrifice.
Exploit is going to work well with tokens. Sidisi makes tokens and Zidisi eats one to put a card in your hand. Tokens are something we have tons of in standard playable areas and we are likely going to see more after the reprint of Dragon Fodder. Buuut it's more likely that he'll just find one or two slots in Sidisi decks.
Edit: I guess you could be talking about limited. In which case, ya, that might work out pretty well, but a 4/6 Deathtouch with flexibility is probably going to crush that game anyway.
Why would it play well with Manifest? You have a reasonable chance to mess up your EtB trigger by manifesting your Exploit creature. Manifest also generally costs a card to do anyway, so you're not exactly avoiding the sacrifice.
Exploit is going to work well with tokens. Sidisi makes tokens and Zidisi eats one to put a card in your hand. Tokens are something we have tons of in standard playable areas and we are likely going to see more after the reprint of Dragon Fodder. Buuut it's more likely that he'll just find one or two slots in Sidisi decks.
Edit: I guess you could be talking about limited. In which case, ya, that might work out pretty well, but a 4/6 Deathtouch with flexibility is probably going to crush that game anyway.
I say it'll play well with Manifest mostly because of cards such as Ethereal Ambush, for example. Yes, tokens are the prime choice, but when you're manifesting multiple cards and they're not ever able to turn faceup (ie - noncreature), why wouldn't you choose to exploit them? I'm just saying that, in Limited, manifest gives you more resources to exploit. (See what I did there?)
... And somehow I missed your edit about Limited the first time, but yes, I was thinking from the context of Limited. If you open Mastery of the Unseen and go for the W/B Exploit deck? Where is George Takei for the "Oh myyyy"?
Ojutai's Summons is how we get creatures out and get around prowess' 'noncreature' restriction.
Sidisi looks interesting, but I'm not sure if I would play her even over Diabolic Tutor. But a 4/6 deathtouch for 3BB, 'cycle a dude from play' might be worth it.
Stampeding Elk Herd...I'm not usually big on "creatures you control have trample", because it provides an excuse to cut common trample and only use ***** trample. ("***** trample" is my pet name for cards like Charging Badger.) But on a common, it's actually relevant in limited. Unlike some aesthetic crimes before gods and men. (Seriously, for a while, I was thinking green only got relevant trample at mythic these days.)
Sprinting Warbrute is a good reminder that "attacks each turn if able" is usually a non-downside downside in red.
Aerie Bowmasters...while not 'good', an acceptable improvement over Giant Spider.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Retelling a story that was mediocre the first time around might be promising if there was much reason to expect it not also being mediocre the second time around, but there's little reason to think that will be the case. The more likely outcome is that crap will remain crap in version two, except worse because now no one can even tell what parts of the story are canon.
C'mon man, dont'cha know? Keyword all the things. I agree though, Exploit, Chroma, etc are pretty much a waste of space on a card.
(or)
I'm pretty sure they just wanted to be able to say "exploits a creature" on a Magic card. Not that you can exploit anything else as far as I'm aware, so the "a creature" is redundant.
I don't even know why I bother to mention that wording nightmare when there's an even more obvious one in the OP. Profound Journey RETURNS a permanent from your graveyard to the battlefield even though that permanent may never have been on the battlefield at all. And they've been making that wording mistake since Alpha! LOL
.
Well, they could theoretically make a card with "Whenever a creature you control exploits a creature, you may..." or even "When a creature you control exploits this creature, you may..." That would justify using a keyword.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
Usually I'm a continuity purist as well, but in this case there was room for improvement. Also would like to remind you guys that this exists:
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
What verb would you use instead of return? And just saying "exploit" wouldn't work because the exploit ability triggers whether or not you sacrifice a creature. Having the two abilities be separate also opens up design space for checking the characteristics of the exploited creature, or for abilities other than ETB triggers.
"-er mage"
My 180 Modern Bordered Only Cube
Put! For example:
should be...
It's actually correct, the wording for it already exists, and you even save a little bit of space in the text box. It's a mistake they missed correcting when the rules were overhauled in the early days, and then again at 6th edition, and several more times in recent years. They've shown they're just going to continue doing it the wrong way forever.... admitting it has been wrong all along is hard I guess.
I guess we'll always be able to enjoy discarding a card from our hands and then "returning" it to the battlefield with Zombify.
I'm baaaaaaaack...... for the first time!
.
I'm actually reasonably happy to see Profound Journey. I enjoy cards that are non-blue and give card advantage; my all time favorite being Creeping Renaissance. Just a thought, I know they're very different. This is cool because it gives board state as well! I'll find a way to make it work as a one of to bother control opponents.
I'm torn on Silumgar. Blocks profitably against a huge portion of the meta, steals board presence, but I really think removal is prevalent. Stealing an Ugin before he ults is certainly a thing though, but I doubt it in control vs control; I just see a counter fight, or removal in response to the EtB. Control is big in my area, so I doubt I'll be looking to pick him up in the near future. If he profitably resolves, I would say you're already winning.
"Reveal a Dragon"
Past Ruminations
Links are broken, will fix in near future.
- Kaladesh
- Zendikar
- Rise of the Eldrazi
- Alara Reborn
- Innistrad <- Personal Favorite
- Dark Ascension
- Avacyn Restored
- Theros
- Return to Ravnica
- Tarkir
Exploit is going to work well with tokens. Sidisi makes tokens and Zidisi eats one to put a card in your hand. Tokens are something we have tons of in standard playable areas and we are likely going to see more after the reprint of Dragon Fodder. Buuut it's more likely that he'll just find one or two slots in Sidisi decks.
Edit: I guess you could be talking about limited. In which case, ya, that might work out pretty well, but a 4/6 Deathtouch with flexibility is probably going to crush that game anyway.
"Reveal a Dragon"
... And somehow I missed your edit about Limited the first time, but yes, I was thinking from the context of Limited. If you open Mastery of the Unseen and go for the W/B Exploit deck? Where is George Takei for the "Oh myyyy"?
Past Ruminations
Links are broken, will fix in near future.
- Kaladesh
- Zendikar
- Rise of the Eldrazi
- Alara Reborn
- Innistrad <- Personal Favorite
- Dark Ascension
- Avacyn Restored
- Theros
- Return to Ravnica
- Tarkir
Ojutai's Summons is how we get creatures out and get around prowess' 'noncreature' restriction.
Sidisi looks interesting, but I'm not sure if I would play her even over Diabolic Tutor. But a 4/6 deathtouch for 3BB, 'cycle a dude from play' might be worth it.
Stampeding Elk Herd...I'm not usually big on "creatures you control have trample", because it provides an excuse to cut common trample and only use ***** trample. ("***** trample" is my pet name for cards like Charging Badger.) But on a common, it's actually relevant in limited. Unlike some aesthetic crimes before gods and men. (Seriously, for a while, I was thinking green only got relevant trample at mythic these days.)
Sprinting Warbrute is a good reminder that "attacks each turn if able" is usually a non-downside downside in red.
Aerie Bowmasters...while not 'good', an acceptable improvement over Giant Spider.
On phasing: