I might also point out, for those who think that this a 'plant' for Muraganda, that Muraganda's theme is already rather well known: Vanilla Matters.
Now, when you note that all Morphs are Vanilla creatures, it stands to reason that Muraganda should either have Morph in it, or be in the same Standard as a block that has Morph.
Storywise, dunno, Garruk might go there to cleanse himself?
Going by the Muraganda Planechase card, the theme could also be +1/+1 counters matter. Which would also slot nicely into the khans of tarkir block.
Every set is now +1/+1 counters matter. :/ Really wouldn't be anything special.
Every set is now +1/+1 counters matter. :/ Really wouldn't be anything special.
It occured to me after I posted that another way of interpreting the planechase card is that it could be a converted mana cost matters set. Which would go well with all the dragons and delve.
so what, there are dinosaurs on Tarkir now? Is this how they template dinosaur types? Is this them testing the dinosaur waters? What is 'mythic' about this card?
so what, there are dinosaurs on Tarkir now? Is this how they template dinosaur types? Is this them testing the dinosaur waters? What is 'mythic' about this card?
What a peculiar card.I don't understand why is a lizard tough,so random
For God knows what reason, Wizards of the Coast thinks dinosaurs are lizards and is too lazy to give them their own creature type.
Meh, this is speaking as a naturalist who worked in two dinosaur museums in college: lizards (Order Squamata) branched off earlier reptiles so close to dinosaurs that, at least cladistically, there's no need to create a new tribe. Heck, I don't even think "Lizard Beast" is necessary. That screams Therapsids to me (early lizard-like mammals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida).
No, this is wrong. Lizards are nowhere close to dinosaurs cladistically. Dinosaurs are archosaurs, a separate branch from the lepidosaurs, which lizards fall under. The closest living relatives of dinosaurs today are birds (which are technically dinosaurs) and crocodilians (which are another branch of archosaurs). I don't think either birds or crocodiles are close enough to the popular image of a dinosaur for them to work for the dinosaur creature type, but lizards are way off-course.
Sure, you could argue both lizards and dinosaurs are diapsids, but that's getting so general you might as well call a bird a snake.
Genetically they're very close to lizards. Far closer, in my opinion, than the "resolution" of MtG's tribal divisions can "detect", if I'm clear.
They're not genetically close to lizards.
And we have separate creature types in Magic for far, far, far smaller genetic gaps (Like elephants and rhinos). Dinosaurs deserve their own creature type.
Maro keeps saying that tropes have to meet expectations, like how theros got krakens. Lizard beast makes since for dinosaurs in this regard, and imagine a dinosaur that pumped all of your other dinosaurs, but not your brooding saurian or this dip****. That would be way weirder. Lizard beast or just lizard makes the most sense from that view, even though the above posters are right that it should technically get it's own type.
Edit: Perhaps they'll deal with this like they did with wolves and werewolves - but that would be a clunky template.
They're not genetically close to lizards. And we have separate creature types in Magic for far, far, far smaller genetic gaps (Like elephants and rhinos). Dinosaurs deserve their own creature type.
I don't know what criteria you're using, but again, cladistically lizards and dinosaurs branched off the reptile line close together.
I'll grant you elephants and rhinos. That's a set I haven't thought of. That said, it's only worthwhile to split tribes if you're actually going to do something with the split, otherwise all you're doing is just leaving little Timmy's lizard tribal deck with a smaller card selection. Wizards still has catching up to do in supporting all sorts of tribes (where's my sphinx tribal?) before they should go splitting them into new ones.
If they're going to actually support dinosaur tribal, like with minotaurs in Theros, then that's fine, but carelessly splitting groups purely for "muh uniqueness" is not something I support. This is a game first and flavour second.
Genetically they're very close to lizards. Far closer, in my opinion, than the "resolution" of MtG's tribal divisions can "detect", if I'm clear.
Given how the latest research shows that dinosaurs were genetically far closer to birds than lizards (especially raptors), it would be hilarious if we went to Muraganda expecting dinosaurs, and it turns out they all have the bird subtype.
I might also point out, for those who think that this a 'plant' for Muraganda, that Muraganda's theme is already rather well known: Vanilla Matters.
MaRo has said multiple times that a "vanilla matters" theme has much less design space than people think. I really doubt it could support a set.
What we do know about Muraganda is that it has intelligent dinosaur-people called saurids, and that's reason enough to go there.
There's one way around the small design space: Magic Origins
Seously, if one of the ten planes from Magic Origins is Muraganda (either a planeswalker's home plane, which is unlikely, or first planeswalk plane, which would be fine for, say, Nissa), they could use some of the design space without committing whole to it.
I might also point out, for those who think that this a 'plant' for Muraganda, that Muraganda's theme is already rather well known: Vanilla Matters.
MaRo has said multiple times that a "vanilla matters" theme has much less design space than people think. I really doubt it could support a set.
What we do know about Muraganda is that it has intelligent dinosaur-people called saurids, and that's reason enough to go there.
There's one way around the small design space: Magic Origins
Seously, if one of the ten planes from Magic Origins is Muraganda (either a planeswalker's home plane, which is unlikely, or first planeswalk plane, which would be fine for, say, Nissa), they could use some of the design space without committing whole to it.
I agree with you. Core sets would have been the best place to put ideas and themes for future planes. Like if they had continued doing it as Core Sets while having the name Magic Origins it could really have looked like:
They're not genetically close to lizards. And we have separate creature types in Magic for far, far, far smaller genetic gaps (Like elephants and rhinos). Dinosaurs deserve their own creature type.
I don't know what criteria you're using, but again, cladistically lizards and dinosaurs branched off the reptile line close together.
No they didn't. Dinosaurs are Archosauromorphs. Their genetic separation from the ancestors of lizards happened in the Permian, long before the first fossil appearance of either lizards or dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are nowhere close to lizards genetically, and even if you still think they are, they're much closer to other modern day animals with Magic creature types (the aforementioned crocodiles and birds).
If they're going to actually support dinosaur tribal, like with minotaurs in Theros, then that's fine, but carelessly splitting groups purely for "muh uniqueness" is not something I support. This is a game first and flavour second.
We have a freaking Lammasu creature type. I think we can afford to have a dinosaur creature type, especially when they're such a iconic category of animals.
Since there are no lizard tribal cards and nobody really cares about lizard tribal, nothing is being lost game-wise by making this completely reasonable change.
Given how the latest research shows that dinosaurs were genetically far closer to birds than lizards (especially raptors), it would be hilarious if we went to Muraganda expecting dinosaurs, and it turns out they all have the bird subtype.
So.. I've been playing with dinosaurs all this time, ever since I saw Jurassic Park in theatres as a little kid back in '93?
If you discard it to Gathan Raiders, will it return to the battlefield or not? Regardless, I don't think this card is ANY good for standard, but in modern, I'd pay 3 colorless to return one or more of these back, face-up of course, given we have Gathan Raiders and Horde Ambusher. It's at least interesting with Reckless Wurm.
I still doubt it will see play - Whisperwood Elemental is a grand total of one card currently in Standard that this plays well with.
It plays well with itself.
First raptor trades with whatever. Second comes later as 4/4 and brings back first one.
And after you have 2 raptors online you can alternate their recurring.
I think the design of this card along with being a raptor is really cool. I don't understand the flavor. As I said with the Innistrad zombie that was spoiled yesterday, it doesn't bother me that it isn't a dragon. What bothers me is that the flavor doesn't match the set. Why is there suddenly a raptor on tarkir? Why do we have Innistrad zombies? I don't mind a zombie lord or raptor but make the art and flavor match the set. The power level of these mythic is weird too but I can't complain too much. Fringe playable mythics and playable rares are great in my eyes!
Even the first 'dragon set' had a zombie lord - Undead Warchief. In that set there was a cycle of lords for Legions-supported tribes, even though Scourge was mostly focused on adding dragons (not much supported in Onslaught or Legions) to the tribal theme.
It's still possible they'll do the same here - Risen Executioner, it turns out, is a rare rather than (as originally spoiled) a mythic, so it could still be part of a cycle. And we know Warrior tribal is also still being supported. So I wouldn't completely rule out a broader tribal theme for the set.
As for the raptor, I think the cobra hood art indicates that they were going for a venomous creature, but does it much matter? Deathtouch is a green ability - until recently it seems to have been pretty evenly-represented in both black and green, and indeed it's keywording an ability that first appeared on a green card (Lowland Basilisk, in Stronghold) and was itself a 'fixed' version of the Thicket Basilisk mechanic from Alpha. Theros onwards seems to have pushed it more heavily towards black, and we're seeing a lot of black deathtouch in Dragons. but there's no need for any elaborate justification for giving deathtouch to a green card - it's likely more venomous than Heir of the Wilds.
Genetically they're very close to lizards. Far closer, in my opinion, than the "resolution" of MtG's tribal divisions can "detect", if I'm clear.
Given how the latest research shows that dinosaurs were genetically far closer to birds than lizards (especially raptors), it would be hilarious if we went to Muraganda expecting dinosaurs, and it turns out they all have the bird subtype.
Imperiosaur looks more like a dinosaur than this does, and that's a Lizard.
As for the taxonomy, no dinosaurs are not close to lizards, and it's a different relationship to the bird/dinosaur link (bird should be a dinosaur subtype; birds are directly descended from lizards). Lizards and snakes ate the latest and - except for the tuatara - only surviving group of the Lepidosauria, a separate lineage from the group that gave rise to the archosaurs and - as has recently finally been confirmed after many years of discussion - turtles.
This is of course irrelevant to Magic templating, which isn't taxonomically consistent with regard to real animals (since Exodus, monkeys have all been templated as Apes). By the lumping logic Magic uses for creature types like Lizard, snakes should also be lizards rather than having their own subtype - since, taxonomically, they simply are a very large group of legless lizards.
It plays with itself. Playing "well" with itself is a stretch - I see the megamorph ability as something that's there in case you get stuck and don't pull anything you want to play this with while another's in your graveyard, but it's always suboptimal to play a 4/4 deathtouch for 4G plus the 3 cost of playing a morph, and I doubt getting a 3/3 deathtouch back once is often going to be good enough to warrant it. By that point you're quite late in the game and, deathtouch or no, you really want to be playing something more relevant than a slightly larger Heir of the Wilds by then. Especially when it's only really of much use against the few deck types that rely on stomping you on the ground (and even there gets wiped by Fleecemane Lion).
I think the design of this card along with being a raptor is really cool. I don't understand the flavor. As I said with the Innistrad zombie that was spoiled yesterday, it doesn't bother me that it isn't a dragon. What bothers me is that the flavor doesn't match the set. Why is there suddenly a raptor on tarkir? Why do we have Innistrad zombies? I don't mind a zombie lord or raptor but make the art and flavor match the set. The power level of these mythic is weird too but I can't complain too much. Fringe playable mythics and playable rares are great in my eyes!
Even the first 'dragon set' had a zombie lord - Undead Warchief. In that set there was a cycle of lords for Legions-supported tribes, even though Scourge was mostly focused on adding dragons (not much supported in Onslaught or Legions) to the tribal theme.
It's still possible they'll do the same here - Risen Executioner, it turns out, is a rare rather than (as originally spoiled) a mythic, so it could still be part of a cycle. And we know Warrior tribal is also still being supported. So I wouldn't completely rule out a broader tribal theme for the set.
As for the raptor, I think the cobra hood art indicates that they were going for a venomous creature, but does it much matter? Deathtouch is a green ability - until recently it seems to have been pretty evenly-represented in both black and green, and indeed it's keywording an ability that first appeared on a green card (Lowland Basilisk, in Stronghold) and was itself a 'fixed' version of the Thicket Basilisk mechanic from Alpha. Theros onwards seems to have pushed it more heavily towards black, and we're seeing a lot of black deathtouch in Dragons. but there's no need for any elaborate justification for giving deathtouch to a green card - it's likely more venomous than Heir of the Wilds.
I understand the flavor of deathtouch on the raptor. I don't understand the flavor of a raptor on Tarkir. It's good that the zombie isn't a mythic. I would hate to pull a mythic that is so off base power-wise and flavor-wise. I don't have a problem with a zombie lord, I have a problem with the picture on the card and the card name. They match Innistrad or a core set but not Tarkir. It should have been Dragonlord's Executioner or Silumgar's Executioner or the picture should have depicted that it was part of Silumgar's brood rather than a generic name with a generic picture.
I think the design of this card along with being a raptor is really cool. I don't understand the flavor. As I said with the Innistrad zombie that was spoiled yesterday, it doesn't bother me that it isn't a dragon. What bothers me is that the flavor doesn't match the set. Why is there suddenly a raptor on tarkir? Why do we have Innistrad zombies? I don't mind a zombie lord or raptor but make the art and flavor match the set. The power level of these mythic is weird too but I can't complain too much. Fringe playable mythics and playable rares are great in my eyes!
Even the first 'dragon set' had a zombie lord - Undead Warchief. In that set there was a cycle of lords for Legions-supported tribes, even though Scourge was mostly focused on adding dragons (not much supported in Onslaught or Legions) to the tribal theme.
It's still possible they'll do the same here - Risen Executioner, it turns out, is a rare rather than (as originally spoiled) a mythic, so it could still be part of a cycle. And we know Warrior tribal is also still being supported. So I wouldn't completely rule out a broader tribal theme for the set.
As for the raptor, I think the cobra hood art indicates that they were going for a venomous creature, but does it much matter? Deathtouch is a green ability - until recently it seems to have been pretty evenly-represented in both black and green, and indeed it's keywording an ability that first appeared on a green card (Lowland Basilisk, in Stronghold) and was itself a 'fixed' version of the Thicket Basilisk mechanic from Alpha. Theros onwards seems to have pushed it more heavily towards black, and we're seeing a lot of black deathtouch in Dragons. but there's no need for any elaborate justification for giving deathtouch to a green card - it's likely more venomous than Heir of the Wilds.
I understand the flavor of deathtouch on the raptor. I don't understand the flavor of a raptor on Tarkir. It's good that the zombie isn't a mythic. I would hate to pull a mythic that is so off base power-wise and flavor-wise. I don't have a problem with a zombie lord, I have a problem with the picture on the card and the card name. They match Innistrad or a core set but not Tarkir. It should have been Dragonlord's Executioner or Silumgar's Executioner or the picture should have depicted that it was part of Silumgar's brood rather than a generic name with a generic picture.
Turns out that the zombie is, after all, mythic - for some reason a different image was shown for a while yesterday, and that had a rare rather than a mythic symbol. But it's now reverted to the original image, so presumably that was correct. I agree about the name and image, but I still consider the card pretty good - especially compared with several of the other mythics spoiled.
The blue elemental is basically an Ashcloud Phoenix without the evasion or upside for unmorphing (the two things that make Ashcloud playable).
This green raptor is a fun design, but it's not a good fit for Standard, not good enough for any other format, and if you ever do get to the point where you're playing this morphed and flipping to bring back other ones, you're late enough in the game that you'd probably have a more reliable source of infinite 3/3 deathtouches by playing Garruk.
I think the card unfortunately translated as "Blood Chin Fanatic" may be sideboard-worthy if a BW Warrior deck becomes Standard-playable, but like the raptor it's another case of using mythics to push a pet archetype for Constructed.
Atarka has some very interesting potential in a world of Frontier Sieges, Temur Ascendancies and Whips of Erebos, but I wouldn't count on the other dragonlords we've seen seeing much play though Silumgar may have a niche or sideboard application.
I see what you mean re Tarkir wildlife. Since this is an alternate timeline set, most broad creature types other than dragons should be recognisable from the other sets. Still, it's never been ruled out that there are pseudo-dinosaurs on Tarkir. We can't have seen everything in the setting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Every set is now +1/+1 counters matter. :/ Really wouldn't be anything special.
I Stream MTGO on Twitch: broodwarjc
I also post recordings of those streams on Youtube: broodwarjcavidgamer
Standard Deck:
BUPirates
Modern Deck:
B8-Rack
It occured to me after I posted that another way of interpreting the planechase card is that it could be a converted mana cost matters set. Which would go well with all the dragons and delve.
SURPRISE! *Flips face up*
Many thanks to DNC at Heroes of the Plane Studios
No, this is wrong. Lizards are nowhere close to dinosaurs cladistically. Dinosaurs are archosaurs, a separate branch from the lepidosaurs, which lizards fall under. The closest living relatives of dinosaurs today are birds (which are technically dinosaurs) and crocodilians (which are another branch of archosaurs). I don't think either birds or crocodiles are close enough to the popular image of a dinosaur for them to work for the dinosaur creature type, but lizards are way off-course.
Sure, you could argue both lizards and dinosaurs are diapsids, but that's getting so general you might as well call a bird a snake.
They're not genetically close to lizards.
And we have separate creature types in Magic for far, far, far smaller genetic gaps (Like elephants and rhinos). Dinosaurs deserve their own creature type.
Commander:
R Daretti, Scrap Savant
BR Olivia Voldaren
BRG Shattergang Brothers
GUR Riku of Two Reflections
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
Edit: Perhaps they'll deal with this like they did with wolves and werewolves - but that would be a clunky template.
I don't know what criteria you're using, but again, cladistically lizards and dinosaurs branched off the reptile line close together.
I'll grant you elephants and rhinos. That's a set I haven't thought of. That said, it's only worthwhile to split tribes if you're actually going to do something with the split, otherwise all you're doing is just leaving little Timmy's lizard tribal deck with a smaller card selection. Wizards still has catching up to do in supporting all sorts of tribes (where's my sphinx tribal?) before they should go splitting them into new ones.
If they're going to actually support dinosaur tribal, like with minotaurs in Theros, then that's fine, but carelessly splitting groups purely for "muh uniqueness" is not something I support. This is a game first and flavour second.
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
Given how the latest research shows that dinosaurs were genetically far closer to birds than lizards (especially raptors), it would be hilarious if we went to Muraganda expecting dinosaurs, and it turns out they all have the bird subtype.
Cubetutor Link
There's one way around the small design space: Magic Origins
Seously, if one of the ten planes from Magic Origins is Muraganda (either a planeswalker's home plane, which is unlikely, or first planeswalk plane, which would be fine for, say, Nissa), they could use some of the design space without committing whole to it.
I agree with you. Core sets would have been the best place to put ideas and themes for future planes. Like if they had continued doing it as Core Sets while having the name Magic Origins it could really have looked like:
Magic Origins: Muraganda
Magic Origins: Shandalar
etc
etc
No they didn't. Dinosaurs are Archosauromorphs. Their genetic separation from the ancestors of lizards happened in the Permian, long before the first fossil appearance of either lizards or dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are nowhere close to lizards genetically, and even if you still think they are, they're much closer to other modern day animals with Magic creature types (the aforementioned crocodiles and birds).
We have a freaking Lammasu creature type. I think we can afford to have a dinosaur creature type, especially when they're such a iconic category of animals.
Since there are no lizard tribal cards and nobody really cares about lizard tribal, nothing is being lost game-wise by making this completely reasonable change.
Yep, birds are the last living dinosaurs.
Sliver Hivelord - Endless Winter
It plays well with itself.
First raptor trades with whatever. Second comes later as 4/4 and brings back first one.
And after you have 2 raptors online you can alternate their recurring.
Even the first 'dragon set' had a zombie lord - Undead Warchief. In that set there was a cycle of lords for Legions-supported tribes, even though Scourge was mostly focused on adding dragons (not much supported in Onslaught or Legions) to the tribal theme.
It's still possible they'll do the same here - Risen Executioner, it turns out, is a rare rather than (as originally spoiled) a mythic, so it could still be part of a cycle. And we know Warrior tribal is also still being supported. So I wouldn't completely rule out a broader tribal theme for the set.
As for the raptor, I think the cobra hood art indicates that they were going for a venomous creature, but does it much matter? Deathtouch is a green ability - until recently it seems to have been pretty evenly-represented in both black and green, and indeed it's keywording an ability that first appeared on a green card (Lowland Basilisk, in Stronghold) and was itself a 'fixed' version of the Thicket Basilisk mechanic from Alpha. Theros onwards seems to have pushed it more heavily towards black, and we're seeing a lot of black deathtouch in Dragons. but there's no need for any elaborate justification for giving deathtouch to a green card - it's likely more venomous than Heir of the Wilds.
Imperiosaur looks more like a dinosaur than this does, and that's a Lizard.
As for the taxonomy, no dinosaurs are not close to lizards, and it's a different relationship to the bird/dinosaur link (bird should be a dinosaur subtype; birds are directly descended from lizards). Lizards and snakes ate the latest and - except for the tuatara - only surviving group of the Lepidosauria, a separate lineage from the group that gave rise to the archosaurs and - as has recently finally been confirmed after many years of discussion - turtles.
This is of course irrelevant to Magic templating, which isn't taxonomically consistent with regard to real animals (since Exodus, monkeys have all been templated as Apes). By the lumping logic Magic uses for creature types like Lizard, snakes should also be lizards rather than having their own subtype - since, taxonomically, they simply are a very large group of legless lizards.
I understand the flavor of deathtouch on the raptor. I don't understand the flavor of a raptor on Tarkir. It's good that the zombie isn't a mythic. I would hate to pull a mythic that is so off base power-wise and flavor-wise. I don't have a problem with a zombie lord, I have a problem with the picture on the card and the card name. They match Innistrad or a core set but not Tarkir. It should have been Dragonlord's Executioner or Silumgar's Executioner or the picture should have depicted that it was part of Silumgar's brood rather than a generic name with a generic picture.
Turns out that the zombie is, after all, mythic - for some reason a different image was shown for a while yesterday, and that had a rare rather than a mythic symbol. But it's now reverted to the original image, so presumably that was correct. I agree about the name and image, but I still consider the card pretty good - especially compared with several of the other mythics spoiled.
The blue elemental is basically an Ashcloud Phoenix without the evasion or upside for unmorphing (the two things that make Ashcloud playable).
This green raptor is a fun design, but it's not a good fit for Standard, not good enough for any other format, and if you ever do get to the point where you're playing this morphed and flipping to bring back other ones, you're late enough in the game that you'd probably have a more reliable source of infinite 3/3 deathtouches by playing Garruk.
I think the card unfortunately translated as "Blood Chin Fanatic" may be sideboard-worthy if a BW Warrior deck becomes Standard-playable, but like the raptor it's another case of using mythics to push a pet archetype for Constructed.
Atarka has some very interesting potential in a world of Frontier Sieges, Temur Ascendancies and Whips of Erebos, but I wouldn't count on the other dragonlords we've seen seeing much play though Silumgar may have a niche or sideboard application.
I see what you mean re Tarkir wildlife. Since this is an alternate timeline set, most broad creature types other than dragons should be recognisable from the other sets. Still, it's never been ruled out that there are pseudo-dinosaurs on Tarkir. We can't have seen everything in the setting.