your original Sidisi, Brood Tyrant would be on the battlefield when the ETB effect resolves and u should get 2 zombies off her not the token obviously which you can then sac 1 when the exploit trigger resolves off the Sidisi, Undead Vizier token
Ok thinking about it when the exploit trigger resolves the Sidisi, Undead Vizier wont be on the field does that mean the demonic tutor effect wont happen if u choose to sac ?
If someone casts Undead Vizier and the exploit trigger is responded by killing Undead Vizier with a hero's downfall does that mean there is no demonic tutor ?
You get the possibility of two zombies, not certainty. You have the original Sidisi's Attack trigger (which can lead to 0-1 zombies), and the Token Sidisi's ETB trigger (which can lead to 0-1 zombies). Which you can use for Exploits later, But it's not a big win combo, its mostly cute.
You can't respond to the sacrifice (90% sure its a cost), you can respond to the casting to kill whatever other options are there, forcing them to sacrifice Sidisi herself. Sidisi doesn't need to be in the battlefield for the Tutor to happen. However the Sidisi token *will vanish* to the Legend rule before you can sacrifice anything, because state based actions happen before Triggered abilities go on the stack.
so do you get the demonic tutor off the token if you sac something or not ?
It isn't often that a blue card is by far and away the most "fun" new thing so far. Mirror Mockery is great. Encourages deckbuilding and has equal value casting on your own guys as it does your opponent's.
Colour hate cards are fantastic. That was one thing that M14 got right (although it got it a bit TOO right with Lifebane Zombie). If we aren't going to straight up see "Protection from X" that much anymore than bring on the hate cards.
I'm thinking the red part is a Pyroclasm variant that hits white and blue creatures. Or would that be too good for uncommon? There's always Ignite Disorder, I suppose.
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 thinking the red part is a Pyroclasm variant that hits white and blue creatures. Or would that be too good for uncommon? There's always Ignite Disorder, I suppose.
Hadn't seen Ignite Disorder before - that looks a likely prospect, actually. Since the red one hasn't been spoiled I'm primed to expect a reprint, and Combust doesn't seem quite right - it's too similar to Roast.
I'm thinking the red part is a Pyroclasm variant that hits white and blue creatures. Or would that be too good for uncommon? There's always Ignite Disorder, I suppose.
Hadn't seen Ignite Disorder before - that looks a likely prospect, actually. Since the red one hasn't been spoiled I'm primed to expect a reprint, and Combust doesn't seem quite right - it's too similar to Roast.
Wasn't gainsay the only reprint the last time we had a hate cycle? I could see them doing the same thing here and having one out of five be a reprint.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My favorite flavor text: Time of Heroes
Feel free to tell me yours!
Mirror Mockery now that i think about it can be really funny on hasty stuff...
But i would be pretty unhappy as an Abzan player to have my rhino copied that way. It's effectively removal but has a little bit of possible trickery, and i do like the Master of Waves idea. (realize you get the extra 2 elementals AND +1/+1 bonus on the ones already attacking. Anyways, Mirror Mockery is a really funny one for limited, and may have interesting applications in some combo decks later on.
Hasty stuff would need to do something other than attack, as attacks are declared simultaneously (too late for the copy to attack).
Now I'm excited to see what the red one looks like.
Besides that, Dragon Whisperer looks really cool. Don't know how good will it end up being but it has one of the most beautiful arts I've seen in years.
CGI Art is simply a no-go , they should not accept it at all.
They use computer painting programs, with a paint stylus. It is LITERALLY the same thing as actual drawings, but through digital medium. Do you even art?
Actually you're missing the point. Its possible to do realistic (in terms of real world mediums) pictures digitally - something that can pose for watercolor or oil when shrunken to card size. It could be even really good. But it often isn't.
Why? Because the computer is great for rush jobs. It saves a lot of time vs getting the paint brushes out. But anything done quickly will lead to a dip in quality down the line. You have to learn to walk before you can start running, and even when you start running you can't sprint all the time. If you're painting realism, and want it to look like Leonardo da Vinci, then you have to glaze over the same 2 inch square for days to get that perfect transition between colors. But instead what you're going to do is do several layers in PS and blend them in to cheat the human eye and then when the thing is shrunken down to card size no one will notice or care.
Secondly, what they're refering to when they say CGI is usually the plastic looking art like Pearl Lake Ancient. Many people don't like that plastic look and they're right. It looks alien and wrong to the human eye.
Thirdly, some very aggressive color choices that look nothing like what people are used to seeing in art are in vogue now. Much of the time I can tell a digital piece by color alone. Its like trying to do realistic painting ass backward - instead of observing what is possible in real life so as to add actual realism and credibility they just do their own thing, reality be damned. Sometimes that's fine when the artist is good, but it often flops. See Warrior Angel vs Rafiq of the Many (the Komarck one) for an example of something that may or may not be digital art, vs something that obviously is.
Actually I'm not missing the point. Y'all just suck at art analysis.
CGI Art is simply a no-go , they should not accept it at all.
They use computer painting programs, with a paint stylus. It is LITERALLY the same thing as actual drawings, but through digital medium. Do you even art?
Actually you're missing the point. Its possible to do realistic (in terms of real world mediums) pictures digitally - something that can pose for watercolor or oil when shrunken to card size. It could be even really good. But it often isn't.
Why? Because the computer is great for rush jobs. It saves a lot of time vs getting the paint brushes out. But anything done quickly will lead to a dip in quality down the line. You have to learn to walk before you can start running, and even when you start running you can't sprint all the time. If you're painting realism, and want it to look like Leonardo da Vinci, then you have to glaze over the same 2 inch square for days to get that perfect transition between colors. But instead what you're going to do is do several layers in PS and blend them in to cheat the human eye and then when the thing is shrunken down to card size no one will notice or care.
Secondly, what they're refering to when they say CGI is usually the plastic looking art like Pearl Lake Ancient. Many people don't like that plastic look and they're right. It looks alien and wrong to the human eye.
Thirdly, some very aggressive color choices that look nothing like what people are used to seeing in art are in vogue now. Much of the time I can tell a digital piece by color alone. Its like trying to do realistic painting ass backward - instead of observing what is possible in real life so as to add actual realism and credibility they just do their own thing, reality be damned. Sometimes that's fine when the artist is good, but it often flops. See Warrior Angel vs Rafiq of the Many (the Komarck one) for an example of something that may or may not be digital art, vs something that obviously is.
Well said. However most of the magic art since the early 2000's is being done digitally. The reason I used the term ''digitalized'' is simply because of how apparent it is in some of the works. Especially with commons and uncommons. There is a big difference between Firemane Angel and Marang River Skeleton (both are painted digitally). I hate to say it, but it looks to me like a lot of the new artists are hired by wizard just because they are cheap and fast, not because of their quality. Ironically wizards atm is making the highest profit in their history, and yet they are reluctant to pay the same, or even more for the art. A lot of modern art is very undetailed. The background is often times undetailed and blurry. The colors are really bright and jarring. I am not 100% sure, but I think Wizards put a filter over the artwork. That's the only explanation that makes sense for everything being so bright. And I think the word ''plastic'' actually describes some of the works perfectly. Cards like Acid-Spewer Dragon and Anafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit simply shouldn't be accepted if you ask me.
Although I feel like I am being a bit too harsh on DtK here. Even though the art is a bit of a step-down compared to Theros and KtK, it still has some really good pieces. And it certainly is better than what we got for the RtR block.
Blurry backgrounds and bright colors - even if truly present - are not a sign of a rush job or low quality. They are a particular aesthetic. I like that aesthetic, and others do as well, especially in the context of Magic. The Mona Lisa, in my opinion, would be a worse art choice for a Magic card than either version of Rafiq of the Many.
so do you get the demonic tutor off the token if you sac something or not ?
If you have another creature to sac (as the Sidisi token would cease to exist), yes, you would get to tutor.
Not quite correct. Sidisi needs to be on the battlefield when her exploit ability resolves in order for her second ability to trigger, which means that unless you kept the sidisi copy (and thus put the first sidisi in the graveyard, along with mirror mastery), you would not get a demonic tutor.
Blurry backgrounds and bright colors - even if truly present - are not a sign of a rush job or low quality. They are a particular aesthetic. I like that aesthetic, and others do as well, especially in the context of Magic. The Mona Lisa, in my opinion, would be a worse art choice for a Magic card than either version of Rafiq of the Many.
It's ok if you find it beautiful. But the skeleton is simply of much lower quality. There is no detail and only 2 colors are used.
Blurry backgrounds and bright colors - even if truly present - are not a sign of a rush job or low quality. They are a particular aesthetic. I like that aesthetic, and others do as well, especially in the context of Magic. The Mona Lisa, in my opinion, would be a worse art choice for a Magic card than either version of Rafiq of the Many.
It's ok if you find it beautiful. But the skeleton is simply of much lower quality. There is no detail and only 2 colors are used.
I like the skeleton (alot)better than the angel. Not even trolling. The skeleton actually comes together with the background to give you a piece that more of a whole package(and there are more than 2 colors used. There are just no warm or highly contrasting colors which fit in with the theme of the work). The one beef I have with the skeleton is that it looks metallic and too perfect to be believable. As for The angel it literally looks like some one drew an awesome angel then used the gradient tool to fill in the background of the canvas. What is the context here, what is she even doing?
Blurry backgrounds and bright colors - even if truly present - are not a sign of a rush job or low quality. They are a particular aesthetic. I like that aesthetic, and others do as well, especially in the context of Magic. The Mona Lisa, in my opinion, would be a worse art choice for a Magic card than either version of Rafiq of the Many.
It's ok if you find it beautiful. But the skeleton is simply of much lower quality. There is no detail and only 2 colors are used.
What? Of course there's detail. For example, look at the little bits of froth and water droplets where the skeleton meets the water. It's a subtle implication that the skeleton just rose up out of the water, tying in with the flavor of a sneaky creature (and the mechanics of megamorph). Look at the necklace it's wearing - three skulls of a particular size and shape; along with its bracer and pauldron, that ties the card back to Marang River Prowler. If you look carefully at the arms and head, you can see glowing runes, presumably the necromantic effect that animates the creature, or residue of the megamorph effect.
I actually see less detail on the Firemane Angel - unless I look up a wallpaper print of it. If we had a wallpaper print of the Skeleton, of course its details would be more noticeable.
As for color, it's a monocolor card. Firemane Angel is a two-color card. The palette of monocolor cards is intentionally more focused/restricted than that of multicolor cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
so do you get the demonic tutor off the token if you sac something or not ?
Colour hate cards are fantastic. That was one thing that M14 got right (although it got it a bit TOO right with Lifebane Zombie). If we aren't going to straight up see "Protection from X" that much anymore than bring on the hate cards.
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.
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
Hadn't seen Ignite Disorder before - that looks a likely prospect, actually. Since the red one hasn't been spoiled I'm primed to expect a reprint, and Combust doesn't seem quite right - it's too similar to Roast.
Wasn't gainsay the only reprint the last time we had a hate cycle? I could see them doing the same thing here and having one out of five be a reprint.
Feel free to tell me yours!
Hasty stuff would need to do something other than attack, as attacks are declared simultaneously (too late for the copy to attack).
Now I'm excited to see what the red one looks like.
Besides that, Dragon Whisperer looks really cool. Don't know how good will it end up being but it has one of the most beautiful arts I've seen in years.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
Actually I'm not missing the point. Y'all just suck at art analysis.
Many thanks to DNC at Heroes of the Plane Studios
Well said. However most of the magic art since the early 2000's is being done digitally. The reason I used the term ''digitalized'' is simply because of how apparent it is in some of the works. Especially with commons and uncommons. There is a big difference between Firemane Angel and Marang River Skeleton (both are painted digitally). I hate to say it, but it looks to me like a lot of the new artists are hired by wizard just because they are cheap and fast, not because of their quality. Ironically wizards atm is making the highest profit in their history, and yet they are reluctant to pay the same, or even more for the art. A lot of modern art is very undetailed. The background is often times undetailed and blurry. The colors are really bright and jarring. I am not 100% sure, but I think Wizards put a filter over the artwork. That's the only explanation that makes sense for everything being so bright. And I think the word ''plastic'' actually describes some of the works perfectly. Cards like Acid-Spewer Dragon and Anafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit simply shouldn't be accepted if you ask me.
Although I feel like I am being a bit too harsh on DtK here. Even though the art is a bit of a step-down compared to Theros and KtK, it still has some really good pieces. And it certainly is better than what we got for the RtR block.
No.
Blurry backgrounds and bright colors - even if truly present - are not a sign of a rush job or low quality. They are a particular aesthetic. I like that aesthetic, and others do as well, especially in the context of Magic. The Mona Lisa, in my opinion, would be a worse art choice for a Magic card than either version of Rafiq of the Many.
It's ok if you find it beautiful. But the skeleton is simply of much lower quality. There is no detail and only 2 colors are used.
I like the skeleton (alot)better than the angel. Not even trolling. The skeleton actually comes together with the background to give you a piece that more of a whole package(and there are more than 2 colors used. There are just no warm or highly contrasting colors which fit in with the theme of the work). The one beef I have with the skeleton is that it looks metallic and too perfect to be believable. As for The angel it literally looks like some one drew an awesome angel then used the gradient tool to fill in the background of the canvas. What is the context here, what is she even doing?
I actually see less detail on the Firemane Angel - unless I look up a wallpaper print of it. If we had a wallpaper print of the Skeleton, of course its details would be more noticeable.
As for color, it's a monocolor card. Firemane Angel is a two-color card. The palette of monocolor cards is intentionally more focused/restricted than that of multicolor cards.