I guess I'm just getting tired of all of these "new" mechanics that are basically Wizards coming up with every way imaginable to put a +1/+1 counter on a creature. It's just boring in my opinion. At least on cards like this that do nothing to take advantage of it.
The idea of it on this card I think was that it was meant to combo with the tapping ability in order to get through and trigger renown, kind of like the Rhox which uses trample to attempt to trigger the renown. It takes advantage of it in the sense that it's being used on cards that will be able to use it more naturally. It seems like a mostly like a mechanic they developed for limited and flavor more than anything else though, and +1/+1 counters just happen to be super flexible in what they can flavorfully represent. I do wish the mechanic had a more palatable condition to become renowned though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
They didn't care that he was the savior of Fort Keff, the great hunter of Ondu, the champion of Kabira. To them, he was just another piece of flesh, a thing with life to be drained away.
Now introducing Captain America and the Howling Command.....Irregulars!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH:ShatterStax, Only The Strong Survive
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Mono-U Control
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Sen Triplets
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Derevi Stax
VolThrun
Marchesa, The Black Rose
Olivia Voldaren, Vampire Tribal
even being yet another +1/+1 counter keyword, i think renown is really nice.
I like this one as well. the double white activation cost seems very reasonable
I guess I'm just getting tired of all of these "new" mechanics that are basically Wizards coming up with every way imaginable to put a +1/+1 counter on a creature. It's just boring in my opinion. At least on cards like this that do nothing to take advantage of it.
Could not agree more. I wish wizards would do something about it but everytime it´s brought up it´s the same answer "Herpderp we need a +1+1 mechanic in new sets"
Very cool card but I am baffled by Wizards. They wrote an entire article about why they don't want to give cards plural names like Llanowar Elves and Grizzly Bears and then proceeded to continue printing cards like this. Which is it?!
I guess I'm just getting tired of all of these "new" mechanics that are basically Wizards coming up with every way imaginable to put a +1/+1 counter on a creature. It's just boring in my opinion. At least on cards like this that do nothing to take advantage of it.
Could not agree more. I wish wizards would do something about it but everytime it´s brought up it´s the same answer "Herpderp we need a +1+1 mechanic in new sets"
I see it the other way around. For a lot of mechanics, WotC needed some way to signify a onetime changed state on a creature in a way that is highly visible and easy to identify. You're going to have to put something on that card to mark it as the altered state anyways, might as well be a +1/+1 counter.
They're not coming up with a bunch mechanics to justify putting +1/+1 counters on creatures. They have a bunch of mechanics that requires marking the cards and defaults to +1/+1 counters as the markers.
Very cool card but I am baffled by Wizards. They wrote an entire article about why they don't want to give cards plural names like Llanowar Elves and Grizzly Bears and then proceeded to continue printing cards like this. Which is it?!
I didnt read the article, but maybe the problem is name and art matching?
Very cool card but I am baffled by Wizards. They wrote an entire article about why they don't want to give cards plural names like Llanowar Elves and Grizzly Bears and then proceeded to continue printing cards like this. Which is it?!
That article was about cards with plural names and having only a single character pictured in the art. They didnt say they'd stop using plural names.
Very cool card but I am baffled by Wizards. They wrote an entire article about why they don't want to give cards plural names like Llanowar Elves and Grizzly Bears and then proceeded to continue printing cards like this. Which is it?!
Irregulars is a term for a military group that doesn't operate as usual military groups do. It's kind of like saying Gideon's Army or Legion or whatever.
Maybe the just didn't want simple plural names? I don't know.
My problem with renown is that the neonate ability is already very low value, so having something even less valuable makes the question of how much of the mana cost is dedicated to "Renown 1" very tricky.
Very cool card but I am baffled by Wizards. They wrote an entire article about why they don't want to give cards plural names like Llanowar Elves and Grizzly Bears and then proceeded to continue printing cards like this. Which is it?!
From what I remember about that statement, they don't want to use plural names in "singular" cards. Llanowar Elves depicts one elf in most artwork, and is really just one elf (1/1 dude). Same as Grizzly, which is just *one* 2/2 bear. When a card is an actual group, it is more than fine. See Ojutai's Exemplars, Ajani's Chosen, etc.
I get how the tap ability can help push it through and get your renown activation, but the bonus is so minor and so one-shot that I wish it worked the other way around - he gained a tap ability only if he's renown. Cards like that new mana dork may be less powerful but at least the renown feels more relevant. It's a new mechanic they should be trying more to highlight, not just plop on random rares.
Edit: also, yes, I am very sick of these basic +1/+1 counter keywords wotc is throwing at us. I kind of feel like, maybe just don't bother? Or do bother, but space them out more, because right now it feels like every set comes with at least one new basic +1/+1 counter mechanic and it's just getting a little old. And how in love are players with +1/+1 mechanics in general? Like, REALLY in love? That's what all this suggests to me, which I find kind of surprising since it messes with casual players' ability to evaluate board states and leads to confusion if there are lots of counters and changed p/t bouncing around.
I guess I'm just getting tired of all of these "new" mechanics that are basically Wizards coming up with every way imaginable to put a +1/+1 counter on a creature. It's just boring in my opinion. At least on cards like this that do nothing to take advantage of it.
Could not agree more. I wish wizards would do something about it but everytime it´s brought up it´s the same answer "Herpderp we need a +1+1 mechanic in new sets"
I see it the other way around. For a lot of mechanics, WotC needed some way to signify a onetime changed state on a creature in a way that is highly visible and easy to identify. You're going to have to put something on that card to mark it as the altered state anyways, might as well be a +1/+1 counter.
They're not coming up with a bunch mechanics to justify putting +1/+1 counters on creatures. They have a bunch of mechanics that requires marking the cards and defaults to +1/+1 counters as the markers.
But couldn´t this just be done in the form of normal cards that gives counters to creatures? Are we really in need of a +1+1 mechanic every set when we instead could have mechanics that requires a brain?
Renown even have more or less the same template as Monstrosity from Theroes which makes me even more annoyed. It seems like Wizards are really struggeling to find new ways for the +1+1 mechanic to work so now it´s being milked hard
I guess I'm just getting tired of all of these "new" mechanics that are basically Wizards coming up with every way imaginable to put a +1/+1 counter on a creature. It's just boring in my opinion. At least on cards like this that do nothing to take advantage of it.
Could not agree more. I wish wizards would do something about it but everytime it´s brought up it´s the same answer "Herpderp we need a +1+1 mechanic in new sets"
I see it the other way around. For a lot of mechanics, WotC needed some way to signify a onetime changed state on a creature in a way that is highly visible and easy to identify. You're going to have to put something on that card to mark it as the altered state anyways, might as well be a +1/+1 counter.
They're not coming up with a bunch mechanics to justify putting +1/+1 counters on creatures. They have a bunch of mechanics that requires marking the cards and defaults to +1/+1 counters as the markers.
But couldn´t this just be done in the form of normal cards that gives counters to creatures? Are we really in need of a +1+1 mechanic every set when we instead could have mechanics that requires a brain?
Renown even have more or less the same template as Monstrosity from Theroes which makes me even more annoyed. It seems like Wizards are really struggeling to find new ways for the +1+1 mechanic to work so now it´s being milked hard
They didn't needed a mechanic that gives +1/+1 counters to creatures. Handing out +1/+1 counters aren't the point of designing those mechanics. They had mechanics that wanted to represent two states of a creature eg. non-monstrous/monstrous, non-renown/renown. The idea for those state mechanics came first and instead of having Renown counters and Monstrous counters (like back in the old days where lots of counters have their own names eg. spore counters for thallids), they use +1/+1 counters to mark those states instead.
I guess I'm just getting tired of all of these "new" mechanics that are basically Wizards coming up with every way imaginable to put a +1/+1 counter on a creature. It's just boring in my opinion. At least on cards like this that do nothing to take advantage of it.
Could not agree more. I wish wizards would do something about it but everytime it´s brought up it´s the same answer "Herpderp we need a +1+1 mechanic in new sets"
I see it the other way around. For a lot of mechanics, WotC needed some way to signify a onetime changed state on a creature in a way that is highly visible and easy to identify. You're going to have to put something on that card to mark it as the altered state anyways, might as well be a +1/+1 counter.
They're not coming up with a bunch mechanics to justify putting +1/+1 counters on creatures. They have a bunch of mechanics that requires marking the cards and defaults to +1/+1 counters as the markers.
But couldn´t this just be done in the form of normal cards that gives counters to creatures? Are we really in need of a +1+1 mechanic every set when we instead could have mechanics that requires a brain?
Renown even have more or less the same template as Monstrosity from Theroes which makes me even more annoyed. It seems like Wizards are really struggeling to find new ways for the +1+1 mechanic to work so now it´s being milked hard
I think you've hit a very salient point... "mechanics that require a brain". Perhaps I'm wrong in this, but my understanding was that Core Sets (and now Origins, as the last core set) were considered a place where complexity should remain quite low overall. So a really nice simple mechanic is probably a good fit here. I know Origins is a special case, and there's plenty of complexity in cards like Starfields of Nyx but as I understand New World Order, complexity is a resource and they don't want to spend a lot of it on this mechanic, especially in a set where the overall available resource pool is quite small.
I like how this card is both flavorful in a story and game mechanics wise by clearing the way for your other lesser renowned guys to become famous. Solid limited card, though not so sold on it being constructed competitive playable.
I guess I'm just getting tired of all of these "new" mechanics that are basically Wizards coming up with every way imaginable to put a +1/+1 counter on a creature. It's just boring in my opinion. At least on cards like this that do nothing to take advantage of it.
Could not agree more. I wish wizards would do something about it but everytime it´s brought up it´s the same answer "Herpderp we need a +1+1 mechanic in new sets"
I see it the other way around. For a lot of mechanics, WotC needed some way to signify a onetime changed state on a creature in a way that is highly visible and easy to identify. You're going to have to put something on that card to mark it as the altered state anyways, might as well be a +1/+1 counter.
They're not coming up with a bunch mechanics to justify putting +1/+1 counters on creatures. They have a bunch of mechanics that requires marking the cards and defaults to +1/+1 counters as the markers.
But couldn´t this just be done in the form of normal cards that gives counters to creatures? Are we really in need of a +1+1 mechanic every set when we instead could have mechanics that requires a brain?
Renown even have more or less the same template as Monstrosity from Theroes which makes me even more annoyed. It seems like Wizards are really struggeling to find new ways for the +1+1 mechanic to work so now it´s being milked hard
I think you've hit a very salient point... "mechanics that require a brain". Perhaps I'm wrong in this, but my understanding was that Core Sets (and now Origins, as the last core set) were considered a place where complexity should remain quite low overall. So a really nice simple mechanic is probably a good fit here. I know Origins is a special case, and there's plenty of complexity in cards like Starfields of Nyx but as I understand New World Order, complexity is a resource and they don't want to spend a lot of it on this mechanic, especially in a set where the overall available resource pool is quite small.
I totally agree with your point that Origins, like any other core set, needs to be low when it comes to mechanics.
However "Hardcore" sets like the ones we have just had, have had no-brainers mechanics like Prowess, Heroic and even Megamorph that added a +1+1 counter when morphing. This is so dull that it hurts which is my point that why not just add cards like they already do that takes care of buffing your creatures while then making mechanics that requires a bit of thinking like Flashback and Miracle for instance.
Well, Gerrard Capashen has been largely outclassed. Yeah, he's still got lifegain, but the Irregulars have renown and better tapping. I wonder if this will be the second rare in the white Intro Pack?
The idea of it on this card I think was that it was meant to combo with the tapping ability in order to get through and trigger renown, kind of like the Rhox which uses trample to attempt to trigger the renown. It takes advantage of it in the sense that it's being used on cards that will be able to use it more naturally. It seems like a mostly like a mechanic they developed for limited and flavor more than anything else though, and +1/+1 counters just happen to be super flexible in what they can flavorfully represent. I do wish the mechanic had a more palatable condition to become renowned though.
But the people behind the barrier knew.
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Mono-U Control
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Sen Triplets
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Derevi Stax
VolThrun
Marchesa, The Black Rose
Olivia Voldaren, Vampire Tribal
Modern: Fish, JUND/Junk
--------
RIP Twin
I like this one as well. the double white activation cost seems very reasonable
Could not agree more. I wish wizards would do something about it but everytime it´s brought up it´s the same answer "Herpderp we need a +1+1 mechanic in new sets"
Count me in.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I see it the other way around. For a lot of mechanics, WotC needed some way to signify a onetime changed state on a creature in a way that is highly visible and easy to identify. You're going to have to put something on that card to mark it as the altered state anyways, might as well be a +1/+1 counter.
They're not coming up with a bunch mechanics to justify putting +1/+1 counters on creatures. They have a bunch of mechanics that requires marking the cards and defaults to +1/+1 counters as the markers.
I didnt read the article, but maybe the problem is name and art matching?
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
That article was about cards with plural names and having only a single character pictured in the art. They didnt say they'd stop using plural names.
Maybe the just didn't want simple plural names? I don't know.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
From what I remember about that statement, they don't want to use plural names in "singular" cards. Llanowar Elves depicts one elf in most artwork, and is really just one elf (1/1 dude). Same as Grizzly, which is just *one* 2/2 bear. When a card is an actual group, it is more than fine. See Ojutai's Exemplars, Ajani's Chosen, etc.
Edit: also, yes, I am very sick of these basic +1/+1 counter keywords wotc is throwing at us. I kind of feel like, maybe just don't bother? Or do bother, but space them out more, because right now it feels like every set comes with at least one new basic +1/+1 counter mechanic and it's just getting a little old. And how in love are players with +1/+1 mechanics in general? Like, REALLY in love? That's what all this suggests to me, which I find kind of surprising since it messes with casual players' ability to evaluate board states and leads to confusion if there are lots of counters and changed p/t bouncing around.
But couldn´t this just be done in the form of normal cards that gives counters to creatures? Are we really in need of a +1+1 mechanic every set when we instead could have mechanics that requires a brain?
Renown even have more or less the same template as Monstrosity from Theroes which makes me even more annoyed. It seems like Wizards are really struggeling to find new ways for the +1+1 mechanic to work so now it´s being milked hard
They didn't needed a mechanic that gives +1/+1 counters to creatures. Handing out +1/+1 counters aren't the point of designing those mechanics. They had mechanics that wanted to represent two states of a creature eg. non-monstrous/monstrous, non-renown/renown. The idea for those state mechanics came first and instead of having Renown counters and Monstrous counters (like back in the old days where lots of counters have their own names eg. spore counters for thallids), they use +1/+1 counters to mark those states instead.
I think you've hit a very salient point... "mechanics that require a brain". Perhaps I'm wrong in this, but my understanding was that Core Sets (and now Origins, as the last core set) were considered a place where complexity should remain quite low overall. So a really nice simple mechanic is probably a good fit here. I know Origins is a special case, and there's plenty of complexity in cards like Starfields of Nyx but as I understand New World Order, complexity is a resource and they don't want to spend a lot of it on this mechanic, especially in a set where the overall available resource pool is quite small.
Gisela,Blade of Goldnight WR
Sigarda,Heron's Grace WG
I totally agree with your point that Origins, like any other core set, needs to be low when it comes to mechanics.
However "Hardcore" sets like the ones we have just had, have had no-brainers mechanics like Prowess, Heroic and even Megamorph that added a +1+1 counter when morphing. This is so dull that it hurts which is my point that why not just add cards like they already do that takes care of buffing your creatures while then making mechanics that requires a bit of thinking like Flashback and Miracle for instance.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Gerrard's Irregulars are also outclassed