My only realy problem with these cards is the name "Will". Its just kind of funny for such an extremely common real world name to show up on a magic card. When is "Chad, Lord of the Multiverse" coming out?
Do you really want Gideon to be Lord of the Multiverse?
In my defense Will is a way more common and generic name than Gideon. It's on the same level as Bob, Bill, John, Steve, etc.
It might also be the nickname factor, I doubt people would bat an eye at Robert, Stephen, or William.
I like the Mel(vin) appeal Rowan has alone. Her +2 and -2 have good synergy with each other, and her ult adds to the fun.
Will, though--his card looks too split Mel(vin)-wise. His +2 has neato synergy with Rowan, but his -2 and ult are on a completely different path...and neither of them synergize with his +2.
His +2 doesn't work together, but his -2 and Emblem do play nicely as drawing you more spells means more spells to double. (And those spells cost less to cast.)
I have a friend named Liliana (though she more commonly goes by Lili), and I know of at least one other person with that name. I've seen a Nissa, a Nyssa, and at least one Chandra just in reading through Facebook comments.
"Will"? That's weird, it's been a long time since they had real-world names on cards. I guess when the revisited characters like Hanna and Gerrard, they remembered they did that? But still, those are kind of unusual names. There's also that M19 common that's named Margaret in the flavor text.
As for the cards, well damn, seems pretty impossible to win if your opponents manage to cast both on the same turn.
What? There have been plenty of real world names in every set. Perhaps not as boring as will (no offense to any Wills!) I guess one might not realize it since a lot of them come from non-american culture but yeah.
Yeah, fair enough. I guess I really just meant common English names.
I just don't understand one thing. If it's true that they purposely avoid to reference anything with the commander format with Pir & Toothy as explained in the mothership article, why they done it here? And if they done it here, why they couldn't explicit the commander reference in Pir & Toothy as well? :/ I mean you don't want to confuse players because if you draft with battlebond there's no commander...but at the end you actually manage to do reference commander and on Planeswalkers as generals too? Now I'm confused :/
Quick version: Space issue.
"Partner with Gorm the Great (When this creature enters the battlefield, target player may put Gorm into their hand from their library, then shuffle. You can have two commanders if the other is Gorm.)"
That's about... a line and a half more text? Which is a lot given this is just the reminder text.
wow so at this point we can get planeswalker prints that can say "can be your commander"
so myth busted "can be your commander" is not commander product exclusive
It's a single exception on mythic that alredy uses another mechanics tied to commander (partner). It would have been stranger to have them with partner but nit the commander clause
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again"
Partner with means that when I cast one of this twins I can search in the deck of my or my teammate another one?
It means when one enters under your control, you choose a target player (so you OR your teammate), and that player search their library for the other and put on hand.
Do we have a source for them being twins? It seems like it, but I can't find a WOTC source that confirms it. Just a vorthos trying to understand the lore, is all
"Partner with Gorm the Great (When this creature enters the battlefield, target player may put Gorm into their hand from their library, then shuffle. You can have two commanders if the other is Gorm.)"
That's about... a line and a half more text? Which is a lot given this is just the reminder text.
But the official reason has nothing to do at all with space issues...As they explain here:
But there was a problem: partner was an ability for Commander. Not only did it do nothing in Two-Headed Giant, but it was actively confusing: could you play with commanders in this format, too? So, his first attempt was that he would make cards with "partner" simply a tag cards cared about, but they could also be commanders. (...) We talked as a department about doing this kind of a riff on the mechanic, because it was a little unusual. We wouldn't be putting the play-as-commander rules on the cards, and it would be a variant on an existing keyword. We came down on the side of yes.
That has nothing to do with space issues but everything with card's wording and design. Will and Rowan are a contradiction of the bolded statement quoted.
So if they were willing to do the Commander reference in Rowan and Will, what was the problem to mention it in Pir and Toothy as well. I think it's way more confusing that Pir and Toothy doesn't get any Commander reference (while both playable as generals in EDH, but that's nowhere written in the card) while here we got the reference (which I believe would confuse players more than making things clearer for them).
Yes, it is not a stated reason for why they don't include commander ruletext on cards that don't otherwise need it. As that's just a common status quo of Magic printing cards not to include that text. And everything the article spelled out suggested they tried really hard to not have to reference Commander at all (even while the whole Partner/Duo) mechanic was meant to avoid references to Commander.
But if you look at how much space on Pir, Toothy, Gorm, and Virtus are in use, there literally isn't anyway to fit the reminder text on them. That extra line is not a line they have on the card. That's just... look at the cards. There just isn't any room.
Meanwhile, as this is a solid, as printed, no reminder text effect, Will and Rowan would need the line that they can be used as a commander on their card to be used as a Commander. (And, both of them, don't have reminder text because there isn't any space.) The point behind keywords is that, in cases where there is no room on the card, you can leave out text for more effect text which you are required to print to make the card work.
Given how much reminder text is, even when it's printed, not an accurate representation of their own rules, I'm not seeing the problem.
It's crazy to think we're seeing partner again so soon - which is great of course. But they usually make it sound like they work too far ahead in the future for it to be only 2 years out. Then again this set is different.
Why twins. Will should have been a bachelor lawyer in NYC and Rowan should be a ginger single jewish woman with a lot of other gay friends besides Will, and where's Karen.
"Partner with Gorm the Great (When this creature enters the battlefield, target player may put Gorm into their hand from their library, then shuffle. You can have two commanders if the other is Gorm.)"
That's about... a line and a half more text? Which is a lot given this is just the reminder text.
But the official reason has nothing to do at all with space issues...As they explain here:
But there was a problem: partner was an ability for Commander. Not only did it do nothing in Two-Headed Giant, but it was actively confusing: could you play with commanders in this format, too? So, his first attempt was that he would make cards with "partner" simply a tag cards cared about, but they could also be commanders. (...) We talked as a department about doing this kind of a riff on the mechanic, because it was a little unusual. We wouldn't be putting the play-as-commander rules on the cards, and it would be a variant on an existing keyword. We came down on the side of yes.
That has nothing to do with space issues but everything with card's wording and design. Will and Rowan are a contradiction of the bolded statement quoted.
So if they were willing to do the Commander reference in Rowan and Will, what was the problem to mention it in Pir and Toothy as well. I think it's way more confusing that Pir and Toothy doesn't get any Commander reference (while both playable as generals in EDH, but that's nowhere written in the card) while here we got the reference (which I believe would confuse players more than making things clearer for them).
Except... that isn’t saying they did that to avoid referencing Commander. The bold is just saying they would be doing it differently. It just seems to be done that way because it makes sense for the niche they’re doing.
"Partner with Gorm the Great (When this creature enters the battlefield, target player may put Gorm into their hand from their library, then shuffle. You can have two commanders if the other is Gorm.)"
That's about... a line and a half more text? Which is a lot given this is just the reminder text.
But the official reason has nothing to do at all with space issues...As they explain here:
But there was a problem: partner was an ability for Commander. Not only did it do nothing in Two-Headed Giant, but it was actively confusing: could you play with commanders in this format, too? So, his first attempt was that he would make cards with "partner" simply a tag cards cared about, but they could also be commanders. (...) We talked as a department about doing this kind of a riff on the mechanic, because it was a little unusual. We wouldn't be putting the play-as-commander rules on the cards, and it would be a variant on an existing keyword. We came down on the side of yes.
That has nothing to do with space issues but everything with card's wording and design. Will and Rowan are a contradiction of the bolded statement quoted.
So if they were willing to do the Commander reference in Rowan and Will, what was the problem to mention it in Pir and Toothy as well. I think it's way more confusing that Pir and Toothy doesn't get any Commander reference (while both playable as generals in EDH, but that's nowhere written in the card) while here we got the reference (which I believe would confuse players more than making things clearer for them).
And to add even more confusion, we have this from the mechanics article:
Note that not all the partners in Battlebond are legendary. The ones that aren't can't be commanders at all.
So, now we have legendary cards with "Partner with" that define what they can do outside of Commander but not what they do in Commander, Legendary "Partner with" Planeswalkers that mention Commander but don't describe any of what "Partner with" means, and non-legendary "Partner with" creatures that likely only describe the non-Commander "Partner with" mechanic and can cause confusion because they read the same as the legendary ones.
The reason for the Commander text is that Partner means they can be your commander together, but it doesn't mean they can be your commander in the first place (for a planeswalker), and I figure WotC thought it was more confusing to include that in the "partner with" rules (since Partner has a meaning in 2HG and not just in Commander, one wouldn't automatically assume you can play partner-with planeswalkers as commanders).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
Will is better equipped to work on his own, because blue wasn't good enough already, and I like blue.
I like both their ultimates, and how their loyalty abilities synergize with each other to play up the team aspect, but I wish Rowan could do more by herself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, fair enough. I guess I really just meant common English names.
they look like twins too so its not that far fetched
"Partner with Gorm the Great (When this creature enters the battlefield, target player may put Gorm into their hand from their library, then shuffle. You can have two commanders if the other is Gorm.)"
That's about... a line and a half more text? Which is a lot given this is just the reminder text.
so myth busted "can be your commander" is not commander product exclusive
In a supplemental product at least in part designed with Commander in mind, sure. In Ravnica or other Standard products? I doubt it.
It's a single exception on mythic that alredy uses another mechanics tied to commander (partner). It would have been stranger to have them with partner but nit the commander clause
|| 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 ||
|| 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 ||
It means when one enters under your control, you choose a target player (so you OR your teammate), and that player search their library for the other and put on hand.
But if you look at how much space on Pir, Toothy, Gorm, and Virtus are in use, there literally isn't anyway to fit the reminder text on them. That extra line is not a line they have on the card. That's just... look at the cards. There just isn't any room.
Meanwhile, as this is a solid, as printed, no reminder text effect, Will and Rowan would need the line that they can be used as a commander on their card to be used as a Commander. (And, both of them, don't have reminder text because there isn't any space.) The point behind keywords is that, in cases where there is no room on the card, you can leave out text for more effect text which you are required to print to make the card work.
Given how much reminder text is, even when it's printed, not an accurate representation of their own rules, I'm not seeing the problem.
Why twins. Will should have been a bachelor lawyer in NYC and Rowan should be a ginger single jewish woman with a lot of other gay friends besides Will, and where's Karen.
|| 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 ||
Except... that isn’t saying they did that to avoid referencing Commander. The bold is just saying they would be doing it differently. It just seems to be done that way because it makes sense for the niche they’re doing.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Wrong plane.
Will is better equipped to work on his own, because blue wasn't good enough already, and I like blue.
I like both their ultimates, and how their loyalty abilities synergize with each other to play up the team aspect, but I wish Rowan could do more by herself.