I'd like to see that second ability keyworded as an alternative to bestow. Theros this time around doesn't have nearly as strong of an enchantment theme as I was wanting.
Just like fleece mane lion this card both is a fun and flavorful card of the Nemean lion and both will be great in my kitties deck ^.^
Nice that this time we are getting the lion being turned into a cloak like Heracles did.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I'd like to see that second ability keyworded as an alternative to bestow. Theros this time around doesn't have nearly as strong of an enchantment theme as I was wanting.
Just like fleece mane lion this card both is a fun and flavorful card of the Nemean lion and both will be great in my kitties deck ^.^
Nice that this time we are getting the lion being turned into a cloak like Heracles did.
And there's exactly why it's a unique ability... it hadn't even occurred to me till 5colurs pointed it out but yes, this is a key moment in the Heracles arc and beautifully captured. Diluting it by making it a more generic mechanic would be a shame.
I'd like to see that second ability keyworded as an alternative to bestow. Theros this time around doesn't have nearly as strong of an enchantment theme as I was wanting.
Just like fleece mane lion this card both is a fun and flavorful card of the Nemean lion and both will be great in my kitties deck ^.^
Nice that this time we are getting the lion being turned into a cloak like Heracles did.
And there's exactly why it's a unique ability... it hadn't even occurred to me till 5colurs pointed it out but yes, this is a key moment in the Heracles arc and beautifully captured. Diluting it by making it a more generic mechanic would be a shame.
My guess is that you wouldn't feel that way about, say, flashback diluting the flavor of something by being a keyword for a general mechanic. Usually when an individual card realizes a harmony of mechanic and flavor we still appreciate it on that basis. So I think that you're being rather arbitrary here.
Considering that this set has the escape mechanic for story reasons though, a "turn dead creatures into auras" mechanic might have too much overlap in the same set. Although they could have used escape for it potentially.
I'd like to see that second ability keyworded as an alternative to bestow. Theros this time around doesn't have nearly as strong of an enchantment theme as I was wanting.
Just like fleece mane lion this card both is a fun and flavorful card of the Nemean lion and both will be great in my kitties deck ^.^
Nice that this time we are getting the lion being turned into a cloak like Heracles did.
And there's exactly why it's a unique ability... it hadn't even occurred to me till 5colurs pointed it out but yes, this is a key moment in the Heracles arc and beautifully captured. Diluting it by making it a more generic mechanic would be a shame.
My guess is that you wouldn't feel that way about, say, flashback diluting the flavor of something by being a keyword for a general mechanic. Usually when an individual card realizes a harmony of mechanic and flavor we still appreciate it on that basis. So I think that you're being rather arbitrary here.
Considering that this set has the escape mechanic for story reasons though, a "turn dead creatures into auras" mechanic might have too much overlap in the same set. Although they could have used escape for it potentially.
Keywording the ability in of itself might have been fine. But there's a narrative difference between "this is a plane where things become clothing" and "remember that one lion that became clothing?" Using an existing mechanic to illustrate a point is fine i.e. giving Thryx, The Sudden Storm Flying and Flash makes sense in he narrative because those are things that already exist which he manifests. The gods having their devotion related rules is fine a cycle of creatures for similar reasons but the unique rules of Thryx or those gods are similar to the unique text of this lion - they give each of those cards their character.
I'd like to see that second ability keyworded as an alternative to bestow. Theros this time around doesn't have nearly as strong of an enchantment theme as I was wanting.
Just like fleece mane lion this card both is a fun and flavorful card of the Nemean lion and both will be great in my kitties deck ^.^
Nice that this time we are getting the lion being turned into a cloak like Heracles did.
And there's exactly why it's a unique ability... it hadn't even occurred to me till 5colurs pointed it out but yes, this is a key moment in the Heracles arc and beautifully captured. Diluting it by making it a more generic mechanic would be a shame.
My guess is that you wouldn't feel that way about, say, flashback diluting the flavor of something by being a keyword for a general mechanic. Usually when an individual card realizes a harmony of mechanic and flavor we still appreciate it on that basis. So I think that you're being rather arbitrary here.
Considering that this set has the escape mechanic for story reasons though, a "turn dead creatures into auras" mechanic might have too much overlap in the same set. Although they could have used escape for it potentially.
Keywording the ability in of itself might have been fine. But there's a narrative difference between "this is a plane where things become clothing" and "remember that one lion that became clothing?" Using an existing mechanic to illustrate a point is fine i.e. giving Thryx, The Sudden Storm Flying and Flash makes sense in he narrative because those are things that already exist which he manifests. The gods having their devotion related rules is fine a cycle of creatures for similar reasons but the unique rules of Thryx or those gods are similar to the unique text of this lion - they give each of those cards their character.
That's true, but there's a lot of other flavor interpretations possible that also fit the setting. Ancient Greece loved its hero cults. It would be fairly appropriate for a hero's power in death to manifest as a blessing, basically the dead hero serving as a protective spirit. Whereas "clothing" usually would go more with equipment but it works here since its Theros.
Edit: I guess what I'm really saying is the way they choose which mechanics to revisit when they return to a plane is flawed. Devotion and constellation were received well so we're seeing them again. Bestow was a unique mechanic but executed poorly so we don't get it this time. Consequently, the set feels a little more bland and doesn't do the enchantment theme justice, which I'm disappointed with.
I'd like to see that second ability keyworded as an alternative to bestow. Theros this time around doesn't have nearly as strong of an enchantment theme as I was wanting.
Just like fleece mane lion this card both is a fun and flavorful card of the Nemean lion and both will be great in my kitties deck ^.^
Nice that this time we are getting the lion being turned into a cloak like Heracles did.
And there's exactly why it's a unique ability... it hadn't even occurred to me till 5colurs pointed it out but yes, this is a key moment in the Heracles arc and beautifully captured. Diluting it by making it a more generic mechanic would be a shame.
My guess is that you wouldn't feel that way about, say, flashback diluting the flavor of something by being a keyword for a general mechanic. Usually when an individual card realizes a harmony of mechanic and flavor we still appreciate it on that basis. So I think that you're being rather arbitrary here.
Considering that this set has the escape mechanic for story reasons though, a "turn dead creatures into auras" mechanic might have too much overlap in the same set. Although they could have used escape for it potentially.
Keywording the ability in of itself might have been fine. But there's a narrative difference between "this is a plane where things become clothing" and "remember that one lion that became clothing?" Using an existing mechanic to illustrate a point is fine i.e. giving Thryx, The Sudden Storm Flying and Flash makes sense in he narrative because those are things that already exist which he manifests. The gods having their devotion related rules is fine a cycle of creatures for similar reasons but the unique rules of Thryx or those gods are similar to the unique text of this lion - they give each of those cards their character.
That's true, but there's a lot of other flavor interpretations possible that also fit the setting. Ancient Greece loved its hero cults. It would be fairly appropriate for a hero's power in death to manifest as a blessing, basically the dead hero serving as a protective spirit. Whereas "clothing" usually would go more with equipment but it works here since its Theros.
There's also a lot to be said about stories of heroes, in general, serving as inspiration in combat—similar to an enchantment. You're fighting beside Ajax, for instance, and he falls—his death would be a turning point in that battle, maybe a blessing or a curse depending on the morale and situation each army is currently experiencing. Perhaps the death of your mythical general becoming the re-up in ferocity that you needed.
I like when they find sly ways of offsetting Aura two-for-one feel bad moments. In this case, the Lion ends up in the graveyard as a very recurrable creature rather than an Aura which has limited ways to be reused.
I suppose it doesn't hurt that a 3/3 for two is already serviceable, particularly one that can become indestructible and can grant that ability to a creature should the Lion die.
And there's exactly why it's a unique ability... it hadn't even occurred to me till 5colurs pointed it out but yes, this is a key moment in the Heracles arc and beautifully captured. Diluting it by making it a more generic mechanic would be a shame.
My guess is that you wouldn't feel that way about, say, flashback diluting the flavor of something by being a keyword for a general mechanic. Usually when an individual card realizes a harmony of mechanic and flavor we still appreciate it on that basis. So I think that you're being rather arbitrary here.
Considering that this set has the escape mechanic for story reasons though, a "turn dead creatures into auras" mechanic might have too much overlap in the same set. Although they could have used escape for it potentially.
Keywording the ability in of itself might have been fine. But there's a narrative difference between "this is a plane where things become clothing" and "remember that one lion that became clothing?" Using an existing mechanic to illustrate a point is fine i.e. giving Thryx, The Sudden Storm Flying and Flash makes sense in he narrative because those are things that already exist which he manifests. The gods having their devotion related rules is fine a cycle of creatures for similar reasons but the unique rules of Thryx or those gods are similar to the unique text of this lion - they give each of those cards their character.
That's true, but there's a lot of other flavor interpretations possible that also fit the setting. Ancient Greece loved its hero cults. It would be fairly appropriate for a hero's power in death to manifest as a blessing, basically the dead hero serving as a protective spirit. Whereas "clothing" usually would go more with equipment but it works here since its Theros.
There's also a lot to be said about stories of heroes, in general, serving as inspiration in combat—similar to an enchantment. You're fighting beside Ajax, for instance, and he falls—his death would be a turning point in that battle, maybe a blessing or a curse depending on the morale and situation each army is currently experiencing. Perhaps the death of your mythical general becoming the re-up in ferocity that you needed.
We see a lot of these events depicted all the time though Moment of Heroism, Gideon's Battle Cry, if you'll notice the pattern is that these are instants and sorceries - moments. Now, Gideon's Battle Cry is directly linked to a character with known traits and it feels exactly like you describe it. I'm sure there are other cases where the proposed "heroic mantle" keyword would be appropriate but aren't we then just back to square one?
I do agree that the decision not to overpower constellation by putting some of the most impactful constellation effects on non-enchantment creatures does leave the entire set without as much an enchantment matters treatment but... we know how badly that can go if left unchecked so I'm glad not to have overpower affinity in the current standard.
I'd like to see that second ability keyworded as an alternative to bestow. Theros this time around doesn't have nearly as strong of an enchantment theme as I was wanting.
Just like fleece mane lion this card both is a fun and flavorful card of the Nemean lion and both will be great in my kitties deck ^.^
Nice that this time we are getting the lion being turned into a cloak like Heracles did.
And there's exactly why it's a unique ability... it hadn't even occurred to me till 5colurs pointed it out but yes, this is a key moment in the Heracles arc and beautifully captured. Diluting it by making it a more generic mechanic would be a shame.
My guess is that you wouldn't feel that way about, say, flashback diluting the flavor of something by being a keyword for a general mechanic. Usually when an individual card realizes a harmony of mechanic and flavor we still appreciate it on that basis. So I think that you're being rather arbitrary here.
Considering that this set has the escape mechanic for story reasons though, a "turn dead creatures into auras" mechanic might have too much overlap in the same set. Although they could have used escape for it potentially.
Keywording the ability in of itself might have been fine. But there's a narrative difference between "this is a plane where things become clothing" and "remember that one lion that became clothing?" Using an existing mechanic to illustrate a point is fine i.e. giving Thryx, The Sudden Storm Flying and Flash makes sense in he narrative because those are things that already exist which he manifests. The gods having their devotion related rules is fine a cycle of creatures for similar reasons but the unique rules of Thryx or those gods are similar to the unique text of this lion - they give each of those cards their character.
That's true, but there's a lot of other flavor interpretations possible that also fit the setting. Ancient Greece loved its hero cults. It would be fairly appropriate for a hero's power in death to manifest as a blessing, basically the dead hero serving as a protective spirit. Whereas "clothing" usually would go more with equipment but it works here since its Theros.
Edit: I guess what I'm really saying is the way they choose which mechanics to revisit when they return to a plane is flawed. Devotion and constellation were received well so we're seeing them again. Bestow was a unique mechanic but executed poorly so we don't get it this time. Consequently, the set feels a little more bland and doesn't do the enchantment theme justice, which I'm disappointed with.
From Maros article they thought about Bestow but it just barley missed the cut. It was not as popular yes but it also is a bit complex and it was fighting for room against the other returning mechanics. Devotion was popular but is also was very tied to the gods of theros so thats the biggest reason it was picked, constellation got in since it ended up being the best enchantment matters mechanics and saga seemed already tailor made for this kind of plane already.
Honesty I feel like they could put another sets worth of stuff from what we have gotten.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I don't think the issue I'm having is with constellation, in terms of its power level or otherwise. Constellation is fine but it doesn't have quite enough oomf to carry the enchantment theme all by itself. I guess there's only so much that can be done with a single set under these conditions, but for us enchantment lovers out here it's a bummer.
I don't think the issue I'm having is with constellation, in terms of its power level or otherwise. Constellation is fine but it doesn't have quite enough oomf to carry the enchantment theme all by itself. I guess there's only so much that can be done with a single set under these conditions, but for us enchantment lovers out here it's a bummer.
I dunno, I'm a huge enchantments guy. I've been playing some form of enchantress since I discovered EDH, I'd wager about 10 years now, and I'm actually pretty happy with THB as an enchantment set. It's a little less high power than some sets and I feel like we haven't seen anything truly whacky like Spawning Grounds but I'm perfectly happy with a balanced set.
This is a really interesting card. What i find most curious is the final sentence wherin it removes the existing abilities of the aura target. Im wondering if there are instances of this actually being advantageous. I just can not think of anything particular.
This is a really interesting card. What i find most curious is the final sentence wherin it removes the existing abilities of the aura target. Im wondering if there are instances of this actually being advantageous. I just can not think of anything particular.
I think that line of text is actually referring to the lion itself. I think it means that the lion (now an aura) can't be given indestructible with the first ability, and the aura doesn't come back from the yard if it's destroyed.
This is a really interesting card. What i find most curious is the final sentence wherin it removes the existing abilities of the aura target. Im wondering if there are instances of this actually being advantageous. I just can not think of anything particular.
I think that line of text is actually referring to the lion itself. I think it means that the lion (now an aura) can't be given indestructible with the first ability, and the aura doesn't come back from the yard if it's destroyed.
Because of where the quotation marks are I would agree with you. The aura text ends at *until end of turn"*. After that the r stvif the ability is, as you said, referring to the cloak form of the lion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The endless quest for 3/3s for GW continues.
Source: Shahar Shenhar
Nice that this time we are getting the lion being turned into a cloak like Heracles did.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
W(W/U)U Ephara - Flash & Taxes W(W/U)U || B(B/G)G Meren - Circle of Life B(B/G)G
RGW Marath - Ever shifting Wilds RGW || (U/R)C(W/B) Breya - Artificial Dominion (U/R)C(W/B)
UBR Becket Brass - take what you can, give nothing back UBR
And there's exactly why it's a unique ability... it hadn't even occurred to me till 5colurs pointed it out but yes, this is a key moment in the Heracles arc and beautifully captured. Diluting it by making it a more generic mechanic would be a shame.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
My guess is that you wouldn't feel that way about, say, flashback diluting the flavor of something by being a keyword for a general mechanic. Usually when an individual card realizes a harmony of mechanic and flavor we still appreciate it on that basis. So I think that you're being rather arbitrary here.
Considering that this set has the escape mechanic for story reasons though, a "turn dead creatures into auras" mechanic might have too much overlap in the same set. Although they could have used escape for it potentially.
Keywording the ability in of itself might have been fine. But there's a narrative difference between "this is a plane where things become clothing" and "remember that one lion that became clothing?" Using an existing mechanic to illustrate a point is fine i.e. giving Thryx, The Sudden Storm Flying and Flash makes sense in he narrative because those are things that already exist which he manifests. The gods having their devotion related rules is fine a cycle of creatures for similar reasons but the unique rules of Thryx or those gods are similar to the unique text of this lion - they give each of those cards their character.
That's true, but there's a lot of other flavor interpretations possible that also fit the setting. Ancient Greece loved its hero cults. It would be fairly appropriate for a hero's power in death to manifest as a blessing, basically the dead hero serving as a protective spirit. Whereas "clothing" usually would go more with equipment but it works here since its Theros.
Edit: I guess what I'm really saying is the way they choose which mechanics to revisit when they return to a plane is flawed. Devotion and constellation were received well so we're seeing them again. Bestow was a unique mechanic but executed poorly so we don't get it this time. Consequently, the set feels a little more bland and doesn't do the enchantment theme justice, which I'm disappointed with.
There's also a lot to be said about stories of heroes, in general, serving as inspiration in combat—similar to an enchantment. You're fighting beside Ajax, for instance, and he falls—his death would be a turning point in that battle, maybe a blessing or a curse depending on the morale and situation each army is currently experiencing. Perhaps the death of your mythical general becoming the re-up in ferocity that you needed.
I suppose it doesn't hurt that a 3/3 for two is already serviceable, particularly one that can become indestructible and can grant that ability to a creature should the Lion die.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
We see a lot of these events depicted all the time though Moment of Heroism, Gideon's Battle Cry, if you'll notice the pattern is that these are instants and sorceries - moments. Now, Gideon's Battle Cry is directly linked to a character with known traits and it feels exactly like you describe it. I'm sure there are other cases where the proposed "heroic mantle" keyword would be appropriate but aren't we then just back to square one?
I do agree that the decision not to overpower constellation by putting some of the most impactful constellation effects on non-enchantment creatures does leave the entire set without as much an enchantment matters treatment but... we know how badly that can go if left unchecked so I'm glad not to have overpower affinity in the current standard.
From Maros article they thought about Bestow but it just barley missed the cut. It was not as popular yes but it also is a bit complex and it was fighting for room against the other returning mechanics. Devotion was popular but is also was very tied to the gods of theros so thats the biggest reason it was picked, constellation got in since it ended up being the best enchantment matters mechanics and saga seemed already tailor made for this kind of plane already.
Honesty I feel like they could put another sets worth of stuff from what we have gotten.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I dunno, I'm a huge enchantments guy. I've been playing some form of enchantress since I discovered EDH, I'd wager about 10 years now, and I'm actually pretty happy with THB as an enchantment set. It's a little less high power than some sets and I feel like we haven't seen anything truly whacky like Spawning Grounds but I'm perfectly happy with a balanced set.
I think that line of text is actually referring to the lion itself. I think it means that the lion (now an aura) can't be given indestructible with the first ability, and the aura doesn't come back from the yard if it's destroyed.
Because of where the quotation marks are I would agree with you. The aura text ends at *until end of turn"*. After that the r stvif the ability is, as you said, referring to the cloak form of the lion.