Now I'm hoping that when we return to Mirrodin (or any other plane that the Phyrexian go to to vacation) we see Phyrexia-themed tribal support/cards, w/ "Whenever a Phyrexian creatures enters the battlefield," "Phyrexian creatures get...," "All Phyrexian creatures you control..." and the like. This push must have something to do w/ the Phyrexian tribe for the near future, or why make this huuuuuge push? It's a lot of effort for just an aesthetic change.
Yawgmoth gave Phyrexian organisms a purpose: to thrive, to grow beyond the confines of Phyrexia and into the rest of the Multiverse. Over hundreds of years, Phyrexia evolved priests and acolytes who extolled and worshiped Yawgmoth, as well as demons and abominations of infinite variety to kill for him. Witch Engines, Birth Priests, Flesh Reavers, Hollow Dogs,[6] Blood Praetors.
Gatherer has been updated with the Phyrexian creature type. Notable exception so far is Consecrated Sphinx, which remains just a Sphinx.
That makes sense. Otherwise, how did the Phyrexians make it to Amonkhet (Invocation)? And would one really want to help small children become the future (Secret Lair)? (I tried to show these as card tags, but couldn't figure out what set names to use.)
Gatherer has been updated with the Phyrexian creature type. Notable exception so far is Consecrated Sphinx, which remains just a Sphinx.
That makes sense. Otherwise, how did the Phyrexians make it to Amonkhet (Invocation)? And would one really want to help small children become the future (Secret Lair)? (I tried to show these as card tags, but couldn't figure out what set names to use.)
That actually doesn't make sense, because:
1) secret lair arts are not canon to MTG universe but are only artistic experiments (unless you're telling it's perfectly fine for Tamiyo dressed like a 1930 american detective)
2) it is not consistent because neither Eastern or Western Paladin should had been phyrexianized then, since 7th art edition give them a completely different non-phyrexian flavor, exactly like in the sphinx case.
Anyway, 'til Sphinx wasn't phyrexian, it made sense to have her non-phyrexian representation. Now you must explain me how a new reprint of the Consecrated Sphinx with the phyrexian art (or even the original printing alone) make sense to not being phyrexian, while not only it got the phyrexian watermark like all phyrexians from Scars block, but flavor text even states that's Blessed by the hands of Jin-Gitaxias. That is a huge fail from WotC part.
Not even mention how that is damaging from a gameplay perspective too. The Sphinx is a powerhouse in EDH and now I can't sinergize it in future phyrexian tribal decks that could explicitly mention phyrexian creature types (or any pre-existing "choose a creature type" card), just because of some silly reprints. Bulls*t
Gatherer has been updated with the Phyrexian creature type. Notable exception so far is Consecrated Sphinx, which remains just a Sphinx.
That makes sense. Otherwise, how did the Phyrexians make it to Amonkhet (Invocation)? And would one really want to help small children become the future (Secret Lair)? (I tried to show these as card tags, but couldn't figure out what set names to use.)
That actually doesn't make sense, because:
1) secret lair arts are not canon to MTG universe but are only artistic experiments (unless you're telling it's perfectly fine for Tamiyo dressed like a 1930 american detective)
Fair point. My Amonkhet example still stands though as a good reason not to change it.
Apparently there’s some claims from fans that some cards now can be put in a persudo reserve list of reprint all because of the obnoxiously large amount of words in the creature types especially the legendaries
The ones that every one keeps pointing at go as following
And quite a few others are pretty much gonna getting a text size that small wouldn't shock me if they have a plan for this and underestimating wizards since you can look at these three
Apparently there’s some claims from fans that some cards now can be put in a persudo reserve list of reprint all because of the obnoxiously large amount of words in the creature types especially the legendaries
Why would they do that? If thay decided to add phyrexian instead to replacing the various "Horror, etc" types, it means they can handle it, which just means to make the letters in a slightly smaller size to make fit it (which is what they do all the time when Magic cards are translated in other languages btw)
You may reveal this card from your opening hand. If you do, at the beginning of the first upkeep, create a 1/1 red Phyrexian Goblin creature token with haste.
When Chancellor of the Forge enters the battlefield, create X 1/1 red Goblin creature tokens with haste, where X is the number of creatures you control
I think both the upkeep and ETB needs to make phyrexian goblins
2. Profane Transfusion that one was definitely missed in the errata its definitely suppose to be phyrexian horror when you look at the flavor text
"Those that fall short of perfection can still contribute to the Great Work."
—Keskit, the Flesh Sculptor
and Keskit is a phyrexian and did get hit by the errata
2) it is not consistent because neither Eastern or Western Paladin should had been phyrexianized then, since 7th art edition give them a completely different non-phyrexian flavor, exactly like in the sphinx case.
1) the black paladins didn’t get the phyrexian creature type on their first printing because r&d didn’t want to include it as a creature type, on their art from Urza’s it is pretty clear that they are phyrexian.
Later on one of the Great creature type revision they got the Zombie creature type but only their Urza’s saga block art fits as zombies while in their 7th art they look very human and alive. If they got changed for phyrexian then the creature type makes sense for both art: On Urza’s block they are compleated and on 7th eddition they can be infiltrated sleeper agents who maybe gonne rogue (like Xantcha for exemple).
2) The only lore we get from 7th is that all paladins are missing an eye (that are replaced by a magic stone) and the black paladins are in war with the white ones and also with other races, also from all the arts its pretty clear that the black paladins are not ZOMBIES and they both have some corruption powers, and none of this lore invalidates them to have the Phyrexian creature type, heck, 7th eddition is speculated to be set on Dominaria before the Phyrexian invasion (that was the set that came right after(or before) it).
For a short answear: both the black paladins being zombies make no sense judging by their arts, both black paladins as phyrexians would fit their art quite well.
2) it is not consistent because neither Eastern or Western Paladin should had been phyrexianized then, since 7th art edition give them a completely different non-phyrexian flavor, exactly like in the sphinx case.
1) the black paladins didn’t get the phyrexian creature type on their first printing because r&d didn’t want to include it as a creature type, on their art from Urza’s it is pretty clear that they are phyrexian.
Later on one of the Great creature type revision they got the Zombie creature type but only their Urza’s saga block art fits as zombies while in their 7th art they look very human and alive. If they got changed for phyrexian then the creature type makes sense for both art: On Urza’s block they are compleated and on 7th eddition they can be infiltrated sleeper agents who maybe gonne rogue (like Xantcha for exemple).
2) The only lore we get from 7th is that all paladins are missing an eye (that are replaced by a magic stone) and the black paladins are in war with the white ones and also with other races, also from all the arts its pretty clear that the black paladins are not ZOMBIES and they both have some corruption powers, and none of this lore invalidates them to have the Phyrexian creature type, heck, 7th eddition is speculated to be set on Dominaria before the Phyrexian invasion (that was the set that came right after(or before) it).
For a short answear: both the black paladins being zombies make no sense judging by their arts, both black paladins as phyrexians would fit their art quite well.
Seems you are completely missing my point. the Paladins case is exactly the same as the Sphinx case.
Are Paladins clearly phyrexian in the first print but not so in another reprint? Yes.
Is the Sphinx clearly phyrexian in the first print but not so in another reprint? Yes.
Yet, they received a different treatment.
Saying that 7th ed. could have a phyrexianized version of the Paladins is mirror climbing, because even if this was true (and I don't believe so), that still doesn't explain why the Sphinx "Blessed from the hands of Jin-Gitaxias" itself, is not a phyrexian at all.
Seems you are completely missing my point. the Paladins case is exactly the same as the Sphinx case.
Are Paladins clearly phyrexian in the first print but not so in another reprint? Yes.
Is the Sphinx clearly phyrexian in the first print but not so in another reprint? Yes.
Yet, they received a different treatment.
Saying that 7th ed. could have a phyrexianized version of the Paladins is mirror climbing, because even if this was true (and I don't believe so), that still doesn't explain why the Sphinx "Blessed from the hands of Jin-Gitaxias" itself, is not a phyrexian at all.
I know you're definitely still missing my point, which is the story implications of having Phyrexians on Amonkhet, vs a couple of cards from 20 years ago printed in a core set with no real story implications. THAT'S what the difference between them is.
I know you're definitely still missing my point, which is the story implications of having Phyrexians on Amonkhet,
1) the message wasn't directed at you, so I don't know why you're the one answering the missing point thing.
2) Who ever said Amonkeht Sphinx necessairly must have story implications? Who ever said the creature type errata of one card must have a retro-active retcon of every single past print of that card? Paladins example shows exactly why forcing a retroactive flavor to every single printing just doesn't make sense (and I'm sure it's not the only case, but that's the most blatant and fitting with the Sphinx case I can think of).
MaRo just admit lately in his blog that WotC planned to make the phyrexia errata only after they created the new Vorinclex. Which means that when they made the Amonkhet Sphinx in their mind that card was simply a Sphinx with a generic name that could fit in every single plane of the multiverse, generic exactly like something thing called Eastern or Western Paladin.
So, that Amonkhet Sphinx is just still a sphinx. there is no issue at all. The special promo printed card will always have simply the word "sphinx" for those maniacal vorthosian purists.
But the same maniacal vorthosian purists should explain me how it is acceptable to not have the Sphinx errata as Phyrexian just because of some very special reprints of that card, and at the same time they don't mind to have the original "Blessed by the hands of Jin-Gitaxias" that got a phyrexian watermark with very compleated appereance, not being phyrexian at all.
And if this was only a flavor thing I really wouldn't mind at all (for example, I don't care if the beast of beast within is not phyrexianized because the token goes to the opponent anyway). But this is a very different case. Not only this is a flavor fail inconsistent with their own criterias, as the Paladins case show, but as I already said, this is actively harmful from a whole gameplay perspective, because now I can't do any phyrexian tribal synergy, neither with the cards already existing (Morophon, Belbe Portal, etc.) or with any possible future commander that will care about phyrexian creature type. And Sphinx is not any random insignificant card, but super relevant in the EDH format. That's what is pissing me out so much.
1) Paladins have no real story implication or setting. There are cards refering dominaria on 7th eddition and thats about it.
2) Saying the black paladins can’t be phyrexian because they don’t look phyrexian but still forgot that there were a bunch of phyrexians that looked like normal people (the sleeper agents).
3) Saying the black paladins don’t look phyrexian in 7th edition is a no for the phyrexian errata, but they don’t look like zombies too, and guess what? They received a errata to be a zombie around 2010-2008(idk). But again, the phyrexia errata would work on Urza’s saga block art plus 7th edition’s art because phyrexians can look like “normal people”
4) I don’t even care about the sphynx lol, and yes the amonkhet printing could be the resson for not including it as a phyrexian
5) Again phyrexian don’t need to look like horrors, in Urza’s block they explained that phyrexia was infiltrating other planes and dominaria by sending sleeper agents that had the only mission of infiltrating (looking like normal people) and making sure a posterior invasion would be easy (soo sabotage their defenses, etc). Explain what 2 random black paladins attacking and making unnecessary war against other regions doesn’t feet on the sleeper agents’ philosophy of sabotage? Explain to me why the black paladins from 7th edition are zombies.
6) Let me ask you something: Are Paladins clearly zombie-like in the first print but not so in another reprint?
7) And for you original question: No, since they presented Xantcha and K’rrik on the story it is clear that Sleeper Agents are a thing, and they will attack and cause havoc when they see fit. Trying to imply that the black paladins could not be phyrexian because they don’t look like phyrexians is just a dumb argument.
8) Again: I don’t care about the Sphynx, never asked why (in this thread and others conversations even irl) she isn’t, from what we know from the sleeper agents (ie: phyrexians that look like normal ppl) they were mostly humanoid, soo saying that the amonket one is a sleeper agent would not fit as much as saying 2 human looking paladins causing havoc and a unnecessary war on what it seems like a “random” place on dominaria years before the phyrexian invasion of the plane… you know 2 human looking characters doing exactly what you would except from a sleeper agent… but ok, if you don’t belive them are phyrexians you can’t continue using them as zombies that breathes eat drink are completely sentient have blood flowing on the body and can be killed just like a human.
Dear leslak, you can going around in circle as you wish, but no flavor explanation can justify why the original Consecrated Sphinx from Mirrodin Beseiged shouldn't be a Phyrexian. Either if you make the Sphinx phyrexian or not, it's still troublesome flavorwise (because it is both unacceptable that Amonkhet Sphinx is phyrexian exactly as it is unacceptable that the "blessed from the hand of Gitaxias" is not phyrexian), but from a gameplay persepctive only missing the Sphinx from being phyrexian is a worse choice in terms of future deckbuildings. So, since both the vorthosian solutions are still a fail flavorwise, if you see it from the maniacal purism viewpoint, from 2 fails WotC should had choosed the one less harmful for the Magic gameplay, which is making the Sphinx phyrexian. Now it's gonna be a pain to explain to players why their phyrexianized watermarked Sphinx is the only one not phyrexian in whole Mirrodin block just because of some rare and random printings completely irrelevant plotwise, in the hand of very few people.
I don’t care about the Sphynx
You don't make statistics. The fact that you personally don't care about the Sphinx doesn't mean other people in the world don't care (and as you can see, I'm the living example this is true). The world doesn't revolve around you my dear.
So apparently they decided to make every single creature card with a Phyrexian watermark creature type Phyrexian unless it was also printed in another set where it was not definitely Phrexian. And that sucks. I am never going to get a non-Phyrexian Geralf-themed Nested Ghoul, because of this creature type. It sucks that the creature type just denominates a faction. I could see it for the Praetors and creatures that are strongly compleated (like that one card that they decided would only have a class and no race since it was now beyond its former race, Priests of Norn etc.)
If there is one thing about MtG I really appreciate it is the great reprints that re-interpret a card entirely with a reprint. They just did it with a whole ten-card cycle of lands where ever member was flavored after a different plane. But this update closes the door on Kaladeshi Wing Splicer, Theran Blind Zealot, Ixalan Dementia Bat or Valor's Reach Oculus. Not neat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Conuly »
Heck, every day I wake up, I don't go out and kill people - and I'm rewarded by not having legions of enemies! Amazing how that works.
Although ninjas are experts of camouflage and concealment, they are actually horrible liars. This means that no matter where you are, you can shout out, “Are there any ninjas here?” and if there’s a ninja within earshot, he’ll be compelled to respond.
Dear Evil_Never_Dies, again the sphynx may be restricted by a secret lair printing and the lack of in lore of why a phyrexian sphynx could be on such a plane like Amonkhet and caring about younglings, true, But, again, the paladins alread are in that gray area were their new type don’t fit their art (explain to anyone that 7th edition black paladins are zombies) and again those 2 paladins even in their “odd” printing can and fit the phyrexian creature type, not only in lore (Sleeper Agent)(the only plane specific cards and flavor text are refereeing dominaria’ regions) in both cards but also in flavor (sleeper agents attacking and trying to destroy possible focus of resistance for the soon to come invasion)(also theres some phyrexia’ machinery in that core set)
Just to be clear, the sphynx even if it would be odd for a amonket incarnation to be a phyrexian, the two black paladins from 7th edition perfectly fits this type and lets be fair the two don’t look like zombies.
those 2 paladins even in their “odd” printing can and fit the phyrexian creature type, not only in lore (Sleeper Agent)
The Paladins of 7th edition are not Sleeper Agents. They have their own specific lore and history that has literally nothing to do with their omonimous phyrexian printing and simply because phyrexian creature type wasn't a thing yet and so WotC didn't care at all to make originally phyrexian cards with non-phyrexian flavor, which, guess what it is? Yes, same exact case of the Consecrated Sphinx, but reversed!
Within its art and flavor text, the set narrates events of a war between two bands led by the Northern Paladin and Southern Paladin versus the Eastern Paladin and the Western Paladin. All four of the paladins have a missing eye. When someone is 'confirmed' as a paladin he trades one of his eyes for a magical gemstone which increases his spell casting ability (see Infernal Contract, Grapeshot Catapult, and Oppression for examples of the replaced eye). https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Seventh_Edition#cite_note-Different-2
Mark, why the Seventh Edition is so different from the others? It has a lore of paladins war and a totally distinct art style
From Brandon Bozzi, creative administrator:
"Actually, all four of the paladins have a missing eye. In the Seventh Edition backstory, when someone is 'confirmed' as a paladin he trades one of his eyes for a magical gemstone which increases his spell casting ability. Take a look at Infernal Contract, Grapeshot Catapult, and Oppression for other examples of the replaced eye." https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/ask-wizards-july-2002-2002-07-01
Now, the Paladins are currently "Phyrexian" and "Zombies" exactly and exclusively because of their Alpha printing, in which their are effectively phyrexian skeletons. That's why they should had to do the same treatment to the Sphinx, because her alpha printing is extremely relevant case, either in lore ("blessed from the hands of Gitaxias", so a masterpiece of compleated creatures among phyrexians) and gameplay (it is the only creature card in history at that mana cost that could draw you +6 cards per turn in multiplayer EDH by doing absolutely nothing after casting it)
because no other sphinxes anywhere can be consecrated?
it's a sphinx, that's been made sacred, and specific to the plane of mirrodin also been compleated. it shouldn't get the phyrxian update because it would then mean every consecrated sphinx everywhere is a phyrexian one. that is extremely limiting, and ridiculous. by not making consecrated sphinx a phyrexian now you can reprint it on a plane like innistrad as a symbol of the church or just about anywhere else really.
it's a sphinx, that's been made sacred, and specific to the plane of mirrodin also been compleated. it shouldn't get the phyrxian update because it would then mean every consecrated sphinx everywhere is a phyrexian one.
Well, with the same argument we could say that "Nested Ghoul" it's a perfectly generic name that could fit in many places of the multiverse, but, guess what? It is phyrexian, so yeah, you must either sacrifice flavor (no Nested Ghouls in Innistrad or whatever place you like) or gameplay possibilities (adding simply the word "phyrexian" to the line doesn't substract absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay, au contraire, it opens new rooms for new potential synergies between cards). That's why I said that WotC from two fails should had choosen the lesser evil, which is in this case, making the Sphinx phyrexian for gameplay reasons and would be still be a good compromise for the maniacal vorthosian purists since the Amonkhet Sphinx will always have forever only the word "Sphinx" in her printed creature line.
it's a sphinx, that's been made sacred, and specific to the plane of mirrodin also been compleated.
And that is not and will never be phyrexian. What a flavor win, right? It's incredible how some vorthosian purists have this cognitive dissonance of not accepting that Amonkhet Sphinx could maybe be phyrexian, but have absolutely no problem to have the Jin-Gitaxias masterpiece as not phyrexian at all. From a flavor viewpoint it's a total failure in exactly both cases (I would argue that flavorwise the current solution it's even worse, because if it's still possible that maybe there's a chance for the Amonkhet Sphinx to be phyrexian, but in the other hand it's for sure 100% wrong with no flavor excuses whatsoever that the mirrodian sphinx shouldn't be phyrexianized).
pretty simple. get over it.
No, sorry but I won't accept it and neither get over it. Thank god in EDH rule zero is a thing and most people have more sense into them than whoever incompetent at wotc made this phyrexian update. All shall be one!
it's a sphinx, that's been made sacred, and specific to the plane of mirrodin also been compleated. it shouldn't get the phyrxian update because it would then mean every consecrated sphinx everywhere is a phyrexian one.
Well, with the same argument we could say that "Nested Ghoul" it's a perfectly generic name that could fit in many places of the multiverse, but, guess what? It is phyrexian, so yeah, you must either sacrifice flavor (no Nested Ghouls in Innistrad or whatever place you like) or gameplay possibilities (adding simply the word "phyrexian" to the line doesn't substract absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay, au contraire, it opens new rooms for new potential synergies between cards). That's why I said that WotC from two fails should had choosen the lesser evil, which is in this case, making the Sphinx phyrexian for gameplay reasons and would be still be a good compromise for the maniacal vorthosian purists since the Amonkhet Sphinx will always have forever only the word "Sphinx" in her printed creature line.
it's a sphinx, that's been made sacred, and specific to the plane of mirrodin also been compleated.
And that is not and will never be phyrexian. What a flavor win, right? It's incredible how some vorthosian purists have this cognitive dissonance of not accepting that Amonkhet Sphinx could maybe be phyrexian, but have absolutely no problem to have the Jin-Gitaxias masterpiece as not phyrexian at all. From a flavor viewpoint it's a total failure in exactly both cases (I would argue that flavorwise the current solution it's even worse, because if it's still possible that maybe there's a chance for the Amonkhet Sphinx to be phyrexian, but in the other hand it's for sure 100% wrong with no flavor excuses whatsoever that the mirrodian sphinx shouldn't be phyrexianized).
pretty simple. get over it.
No, sorry but I won't accept it and neither get over it. Thank god in EDH rule zero is a thing and most people have more sense into them than whoever incompetent at wotc made this phyrexian update. All shall be one!
while true on nested ghoul, and some other cards, what you aren't considering is that this is a trading card game where some cards are going to be in demand more than others.
con sphinx is highly played. limiting it to just masters style sets, and phyrexian oriented sets, actually scums you - the player.
you need to accept that some decisions are actually made for your benefit, and this is one of them. there is absolutely no reason that a sphinx couldn't be consecrated on any other plane, but changing its type to phyrexian just because the first (and so far only) appearance is on new phyrexia? that's absolutely stupid. i get that you don't like it, but there's more at play here than just slapping the creature type on everything that appeared on phyrexian/new phyrexia.
you keep bringing up the amonkhet sphinx but here's the thing, there has been zero link between phyrexia and amonkhet. that is a big stretch right now, on top of that a big part of amonkhet's lore would indeed link directly to making a sphinx sacred - ie consecrated. they do not have to be mutually exclusive with phyrexian. i'm not sure you're seeing how easily not linking that creature type to it lends it to being reprinted anywhere it fits without having to make leaps in story. if you make it phyrexian, any plane it appears on now has direct ties to phyrexia that you have to explain.
in this case its tied to the card's playability - and its generic naming. they're not exclusive here but inclusive. this happens sometimes with justifiable reason. see m10.
I know you're definitely still missing my point, which is the story implications of having Phyrexians on Amonkhet,
Who ever said the creature type errata of one card must have a retro-active retcon of every single past print of that card?
The rules said that. Every version of a black-bordered card with a specific name is treated as identical to each other version (with the official text coming from Gatherer). You can't have two different versions of a card with the exact same name (again, in black border).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&subtype= ["Phyrexian"]
ad excepted phyrexian gremlins and priest of yawgmoth are infact phyrexians
but this is spooky...consecrated Sphinx is not on the gatherer when saffron found it in MTGO with the phyrexian type.
Also how in the world does blighted agent still have the human type (truth is if it lost it, it would have spiked to the moon because hype of mutate.)
but they absolutely failed they definately missed Witch Engine
and this proves it
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Phyrexia
the name even links to the same card
That makes sense. Otherwise, how did the Phyrexians make it to Amonkhet (Invocation)? And would one really want to help small children become the future (Secret Lair)? (I tried to show these as card tags, but couldn't figure out what set names to use.)
That actually doesn't make sense, because:
1) secret lair arts are not canon to MTG universe but are only artistic experiments (unless you're telling it's perfectly fine for Tamiyo dressed like a 1930 american detective)
2) it is not consistent because neither Eastern or Western Paladin should had been phyrexianized then, since 7th art edition give them a completely different non-phyrexian flavor, exactly like in the sphinx case.
Anyway, 'til Sphinx wasn't phyrexian, it made sense to have her non-phyrexian representation. Now you must explain me how a new reprint of the Consecrated Sphinx with the phyrexian art (or even the original printing alone) make sense to not being phyrexian, while not only it got the phyrexian watermark like all phyrexians from Scars block, but flavor text even states that's Blessed by the hands of Jin-Gitaxias. That is a huge fail from WotC part.
Fair point. My Amonkhet example still stands though as a good reason not to change it.
We could argue creature types erratas could not have retro-active effects flavorwise, which is exactly why I made the Paladins examples.
The ones that every one keeps pointing at go as following
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice (Legendary creature - Phyrexian Angel horror)
Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer (Legendary Artifact Creature — Phyrexian Artificer)
Ascendant Evincar (Legendary Creature — Phyrexian Vampire Noble)
Priest of Gix (Creature — Phyrexian Human Cleric Minion)
And quite a few others are pretty much gonna getting a text size that small wouldn't shock me if they have a plan for this and underestimating wizards since you can look at these three
Why would they do that? If thay decided to add phyrexian instead to replacing the various "Horror, etc" types, it means they can handle it, which just means to make the letters in a slightly smaller size to make fit it (which is what they do all the time when Magic cards are translated in other languages btw)
Kaldheim may have already got it.
1 Chancellor of the Forge is worded like this
I think both the upkeep and ETB needs to make phyrexian goblins
2. Profane Transfusion that one was definitely missed in the errata its definitely suppose to be phyrexian horror when you look at the flavor text
and Keskit is a phyrexian and did get hit by the errata
1) the black paladins didn’t get the phyrexian creature type on their first printing because r&d didn’t want to include it as a creature type, on their art from Urza’s it is pretty clear that they are phyrexian.
Later on one of the Great creature type revision they got the Zombie creature type but only their Urza’s saga block art fits as zombies while in their 7th art they look very human and alive. If they got changed for phyrexian then the creature type makes sense for both art: On Urza’s block they are compleated and on 7th eddition they can be infiltrated sleeper agents who maybe gonne rogue (like Xantcha for exemple).
2) The only lore we get from 7th is that all paladins are missing an eye (that are replaced by a magic stone) and the black paladins are in war with the white ones and also with other races, also from all the arts its pretty clear that the black paladins are not ZOMBIES and they both have some corruption powers, and none of this lore invalidates them to have the Phyrexian creature type, heck, 7th eddition is speculated to be set on Dominaria before the Phyrexian invasion (that was the set that came right after(or before) it).
For a short answear: both the black paladins being zombies make no sense judging by their arts, both black paladins as phyrexians would fit their art quite well.
Seems you are completely missing my point. the Paladins case is exactly the same as the Sphinx case.
Are Paladins clearly phyrexian in the first print but not so in another reprint? Yes.
Is the Sphinx clearly phyrexian in the first print but not so in another reprint? Yes.
Yet, they received a different treatment.
Saying that 7th ed. could have a phyrexianized version of the Paladins is mirror climbing, because even if this was true (and I don't believe so), that still doesn't explain why the Sphinx "Blessed from the hands of Jin-Gitaxias" itself, is not a phyrexian at all.
I know you're definitely still missing my point, which is the story implications of having Phyrexians on Amonkhet, vs a couple of cards from 20 years ago printed in a core set with no real story implications. THAT'S what the difference between them is.
1) the message wasn't directed at you, so I don't know why you're the one answering the missing point thing.
2) Who ever said Amonkeht Sphinx necessairly must have story implications? Who ever said the creature type errata of one card must have a retro-active retcon of every single past print of that card? Paladins example shows exactly why forcing a retroactive flavor to every single printing just doesn't make sense (and I'm sure it's not the only case, but that's the most blatant and fitting with the Sphinx case I can think of).
MaRo just admit lately in his blog that WotC planned to make the phyrexia errata only after they created the new Vorinclex. Which means that when they made the Amonkhet Sphinx in their mind that card was simply a Sphinx with a generic name that could fit in every single plane of the multiverse, generic exactly like something thing called Eastern or Western Paladin.
So, that Amonkhet Sphinx is just still a sphinx. there is no issue at all. The special promo printed card will always have simply the word "sphinx" for those maniacal vorthosian purists.
But the same maniacal vorthosian purists should explain me how it is acceptable to not have the Sphinx errata as Phyrexian just because of some very special reprints of that card, and at the same time they don't mind to have the original "Blessed by the hands of Jin-Gitaxias" that got a phyrexian watermark with very compleated appereance, not being phyrexian at all.
And if this was only a flavor thing I really wouldn't mind at all (for example, I don't care if the beast of beast within is not phyrexianized because the token goes to the opponent anyway). But this is a very different case. Not only this is a flavor fail inconsistent with their own criterias, as the Paladins case show, but as I already said, this is actively harmful from a whole gameplay perspective, because now I can't do any phyrexian tribal synergy, neither with the cards already existing (Morophon, Belbe Portal, etc.) or with any possible future commander that will care about phyrexian creature type. And Sphinx is not any random insignificant card, but super relevant in the EDH format. That's what is pissing me out so much.
2) Saying the black paladins can’t be phyrexian because they don’t look phyrexian but still forgot that there were a bunch of phyrexians that looked like normal people (the sleeper agents).
3) Saying the black paladins don’t look phyrexian in 7th edition is a no for the phyrexian errata, but they don’t look like zombies too, and guess what? They received a errata to be a zombie around 2010-2008(idk). But again, the phyrexia errata would work on Urza’s saga block art plus 7th edition’s art because phyrexians can look like “normal people”
4) I don’t even care about the sphynx lol, and yes the amonkhet printing could be the resson for not including it as a phyrexian
5) Again phyrexian don’t need to look like horrors, in Urza’s block they explained that phyrexia was infiltrating other planes and dominaria by sending sleeper agents that had the only mission of infiltrating (looking like normal people) and making sure a posterior invasion would be easy (soo sabotage their defenses, etc). Explain what 2 random black paladins attacking and making unnecessary war against other regions doesn’t feet on the sleeper agents’ philosophy of sabotage? Explain to me why the black paladins from 7th edition are zombies.
6) Let me ask you something: Are Paladins clearly zombie-like in the first print but not so in another reprint?
7) And for you original question: No, since they presented Xantcha and K’rrik on the story it is clear that Sleeper Agents are a thing, and they will attack and cause havoc when they see fit. Trying to imply that the black paladins could not be phyrexian because they don’t look like phyrexians is just a dumb argument.
8) Again: I don’t care about the Sphynx, never asked why (in this thread and others conversations even irl) she isn’t, from what we know from the sleeper agents (ie: phyrexians that look like normal ppl) they were mostly humanoid, soo saying that the amonket one is a sleeper agent would not fit as much as saying 2 human looking paladins causing havoc and a unnecessary war on what it seems like a “random” place on dominaria years before the phyrexian invasion of the plane… you know 2 human looking characters doing exactly what you would except from a sleeper agent… but ok, if you don’t belive them are phyrexians you can’t continue using them as zombies that breathes eat drink are completely sentient have blood flowing on the body and can be killed just like a human.
You don't make statistics. The fact that you personally don't care about the Sphinx doesn't mean other people in the world don't care (and as you can see, I'm the living example this is true). The world doesn't revolve around you my dear.
If there is one thing about MtG I really appreciate it is the great reprints that re-interpret a card entirely with a reprint. They just did it with a whole ten-card cycle of lands where ever member was flavored after a different plane. But this update closes the door on Kaladeshi Wing Splicer, Theran Blind Zealot, Ixalan Dementia Bat or Valor's Reach Oculus. Not neat.
Although ninjas are experts of camouflage and concealment, they are actually horrible liars. This means that no matter where you are, you can shout out, “Are there any ninjas here?” and if there’s a ninja within earshot, he’ll be compelled to respond.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Just to be clear, the sphynx even if it would be odd for a amonket incarnation to be a phyrexian, the two black paladins from 7th edition perfectly fits this type and lets be fair the two don’t look like zombies.
The Paladins of 7th edition are not Sleeper Agents. They have their own specific lore and history that has literally nothing to do with their omonimous phyrexian printing and simply because phyrexian creature type wasn't a thing yet and so WotC didn't care at all to make originally phyrexian cards with non-phyrexian flavor, which, guess what it is? Yes, same exact case of the Consecrated Sphinx, but reversed!
Within its art and flavor text, the set narrates events of a war between two bands led by the Northern Paladin and Southern Paladin versus the Eastern Paladin and the Western Paladin. All four of the paladins have a missing eye. When someone is 'confirmed' as a paladin he trades one of his eyes for a magical gemstone which increases his spell casting ability (see Infernal Contract, Grapeshot Catapult, and Oppression for examples of the replaced eye).
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Seventh_Edition#cite_note-Different-2
Mark, why the Seventh Edition is so different from the others? It has a lore of paladins war and a totally distinct art style
We decided to give Seventh Edition all new art and a light story. It didn’t work out too well. People like recognizing cards by art and the story was not enough for people to get.
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/167236708478/mark-why-the-seventh-edition-is-so-different-from
From Brandon Bozzi, creative administrator:
"Actually, all four of the paladins have a missing eye. In the Seventh Edition backstory, when someone is 'confirmed' as a paladin he trades one of his eyes for a magical gemstone which increases his spell casting ability. Take a look at Infernal Contract, Grapeshot Catapult, and Oppression for other examples of the replaced eye."
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/ask-wizards-july-2002-2002-07-01
Now, the Paladins are currently "Phyrexian" and "Zombies" exactly and exclusively because of their Alpha printing, in which their are effectively phyrexian skeletons. That's why they should had to do the same treatment to the Sphinx, because her alpha printing is extremely relevant case, either in lore ("blessed from the hands of Gitaxias", so a masterpiece of compleated creatures among phyrexians) and gameplay (it is the only creature card in history at that mana cost that could draw you +6 cards per turn in multiplayer EDH by doing absolutely nothing after casting it)
it's a sphinx, that's been made sacred, and specific to the plane of mirrodin also been compleated. it shouldn't get the phyrxian update because it would then mean every consecrated sphinx everywhere is a phyrexian one. that is extremely limiting, and ridiculous. by not making consecrated sphinx a phyrexian now you can reprint it on a plane like innistrad as a symbol of the church or just about anywhere else really.
pretty simple. get over it.
Well, with the same argument we could say that "Nested Ghoul" it's a perfectly generic name that could fit in many places of the multiverse, but, guess what? It is phyrexian, so yeah, you must either sacrifice flavor (no Nested Ghouls in Innistrad or whatever place you like) or gameplay possibilities (adding simply the word "phyrexian" to the line doesn't substract absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay, au contraire, it opens new rooms for new potential synergies between cards). That's why I said that WotC from two fails should had choosen the lesser evil, which is in this case, making the Sphinx phyrexian for gameplay reasons and would be still be a good compromise for the maniacal vorthosian purists since the Amonkhet Sphinx will always have forever only the word "Sphinx" in her printed creature line.
And that is not and will never be phyrexian. What a flavor win, right? It's incredible how some vorthosian purists have this cognitive dissonance of not accepting that Amonkhet Sphinx could maybe be phyrexian, but have absolutely no problem to have the Jin-Gitaxias masterpiece as not phyrexian at all. From a flavor viewpoint it's a total failure in exactly both cases (I would argue that flavorwise the current solution it's even worse, because if it's still possible that maybe there's a chance for the Amonkhet Sphinx to be phyrexian, but in the other hand it's for sure 100% wrong with no flavor excuses whatsoever that the mirrodian sphinx shouldn't be phyrexianized).
No, sorry but I won't accept it and neither get over it. Thank god in EDH rule zero is a thing and most people have more sense into them than whoever incompetent at wotc made this phyrexian update. All shall be one!
while true on nested ghoul, and some other cards, what you aren't considering is that this is a trading card game where some cards are going to be in demand more than others.
con sphinx is highly played. limiting it to just masters style sets, and phyrexian oriented sets, actually scums you - the player.
you need to accept that some decisions are actually made for your benefit, and this is one of them. there is absolutely no reason that a sphinx couldn't be consecrated on any other plane, but changing its type to phyrexian just because the first (and so far only) appearance is on new phyrexia? that's absolutely stupid. i get that you don't like it, but there's more at play here than just slapping the creature type on everything that appeared on phyrexian/new phyrexia.
you keep bringing up the amonkhet sphinx but here's the thing, there has been zero link between phyrexia and amonkhet. that is a big stretch right now, on top of that a big part of amonkhet's lore would indeed link directly to making a sphinx sacred - ie consecrated. they do not have to be mutually exclusive with phyrexian. i'm not sure you're seeing how easily not linking that creature type to it lends it to being reprinted anywhere it fits without having to make leaps in story. if you make it phyrexian, any plane it appears on now has direct ties to phyrexia that you have to explain.
in this case its tied to the card's playability - and its generic naming. they're not exclusive here but inclusive. this happens sometimes with justifiable reason. see m10.
The rules said that. Every version of a black-bordered card with a specific name is treated as identical to each other version (with the official text coming from Gatherer). You can't have two different versions of a card with the exact same name (again, in black border).