Warrior - Red - fueled by rage
Monk - White - serene mind, disciplined
Druid - Green - instinctual, wild etc
Warlock - Black - greed, selfishness, willing to go to any length for power
Mage - Blue - The most scholarly of the classes, sometimes crazy and creative (maybe a bit of blue/red)
Here's where they start to get less monocolor:
Death Knight - Black/White - They are walking corpses, but they are driven and disciplined. Call upon dark powers for aid.
Hunter - Red/Green - instinctual like druids, but also passionate. Relationships with their pets are more red/green than straight green.
Paladin - White/Red - Can't be monowhite because of their passion for dispatching evil. "Retribution" screams red/white.
Priest - Blue/White - They are scholarly like Mages, but they study holy texts etc. I don't think monowhite fits them
Rogue - Black/something - Not sure about these guys. They lurk in the shadows and take cheap shots, but they are also highly trained/skilled. Not sure which colour combination fits them best.
Shaman - RUG? - They are instinctual, passionate and also wise. I think RUG is the best fit.
What do you guys think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
Don't know if it's been mentioned before but Helliod is not white, he is 5 colours.
AF said at the panel that he is 5 colour because 1. He is the zeus of the Therosian gods and so embodies all aspects of everything 2. He is the god of the sun (see all the sun cards from Mirrodin as well as the Sunburst mechanic).
I'm going to call myself out here, because after re-watching my recording of the panel, I realise that I misunderstood what Aaron said.
He said that the pantheon they created, and not Helliod himself, will consist of one god for each colour.
My mistake. Sorry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
Don't know if it's been mentioned before but Helliod is not white, he is 5 colours.
AF said at the panel that he is 5 colour because 1. He is the zeus of the Therosian gods and so embodies all aspects of everything 2. He is the god of the sun (see all the sun cards from Mirrodin as well as the Sunburst mechanic).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
Enchantments, instants and sorceries can't have creature subtypes. Supertypes also do not grant any subtypes. Therefore a new type, Tribal, had to be created to grant enchantments instants and sorceries creature subtypes. Tribal as a rule cannot be on a card by itself though. It just wouldn't make sense otherwise.
To all those expecting some weird ass stuff, they're probably just enchantment creatures.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
Okay, let me explain it in terms some might be able to understand..
new player: cool new format.
modern player: yes it is.
new player: anything I should know?
modern player: cards form 8th till present are legal, there is a ban list that can be found on the mother site, and its a critical turn 4 format.
new player:what does critical turn 4 format mean?
modern player: it means turn 4 is the critical turn of the game.
new player: so games are a bit slower, they last till turn 4 and after.
modern player: no you can win on turn 3 if your deck isnt consistent or doesnt do it with great frequency.
new player: what? that doesnt make sense. you just said this is a critical turn 4 format. how can you win before the critical turn?
modern player: it cant happen frequently or consistently, but it can happen.
new player: really, that doesnt make any sense.
Wotc came out and said in the introduction of the format that Modern will be a turn 4 critical turn format. How can you have a turn 4 critical turn format if decks are allowed to win on turn 3? If they allow decks to win on turn 3, its not a critical turn 4 format. I dont care about frequency, or consistency, winning before turn 4 should not be allowed, period. For the format to be a true turn 4 format the ban list needs to be much larger.
Show me the quote from Wizards that says they want modern to be a turn 4 critical turn format. Because they do not.
There are decks that can win on turn 1. There are decks that can win on turn 2. So what? There should be. Variance is what makes magic fun. The fact that rare stuff can happen is awesome.
You need to stop telling your friend that modern is a "turn 4 critical format" because it is not. You are lying to your friend. Instead tell your friend about magic in general and how the game has random elements to make it more fun.
Also tell him that the broken stuff that happens is regulated by interaction, and only when the broken stuff gets out of hand is it banned.
Find me the quote where wotc says they want no wins before turn 4 whatsoever. Until you show me that quote, no one on this forum will take you seriously.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
Basically, my understanding of it works like this:
With a Goyf, you bolt it (let's say he's a 2/3 with no instants in the yard). Bolt resolves and marks 3 damage on Goyf, then state-based actions are checked. At the same time it should be saying, "Oh, Goyf has lethal damage on it, best send it to the graveyard", it is also saying, "Hey, there's an instant in the graveyard, recalculate Goyf's power and toughness!" which makes him a 3/4 with 3 damage marked on him.
With Vulture, you do the same thing. Bolt resolves, 3 damage is marked, then Bolt goes to the graveyard. Vulture's ability triggers, but state-based actions are checked first, and they say, "3 toughness? 3 damage marked on you? To the graveyard with you!". The ability says, "Hey, I want to put a +1/+1 counter on!" but state-based actions says, "NOPE TOO LATE LOL".
#Ihavebeenwrongbefore
I can confirm this ruling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
Hey guys! i really want to make use of my set of foil archangels light, and legacy is my favorite format. I cant seem to think of a decent idea of a deck to put them in, so i was hoping for some insight! Any ideas would be great!!!
In legacy, and in magic in general, gaining life is one of the least important things you need to worry about. You need to seriously consider the usefulness of a card that does ONLY that.
Secondly, if you want to get better at evaluating cards, go to the mtgtop8 website and look at some legacy decklists.
Archangel's light is a bad card by many people standards, and has never seen play in any constructed format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
Back to the goblin. He's hard to understand. That alone is reason enough he shouldn't have been printed - they have space for much better and clearer templates here. The real sad part is the clearer wording is the same length - compare:
ACTUAL
T: Goblin Test Pilot deals 2 damage to target creature or player chosen at random.
CLEARER
T: Goblin Test Pilot deals 2 damage to a randomly chosen target creature or player.
They have no excuse here. Templating fail. I'm done for the night.
I'm sorry my friend but your misunderstanding is your own failing.
The card reads:
T: Goblin Test Pilot deals 2 damage to target creature or player chosen at random.
The card in English (and I will only consider English because we are not looking at and have not seen the card's templating in other languages) can be read one of two ways:
1. Deal 2 damage to target creature or player, chosen at random.
2. Deal 2 damage to target creatre, or target player chosen at random.
Both of my interpretations can be drawn from the oracle text, but only one is the logical choice. First of all, the text of the card only has one instance of target which is syntaxically wrong in terms of the templating of cards, and would make the card awkward to read, and makes interpretation 2 a weird one.
Secondly, why would you be given the ability to repeatedly kill your opponent's creatures with no drawback? It makes no sense. The design (being able to choose any creature, but only being able to choose a player at random) would also make no sense.
I didn't have a problem fully understanding this card the first time I read it, and it took me a fair amount of staring at the card to actually see what you were talking about. For this reason and the reasons stated above, I am calling your complaint bogus and contrived to prove an irrelevant point.
See, if this really "IS" how it is suppose to be worded (and given this mates argument, ill be siding with him for now) this just goes to show that wizards is fully capable of letting things slip past design. Snapcaster Mage anyone? Not comparing this to that card...but the example shows Wizards Development doesn't catch these things...perhaps because they played with the cards the past year. Newer players haven't though. Btw is Ral Zarek the Izzet mythic for the set? We better see one more good Izzet rare.
I'd also like to note that this is not a design OR a development issue. It is a templating issue, and a dubious one at that.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
These were my initial thoughts:
Warrior - Red - fueled by rage
Monk - White - serene mind, disciplined
Druid - Green - instinctual, wild etc
Warlock - Black - greed, selfishness, willing to go to any length for power
Mage - Blue - The most scholarly of the classes, sometimes crazy and creative (maybe a bit of blue/red)
Here's where they start to get less monocolor:
Death Knight - Black/White - They are walking corpses, but they are driven and disciplined. Call upon dark powers for aid.
Hunter - Red/Green - instinctual like druids, but also passionate. Relationships with their pets are more red/green than straight green.
Paladin - White/Red - Can't be monowhite because of their passion for dispatching evil. "Retribution" screams red/white.
Priest - Blue/White - They are scholarly like Mages, but they study holy texts etc. I don't think monowhite fits them
Rogue - Black/something - Not sure about these guys. They lurk in the shadows and take cheap shots, but they are also highly trained/skilled. Not sure which colour combination fits them best.
Shaman - RUG? - They are instinctual, passionate and also wise. I think RUG is the best fit.
What do you guys think?
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
With regards to Ostracize, see Despise.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I'm going to call myself out here, because after re-watching my recording of the panel, I realise that I misunderstood what Aaron said.
He said that the pantheon they created, and not Helliod himself, will consist of one god for each colour.
My mistake. Sorry.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
AF said at the panel that he is 5 colour because 1. He is the zeus of the Therosian gods and so embodies all aspects of everything 2. He is the god of the sun (see all the sun cards from Mirrodin as well as the Sunburst mechanic).
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Enchantments, instants and sorceries can't have creature subtypes. Supertypes also do not grant any subtypes. Therefore a new type, Tribal, had to be created to grant enchantments instants and sorceries creature subtypes. Tribal as a rule cannot be on a card by itself though. It just wouldn't make sense otherwise.
To all those expecting some weird ass stuff, they're probably just enchantment creatures.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Show me the quote from Wizards that says they want modern to be a turn 4 critical turn format. Because they do not.
There are decks that can win on turn 1. There are decks that can win on turn 2. So what? There should be. Variance is what makes magic fun. The fact that rare stuff can happen is awesome.
You need to stop telling your friend that modern is a "turn 4 critical format" because it is not. You are lying to your friend. Instead tell your friend about magic in general and how the game has random elements to make it more fun.
Also tell him that the broken stuff that happens is regulated by interaction, and only when the broken stuff gets out of hand is it banned.
Find me the quote where wotc says they want no wins before turn 4 whatsoever. Until you show me that quote, no one on this forum will take you seriously.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I can confirm this ruling.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
In legacy, and in magic in general, gaining life is one of the least important things you need to worry about. You need to seriously consider the usefulness of a card that does ONLY that.
Secondly, if you want to get better at evaluating cards, go to the mtgtop8 website and look at some legacy decklists.
Archangel's light is a bad card by many people standards, and has never seen play in any constructed format.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I'm sorry my friend but your misunderstanding is your own failing.
The card reads:
T: Goblin Test Pilot deals 2 damage to target creature or player chosen at random.
The card in English (and I will only consider English because we are not looking at and have not seen the card's templating in other languages) can be read one of two ways:
1. Deal 2 damage to target creature or player, chosen at random.
2. Deal 2 damage to target creatre, or target player chosen at random.
Both of my interpretations can be drawn from the oracle text, but only one is the logical choice. First of all, the text of the card only has one instance of target which is syntaxically wrong in terms of the templating of cards, and would make the card awkward to read, and makes interpretation 2 a weird one.
Secondly, why would you be given the ability to repeatedly kill your opponent's creatures with no drawback? It makes no sense. The design (being able to choose any creature, but only being able to choose a player at random) would also make no sense.
I didn't have a problem fully understanding this card the first time I read it, and it took me a fair amount of staring at the card to actually see what you were talking about. For this reason and the reasons stated above, I am calling your complaint bogus and contrived to prove an irrelevant point.
I'd also like to note that this is not a design OR a development issue. It is a templating issue, and a dubious one at that.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I'm fairly sure he would be absolutely fine if new char only hits players
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Games in modern go past turn 7 a good portion of the time. I don't know there you're getting this 4-6 turn drivel.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.