We'll have to wait and see what the rules text for the card actually is. If they didn't mean 'that card' but instead meant 'all cards exiled with ~", then they should have put that in the text.
While I agree that the wording isn't what we normally see, I will say that it seems they been experimenting with new/different templating with this set in general, it seems; so I wouldn't count it out.
Templating in recent sets seems to be going more and more tiwards simplification. At the cost of clarity if you ask me. For example reminder text on sagas said "Sacrifice after III." without specifying what needs to be sacrificed. That said I don't see that much ambiguity here. The ability refers to each card separately and does not specificly refer to card exiled this turn so you can cast those cards for the rest of the game if you fulfill the condition of attacking with rogue.
As for the usability it seems to be very hit and miss. It's easily blocked and killed and provides only random card (which can be uncastable land). It's probably version of Dreadhorde Arcanist that will work better in standard than the original (compared to how good Arcanist is in eternal formats) but mostly unusable in other formats.
Reach looks very weird on that card, like they wanted to push it to mythic but were afraid to give it first strike or menace because it would be too good.
Kinda surprised there's a Robin Hood reference of all things in here. I mean, sure, Rob's probably the second best known British folklore character after King Arthur, but he's not really a fairy tale nor Arthurian per se. Then again, this same set has Bear Suplex.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Could be an oppressive card. Also, you absolutely get access to all exiled cards whenever any rogue attacks.
Conditions to be met for ability to be triggered:
1. Robber needs to attack.
2. Your opponent must have more cards in hand that you.
3. If conditions 1 and 2 are met, Robber exiles the top card of their library.
4. During any turn you attacked with a Rogue (Robber or other), you may cast THAT card. (Does not specify other cards exiled in this way that were not cast, only the most recent one exiled after the first three steps)
5. If you cast that card, you may spend mana as if it were any color to cast it, blah blah.
Reading it a line at a time, it's quite clear. Nowhere on the card does it explicitly specify that any card BEYOND THE ONE YOU HAVE CURRENTLY EXILED is playable, and thus, the Rules Committee will need to make a ruling on what this card ACTUALLY does.
If it DOES end up allowing you to cast exiled cards from past turns, then this is a pretty good card. If it's only the most recently exiled card, it's not quite as amazing but still has applications, most likely in midrange and control decks.
Is this indication of more red rogues? the tribe was mostly seen in Black-Blue rope they can make those new red rogues unique enough (and make them distinct enough from pirates).
Could be an oppressive card. Also, you absolutely get access to all exiled cards whenever any rogue attacks.
Conditions to be met for ability to be triggered:
1. Robber needs to attack.
2. Your opponent must have more cards in hand that you.
3. If conditions 1 and 2 are met, Robber exiles the top card of their library.
4. During any turn you attacked with a Rogue (Robber or other), you may cast THAT card. (Does not specify other cards exiled in this way that were not cast, only the most recent one exiled after the first three steps)
5. If you cast that card, you may spend mana as if it were any color to cast it, blah blah.
Reading it a line at a time, it's quite clear. Nowhere on the card does it explicitly specify that any card BEYOND THE ONE YOU HAVE CURRENTLY EXILED is playable, and thus, the Rules Committee will need to make a ruling on what this card ACTUALLY does.
If it DOES end up allowing you to cast exiled cards from past turns, then this is a pretty good card. If it's only the most recently exiled card, it's not quite as amazing but still has applications, most likely in midrange and control decks.
it definately reads to me like each card gets exiled in it's own little bubble that gets unlocked every time you attack with 1 or more rogues. I don't find the language at all ambiguous. An argument could be made that 'each card...." may be clearer except that now the bubble belongs to Robin, not to the exiled card. Really there's no other way to word this for the function they intended - that cards exiled by Robin gain extra text while in exile.
No, the biggest question is why "of the rich" was required... they're the best people to rob from anyway.
Flavour win, card fail.
It's missing the 'cast without paying mana' clause, and like other cards like this it will fail.
Edit:
I totally missed the whole 'whevever you attack with a rogue' clause
This card is now much better than I thought
That's what you get for looking at previews on a small cell screen
Flavour win, card fail.
It's missing the 'cast without paying mana' clause, and like other cards like this it will fail.,
I'd hardly say it qualifies as a failure. Even if you don't cast the cards you're stripping them out of your opponent's library and making them useless. With just that alone, it's a human with Reach, Haste, and Ingest.
I think if you were to attack multiple times, each card exiled becomes unlocked once you attack with a Rogue. Each exiled card comes with bubble text that says "you may cast this card, and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast it." It's like Light Up The Stage, basically.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The essence of every world, every spell and every thought is power. Nothing else matters, because nothing else exists."
This is why I am HIGHLY dubious of "psychographics" (which is not a real concept outside of the head of Magic designers wrapped up in inane "lifestyle" research IMO). By linking color to "philosophy" above all else you easily miss the forest for trees -- in this case somewhat literally. When you are THAT associated with a forest (AND archery), you should be green.
Its not even that much of a stretch on the philosophy front either because you can depict him and his men as Diggers (or Levellers I guess if they're too squeamish for that)
We'll have to wait and see what the rules text for the card actually is. If they didn't mean 'that card' but instead meant 'all cards exiled with ~", then they should have put that in the text.
Nah. Gonti didn't need that text. The ability all resolves and is tied to the card you exile. So yes, you can play it on a different turn as long as you attacked with a rogue that turn.
(Otherwise, why even bother with all that text, it could just say "play it this turn")
edit: I don't understand why you think it would need to say "beyond the one you currently have exiled." Nothing about the ability even mentions or cares about the "current" exiled clause. That just isn't how it works. It would have said "the last card exiled with robin hood" if that's what it was limited to.
If you blink your Gonti, the first card it exiled doesn't go away. You can still play that card. Even though Gonti's ability only refers to the specific card it exiles. That's because each time the ability triggers, the whole ability happens. So the card is exiled with the rider "during any turn you attack with a rogue, you can cast this."
This is why I am HIGHLY dubious of "psychographics" (which is not a real concept outside of the head of Magic designers wrapped up in inane "lifestyle" research IMO). By linking color to "philosophy" above all else you easily miss the forest for trees -- in this case somewhat literally. When you are THAT associated with a forest (AND archery), you should be green.
Its not even that much of a stretch on the philosophy front either because you can depict him and his men as Diggers (or Levellers I guess if they're too squeamish for that)
I don't understand what player psychographics have to do with anything else you said.
Player psychographics refer to the reasons players play Magic. It's mostly a marketing concept -- Wizards wants to design cards that players will want to buy, so what do players want to buy, exactly?
Traditional answer: cards that allow players to express themselves (Johnny), cards that allow players to have a novel experience (Timmy), cards that can be played competitively (Spike).
I actually agree with you that psychographics are kind of an overplayed concept (how many people bought BFZ because they wanted to play it, vs. how many people bought BFZ because the packs were full of golden tickets and Magic is turning more and more into legalized gambling?)
But none of that has anything to do with why this card is red and not green.
This is why I am HIGHLY dubious of "psychographics" (which is not a real concept outside of the head of Magic designers wrapped up in inane "lifestyle" research IMO).
By linking color to "philosophy" above all else you easily miss the forest for trees -- in this case somewhat literally.
Hold on, what happened to psychographics? What does color pie philosophy have to do with it?
Also, the color pie is not based on philsophy above all else. Thematic and aesthetic associations (like the ones you are advocating) are easily more important, as you can tell from the extremely obvious influence it has over every single set.
When you are THAT associated with a forest (AND archery), you should be green.
Archery doesn't really have anything to do with green. Plenty of archer/archery cards in other colours.
Hanging out in the woods isn't the strongest link either, though that is something.
Its not even that much of a stretch on the philosophy front either because you can depict him and his men as Diggers (or Levellers I guess if they're too squeamish for that)
That sounds like a stretch to me, and I don't know how you possibly expect to convey any of that on a magic card. I would say that sort of political philosophy might be more white than green anyway.
You want to know why I think this card is red? One of the main reasons is because they wanted it to steal things from your opponent and red can do that. Blue or black wouldn't exactly suit a 'Robber of the rich, giver to the poor" character, would they? And considering Robin Hood is a daring action-hero lawbreaker- all pretty red things both philosophically and more thematically/aesthetically- that feels like a pretty good fit to me. Robin Hood is a classic vigilante hero, and much easier to fit into monored than monowhite.
Could be an oppressive card. Also, you absolutely get access to all exiled cards whenever any rogue attacks.
Conditions to be met for ability to be triggered:
1. Robber needs to attack.
2. Your opponent must have more cards in hand that you.
3. If conditions 1 and 2 are met, Robber exiles the top card of their library.
4. During any turn you attacked with a Rogue (Robber or other), you may cast THAT card. (Does not specify other cards exiled in this way that were not cast, only the most recent one exiled after the first three steps)
5. If you cast that card, you may spend mana as if it were any color to cast it, blah blah.
Reading it a line at a time, it's quite clear. Nowhere on the card does it explicitly specify that any card BEYOND THE ONE YOU HAVE CURRENTLY EXILED is playable, and thus, the Rules Committee will need to make a ruling on what this card ACTUALLY does.
If it DOES end up allowing you to cast exiled cards from past turns, then this is a pretty good card. If it's only the most recently exiled card, it's not quite as amazing but still has applications, most likely in midrange and control decks.
Each and every card gets it's own distinct "that card" statement. It does not in any way, by the way it's worded, overwrite any of the previous "that card" instances. Quite the contrary, it would have to specify that only the most recent card is the valid one for it to only affect the most recent card as worded. Turn 2, you attack and exile a card? THAT card has a bubble. Nothing on the card, not one thing, says that bubble goes away. Turn 3 you attack again and exile again? THAT card also has a bubble. NOTHING on the card says THAT bubble goes away either.
Look at the wording for Thief of Sanity: "You may look at and cast that card for as long as it remains exiled, and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast that spell." Thief, too, only specifies "that card" gets the clause. But we absolutely 100% for sure know each and every card exiled by a Thief of Sanity is forever affected by that individual "that card" clause.
When one of your Rogues attacks, each and every card exiled by any Robber of the Rich individually trigger, full stop, because nothing on Robber says they do not.
The "that card" on Robber is precisely the same as the "that card" on Thief, in that nothing on the card specifies that goes away after the card is exiled.
I personally would have made a Robin Hood card RGW, but that's assuming the card in question was legendary. I do find it baffling that they're deliberately staying away from making a lot of cards legendary in this set when I'm sure fans were hoping for some fairy tale-themed legends that they could build decks around. Instead, most of the legend focus is on the Knights, and while I as a Knight fan appreciate the support the tribe has been getting this set, the fairy tale elements are what really stand out here, so it's a pity there aren't more legends playing into the fairy tale aspect.
Like I said earlier this year, the Arthurian and Fairy Tale themes feel weird smashed together in one set; it's like two different worlds being visited at once. The princess-centric stories like Cinderella and Snow White make enough sense in an Arthurian setting, but more surreal stuff like the Gingerbread Man and Red Riding Hood feel like they wanted their own world. The net sum is that Eldraine feels like Shrek world but with less humor (and Ogre farts).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Like I said earlier this year, the Arthurian and Fairy Tale themes feel weird smashed together in one set; it's like two different worlds being visited at once. The princess-centric stories like Cinderella and Snow White make enough sense in an Arthurian setting, but more surreal stuff like the Gingerbread Man and Red Riding Hood feel like they wanted their own world. The net sum is that Eldraine feels like Shrek world but with less humor (and Ogre farts).
Agreed. The complete creative failure of this set becomes more and more apparent with each new spoiler.
There's simply no point of view behind the creative elements of the set, here. Just a bunch of unrelated references, callbacks, and tropes in another shallow bid to build yet another high-concept, "resonant" setting. Wizards needs to get off this train.
It sure is a good thing this set has a decent mechanic or two. And some compelling singles, such as this one. Because Eldraine is shaping up to be a major creative low point. Maybe the customer service team that created Homelands should've been brought in to consult?
Goblin Piledriver and Young Pyromancer already filled that slot.
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
Goblin Smuggler, Tin Street Dodger, Dagger Caster, Burning-Tree Vandal
Fun facts: if you don't riot BTVandal, you can smuggle her.
In other colors:
Rankle, Master of Pranks, Rakdos Firewheeler, Faerie Miscreant, Audacious Thief, maybe Whisper Agent??? Agent of Treachery???
As for the usability it seems to be very hit and miss. It's easily blocked and killed and provides only random card (which can be uncastable land). It's probably version of Dreadhorde Arcanist that will work better in standard than the original (compared to how good Arcanist is in eternal formats) but mostly unusable in other formats.
Reach looks very weird on that card, like they wanted to push it to mythic but were afraid to give it first strike or menace because it would be too good.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Conditions to be met for ability to be triggered:
1. Robber needs to attack.
2. Your opponent must have more cards in hand that you.
3. If conditions 1 and 2 are met, Robber exiles the top card of their library.
4. During any turn you attacked with a Rogue (Robber or other), you may cast THAT card. (Does not specify other cards exiled in this way that were not cast, only the most recent one exiled after the first three steps)
5. If you cast that card, you may spend mana as if it were any color to cast it, blah blah.
Reading it a line at a time, it's quite clear. Nowhere on the card does it explicitly specify that any card BEYOND THE ONE YOU HAVE CURRENTLY EXILED is playable, and thus, the Rules Committee will need to make a ruling on what this card ACTUALLY does.
If it DOES end up allowing you to cast exiled cards from past turns, then this is a pretty good card. If it's only the most recently exiled card, it's not quite as amazing but still has applications, most likely in midrange and control decks.
Don't ruin the meme >:(
it definately reads to me like each card gets exiled in it's own little bubble that gets unlocked every time you attack with 1 or more rogues. I don't find the language at all ambiguous. An argument could be made that 'each card...." may be clearer except that now the bubble belongs to Robin, not to the exiled card. Really there's no other way to word this for the function they intended - that cards exiled by Robin gain extra text while in exile.
No, the biggest question is why "of the rich" was required... they're the best people to rob from anyway.
It's missing the 'cast without paying mana' clause, and like other cards like this it will fail.
Edit:
I totally missed the whole 'whevever you attack with a rogue' clause
This card is now much better than I thought
That's what you get for looking at previews on a small cell screen
I'd hardly say it qualifies as a failure. Even if you don't cast the cards you're stripping them out of your opponent's library and making them useless. With just that alone, it's a human with Reach, Haste, and Ingest.
Add in two other upside abilities, one of which is a repeatable card advantage ability, and hell yes, this is a contender for "red 'goyf" status.
Its not even that much of a stretch on the philosophy front either because you can depict him and his men as Diggers (or Levellers I guess if they're too squeamish for that)
Nah. Gonti didn't need that text. The ability all resolves and is tied to the card you exile. So yes, you can play it on a different turn as long as you attacked with a rogue that turn.
(Otherwise, why even bother with all that text, it could just say "play it this turn")
edit: I don't understand why you think it would need to say "beyond the one you currently have exiled." Nothing about the ability even mentions or cares about the "current" exiled clause. That just isn't how it works. It would have said "the last card exiled with robin hood" if that's what it was limited to.
If you blink your Gonti, the first card it exiled doesn't go away. You can still play that card. Even though Gonti's ability only refers to the specific card it exiles. That's because each time the ability triggers, the whole ability happens. So the card is exiled with the rider "during any turn you attack with a rogue, you can cast this."
Player psychographics refer to the reasons players play Magic. It's mostly a marketing concept -- Wizards wants to design cards that players will want to buy, so what do players want to buy, exactly?
Traditional answer: cards that allow players to express themselves (Johnny), cards that allow players to have a novel experience (Timmy), cards that can be played competitively (Spike).
I actually agree with you that psychographics are kind of an overplayed concept (how many people bought BFZ because they wanted to play it, vs. how many people bought BFZ because the packs were full of golden tickets and Magic is turning more and more into legalized gambling?)
But none of that has anything to do with why this card is red and not green.
Which I'm sure you're an expert on.
Hold on, what happened to psychographics? What does color pie philosophy have to do with it?
Also, the color pie is not based on philsophy above all else. Thematic and aesthetic associations (like the ones you are advocating) are easily more important, as you can tell from the extremely obvious influence it has over every single set.
Archery doesn't really have anything to do with green. Plenty of archer/archery cards in other colours.
Hanging out in the woods isn't the strongest link either, though that is something.
That sounds like a stretch to me, and I don't know how you possibly expect to convey any of that on a magic card. I would say that sort of political philosophy might be more white than green anyway.
You want to know why I think this card is red? One of the main reasons is because they wanted it to steal things from your opponent and red can do that. Blue or black wouldn't exactly suit a 'Robber of the rich, giver to the poor" character, would they? And considering Robin Hood is a daring action-hero lawbreaker- all pretty red things both philosophically and more thematically/aesthetically- that feels like a pretty good fit to me. Robin Hood is a classic vigilante hero, and much easier to fit into monored than monowhite.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Each and every card gets it's own distinct "that card" statement. It does not in any way, by the way it's worded, overwrite any of the previous "that card" instances. Quite the contrary, it would have to specify that only the most recent card is the valid one for it to only affect the most recent card as worded. Turn 2, you attack and exile a card? THAT card has a bubble. Nothing on the card, not one thing, says that bubble goes away. Turn 3 you attack again and exile again? THAT card also has a bubble. NOTHING on the card says THAT bubble goes away either.
Look at the wording for Thief of Sanity: "You may look at and cast that card for as long as it remains exiled, and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast that spell." Thief, too, only specifies "that card" gets the clause. But we absolutely 100% for sure know each and every card exiled by a Thief of Sanity is forever affected by that individual "that card" clause.
When one of your Rogues attacks, each and every card exiled by any Robber of the Rich individually trigger, full stop, because nothing on Robber says they do not.
The "that card" on Robber is precisely the same as the "that card" on Thief, in that nothing on the card specifies that goes away after the card is exiled.
Like I said earlier this year, the Arthurian and Fairy Tale themes feel weird smashed together in one set; it's like two different worlds being visited at once. The princess-centric stories like Cinderella and Snow White make enough sense in an Arthurian setting, but more surreal stuff like the Gingerbread Man and Red Riding Hood feel like they wanted their own world. The net sum is that Eldraine feels like Shrek world but with less humor (and Ogre farts).
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
There's simply no point of view behind the creative elements of the set, here. Just a bunch of unrelated references, callbacks, and tropes in another shallow bid to build yet another high-concept, "resonant" setting. Wizards needs to get off this train.
It sure is a good thing this set has a decent mechanic or two. And some compelling singles, such as this one. Because Eldraine is shaping up to be a major creative low point. Maybe the customer service team that created Homelands should've been brought in to consult?