Oh man, I ONLY read this as Bloodskee - as if I completely blanked on SKY making an actual word. It took me reading other comments to realize it's Blood-sky.
I guess I'm missing the reference. Seems an easy word to say and see.
More importantly, is that a real picture of some persons arm with a sleeve tattoo??
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Resigned up after getting lost in the Twitch/MTGS whatever crossover
Been on this forum for 10++ years
Playing since '94
Oh man, I ONLY read this as Bloodskee - as if I completely blanked on SKY making an actual word. It took me reading other comments to realize it's Blood-sky.
Same here. Whoever typed it out as "BloodSKY" is the only reason I realized it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Protection from reason (Decadent_Creed can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by reason.)
A 2/3 demon berserker in red/black just feels off to me. A 3/2 would just make so much more sense. That said, a 2/3 menace with draw a card is fine, and this is kind of that if you squint (and sometimes much better).
I feel fairly confident that the "rare black 2/1 that somehow reanimates" role in this set will be a berserker. I'm expecting at least one strong 1 or 2 mana. berserker, so you may get to draw 2 cards of this, which would be great.
I feel that the inevitable 2/1 for 1 black berserker will be less relevant than the equally inevitable 1/1 for 1 red berserker with haste and minor upside (especially if we get a second one in forgotten realms). The ability to slam multiple hasty boys on Saga level 2 like mini bomat courier would be the thing to save this card from obscurity, if anything.
Oh good point! (The R&D team in our heads is putting in good work here.)
Are we at the point where every set has a substantial (if not omnipresent) tribal aspect? 2021 certainly will be the year of tribal, between this, D&D likely bringing back party types, and two Innistrad sets named after specific tribes.
I have tribal fatigue. At least they've gotten better at including things I may like alongside the stuff that I may not like. When sets were more one-note it would be more of a downer when it's something I'm really not into.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Protection from reason (Decadent_Creed can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by reason.)
A 2/3 demon berserker in red/black just feels off to me. A 3/2 would just make so much more sense. That said, a 2/3 menace with draw a card is fine, and this is kind of that if you squint (and sometimes much better).
I feel fairly confident that the "rare black 2/1 that somehow reanimates" role in this set will be a berserker. I'm expecting at least one strong 1 or 2 mana. berserker, so you may get to draw 2 cards of this, which would be great.
I feel that the inevitable 2/1 for 1 black berserker will be less relevant than the equally inevitable 1/1 for 1 red berserker with haste and minor upside (especially if we get a second one in forgotten realms). The ability to slam multiple hasty boys on Saga level 2 like mini bomat courier would be the thing to save this card from obscurity, if anything.
Oh good point! (The R&D team in our heads is putting in good work here.)
Are we at the point where every set has a substantial (if not omnipresent) tribal aspect? 2021 certainly will be the year of tribal, between this, D&D likely bringing back party types, and two Innistrad sets named after specific tribes.
Yeah they'll bring tribal but think of the potential new creatures we could get like beholders, mindflayers, bugbears...Ahh the possibilities are too numerous to fathom!
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
I’m thinking that bugbears would technically be goblins, given that they are the largest goblinoids (like how hobgoblins are goblins)... which means that we have a chance to see the beefiest goblins we’ve seen in quite some time.
If they don’t make an Oll Bear that’s a bird bear or a blink dog that self-blinks, though; I will be sad.
Kinda off-topic, but since we're now focussing on tribal: Is there a Commander Format that says every card in your deck that has a creature type *must* share a creature type with your Commander(s), but in exchange allows you to play cards (again, only those that share a creature type with your Commander(s)) outside of your Commander(s)'s color identity? I started thinking of this when they introduced the first Legendary Azra, but in UB, without R for some reason.
That way creatures like Magda in this set could fill the slot as Commander for *all* Dwarves, and Wizards doesn't need to print a Dwarf that has all Dwarf-aligned colors in their color identity.
Kinda off-topic, but since we're now focussing on tribal: Is there a Commander Format that says every card in your deck that has a creature type *must* share a creature type with your Commander(s), but in exchange allows you to play cards (again, only those that share a creature type with your Commander(s)) outside of your Commander(s)'s color identity? I started thinking of this when they introduced the first Legendary Azra, but in UB, without R for some reason.
That way creatures like Magda in this set could fill the slot as Commander for *all* Dwarves, and Wizards doesn't need to print a Dwarf that has all Dwarf-aligned colors in their color identity.
EDIT: You're asking about a specific format. Not that I know of, but that would be an interesting subformat to toy around with. Would you exclude or allow Changelings like Morophon in this case?
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Kinda off-topic, but since we're now focussing on tribal: Is there a Commander Format that says every card in your deck that has a creature type *must* share a creature type with your Commander(s), but in exchange allows you to play cards (again, only those that share a creature type with your Commander(s)) outside of your Commander(s)'s color identity? I started thinking of this when they introduced the first Legendary Azra, but in UB, without R for some reason.
That way creatures like Magda in this set could fill the slot as Commander for *all* Dwarves, and Wizards doesn't need to print a Dwarf that has all Dwarf-aligned colors in their color identity.
EDIT: You're asking about a specific format. Not that I know of, but that would be an interesting subformat to toy around with. Would you exclude or allow Changelings like Morophon in this case?
'buster
Maybe we should continue this in private or in another forum, but yeah, creatures with Changeling would be allowed in all decks. Morophon was a huge letdown in my view, mostly for being colorless. I had hoped for a 2/W 2/U 2/B 2/R 2/G Legendary Shapeshifter with Changeling...
Kaheera would still not allow creatures outside her color identity in regular CMD. In my variant, which I'd probably call Chieftain, she'd probably allow to cheat in all creature cards regardless of their original types, much like cards like Relentless Rats allows you to cheat around the singleton rule in regular CMD.
Anyway, this set is giving a lot of love to regular CMD already, so I'm happy.
Kinda off-topic, but since we're now focussing on tribal: Is there a Commander Format that says every card in your deck that has a creature type *must* share a creature type with your Commander(s), but in exchange allows you to play cards (again, only those that share a creature type with your Commander(s)) outside of your Commander(s)'s color identity? I started thinking of this when they introduced the first Legendary Azra, but in UB, without R for some reason.
That way creatures like Magda in this set could fill the slot as Commander for *all* Dwarves, and Wizards doesn't need to print a Dwarf that has all Dwarf-aligned colors in their color identity.
I've toyed with this prospect as well and tried to find similar approaches that others have talked about online. I'm pretty sure I remember finding a proposed format that used a "creature type identity" much like EDH uses color identity.
I would be tempted to extend the requirement to cards without creature types (meaning a creature type must be in the text somewhere to include the card in a deck). It really narrows the pool of available cards, but you're dealing with a very niche format anyway, so it seems like you might as well go all in on the theme. At the very least, it would be ideal (in my mind) to exclude unrelated quasi-tribal cards from decks...e.g. Dragon Fodder should be fine for Dragons or Goblins but a no-go everywhere else.
Kinda off-topic, but since we're now focussing on tribal: Is there a Commander Format that says every card in your deck that has a creature type *must* share a creature type with your Commander(s), but in exchange allows you to play cards (again, only those that share a creature type with your Commander(s)) outside of your Commander(s)'s color identity? I started thinking of this when they introduced the first Legendary Azra, but in UB, without R for some reason.
That way creatures like Magda in this set could fill the slot as Commander for *all* Dwarves, and Wizards doesn't need to print a Dwarf that has all Dwarf-aligned colors in their color identity.
I've toyed with this prospect as well and tried to find similar approaches that others have talked about online. I'm pretty sure I remember finding a proposed format that used a "creature type identity" much like EDH uses color identity.
I would be tempted to extend the requirement to cards without creature types (meaning a creature type must be in the text somewhere to include the card in a deck). It really narrows the pool of available cards, but you're dealing with a very niche format anyway, so it seems like you might as well go all in on the theme. At the very least, it would be ideal (in my mind) to exclude unrelated quasi-tribal cards from decks...e.g. Dragon Fodder should be fine for Dragons or Goblins but a no-go everywhere else.
Also, I like the name Chieftain!
Cool that you like the name, thanks!
: D
Yeah, I was on the fence regarding cards that feature the type word somewhere. Like, should Skyshroud Poacher be allowed in a Yeva deck?
I do lean more towards yes than no, though only slightly right now.
To everyone else, sorry once again if this is derailing the thread too much, it just felt like a great opprtunity to get feedback on the idea and I thought maybe there already was a known format like the one I suggested out there somewhere and that I just didn't know about it...
'^^
Can you sac the Saga with its third lore effect on the stack?
Also, did someone actually pay $10,000 for that card on March 14th..? 0.0
But why? It sacrifices itself at that point and you get the +1/+1 counter, at that point it seems fine to not tap the Aspirant and have the attacking 2/2 available.
Can you sac the Saga with its third lore effect on the stack?
Also, did someone actually pay $10,000 for that card on March 14th..? 0.0
But why? It sacrifices itself at that point and you get the +1/+1 counter, at that point it seems fine to not tap the Aspirant and have the attacking 2/2 available.
Good point. I was just wondering whether or not both options are on the table, giving you more flexibilty.
Can you sac the Saga with its third lore effect on the stack?
Also, did someone actually pay $10,000 for that card on March 14th..? 0.0
But why? It sacrifices itself at that point and you get the +1/+1 counter, at that point it seems fine to not tap the Aspirant and have the attacking 2/2 available.
Good point. I was just wondering whether or not both options are on the table, giving you more flexibilty.
I'm pretty sure the sacrifice from 3 chapter counters is a state based action and therefore cannot be responded to.
At the bottom of the rulings the sequence of events is laid out for final chapter, the effect goes on the stack, once it's resolved SBEs happen and the saga self-sacrifices. So you, you sure can respond to the ability by saccing the saga.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
More importantly, is that a real picture of some persons arm with a sleeve tattoo??
Been on this forum for 10++ years
Playing since '94
Same here. Whoever typed it out as "BloodSKY" is the only reason I realized it.
Oh good point! (The R&D team in our heads is putting in good work here.)
Are we at the point where every set has a substantial (if not omnipresent) tribal aspect? 2021 certainly will be the year of tribal, between this, D&D likely bringing back party types, and two Innistrad sets named after specific tribes.
Yeah they'll bring tribal but think of the potential new creatures we could get like beholders, mindflayers, bugbears...Ahh the possibilities are too numerous to fathom!
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
If they don’t make an Oll Bear that’s a bird bear or a blink dog that self-blinks, though; I will be sad.
That way creatures like Magda in this set could fill the slot as Commander for *all* Dwarves, and Wizards doesn't need to print a Dwarf that has all Dwarf-aligned colors in their color identity.
Only one I can reasonably think of is Kaheera, the Orphanguard.
EDIT: You're asking about a specific format. Not that I know of, but that would be an interesting subformat to toy around with. Would you exclude or allow Changelings like Morophon in this case?
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Maybe we should continue this in private or in another forum, but yeah, creatures with Changeling would be allowed in all decks. Morophon was a huge letdown in my view, mostly for being colorless. I had hoped for a 2/W 2/U 2/B 2/R 2/G Legendary Shapeshifter with Changeling...
Kaheera would still not allow creatures outside her color identity in regular CMD. In my variant, which I'd probably call Chieftain, she'd probably allow to cheat in all creature cards regardless of their original types, much like cards like Relentless Rats allows you to cheat around the singleton rule in regular CMD.
Anyway, this set is giving a lot of love to regular CMD already, so I'm happy.
: )
I've toyed with this prospect as well and tried to find similar approaches that others have talked about online. I'm pretty sure I remember finding a proposed format that used a "creature type identity" much like EDH uses color identity.
I would be tempted to extend the requirement to cards without creature types (meaning a creature type must be in the text somewhere to include the card in a deck). It really narrows the pool of available cards, but you're dealing with a very niche format anyway, so it seems like you might as well go all in on the theme. At the very least, it would be ideal (in my mind) to exclude unrelated quasi-tribal cards from decks...e.g. Dragon Fodder should be fine for Dragons or Goblins but a no-go everywhere else.
Also, I like the name Chieftain!
Cool that you like the name, thanks!
: D
Yeah, I was on the fence regarding cards that feature the type word somewhere. Like, should Skyshroud Poacher be allowed in a Yeva deck?
I do lean more towards yes than no, though only slightly right now.
To everyone else, sorry once again if this is derailing the thread too much, it just felt like a great opprtunity to get feedback on the idea and I thought maybe there already was a known format like the one I suggested out there somewhere and that I just didn't know about it...
'^^
I used to be a demigod, but now I'm an omnimage
Can you sac the Saga with its third lore effect on the stack?
Also, did someone actually pay $10,000 for that card on March 14th..? 0.0
But why? It sacrifices itself at that point and you get the +1/+1 counter, at that point it seems fine to not tap the Aspirant and have the attacking 2/2 available.
Good point. I was just wondering whether or not both options are on the table, giving you more flexibilty.
I'm pretty sure the sacrifice from 3 chapter counters is a state based action and therefore cannot be responded to.
Edit: I spoke too soon. It looks like there is a window:. https://scryfall.com/card/thb/13/elspeth-conquers-death
At the bottom of the rulings the sequence of events is laid out for final chapter, the effect goes on the stack, once it's resolved SBEs happen and the saga self-sacrifices. So you, you sure can respond to the ability by saccing the saga.