It is to say, said people are denounced as nobles.
Thus, a professional classification (such as [thought-to-be] designated on the creature type line) should not be mixing opposites and contradictions of class.
Denounced by who? All the crime family heads were turned into demons bound by contract to protect New Capenna and maintain some semblance of balance, by the angels. Being a demon is a necessary part of their social obligations.
This just means there are bigger holes in the storyline than this one.
Demons are self-serving evil. The product of Hedonism (the way of the devil)—defined as, the indulgence of oneself without any concern for another; disrespecting the free will, well-being, personal space, and free speech of others even (to fulfill their indulgences [violent/s*xual/etc]).
They make contracts with people only to get something for themselves. And often, you would find them breaking their word, or requesting prices to be paid far greater than that originally promised (or suggested).
This is the opposite of Altruism; the way that God follows and the way of the faithful. Defined as, the utmost concern for another (free will, well-being, personal space, and free speech), and the sanctity of the social environment.
Angels, being faithful/righteous/hallowed, will not bind entities as demons in servitude. Angels do not/will not turn people into demons. People turn themselves into demons/devils. Demons cannot be trusted to serve. They would be terminated, or if they cannot be terminated, they would be imprisoned.
This entire story sounds incredibly chauvinistic, back-handed, and totally detached from reasonable story-building; and the reality of the concepts that it includes.
For everyone who hasn't had the pleasure of reading Reap's posts in Card Creation, he is self-professed to not have played Magic in more than a decade because he thinks the game is terrible and that he is a better designer than the whole of R&D combined.
Trying to discuss with him anything in terms of modern magic is reasonable will be met with a mish-mash of psuedo-philosophy, misused words and declarations of self-importance. Its not worth the headache.
I forgot to say, in magic terms demons are just beings of pure black mana. They spring forth from nothing and embody all of black mana's implications. They're essentially exactly like angels, who are beings of pure white mana. There's nothing stopping them from being any particular way, and the demonic powers implied are probably much like ob nixilis, essentially a huge infusion of black mana. I think the designers get that it would be weird to do "good" demons, so they went with the aetherborn back in uh... that one set, and they had motivations that were all over the place.
The way the story's been going it seems like this was a mutual agreement between the angels /and/ demons of the plane to infuse their powers into these family leaders for reasons that aren't totally clear. It seems likely that halo is essentially distilled mana from angelic sources as well.
For everyone who hasn't had the pleasure of reading Reap's posts in Card Creation, he is self-professed to not have played Magic in more than a decade because he thinks the game is terrible and that he is a better designer than the whole of R&D combined.
Trying to discuss with him anything in terms of modern magic is reasonable will be met with a mish-mash of psuedo-philosophy, misused words and declarations of self-importance. Its not worth the headache.
Cringe stalking.
Cringe menacing.
And you don't have anything towards the topic, or why anything I stated was/is mistaken?
I really don't see why there's so much debate about Xander's creature types. Vampire is what he started as, Demon he gained from the contract that founded New Capenna and he's an aristocrat, hence Noble. It's no different than Vannifar being an Elf Ooze Wizard. In fact, there's your precedent right there. Characters who start as one thing but gain traits from another get multiple creature types with the first being what they started as and the second being what they got traits of.
Even if you want to argue what a Demon is, that would only hold to naturally occurring demons. Xander and the other family heads are artificial.
Always love to see a semantic argument break out. So many devils to advocate for. (I'm personally on team "Noble in this case refers to the primary definition of the noun, which refers to aristocrats.")
It's wild to do some comparisons of these legends versus those that have the same mana cost. Thraximundar and Garza Zol, Plague Queen are also combat related, but focus mostly on getting bigger (and make up for not having an ETB by being fast and getting a bonus out of combat.)
It's also interesting how despite the differences, you see an overarching design philosophy, especially for Grixis. For Grixis, they like to give them a "Catch 22" design plus ever increasing threat. Thraximundar forces you sacrifice a creature which makes him bigger and then makes you decide whether or not to throw up another creature to the chopping block or take a 7/7 to the face. Even if you have some other creatures, Thraximundar will start chip away at those defenses, all the while getting bigger. He's basically, take your damage now or take even more later.
Garza Zol is big enough that she'll kill most of what tries to block her in most situations, which just makes her bigger. But if you allow her to connect, you not only take damage but give her controller card advantage. So, do you make her hit harder later or allow her to get a card and punch you now?
Xander is the same but lacks the haste due to story reasons (he's got a bad right knee and needs a cane) and because his attack trigger is rather brutal. But he makes up for that because the moment he comes into play, he attacks your opponent's hand and if he's killed before being allowed to swing, he still goes after their board state. Xander has a trigger for all the major things a creature does in Magic: enters the field, attacks and dies.
No matter what, on a basic level, all three of them force a situation that if it's allowed to continue, things will become untenable.
So they just slapped Demon on each card type and put some horns in the art. Nothing about the cards has anything demonic mechanically. Zero downside. Zero additional costs to cast like life or resources. Oh how far magic flavor has fallen.
Demons haven't been required to have downsides or additional costs for a while now and I don't see any reason they should.
That’s the whole point. They used to have some mechanically unique qualities that identified them as demons. Now they’re just angels with black mana and that’s boring.
At the very least, some recent demons require you to pay life or sacrifice a creature to get their abilities.
These have no demonic identity. You could remove that word entirely and the card wouldn’t be any different - you’d never be able to differentiate it from anything by else.
Calm Down. I absolutely love wild demons with crazy drawbacks, but that's not the only correct way to design a demon. Plenty of people want to play demons without committing to an often unpleasant gimmick, just like dragons and angels. Your favorite kind of demon is not the only correct kind, because you're not the only Magic fan in the world.
Seriously, that's like insisting that every hydra has to be a 0/0 with counters and every rebel has to be able to search for a rebel with +1 mana value. Mechanical gimmicks are fun and all, but they're just gimmicks, and R&D shouldn't be ruled by them. We'll see plenty of drawback demons in the future, so just be patient and let other people have fun, too.
Nobody needs to calm down because this is just a discussion. Ya know, one of those things where differing opinions are shared?
I’m also not blocking anyone’s fun by saying the card designs are uninspired and out of flavor with the identity that Magic had built for a creature type. What a ridiculous sentiment.
MTG had an identity in the color pie and creatures and spells used to reflect that. Of course that’s faded into ambiguity within modern design but that doesn’t mean it’s good. I’d argue that making MTG more generic might make it more accessible and simple but that’s not a great thing.
These creatures just happen to be the most recent and blatant examples of how little identity and uniqueness cards have today. It was much cooler when playing a demon meant making sacrifices of some sort to do. It’s much better for the role playing aspect of it and that’s more valuable to me. Of course that’s my opinion - but there’s no reason for me not to share that opinion.
Also, I don’t know if you said it or someone else did - but yes, hydras should have that 0/0 mechanic. It’s what MTG did as a foundation to give a hydra a unique play style and identity. Without that, a hydra is just another green creature and that’s not as much fun. Same concept for demons. If you like demons, then you should enjoy the risk in summoning them. Again, role play - that’s what used to set this game apart.
now, the only identity magic has are the rules governing turns, “mana”, and supposed balance. No wonder there’s such a spotlight on MTG’s identity through it’s power level and balance now. Because everything else that made it unique have been pushed aside.
I mean it's more of a "just your opinion" thing because they do still print demonswithdrawbacks alongside demons without drawbacks and it's been something like 20 years since they started doing this stuff. The original kamigawa had hybrid demons. The original zendikar had ob nixilis getting huge on landfall. You're complaining about something that's been a part of the identity of magic for 2/3rds of magic's lifetime based on a kind of nostalgia glasses for, as far as I can tell, 1992-1995.
And to be frank all those old demons sucked, like you got one sorta decent Grinning Demon for every 5 Infernal Denizens. It might be "fun" for you to pay 9 mana for a creature that kills itself but it kinda limits how often you're going to even see the card.
Xander et al. look to be demonically possessed via their contracts or whatever the story setup is, thus acquiring the characteristics of a demon without actually inherently being one.
It's really quite simple if you take the blinders off. But then again this IS MTGSalvation...
'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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This just means there are bigger holes in the storyline than this one.
Demons are self-serving evil. The product of Hedonism (the way of the devil)—defined as, the indulgence of oneself without any concern for another; disrespecting the free will, well-being, personal space, and free speech of others even (to fulfill their indulgences [violent/s*xual/etc]).
They make contracts with people only to get something for themselves. And often, you would find them breaking their word, or requesting prices to be paid far greater than that originally promised (or suggested).
This is the opposite of Altruism; the way that God follows and the way of the faithful. Defined as, the utmost concern for another (free will, well-being, personal space, and free speech), and the sanctity of the social environment.
Angels, being faithful/righteous/hallowed, will not bind entities as demons in servitude. Angels do not/will not turn people into demons. People turn themselves into demons/devils. Demons cannot be trusted to serve. They would be terminated, or if they cannot be terminated, they would be imprisoned.
This entire story sounds incredibly chauvinistic, back-handed, and totally detached from reasonable story-building; and the reality of the concepts that it includes.
For everyone who hasn't had the pleasure of reading Reap's posts in Card Creation, he is self-professed to not have played Magic in more than a decade because he thinks the game is terrible and that he is a better designer than the whole of R&D combined.
Trying to discuss with him anything in terms of modern magic is reasonable will be met with a mish-mash of psuedo-philosophy, misused words and declarations of self-importance. Its not worth the headache.
The way the story's been going it seems like this was a mutual agreement between the angels /and/ demons of the plane to infuse their powers into these family leaders for reasons that aren't totally clear. It seems likely that halo is essentially distilled mana from angelic sources as well.
Cringe stalking.
Cringe menacing.
And you don't have anything towards the topic, or why anything I stated was/is mistaken?
Even if you want to argue what a Demon is, that would only hold to naturally occurring demons. Xander and the other family heads are artificial.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
It's wild to do some comparisons of these legends versus those that have the same mana cost. Thraximundar and Garza Zol, Plague Queen are also combat related, but focus mostly on getting bigger (and make up for not having an ETB by being fast and getting a bonus out of combat.)
Atla Palani, Nest Tender; Rin and Seri, Inseparable; Obuun, Mul Daya Ancestor; Marisi, Breaker of the Coil; and who could forget Jacques le Vert. It's intriguing that the vast majority of those that share this color identity and mana cost are all (barring the unforgettable Jacques le Vert) pretty recent. It's also very funny that half of them (if you include Jetmir) are cats.
Aminatou, the Fateshifter; Lady Evangela; Merieke Ri Berit; Sefris of the Hidden Ways; and Sydri, Galvanic Genius are all controlling in very different ways. As a result, Raffine stands out for being a little more interested in combat.
Its just too random where they put it on.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
It's also interesting how despite the differences, you see an overarching design philosophy, especially for Grixis. For Grixis, they like to give them a "Catch 22" design plus ever increasing threat. Thraximundar forces you sacrifice a creature which makes him bigger and then makes you decide whether or not to throw up another creature to the chopping block or take a 7/7 to the face. Even if you have some other creatures, Thraximundar will start chip away at those defenses, all the while getting bigger. He's basically, take your damage now or take even more later.
Garza Zol is big enough that she'll kill most of what tries to block her in most situations, which just makes her bigger. But if you allow her to connect, you not only take damage but give her controller card advantage. So, do you make her hit harder later or allow her to get a card and punch you now?
Xander is the same but lacks the haste due to story reasons (he's got a bad right knee and needs a cane) and because his attack trigger is rather brutal. But he makes up for that because the moment he comes into play, he attacks your opponent's hand and if he's killed before being allowed to swing, he still goes after their board state. Xander has a trigger for all the major things a creature does in Magic: enters the field, attacks and dies.
No matter what, on a basic level, all three of them force a situation that if it's allowed to continue, things will become untenable.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
Nobody needs to calm down because this is just a discussion. Ya know, one of those things where differing opinions are shared?
I’m also not blocking anyone’s fun by saying the card designs are uninspired and out of flavor with the identity that Magic had built for a creature type. What a ridiculous sentiment.
MTG had an identity in the color pie and creatures and spells used to reflect that. Of course that’s faded into ambiguity within modern design but that doesn’t mean it’s good. I’d argue that making MTG more generic might make it more accessible and simple but that’s not a great thing.
These creatures just happen to be the most recent and blatant examples of how little identity and uniqueness cards have today. It was much cooler when playing a demon meant making sacrifices of some sort to do. It’s much better for the role playing aspect of it and that’s more valuable to me. Of course that’s my opinion - but there’s no reason for me not to share that opinion.
Also, I don’t know if you said it or someone else did - but yes, hydras should have that 0/0 mechanic. It’s what MTG did as a foundation to give a hydra a unique play style and identity. Without that, a hydra is just another green creature and that’s not as much fun. Same concept for demons. If you like demons, then you should enjoy the risk in summoning them. Again, role play - that’s what used to set this game apart.
now, the only identity magic has are the rules governing turns, “mana”, and supposed balance. No wonder there’s such a spotlight on MTG’s identity through it’s power level and balance now. Because everything else that made it unique have been pushed aside.
I mean it's more of a "just your opinion" thing because they do still print demons with drawbacks alongside demons without drawbacks and it's been something like 20 years since they started doing this stuff. The original kamigawa had hybrid demons. The original zendikar had ob nixilis getting huge on landfall. You're complaining about something that's been a part of the identity of magic for 2/3rds of magic's lifetime based on a kind of nostalgia glasses for, as far as I can tell, 1992-1995.
And to be frank all those old demons sucked, like you got one sorta decent Grinning Demon for every 5 Infernal Denizens. It might be "fun" for you to pay 9 mana for a creature that kills itself but it kinda limits how often you're going to even see the card.
It's really quite simple if you take the blinders off. But then again this IS MTGSalvation...
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.