Legend, as for your critique, I feel like creatures need to be noticeably good at catching high-up stuff to have reach; giraffes are only good at catching high-up (stationary) leaves, they're not archers or giants or whatever. That's why they're vigilant instead of reachy.
Everyone wants my card to be a Dinosaur, but a pterosaur is NOT a dinosaur. Also, it may be more accurate to call it a Bird than it would be to call it a Lizard. If Wizards ever does do a Dinosaur set, I really hope they separate out dinosaurs, pterosaurs and plesiosaurs
I just think that WotC would go with "dinosaur" as a generalized creature type for grock and tribal reasons. And would probably use well-known dinosaur names for card names - such as Pterodactyl, Triceratops, Brontosaurus, Raptor, etc. simply because people can't identify with Ptzeriqoxdactylosaurus Rox, Creature - Zfradux Rhino. And they don't want to feel like they've enrolled in a prehistoric sciences class when playing Magic.
I mentioned "Raptor" in my crit of your card since (if I remember correctly) birds are considered descendants of Raptors and your card is very bird-like. (Forgive me if I'm mistaken. These days I have zero interest in "prehistoric" stuff, and my current knowledge of it is faded and dated.) I could see WotC using Raptor in the place of Bird in a dinosaur set.
I suppose what was bothering me is what I see as a bit of hypocrisy. You judge strictly and accurately based on current WotC design conventions. But when it comes to textual card formatting, you have your own ideas and don't accept WotC's formatting, which was plainly seen and strictly enforced by WotC during both Great Designer Searches. I'm not suggesting that there be a formatting conversion from Salvation style to WotC style, but I do ask that those of us who prefer to format as WotC does should be allowed to do so without negative repercussions. And that the use of WotC's formatting be recognized as legitimate and sincere rather than odd and resistant.
Firebreathing Hydra (Rare) XRG
Creature - Hydra
0/0
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield, it deals X damage to target creature or player. Educational Decree 187. All creatures of the hydra genus are forthwith banned from academy grounds.
We've had exchanges before and we both know we disagree about card formatting, it's useless to discuss that again as we both know our opinions on that won't change. The card itself looks fine but it doesn't actually work as the value of X does not get passed to the triggered ability. Monstrosity was an exception and it had to spell it out explicitly in its CR entry just for Polukranos, World Eater to work. It's true that the rules could always change, but as they are, this doesn't work.
I have a hard time believing that you can't see past a little rules innovation (and it is a little) to the point where you consider it unprintable. Since when is innovation so frowned upon in these games? I seriously doubt that you are so close-minded. It seems more like an excuse to punish me for adhering to WotC formatting.
Thank you. It's actually black and white on my phone - Orzhov colors. I didn't realize it would not appear the same elsewhere.
Are we supposed to use mana symbols for color indicators? I thought that might be confusing.
YOU'RE WRONG! It's no accident on Wizard's part that their combined power and toughness is 8/8.
Jealousy is jealous. And now for a statement generated by my cell phone:
The only thing is it takes me time to find out how to use the app for free speech and not the app for the most important part of the game.
It's like a crystal ball this phone.
Actually. it makes perfect sense. You're just jealous because you didn't think of it.
I'm surprised there aren't more votes for these things.
Roger
Roger
I just think that WotC would go with "dinosaur" as a generalized creature type for grock and tribal reasons. And would probably use well-known dinosaur names for card names - such as Pterodactyl, Triceratops, Brontosaurus, Raptor, etc. simply because people can't identify with Ptzeriqoxdactylosaurus Rox, Creature - Zfradux Rhino. And they don't want to feel like they've enrolled in a prehistoric sciences class when playing Magic.
I mentioned "Raptor" in my crit of your card since (if I remember correctly) birds are considered descendants of Raptors and your card is very bird-like. (Forgive me if I'm mistaken. These days I have zero interest in "prehistoric" stuff, and my current knowledge of it is faded and dated.) I could see WotC using Raptor in the place of Bird in a dinosaur set.
Netcaster Spider in case you didn't know.
Yes, it is one of those cards.
I suppose what was bothering me is what I see as a bit of hypocrisy. You judge strictly and accurately based on current WotC design conventions. But when it comes to textual card formatting, you have your own ideas and don't accept WotC's formatting, which was plainly seen and strictly enforced by WotC during both Great Designer Searches. I'm not suggesting that there be a formatting conversion from Salvation style to WotC style, but I do ask that those of us who prefer to format as WotC does should be allowed to do so without negative repercussions. And that the use of WotC's formatting be recognized as legitimate and sincere rather than odd and resistant.
I have a hard time believing that you can't see past a little rules innovation (and it is a little) to the point where you consider it unprintable. Since when is innovation so frowned upon in these games? I seriously doubt that you are so close-minded. It seems more like an excuse to punish me for adhering to WotC formatting.