MTG Salvation

At this point - this intellectual property seems so milked dry that it's not even interesting or exciting anymore. Time for me to walk away for a bit until this hopefully cools down.

They look cool. I am exceedingly happy to be able to pass on another set of these secret lairs. Passed on the year of the rat too. To me, that makes this a good product. It means that they’re keeping the sets focused enough to appeal to small groups. It’s perfect.

I love that it has its own arms playing its strings lol

Quote from Xcric »

Lots of bickering going on here ....

As a 2/3 with no abilities it would barely even see limited play

With the first ability its fair and would see minor sideboard play

The third ability is expensive and depends on your boardstate, thats also fair

This thing will see the most play in edh enchantess builds, and will be ignored everywhere else. It might see standard play depending on how things shape up, but modern, legacy, and pioneer? Doubtful unless something can really exploit it.

Look at what it does instead of just that it has words. The time of grizzly bears is passed, move on. This fits into greens slice of pie pretty perfectly and is an interesting design too.

It wont break any format.

Oh, and uh... dies to removal is very, very, very, valid.

This is why responding to a cherry picked sentence in a paragraph of thought is a bad thing.

The whole point of my post has nothing to do with how this card impacts any individual format.

It’s not about any one aspect of the card or any specific line item. It’s about the whole picture. Will it make waves in any format? Maybe not. But to me, THAT’S what I dislike. We Magic players have become so desensitized to creature power levels that a 2/3 with three abilities for two mana means very little to people. I find that absurd and dislike the direction.

I argue that it’s not an interesting design. I also argue that “the time of grizzly bears has passed” is a lazy argument. We have more ways to support our creatures and other permanents than ever. More ways to combat their removal and thus I argue that the creature or permanent doesn’t need to have its own protection. That’s what deck building is for. Now we are just in the era of play good stuff and slam cards.

As it’s been said, this card has a whole package in one text box and for a very low cost. Wizards has printed all-in-one cards for a long time but the pattern of them happening at lower and lower rarities And mana costs is not so old. It’s not a trend I’m fond of.

But hey, just play strong cards amirite?!

The goat is the blackest looking white token I’ve ever seen. But I love the art.

Love the tentacle and kraken as well as the elemental.

As a resident wolf token obsessed player, I like the wolf but something feels a little off. I think it’d the fact that it looks so friendly and gentle. Especially when you compare it to the goat, spider, and even satyr.


All said, I love that Wizards has kept up with the borderless tokens. It’s truly wonderful.

Quote from Rosy Dumplings »

Quote from SilvosRogueElemental »

Quote from Werewolf_Rawr »

Quote from SilvosRogueElemental »

Quote from Werewolf_Rawr »

This card is stupid. And I don’t mean that in a good way.


2 mana (one being generic) for a 2/3 is good enough. Then you give it a static ability, a crazy good one.

Then you give it a 4 mana effect as strong as that? I hate it.

I have decks I should run this in and I don’t think I will just on principle.

Do you refuse to use all good cards or just pick and choose arbitrarily?

i usually choose not to use blatantly obvious pushed cards that require zero thought to be successful with. I like synergy cards much more than dumb cards like this.

I play Commander casually and thus am afforded that option to choose arbitrarily as you think it is.

It is arbitrary. Most of the best cards in the game are just good cards that can slot into many or most decks without specific synergy. It’s always been that way. Black Lotus doesn’t synergize with anything specifically, it synergizes with everything.

I can understand not liking “strategy-in-a-can” cards, which I think is what is being disliked here.


Resplendent Angel is a cost efficient beater who turns life gain into angels and also has the ability to become that lifegain.

Urza, Lord High Artificer uses artifacts to make mana and creates an artifact to make some mana and gives you a mana sink for that mana.

While this card isn’t nearly as bad, it’s still a decent enchantment creature that protects your enchantments and creature and turns your lands into creature that are bigger if you have enchantments.

There are plenty of cards out there that aren’t “strategy in a can”. Bloom tender, demonic Tutor, cyclonic rift, Purphoros, Craterhoof Behemoth, Oracle of Mul Daya, Path to Exile... all of those cards do important and powerful things without acting as an enabler and a protector and a payoff. Where cards like “Greater Auramancy” are nice, they don’t try to fill multiple roles in the way that the new Woe Strider or this card does.

While turning away cards that seem too powerful is an odd choice, I can understand wanting to use your slots on cards that aren’t one-card toolkits.

Rosy Dumplings understands my position perfectly and communicated my perspective much more eloquently than I was able. Thank you.

I don’t turn away all powerful cards. I turn away cards that are “strategy-in-a-can” - I love that term.

What bothers me is that we are seeing these designs more and more frequently than ever. I’m not a fan of that direction.

The silver lining is that I don’t need to chase these cards.

Straight into my Mono lack Shadowborn Apostles Commander deck.

Quote from SilvosRogueElemental »

Quote from Werewolf_Rawr »

This card is stupid. And I don’t mean that in a good way.


2 mana (one being generic) for a 2/3 is good enough. Then you give it a static ability, a crazy good one.

Then you give it a 4 mana effect as strong as that? I hate it.

I have decks I should run this in and I don’t think I will just on principle.

Do you refuse to use all good cards or just pick and choose arbitrarily?

i usually choose not to use blatantly obvious pushed cards that require zero thought to be successful with. I like synergy cards much more than dumb cards like this.

I play Commander casually and thus am afforded that option to choose arbitrarily as you think it is.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Quote from Werewolf_Rawr »

Quote from DJK3654 »

Quote from Werewolf_Rawr »

This card is stupid. And I don’t mean that in a good way.


2 mana (one being generic) for a 2/3 is good enough. Then you give it a static ability, a crazy good one.

Then you give it a 4 mana effect as strong as that? I hate it.

I have decks I should run this in and I don’t think I will just on principle.

A 2 mana 2/3 is not good enough for standard.

Solid cherry picking there bud

You said "2 mana (one being generic) for a 2/3 is good enough". What was that supposed to mean? For limited? Well this card is obviously designed with constructed at least partly in mind.
I don't think the uncounterable ability is 'crazy good' either, actually. It's good. But it's only good against blue decks and not every blue decks even runs any counterspells let alone enough for this to be crazy good. Prowling Serpopard was never a terror in standard or any other format.
Having both the abilities this card does ensure it actually see play because a 2 mana 2/3 wouldn't and this is obviously meant to push enchantment decks, because of course. Yes, it's strong. But it's not ridiculous. Questing Beast is easily more egregious as a card that's just very blatantly pushed IMO.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Quote from Werewolf_Rawr »

Quote from DJK3654 »

Quote from Werewolf_Rawr »

This card is stupid. And I don’t mean that in a good way.


2 mana (one being generic) for a 2/3 is good enough. Then you give it a static ability, a crazy good one.

Then you give it a 4 mana effect as strong as that? I hate it.

I have decks I should run this in and I don’t think I will just on principle.

A 2 mana 2/3 is not good enough for standard.

Solid cherry picking there bud

You said "2 mana (one being generic) for a 2/3 is good enough". What was that supposed to mean? For limited? Well this card is obviously designed with constructed at least partly in mind.
I don't think the uncounterable ability is 'crazy good' either, actually. It's good. But it's only good against blue decks and not every blue decks even runs any counterspells let alone enough for this to be crazy good. Prowling Serpopard was never a terror in standard or any other format.
Having both the abilities this card does ensure it actually see play because a 2 mana 2/3 wouldn't and this is obviously meant to push enchantment decks, because of course. Yes, it's strong. But it's not ridiculous. Questing Beast is easily more egregious as a card that's just very blatantly pushed IMO.

My comment has more to do with the fact that you just gave a full and perfectly valid rationalization of why this card isn’t too powerful for standard. And while you’re absolutely right in what you’re saying, I think it’s a stupid place to be for this game.

I love creatures. Their art is what drew me to the game. But I think they’re too much these days. I don’t think we should be giving valid descriptions of why a two mana 2/3 creature with these abilities is okay.

And I don’t play standard. I play that little format they call Commander. And in Commander this will always be impactful.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Quote from Werewolf_Rawr »

This card is stupid. And I don’t mean that in a good way.


2 mana (one being generic) for a 2/3 is good enough. Then you give it a static ability, a crazy good one.

Then you give it a 4 mana effect as strong as that? I hate it.

I have decks I should run this in and I don’t think I will just on principle.

A 2 mana 2/3 is not good enough for standard.

Solid cherry picking there bud. The game as a whole does not need uncommon two mana creatures with this many abilities and these stats.

This card is stupid. And I don’t mean that in a good way.


2 mana (one being generic) for a 2/3 is good enough. Then you give it a static ability, a crazy good one.

Then you give it a 4 mana effect as strong as that? I hate it.

I have decks I should run this in and I don’t think I will just on principle.

It’s beautiful, will be gorgeous as a foil, and gives me more wolves for my wolf token commander deck.

Love it.

Quote from HighHolder »

White and black got major hosed in demigods. Why couldnt entire cycle have variable power?

because wizards hates white and we all know that blacks true demigod is grey merchant of asphodel

Quote from buffntuff »

I'm not sure how assigning creature type kraken to a bunch of 1/1s makes any more sense. The tentacles are tentacles, not krakens.

because the tentacles are not creatures independent of the kraken. They are kraken tentacles and should have the same benefits (As they are extensions of the creature) that the kraken body has.

The flavor and size makes sense to me. The primary terror-inducing features of a kraken are the tentacles. Without the tentacles, what is there to fear other than a floating gaping maw. And from that, a 2/3 floating mouth seems pretty good.

I like this one. It clearly shows that the power is derived from the tentacles. I do agree that they should have been creature - kraken tentacle. That would make much more sense and be a flavor home run for me.