Okay, this is the latest version of a deck I am messing around with at my local FNM. The basic idea was to put together a deck that plays aggressively and then uses blue counters and black removal to disrupt my opponent long enough for me to win. With a low enough mana curve, I can minimize land slots and increase the number of creatures and removal.
As you can see, nothing cost more than 2 mana. That's sort of important since it allows me to run off of fewer lands and to minimize the hurt I get from the Pain Seers. To be honest, I haven't played standard in about 2 years until a few weeks ago so I don't have the collection I used to nor due I have the money I used to. Feedback would be welcomed and I am planning of updating this with weekly results.
If they were willing to print FTV: Dragons which was mostly red, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be willing to print a mostly white one in the form of FTV: Angels.
Omg so much disappointment with BNG.
20 humans in comparison to the other tribes. It seems like humans are the most common creature in that plane. I can understand in Innistrad there being a lot of humans but this is a greek world, you'd think they'd try to push the boundaries a little.
You wanted more Sirens right? This expansion more than doubled the number of them in the game. In fact, 5 of the 6 Sirens they have printed in the history of the game are in this block.
And only counting races and not professions like soldier or wizard, 38 different non-human races in this expansion. That's a lot of diversity especially compared to some previous sets where a lot of cards in a particular color would be automatically be lumped into a couple tribes.
Seeing how there were no nymphs in Born, at this point I think I would bet there is a decent chance that the race was only that cycle and might not be used again.
Because they are children whom Forlorn Pseudamma has stolen and turned into zombie children. that reason and the reason I mentioned before of giving the tokens something childlike would make the tokens all the more creepy. I guess I will have to modify some of them.
I'm not going to lie, I was sort of hoping that the zombies would be a bit younger looking and holding a teddy bear or a doll or something to really up the creepy factor, but those are good looking.
"Nylea is Theros's finest archer, and she wields a shortbow called Ephixis. Her companion, the nymph Theophila, conjures illusions for target practice, such as fireflies or miniscule silk worms."
Apparently there aren't going to be any non-god legendary enchantment creatures so neither Theophila nor any other legendary nymph is going to be printed.
I really was hoping that the 5 color bestow creature was going to be a Legendary Nymph. Legendary Enchantment Creature - Nymph could have fit in that space and they could have called it, "Daughters of the Nyx" or something. *shrug* Oh well, at this point I wonder if we are going to see any more Nymphs.
*clap clap*
I've come to the conclusion that you are trolling me. Historical truth? What does that have to do with fiction? Or for that matter, what do those fan fictions you keep posting in this thread have anything to do the stories that we are talking about? Saying that stories don't need to make sense because stories are different from each other never mind the fact that if we have Story B derived from Story A one can hope there is some connection between the two? Really? Parody, sequel, revision are all the same to you? View them all in the same light?
BTW, I'm aware of the changes from the book to the classic movie for Wizard of Oz. You even quoted that part my message so why did you post, "(and which, incidentally, also changed a lot from the book)" like you are correcting me?
In short, I don't think this is turning out to be an honest discussion and I think I'm out. But once again. *clap clap*
No, in fact, the fourth Good Fairy, Fungus, was a mole for Maleficent feeding her information on the princess' whereabouts the entire time. Disney wrote her out of the movie to simplify the plot.
Source? That is assuming that this isn't just fan fiction which doesn't count because it isn't part of the original story nor the Disney movie.
Lesson two: There is no fact in fiction.
Yes there is. Fiction needs internal logic in order to work. If Eoin Colfer where to do another book set in the Artemis Fowl universe one would logically expect the fairies in it to follow the same rules that where set down in the previous books. If it doesn't, like another type of fairies coming out of nowhere then there had better be a good reason for it to be there rather than it being handwaved in.
Maleficent is the entire point of this movie. The title presents a clue. And in all seriousness, we don't know how much of the story will change. All we see in the trailer is that at some point, Maleficent and Aurora will have a conversation. That doesn't need to be a major change - hell, there's a point in Sleeping Beauty where it could have happened - and at any rate, having the good guy and the bad guy play off each other at least a little bit is generally considered good storytelling practice. (Sleeping Beauty got away with it because the Good Fairies are the functional protagonists throughout.)
The tropes associated with vampires have changed, and dramatically so, over the past twenty or thirty years. Zombie tropes experienced a similar but even more drastic change when the Romero movies first appeared. And what pstmdrn described isn't exactly a standard fairy trope anyway.
Have you read the book "Wicked" or watched the play? It's clearly a revisionist take on the movie Wizard of Oz which in turn had taken liberties with the original book. I've read the book and loved it and part of that reason was because it was a revisionist and it was so good at it and it was upfront honest about what it was. If this movie is supposed to be Disney's attempt at doing a Wicked for Maleficent and they where that honest about it, then I would judge it differently than otherwise. For example, the 1925 film version of Wizard of Oz was horrible because it changed so much the source material wasn't even recognizable and unlike "Wicked" it wasn't a revisionist version of the book.
BTW, tropes do evolve over time but they still have some sort of internal logic or they don't work. I'm not saying they are set in stone, but some consistency is needed. For example, if a fiction where to have a group of characters who didn't drink blood (or drain anything else from people), where not undead, nor convert people into themselves to increase their numbers (or as part of draining blood/whatever) but instead got their energy from photosynthesis, where completely alive, and spontaneously cloned themselves via pods they pooped out of their butts after they danced in the sun long enough, by your logic those could be vampires. There are no rules right? Words are meaningless and can be tossed around like a fruit salad right? If someone wanted to, they could make a Tolkenish world where the little peaceful homebodies with hairy feet are called Orcs, the tall pointy eared treehuggers are called Halflings, and the unnatural green skinned war obsessed race are the Elves, would you really say it wouldn't matter?
Here is a lesson for you: Words have meanings even in fiction.
No, I'm sorry to say that you're mistaken. The Fair Folk are simply an offshoot of the hominid family tree, apparently a gracile subspecies of Homo neanderthalensis, although they were described by Linnaeus as a separate species, Homo juvenalis. They are gifted with a genetic mutation for extreme longevity, and though they are no innately cleverer than any other hominid, their lifespans gave them a long time to master the scientific disciplines. Fairy technology - sufficiently advanced so as to be indistinguishable from magic - let them dominate the world for thirty millennia between about 120,000 and 90,000 BC, and they enslaved all the other humanoids: humans, trolls, sasquatches and woodwoses, even the tritons who would later found Atlantis. But they were incautious around the giants, whom they considered the stupidest and least threatening members of the family, and allowed them to perform menial labor in their most advanced laboratories. The giants slowly stole and accumulated the fairies' scientific secrets, and after thousands of years and dozens of generations of plotting, they finally unleashed the terrible fruits of their labors: an airborne biological weapon, cunningly targeted at the fairy genome, striking its victims with total sterility, pumped into the atmosphere around the world at widespread fortified locations (which still stand today, as those mysterious circles of megalithic stone). The cataclysmic slave revolt they instigated at the same time was almost an afterthought.
And the fairies were caught totally off guard. Not only did their empire collapse utterly, their very species had its future irrevocably extinguished. They retreated deep underground and into the most remote wilderness places of the world, and there they may still live out their immortal lives, knowing that their population can only ever grow smaller as they are claimed by violence or accident or ennui, and that the only way they can enjoy hearing the laughter of children again is by stealing them from one of the fertile races. But all did not go well for the giants either. Flush with the hubris of total victory, they recklessly deployed the technology that the fairies had guarded so jealously. They soon developed a popular sport, which was played something like humans today play billiards, only with continental weather patterns rather than balls on a table. Within a mere few decades, this game caused an irreversible climatological chain reaction that plunged the planet into the Ice Age. Perhaps the fairies were right after all: the giants were stupid.
There are few reliable records of encounters with fairies in modern times. Carl Linnaeus discovered an enclave in 1764, apparently peaceably, and included his description in the 12th Edition of Systema Naturae. The Darling Incident of 1866 seems to have involved fairies in some capacity, although details are hard to separate from fiction. The best-recorded encounter was in 1898, when Theodore Roosevelt led his Rough Riders into one of the last great fairy-palaces beneath San Juan Hill to rescue his kidnapped infant son Quentin Roosevelt. The Rough Riders killed nearly a dozen fairies in this action and recovered their bodies for science, as well as returning young Quentin safely to the world of sunlight and air. Most of the recovered specimens now reside in the Smithsonian, but one was loaned to the Army Air Force in 1947 and is kept at the Groom Lake Facility. There have been no confirmed fairy encounters since that battle; Roosevelt, presumably, left quite an impression.
The moral of this sad history is, of course...
Fictional characters are whatever the hell the writer wants them to be.
And the fact that fairies can be different thing in different fictions justifies them changing what she is for what reason? Her being such a powerful fairy was the reason why those three other fairies couldn't just reverse the curse but instead had to modify it was a pretty important part of both the movie "Sleeping Beauty" and the folk tale it was based on.
Maleficent is one of the more iconic Disney villians and I cringed when I heard a trailer for this movie because of changes like this. At one point in the trailer, Princess Aurora is talking to Maleficent who is hiding in the bushes and Aurora is saying how she isn't afraid of Maleficent and Maleficent responds that she should be. This sort of counters the fact that in the movie the princess is being hidden from the villain by those three fairies and Maleficent shouldn't know where she is at that point.
I hope this will be a good movie, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps they should have just come up with a new villain to be the protagonist instead of all of this retcon in order to fit Maleficent into the role.
BTW, if a trope applies to a type of creature more times than not in fiction that trope being applied isn't a fallacy. For example, there are certain tropes that come to mind when you think of vampires or zombies, the fact that there are exceptions doesn't change those tropes any more than "Artemis Fowl" books or whatever you just came up with changes the tropes normally associated with fairies.
I would love for some way for red to be given some effect that allows you to untap all creatures that attacked this turn and then getting another combat step. It would play so nicely with inspire. Just imagine playing that the turn after you attack with Fellhide.
You untap Fellhide, created another one then attack with those two. Untap them to create 2 more and then attack with all four of them. It would be epic.
Short answer: It's a fake word. Sort of. The -amma suffix isn't greek. It is however a common suffix in Indian religions when discussing female deities. It means "Mother" or "Goddess". Pseudo means "False" or "fake".
So basically when you combine the two it means "False Mother". I'm guessing that either they took a greek-sounding root from another language and incorporated it with a Greek prefix to get Pseudamma. That, or somebody in creative got the Indian goddesses confused with Greek origins, which actually isn't as bizarre as one would think.
Am I the only one here who is getting tempted to put together a really really creepy Child of Alara EDH deck who's goal would be as disturbing as possible? Stuff like this Forlorn Pseudamma, Kindercatch, children vampires, Possessedchildren, and Creepy Dolls. It wouldn't be a good edh deck, but it would be creepy fun to break out every once in a while.
btw, I don't think we have gotten any zombie tokens in Theros, so if we get some they might be children zombie tokens.
What is a pseudamma? I tried to google it and came up empty. I want to understand the flavor of this card because it looks creepy, but I'm not getting it right now. It kills kids and turns them into zombies? Why kids and what does it being forlorn have to do with it.
3x Cloudfin Raptor
3x Rakdos Cackler
3x Slitherhead
3x Omenspeaker
3x Grim Roustabout
3x Thrill-Kill Assassin
3x Pain Seer
Non-Creature Spells (21)
4x Essence Scatter
4x Negate
3x Dispel
2x Swan Song
4x Doom Blade
4x Ultimate Price
2x Temple of Deceit
8x Island
8x Swamp
4x Gainsay
4x Dark Betrayal
4x Devour Flesh
3x Pithing Needle
As you can see, nothing cost more than 2 mana. That's sort of important since it allows me to run off of fewer lands and to minimize the hurt I get from the Pain Seers. To be honest, I haven't played standard in about 2 years until a few weeks ago so I don't have the collection I used to nor due I have the money I used to. Feedback would be welcomed and I am planning of updating this with weekly results.
You wanted more Sirens right? This expansion more than doubled the number of them in the game. In fact, 5 of the 6 Sirens they have printed in the history of the game are in this block.
And only counting races and not professions like soldier or wizard, 38 different non-human races in this expansion. That's a lot of diversity especially compared to some previous sets where a lot of cards in a particular color would be automatically be lumped into a couple tribes.
*Sad Face*
Because they are children whom Forlorn Pseudamma has stolen and turned into zombie children. that reason and the reason I mentioned before of giving the tokens something childlike would make the tokens all the more creepy. I guess I will have to modify some of them.
Apparently there aren't going to be any non-god legendary enchantment creatures so neither Theophila nor any other legendary nymph is going to be printed.
I've come to the conclusion that you are trolling me. Historical truth? What does that have to do with fiction? Or for that matter, what do those fan fictions you keep posting in this thread have anything to do the stories that we are talking about? Saying that stories don't need to make sense because stories are different from each other never mind the fact that if we have Story B derived from Story A one can hope there is some connection between the two? Really? Parody, sequel, revision are all the same to you? View them all in the same light?
BTW, I'm aware of the changes from the book to the classic movie for Wizard of Oz. You even quoted that part my message so why did you post, "(and which, incidentally, also changed a lot from the book)" like you are correcting me?
In short, I don't think this is turning out to be an honest discussion and I think I'm out. But once again. *clap clap*
Source? That is assuming that this isn't just fan fiction which doesn't count because it isn't part of the original story nor the Disney movie.
Yes there is. Fiction needs internal logic in order to work. If Eoin Colfer where to do another book set in the Artemis Fowl universe one would logically expect the fairies in it to follow the same rules that where set down in the previous books. If it doesn't, like another type of fairies coming out of nowhere then there had better be a good reason for it to be there rather than it being handwaved in.
Have you read the book "Wicked" or watched the play? It's clearly a revisionist take on the movie Wizard of Oz which in turn had taken liberties with the original book. I've read the book and loved it and part of that reason was because it was a revisionist and it was so good at it and it was upfront honest about what it was. If this movie is supposed to be Disney's attempt at doing a Wicked for Maleficent and they where that honest about it, then I would judge it differently than otherwise. For example, the 1925 film version of Wizard of Oz was horrible because it changed so much the source material wasn't even recognizable and unlike "Wicked" it wasn't a revisionist version of the book.
BTW, tropes do evolve over time but they still have some sort of internal logic or they don't work. I'm not saying they are set in stone, but some consistency is needed. For example, if a fiction where to have a group of characters who didn't drink blood (or drain anything else from people), where not undead, nor convert people into themselves to increase their numbers (or as part of draining blood/whatever) but instead got their energy from photosynthesis, where completely alive, and spontaneously cloned themselves via pods they pooped out of their butts after they danced in the sun long enough, by your logic those could be vampires. There are no rules right? Words are meaningless and can be tossed around like a fruit salad right? If someone wanted to, they could make a Tolkenish world where the little peaceful homebodies with hairy feet are called Orcs, the tall pointy eared treehuggers are called Halflings, and the unnatural green skinned war obsessed race are the Elves, would you really say it wouldn't matter?
Here is a lesson for you: Words have meanings even in fiction.
And the fact that fairies can be different thing in different fictions justifies them changing what she is for what reason? Her being such a powerful fairy was the reason why those three other fairies couldn't just reverse the curse but instead had to modify it was a pretty important part of both the movie "Sleeping Beauty" and the folk tale it was based on.
Maleficent is one of the more iconic Disney villians and I cringed when I heard a trailer for this movie because of changes like this. At one point in the trailer, Princess Aurora is talking to Maleficent who is hiding in the bushes and Aurora is saying how she isn't afraid of Maleficent and Maleficent responds that she should be. This sort of counters the fact that in the movie the princess is being hidden from the villain by those three fairies and Maleficent shouldn't know where she is at that point.
I hope this will be a good movie, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps they should have just come up with a new villain to be the protagonist instead of all of this retcon in order to fit Maleficent into the role.
BTW, if a trope applies to a type of creature more times than not in fiction that trope being applied isn't a fallacy. For example, there are certain tropes that come to mind when you think of vampires or zombies, the fact that there are exceptions doesn't change those tropes any more than "Artemis Fowl" books or whatever you just came up with changes the tropes normally associated with fairies.
You untap Fellhide, created another one then attack with those two. Untap them to create 2 more and then attack with all four of them. It would be epic.
Am I the only one here who is getting tempted to put together a really really creepy Child of Alara EDH deck who's goal would be as disturbing as possible? Stuff like this Forlorn Pseudamma, Kindercatch, children vampires, Possessed children, and Creepy Dolls. It wouldn't be a good edh deck, but it would be creepy fun to break out every once in a while.
btw, I don't think we have gotten any zombie tokens in Theros, so if we get some they might be children zombie tokens.