The pack might be real but the cards are not, or if they are they are not legal but a "oh look we made a partneship with Sony and made those promos that you can use on your homebrews of commander" but even if soo the lack of any sony logo and the lack of the legendary border makes it clear the cards are fakes.
For why the cards are printed: they are foil, and proxi foil cards are easy to do, soo there is that.
You sure on that Hasbro has the license for Godzilla
But yea they have to have gotten permission from the company to do this
But here’s some errors team fake is missing (but these only apply if they did get permission from the company to actually do Godzilla characters as alt art for cards)
1 if you look under the name of the cards there’s another name probably the real name of the card of the set (so these are probably alt art and alt name)
2 the king Caesar ability one of maro hints was “x is the number of times this creature was mutated” it matches it
3 cycling is a claimed mechanic one of Gavin’s hints was 8-returning mechanics cycling is a mechanic
just know that this box topper is unlike anything Magic has ever done.
That would fit for this
1) We've seen fakes with this type of naming convention done before, largely copied from other games (this template borrows from an early UFS/UniVersus design for promotional cards).
2) The hint doesn't match accurately. Maro was quoting card text. If he was referencing it in design text, his words would of been "~", not "this creature".
3) Prowess, Dredge and Banding are also mechanics. The virtue of them being mechanics doesn't mean they are returning. Gavin saying eight are returning doesn't mean Cycling is definitely one of them.
4) They've also claimed many other things are unlike anything they've ever done in Magic. They said the same about Oko's release, WOTS increased PW number, Time Spiral's 'planeshifted' cards, the new release schedule, the release of C20 in conjunction with Ikoria. They've even said it about Bolas' first PW card. It's not something to get excited about if you've heard it so many times.
In future, I'd suggest you refrain from claiming 'team fake hasn't noticed'. Not raising something doesn't mean we haven't noticed, it means it's beneath our criticism, as they're things we consider self-evident in their fallacy, that we shouldn't need to point them out as they're obvious to the majority of onlookers.
For sure. I wasn't trying to imply that he is somehow wrong, just that it's an unpopular opinion in the cube community, especially on these forums. Cube is what you make it and everyone has their preferences. We can all offer advice based on our own experiences, but at the end of the day preferring X to Y in cube will never be wrong if that choice is what you and your group prefer.
The apologies are mine, it seems I came off rudely without intent. Sorry for that. I was trying to reiterate the point. And also note how LoA lacks an easy comparison to make due it's unique effect, unlike how Talismans and Signets or various 4 CMC counters can be compared. Due to that, I think it makes it hard for newer players to familiarize themselves with a modernized/restrained version of the mechanic to easily recognize how broken the legacy version of it is.
I wouldn't presume why LSV feels the way he does about cube inclusions. He's also said that Signets are better than Talismen because the Talismen "do damage to you."
If your cube is more aggro focused, has a lot of pain effects, or minimizes life gain then he's not wrong. I find that with cards that fill similar roles which is 'better' often comes down to how they interact with their environment. Speaking of which...
LoA is a card that, alike Sol Ring and the Moxen are cards that shouldn't be in any cube that's not tuned to power, otherwise it generates so much card advantage that slower, unpowered cubes simply can't race against it outside of very discard heavy cube design. Drawing two cards a turn allows you to, functionally, play at twice the speed of the opponent. That it can go into most any deck because of it being a land, increases it's pick threshold into the Sol Ring/Mox category, which are also cards that belong nowhere near unpowered cubes due to the ridiculous advantages they generate.
Also, it's a card I strongly discourage balking at newer players for not getting, as it's an older card that breaks the fundamental game rules as newer players will have learned them, and requires a level of hand management they may still be learning. Sadly, there is no more recent, 'check at upkeep' style equivalent I know of that can be used for unpowered cubes, which likely speaks to the broken power level of that mechanic...
This reminds me more of Basalt Monolith than the Dynamo. And I'm not sure where I stand on it regarding that, as I think the artifact deck would prefer the Dynamo, and most 3 CMC fixing tends to be for multicoloured decks, not mono ones.
Probably a good send for those playing Nykthos or running a Mono-themed cube though.
This is a good card, and should likely see play in cubes where the section isn't bogged down with archetype-specific cards that require inclusion.
I second this and posit that this would likely replace Growth Spiral in the cubes still running it, as escape can be payed for using already played land search and counterspells fairly easily.
Elsewise, in Hellenic, Promethean and Egyptian-Greco mythology goats where a common offering to the Gods to show devotion when asking for boons/favours, often due to them producing furs, milk and meat, making them a prized asset for poorer families of the time.
Sheep is also sometimes how followers of a cause are referred to and similar insults were common in those times. Similarly, many religions referred to their leaders and advocates as their 'flocks' or 'herds' and themselves as 'shepherds' and 'farmers', which may indicate that this person once was a leader who did awful things, who in death has been consumed by their hatred.
Either or works, definitely more flavour than the original seer either way
We could...but that would involve WotC hiring people based on merit and not solely on their gender and/or ethnicity to check a box for forced inclusivity and diversity.
Oh, come on dude. Don't start with that whole tirade here. Can you put your favourite toy away for just five minutes please?
Oh your right... i forgot that only WotC employees can say whatever they want on company time that has nothing to do with the game. But here on a free forum people cant voice concerns because it doesn’t agree with WotC.
I guess continuing to ignore it will totally make it go away...
I will say i surprised you didn’t just report me to the forum masters like they want you to.
To be fair, the only reason I haven't reported it, is because the mods got there first.
As an affiliate member of the National Autistic Society and an ASD person, I find your comments rude, divisive and completely unevidenced. I'd ask you to apologize for your comments, but I doubt there would be any sincerity in an apology. And no, this isn't a free for all forum, it's a forum for discussing from a variety of viewpoints, elements of the MTG game, it's associated properties and the decisions taken by WOTC and its staff. Promoting your personal ideologues - political or otherwise - and insulting other members, or the staff of MTGS or WOTC for elements of their personage, is not debate, but simple rudeness.
On Topic: I agree with most users here, that the lore quality since War of the Spark has been diminished. I am not a personal fan of Theros or Elspeth, but believe from a narrative standpoint that simply glossing over important plot-hooks designed to interlink with the War of the Spark story is a poor choice and inconsiderate of the audience.
I feel that WoTC's handling of narrative in recent years has greatly declined, from the way in which a promising conclusion to the Bolas Arc was mishandled (your mileage may vary), lacking the sense of scale and casualty that much of the audience demanded. I feel that the rush to then have characters with promising future narratives quickly killed off (Dovin), potentially in an attempt to react to criticism, is a short-sighted and damaging move for the narrative. I feel the retcon of Chandra, and the hasty retcon of the retcon was damaging to the brand of the product and damaged audience goodwill.
I feel also that a large portion of current narrative problems comes from a lack of understanding on WoTC's part of how to handle flagship characters, lacking an understanding of which parts of the audience favour which characters and 'why', relying too heavily on focus groups and selective surveys and not enough on the direct opinions of those invested into the characters. I think they also have misunderstood what their audience wants, associating the popularity of a worlds settings and lore (and that of it's characters), with the direct sale of cards (playing pieces), rather than using the metric of engagement (how people are interacting with a product). I believe this leads to short-sighted, business led decisions where sales and profit are placed as emphasis over storytelling and play experience, though who would be to blame for this is impossible to know without pulling back the curtain on WoTC/Hasbro's internal workings.
I feel the move to smaller stories could be positive, as while I didn't enjoy the story of Eldraine, I do think it was reasonably well-handled for what it was, and giving chances to aspiring creatives is always something I advocate for. Similiarly, I believe a story regarding the events of Theros using the same smaller narrative would of been brilliant, both for the greater sense of narrative scope and engagement with Theros/Elspeth's fans. I believe WoTC has missed an opportunity here, over-correcting from the longer, multi-year spanning story of Bolas machinations into a removal of much lore based materials that provide an anchor for players emotional investment beyond monetary speculation of card values or collecting specific playing pieces.
I also agree that the short stories of Amonkhet were a great way to engage with players and entirely suitable for the new 'single set narratives' that WoTC seems to want to pursue, but has failed to capitalize on. While not to my taste, the format of these mini-stories provided scale, lore pieces and narrative pacing while being open-ended enough due to their smaller size that other authors can make additive content to follow them without being railroaded or contradicting the grand premises other authors have designed.
TLDR: WoTC needs to focus on more Eldraine like or Amonkhet like stories for single-set worlds, and save ebooks/paperbacks for stories spanning multiple sets, which should be planned and written ahead of time, rather than during set design, and to integrate writers and lore experts into the project team as full members so that narrative doesn't contradict itself, and works to amplify the tonality and themes of a given set, rather than running alongside or counter to it.
For me as a player, personally, I'm not too fussed on us revisiting old planes or visiting new ones. Planes I didn't like can have new spins that I might like, planes I already like I'm always happy to revisit, and new planes offer possibility.
Mainly, I'm more interested in wether the cards are enjoyable to play with. Mechanics or environments that don't play well, or generate unfun play experiences will deter me from that set, but wether I enjoy it's theme and lore decides wether I like that plane or not.
For instance, I greatly disliked the play experiences of the original Innistrad, but greatly enjoyed it's world. On our return, it's play experience was slightly different to my enjoyment, and so for me I dislike the first Innistrad block, rather than the plane itself.
Similiarly, there is many parts of Dominaria's long history that I've not enjoyed playing through, and many more that I have. I have no issue or preference on Dominaria as a plane, but strong opinions on certain blocks and sets that happened within it's lore. Similiarly I strongly dislike the original Mirrodin block, loved the New Phyrexia block, have mixed feelings on Mirrodin/New Phyrexia as a plane.
I'm just happy to have some cool mechanical, fun play experience cards, and have Legendaries feature various characters wanted by the community. Don't need a deck devoted to a plane, just a deck devoted to a good time, rewarding play experience and a feeling of awesomeness bringing old characters some new life.
For those struggling with terminology, allow my experience of having a daughter to help:
Night-time: Dark outside
AnyPony: Any Player
Friend(s): Player's who contributed mana towards Nightmare Moon's ability cost. See: Join Forces
Pegasi: Pegasus
Applejack, Fluttershy, Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash and Rarity: Creature cards (or toys) for the five 'Friends of Equestria'.
Nightmare Moon: Goddess of Night
Princess Luna: Nightmare Moon before becoming evil.
Princess Twilight Sparkle: The lead character of My Little Pony, she trains to replace Princess Luna's vacant position.
I've always wanted an updated Fire Imp that can hit any target or have bigger stats, but this fits the bill quite nicely. What I like most about this card is that it finally gives red an answer to a blocking True-Name Nemesis.
I assume you mean for the first part of the instant, as TNN would have protection from player, so it couldn't be targeted.
Outside of that, the card seems good, as in a way, it's a psuedo-card draw for Red, which has been it's thing for a while now.
The real question becomes wether people start slotting in adventure cards as spells, or as creatures. I think that's going to be an interesting facet of how people organize their cubes now.
I run tokens in R/W, so spamming 1/1's isn't that hard. But 1/1's can easily be pumped via varied anthem effects or other means. It's also quite easy to kill a 1/1 to shut this thing off.
I also always measure cards by their floor, not their potential ceilings. The floor is consistent, the ceiling is not. The floor of this, is beautiful flavour, but essentially a 5/5 defender that can turn sideways in a deck spamming tokens, which seems unlikely given it's colour. And even with a larger cube size, it's doubtful to make it in on power level considerations (the only reason we'll try is because of its Beauty/Beast flavour, for our romantic players).
And TBH, if I have to wait until turn 5 to swing with it, after 'maybe' getting another card to produce tokens, then I've failed my draft in my eyes, as turn 5 I should have way, WAY better 5cmc options to be playing with than 'make a 1/1 so Beast can attack'.
1) We've seen fakes with this type of naming convention done before, largely copied from other games (this template borrows from an early UFS/UniVersus design for promotional cards).
2) The hint doesn't match accurately. Maro was quoting card text. If he was referencing it in design text, his words would of been "~", not "this creature".
3) Prowess, Dredge and Banding are also mechanics. The virtue of them being mechanics doesn't mean they are returning. Gavin saying eight are returning doesn't mean Cycling is definitely one of them.
4) They've also claimed many other things are unlike anything they've ever done in Magic. They said the same about Oko's release, WOTS increased PW number, Time Spiral's 'planeshifted' cards, the new release schedule, the release of C20 in conjunction with Ikoria. They've even said it about Bolas' first PW card. It's not something to get excited about if you've heard it so many times.
In future, I'd suggest you refrain from claiming 'team fake hasn't noticed'. Not raising something doesn't mean we haven't noticed, it means it's beneath our criticism, as they're things we consider self-evident in their fallacy, that we shouldn't need to point them out as they're obvious to the majority of onlookers.
Are you playing Prismatic Omen or Explore?
If you're playing either of the above, does this card do enough extra to justify the increased range of removal it can die to?
If you're playing either of the above, is the cheaper cost of those cards more or less beneficial than the additional blocking creature?
The apologies are mine, it seems I came off rudely without intent. Sorry for that. I was trying to reiterate the point. And also note how LoA lacks an easy comparison to make due it's unique effect, unlike how Talismans and Signets or various 4 CMC counters can be compared. Due to that, I think it makes it hard for newer players to familiarize themselves with a modernized/restrained version of the mechanic to easily recognize how broken the legacy version of it is.
If your cube is more aggro focused, has a lot of pain effects, or minimizes life gain then he's not wrong. I find that with cards that fill similar roles which is 'better' often comes down to how they interact with their environment. Speaking of which...
LoA is a card that, alike Sol Ring and the Moxen are cards that shouldn't be in any cube that's not tuned to power, otherwise it generates so much card advantage that slower, unpowered cubes simply can't race against it outside of very discard heavy cube design. Drawing two cards a turn allows you to, functionally, play at twice the speed of the opponent. That it can go into most any deck because of it being a land, increases it's pick threshold into the Sol Ring/Mox category, which are also cards that belong nowhere near unpowered cubes due to the ridiculous advantages they generate.
Also, it's a card I strongly discourage balking at newer players for not getting, as it's an older card that breaks the fundamental game rules as newer players will have learned them, and requires a level of hand management they may still be learning. Sadly, there is no more recent, 'check at upkeep' style equivalent I know of that can be used for unpowered cubes, which likely speaks to the broken power level of that mechanic...
Probably a good send for those playing Nykthos or running a Mono-themed cube though.
I second this and posit that this would likely replace Growth Spiral in the cubes still running it, as escape can be payed for using already played land search and counterspells fairly easily.
Will be finding a place for it somewhere, somehow.
Elsewise, in Hellenic, Promethean and Egyptian-Greco mythology goats where a common offering to the Gods to show devotion when asking for boons/favours, often due to them producing furs, milk and meat, making them a prized asset for poorer families of the time.
Sheep is also sometimes how followers of a cause are referred to and similar insults were common in those times. Similarly, many religions referred to their leaders and advocates as their 'flocks' or 'herds' and themselves as 'shepherds' and 'farmers', which may indicate that this person once was a leader who did awful things, who in death has been consumed by their hatred.
Either or works, definitely more flavour than the original seer either way
To be fair, the only reason I haven't reported it, is because the mods got there first.
As an affiliate member of the National Autistic Society and an ASD person, I find your comments rude, divisive and completely unevidenced. I'd ask you to apologize for your comments, but I doubt there would be any sincerity in an apology. And no, this isn't a free for all forum, it's a forum for discussing from a variety of viewpoints, elements of the MTG game, it's associated properties and the decisions taken by WOTC and its staff. Promoting your personal ideologues - political or otherwise - and insulting other members, or the staff of MTGS or WOTC for elements of their personage, is not debate, but simple rudeness.
On Topic: I agree with most users here, that the lore quality since War of the Spark has been diminished. I am not a personal fan of Theros or Elspeth, but believe from a narrative standpoint that simply glossing over important plot-hooks designed to interlink with the War of the Spark story is a poor choice and inconsiderate of the audience.
I feel that WoTC's handling of narrative in recent years has greatly declined, from the way in which a promising conclusion to the Bolas Arc was mishandled (your mileage may vary), lacking the sense of scale and casualty that much of the audience demanded. I feel that the rush to then have characters with promising future narratives quickly killed off (Dovin), potentially in an attempt to react to criticism, is a short-sighted and damaging move for the narrative. I feel the retcon of Chandra, and the hasty retcon of the retcon was damaging to the brand of the product and damaged audience goodwill.
I feel also that a large portion of current narrative problems comes from a lack of understanding on WoTC's part of how to handle flagship characters, lacking an understanding of which parts of the audience favour which characters and 'why', relying too heavily on focus groups and selective surveys and not enough on the direct opinions of those invested into the characters. I think they also have misunderstood what their audience wants, associating the popularity of a worlds settings and lore (and that of it's characters), with the direct sale of cards (playing pieces), rather than using the metric of engagement (how people are interacting with a product). I believe this leads to short-sighted, business led decisions where sales and profit are placed as emphasis over storytelling and play experience, though who would be to blame for this is impossible to know without pulling back the curtain on WoTC/Hasbro's internal workings.
I feel the move to smaller stories could be positive, as while I didn't enjoy the story of Eldraine, I do think it was reasonably well-handled for what it was, and giving chances to aspiring creatives is always something I advocate for. Similiarly, I believe a story regarding the events of Theros using the same smaller narrative would of been brilliant, both for the greater sense of narrative scope and engagement with Theros/Elspeth's fans. I believe WoTC has missed an opportunity here, over-correcting from the longer, multi-year spanning story of Bolas machinations into a removal of much lore based materials that provide an anchor for players emotional investment beyond monetary speculation of card values or collecting specific playing pieces.
I also agree that the short stories of Amonkhet were a great way to engage with players and entirely suitable for the new 'single set narratives' that WoTC seems to want to pursue, but has failed to capitalize on. While not to my taste, the format of these mini-stories provided scale, lore pieces and narrative pacing while being open-ended enough due to their smaller size that other authors can make additive content to follow them without being railroaded or contradicting the grand premises other authors have designed.
TLDR: WoTC needs to focus on more Eldraine like or Amonkhet like stories for single-set worlds, and save ebooks/paperbacks for stories spanning multiple sets, which should be planned and written ahead of time, rather than during set design, and to integrate writers and lore experts into the project team as full members so that narrative doesn't contradict itself, and works to amplify the tonality and themes of a given set, rather than running alongside or counter to it.
While not personally my jam, I can think of lots of people who'd really appreciate this, so thanks for sharing such a cool thing!
Mainly, I'm more interested in wether the cards are enjoyable to play with. Mechanics or environments that don't play well, or generate unfun play experiences will deter me from that set, but wether I enjoy it's theme and lore decides wether I like that plane or not.
For instance, I greatly disliked the play experiences of the original Innistrad, but greatly enjoyed it's world. On our return, it's play experience was slightly different to my enjoyment, and so for me I dislike the first Innistrad block, rather than the plane itself.
Similiarly, there is many parts of Dominaria's long history that I've not enjoyed playing through, and many more that I have. I have no issue or preference on Dominaria as a plane, but strong opinions on certain blocks and sets that happened within it's lore. Similiarly I strongly dislike the original Mirrodin block, loved the New Phyrexia block, have mixed feelings on Mirrodin/New Phyrexia as a plane.
I'm just happy to have some cool mechanical, fun play experience cards, and have Legendaries feature various characters wanted by the community. Don't need a deck devoted to a plane, just a deck devoted to a good time, rewarding play experience and a feeling of awesomeness bringing old characters some new life.
Sorted. Don't know how I got them confused. Too much listening to Jim Sterling I think.
Night-time: Dark outside
AnyPony: Any Player
Friend(s): Player's who contributed mana towards Nightmare Moon's ability cost. See: Join Forces
Pegasi: Pegasus
Applejack, Fluttershy, Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash and Rarity: Creature cards (or toys) for the five 'Friends of Equestria'.
Nightmare Moon: Goddess of Night
Princess Luna: Nightmare Moon before becoming evil.
Princess Twilight Sparkle: The lead character of My Little Pony, she trains to replace Princess Luna's vacant position.
I assume you mean for the first part of the instant, as TNN would have protection from player, so it couldn't be targeted.
Outside of that, the card seems good, as in a way, it's a psuedo-card draw for Red, which has been it's thing for a while now.
The real question becomes wether people start slotting in adventure cards as spells, or as creatures. I think that's going to be an interesting facet of how people organize their cubes now.
I also always measure cards by their floor, not their potential ceilings. The floor is consistent, the ceiling is not. The floor of this, is beautiful flavour, but essentially a 5/5 defender that can turn sideways in a deck spamming tokens, which seems unlikely given it's colour. And even with a larger cube size, it's doubtful to make it in on power level considerations (the only reason we'll try is because of its Beauty/Beast flavour, for our romantic players).
And TBH, if I have to wait until turn 5 to swing with it, after 'maybe' getting another card to produce tokens, then I've failed my draft in my eyes, as turn 5 I should have way, WAY better 5cmc options to be playing with than 'make a 1/1 so Beast can attack'.