A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
 
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on [C19] Tahngarth, First mate (new and improve Tahngarth)
    Quote from HighHolder »
    Indestructible would allow him to survive when my opponent sends him into a board of eldrazi or wurms or whatever on defense. Sac outlets are everywhere in edh, so expect him to be saced as well
    It's a may effect. So if the opponent is attacking a board full of big blockers that might eat him, you can always just...you know, not give him to them. Same if they have an active sac outlet.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [C19] Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero and a new scarecrow.
    Quote from Manite »
    Quote from ArixOrdragc »
    Nooo way. Boros already has way too many "Attack with creatures, they gain keywords" commanders, I'm happy to see them doing something a little different with it.


    Technically, only Bruse Tarl, Boorish Herder actually grants keywords upon attacking. And for otherwise granting keywords, you have Adriana, Captain of the Guard who grants your creatures melee, Anax and Cymede grant trample for triggering their Heroic ability, Aurelia, Exemplar of Justice grants trample to red creatures and vigilance to white at the beginning of combat, and Iroas, God of Victory grants menace. 5 out of 22 legendary RW creatures.
    I was being brief, but referring to legends which are just about making creatures (either themselves or others) better at combat and not a whole lot else. In addition to those five, you also have Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran, Anya, Merciless Angel, Aurelia, the Warleader, Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas, Tajic, Blade of the Legion, and Tajic, Legion's Edge. There's also Akiri, Line-Slinger and Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer, although you can make the argument that having an artifact focus makes them at least a little different (I wouldn't agree with that argument personally, but I can see the point being made). Gisela, Blade of Goldnight is also not too far off. And Basandra, Battle Seraph is pretty dang close, too.

    Point I'm trying to make is that Boros already has plenty of options if you're just looking at turning guys sideways, and I know I'm not the only one out there who wants the options to be explored a little (I believe Maro has stated how they've gotten a lot of complaints on the subject and have actively been trying to find new space for Boros commanders, Firesong and Sunspeaker and Feather, the Redeemed being good examples).

    And why should "something different" come at Gerrard's expense? Fighting is one of the things he's best known for! They could have used this effect on a legendary RW Angel and it would have worked better.
    I admit I'm not familiar enough with Gerrard's story to know how fitting (or unfitting) this ability is for him. That said, I can absolutely understand not wanting an anticipated character to be wasted on an unfitting hole-filler card (Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist immediately springs to mind), so if that's where you're coming from, fair enough.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [C19] Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero and a new scarecrow.
    Quote from Manite »
    As I said in another topic, I'm not really impressed with Gerrard's new card. It's better than Gerrard Capashen, to be sure, but I kinda hoped he'd do something more aggro-oriented, like give all your attacking creatures double strike, or even give you an extra combat phase. Shoot, give him Battle Cry as a nod to Gerrard's Battle Cry!
    Nooo way. Boros already has way too many "Attack with creatures, they gain keywords" commanders, I'm happy to see them doing something a little different with it.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on More New Player Questions please have mercy
    Quote from Elahrairah »

    1) Artifact lands. Ok, I get it, cards that act as both. Some offer two land types, some have a special "spell" you can trade for, but Seat of the Synod came up and I don't get it. What is the advantage of a card like this? Why not just a basic island? How is this in any way different (except that you can remove it with an "anti-artifact" card)? Did I just answer my own question? If so, this card is worth less than a basic island.
    It's exactly what it says - it counts as both an artifact and a land. Yes, this means it can be removed by anti-artifact cards. But it also means it counts for your own cards that reward you for having artifacts. For example, it makes Frogmite cost 1 less due to Frogmite's affinity for artifacts ability, and it makes Master of Etherium bigger. You may actually be surprised to know that Seat of the Synod, along with the artifact lands of the other colours, were actually banned in several formats for being too powerful due to such interactions.

    2) I know Flying can defend and be hit, but I don't see a real explanation and I don't understand. If I have creature A with flying and you have creature B with no flying or reach, and we are both 2/2: I attack and you take 2 hit off your dice because you cant defend (Because I am basically doing an air strike over your guy). But when you attack me, and I use my creature to defend, we both do damage and take each other out. How did you get the reach or flying to get up to me to inflict damage? The only way I can explain to my boy is to say "it's like a sneak attack and you didn't get a chance to take off" but then he counters, so how do I do damage back to you then? Can this be ELI5?
    Because your flier can fly lower to the ground. If his 2/2 ground creature attacks you, you can order your flying creature to land and intercept.

    3) When you have a spell that says "take control of opponent creature" is that for the life of the creature? No more text given. Do I just physically take that creature and put it in my field?
    If the card doesn't specify a duration, then it's permanent. It ends only when the creature leaves the battlefield.

    4) Nissa's Judgement: This question in general to a card like this: So my boy has two of these cards. He has two creatures so he ups each +1/+1. Ok I get it, but the damage part. Since this is not a creature attacking, if the damage I take is not enough to kill me off, on my next turn, I get back to full health, right? So the strategy would be to only play this card right before battle so I take double damage? For example, if I cast a 4/4 creature and the turn passes to my son, he casts this on a 1/1 guy, making him 2/2. The spell does 2/2 damage to me instantly, then he declares an attack with this guy and being 2/2 he can take me out? This is how we played it last night, I let him twice use a guy who was half of my strength take me out in one turn? Hopefully we did it right, but it sure hurt, especially when he pulled this card again later... Tough card.
    Yeah, that's pretty much right. Do note that blocking an attacking creature is the defending player's choice. He can certainly use it in the way you described - upping his 1/1 to a 2/2, then doing 2 damage to your 4/4, then attacking with his 2/2 - but you can always choose not to block it with your 4/4, take 2 damage yourself, and have your 4/4 be healthy again at the end of the turn. The better way to use cards like Nissa's Judgment is to have your creature kill off your opponent's creature, then attack with your bigger creature. For example, if you have a 3/3 and your opponent has a 4/4, you can use this card to pump your 3/3 to a 4/4, deal 4 damage to your opponent's 4/4, killing it, and then attack with your new 4/4.

    5) enters tapped. So when a creature or land says it "enters tapped" that basically means you can't use it this turn and have to wait until you have the ability to untap right? So for a creature, how is this different than just summoning sickness? You can't use them first turn anyway...again for this, please ELI5.
    Though they're similar, being tapped and suffering from summoning sickness aren't quite the same. Summoning sickness means that the creature can't attack or activate tap abilities. It can still block, however. Entering tapped means it won't be able to block until it untaps on your turn. That's the main difference, at least - there are a few other more specific ones that might crop up from time to time (such as cards that only affect tapped creatures).
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Urza vs Bolas (It's not what you think)
    Oh look, I'm not claiming the Weatherlight saga was the pinnacle of originality. Maybe it's just because I never saw anything Star Trek related so I can't really see the parallels, I dunno. All I know is that I was actually interested enough in the old stories to read them despite my lack of prior attachment to it, whereas whenever I try to read anything about the Gatewatch (and I have legitimately tried to get into it), all I can think of is how I could be doing literally anything else.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Urza vs Bolas (It's not what you think)
    Even ignoring nostalgia goggles, I vastly prefer the old Urza storyline. I've said it before, but my biggest issue with the whole Gatewatch story is how bland and utterly devoid of ideas it is. It's content to just mimic the popular trend, without contributing anything of substance. The Urza storyline, although far from perfect and with problems of its own, at least tried to be its own thing, to have its own identity, to contribute its own ideas. I've seen the Gatewatch story told a thousand times before, and this incarnation has nothing to set it apart from those that have come before it (and likely those that will come after it).

    There's another issue too. It's obviously trying to mimic the comic book superhero trend, that's no secret. They were even introduced as Magic's answer to the Avengers. The problem is that it seems like they're trying to mimic two different eras of comic book superheroes - both the over-the-top cheesy fun of the Saturday morning cartoon, and the more mature and realistic modern day take. And maybe it's possible to mix those things in a way that works, but Magic just isn't doing it well. It takes itself way too seriously - and expects to be taken too seriously - to properly capture the sheer fun of the Saturday morning cartoon, but it's too silly and generic to be worth taking as seriously as the modern take on superheroes.

    The Weatherlight saga may not have been perfect, but here we are nearly twenty years later and I still remember it. The mythical "feel" that italofoca mentioned certainly contributes. It felt like something made by fantasy fans, for fantasy fans. The Gatewatch story feels like something made by marketing execs for the mass market.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Let's talk about MtG's storytelling...
    I have a lot of problems with modern Magic storytelling, but there's one big one that completely kills it.

    I'm typically pretty easy to please when it comes to storytelling. I'm one of those folks who can mostly turn off their brain and just enjoy whatever's being put in front of me - I may indeed notice the flaws, but I can more or less ignore them. The one flaw that I cannot ignore, however, is when the story is boring. I am reading/watching/playing/whatever through the story to be entertained, so if it isn't entertaining, then it has failed at its whole purpose for existing.

    That's my biggest gripe with modern Magic storytelling - it's the blandest, most by-the-numbers pile of nothing. But at the same time, it's trying to present itself as this brand new, awesomely epic, wave of the future. It's trying so hard, but it has nothing worth trying hard for.

    It's like a badly baked potato. You can complain about all these little problems that it has, which people have mentioned - and yeah, these are definitely problems that should be fixed and could be done a whole lot better - but even if they were fixed, you'd still just be left with a baked potato. It's almost not even worth getting angry at. There's nothing more upsetting than wasted potential, but it just seems like the story, as it stands, has no potential to waste.

    Of course, then you have the whole argument of whether it's better to be forgettably bland or memorably bad, but that's a whole other thing.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Onering »
    Quote from ArixOrdragc »
    I don't get why Bolas randomly kills Domri for like no reason. I mean its not like he needs anyones spark specifically. So him stabbing his help in the back just seems dumb and to show look he is evil. Like killing your underlings cause they screwed up fine...killing your underlings for no reason doesn't make the bad guy look scary it makes them look dumb and incompetent.
    This is a big problem I have with Bolas, and why I just can't find him a compelling villain. He's the most generic, paint by numbers, card-carrying , moustache-twirling, finger-steepling, evil-cackling, Saturday morning cartoon supervillain with nothing of substance or interest to him. It's like they just cracked open a book of "1001 Generic Villain Tropes" and molded it into the vague shape of a dragon with a completely ridiculous design (seriously, he looks just...awful).

    And for a story that's all about stopping the villain, if the villain isn't compelling, then it's hard to care about anyone trying to stop him. I have a lot of issues with the story, but that's the real killer, I think.


    These kind of villains can be done well though, and by that I mean they can be highly entertaining. For instance, M Bison in Street Fighter makes Nicol Bolas look like a layered, subtle, and relatable villain in comparison, but he's also one of my favorite movie villains of all time because the movie leans into his over the top cartoon evil and Raul Julia puts forth the full force of his prodigious acting chops (while literally dying of cancer). Bolas at his best (really Amonkhet) played around in the same territory: over the top, cartoonishly evil that manages to be entertaining and even compelling to a degree. This falls flat on its face in WAR.
    They can be entertaining, yes, but they need to be in a setting that allows it. Like, it was fine back when the story was more of a fun side thing. The issue is that they're now pushing for it to be something that we're supposed to take seriously. Like, we're supposed to see Bolas here as a legitimate threat, with the culmination of all his schemes here being something to take seriously...but his over-the-top cartoonish supervillainy, with absolutely no characterisation beyond "he's a villain doing villain things", just isn't something I can ever take seriously.

    Sure, Raul Julia's M Bison was a bunch of fun in his over-the-top campiness, but that entire movie was over-the-top and campy, and that was the whole fun of it. But you couldn't take that Bison, stick him in the middle of Game of Thrones, and expect it to be taken seriously. That's the problem.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    I don't get why Bolas randomly kills Domri for like no reason. I mean its not like he needs anyones spark specifically. So him stabbing his help in the back just seems dumb and to show look he is evil. Like killing your underlings cause they screwed up fine...killing your underlings for no reason doesn't make the bad guy look scary it makes them look dumb and incompetent.
    This is a big problem I have with Bolas, and why I just can't find him a compelling villain. He's the most generic, paint by numbers, card-carrying , moustache-twirling, finger-steepling, evil-cackling, Saturday morning cartoon supervillain with nothing of substance or interest to him. It's like they just cracked open a book of "1001 Generic Villain Tropes" and molded it into the vague shape of a dragon with a completely ridiculous design (seriously, he looks just...awful).

    And for a story that's all about stopping the villain, if the villain isn't compelling, then it's hard to care about anyone trying to stop him. I have a lot of issues with the story, but that's the real killer, I think.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    I mean, admittedly I might be an odd case, since I've never really got the idea behind characters being "relatable" in the first place. I already hang out with someone just like me all day every day, I dive into the world of fiction so that I can see a different person's point of view, and find out what makes this character tick. I value the ability to experience a different mindset, not have my own parroted back to me. I also like to imagine what things would be like if I were in the character's position, and I can't really do that when it's all laid out on the page already.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from user_938036 »
    Quote from ArixOrdragc »
    That's what people say. That's the reason Wizards often gives. But - and understanding that I can only speak from my own perspective and acknowledging that my experiences are not universal - I have never, ever experienced that. Not once. Ever. I have never found myself relating to a character just because they have the same basic physical shape as me. Back when the planeswalkers were first introduced in Lorwyn and had no character beyond what was depicted on the cards, I didn't find myself relating to Jace purely because we share a species. And in all honesty, despite how common that reason is, I don't even really understand it. How can anyone think that a character is relatable purely because of their physical shape? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
    I've got to say I feel the same way as you. I have never related to or not related any person based on appearance at all. I don't understand how looks or labels influence peoples perception. But I do recognize that my thoughts and assumptions are exactly that "My personal thoughts and assumptions". So when someone says they asked around and "My personal thoughts and assumptions" are not the norm but in fact the opposite of the norm I can readily accept this as fact. I at first found it very strange the people would use opinions to deny 'facts', but as I grew older it was such a norm that I accepted it as well. I also leave myself open to the possibility that the people telling me these 'facts' are lying, but typically when they have nothing to gain by lying and everything to gain by telling the truth, its usually the truth. Though when its nothing on both sides lying wins far too often.
    Oh, I know. Like I said in my post, I acknowledge that my experiences are not universal. Still doesn't mean it makes any more sense to me.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    That's what people say. That's the reason Wizards often gives. But - and understanding that I can only speak from my own perspective and acknowledging that my experiences are not universal - I have never, ever experienced that. Not once. Ever. I have never found myself relating to a character just because they have the same basic physical shape as me. Back when the planeswalkers were first introduced in Lorwyn and had no character beyond what was depicted on the cards, I didn't find myself relating to Jace purely because we share a species. And in all honesty, despite how common that reason is, I don't even really understand it. How can anyone think that a character is relatable purely because of their physical shape? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from 5colors »
    From my number crunch 52 (53 if you count Urza which I don't personally) walkers have gotten a card, 14-20 (depending on how you split hairs) non-human walkers is ~26%-38% of total walkers which means roughly 1/3 of walkers who have gotten card is a non-human. IMO seems like a pretty decent number.


    Your counting characters...how many actual cards do they have.

    Also its about focus...having them is great how much focus do they actually get.
    This is a big sticking point for me. It's not just about seeing pictures of them. It's about having them actually involved in story.

    I hate modern Magic story (for several reasons I won't get into). But when Ajani, who has long been one of my favourite characters, joined the main cast at the end of Kaladesh, I was actually excited. Finally, a nonhuman (as I've said before, no Nissa does not count) member of the main cast that I can get invested in!

    ...then in the very next set, he was completely kicked aside. And remained absent in the set after that. And the two set block after that. Before finally returning in Dominaria...for all of, what, one or two scenes? Would you want to watch a full twenty plus episode season of a TV show just for the chance of seeing one or two scenes of a character you liked?

    That's the big thing for me. It's all well and good to have them there, now how about we actually let them be important? Actually give them chances to be heroes, rather than existing solely to support the human heroes for the umpty-thousandth time at best?
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from user_938036 »
    I really wonder what the actual line is for nonhuman humanoids. On the topic of claiming Liliana was a nonhuman, you missed the point quite a bit because every nonhuman human like character has a fairly distinguishing trait to show their non-humanness. As was pointed out Elfs have pointy ears, dwarfs are short and stout, Merfolk(are merfolk considered too human?) have fins, ect.
    I didn't miss the point, I was making one of my own - that nonhumans need to have a somewhat sufficiently different and nonhuman trait to really be satisfying as nonhumans (and for the record, I'm talking purely physical, visible traits here). Like I mentioned, having one very minor difference (like I said, giving her slit pupils) is hardly enough to be satisfying to those of us who want more nonhumans. Yes, elves have pointy ears, but is that really enough? If all a character needs to do to appear human is put on a hat, is that really sufficiently nonhuman? Not to me.

    However I can help here. You take Lily exactly as is as you said, but now instead of her tattoos being a mark of magic or of her demon contracts they are a racial trait, every member of her race, the majin, have these tattoos. Then you randomly insert other traits that aren't visible but people can mention, the majin are long lived and naturally talented with magic and their entire purpose in live is to wipe out nonmagic races because they view them as unworthy of life. There now you've made what can pass as a fake magic race for Lily but she still looks exactly the same so we can say you wouldn't call her a nonhuman, though honestly speaking if such a race existed I would except them as nonhuman and would look forward to meeting more of them.
    Like I said in my above post, everyone will have a different line as to just how nonhuman they need to appear, which does make it difficult. All I mean is that it's hardly unreasonable to say that such minor differences like elves, kor, dwarves etc have isn't different enough. You may disagree, and that's fine, but you must at least understand where someone who believes otherwise is coming from. I, for one, am never going to look at, for example, Nahiri, and think "Yeah, this pasty-skinned human sure satisfies my desire for more nonhumans".
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from 5colors »
    I don't see Nissa and think "she's too human" because well when looking at classic fantasy she looks what an elf should be. Said thing when we get a dwarf planeswlaker.
    She does look like an elf should, but that doesn't mean elves themselves aren't "too human" for those of us who want more interesting nonhumans.

    Here's one way to think of it. Take one a human character - let's say Liliana. Keep her exactly as she is, but say "She's not actually a human, she's actually a Namuh, a race that happens to look exactly like humans!". Yeah, it shouldn't be hard to understand why that's not particularly satisfying to people who want more nonhumans. Now do the same thing - take Liliana exactly as she is, but with one minor tweak - let's say, she has slit pupils like a cat. "There you go! Funny looking eyes! Now she's totally not human!". Yeah, again, shouldn't be hard to understand why that's not exactly something we're after when we say we want more nonhumans.

    Satisfying nonhumans need to be significantly different from actual humans. And yes, everyone will have a different "line" as to just how different is significant enough to count, but surely it's not hard to understand why things like "pointy ears", "off colour skin" or "unusually short" isn't going to hit that line for a lot of us.

    While they appear human like, another factor is how they are as a species. Elves tend to live longer and have a connection to nature, dwarfs seems better at building things and are harder than most ect.
    Here's my answer to that - why does it not go both ways? People would look at the human characters differently if they weren't human. People would perceive Chandra differently if she were a goblin, they'd look at Gideon differently if he were a centaur. Even if nothing else about the characters changed, people would perceive them differently. If that's the case, which I absolutely believe it is, then it's not unreasonable to say that having so many "non"humans who look almost exactly like humans doesn't really satisfy those of us who want actual nonhumans.

    ...going off topic a little, but man this is something I'm passionate about.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.