Where do any of the rules say it is not considered as in play when Bear Umbra enters play since they are both entering play at the same time? Last I checked, there is not an "entering play" zone that Hellkite Charger is in, much as in there is no zone in which a card resides on the way to the graveyard. It's either in one place, like the stack, or another.
Actually, what you just did there was a decent comparison, all inane sarcasm aside, of the two abilities, so you have in fact done what you claimed there was "no basis" for. That seems to be quite the conflict there in your thought process.
And just because you don't have a reason to compare a Mox Pearl to a Chimney Imp doesn't mean there's no way to do it. In fact, to come to a conclusion that one is the better than the other does require a degree of comparison, even if it is one that does not take much time to get. And when did cards become mechanics? You seemed to get a little tangential on that part of your argument.
All of the rulings posted here to seem to address only one portion of the question: "What can an aura do when it enters the battlefield?" Although, to me at least, that doesn't seem to be the real question here at all, which would be more along these lines: "Is the Hellkite Charger a legal target since it is entering the battlefield simultaneously?" Is there a ruling or rule out there that more specifically addresses this question? All of the rules in here saying it would not work seem to be based off of the assumption that the Charger is not a legal target, without actually clarifying why it is an illegal target.
Metalcraft and threshold both count things. I have now made a decent comparison that is printed right in the reminder text.
And yes, I know what "hyperbole" means, but are you aware of what denial is? And how much of a fool someone looks when he clings to it desperately, despite glaring evidence to the contrary?
Threshold and metalcraft do behave very differently, and anyone clinging to the fact that they are extremely similar is foolish as well, but claiming there is no room for decent comparison is going beyond the realm of hyperbole into implausibility. No matter what, any mechanic that is a part of Magic will always have something in common because they belong to the same game, and a "decent comparison" could be made between any of them.
That said, people can baw all they want about Scars not being designed exactly how they want it to be, but I'm gonna keep enjoying the set for what it is and not giving myself a headache over something I can't change.
And City of Traitors is still a 30 dollar card with a crazy restriction. Plus, as someone with a playset of Ancient Tomb, that two mana on a land is just gross. Granted, it would suck to have wait a whole round of turns to get to use it unless I could untap it, but two guaranteed mana from one land is just gross.
These are more or less my thoughts, except I don't care if it's foil, I care that it has the current oracle text, and the modern frame, and a black border. (The Judge Rewards Sol Ring already does this, and foil).
So for me, the Titan that is already in Archenemy is useless too.
Hadn't realized the Titan was also in one of the Archenemy decks. That makes me even more disappointed in its inclusion. At least the foil of it is decently pricey.
Wow, you all do realize that the difference between simplified and traditional Chinese has nothing to do with Cantonese, right? The only reason that Hong Kong uses traditional Chinese is because they were not actually politically conjoined with the PRC until the UK struck a deal with the PRC in the 1990s. And unsurprisingly Taiwan would then not be using simplified Chinese because they have never been politically conjoined with the PRC (despite anything the PRC might claim).
Also, is there any actual statistical evidence on hand to prove that the majority of people who read and write in traditional Chinese actually prefer English language cards over those in simplified Chinese? I wonder because English actually is a very difficult language to learn, and while simplified and traditional Chinese definitely have significant differences between how each is written, there are distinct overall "rules" in how to learn to read one when you can already read the other (e.g. certain radicals will practically always be simplified in the same way; the use of a simplified character being used in the place of multiple traditional characters which are pronounced the same way, barring tone). Or is the use of simplified Chinese just too politically symbolic in Taiwan and/or Hong Kong to make those cards sell decently at all in either of those areas?
I would also like to iterate this fact: anyone using Cantonese from outside of Hong Kong within the PRC will most likely be using simplified Chinese characters, since that is the official way to write every form of Chinese (be it Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, etc.) according to the party, other than in special locations such as Hong Kong.
Look at this card's artwork. Notice the sword-molds? Well, I didn't think anything about it until my buddy went on the Magic Cruise. He got Ken Nagle to sign a Mystic for him. This is what went down...
Ken Nagle wrote "Sword of Fire and Ice" and "Sword of Light and Shadow" beside each of the molds in the art, signed his name on the bottom, pushed the card back to my buddy and says, "Hint Hint".
Note, for those who don't know, there are 2-3 promo planes given out to WPN as well for planechase. So WPN support for archenemy is nothing too special.
Pity planechase didn't catchon. I wish they just made the global planar deck the standard rule since everyone does it anyway...
Um, I'd have to figure Planechase caught on decently enough since Mirrored Depths is actually quite recent. Plus, I have yet to hear anything about Wizards canceling their plans for a second round of planechase.
Well, as much as I like a lot of the cards in this set and am going to run them, including the Eldrazi, I'm going to have to dissent and say this is not one of the best sets ever for EDH. I feel like a large reason this is being said is because of the awesome colorless spells that can be thrown into any EDH, and as much as I will put at least some of them into various decks I own, I find them to kind of go against the grain of EDH. One of the dynamics I love about EDH is the color restrictions, and all of the Eldrazi spells are in a sense working against that, so from a conceptual standpoint I don't like Eldrazi spells for EDH. It's not that I'm against colorless artifacts in EDH, but all of these spells feel like they should be colored in some way and not just be accessible by any color.
In addition, I would say that Planar Chaos was the best set ever for EDH simply by giving us the enemy-triad colored dragons.
And just because you don't have a reason to compare a Mox Pearl to a Chimney Imp doesn't mean there's no way to do it. In fact, to come to a conclusion that one is the better than the other does require a degree of comparison, even if it is one that does not take much time to get. And when did cards become mechanics? You seemed to get a little tangential on that part of your argument.
And yes, I know what "hyperbole" means, but are you aware of what denial is? And how much of a fool someone looks when he clings to it desperately, despite glaring evidence to the contrary?
Threshold and metalcraft do behave very differently, and anyone clinging to the fact that they are extremely similar is foolish as well, but claiming there is no room for decent comparison is going beyond the realm of hyperbole into implausibility. No matter what, any mechanic that is a part of Magic will always have something in common because they belong to the same game, and a "decent comparison" could be made between any of them.
That said, people can baw all they want about Scars not being designed exactly how they want it to be, but I'm gonna keep enjoying the set for what it is and not giving myself a headache over something I can't change.
Obviously, we don't. Please enlighten us.
Not gonna happen with serious, serious drawbacks.
Hadn't realized the Titan was also in one of the Archenemy decks. That makes me even more disappointed in its inclusion. At least the foil of it is decently pricey.
And where are Smokestack and Tangle Wire?
Also, is there any actual statistical evidence on hand to prove that the majority of people who read and write in traditional Chinese actually prefer English language cards over those in simplified Chinese? I wonder because English actually is a very difficult language to learn, and while simplified and traditional Chinese definitely have significant differences between how each is written, there are distinct overall "rules" in how to learn to read one when you can already read the other (e.g. certain radicals will practically always be simplified in the same way; the use of a simplified character being used in the place of multiple traditional characters which are pronounced the same way, barring tone). Or is the use of simplified Chinese just too politically symbolic in Taiwan and/or Hong Kong to make those cards sell decently at all in either of those areas?
I would also like to iterate this fact: anyone using Cantonese from outside of Hong Kong within the PRC will most likely be using simplified Chinese characters, since that is the official way to write every form of Chinese (be it Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, etc.) according to the party, other than in special locations such as Hong Kong.
So by "quite the nice foundation" you really mean you're looking too far into Ken Nagle telling your friend to play Stoneforge Mystic alongside Sword of Fire and Ice and Sword of Light and Shadow? Just wanna make sure I've got that clear.
Um, I'd have to figure Planechase caught on decently enough since Mirrored Depths is actually quite recent. Plus, I have yet to hear anything about Wizards canceling their plans for a second round of planechase.
In addition, I would say that Planar Chaos was the best set ever for EDH simply by giving us the enemy-triad colored dragons.
Hint: Garruk's still in Standard.