Magic Market Index for April 19, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for April 12, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for April 5, 2019
  • posted a message on Random Card of the Day: Victim on Night
    I like it, but it's bit me in the ass before because zombies and vampires are common enough that it's problematic that it can't hit them. There's better removal available. In modern it's great tho.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Liliana is a Marry Sue
    Quote from The Fluff »
    Quote from Onering »
    Quote from The Fluff »
    Quote from Ulgrim »

    Gideon is as flawless as Liliana is, I'll be honest with you and with myself.


    I don't understand what you mean by flawless. Gideon had so much pride when he was younger, which lead to tragic arrogance.


    His arrogance didn't dissipate after that either. It takes a fair amount of arrogance for him to believe he could shoe string together an effective resistance to the Eldrazi and win. Ditto vs Emrakul. Ditto vs Bolas on Amonkhet. Only recently has he shifted from always believing that he'll just succeed against all odds as long as he tries real hard because he's invincible and has moxie.


    Now that you mention it. I just have one minor nitpick on Gideon regarding the events in Zendikar. When they were fighting Ob Nixilis.. I remember Ob was impressed that Gideon was able to fight him. Ob then offered to stop the fight, and continue it some other time at another place. Instead of stopping.. Gideon kept attacking, when Ob managed to get the upper hand - Gideon, Jace, and Nissa ended up captured and tortured by Ob. The capture and torture could have been avoided, if Gideon had stopped when Ob offered to stop the fight.


    Yeah. And it's neat to see him change from that guy into the guy he's been since getting owned by Bolas on Amonkhet. Willing to hold back, let others take the lead, and having the humility to realize that someone else is the key to victory and that he can rest. His arrogance was always coming from a good place though, the idea that he had to right obvious wrongs, that he had great power and thus a responsibility to use it.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Flisch »
    I'd argue that comparing LotR to MtG is unfair because both exist in different thematic contexts. LotR does not allow a lot of wiggle room between good and evil, if any. It's built around the notion and good and evil exists and that everyone gets what they deserve, resulting in good triumphing over evil in the end (even if it doesn't look like it temporarily). Even Gandalf who died, was resurrected, because he was on the good side. He didn't go through any real character development. He was just popped back into existence and given a more powerful role. It's a rigid take on what it means to do the right thing.

    MtG on the other hand is much more "modern" in its take on good vs evil. Shades of grey exist everywhere and there are numerous conflicts where it is hard to say who is the villain and the hero, or whether these distinctions are meaningful in the first place. The feud between Sorin and Nahiri comes to mind, but also Vraska's and Liliana's entire story arcs. MtG dabbles in all sorts of shades of grey, mostly because of the colour pie and the fact that each colour has positive and negative aspects. It also frequently uses "tragic" endings, like Amonkhet and New Phyrexia, which clash with the "the just will triumph over evil" approaches of more traditional fantasy.

    Saying that MtG could get away with an "everyone (or at least most) gets a happy ending" ending because LotR did it too is completely ignoring that they both operate on fundamentally different levels beneath the narrative surface.


    Well, LotR has plenty of grey characters running about, and once you expand beyond that to the Hobbit and the Silmarillion there are plenty of grey characters. The universe has a clear demarcation between good and evil, but individuals don't always share that. The ending of LotR is also more bittersweet than happy. Sauron is defeated, as is Saruman the world is saved, orcs are driven off, and Aragorn becomes Elessar expanding Gondor to reclaim Arnor. But all this comes at a great price: magic will leave the world. Rivendell, Lorien, the Grey Havens, will all come to an end, their splendor fading with the destruction of the One Ring and the subsequent deactivation of the Three that maintained the works of the Noldor. Even Greenwood, nee Mirkwood, will fade, as all the elves of middle earth are doomed to leave or fade, taking all their works with them. The Dwarves, too, will dwindle, their great halls and treasures being lost to time. The Ents are without Entwives and will become Huorns in time, little more than great old trees. Everything that makes Middle Earth special, everything that makes it magical, fades away, even the Shire. Only Man will be left in the end, with all our petty squabbles and faults, a mundane world, stripped of its splendor and wonder.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Xeruh »
    1. I’m not a troll. That you’re painting me as one, inadvertently or not, is an ad hominem. You should know better than to try to use an insult as an argument, which at least how I read it. “He’s wrong because he’s trolling.”

    2. I’m not talking about my opinions because they aren’t related to why I’m arguing. My feeling on the matter are irrelevant. You are right in that I’m not talking about my opinions, but that’s because I’m involved only because people are claiming the story is bad because it doesn’t cater to their specific tastes. If they spoke less broadly I wouldn’t terribly care and would probably talk about something else.

    3. I have actually given reasons for why I feel the way I do on all those matters. That they get lost in the general bustle of discussion isn’t terribly surprising.

    4. So far the only deaths thrown at me seem to stem from a lack of creativity, which isn’t a valid reason for me to kill a character. That people think Samut and Vivien should drop dead now that Bolas is taken out doesn’t mean I agree. There are other routes their stories can take, which is why I’ve said I can pull out stories with a revenge element that doesn’t end once that’s over. Beyond that the other examples just seem to be the same basic flaw of a lack of creativity in directions they can go.

    4. I haven’t really said much of anything of note with regards to non named walkers dying beyond they existed.

    5. I think those were the main points, I’m adding this as a specific point so you don’t think I’m ignoring any additional points you may have made, I just may not have seen them as terribly relevant or done other reason for why I didn’t comment on them.


    1. No, I'm saying that you are conveniently only telling people they are wrong without saying why you are right. That's not an argument for you being wrong, as I specifically said it only applies to you and not anyone else in the thread that likes the plot and has actually backed up why. It has no bearing on the merits of your position. Its an argument that your discussion style is frustrating because its hollow, and an expression of frustration that you have taken on an argument style that allows you to be dismissive of other people's reasoning without having the fortitude to defend your own position.

    2. Bull*****. People are saying that the story is bad and why. If you want to say it isn't, you need to give reasons why it isn't, as in reasons its actually good. So far all you've offered is that stories don't have to have death to be good (and you haven't even touched on all the other reasons people are griping about the plot). Making broad statements that don't actually address the material being discussed is useless, which is what you have done.

    3. You really haven't. You've given broad reasons why you disagree with others, but you haven't actually given reasons why the plot choices are good for the story. Strawman arguments aren't reasons. Quoting authors without understanding what they are talking about isn't a reason. You've made no attempt to explain why, say, Nicol Bolas not dying is a good choice, while others have explained why it isn't. You haven't explained why making the Vraska sleeper agent plot point irrelevant was a good choice, while others have given reasons why they thought it wasn't. You haven't explained why you think minimal character deaths in a war story is a good choice beyond saying you think characters dying isn't good story telling (which, again, is a broad statement that doesn't reflect the material being discussed) while others have explained, at length, why minimal character deaths in a story hyped up to be a bloody war is a cop out.

    4. You tried to play this off as an excuse for named characters not dying.

    5. Fair

    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Xeruh »
    Quote from Kman »
    Maybe if we are doing an analogy, Harry Potter would be more adequate?? Look at the trauma it took to defeat Voldemort.


    I mean, none of the main characters died permanently so War is doing better on that front. Not like Hermione or Ron died.

    And Harry Potter isn’t good for killing off a bunch of people at the climax. That’s one of the down points of it. And again, not saying that killing people by the dozens isn’t possible in stories, but it’s far from the only way. It’s not like LotR killed a bunch of major heroes at the end.


    You know what I've noticed? All of your posts are about telling everyone that they are wrong, but none of your posts are about why you are right. The conversation has been like this: A bunch of people complain about the low number of deaths, a low number that was contradictory to the tone and concept of the story and which was pretty clearly and cynically dictated not by what was right for the story but by marketing (as evidenced by MARO's response, and he knows better), and they give reasons why they feel like that, and then you, telling them they are wrong, without actually giving reasons as to why you approve of the choices made. Your arguments have been hollow. "Not everybody has to die" is a strawman. "Killing characters doesn't make a story good" is so broad as to be meaningless. Killing characters just to kill them and be edgy doesn't make a story better, but killing characters when the story calls for it DOES. Killing characters when there is narrative reason to do so DOES. Bolas' plan revolved around killing walkers and draining sparks, and he only nails 2 walkers that we know of, one of which he only nailed because Bolas betrayed him (Domri). He literally only got Dack. Gideon doesn't even count as a get for Bolas. He was dogpiled by eternals and it literally didn't matter because he's invulnerable. He only died because Lili betrayed Bolas and then Gideon took her contract.

    "But a bunch of no name walkers we never meet die offscreen!" So? You've never bothered to make an argument as to why this is a good narrative choice, because it clearly isn't. We aren't invested at all in these walkers. Because they are fictional, they literally never existed. Their deaths are literally a number pulled out of Creative's ass, completely meaningless, lazy, and cheap. It also violates the basic tenet of show don't tell. We see very few consequences as a result of this invasion that was 14 years in the making. Gideon is it. Lets compare it to Marvel, because its clear that Creative just tries to copy whatever is popular at the moment. Gideon dying is like Captain America dying: a major hit. Domri dying is like Squidworth from the Black Hand dying in Infinity War: he was the villain's mook, and he died like a mook. Dack dying would be like Happy dying, a minor character that has some minor resonance but who most people forgot existed. That was Bolas' get, Happy Hogan. That's part of why Bolas comes out of this looking like a putz.

    People have posted, repeatedly, characters that could have died and made narrative sense to die, whose deaths would have not only added gravitas to the story, but moved the plot forward and added to the quality of the work. All you've been able to add as a retort is "nuh uh" and "your all just bloodthirsty jeez." Those aren't arguments. And that is what has been frustrating in trying to talk to you, you don't actually make arguments, you just tell people that they are wrong and make no attempt at all to explain your position. You haven't given a single reason why the low number of deaths is good, only stated that you don't like a lot of death. You haven't given any reasons why you think the recent story has been good, you just say anyone who disagrees is wrong. You never gave any reasons why you think Urza's saga is bad, you just said you didn't like it without any explanation and then invited people to give you reasons why its good, before dismissing them in advance as unlikely to convince you because you've heard it all. What results is a bunch of posters responding to you with their opinions and reasons for those opinions, and you denigrating those opinions out of hand without any attempt to defend your own opinions. That puts you in a position where you are free to critique the opinions of others, but you don't open your own opinions up to the same critique, because you don't ever actually try to give reasons for them. Its a terrible style of argument. I'm not going to say you are trolling, but that is a style of argument that trolls love to employ.

    And I want to be very clear, this only applies to you, not to other posters who are arguing in favor of the plot choices, because they actually have explained what about the plot choices appeal to them and why.



    And one last thing about Lord of the Rings: it didn't kill off many characters because it didn't have many characters to begin with.

    I count Gandalf as both dead and alive, as he does legit die, and is resurrected as Gandalf the White. His nature changes as a result of this process.

    The rest of the Fellowship, except Boromir, lives. so 7 alive 1 dead.

    Elrond and Arwen live: 9 to 1

    Eomer and Eowyn live, but Theoden dies (nobody gives a ***** about his son, he doesn't count): 11 to 2

    All the villains die, Sauron, Saruman, The Witch King (I won't count the other Nazghul, only the Witch King is a real character), Gollum,Grima Wormtounge, all dead: 11 to 7

    Denethor dies, but Faramir lives: 12 to 8.

    Maybe count Shelob? 13 to 8.

    Galadriel lives. 14 to 8

    That's a lot of dead characters considering how few characters there are to begin with. Even if you reach for some of the more obscure characters, your only getting to about 20 to 8, a little more than a 2 to 1 ratio of living to dead.

    Here's the thing: lots of those deaths were villains. But that's OK! Villain deaths count! Of course, they don't count as much as hero deaths unless they are major villains. But compare it to WAR, and only 1 villain dies. Domri was Wormtounge level.

    Comparing WAR to LotR is laughable. If LotR went like WAR, Wormtounge and Theodan would have died, and maybe Prince Imrahil. Sauron wouldn't have died (or totally lost his form and became a weak ass spirit which is as close to death as his kind get), he would have instead been trapped in Mirkwood with Gandalf watching over him. Saruman wouldn't have died ("died" like Sauron), he'd have gotten away to start just as much trouble somewhere else (not putz around the Shire before getting stabbed like a bitch).
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Xeruh »
    I mean, you’re speaking pretty broadly for story fans. Your tastes aren’t the only ones.


    The pot told the kettle.

    Theres a pattern of cop outs, lazy retcons, and overall bad plotting that has been plaguing magic story for over a decade. It's like it's been plotted by a 13 year old with add. It wavers between subpar fanfiction and subpar fanfiction rewritten by competent authors.

    You don't build up a final confrontation like this and then just do almost nothing with it. And compared to Amonkhet, it was almost nothing. Gideon was a meaningful casualty, and Domri and Dack sort of, but Amonkhet was the destruction of a civilization and the gatewatch getting handled. That sets up major expectations for WAR, expectations that Bolas is going to top himself before going down. He didnt.

    I didn't want half the pws dead. I didn't want Ravnica destroyed. But what we got was part of the central city sort of damaged (but mostly evacuated!), one major character dead, one character they forgot about dead, and Domri dead. Oh, and a handful of paruns killed off screen well before Bolas arrived. That's less than Ravnica did to itself in it's debut block!

    Bolas loses because he employs a preposterously stupid plan that seems designed to fail. I called it that he was a goddamn moron for putting Lili in charge of the eternals before her betrayal was confirmed. The whole invasion was sloppy. I get arrogance, but he meticulously planned Amonkhet, and it worked! He was arrogant as hell the whole time, but it went smoothly. But the invasion of Ravnica? He left tons of ways for things to go wrong, some by not covering his butt from things outside his control, others by actually creating the problems himself. That's lazy writing.

    And this is before all the other issues with the story. Ixalan block is meaningless now. And for what? The Vraska as a sleeper agent sub plot was well received and made narrative sense. It was something that would explain Bolas'plan going awry without him looking like a dip*****. The Golgari swarm is one of the largest forces on Ravnica and one that grows it's ranks as it kills it's enemies. Bolas relying on them to tie up say the Boros, would have made sense, and their sudden betrayal would have left him facing two new large threats that he didn't account for. Best of all, they set it up so that he'd have no way of knowing it was coming, as he didn't know Jace was on Ixalan! That would have at least set things up so that the eternals were actually a threat on their own due to a divided Ravnica until Vraskas turn, rather than the defenders of Ravnica handling them pretty easily from the start until he brought in the God's. The former would mean that Bolas had a sound plan that would have worked and was only undone by the ingenuity of our hero's, the latter (what actually happened) makes him look like an idiot who rushed headlong into a hornet's nest and had to put all his cards on the table just to have a chance at winning.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Xeruh »
    Quote from Istredd »
    Quote from Xeruh »
    Also sharing a quote that sums up my thoughts on the whole need for bleak/dark stories.

    Not all stories need to be bleak or dark, but something built on a premise WotS was, kinda doesn't really lend itself to a light tone.


    None of the premises to me read "everyone dies and Bolas wins" or "half the known Planeswalkers die in a borderline pyrrhic victory". If that's how you're reading it then that's fine, but it's far from the only interpretation, as it is with literature. We had the bleak story with Amonkhet. That was one where it was rather obvious things weren't going to go well. We had it with the last round of Innistrad as well. Those were ones where it was rather obvious the story was going to be dark, and they delivered fine on that.


    Jesus Christ dude, that strawman is just a pile of straw now, you can stop beating it.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Omnirahk »
    I mean they killed all the characters established in the movie. Also technically Saw was established in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. So they did kill a character they established previously.

    I am confused you wanted them to establish the main cast of Rogue One in some shorts before killing them? I think Alien established most of those randoms in shorts cause most of that cast did very little before getting killed.


    It was brought up in this thread that Rogue One was a good example of setting the stakes high. I just wanted to point out the contradiction of this with the statements of posters in this thread that the deaths don't 'really matter' if the characters weren't established prior (the Alien Covenant bit was merely addressing the fact that Rogue One's characters could have been established prior to the movie even if they were only meant for the one movie).

    To that end I proposed the question as to if people honestly thought that introducing an entirely new cast of characters to fight against, die because of, and stop Bolas would really be an improvement to what we got. I'm sincerely curious as to what people want out the Magic storyline as I get the impression that some people want nothing short of the decimation of the protagonists' numbers prior to their success.

    Yes, Yawgmoth killed off more major characters than Bolas. SO WHAT?!? Nobody disputes that Yawgmoth was a bigger threat than Bolas, but that doesn't somehow mean that other antagonists can't be a threat unless they outdo him (especially since the majority of the means and people who managed to put up a defensive against Yawgmoth are now dead, gone, or no longer functional).

    Yes, the Eldrazi didn't kill off many major characters. Our major characters are planeswalkers, and the Eldrazi never posed much threat to planeswalkers in the first place (as they are only concerned with consuming planes, all a planeswalker has to do is stay out of their way and/or leave and they'll be safe). The threat of the Eldrazi were always to non-planeswalkers and the planes themselves (which may or may not matter to a given planeswalker). Sorin and Nahiri weren't moved to imprison them out of concern for themselves, but for the safety of their planes and people (and in Nahiri's case, the safety of the people of other planes). The only threat the Eldrazi posed to a planeswalker was if said planeswalker deliberately got in front of one and refused to walk away (and the only one who did that on a regular basis was a practically invulnerable beefcake).


    There is middle ground between "half the cast dies" and "the climactic battle actually leaves us with more characters."

    Yes, a couple more planeswalkers that have run out of story could have kicked the bucket. Maybe Gideon still would have been the only Gatewatch member, maybe he'd have been joined by Nissa, but there were plenty of good choices beyond Domri and Dack, who were both good choices, that could have died and made story sense. Viv, Samut (though I think Samut may be needed for return to Amonkhet), Ral, Sarkhan (I forgot he was in the set), Kiora, Jaya (though I like subverting the mentor dies trope). Then maybe one of the noobs, or not. Still, 5 or 6 would have felt more meaningful, like the battle had more consequences, and all the ones I mentioned would have made story sense and had some impact (even Sarkhan, as at least it would wrap up his story quite nicely as the former servant driven mad helps end his master). And of course, the big missing death, BOLAS, who should not have survived this. Yeah, they are probably going to free him to help against some future threat or some bull *****, but this should have been it. Also a problem is the handling of Parun deaths off screen. At least Isperia and the Obzedat got killed on a card, but Jarad? And Niv getting killed was so mishandled that we got Niv resurrected before we knew he was dead, and lots of people assumed he just powered up. They really, really, should have given us more web stories, especially dealing with the deaths of the Paruns. The slice of life stories were great, but we should have had five actual storyline stories in there. Things we missed that are inexcusable: Vraska overthrowing Jarad, Isperia calling the Paruns together and getting killed, Domri uniting the Gruul under his banner, Teysa and Kaya working together to take down the Obzedat, and then, right before spoiler season, the planar bridge opening and Niv fighting Bolas and getting killed.

    BFZ absolutely could have had more deaths to make us care more. As it stands, we got the widespread destruction, which is fine, but like the old saw "a death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." We had a few legends on that plane that could have died and had some impact. Noyan Dar and Drana would have had some impact, and I don't even know if Ayli or Kalitas died. Off screen maybe?

    What really sticks in my craw is MARO's response that its hard to kill off characters and that some people are upset that their favorite walkers died. That right there is everything that is wrong with magic's story. Its focus grouped, overly cautious, doomed to fail bull*****. Their goal is to avoid making any story moves that may upset anyone, and the result is that they upset almost everyone that cares about the story. Instead of occasionally making a few stans butt hurt, they just churn out unsatisfying crap. It's lame, it's lazy, and it turns people off. Its why so many people post hate about the direction of the story, and why no matter where it looks like its headed people shrug and say it'll suck and nothing will matter, because wizards has proven that no matter the stakes in the end nothing will matter. This was the climax of a decade long story arc, and we got one major character and two side character deaths out of it.

    Now I haven't read the novel yet, so I can't call the story crap, merely the plot. The novel might polish this turd of retcons and cop outs by being well written, with its characters well fleshed out. An author can do a lot to salvage a story from the failings of its plot, and the pedigree of this author leads me to believe he will. That might lead to this novel being like Test of Metal, a fun read that ultimately harms the larger story. But rest assured, the failing of the plot should not be laid at the feet of the author.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Liliana is a Marry Sue
    Quote from Pollaski »
    Quote from Onering »
    Quote from The Fluff »
    Quote from Ulgrim »

    Gideon is as flawless as Liliana is, I'll be honest with you and with myself.


    I don't understand what you mean by flawless. Gideon had so much pride when he was younger, which lead to tragic arrogance.


    His arrogance didn't dissipate after that either. It takes a fair amount of arrogance for him to believe he could shoe string together an effective resistance to the Eldrazi and win. Ditto vs Emrakul. Ditto vs Bolas on Amonkhet. Only recently has he shifted from always believing that he'll just succeed against all odds as long as he tries real hard because he's invincible and has moxie.


    Except he didnt.believe he could shoestring a win over the Eldrazi. He stayed with Zendikar because he felt obligated, not out of any sense of "I got this". He was desperate for help- ANY help that he ran himself to the bone looking for it. His strategy was literally keep as many people alive as possible and pray an actual solution emerges.


    The shoestring I was referring to was the Gatewatch. It was a crazy plan. There is always a fair amount of arrogance in play when someone thinks they are so indespensible that they cannot rest. Gideon has grown since then, and especially since Amonkhet.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Omnirahk »
    I mean they couldn't kill off established characters. This is right before the Original Trilogy Starts. I mean I guess they could have killed some minor characters but that be like killing randoms in the background.


    That doesn't stop them from establishing the characters prior to the movie and their demise.

    Alien: Covenant did this via the release of several shorts (2 prologues, a series of crew messages, and an advertisement for the crew's synthetic assistant) that introduced us to the characters prior to the movie's release.

    Point remains that Rogue One offed a bunch of non-established characters in a scenario where we knew their mission would succeed. I fail to see how that's a case of higher stakes (especially since we knew that no major characters could possibly die since we'd already seen them alive afterwards0 in regards to the major characters of a setting dying than War of the Spark (where we at least get a major character death).


    This is the first time I've ever seen someone compare Alien:Covenant favorably to Rouge One.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Omnirahk »
    Different Medium. Movies have less time to play with and yet routinely make people care about characters. By your logic no one should ever be affected by the deaths in movies. Which is of course patently absurd. WOTC though uses what short stories and books? They have more time to develop walkers and yet didn't do much of anything with Dack or Domri before hand. Now I suppose you could argue that Domri and Dack will get good development in the actual book but given the number of characters this book juggles and based on Greg Weisman work on YJ S2 and S3...yeah I am going to say he won't pull it off.


    I'd agree with you if Rogue One were a standalone movie, but it's not. Star Wars is a long-standing franchise, with many movies (and until recently an entire extended universe to draw from). They had the opportunity to kill off established characters (and did upon occasion in other movies) and the opportunity to establish the characters who were going to die. The fact, however, remains that they chose to introduce and kill off entirely new characters in Rogue One, which would be exactly like if an entirely new team was introduced in War of the Spark to beat Bolas and take heavy casualties in the process.


    I mean they couldn't kill off established characters. This is right before the Original Trilogy Starts. I mean I guess they could have killed some minor characters but that be like killing randoms in the background.

    Point remains Bolas killed 3 Walkers out of 38 Named Walkers in the story (Tezz had the Buy a Box and Dack is Present with no Card). He killed a Parun/Guild Leader but Niv got rezzed so that doesn't count at all. Though Kaya who was working for him at the time killed the Obzedat. Vraska also kinda took out two in Isperia and Jarad (though Bolas setup the latter). So lets be generous and say Bolas took out 6 Characters of Note out of 48 for 12.5%. He did better then the Eldrazi Titans though who laid a goose egg and killed zero. And yeah Emrakul might of not been trying but that doesn't excuse the other two. These are suppose the biggest bads in the multiverse. The problem is the standard will always be Yawgmoth and these new Major Antagonist are falling woefully short of the standard set by their predecessor. Also I find it especially lame to kill Dack who got no card and had zero connection to Bolas or Ravnica when you got plenty of walkers who meet one or both of those criteria.


    Yawgmoth should be the standard for a full on apocalypse. WAR wasn't, so it's not an apt comparison. BFZ was, and it's goose egg for named characters is part of what made it such a laughable ***** pile of a story. Amonkhet was, and it felt like it because Bolas killed 4 God's, in addition to the 3 he killed in the flashback, and destroyed it's civilization. Shadows/Eldritch moon Emrakul took out the lunarch council, Bruna, and Gisela via corruption, and Avacyn got killed. That's pretty huge considering that Emrakul was actively trying not to win.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    I mean they killed all the characters established in the movie. Also technically Saw was established in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. So they did kill a character they established previously.

    I am confused you wanted them to establish the main cast of Rogue One in some shorts before killing them? I think Alien established most of those randoms in shorts cause most of that cast did very little before getting killed.


    That confused me for a hot minute as I wondered how Jigsaw was connected to the star wars universe
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance (RNA) and War of the Spark (WAR) General Discussion
    Quote from Xeruh »
    That doesn't mean you need to kill off half the cast. No one is saying "death is bad", but just killing people for no good reason because you feel the stakes aren't enough is emotionally shallow writing.

    And Urza's story killing so many people is one of many reasons why I don't think of it as good writing, it just feels needlessly bleak to generate edge.


    Lol what? Seriously dude, it was the Phyrexian Invasion, built up for years, a literal Doomsday scenario for Dominaria. Killing off a bunch of characters isn't doing so needlessly to be edgy, it's doing so because that's the sort of situation where lots of people end up dead, especially people on the front lines throwing themselves into danger. There were narrative reasons for why most of the characters who died did so.

    Killing off so many characters isn't always necessary, but sometimes it is, and the Phyrexian frickin invasion is such a time. It's an apocalypse on par with the Others invading Westeros, and you can bet if they only kill of like, Tormund Cersei and Bronn this season it'll feel like a massive cop out.

    For this story, I feel like Gideon is pretty big, especially how he went out, Dack is at least known, and Domri pretty much had to get offed. I'd have liked to see a couple more, maybe 5 or 6 (or a couple more no names like some of the randos just introduced). Nissa biting it would have been satisfying because she's a major character we're invested in but also super boring and someone whose reason for existing in the story really isn't there anymore. Killing off Vivien would have also been a good move considering the icy reception she got and that her story is basically entirely tied to Bolas (unless they position her as a mono green villain, but they seem to still be pushing her as a genocidal hero). No need to kill off half the pws, but a few more than we actually got would have done better to match the build up and the stakes.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Liliana is a Marry Sue
    Quote from The Fluff »
    Quote from Ulgrim »

    Gideon is as flawless as Liliana is, I'll be honest with you and with myself.


    I don't understand what you mean by flawless. Gideon had so much pride when he was younger, which lead to tragic arrogance.


    His arrogance didn't dissipate after that either. It takes a fair amount of arrogance for him to believe he could shoe string together an effective resistance to the Eldrazi and win. Ditto vs Emrakul. Ditto vs Bolas on Amonkhet. Only recently has he shifted from always believing that he'll just succeed against all odds as long as he tries real hard because he's invincible and has moxie.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Food Chain
    Quote from DigitalFire »
    I haven't really played much paper Magic at all since 2014, which happened to be shortly after Prossh came out. A few "oops, I'm infinite" moments still stand out in my head from another player slotting in just that single card to a precon.

    The RC seems very clear about banning cards that seem innocuous but accidentally create a bad time. If you see someone else playing Food Chain in Prossh, you're going to want to give it a try, and then suddenly it seems bad to not run Food Chain. Is this no different from discovering Recurring Nightmare (also banned) combos with Palinchron? The outside use cases seem fringe.


    The difference here is that nightmare is always going to be good, even when you are just looping value creatures, and you can accidentally run into a combo. Food Chain is often just sort of ok. If you don't have a way to combo with it, it's often ramp that exacts a high price. I mean, casting acidic slime then next turn exiling it to casting Ulamog seems pretty fair to me, from a battle cruiser perspective, in the sort of way that entwining T&N to fetch a couple of eldrazi instead of a combo is fair. It's just a very, very spikey card that turns off a lot of players (why would I sac a creature to just get one more Mana than I paid for it?) who don't realize that it is as it's baseline a powerful ramp card, albeit a narrow one that opens you up to two for ones. So it's got a fair use (I'd argue that getting even more Mana by saccing a card that produces tokens plus the tokens is also fair), it's just that it's rarely used for that because it turns off a lot of players due to it's spikey nature and it's reputation from prossh. It accidentally combos with a few cards, but those combos are pretty good and for the most part well known and applied in cEDH. cEDH is the only place it caused "problems", though since cEDH is not a balanced format and more about just playing the most powerful things as tightly as possible it's difficult for me to see how problematic it is there, though of course it can be annoying seeing it over and over.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.