MTG Salvation

This seems like a case of a late-in-development reworking of the card that didn't quite match the already-finished art.

Quote from damagecase »

Or it might break it in half...lol

It really wouldn't. As an instant, this card would be a very good combat trick, which would make it a decent Limited card but still not as good as a good fight spell like Rabid Bite or Savage Punch. (i.e., this as an instant, esp. with an additional cost, is not outside the range of printable green commons)

As-is, without whatever the extra text is, this is pretty bad. Phytoburst is a totally unplayable card; trample helps this a lot, even with a smaller pump, but that's only enough to get it to "Playable if you're really aggressive," not "good."

I think it's pretty obvious that Maro's blogatog answers involved him getting confused about what people were asking (Shadows Over Innistrad-Innistrad vs. Innistrad-Innistrad) and incorrectly implying that they knew Emrakul was going to visit Innistrad back when they were making the original set Innistrad.

That idea wouldn't just be surprising, it's also been contradicted every time he's clearly laid out the timeline for creating Shadows Over Innistrad, most thoroughly in his most recent article. He reads and answers questions very quickly in between other things he's doing and there are mistakes and misunderstandings all the time (especially on creative/story questions). Not that I blame him, I think it's incredible that the head designer of a game is making himself so accessible to fans, but you have to take any information with Blogatog as its sole source with an enormous, monolithic grain of salt.

Consider the article version (someone pitched cosmic horror with Emrakul on Innistrad some time after the original block, but before BFZ was decided) to be what actually happened.

Quote from Vorthospike »

Quote from Xeruh »

Sorin didn't hide on Innistrad though. He went looking for Ugin. I'm not going to say he made great decisions, but he wasn't completely ignoring the Eldrazi.

True, though he only stopped ignoring the Eldrazi after they were freed and even then expended the absolute minimum effort to do anything about it before retreating to what he assumed was the relative safety of Innistrad. Its actually really weird that he ignored Zendikar for 1000 years after being told that the containment was not as effective as they thought. Its not like he was super busy all that time. Either he though Nahiri had fixed the hedron network better than Ugin's original design (very unlikely given his opinion of her) or he didn't care if it failed (which seems contradicted by him trying to find Ugin when it does fail) or ... I can't think of a third option.

I think the best way to make sense of this is that Sorin cares about the survival of the multiverse in general, but it's not an absolute deal-breaker as long as Innistrad is protected. Like he enjoys being able to grab lunch on Kamigawa and take in a concert on Ravnica and he'd rather the Eldrazi didn't eat those planes, but he'd trade them all for Innistrad's safety, and he's only willing to go so far out of his way for the broader multiverse.

I mean, they're a fantasy invention, so they can have whatever geometry and physics the plot calls for, right?

I hope it's not backseat modding for me to remind everyone to keep the temperature of the discussion down and avoid getting personal. Obviously this aspect of the story touches on some characters people are very invested in and brings up some ethical concepts about which people have strong opinions.

I think that once you've learned that Nahiri's plan didn't include a hidden "stop Emrakul" component, virtually everyone would agree that what she's doing is horrible and wrong, even though many will still feel some sympathy for her because of the back story that led to this point.

However, I do think the "trolley problem" model of the story still raises some intellectually interesting issues.

If Nahiri had been trying to stop Emrakul in addition to getting revenge, the equivalent trolley problem would be something like one track running off into the distance with someone tied to it every mile or so, and another track that runs over Sorin's mom and then stops. Utilitarian ethics would say that switching the trolley to the short track is still the right thing to do, even if the main reason you're actually doing it is to hurt Sorin. Other views on ethics might make that more complicated, i.e., how should a really awful motive affect our judgment of something that ultimately harms fewer people?

As it turns out, though, the relevant trolley scenario is more like two long tracks covered with a sequence of people (or maybe a giant multidimensional loop with everyone in existence tied to it at some point ) and switching the trolley just determines whether it runs over John Doe or Sorin's mom first. A utilitarian argument (at least a very simplistic one) might hold that the choice is ethically neutral, but I think most of us think it matters enormously why you throw the switch and run over Sorin's mom or not, which is kind of academically interesting. Is motive a "tie breaker" when the choices are otherwise equal? Is the choice that harms fewer people correct regardless of motive, or can greater harm be preferable to less harm with bad motives? Not that I think anyone could extract a reasonable answer from all that that somehow excuses Nahiri (hypotheticals aside, I imagine the vast majority of people find her actual actions wrong), but it's an interesting (if ridiculous) thing to think about.

I think my jokey thread title proved tragically ineffective at setting a tone.

Quote from Lord Void »

Quote from Manite »

Not every rare is supposed to be good. "Bad" rares exist for a reason.

Seriously, I'm close to linking that topic in my sig at this point.

You win the "I never read comments about past blocks and always believe I am correct in assessment while not understanding the concept behind cards and why people think they're bad" title.

And yes, while it is a long title, it goes to show how little you know/care/understand about past cards.

If you had any semblance of intellect, or the knowledge at least required to understand my problems with this card, you would have bothered to read up on it. But you didn't, don't, and won't.

I don't feel abrasive in posting this, as you were just as much. So when you respond to my comment, with the equal ignorance I am positive will ensue, keep in mind my silence towards it will be out of respect of not being banned, rather than (easily) proving you wrong.

HINT (since you won't be able to work it out on your own): there was a certain Mythic in the original block that was not received well for its rarity. This, while not Mythic, is said card 2.0

Wow. This is sure a post that someone made. But don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

Quote from Gutterstorm »

Quote from Northjayhawk »

I do not agree with this at all. Again, the alternative was not "if I do nothing, then Emrakul will just sit in the blind eternities and never harm another plane again." No, SOME plane somewhere is doomed. The deaths and destruction are a sunk cost that is already going to be paid by some world in the future. If you have a plan to deal with Emrakul and you choose the target, the deaths are not on you even if you fail.

Indeed the deaths will happen but the fact that Nahiri chose to point Em somewhere makes her evil regardless of whether or not she had a plan for sealing. Its like the philosophical trolley problem. Deaths are going to happen regardless but if you chose not to act in any way you are not culpable for the deaths. If instead Nahiri had just drawn Em to Innistrad and immediately sealed her then sure all is hunkey dorey. But she didn't. She drew Emrakul to Innistrad first and foremost for her own petty, and let me stress PETTY, revenge. I'll also repeat that there is little sense that Nahiri intended to seal Em to begin with. Oh and let's not forget that Nahiri is the reason for the madness of the angels who slaughtered even more people. No there is no redemption for Nahiri.

This is actually, AFAIK, a pretty unusual response to the trolley problem. Most people say that, yes, the right thing to do is to throw the switch and redirect the trolley onto the track with fewer people on it.

Quote from "Prey Upon" »

I'm in Eldritch Moon.

Okay, so Ulvenwald Captive is the second-best green common.

Quote from magac »

Oh, wow.... so as a final nail in the coffin, Wizards finally devolves into turning Sorin into the villain of the block to be defeated by "the forces of good", huh?


I think I should start considering talking about shipping in this thread to pass the time...

Dude, really? Are we reading the same story? How is Sorin "the villain of the block"? How is Nahiri even remotely "The forces of good?"

Sorin is, and always has been, a selfish, ruthless, dark, cruel, callous vampire with occasional streaks of nobility running through his character. He hurt Nahiri and pissed her off, and now she's gone mad with hatred and is delivering such disproportionate vengeance upon his plane that she herself has become an even greater monster than he is. Sorin has suffered endlessly throughout these two sets--this entire block is about him being haunted by his past crimes and his old demons catching up with him. He's not in any position of power to be the villain. He isn't driving the conflict--the conflict is being inflicted upon him.

I think you're trying to make this a black and white story when it's really such a dark shade of gray on both sides that it's hard to tell who we should root for--both sides have legitimate grievances and behave in questionable, extreme ways. I'll take it happily--this is the first truly clouded moral conflict Wizards has done in many, many years. I suspect people aren't used to seeing it in Magic and are still trying to fit it into the usual simplistic good vs. evil paradigm. It's not a perfect story by any means, but it's the best we've had in some years.

This brings out the side of people MaRo often talks about: take a playbale card that people would appreciate, add an extra icing on it that is not cheap and it makes the appreciation of the card go down.

It's a mana dork, at the price MTG now ask for them. With extra toughness. And a late-game upside. Defender? How often did you attack with mana dorks anyway? I'll play it over other 2 CMC mana dorks currently in standard.

Are people really so focused on the fact that it has defender? That barely matters, it's tapping for mana most every turn, and when you're not doing that, you're probably not sending a 1/2 into battle later in the game. But you will gladly send in a 4/6.

Mana dorks have a huge issue inherent in playing them in that they're dead in the late game, but this doesn't actually have to be. Being able to get a larger creature that's actually relevant in combat after you're done using this to ramp is very relevant, and the fact that it costs 7 mana to transform is fine if that's all you have to do with your mana that turn, which is going to happen.

I think this is overall better than Scorned Villager, as this loses out on the ability to punish awful starts by gaining the ability to have a consistent, relevant impact in the late game, especially in limited.

Quote from Ashiok »

Okay, seriously, spoiling the mediocre commons as if they were a real spoiler is not cool folks. It is better to leave these cards unspoiled until we receive the complete set release.

I'm sorry that there are players that are interested in things that you aren't interested in.

Quote from Dire Wombat »

Whether Nahiri is motivated solely by revenge or has some "greater good" in mind as well, isn't the morality of summoning Emrakul to Innistrad something of a trolley problem? If Emrakul is going to consume planes, is it inherently immoral for Nahiri to choose which plane?

Its pretty immoral to summon Emrakul to a plane full of innocent people when there are other options.

Now maybe the Emrakul would have no interest in an uninhabited plane but what about New Pyrexia? Or the plane of people who are all like total jerks?

Nahiri is unquestionably the villain here, understandable as her rage may be.

Quote from Dire Wombat »

To what extent does the morality of her actions depend on her intentions vs. the results?

We had a long debate about this a few months ago and people disagree very strongly. Personally I don't feel that a consequentialist view of ethics makes much sense. Accidentally doing something beneficial is not inherently a morally righteous act. Because it is useful to distinguish between "beneficial" and "moral" we should do so.

Quote from Smokestack »

I suggest going to your local IKEA, buying a table and sending it to Wizards' HQ, with a polite note asking them to assemble and flip it for you.

Can I make this my sig?

Yeah, Emrakul may think she owns the plane now and is the master of mind control. She's probably feeling pretty confident right now, but wait till she faces.... The Gitrog Monster! This plane isn't big enough for two master hypnotists.