What a kind person you are to throw all the members of this forum under the bus like that. And to do it to make someone feel better about themselves! You really are a classy person, you know that?
I edited my post several times, and at varying points started it with "Many..." and "Too many...". But hey, read into it whatever you want. Just remember that there's a huge difference between "I don't like this art" and "this art is straight garbage."
Again, respect is paramount. <Snip>
Respect IS paramount. With that in mind, a personal attack has been removed from this message -Wildfire393
It has nothing to do with phoning in. You have to put two characters together in one piece but they have to work separately. There are also some pretty aggravating compositional restraints.
There's a reason I don't do comic covers and, given the reaction I see here,I won't be doing any more VS products for the foreseeable future either. Not my cup of tea it seems.
Posters on this forum can seldom judge the playability of a card, I certainly wouldn't lend them any more credit when it comes to judging art.
As far as all the negative opinions are concerned - when you guys can do better, please link us your art. Until then, try to show a little respect.
Personally, I was disappointed not to see two color generals. Though Derevi is going to be annoying in French rules. I love it!
Yeah, not a fan of the mono-color P3K legends that seem to have taken their place. To be fair, though, we would have been a bit spoiled after all the two-color legends from the previous two blocks. The decks are great regardless, so I'm not inclined to complain.
Forgive me for needing to ask, but could you please explain the difference between "top-down" and "bottom-up" and how each of those strategies would be implemented in settings such as those that I mentioned previously?
Bottom-up is where they focus on the mechanics of a block first, and then install flavor to match. Top down is where they start with a particular flavor (e.g. Theros), and then mechanics tie it together. The latter style is going to be much closer thematically to the source material.
I don't know enough about Eternal Formats to speak on the matter. I'm a Commander player so I don't care about whether a card is Eternal playable or not. My opinion is based on whether or not I would play this card in one of my EDH decks, and for now, I think the answer is no.
Not necessarily. If I cast this for 6-8 to remove some bomb cards, then my opponent just drops another huge bomb, slaps Greaves on it and venge-attacks me, then I'm down a ton of life, possibly dead. If I'd have just waited that extra turn for Damnation, maybe I'd be down the same amount, maybe not. Maybe my opponents would have attacked me, maybe they would have left me alone. Personally, it's not a chance I'd take. Seeing someone drop their life total by a good chunk and then leave themselves wide open is often a great incentive for everyone around the table to take you out, especially if you just wiped their board clean.
That's my reasoning for not liking the card, anyway.
Not at all, no. Maybe for some people, but for me, this kind of card gets you killed faster because the people I know enjoy targeting the player with the lowest life total. I wouldn't want to cast this, pay life, potentially having it countered, and then leave myself wide open after just paying a chunk of life.
I guess you didn't notice that this is in the Oloro deck...
Still one of the best sweepers in EDH, by far. Maybe you'll change your mind the first several times someone wipes your board.
I think I'd like it a lot more if it were instant speed. I think it would kind of suck if you cast this during your turn, payed a good chunk of life to wipe the board, then watch as everyone around the table simply re-casts their general or drops some big hasty bomb on you or casts a mass-reanimation spell. I suppose it's nice for wiping out early utility stuff.
I'm sorry, a splashable 3 CMC sweeper isn't strong enough for you?
While dealing with subjects in Greece, the Aeneid and the Thebaid are both Roman inventions. I've also touched on the mystery cults (particularly, that of Isis), and Roman soldiers were commonly known to worship Mithras. And, of course, there's that minute religious phenomenon that we've come to know as Christianity.
Boiling down the Roman Empire to "slightly different costumes and architecture" is a vast oversimplification, especially considering the gap in time between the Greek Heroic Age and the founding of the principate (or the division between east and west). I really don't like beating a dead horse, but that kind of ignorant statement puts you in a poor position here.
I see nothing wrong with the 'generic fantasy' of core sets, but that might just be me. At least you can finally concede that Ravnica resembles Rome, so perhaps you'll also be quick to remember the inclusion of minotaurs in the Boros Legion, all manner of beasts and giants amongst the Gruul barbarians, and every other nightmarish creature summoned by the mystery cult of Rakdos. Those are certainly not obvious elements of the Roman Empire, and yet nobody questions their flavor. I'm not implying that a Roman themed set would automatically and indiscernibly resemble Ravnica, only that we can use Ravnica for a frame of reference for the inclusion of 'generic fantasy' tropes in a Roman themed block. Who knows, they might throw angels and goblins and elves (oh my!) in there as well.
All of that having been said, I don't see why there's a presumption that a Roman themed block would mandatorily encompass fantasy or mythological tropes of any kind. Is war and conquest, combined with the distinctive cultural elements of Roman society, really not enough flavor for a block?
4 of the 7 Esper list in the top 115 Standard decks (18+ points) ran him. The three decks not running him scored more points in Standard then those that did. There were 17 total copies of Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver played in those top 115 decks. Lets put that into perspective…
8th most played PW out of 11 played in those decks. There is a really good chance he wasn't in the top 50 non-land cards played. Maybe an outside chance of not being in the top 75. Really thin stats to says it's good and making asinine comments.
There's a world of difference between saying something is "good" and saying something is "playable." The naysayers have been shown to be wrong, and that's all there is to it.
Perhaps I was overstating it being a 'small part', but one does have to consider the monsters and such that will make up a set.
A 'human/humanoid' only set would be a big departure so it is a consideration to make... what will the monstrous side of things be that will make it still 'Roman-y' but not 'Greek-y'?
What makes Theros 'Greek-y' but not 'rest-of-Magic-y'? Ninety percent of the creature types in Theros exist in every other block. Again, look at Ravnica for a point of reference for what Rome could look like if adapted to Magic.
Again, only human elements, a small part of most sets. What other creature types would you use in your vision that would make the set distinct from Theros (and Core sets) to a wider audience?
Look at what I said about Ravnica and then ask me that question again.
If you think that the non-fantasy elements of the Roman Empire could only make up a "small part" of a new setting, then there's little else to discuss with you.
See, that's the problem. You can make a distinctive Roman block, especialy if you focus on Roman history and not mythology, but most people won't recognise it or just think it would be Theros II. Since recognition by a majority of the people is the most important part, I don't think we will see a Roman block. I think you can make a great Sumerian block, but since noone knows anything about Sumer, noone will recognise the flavour and it would probably fail. The same is probably true for a Roman top down block.
Can you tell the difference between this and this? Yeah? Then so can everyone else. Like I said, you have to be willfully ignorant in order to confuse the two just because "hurr durr same gods."
I edited my post several times, and at varying points started it with "Many..." and "Too many...". But hey, read into it whatever you want. Just remember that there's a huge difference between "I don't like this art" and "this art is straight garbage."
Again, respect is paramount. <Snip>
Respect IS paramount. With that in mind, a personal attack has been removed from this message -Wildfire393
So are islands.
Posters on this forum can seldom judge the playability of a card, I certainly wouldn't lend them any more credit when it comes to judging art.
As far as all the negative opinions are concerned - when you guys can do better, please link us your art. Until then, try to show a little respect.
Yeah, not a fan of the mono-color P3K legends that seem to have taken their place. To be fair, though, we would have been a bit spoiled after all the two-color legends from the previous two blocks. The decks are great regardless, so I'm not inclined to complain.
Bottom-up is where they focus on the mechanics of a block first, and then install flavor to match. Top down is where they start with a particular flavor (e.g. Theros), and then mechanics tie it together. The latter style is going to be much closer thematically to the source material.
I guess you didn't notice that this is in the Oloro deck...
Still one of the best sweepers in EDH, by far. Maybe you'll change your mind the first several times someone wipes your board.
I'm sorry, a splashable 3 CMC sweeper isn't strong enough for you?
Boiling down the Roman Empire to "slightly different costumes and architecture" is a vast oversimplification, especially considering the gap in time between the Greek Heroic Age and the founding of the principate (or the division between east and west). I really don't like beating a dead horse, but that kind of ignorant statement puts you in a poor position here.
All of that having been said, I don't see why there's a presumption that a Roman themed block would mandatorily encompass fantasy or mythological tropes of any kind. Is war and conquest, combined with the distinctive cultural elements of Roman society, really not enough flavor for a block?
There's a world of difference between saying something is "good" and saying something is "playable." The naysayers have been shown to be wrong, and that's all there is to it.
What makes Theros 'Greek-y' but not 'rest-of-Magic-y'? Ninety percent of the creature types in Theros exist in every other block. Again, look at Ravnica for a point of reference for what Rome could look like if adapted to Magic.
Look at what I said about Ravnica and then ask me that question again.
If you think that the non-fantasy elements of the Roman Empire could only make up a "small part" of a new setting, then there's little else to discuss with you.
Can you tell the difference between this and this? Yeah? Then so can everyone else. Like I said, you have to be willfully ignorant in order to confuse the two just because "hurr durr same gods."