To do exactly Ricochet effects you must pay all the modes so it's not cheaper, but sure it's a good card
Better than ricochet because it can hit abilities.
True, but Ricochet can change any number of targets of an opponent spell while Return the Favor only stuff with one target. Of course this new spell is a greatly improvement overall but not absolutely "strictly better" than Ricochet.
I guess make sense. If Felidar and Leonids are "cats" and Loxodon are "Elephants", that makes it the same taxonomic logic.
Also Viashino is a made-up thing made from WotC and not from any mythology in particular.
If three creatures crew the Luxurious Locomotive, giving you three treasure tokens in return, then you somehow manage to get another combat phase, shouldn't you get another three treasure tokens in the second combat? You wouldn't have to crew it again because it remains a creature until end of turn and "for each creature that crewed it this turn" would still return a value of 3.
That's correct. I think it's more to avoid not only extra combat steps, but extra combat and making untapped tokens after combat. But yes, doesn't seems a very meaningful drawback
seems like one of those cards that will go in pretty much every black commander deck.
seems like a super weird kicker templating.
Is Cruel Tutor a card you put in every commander deck?
Sure, flexibility is nice, but there are already so many better tutors (Imperial Seal, Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, Grim Tutor, etc.) and this is clearly inferior to those, that is a bold claim to say that will go in "every black commander deck" (also to use the second effect you pretty much want a monoblack deck, not any black deck).
cruel tutor? no... but this is leagues above cruel tutor....
for 5 mana, you tutor up one card, draw it alongside 2 other cards.....
only blue gets to draw 3 cards for 5 mana usually.
and commander is a singleton format with a dominant strategy in comboing.... so tutoring is naturally just better than usual in comander and this card does tutor something WHILE GAINING CARD ADVANTAGE....
the 3 life is completely irrelevant in a format you have 40 life and where someone will just combo kill the entire table anyway.
so... no, I won't run a tutor that leaves me a card down and takes a turn of to give me the card I'm looking for in the next turn...
but I'll happily play a tutor that leaves me 2 cards up while fetching my missing combo piece any day of the week.
while this is mostly inferior to Vampiric Tutor and Demonic Tutor you cannot play multiples of anything.... and this is fighting for the 3rd place in best tutors ever printed on black for commander....
so, yes, I'll play this in pretty much every black commander deck that's trying to win (i.e. combo)
Problem is, that if you are willing to spend 4+ mana, there are WAY more tutors....Beseech the Mirror, Coveted Prize, Dark Petition, Demonic Collusion, Diabolic Tutor, Final Parting, Increasgin Ambition, Insidious Dreams, Mastermind Acquisition, Sidisi, Undead Vizier, The Cruelty of Gix, etc...most of them with additional upside that are way more relevant than simply adding 2 more random cards in hand. So yeah, even in a 100 card singleton format, there are simply TOO MANY TUTORS available to say that this one in particular will be "in every black deck.". It's just a slightly more than average Diabolic Tutor, thats' it.
seems like one of those cards that will go in pretty much every black commander deck.
seems like a super weird kicker templating.
Is Cruel Tutor a card you put in every commander deck?
Sure, flexibility is nice, but there are already so many better tutors (Imperial Seal, Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, Grim Tutor, etc.) and this is clearly inferior to those, that is a bold claim to say that will go in "every black commander deck" (also to use the second effect you pretty much want a monoblack deck, not any black deck).
I agree that it probably has to do with the offspring mechanic making token copies (maybe even the 1/1 part) but not necessarily on death. The mana cost is in reminder text so I doubt it's being done in the Garth way.
They are already appealing to furries hard with this set, so I unfortunately wouldn't be surprised if they made offspring have to do with "breeding" creatures
Why unfortunately? What do you have against furries? Also, anything that just have antropomorphic animals must have to do with the furries community? So also Disney, Warner Bros, Don Bluth and any animator, fairy tale or whatever must be furry propaganda in your head?
It might just be a byproduct of the design of the token that it has the mana cost line at the bottom. It could just be something as simple as "Offspring: When this creature dies, create a copy of it, except that creature has base power and toughness 1/1." Not necessarily something you cast.
I'm not convinced because WotC in these cases specifically avoid to put a mana cost on those tokens exactly because they could be easily mistaken for actual cards (see Embalm that makes copies of tokens but without mana cost).
It's true that any token that is a copy of a permanent copy also the mana cost but is also true that WotC never made tokens that shows this mana costs before. That's why I'm so suspicious of the fact that these tokens are actually castable in the Garth way.
For those who might have trouble reading the text on the one "card" in this (or who need alt text for the image):
The Warren Warleader is interesting. I thought it was just a fancy aluminum version of the card at first, but with it being explicitly a "Token Creature," it must be from something more like Llanowar Mentor. By itself it would be a pretty low powered card, but if you're making multiples of these, that's an effect that can get out of hand quickly. I wonder if it ties into the "Family" mechanic that's mentioned in the Jeskai commander deck.
No, thats something very different. This token has a mana cost. The only reason you could want a token to have a mana cost is because there is a way to cast this token. Llanowar Mentor just create a token, doesn't cast it. This is something only Garth One-Eye was able to do in non-alchemy, non-acorn games. This is probably a whole new mechanic around Garth ability.
hoping they unban golgari grave troll i mean is dredge 6 really that scary these days?
Yeah because some time ago they unbanned the Troll and then banned him again exactly because four new cards with Dredge six made dredge decks too efficient. I wouldnt hold my breath on that one.
well, if that is true that is extremely counter-intuitive because with the wording "this turn" WotC always meant for stuff relevant only in the turn you cast the spell, this wording has literally no precedent in no card in Magic (unless you can prove me otherwise, clearly). To me, the Emrakul ability sounded just a fancy Drownyard Behemoth variant protection and I would had worded what you are saying to me as "whenever a player cast a spell and/or that spell resolve as a permanent, Emrakul got protection from that spell or permament." or something like that, would been much less ambigous.
EDIT: or even better: In each turn/in each player turn, Emmy got protection from spells and permanents casted this turn.
So you think that Ethersworn Canonist's ability only applies the turn that it comes into play?
"whenever a player cast a spell and/or that spell resolve as a permanent, Emrakul got protection from that spell or permament." Oh yeah because that's WAY less ambiguous lol
First of all:
1) Why are you replying on a issue already solved? They explained to me why I was in error and I admitted my error because I recognized where was the error. Period. Insisting like you do on this point after weeks that is solved, is trollish behavior.
2) What's wrong with my wording? How my wording can be interpreted in multiple ways? I even make a even more better and elegant EDIT that you obviously ignored (another trollish behavior).
3) Yes, I realize that there are cards like Canonist or Vampire Sengir, but Emrakul got an extremely unique and weird protection and, as I said, I'm not native speaker and in the syntax of my native language sounds something completely different from what you understand. And once again, you ignoring my arguments and picking only what is convenient to you is trollish behavior.
True, but Ricochet can change any number of targets of an opponent spell while Return the Favor only stuff with one target. Of course this new spell is a greatly improvement overall but not absolutely "strictly better" than Ricochet.
Also Viashino is a made-up thing made from WotC and not from any mythology in particular.
That's correct. I think it's more to avoid not only extra combat steps, but extra combat and making untapped tokens after combat. But yes, doesn't seems a very meaningful drawback
Problem is, that if you are willing to spend 4+ mana, there are WAY more tutors....Beseech the Mirror, Coveted Prize, Dark Petition, Demonic Collusion, Diabolic Tutor, Final Parting, Increasgin Ambition, Insidious Dreams, Mastermind Acquisition, Sidisi, Undead Vizier, The Cruelty of Gix, etc...most of them with additional upside that are way more relevant than simply adding 2 more random cards in hand. So yeah, even in a 100 card singleton format, there are simply TOO MANY TUTORS available to say that this one in particular will be "in every black deck.". It's just a slightly more than average Diabolic Tutor, thats' it.
Is Cruel Tutor a card you put in every commander deck?
Sure, flexibility is nice, but there are already so many better tutors (Imperial Seal, Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, Grim Tutor, etc.) and this is clearly inferior to those, that is a bold claim to say that will go in "every black commander deck" (also to use the second effect you pretty much want a monoblack deck, not any black deck).
Why unfortunately? What do you have against furries? Also, anything that just have antropomorphic animals must have to do with the furries community? So also Disney, Warner Bros, Don Bluth and any animator, fairy tale or whatever must be furry propaganda in your head?
Oh yeah, offspring as a reskin of squad seems just perfect, I hope is this one.
I'm not convinced because WotC in these cases specifically avoid to put a mana cost on those tokens exactly because they could be easily mistaken for actual cards (see Embalm that makes copies of tokens but without mana cost).
It's true that any token that is a copy of a permanent copy also the mana cost but is also true that WotC never made tokens that shows this mana costs before. That's why I'm so suspicious of the fact that these tokens are actually castable in the Garth way.
No, thats something very different. This token has a mana cost. The only reason you could want a token to have a mana cost is because there is a way to cast this token. Llanowar Mentor just create a token, doesn't cast it. This is something only Garth One-Eye was able to do in non-alchemy, non-acorn games. This is probably a whole new mechanic around Garth ability.
Isnt the hand the only zone where you can cast the other side of a modal DFC?
Yeah because some time ago they unbanned the Troll and then banned him again exactly because four new cards with Dredge six made dredge decks too efficient. I wouldnt hold my breath on that one.
First of all:
1) Why are you replying on a issue already solved? They explained to me why I was in error and I admitted my error because I recognized where was the error. Period. Insisting like you do on this point after weeks that is solved, is trollish behavior.
2) What's wrong with my wording? How my wording can be interpreted in multiple ways? I even make a even more better and elegant EDIT that you obviously ignored (another trollish behavior).
3) Yes, I realize that there are cards like Canonist or Vampire Sengir, but Emrakul got an extremely unique and weird protection and, as I said, I'm not native speaker and in the syntax of my native language sounds something completely different from what you understand. And once again, you ignoring my arguments and picking only what is convenient to you is trollish behavior.