Quote from TearingEons »Cool card design, but it's the art that does it for me. I love that it's just a house cat staring into the heavens with eight cat legends staring back at it. The art has Ajani, his brother Jazal, Kemba, Kaheera, Jareth Leonin Titan, but I can't make out the other three. Prob Balan and Mirri too. That's a pretty fun way to do cameos haha
I see this
1
NAME, Replacer Mage 2UB
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard
Whenever you cast a spell that targets a single creature, you may create a token that's a copy of that creature.
Whenever another creature dies, if you control a creature with the same name as that creature, you may draw a card.
Partner (You can have two commanders as long as both have partner.)
2/4
This Wizard serves House Dimir, specializing in cloning individuals then eliminating the original and replacing them with their doppelganger. It's a classic clone conspiracy. Mechanically this not only works well with Cipher but also with combat tricks, removal, and sacrifice effects such as Exploit.
NAME, Ordruun Warmage 3RW
Legendary Creature - Minotaur Wizard
Vigilance, haste
Instant and sorcery spells you control have lifelink.
R, T: Copy target instant or sorcery spell you control. You may choose new targets for the copy.
Partner (You can have two commanders as long as both have partner.)
3/3
This Minotaur warmage is part of the Boros Legion. She has vigilance and haste so as to be able to play well with the usual Boros aggro tactics, she turns Lightning Bolts into Lightning Helixes, and she has a tap ability that copies instants and sorceries, which works well in tandem with haste. Most likely she learned that last trick from the Izzet.
I do wonder though if red's still allowed to copy spells your opponents control? Seems like a useful answer to counterspells which is in keeping with red having anti-counter effects, but as I recall a lot of recent red spell copying effects have been restricted to spells you cast. I also wonder if this design is a little too much value for a Partner legend? I could see this lady holding her own without Partner, adding Partner just opens up the range of burn spells she can enhance and copy (Rakdos's Return, Savage Twister, Prophetic Bolt). Not to mention comboing with cards like To Arms! and Dramatic Reversal.
1
Shani, Servo Stylist WBG
Legendary Creature - Elf Artificer
As ~ enters the battlefield, you may pay X. If you do, Shani gains fabricate X.
1, Remove a +1/+1 counter from a creature you control: Create a 1/1 colorless Servo artifact creature token.
1, Sacrifice an artifact: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.
3/3
The basic idea is that you can exchange your +1/+1 counters for Servos and vice versa. As a result the design ended up quite similar to Ghave, Guru of Spores, but a Ghave-like design just happens to work so well for Fabricate and Revolt. Finding the right curve proved tricky, so I opted for an X cost that determines the value of Shani's Fabricate ability. Putting the X in the mana cost could theoretically work, but that would prevent players from being able to flicker Shani for more counters and tokens like they can for other Fabricate creatures. So, you pay X as she enters the battlefield instead.
Originally her sacrifice ability accepted creatures or artifacts, but I felt it didn't match the flavor as Shani doesn't turn people into Servos, plus she's an artificer so she can get away with just sacrificing artifacts. Part of the reason I made her an Elf is for the sake of type line space, not to mention we have yet to get an Abzan Elf so there's some novelty there.
I am interested in considering alternative design concepts, though, like maybe using +1/+1 counters as a resource to flicker, or using artifact sacrifice for removal?
1
Tameron, Marble Sphinx 3WU
Legendary Artifact Creature - Sphinx
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may search your library for an artifact card with converted mana cost 3 or less, reveal it, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.
Whenever you gain life, you may pay 2. If you do, draw a card.
4/4
Gorael, Onyx Sphinx 3UB
Legendary Artifact Creature - Sphinx
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may search your library for an artifact card with converted mana cost 3 or greater, reveal it, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.
Whenever an opponent loses life, you may pay 2. If you do, draw a card.
4/4
Obviously, these two designs want to parallel each other in a couple ways. First off, each one can tutor for an artifact card of a particular cmc range, and since their respective artifacts each have a cmc of 3, it makes sense to include 3 in those ranges. Since white favors small, cheap creatures, Tameron tutors 3 or less, while Gorael tutors for an artifact with cmc 3 or greater since most Esper Sphinxes have a cmc higher than 3. Second are their life gain/loss triggers, obviously designed to work with their respective gifts. Tameron lets you pay 2 to draw a card whenever you gain life, while Gorael rewards you in a similar way for hurting your opponents. Thus the two Sphinxes each synergize with their gifts in a couple ways while being flexible enough that you can build around them with other cards as well.
2
Between all the Bant, Boros, and Orzhov Angels, it looks like a pretty WUBRG tribe to me. There are enough Angels in every color to justify a WUBRG deck. Not to mention Angels are the second most popular iconic after Dragons. If any creature type is going to get a WUBRG deck next, it's going to be Angels. And if you want Feather and Asha in the same deck, you're already looking at RGWU. Might as well add black so we can get the Fourth Sister or a new Selenia while we're at it. And why shouldn't the Fourth Sister debut alongside her sisters in an Angel-tribal deck?
You mean like how they revealed there was a Fourth Sister when before all signs pointed to there only being three? Not every piece of a world's lore is going to be revealed in one visit. If the Mother Angel disappeared a long time ago, possibly because her essence split and formed into the Four Sisters, then it's understandable that most everyone on Innistrad has forgotten she even existed.
2
Wolf: What?
Charming: Princess...Fiona?
Wolf: NO!
Charming: Oh, thank heavens! Where is she?
Wolf: She's on her honeymoon.
Charming: Honeymoon? With whom?
---
Fiona: What kind of Knight are you?
Shrek: One of a kind.
2
1
Well, my choices are 1) just accept the trend I find troubling and not say anything, or 2) bring it up in a place where people who need to see it will actually see it. My indignation is at someone else's assertation that it's progressive to favor one sex, but not the other. I think it's oppressive either way, and I'm trying to make it clear that that mentality does not sit well with me. And yes, I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about races as opposed to sexes, because being part of one race doesn't give you a right to oppress another race either.
I brought the subject up because I want people to think rather than just nod, accept, and try to assert that oppressing this group is okay now because some people of this group oppressed people of another group in the past. It doesn't matter whether the groups are men and women, whites and blacks, cats and dogs, or apples and oranges. Oppression is wrong, no matter who it's aimed at, no matter who it's coming from, I don't care what excuse is being used to rationalize it.
I find it perplexing that when I say "I'd like men and women both to be represented as dominant some of the time", I'm met with "no, women should be dominant all of the time". We are supposed to be moving past demographic biases like racism and sexism, yet so-called "progressives" are themselves trying to establish and enforce demographic biases. Again, I point to my statement that equality needs to be allowed, not forced.
I have a right to be indignant when I'm told "you should be submissive because you're male", just as much as women have a right to be indignant when they're told they should be submissive because they're female. A "person of color" has a right to be indignant if they were told they should be submissive because of their race. Every person has a right to be indignant at being told what they should or shouldn't be, especially when that decision is based on some physical attribute that, until recent history, they had no control over. I can't change the fact I was born a straight white cis male. And why would I want to? I am what I am. I don't want to change my race, my sex, or my sexuality. But what I am does not determine who I am.
I'm gonna give you a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a black woman. I come into this topic and see a card depicting a black woman being dominated by a white man. That bothers me, because I've seen it a lot since I started playing the game, yet I never see a black woman dominating a white man. I bring this up, I receive a response that says black people being dominated by white people is "progressive" and the other way around is "regressive", I respond with indignancy. Then you come along and tell me I shouldn't interject "subversive" thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card game. I'm a black woman who feels black women are not being given fair representation in the game's art, and you're saying I'm wrong for bringing that up? You're saying I'm wrong for becoming indignant when someone says I should be submissive because I'm black? Does any of that sound at all okay to you?
By the way, I'm only using the word "subversive" because the responder used it first. Since being "subversive" is apparently okay, I'm being "subversive" towards a "subversive" mindset. You gonna use fire, I'm gonna use it too.
People want me to choose one "side" or the other, the sides in this case being the sexes, and choosing either is sexist to me, so I'm choosing a third path here, one that sits in the middle and sees a problem with both extremes. You're only seeing the part of me that opposes the female extreme, because that's the extreme at work here; if I saw a male extreme here, I'd be arguing in favor of more representation of women and female dominance in the game, because my focus is on being fair. My focus is on making it so everybody can embrace the roles they want, and right now that's not the case. I ask for more instances of male dominance in a game that predominantly leans towards female domination and has for years, and I'm told "no, men shouldn't be dominant". That is not a fair, just, or equal mentality, that is a sexist mentality, just as sexist as if it was the other way around. How about instead we say "Both men and women can be dominant or submissive"? That's fair and equal. Same goes for race, orientation, whatever.
And I find it funny that nobody addresses the complications that trans people add to the equation. In my system, trans people are simply people, and they have a right to be dominant or submissive as much as anyone else. But if the issue is one hinging on fundamental differences in gender, then what's your ruling on these people? Does a trans man lose his "right" to be dominant because he stopped being a woman? Funny how almost nobody ever thinks of how the feminist and LGBT "causes" might occasionally grind against each other.
Frankly, I don't care if I get responses that make me indignant. I care about being able to speak my mind freely, indignant or not. If you're gonna say something that makes me indignant, then go ahead and say it. Speak your mind, and I'll speak mine. That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.
1
As you said, Manticores are poisonous, thus why they'd probably be a better fit for black even than red, much like wyverns. Part of it is the fact black gets flying far more often than green. If Manticores had to have a third color, then it would probably be green, but they are nowhere near iconic status for green.
1
Crazy thought, but what if the chalice is the green artifact? Would be rather fitting for a green artifact to cleanse a green planeswalker of a black curse.
Cool to hear the curse on Garruk is truly broken, now. Hopefully he can be the iconic green nature hero he was meant to be? Maybe even join the Gatewatch? I mean, Ajani, Jace, Liliana, and Chandra are all part of Gatewatch. It would only be fitting for the remaining member of the Lorwyn 5 to join at this point. Hey, if they ever do go back to Lorwyn, what if Ajani, Jace, Liliana, Chandra, and Garruk all play a role and get new cards?
Back on topic, it's kinda surprising the Magic Mirror wasn't the black part of the cycle, what with the theme of vanity and all. Of course it's also surprising the Excalibur stand-in is red rather than white.
1
Add Manamorphose for card draw and higher storm count. Also add Street Wraith and Gitaxian Probe for free card draw.
1 Lathliss, Dragon Queen
4 Scourge of Valkas
Rituals
4 Rite of Flame
4 Manamorphose
4 Pyretic Ritual
4 Seething Song
4 Irencrag Feat
4 Dragonstorm
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Street Wraith
Land
23 Mountain