I understand trying to save space on the card, but Magic is rapidly losing one of its best features for the past 20 years: card texts that were (mostly) clear, specific, and unambiguous.
Ignoring the fact that it misrepresents what the ability actually does by leaving out the Commander functionality, I loathe the first time I have a Partner/Aven Mindcensor interaction come up - the reminder text implies by omission that you aren't searching your library (just putting something into your hand from it), and I know I'm going to see someone try to lawyer it that way.
Or even worse, that could possibly be the official ruling depending on what the specific text is in the comprehensive rules.
Right. I was saying that a opponent with a Pestihemia in play could still use it to kill Kazarov if they so choose. He's obviously crazy strong if you're the one with the Pyrolence.
He would indeed survive if I am not mistaken. He does get 4 damage, but at resolve he would have gained a +1/+1 counter for each other creature that gets damaged.. Doing a 4+ damage sweep with all that is in play is himself would be silly to do anyways...
Incorrect. The +1/+1 Counter ability still uses the stack, so he's a 4/4 with lethal damage assigned and goes to the graveyard as a State-Based Effect before the first +1/+1 Counter ability resolves.
This is different from things like Pestilence activated 4 times, as Pestilence will have Kazarov's ability trigger (and resolve) between each damage event (unless the Pestilence activations are specifically timed to go on top of Kazarov's triggers, so an opponent can still kill him with this sort of effect).
It's one of the broadest panic buttons you can hit in a Sunforger toolbox, which has to count for something. Sure it's often just a bad Holy Day, but it can also let you survive a lethal burn spell or a 1-shot combo. And you don't even need to worry about it being countered.
Nice connection to the two Windgraces, being presumably Crovax's descendant and riding a giant panther to remind us of Lord Windgrace.
Wasn't the entire Windgrace family (besides Crovax) being wiped out kind of Crovax's shtick? Unless she's somehow an implant from the Planar Chaos-verse.
The card itself is kinda meh. I always appreciate a good vigilance + tap ability combo and a good token producer, but this one isn't inspiring me personally. I do like that she's riding a panther, though (excellent throwback), and that's a nice armor design that should look good in foil.
I think that the flavor text being a passage from Sarpadian Empires, Vol. III is probably making me more happy than the fact that we're getting a cheap Saproling lord.
Top, like Sylvan Library, played correctly, is awesome. Usually you're using shuffle effects and scry to get rid of bad cards. (Library has synergies with Thought Reflection and Alhammarret's Archive as well to basically go bonkers with "draw 5 or 6, put two back". But on the flip side, it's totally hosed by Chairman Meow.)
But I've never heard anyone complain about Library as much as they do about Top, for some reason.
Played poorly, it feels like a waste of time because the same two cards you rejected are still there. But like I said, you can also use scry or (for even more synergy) clash.
Sylvan Library is slightly less annoying since it can't be played literally everywhere like Top can, but is pretty close as far as amount of time wasted. If you can play Top/Library without spending more than 3 seconds per turn on it, feel free to play it, but I've personally never seen a game that had Top in it that didn't involve the rest of the table doing nothing for 5 minutes total while the guy with the Top looked at cards he'd mostly seen already.
Cards that involve one person looking at hidden information aren't fun for the rest of the table, so I try to limit playing them to cases where there's a strong synergy and the occasional tutor (where I'll try to have a general idea of what I'd tutor for before hand).
Still seems weird as Warrior instead of a Wizard or Shaman or Cleric. Glad for the confirmation of Uncommon, since I'm probably going to try out a Garna deck and it's nice to know I'll probably get one from the box I preordered.
Jhoira's Familiar is adorable. The flavor text is groan-worthy, but the art and effect are nice. All artifacts and legends costing 1 less is pretty powerful, though it does look a bit overcosted compared to Cloud Key, Etherium Sculptor, and Foundry Inspector if you are mostly just wanting cheaper artifacts.
You know, this card reminds me of male privilege in a nut shell. Dudes come in here all heated and complain about her hairstyle non-stop. I've seen it in this page, and in real life. (LGS of all places) Can you tell me with one-hundred percent confidence, that if a beautiful woman (in your eyes) came up to you with this hairstyle, and confessed her undying love for you- That you'd turn her down?! "Sorry, sweetie. I won't date girls who cut their hair like you do." That's a real fantasy right there.
I complain about that hairstyle because it's significantly asymmetrical, which inherently draws attention to itself. I don't like this hairstyle on women or on men, but it just so happens that we've seen almost no male characters with that hair (the only one I've noticed was Hallar), despite having been used at least 7 times on art we've seen so far - Tetsuko, Danitha, and a bunch of elves. I'm frankly sick of it.
And it's not just women who are having their appearance commented on - there was a fair bit of mockery in the Naban thread as well as praise for Jodah's good looks in his thread. The only reason I didn't comment in the Naban thread is that I couldn't quite decide what Disney villain he most looked like.
Furthermore, you know what? Not every single woman has to have her hair styled in a way that is attractive to you. She wasn't put on this earth, (or any other in the multiverse) to be looked at. In fact- she's not required to do anything at all in order to be attractive to you. It's not her job to be pretty. It's her job to make creatures with power, or toughness, equal to one- unblockable.
Here's the thing: every time a character is drawn, the artist's intentions can be boiled down to "this character is supposed to be attractive", "this character is supposed to be ugly", or "this character is supposed to be average". If the artist failed to actually make something attractive when it was supposed to be, it's all the more noticeable compared to, say, Dauntless Bodyguard, which is perfectly content with its mediocrity.
If an artist is clearly attempting to draw an attractive character, then yes, that character was "put on this earth" to be looked at. I'll stop objectifying fictional characters when they actually start having thoughts of their own and aren't an artistic representation of a game mechanic. So long they don't have feelings to hurt, commenting on their looks is fair game.
If you're going to complain, it makes more sense to complain about the artists that keep trying to make their female characters look like supermodels while being more than content to have mediocre male characters. We're far more likely to start commenting on male appearances if they weren't mostly bland by design.
Oh, and if a beautiful woman confessed her love for me (regardless of hair) I'd take a step back, analyze my escape options, and question who the crap she is.
I can see why Saviors gets such a bad reputation, but I think that it's ultimately a pretty fun little set. It would have been better with more Ninjas instead of the "hand size matters" theme, of course, but I remember getting a fair amount of casual use from stuff that hasn't aged well like Ghost-Lit Redeemer. For the most part, though, the set just suffers from an acute case of almost everything costing 1-2 too much.
*Throws Up*
I understand trying to save space on the card, but Magic is rapidly losing one of its best features for the past 20 years: card texts that were (mostly) clear, specific, and unambiguous.
Ignoring the fact that it misrepresents what the ability actually does by leaving out the Commander functionality, I loathe the first time I have a Partner/Aven Mindcensor interaction come up - the reminder text implies by omission that you aren't searching your library (just putting something into your hand from it), and I know I'm going to see someone try to lawyer it that way.
Or even worse, that could possibly be the official ruling depending on what the specific text is in the comprehensive rules.
This is different from things like Pestilence activated 4 times, as Pestilence will have Kazarov's ability trigger (and resolve) between each damage event (unless the Pestilence activations are specifically timed to go on top of Kazarov's triggers, so an opponent can still kill him with this sort of effect).
The card itself is kinda meh. I always appreciate a good vigilance + tap ability combo and a good token producer, but this one isn't inspiring me personally. I do like that she's riding a panther, though (excellent throwback), and that's a nice armor design that should look good in foil.
Cards that involve one person looking at hidden information aren't fun for the rest of the table, so I try to limit playing them to cases where there's a strong synergy and the occasional tutor (where I'll try to have a general idea of what I'd tutor for before hand).
And it's not just women who are having their appearance commented on - there was a fair bit of mockery in the Naban thread as well as praise for Jodah's good looks in his thread. The only reason I didn't comment in the Naban thread is that I couldn't quite decide what Disney villain he most looked like.
Here's the thing: every time a character is drawn, the artist's intentions can be boiled down to "this character is supposed to be attractive", "this character is supposed to be ugly", or "this character is supposed to be average". If the artist failed to actually make something attractive when it was supposed to be, it's all the more noticeable compared to, say, Dauntless Bodyguard, which is perfectly content with its mediocrity.
If an artist is clearly attempting to draw an attractive character, then yes, that character was "put on this earth" to be looked at. I'll stop objectifying fictional characters when they actually start having thoughts of their own and aren't an artistic representation of a game mechanic. So long they don't have feelings to hurt, commenting on their looks is fair game.
If you're going to complain, it makes more sense to complain about the artists that keep trying to make their female characters look like supermodels while being more than content to have mediocre male characters. We're far more likely to start commenting on male appearances if they weren't mostly bland by design.
Oh, and if a beautiful woman confessed her love for me (regardless of hair) I'd take a step back, analyze my escape options, and question who the crap she is.