MTG Salvation

Quote from 5colors »

5- Looks like a Zendikari vampire so Zendikar or.a Rakdos memeber or both as omenpaths are a thing

My first impression was a fae, because I thought that it has insect-like legs. Upon closer inspection, these are high heels. And there is no wings visible. So yeah, this now looks far more like a Zendikari vampire rogue.

Quote from 5colors »

6- Many pointed out the imgain is also copyright by MME and the art points to more LOTR stuff

As I said, these are Rohirrim (they have the green banner) riding down some Saruman's underlings (there is the "White Hand" flag about to be trampled in the lower right corner.

Last three.

Rohirrim riding down Saruman's goblins.

Wild West meets Old Rutstein meets Ghost Rider.

Hydra-goose!

The title says it all.

First five are:


Mouse knight vs. Big Bad Wolf (on fire)
Magic jungle explorer-paparazzo (possible Killing Joke reference)
A lady who really digs hydrae, as it seems. Vague Theros vibes.
Flaming skeleton with serpent arm and...well, if someone gets what is this reference of, tell me.
And a TRUE cloak AND dagger fae (Wilds of Eldraine, I suppose).

Quote from Simto »

Quote from Crispen_Smith »

Quote from Simto »

Stuff like this should be limited to some Secret Lair variant. Modern and scifi stuff looks so wrong on Magic cards it's crazy. Can't tell you how much I dislike Dr. Who.

This is just never a good look on anyone. It's great that you are passionate about MTG, and about your MTG experience, and saying you are not into this product is actually awesome.

But the way you say it.. it's like saying that grocery stores shouldn't be allowed to sell mangos because yellow foods are wrong.

I don't think your grocery store example makes any sense here, but if it did, it'd be more like "who put these Steven Seagal dvd's in the the middle of the fruit and vegetable section? Who even stocked these movies in the first place?? we sell food here"
And lol, "it's not a good look on anyone" to say a game that has only featured fantasy settings for 30 years puts modern and scifi stuff in? I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that. Not a good look? lol come one man.

Boy, which part of "Mirrodin (published 20 years ago, in the 11th year of Magic) was essentially 80% sci-fi" you did not understand?

Do you need it explained more slowly and more clear? Maybe ne letter on a page and brightly coloured pictures? Tell us and we will see what we can do for you.

Not to mention that the Weatherlight had ray guns (essentially mana lasers), the titan engines were essentially laser-equipped mechs, etc...

Three more Planechase cards - a phenomenon and 2 planes (Earth is now a plane ;)) and a teaser of the Paradox mechanic.

Individual cards:

Quote from Simto »

Quote from Evil Never Dies »

Quote from Simto »

Stuff like this should be limited to some Secret Lair variant. Modern and scifi stuff looks so wrong on Magic cards it's crazy. Can't tell you how much I dislike Dr. Who.

You just made cry Mirrodin/New Phyrexia
And Kaladesh
And Neo Kamigawa
And New Capenna
And old Thran Technology
And old Phyrexian Technology
And Brother's War Technology (that has same cyberpunk aesthetic of Warhammer 40k cards)
etc.

A large part of Magic is already and always been modern and scify, among traditional and fantasy stuff. Thats the whole point of having a multiverse and people exploring planes, literally everything is possibile somewhere. Seems you confused your personal preference of traditional fantasy as the only canon setting Magic could have (which, as just proved, is just doesn't hold water with facts)

We already went over this with kamigawa and the gangster plane I forget the name of. Magic is fantasy, not scifi/modern/futuristic.
The planes and tech you mention are still rooted in fantasy. The highest tech they reached before that was Kaladesh, which I thought was the limit because it was again still rooted in fantasy.
Brothers war tech does not look like 40k. I also thought it was really dumb to use 40k instead of Warhammer Fantasy or the ugly Age of Sigmar.
Magic is Fantasy.

For someone unable to remember something that was here only two years ago you surely have a strong and loud opinion, as usual...

And everything you said is entirely invalidated by something that came 20 years ago, in Mirrodin. Things like Pentavus, various myr, Grid Monitor etc. are just 100% robots.¨

So you do not like Doctor Who, we get it. But do not mix your very subjective personal tastes with unfounded axiomatic statements what Magic is and is not

Caught this on Gavin's Twitter and haven't seen reported it here. Apparently there was some kind of video yesterday...



EDIT: Apparently it was a panel on a convention and the video will be available today.

Well,

Getting Lukka's cat named is not a bad thing, I guess. Despite he never named her or really cared about her. Except for getting pissed when Kudro ordered to execute it. Whatever.

Vronos is OK, though I really hoped for Feroz.

Guff Rewrites History .... well, what the **** should tnis be? First, he in fact did not REWRITE it, he erased the already written victory of Phyrexia and give the fate chance to decide itself.

I really have no idea wha these silly doodles should be.

And mechanic-wise....meh. Again, a chaos effect could be expected, but with name such as this, I really expected something like "return the game back to its state at the beginning of this turn".

I am glad we got him (now give us the Taysir "family", Bo Levar and (not 9-titan) Leshrac!)and we are good, wizards. Kinda disappointed that we god a nineteenth Chandra instead of a new (or old) character. Teyo's spot could have been taken by Daria, but I guess it would not fit flavorfully.

Overall, I am glad for this deck, but nothing to write home about.

Quote from Flamebuster »

*** is so basic these days.

I WANT THAT ARACHNOGENESIS ARTWORKKKK!!!!1111oneoneone.

That's friggin' good. Poor Setessan girl.

Is that Narset on Fierce Guardianship?

It counts for fight as well. The ability of the bow is static, so they have deathtouch. So yes, it works with the Ragebeast - they enter the battlefield with deathtouch and kill everything you fight.

Here we go again. Okay, I just close my participation in repeating the statement that they were at least intelligent enough to not include the poem as her flavortext, because even the dumbest people would probably realize something...

Signing off.

Quote from buffntuff »

Quote from Caranthir »

There is a song, yes? A song sung by Tom Bombadil.

The song has a very clear lyrical description of her appearance, and no, the words are not "puffy as a morning cloud".

It is again incredibly clear that you did not read the books, as the passages you're quoting are not a song sung by tom bombadil but a poem written by frodo.

You yourself are "taking a dump on the source" or whatever.

I'm not gonna touch on the incorrect concept you're building off of where Songs or Poetry are literal physical descriptions of things.

Wow, brave hero, you got me on a technical detail. Wanna get a medal?

I read the books several times in the thirty years since first time, so be a good boy and stick your "incredibly clear" statements where the sun does not shine.

I am fed up with this bad parody of intelligent discussion. Enjoy this parody of Tolkien.

Quote from TetzaHexloq »

Quote from Caranthir »

Quote from Evil Never Dies »

The song has a very clear lyrical description of her appearance

The guy you are quoting literally said above that it's just about the appaearance, not the personality, and you keep repeating the same thing ignoring the actual point he was trying to make you.

The point I was trying to make is that I do not like outright butchering and inverting the source material for no reason. Citing a very specific appearance-related phrase from a characterizing song about her is prime example of it. And a very laughable one.

I do not get the argument about "personality", because well, her personality is not sung about, hence I am ignoring it as something wholly non sequitur.

And I am simply expressing that I do not like what they done with the source, despite it being approved by MME. But I do not hate it like the travesty they did with The Watch.

She's not clear either, those bastards.

If you consider yourself being funny, you might want to reconsider

Quote from Evil Never Dies »

The song has a very clear lyrical description of her appearance

The guy you are quoting literally said above that it's just about the appaearance, not the personality, and you keep repeating the same thing ignoring the actual point he was trying to make you.

The point I was trying to make is that I do not like outright butchering and inverting the source material for no reason. Citing a very specific appearance-related phrase from a characterizing song about her is prime example of it. And a very laughable one.

I do not get the argument about "personality", because well, her personality is not sung about, hence I am ignoring it as something wholly non sequitur.

And I am simply expressing that I do not like what they done with the source, despite it being approved by MME. But I do not hate it like the travesty they did with The Watch.