Fast forward to now, and I think I would have to say currently my favorite card is Deadeye Navigator for many of the same reasons. Like I said, I love value, and Navigator is the undisputed king of pushing value to the max. Not surprisingly, Navigator is amazing with Witness among many, many, many others. It's a subtly powerful card that is open-ended and synergizes with so many different creatures it's ridiculous. From creating infinite mana with Palinchron, to drawing masses of cards with Mulldrifter, tutoring whatever you need with Rune-Scarred Demon, littering the board with greenery via Avenger of Zendikar, pumping your team to hilariously large sizes with Craterhoof Behemoth, bouncing everything with Venser, Shaper Savant, or simply acting as a bodyguard for an important creature; Navigator does it all, turning even the humblest of Coiling Oracles into incredible card-advantage machines. He enables so much fun stuff (and a lot of less-than-fun stuff, as well, depending on which side of the table you're sitting on) that he gets my vote for favorite Magic card...at least for now.
(p.s. Can you tell I play mostly Commander?
)
All those people that missed out on the promo version of him cluttering up dusty shelves in Wal-Mart for like 3 years? X)
you mean your opponent's Elvish Visionary? sounds like a pretty suboptimal play, if you ask me.
I feel like this is a bit of a flavor fail. Firstly, while the art does depict a possible result of a perilous voyage, it's not really the voyage itself being shown. But the bigger issue to me is that Vraska looks to be trying to save Jace. Yet, the card specifies "opponent's" permanent, so the whole "trying to save someone" vibe doesn't really mesh with what the card is trying to do, as you can't "save" your own permanents, and why would you typically be trying to "save" your opponent's guy?
Wizards doesn't control what cards are banned in Commander. There is an independent Rules Committee that governs the ban list and has been doing so since long before it was an official format sanctioned by WotC.
short answer: yes.
longer answer: When this has a -1/-1 counter on it, it dies to the 4/4 and no counters are removed because it is 4/4 and trample doesn't do anything because after lethal damage is assigned to the 4/4, there is no damage left to trample over (and even if there were, like if it had deathtouch or was blocked by a 4/1, it would still die as state-based effects see that is has lethal damage on it before the trigger can resolve).
It's a good thing there's not a lot of 4/4's running arou....oh, wait...
Like...Pestilence, perhaps? X)
I think that's a terrible idea for much of the same reason functional and power-level errata are bad for the game. This game is already incredibly deep and complex with an insane amount of game knowledge required. Particularly for new players; there are already so many rules, restrictions, and things to keep up with (do my cards even do exactly what they say they do?), things to know before you can even start playing the game. The massive comprehensive rule book/base game rules aside, players have to keep up with which cards are legal in a particular format, which ones are banned and restricted, do they do what they say they do in the copy owned, and now (hypothetically) certain specific combinations of cards are banned in a particular format but can be played independent of one another? That just seems a bit absurd, imo. (Even moreso with the other hypothetical examples, no offense
Add that on top of the increasing volatility of the Standard format (which is supposed to be most accessible to new players), making it a gamble to buy into whatever the flavor of the month deck is out of fear it might get banned into irrelevance, it would just seem like an incredibly rough hill to climb for someone wanting to get into the game.
Came here expecting to see an Xzibit meme, but I suppose this will do. Thanks.
My question was, they wouldn't have said that unless it was referring to a specific incident. Veracity is irrelevant, but was it this leak/fake that they were referring to or something else altogether? Not expecting an answer, just wondering. The comment came the morning after the leak, and I haven't seen or heard any other specific incident or rumor that this might have been referring to, and I was surprised at the lack of mention/speculation in regards to the statement.
on that note, I'm surprised at the lack of speculation caused by this quote from a few days ago on the mothership:
"The Daily Magic Update is a roundup of everything Magic you should know on May 25, 2017. Today's Update is brought to you by not acknowledging rumors either way. Which is our policy. You know, in case that was relevant."
Yes, very (purposefully) vague; but I wonder if it was referring to this "leak," as I haven't seen anything else around that this might be referring to.