I don't believe any actual Sphinxes are part of Egyptian mythology. The Sphinx comes from Greek mythology, it's only connected to Egypt in that the famous monument was named after the Greek creature, as it looks somewhat similar.
Right, they're Greek in name. But there were sphinx-like creatures in Egyptian and Sumerian mythology (or at least Egyptian and Sumerian culture; I don't remember). "Lammasu" would maybe be more appropriate for these creatures, but I just said sphinx because they're more common in Magic, and more recognizable/marketable.
I dunno, I just don't see Wizards ever making two keyword abilities that mean exactly the same thing, and differ only in how other cards interact with them.
That's a fair point. The way I was looking at it, two functionally different abilities with the same reminder text would be an elegant thing. Or at least a "neat" thing. But, stepping back, I may have to agree with you. It would certainly be bizarre for new players to wrap their minds around, and that's the opposite of what an evergreen mechanic should be.
However, I still think that this is a design space worth plunging into. How about just keywording the old psuedo-flying ability -- "this creature can only be blocked by creatures with flying" -- to make the reminder text different than flying? Well, to play devil's advocate against myself, that would be just as inelegant, because it would no longer be a mirror image of reach.
So I don't know. I want to make it work, but I suppose in the end there's nothing wrong with just writing two lines of text for a handful of cards. It would certainly be cleaner.
Flying and reach have a special relationship, and pseudo-flying is the mirror image of reach. If reach can have a keyword, there's no reason pseudo-flying can't. And anyway, it would bring more variety to the game: instead of having 10 creatures with flying, for example, you could have 8 with flying and 2 with pseudo-flying. Or 3-4 with pseudo-flying, if you wanted to push "aerial" combat. It adds rules complexity, but a very simple sort of complexity.
Why did hexproof need a keyword, by that same reasoning? It's only three words different than shroud, and only a fourth as common.
Edit: Sorry, not trying to sound defensive. Let me focus on the variety part of that post for my reason why Magic "needs" or wants this keyworded.
Staying off-topic, you could handle Sphinxes in a very different way; they were more guardians than riddle-mongers in Egyptian mythology. Maybe a shift to white?
Anyway, how broadly do you have to define "high fantasy" to include other mythologies like Egyptian? Obviously, Arabian Nights is about as classic (or old, I should say) as you can get and isn't Tolkienian. Could an Egyptian (or Greek, or Norse) block serve as a fantasy block?
I think there's definitely a chance psuedo-flying will become evergreen in, say, M14 or M15, but right now I'm considering it for a custom set and can't think of an obvious name for it. The one thing that strikes me about all of the pseudo-flying art is height -- Signal Pest, Orchard Spirit, and the Canopy Cover cat have all climbed as high as they physically can without the gift of flight, and the same can be said for the three Treetops and Ledgewalker. But,
Height [I](This creature can't be blocked except by creatures with flying or reach.)[/I]
doesn't sound right. How about a synonym of height like "pinnacle"? That wouldn't look terrible in a line of French vanilla text:
Pinnacle, first strike, vigilance, trample, haste, protection from black and from red
So "pinnacle" is my submission, but I know there's a better word out there. Any ideas?
I agree with everything posted so far (especially that Wizards pushes high fantasy in its core sets) but would like to entertain the thought that Magic doesn't necessarily have to be high fantasy to be "classic Magic" anymore. And this is a bit of a tangent
I think "classic Magic" is redefined with each block that rotates out of standard (or extended, if you want). "Classic" is not synonymous with "pre-Eighth Edition" anymore, especially as we near the point at which the new design will have been printed longer than the old design.
So even though Innistrad has zero elves and zero goblins, and isn't "high fantasy" at all (well except in its presentation of light vs. dark), a lot of what it's doing has been done before. Magic has played with horror tropes before (in Shadowmoor, of course), and Magic has featured Gothic artwork before (the stained glass of Admonition Angel and Glaze Fiend comes to mind). That's a narrow example, but it stands to reason that Wizards is respectful of where Magic has been, even when that's not high fantasy.
But, at the same time, I think that with each new block Wizards still starts with fantasy as a base, and then sees how far it can push the envelope without betraying itself. When, in an article on Esper three years ago, Doug Beyer asked himself whether he was worried that players would like its aesthetic, he answered, "Well, yeah, I guess I am. Plus we had the task of keeping the world from looking too sci-fi and from looking too much like other artifice-heavy settings, such as Mirrodin. And it had to look—you know, interesting. And cool. Did we actually pull it all off? Were the artists able to nail the look we were going for? For that matter, is the shard even still called 'Esper'?" (emphasis mine)
Esper is probably the extreme example because it's even more futuristic-appearing than Mirrodin, but it's seems to me that Creative is torn between fantasy and "something else" with each new block.
does a plane set in more traditional high fantasy worlds tantalize you at all? Or does the thought merely invoke gagging.
Well, I should answer this anyway. I thought Elves vs. Goblins and Knights vs. Dragons were great—the perfect outlet for fantasy in Magic. But would it work in a block? I guess there's nothing wrong with a return to Dominaria.
If they were to make a return to more traditional fantasy, at least I hope they'd so so in a more original scenario, like a plane based on Classical Greece/Rome.
Now there's an idea...would you feature actual gods or do a psuedo-mythology thing like Kamigawa? I guess you could do something similar with Norse mythology.
So yeah, Terminate is definitely better here. Urge to Feed is just SB material. I'm experimenting with Curse of Stalked Prey, which has been a kinda fun card.
@NOISIΛ
I have mixed feelings about Blade of the Bloodchief, too. I just can't find something to replace it. I guess if I really want to keep it, I should include something like Bloodthrone Vampire? I don't feel like paying 1B for a 1/1.
As for Tezzeret's Gambit, I like it as a SB card. It's funny; I'm already using it in a BG infect deck. It's such a great off-color card.
@Ace
I like the Marauders, I just don't know how I can fit them onto the curve. I guess maybe take out Rakish Heir and stretch the curve out? Well it's sideboard for now (a casual sideboard, not a "good" one).
I don't know how much this really matters anyway. Dark Ascension is going to be great for vampires, and I'm guessing there's a 50% chance Sorin will have the word "vampire" somewhere in his rules text. But then again, he won't exactly be "budget," will he?
Hello all. This started as an Olivia EDH deck, but when I realized that a lot of people are running her in EDH now, I figured it'd be more fun to try an Olivia-centric casual deck. Which ended up turning into a vampire counter-fest with Olivia as a finisher. So,
I'm on a budget (i.e. no cards more expensive than Olivia). Otherwise I'd be running four Stromkirk Nobles at 1CMC and a better, black vampire at 2CMC over Bloodcrazed Neonate.
Other cards I'm considering:
- Blightning. I like Volt Charge more, but card advantage could be nice.
- Terminate. Direct removal is kind of anti-synergy with Olivia, but this card is just so clean.
- Feast of Blood. I don't even know if this is better than Terminate.
- Curse of Stalked Prey. Can I have too many counters? It would replace Vampiric Fury, and I love Vampiric Fury (and its synergy with Nighthawk).
- Rakdos Carnarium. I have a smooth curve, so I can't imagine finding a good turn to play it, but it's a cheap nonbasic, so there you go.
I made this deck quickly, so I know there are dozens of cards I missed. But more generally...should I just turn this into a standard deck? I like the Zendikar cards in here, and I'd rather keep it casual, but I'm all for taking it standard if it's at least reasonably competitive (with my budget in mind).
Kind of similar to Johnny, Combo Player's deck, so I'll say right off the bat that this is a very Johnnyish deck. But it's casual for a reason
The infinite engine is a four-card combo, but each slot has multiple options. Here's how it works:
Artifact creatures can be sacrificed to either Ashnod's Altar or Krark-Clan Ironworks to add 2 to your pool.
Whenever this happens, it activates Disciple of the Vault (target player loses 1 life) and Scrapheap (you gain 1 life).
This deck features two ways to loop the process using that floating 2:
1. Sacrificing Myr Retriever to the Altar or Ironworks sends an artifact back to your hand, so two Myr Retrievers (2 apiece) can bounce each other between your hand, the board, and your graveyard. Junk Diver does the same thing, but costs 3, so it needs an Etherium Sculptor in play.
2. Nuisance Engine produces an artifact creature token for 2,:symtap:. Sacrificing that token triggers Dross Scorpion's ability to untap Nuisance Engine and start the process over again (this way requires 2 or an artifact sacrifice to get started).
Fabricate, Sphinx Summoner and Tezzeret are for fetches. But in this deck Tezzeret's ultimate is a game-winner, even without infinite life, and it only takes a turn to get to.
Arcbound Crusher gets infinite P/T through the engine, gets trample for a single-swing win, and, most importantly, has modular to guard against removal. With 44 artifacts in the deck, he gets bulky even without the engine.
I know there are plentyofcards that ruin this deck, but this is entirely for the fun of it.
I'd love to hear of any combos I missed or any tweaks I could make to skew the percentages in my favor. Or do I need to be more worried about surviving that long? (I'm working with a small-to-moderate budget, but I don't know how many pricey cards could actually make this better, apart from swapping the Fabricates for Tinkers.)
Right, they're Greek in name. But there were sphinx-like creatures in Egyptian and Sumerian mythology (or at least Egyptian and Sumerian culture; I don't remember). "Lammasu" would maybe be more appropriate for these creatures, but I just said sphinx because they're more common in Magic, and more recognizable/marketable.
That's a fair point. The way I was looking at it, two functionally different abilities with the same reminder text would be an elegant thing. Or at least a "neat" thing. But, stepping back, I may have to agree with you. It would certainly be bizarre for new players to wrap their minds around, and that's the opposite of what an evergreen mechanic should be.
However, I still think that this is a design space worth plunging into. How about just keywording the old psuedo-flying ability -- "this creature can only be blocked by creatures with flying" -- to make the reminder text different than flying? Well, to play devil's advocate against myself, that would be just as inelegant, because it would no longer be a mirror image of reach.
So I don't know. I want to make it work, but I suppose in the end there's nothing wrong with just writing two lines of text for a handful of cards. It would certainly be cleaner.
Why did hexproof need a keyword, by that same reasoning? It's only three words different than shroud, and only a fourth as common.
Edit: Sorry, not trying to sound defensive. Let me focus on the variety part of that post for my reason why Magic "needs" or wants this keyworded.
Anyway, how broadly do you have to define "high fantasy" to include other mythologies like Egyptian? Obviously, Arabian Nights is about as classic (or old, I should say) as you can get and isn't Tolkienian. Could an Egyptian (or Greek, or Norse) block serve as a fantasy block?
I think there's definitely a chance psuedo-flying will become evergreen in, say, M14 or M15, but right now I'm considering it for a custom set and can't think of an obvious name for it. The one thing that strikes me about all of the pseudo-flying art is height -- Signal Pest, Orchard Spirit, and the Canopy Cover cat have all climbed as high as they physically can without the gift of flight, and the same can be said for the three Treetops and Ledgewalker. But,
doesn't sound right. How about a synonym of height like "pinnacle"? That wouldn't look terrible in a line of French vanilla text:
So "pinnacle" is my submission, but I know there's a better word out there. Any ideas?
I think "classic Magic" is redefined with each block that rotates out of standard (or extended, if you want). "Classic" is not synonymous with "pre-Eighth Edition" anymore, especially as we near the point at which the new design will have been printed longer than the old design.
So even though Innistrad has zero elves and zero goblins, and isn't "high fantasy" at all (well except in its presentation of light vs. dark), a lot of what it's doing has been done before. Magic has played with horror tropes before (in Shadowmoor, of course), and Magic has featured Gothic artwork before (the stained glass of Admonition Angel and Glaze Fiend comes to mind). That's a narrow example, but it stands to reason that Wizards is respectful of where Magic has been, even when that's not high fantasy.
But, at the same time, I think that with each new block Wizards still starts with fantasy as a base, and then sees how far it can push the envelope without betraying itself. When, in an article on Esper three years ago, Doug Beyer asked himself whether he was worried that players would like its aesthetic, he answered, "Well, yeah, I guess I am. Plus we had the task of keeping the world from looking too sci-fi and from looking too much like other artifice-heavy settings, such as Mirrodin. And it had to look—you know, interesting. And cool. Did we actually pull it all off? Were the artists able to nail the look we were going for? For that matter, is the shard even still called 'Esper'?" (emphasis mine)
Esper is probably the extreme example because it's even more futuristic-appearing than Mirrodin, but it's seems to me that Creative is torn between fantasy and "something else" with each new block.
Well, I should answer this anyway. I thought Elves vs. Goblins and Knights vs. Dragons were great—the perfect outlet for fantasy in Magic. But would it work in a block? I guess there's nothing wrong with a return to Dominaria.
Now there's an idea...would you feature actual gods or do a psuedo-mythology thing like Kamigawa? I guess you could do something similar with Norse mythology.
4x Vampire Lacerator
4x Bloodcrazed Neonate
3x Rakish Heir
4x Vampire Nighthawk
4x Olivia Voldaren
3x Bloodline Keeper
Spells
3x Blade of the Bloodchief
3x Vampiric Fury
2x Curse of Stalked Prey
4x Terminate
4x Volt Charge
4x Sulfurous Springs
4x Dragonskull Summit
4x Terramorphic Expanse
5x Swamp
5x Mountain
3x Malakir Bloodwitch
3x Falkenrath Marauders
3x Urge to Feed
3x Tezzeret's Gambit
Changes:
-3 Malakir Bloodwitch, +3 Bloodline Keeper
-1 Blade of the Bloodchief, -1 Vampiric Fury, +2 Curse of Stalked Prey
-4 Urge to Feed, +4 Terminate
-2 Swamp, +1 Terramorphic Expanse, +1 Bloodcrazed Neonate
So yeah, Terminate is definitely better here. Urge to Feed is just SB material. I'm experimenting with Curse of Stalked Prey, which has been a kinda fun card.
@NOISIΛ
I have mixed feelings about Blade of the Bloodchief, too. I just can't find something to replace it. I guess if I really want to keep it, I should include something like Bloodthrone Vampire? I don't feel like paying 1B for a 1/1.
As for Tezzeret's Gambit, I like it as a SB card. It's funny; I'm already using it in a BG infect deck. It's such a great off-color card.
@Ace
I like the Marauders, I just don't know how I can fit them onto the curve. I guess maybe take out Rakish Heir and stretch the curve out? Well it's sideboard for now (a casual sideboard, not a "good" one).
I don't know how much this really matters anyway. Dark Ascension is going to be great for vampires, and I'm guessing there's a 50% chance Sorin will have the word "vampire" somewhere in his rules text. But then again, he won't exactly be "budget," will he?
Hello all. This started as an Olivia EDH deck, but when I realized that a lot of people are running her in EDH now, I figured it'd be more fun to try an Olivia-centric casual deck. Which ended up turning into a vampire counter-fest with Olivia as a finisher. So,
4x Vampire Lacerator
3x Bloodcrazed Neonate
3x Rakish Heir
4x Vampire Nighthawk
4x Olivia Voldaren
3x Malakir Bloodwitch
4x Blade of the Bloodchief
4x Vampiric Fury
4x Urge to Feed
4x Volt Charge
Lands
4x Sulfurous Springs
4x Dragonskull Summit
3x Terramorphic Expanse
7x Swamp
5x Mountain
I'm on a budget (i.e. no cards more expensive than Olivia). Otherwise I'd be running four Stromkirk Nobles at 1CMC and a better, black vampire at 2CMC over Bloodcrazed Neonate.
Other cards I'm considering:
- Blightning. I like Volt Charge more, but card advantage could be nice.
- Terminate. Direct removal is kind of anti-synergy with Olivia, but this card is just so clean.
- Feast of Blood. I don't even know if this is better than Terminate.
- Curse of Stalked Prey. Can I have too many counters? It would replace Vampiric Fury, and I love Vampiric Fury (and its synergy with Nighthawk).
- Rakdos Carnarium. I have a smooth curve, so I can't imagine finding a good turn to play it, but it's a cheap nonbasic, so there you go.
I made this deck quickly, so I know there are dozens of cards I missed. But more generally...should I just turn this into a standard deck? I like the Zendikar cards in here, and I'd rather keep it casual, but I'm all for taking it standard if it's at least reasonably competitive (with my budget in mind).
4x Disciple of the Vault
4x Myr Retriever
2x Junk Diver
4x Etherium Sculptor
4x Dross Scorpion
2x Sphinx Summoner
4x Arcbound Crusher
4x Ashnod's Altar
2x Krark-Clan Ironworks
4x Nuisance Engine
2x Scrapheap
4x Fabricate
2x Tezzeret the Seeker
4x Seat of the Synod
3x Island
4x Vault of Whispers
3x Swamp
4x Darksteel Citadel
(Average casting cost is a hair over 3.)
Kind of similar to Johnny, Combo Player's deck, so I'll say right off the bat that this is a very Johnnyish deck. But it's casual for a reason
The infinite engine is a four-card combo, but each slot has multiple options. Here's how it works:
Whenever this happens, it activates Disciple of the Vault (target player loses 1 life) and Scrapheap (you gain 1 life).
This deck features two ways to loop the process using that floating 2:
1. Sacrificing Myr Retriever to the Altar or Ironworks sends an artifact back to your hand, so two Myr Retrievers (2 apiece) can bounce each other between your hand, the board, and your graveyard. Junk Diver does the same thing, but costs 3, so it needs an Etherium Sculptor in play.
2. Nuisance Engine produces an artifact creature token for 2,:symtap:. Sacrificing that token triggers Dross Scorpion's ability to untap Nuisance Engine and start the process over again (this way requires 2 or an artifact sacrifice to get started).
Arcbound Crusher gets infinite P/T through the engine, gets trample for a single-swing win, and, most importantly, has modular to guard against removal. With 44 artifacts in the deck, he gets bulky even without the engine.
I know there are plenty of cards that ruin this deck, but this is entirely for the fun of it.
I'd love to hear of any combos I missed or any tweaks I could make to skew the percentages in my favor. Or do I need to be more worried about surviving that long? (I'm working with a small-to-moderate budget, but I don't know how many pricey cards could actually make this better, apart from swapping the Fabricates for Tinkers.)