[ALA] Alara Assorted: Recent Activity
| [ALA] Alara Assorted: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to [ALA] Alara Assorted: (Generated at 2020-10-27 19:08:58)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
Published as mtgnexus Card of the Day 2020-04-09.
See Akrasan Squire, Ranger of Eos.
nonfunctional rewording
...
Sure it's kicker.
I don't think that saying I consider vigilance less
is the right way to put it. I happily went with Dancing Deer and Shepherd of the Trees for one thing. What I was alluding to is that I feel 'vigilance' is pretty much the opposite of 'reckless' and to a certain extent I think color pairs form a identity of their own that isn't merely a sum of their colors. That's why IMO vigilance (and flying as well) aren't the first things you think of the color combination.
I guess one could argue that this falls under the hybrid design mechanically but eh. Also, this could be the reason why people are at so much odds with the idea of
Serra Angel ala Neldanc Coven. This could also come down to guild identity that is separate from the color pair identity (a subset). While flying and vigilance make sense for 
, mechanically speaking at least, they don't necessarily feel so well at home in Gruul clan specifically.
EDIT: Wait, derp, this card is set in Alara, not in Ravnica. Nevermind. This is probably an indication of a larger issue where if we think of a two-colored card, we might immediately think of the guild specifically since they have become so predominant. We'be been referring to the color pairs for years with the guild names after all. So when people think of
Serra Angel, they might say 'The Golgari don't really fly and aren't vigilant either' but not necessarily even that 
as a color pair couldn't achieve that combination - just that the guild couldn't or at least isn't known for it.
Entering combat multiple times is an interesting point, and I've seen twice or so the mono-
design being pushed that has vigilance with 'must attack and/or block each combat if able'.
Removing haste from this makes it a lot less desirable competitively speaking indeed, so perhaps you could buff its stats now to compensate.
is a match for beefy creatures after all.
removed haste
Because some designers consider vigilance more of a green thing than you do. Not saying any side is correct, just stating what lesson I learn from the card about the internal perspective of WotC.
I actually think that something that let's you enter combat twice (once as attacker, once as blocker) seems like a fit for Gruul (which is probably why it use to be red for a few cards to begin with). Even flavorwise if you consider the rule of the clans as defenders of the wild.
Interesting. The opposite was my intention. I wanted to make trample feel like less of the red half by adding haste as the more obvious red keyword.
No haste it is. Worse Medomai the Ageless though.
The official stance sure contains the word "try" (or "tend" as you phrase it).
You might not be aware, but you actually are just pointing out the cycle's theme to me. It's five commons that could be monocolored in their main color but are slanted towards the supporting colors.
This particular card makes some assumptions that are no longer reasonable from the direction the color pie has advanced though, so it requires a little refresher to make white more pronounced the same way blue and black are in Tidehollow Gargoyle.
Making player's sac stuff is fine by Tribute to the Wild, but that shouldn't be the issue here anyway, because the sacrifice angle of this card actually comes from main color red (Misguided Rage) - it's the aspect that gives up control over choosing affected permanents to the target.
I'm open to constructive suggestions for an improved text, though I'll likely pick ideas apart a little and mull them over before settling on a replacement. :)
The trample is a very green thing; and is seriously pulling its weight here.
Honestly, I'd make it feel greener by removing the haste - which is terrifying.
Vigilance is 'a thing' in
, but not so much that it would feel entirely natural to have the color grant the keyword to all of your creatures. The flavor connotations of the mechanic are also in opposition to the ideals of Gruul. Well, Ruric Thar, the Unbowed had vigilance, but I don't know why.
It seems quite unlikely that the variant without trample would be able to hit the player if they control any creatures at all since letting it go through would mean a second round of smack down. Unless they don't have any creatures able to block, which well, that could indeed be described as barbaric beating.
These creatures are hardly ever entering combat anyway so exalted fits perfectly. I think the flavor could be a bit more about (political) manipulation of people's fame or such.
WotC's stand is that they don't tend to do multicolored cards that could be mono-colored. This looks very mono-
to me. White feels somewhat wrong here personally as I dislike the concept of 
having access to artifact removal. Making target player sac stuff isn't particularly 
either so it IMO doesn't work from that angle either.
I would have liked to use vigilance as the green mechanic in this, but it seems weird with the triggered ability...
How about using that as an excuse to also make the pure damage output a little milder:
Better? The only real issue is that it's a flavor disconnect with Controlled Instincts. :/
Maybe:
Weird to not have vigilance themself.
Yeah, basically any of them. It's like a wild card in this cycle.
Interestingly, this could also cost
... or 
... or even 
?
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Made a mistake transporting this from the source. I'm reinstating the original wording.
(was incorrectly changed to: "At the beginning of your upkeep, exile a creature card from each graveyard. If you do, create a 1/1 green Saproling creature token.")
misread my own card: "If you do" is "for each" again.
What does the ability do if only a single graveyard has a creature card in it? Ie. will it exile that creature card? If so, will you get the token?
It sounds like a forced payment so it probably won't do anything if even a single graveyard in a multiplayer match doesn't have a creature card in it. Weird.
I mean, it isn't like there's anything wrong with Fyndhorn Elder, far as I'm concerned. I'd just increase the cost by
.
Untapping lands is more powerful than adding mana, but sometimes the difference is meaningless. Giving your opponents two bonus mana on their turns is a drawback, but sometimes it's meaningless. Seems like those two abilities cancel each other out.
This is one of those annoying cards that in a sane deck is perfectly reasonable - but with just a tiny bit of thought is broken into a million tiny pieces. Meaning that the appropriate cost is high enough that the normal deck just won't play it.
Which is a shame. Flavour is nice.
The 'fix' for most such things is to just grant extra mana directly. (e.g. "Add two mana that your lands could produce to each player's mana pool") It's still better for you than your opponents; since you can do it when they don't have a useful thing to use the mana on.