Think bigger: he changes the text of Curse of the Swine to, "UU: Turn all the opponent's creatures into pigs."
I prefer the version where you throw in Quicken and cast it after they declare attackers: "UUU: the enemy assault force becomes more interested in your turnips than your turrets. Draw a card."
Y'all are thinking small! The best spells are Curse of Swine and Dregs of Sorrow! It is time we brought back X4B from its glory days of hype to its new glory days of actually seeing play because of Commander!
Those cards aren't really "fair" (especially Armageddon) but this guy is because he provides outs other than just countering (obv does not apply to Obliterate).
So have you guys heard the rumors about a set involving Sarkhan Vol's home plane? Thoughts? I think its a set or two off but I hope they do an anti-shard set soon. (Junk, RUG, BUG, etc)
So have you guys heard the rumors about a set involving Sarkhan Vol's home plane? Thoughts? I think its a set or two off but I hope they do an anti-shard set soon. (Junk, RUG, BUG, etc)
Which one is Sarkhan Vol? The crazy one or the dead one?
well Sarkhan has a card called "Sarkhan the Mad" with no + abilities, so he's at least the crazy one.
He could just be really angry.
What's his schtick?
Looking him up I came up with the following from Mark Rosewater's blog:
kallixti asked: According to Doug Beyer, there are no Dragons on Sarkhan Vol's home plane. (This is important for Sarkhan's backstory.) Since dragons are so popular that every set is required to have one (or a Dragon token generator), does that mean that this plane cannot be the setting for a block? Or does the Mandatory Dragon Rule have an exception for where the absence of Dragons is an important plot point?
Magic is a game where we constantly break the rules. We could have a set without a dragon if the absence of dragons was important.
I'm having difficulty imagining a set without Dragons of some kind. People would boycott Wizards if they did that.
Sarkhan's not dead. He returned to Bolas after the events of Zendikar block.
Also, his backstory is pretty congruous with the trademarks that have been abuzz on Salvation (Warlords of Khanar, Khans of Tarkir, and Dragons of Tarkir).
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
People were talking about the recently registered "Khans of Tarkir" as being his home plane, but then they registered "Dragons of Tarkir" so it's kinda up in the air now. :P
well Sarkhan has a card called "Sarkhan the Mad" with no + abilities, so he's at least the crazy one.
He could just be really angry.
What's his schtick?
Looking him up I came up with the following from Mark Rosewater's blog:
kallixti asked: According to Doug Beyer, there are no Dragons on Sarkhan Vol's home plane. (This is important for Sarkhan's backstory.) Since dragons are so popular that every set is required to have one (or a Dragon token generator), does that mean that this plane cannot be the setting for a block? Or does the Mandatory Dragon Rule have an exception for where the absence of Dragons is an important plot point?
Magic is a game where we constantly break the rules. We could have a set without a dragon if the absence of dragons was important.
I'm having difficulty imagining a set without Dragons of some kind. People would boycott Wizards if they did that.
There were dragons, though, until they were hunted to extinction. And there are still dragon spirits and such.
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
UURRR
target player becomes a dragon (describe what color dragon they are and also how strong/beautiful they are)
UURRR
target player becomes a dragon (describe what color dragon they are and also how strong/beautiful they are)
?
Somepne posted this combo in the discussion on wizards site, but in my sleep-needed state I can't work out the upshot:
"Liquimetal Coating
Form of the Dragon
Ivory Mask
Bazaar Trader
Make sure there's no creatures out. Sunscour or Wrath of God
Not the easiest or cheapest combo in the world."
Edit: And my brain ticked over; they go to 5 life and you are safe from it. Seems kind of convoluted to pull it off, though. Which I guess they admit.
Xeddicus on
+1
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
well Sarkhan has a card called "Sarkhan the Mad" with no + abilities, so he's at least the crazy one.
He could just be really angry.
What's his schtick?
Looking him up I came up with the following from Mark Rosewater's blog:
kallixti asked: According to Doug Beyer, there are no Dragons on Sarkhan Vol's home plane. (This is important for Sarkhan's backstory.) Since dragons are so popular that every set is required to have one (or a Dragon token generator), does that mean that this plane cannot be the setting for a block? Or does the Mandatory Dragon Rule have an exception for where the absence of Dragons is an important plot point?
Magic is a game where we constantly break the rules. We could have a set without a dragon if the absence of dragons was important.
I'm having difficulty imagining a set without Dragons of some kind. People would boycott Wizards if they did that.
From what I recall be people had nothing but negative stuff to say about the innistrad dragon.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
"If you pull some hijinks and give this to your opponent, you must say 'loooovveee yooouuuu!' as you slide it over to their playmat. Post game, your opponent gets to give you one light punch on the arm."
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I love the GB spider, but a friend of mine made a pretty interesting point:
If that card was 1UB and had flying instead of reach, nobody would bat an eye at its power level and it would be a much better card. Why isn't GB allowed to have, say, a 3 mana 2/4 reach? Or even 3/3? Don't get me wrong, I like the card and realize it's not good because of its body, but...it could also be good because of its body! He just needs, like...breast reduction or something.
a 2/3 for 3 with reach is already good in limited. it kills wind drakes all day! what more could you want?
i think it would have to have some kind of drawback to be a 2/3 for 3 with flying, since it'd be pretty much a strictly better wind drake.
likewise, Giant Spider is the real deal. don't underestimate giant spider!
also, a 3 drop in green is different than a 3 drop not in green, since you can cast a green 3 drop on turn 2 in almost any constructed format.
...all that aside, though, the real issue you're having here is the rarity symbol. it's an uncommon!
they could totally make a 2/4 reach for 3 at mythic, since it'd basically only exist in constructed.
also there is a 3/3 with reach for 3, it was in my peasant cube. it's a spider.
2G 3/3 reach, can only block creatures with flying.
a 2/3 for 3 with reach is already good in limited. it kills wind drakes all day! what more could you want?
i think it would have to have some kind of drawback to be a 2/3 for 3 with flying, since it'd be pretty much a strictly better wind drake.
likewise, Giant Spider is the real deal. don't underestimate giant spider!
also, a 3 drop in green is different than a 3 drop not in green, since you can cast a green 3 drop on turn 2 in almost any constructed format.
...all that aside, though, the real issue you're having here is the rarity symbol. it's an uncommon!
they could totally make a 2/4 reach for 3 at mythic, since it'd basically only exist in constructed.
also there is a 3/3 with reach for 3, it was in my peasant cube. it's a spider.
2G 3/3 reach, can only block creatures with flying.
Vampire Nighthawk is a 3 mana 2/3 flying lifelink deathtouch and is one color. I think we could get a 3 mana 2/4 reach without deathtouch or lifelink with a weird activated ability and an attached downside.
Filling your GY (I called this dredge, it's not dredge) is not a downside. Also, being able to grab any card from your yard is incredibly unique and powerful in this Standard, and even in Modern.
Filling your GY is not a downside. Also, being able to grab any card from your yard is incredibly unique and powerful in this Standard, and even in Modern.
Eh, I agree that the self-mill isn't really a "downside" per se, it's a bit more nebulous than that. In limited, where a 3 mana 2/3 reach is actually playable, it is a downside more often than it's not. In constructed, the card won't see much (if any) legitimate play, because the body is too small and the ability is not only overcosted at 3, but the creature adds another 3 to that. Treasured Find hasn't seen any tournament play whatsoever and is only 2 mana. The fact that it exiles itself instead of sacrificing is probably the part keeping it from being playable in, say, a Pod list in Modern, but even then they get Eternal Witness in that slot, which is certainly just better.
Posts
I prefer the version where you throw in Quicken and cast it after they declare attackers: "UUU: the enemy assault force becomes more interested in your turnips than your turrets. Draw a card."
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
tee hee
atlas shrugs
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Suck it up, Obliterate and Armaggedon are fair.
Love,
WOTC.
Those cards aren't really "fair" (especially Armageddon) but this guy is because he provides outs other than just countering (obv does not apply to Obliterate).
I think EDH players should be more willing to use targeted and/or nonbasic land destruction (eg, Ruination)
But Armageddon and Obliterate just make long games go longer.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Which one is Sarkhan Vol? The crazy one or the dead one?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
He could just be really angry.
What's his schtick?
Looking him up I came up with the following from Mark Rosewater's blog:
I'm having difficulty imagining a set without Dragons of some kind. People would boycott Wizards if they did that.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Also, his backstory is pretty congruous with the trademarks that have been abuzz on Salvation (Warlords of Khanar, Khans of Tarkir, and Dragons of Tarkir).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There were dragons, though, until they were hunted to extinction. And there are still dragon spirits and such.
http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Sarkhan_Vol
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
target player becomes a dragon (describe what color dragon they are and also how strong/beautiful they are)
Somepne posted this combo in the discussion on wizards site, but in my sleep-needed state I can't work out the upshot:
"Liquimetal Coating
Form of the Dragon
Ivory Mask
Bazaar Trader
Make sure there's no creatures out. Sunscour or Wrath of God
Not the easiest or cheapest combo in the world."
Edit: And my brain ticked over; they go to 5 life and you are safe from it. Seems kind of convoluted to pull it off, though. Which I guess they admit.
woah this card is pretty dope
From what I recall be people had nothing but negative stuff to say about the innistrad dragon.
IMO the new art makes it even cooler
"If you pull some hijinks and give this to your opponent, you must say 'loooovveee yooouuuu!' as you slide it over to their playmat. Post game, your opponent gets to give you one light punch on the arm."
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
it's not for them
it nestled up all cozy in my Kaalia deck
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
well then
that is not at all ambiguous
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
@Vyolynce
Grave Pact it is.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
flash grave pact with looser color requirements.
i didn't think they would do that.
I am very disappointed Journey Into Nyx isn't an all-enchantment set.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
If that card was 1UB and had flying instead of reach, nobody would bat an eye at its power level and it would be a much better card. Why isn't GB allowed to have, say, a 3 mana 2/4 reach? Or even 3/3? Don't get me wrong, I like the card and realize it's not good because of its body, but...it could also be good because of its body! He just needs, like...breast reduction or something.
i think it would have to have some kind of drawback to be a 2/3 for 3 with flying, since it'd be pretty much a strictly better wind drake.
likewise, Giant Spider is the real deal. don't underestimate giant spider!
also, a 3 drop in green is different than a 3 drop not in green, since you can cast a green 3 drop on turn 2 in almost any constructed format.
...all that aside, though, the real issue you're having here is the rarity symbol. it's an uncommon!
they could totally make a 2/4 reach for 3 at mythic, since it'd basically only exist in constructed.
also there is a 3/3 with reach for 3, it was in my peasant cube. it's a spider.
2G 3/3 reach, can only block creatures with flying.
Now where are my sweet counterburnspells?
Elspeth's magic spear from Heliod.
Do you call it "God Send" or "God's End"?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Yes.
No.
You call it "Godsend". This is a real word.
Actually, in this case the answer really is Yes.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/82146612094/is-it-god-send-or-gods-end
What a profoundly unfun card.
Steam profile.
Getting started with BATTLETECH: Part 1 / Part 2
And I bet it spoils the ending to the block's novel too.
(I kid. That was never really in doubt, was it?)
Vampire Nighthawk is a 3 mana 2/3 flying lifelink deathtouch and is one color. I think we could get a 3 mana 2/4 reach without deathtouch or lifelink with a weird activated ability and an attached downside.
Eh, I agree that the self-mill isn't really a "downside" per se, it's a bit more nebulous than that. In limited, where a 3 mana 2/3 reach is actually playable, it is a downside more often than it's not. In constructed, the card won't see much (if any) legitimate play, because the body is too small and the ability is not only overcosted at 3, but the creature adds another 3 to that. Treasured Find hasn't seen any tournament play whatsoever and is only 2 mana. The fact that it exiles itself instead of sacrificing is probably the part keeping it from being playable in, say, a Pod list in Modern, but even then they get Eternal Witness in that slot, which is certainly just better.