|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|Planar Chaos (PLC)||Rare|
Combos Browse all
Mirri the Cursed
Legendary Creature — Vampire Cat
Flying, first strike, haste
Whenever Mirri the Cursed deals combat damage to a creature, put a +1/+1 counter on Mirri the Cursed.
Commander Recommendations Start Commander Deck
Latest as Commander
Mirri the Cursed Discussion
3 weeks ago
I like the direction you're going in. I just have a problem with the creatures that don't do enough outside of combining with your commander. These include: Banehound , Mirri the Cursed , Mistcutter Hydra , and Vampire Nighthawk . Hexproof and some form of evasion are probably the most important keywords you want, so you can prioritize cards that give you those, but those creatures should also function well outside of being sacrificed for your commander. I also think you should give a little more focus to Indestructible.
3 weeks ago
Lowering the average mana cost a bit, one of the angels is banned now.
5 months ago
PlatinumOne Strawman Violation. Nobody was talking about zombies. The discussion was about vampires. Specifically, the claim that 'elf vampire' is an invalid creature type combination. Thus far, I have proved:
Wizards could create the 'elf vampire' type if it wanted.
No creatures have the creature type 'elf vampire'.
Creatures with art depicting elf vampires have the creature type 'vampire'.
This means they did not create any 'elf vampire' creatures, even though they had opportunity and cause. We conclude the current design guidelines forbid the 'elf vampire' and 'human vampire' creature type combinations.
You're nothing if not predictable, so I'll just finish the argument for you:
"But, muh Mirri the Cursed !"
This card was made prior to the grand creature type update. Even if it wasn't, it would still be the only creature card with art depicting a cat vampire, and it is legendary no less. It would seem that 'cat vampire' is so unusual that the extra type can be justified.
For contrast, human and elf vampires are so common, that the other type is not worth the mention.
"But, muh Vampiric Dragon !"
It is also worth noting here that Vampires for a long time prior to the great creature type update, were defined by Sengir Vampire 's ability, and all creatures with that ability had the type "Vampire" before "Vampire" was expanded from a simple mechanic-bound tribe (much like the recent Processor tribe).
But, in this case, vampirism among dragons is so rare that the extra type can be justified.
"But, muh Marauding Boneslasher !"
Irrelevant. We are discussing vampires. Zombies have their own rules.
"But, muh Frilled Mystic !"
Irrelevant. We are discussing vampires. Simic-themed cards have their own rules.
"But, muh Gifted Aetherborn !"
In this case, the flavor text makes it clear that they are not actually a vampire: their race is Aetherborn, and they drain the life out of living beings like a vampire would. This makes their class Vampire (notice how it occupies the traditional "class" part of the creature's type).
"A ha! So, an 'elf vampire' would be an elf who discovered a way to sustain their own existences at the cost of an insatiable hunger for the life essence of other beings."
If they were never bitten by a vampire to acquire their vampiric powers, then yes: this could be one way to justify the existence of an elf vampire, but their race would be elf and their class would be vampire.
"Ah, but that's still technically an Elf Vampire, so I have won an internet argument!"
Yes, you have successfully moved the goal posts far enough to find the single technical loophole. Your dishonest debate tactics have paid off. So, go ahead and land that aircraft on the carrier, President Bush: Mission Accomplished.
You earned it.
5 months ago
I'm going to lay it all on the table here to make my train of thought as clear as possible, and back up my statements with source material. I spent way too much time on this already, so I might as well post it!
Here's a Scryfall search showing all creatures with the Vampire subtype. Of them, thirteen (a mere 5.8% of all vampires) have an additional race subtype. Of those thirteen, three are undead Vampires ( Vampire Revenant , Nirkana Revenant , and Skeletal Vampire ), four are from the Eldritch Moon block and are Vampire Horrors ( Weirded Vampire , Voldaren Pariah Flip, Stromkirk Occultist , and Stromkirk Condemned ), and four were printed before the Grand Creature Type Update (hencefore GCTU) ( Vampiric Dragon , Vampire Hounds , Mirri the Cursed , and Irini Sengir ). The final two are Aetherborn Vampires from Kaladesh ( Yahenni, Undying Partisan and Gifted Aetherborn ).
All of this points to Vampires with two races being the vast minority (again 5.8%) of all Vampires ever printed. Aside from the pre-GCTU Vampires, they all have set-specific reasons for having two racial subtypes or are undead (which seems counter intutive as I've always considered Vampires to be undead already...but I digress).
Here again (for posterity) is the link to the GCTU Announcement. This clarifies what the stance is or R&D in their approach to creature subtypes. From the article, "...we implemented the "race class" model for Magic creatures..." This establishes a baseline for every single MTG creature from September 2007 onward. Elf Druid, Human Warrior, Zombie Knight, etc. This is a framework for card design.
I want to be clear, its a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. In general, they wanted to keep it simple as part of the New World Order of MTG which you can find in an article here. While the article doesn't explicitly state that creatures typing is part of the NWO, it can be inferred from it that simplicity is important in MTG going forward. With that in mind it only makes sense that they would try very hard while designing cards to keep to the "race class" system for both consistency and simplicity. Are they never going to print a card with two races? Of course not, as you mentioned Frilled Mystic and as I mentioned Vorel of the Hull Clade . Wizards isn't afraid to work outside their own general guidelines if it suits their purposes, fits with the lore (this one is important for this argument), and doesn't unbalance the game.
By your argument, every Vampire would have the "Pre-Vampire-Race Vampire Class" e.g. Elf Vampire Druid, Human Vampire Warrior, Vampire Zombie Knight. Could they do it? Sure, but it goes against R&D's stated goal for what they want for MTG going forward by adding needless complexity (and letterhead) to cards.
Your example of Ahn-Crop Invader brings up an interesting point though and I have a thought about it. Let's use some cards with current links as examples. For you side I produce Marauding Boneslasher . A Zombie Minotaur 'Race Race" just like your example. For my side I produce Merciless Eternal . A Zombie Cleric "Race Class." I think what this shows is that when Wizards does put two races on a card it is unlikely be two "Common" races. E.g. Zombie Human, Elf Goblin, etc., unless there are extreme circumstances (Looking at you Vorel). Again I think it comes back to complexity. If every undead or mutated creature had to state its pre-death/mutation type, there'd be way too many of the core tribes in the game. The vast majority of Vampires and Zombies were originally humans judging from their art. By giving cards like that the Human subtype, Humans as a tribe would become overly powerful simply from having a large pool to draw cards from. Keeping the number of races/classes on a card to a minimum could potentially be balance related.
1) Multi-Race Vampires are small percentage of all Vampires ever printed.
2) Wizards wants to consistent in its product and has chosen the "Race Class" model for subtypes
3) Wizards wants to keep the game simple when possible. Extra subtypes go against this and as such are only used when crucial mechanically (e.g. Horrors for the Eldritch Moon block) or from a lore perspective (e.g. Yahenni, Undying Partisan )
5 months ago
So I posted my big response here by accident. Since I'm here anyway I just wanna say that for what its worth, I see where you are coming from and agree with you 100%!
5 months ago
PlatinumOne: Since you knew Mirri the Cursed wasn't a recent card, then you must have known your argument against LordBlackblade was invalid because the old card was not made with current design standards the he was trying to explain to you.
Do you understand why you're wrong yet?
PlatinumOne on more
5 months ago
Funkydiscogod: clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. do you actually believe i ever stated Mirri the Cursed is a recent card? you do realize there were multiple sentence between the words "very recent" and "mirri the cursed" right? you realize they werent in the same sentence? can we move on now? i remember very clearly Mirri the Cursed being spoiled. i was in high school. are you seriously trying to insinuate i'm not even 12 years old, when you're the one acting (and reading) like a child?
5 months ago
No data for this card yet.