((before I begin, apologies if I derail this thread, but this is an important topic that must be discussed. I know that many of you, including Femme_Fatale as a fellow activist, will agree.))
My only issue with this Bear's Companion is that it's companion is not an actual bear itself. I think there was a huge missed opportunity for WTC here to allow for a more progressive Bear card, and to take a step forward from the awful, slutty abomination that is the reprinting of Runeclaw Bear , a card that promotes a near impossible Bear Body Image (henceforth referred to as BBI) for young bears to aspire to.
I shouldn't need to break down why this disgusting travesty is a stain on WTC's bear record. The incredibly overlarge forearms, the tiny head, and especially the runic inscriptions (which are beyond all bear's reach, being that they have no opposable thumbs with which to write) are simply creating more unrealistic standards for young bears to follow.
This is, of course, following the Yeva, Nature's Herald scandal, which involved an image of a bear that is clearly bridled and subservient that WTC refused to take down despite what I assume was immense protest. What kind of message is that to send to young cubs, I ask you?!
So, in making a new bear card, (and with only 19 bears printed... 19, shame on you!) WTC had a huge opportunity to go back to the wonderful days of yore, where bears could be bears (like the wonderful River Bear or Golden Bear ) and not have stupid, awful objectification stamped all over them.
And we get this. At least it's not bridled, this time! sarcasm
Here, we have the same exact issues. Tattoos, subservience, a human master! It makes me sick.
This fetish that WTC has regard bears has to stop.
Your choice of creatures is interesting... I thought this was a budget build till I saw your Plainswalker suite. Why are you intentionally running Runeclaw Bear ?
I've been thinking about how one would convert life and other advantages that aren't explicitly card advantage into a quantitative equivalent, and thought of this experiment. If the following spells all cost 0 mana, how much life would you pay as an additional cost to casting the spell?
I am wondering how much life would be equivalent to resources like a single card, one life point, etc. as well as how much certain effects matter in a game. Some explanation as to how much life you would pay would be great, but I understand that the decision may be highly intuitive.
After reading rule the comprehensive rules section on abilities (112) and in particular the final paragraph (112.12), I'm confused about what specifically Turn to Frog can remove from a creature. Link to rule 112: http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#R112 (Sorry, I don't know how to linkify the text)
Paragraph 112.2c states "If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, "Keyword Abilities"), each paragraph break in a card's text marks a separate ability."
So in this situation, if a creature card has the text "[Card name] can't be blocked", this is an ability. Even if it's not specifically a keyword ability such as Intimidate, it's still an ability because it's a paragraph on the card. In this situation, if this creature is attacking, and is targeted by Turn to Frog before the Declare Blockers step, it loses the "can't be blocked" ability and can be blocked. Is this right?
However, this seems to be contradicted by rule 112.12, which with its example states that:[...] Similarly, if an effect states a quality of that object ("[creature] can't be blocked," for example), it's neither granting an ability nor setting a characteristic.Example: Muraganda Petroglyphs reads, "Creatures with no abilities get +2/+2." A Runeclaw Bear (a creature with no abilities) enchanted by an Aura that says "Enchanted creature has flying" would not get +2/+2. A Runeclaw Bear enchanted by an Aura that says "Enchanted creature is red" or "Enchanted creature can't be blocked" would get +2/+2
Therefore "Can't be blocked" is apparently not an ability after all, since the creature benefited from Muraganda Petroglyphs .
I appreciate that this is slightly different, in that we're now discussing a creature enchanted by an Aura, rather than the rules text on the creature itself, but I'm now confused. In this situation, if that Bear were targeted by Turn to Frog , after it had been declared an attacker, it would seem that it still was unblockable, because "Can't be blocked" is not an ability and thus is not lost. Is that the case?
If I'm right in both situations, then I don't understand why "Can't be blocked" is an ability in one situation but not the other. Could someone explain?
Now being serious...
Elvish Visionary is a great play. It's basically a free 1/1.
Strangleroot Geist is great but can't be cast off of BTE.
Viridian Emissary is a bit unappreciated. It'll get in for some damage and get you land.
Tarmogoyf is expensive, but dat goyf doe.
Runeclaw Bear demands your vanilla creature space.
Actually, it's even simpler than that.
All mana abilities add mana to your mana pool. In this scenario, you can activate Alloy Myr 's ability to add one green mana to your mana pool, then activate Forest 's ability to add another green mana to your mana pool (remember that Forests have "T: Add G to your mana pool," even though it's not written on newer versions of Forest ). You can then use this mana to pay for a spell like Runeclaw Bear .
You don't use the land itself to pay for the cost; you use the mana the land's ability produces to pay for the cost.
|Power / Toughness||2/2|
|Avg. draft pick||8.46|
|Avg. cube pick||13.03|
|Commander / EDH||Legal|
|2012 Core Set||Common|
|2011 Core Set||Common|
|2010 Core Set||Common|