DemonDragonJ Deckling

• Edit User
• Edit Profile
• Enable styles
• Disable styles
• Unblock user
• Block user
• Disable chat
• Enable chat
• Remove friend
• Add as friend
• Gift Tokens
• Settings

J-Will, given that Yawgmoth was one of the most powerful beings ever in this game, I shall presume that he infected many planes.

This deck is very interesting, but does it have a central theme? How does it win a game?

greyninja, I cannot believe that I forgot about Lord Business, and Queen Watevra Wanabi from the second Lego Movie also (initially) seemed to be diabolical, as well.

I have noticed that, in recent movies adapted from comics, video games, or other “nerdy” media, the villains have been different from past depictions; those villains, such as Zod from Man of Steel, Brandon Breyer in Brightburn, Thanos in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and so forth, are all cold, stern, and nearly emotionless, behaving in an emotionally distant and detached manner, appearing to take no enjoyment from their actions, and, occasionally, believing themselves to be righteous.

I have no problem with such villains, because it is good to have a variety of characters in fictional media, but my issue is that they are now the standard model of villainy, and there are few, if any, “classical” villains still around: i.e., the villains whom I remember (and fondly so) from my childhood, the villains who were sinister and diabolical, who fully acknowledged and embraced their own evilness, and who enjoyed causing pain and suffering to others. A very good example of this trend is with the Walt Disney Corporation’s animated movies, which have produced numerous iconic villains, but, as far as I can recall, there has not been a traditionally-diabolical villain in those movies since Mother Gothel from Tangled, which was released in 2010, almost an entire decade ago.

What happened to those villains? I noticed that such villains seemed to become less popular around the beginning of the new millennium, coincidentally (or not) around the same time that nerd subculture began to become more popular; thankfully, not all villains have changed, as Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, various villains from the Avatar: the Last Airbender franchise, and Norman Osborn from Sam Raimi’s first Spiderman movie were all wonderfully diabolical, but they are now the exception, when they used to be the norm.

What does everyone else say about this? Why have sinister and diabolical villains become less popular, recently, and is there any chance of them becoming popular, again?

The first of the judge promos for 2020 have been revealed, and they are Demonic Tutor , Enlightened Tutor , Gamble , and Spellseeker .

Those are all nice cards, but all of them have been previously printed in the new card frame, and several of them have been printed numerous times, so I feel that WotC could have chosen better cards for this group.

However, there are still six more judge promos to be revealed for 2020, so I shall maintain hope that those cards shall be good. Gavin Verhey revealed that all of the judge promos in 2020 would be "tutors," so I am hoping to see Worldly Tutor finally receive a reprint in the modern card frame, since its absence from Eternal Masters was particularly glaring.

What does everyone else say about these cards? Do you like them?

Since Ragnarok is one of the most famous and significant events in Norse mythology, I would expect that a block inspired by Norse mythology would have a similar, world-shattering, event; does anyone else agree with that?

Last_Laugh, has WotC ever stated why those two mechanics have not yet been re-used? I think that they are both very interesting mechanics with great amounts of untapped potential.

Mark Rosewater has stated that unpopular planes (i.e., Kamigawa, Mercadia, Ulgrotha, and Lorwyn/Shadowmoor) rank high on his "Rabiah Scale," meaning that it is unlikely that WotC shall revisit those planes in a standard-legal set, so that raises the question of why WotC does not return to those planes in a supplemental set. They have done that, before: thus far, Fiora has been seen only in the Conspiracy sets and Kylem has been seen only in Battlebond, none of which are standard legal, so it would make perfect sense to revisit an unpopular plane in a supplemental set, in my mind.

What does everyone else say about this? Why does WotC not revisit unpopular planes in a supplemental set?

Optimator, I am very glad that you like it, and I update it whenever a new Commander product is released.

Gleeock, you are correct; although I was already very familiar with Norse mythology before Marvel's Thor films were made, I shall admit that the general public's perception of the characters has been influenced by those films, since Loki in the MCU is very much blue (likely black/blue) and Thor, if he is not mono-red, may possibly be red/white.

Icaruskid, have you considered Privileged Position for this deck? In my mind, there is no reason to not put it in any deck that contains white and green.

Gleeock, Loki would absolutely have blue in his color identity to contrast him with Thor, who is unquestionably red.

dingusdingo, I like Staff of Nin very much, but the fact that its card drawing ability triggers only once per turn is problematic, so I would rather use Arcane Encyclopedia instead.

yeaGO, someone else may already have asked this, but would you please explain how leaks are bad for this game?

TypicalTimmy, do not forget about krakens, which, despite appearing in the The Clash of the Titans, and, by extension, the Theros block, originated from Norse mythology; if there are no krakens in a block inspired by Norse mythology, I will be very displeased.

Also, I feel that Valkyries would be red/white angels in this game, since they were always stated to be fierce warriors.

Now that this game has a plane modeled after ancient Egypt and a plane inspired by Greek mythology, I believe that it is only a matter of time until there is a plane inspired by Norse mythology; however, given that Throne of Eldraine was recently released, I doubt that there shall be such a plane in the near future. Arthurian legend is not identical to Norse mythology, but they are sufficiently similar that I believe that WotC would not wish for them to be in close proximity to each other.

Therefore, this thread is not to speculate about specific cards that may be in a set or block inspired by Norse mythology, but to express general desires and expectations for such a set/block.

First, I believe that such a set/block would be perfect for quests, sagas, heroic, and monstrous to return, since all of those elements are present in Norse mythology.

Second, there will definitely be gods, but they shall be different from the gods of Theros or Amonkhet; my prediction is that they shall be indestructible only under certain circumstances, since the gods of Norse mythology could be killed, albeit not easily.

Third, and this is most important, I expect that there shall be people modeled after the Vikings, and I fully expect them to be fearsome and awesome warriors, but I really hope that WotC does not succumb to the common stereotypes about the Vikings that are popular in fiction, today. In actuality, the Vikings were, indeed, fearsome warriors, but much of their reputation for violence and savagery is propaganda spread by their enemies; in reality, the Vikings went raiding and pillaging only on rare occasion; most of the time, they were peaceful farmers or brave explorers. They may not have been scholars or philosophers in the way that the Greeks and Romans were, but they were incredible storytellers and talented artisans, at least in the areas of woodworking and metallurgy, so I do hope that those aspects of their lives would be portrayed in this game.

What does everyone else say about this subject? What are your desires and expectations for a Norse mythology-themed set or block?

I would like to see Tower of Fortunes in this set, since it has not been reprinted in some time, as well as Urza's Blueprints , since that card has never been reprinted, at all, and I am certain that it would look great in the new card frame.

griffstick, yes, that card is awesome, and all of my EDH decks that do not contain planeswalkers, which is most of them, have that card.

Raging_Squiggle, yes, I have considered Mind's Eye for my EDH decks, but I am uncertain about its high initial cost.

enpc, I actually did have Tower of Fortunes in some of my EDH decks, briefly, but the high cost of its ability made me remove it; however, 8 mana for four cards averages out to 2 mana per card, which is better than both Jayemdae Tome (4 mana per card) and Arcane Encyclopedia (3 mana per card), so I wonder if it is worth reconsidering?

Caerwyn, you do have a good point, there, and I am very displeased that it is so difficult to find a source of card advantage that is colorless, repeatable, and inexpensive, since the majority of such effects require large amounts of mana to be paid. However, since Arcane Encyclopedia is strictly better than Jayemdae Tome , I am hopeful that there shall eventually be a better version of Urza's Blueprints , as well.

DarkHero, you do have an excellent point, so I agree that the best way to prevent such a creature from being too powerful is for it to have low power.

For example, I believe that this may be reasonable:

Low power prevents this creature from being too powerful, while its high toughness ensure that it cannot be too easily destroyed. I gave it a lower overall mana cost compared to Warstorm Surge , since 6 mana is simply too high of a cost for a 2/4 creature, but I gave the cost a heavier color weight, since this type of effect is very red.

What do you think of that? Is this a reasonable way to have such a creature?