Please login to comment
I am excited by this story, as it was a great way to start the Amonkhet block; if the Gatewatch thought that this planes was deadly and dangerous, I cannot wait to see how they react if they ever encounter Phyrexia. On that subject, I am glad that the members of the Gatewatch apparently have not yet heard of Phyrexia, because, if they eventually do, it should be in a dramatic scene, not as a passing reference.
Where did Ajani go? Is WotC really going to focus on only the original five members of the Gatewatch?
I hope that the gods of Amonkhet are different from the gods of Theros, so that each pantheon will feel unique, since the gods from Egyptian mythology were very different than those from Greek mythology.
I definitely think that the two suns will be important to the plot somehow, or else WotC would not have bothered to give Amonkhet two suns (after all, the five suns of Mirrodin were central to the plot of that block).
March 29, 2017 11:02 p.m.
Those masterpieces are amazing! I really like how they are designed to resemble ancient Egyptian tablets, and the artwork is also very nice. I do hope that I open at least one at the prerelease!
March 28, 2017 11:14 p.m.
Some of those cards a very nice, especially the reprints. While the reprint of Giant Spider is nice, I would much rather see Ancient Spider, as there is no better set in which to reprint it than this one, and the latter is better than the former in almost every way.
March 27, 2017 10:10 p.m.
My friends mentioned this to me when I was hanging out with them this past weekend, and I was displeased by the change, but I shall be glad to inform them that it affects online play only.
Why did WotC change that rule? What reason could there have been for it? Were games lasting too long, and they wished to make them shorter?
March 27, 2017 8:41 p.m.
Boza, I like the green and white card as they are, but I certainly would not object to adjusting Khalim's spite.
How is this idea?
Khalim's Spite Show
Target player discards a card, sacrifices a creature, and loses 2 life. If you control a creature named Khalim, master of many, that player instead discards two cards, sacrifices two creatures, and loses 4 life.
What do you think of it, now?
March 26, 2017 10:27 p.m.
As a side note, I am disappointed that the new Inspector Gadget series is just as comedic and campy as was the original series, as that is a series that would be great if it were more serious. I am not saying that it needs to be as dark as Gargoyles or Batman: the Animated Series, but reducing some of the campiness would be great for making it more interesting and engaging, as well as answering questions that the fans have long had, such as "how did Inspector Gadget become who he is?" Or "how did Dr. Claw obtain his robotic arm?"
March 25, 2017 2 a.m.
Busse, an emblem is supposed to be be a permanent change to the state of the game, so being able to remove an emblem would defeat their purpose. The original wording for Elspeth, Knight-Errant's emblem, the original emblem, was "for the remainder of the game, artifacts, creatures, enchantments, and lands that you control are indestructible," so WotC conceived of emblems as an easy way to mark that change, and then expanded emblems from there.
However, I do agree that Kiora's emblem is slightly too powerful, and should have been less powerful.
March 22, 2017 10:23 p.m.
Planeswalkers are an awesome card type, but I feel that they have been overcrowding every other card type in the game, recently, and I know that other players feel that way, as well.
I recently found this article, here, in which the author speaks of how he feels that making planeswalkers the face of this game is problematic. I very much like how he gives clear and rational reasoning and is not simply complaining, as do some players.
As a personal note, I really do not wish for WotC to turn M:tG into a major franchise to rival those from Marvel, DC, and so forth; it should be game that focuses on being fun, not on trying to be popular and trendy.
I do hope that WotC realizes how planeswalkers are overshadowing all other card types, and does something to keep them in check. What does everyone else say about this article? Do you believe that the popularity of planeswalkers is problematic for the game, and what solution do you propose to fix it?
March 21, 2017 9:58 p.m.
Akroma and Phage are my two favorite creatures in the game, because I started playing only shortly after the Onslaught block was released. I have every card that depicts them in its artwork, which I will not trade, every one of my EDH decks contains Akroma's Memorial, and every EDH deck of mine that contains either white or red contains the appropriately-colored Akroma. Phage is too dangerous for me to use her in any of my decks, but I have a copy of her that is signed by Ron Spears himself, which I shall never trade.
March 21, 2017 9:55 p.m.
The decklists are fairly impressive, but I again notice a large percent of them are from recent sets; is WotC really so reluctant to reprint old-bordered cards with the new border style? Most of the new artwork is very nice, but, other than Jhoira herself, I do not need to obtain any of the cards in these decks.
March 21, 2017 9:39 p.m.
guessling, that is the opposite of how I feel, as I worry that campiness may be making a comeback, judging by examples such as the recent Deadpool film, the fact that the new Inspector Gadget series is just as comedic as the original, rather than being more serious, and how the new Spiderman film is increasing the titular character's sarcastic attitude compared to the previous portrayals.
LeaPlath, I stopped following Power Rangers long ago, about halfway through Dino Thunder, and I have no desire to revisit it.
March 19, 2017 6:28 p.m.
This is not the first time that a card from an upcoming set has appeared in a booster pack for an existing set; does WotC do this deliberately to raise hype and anticipation for the upcoming set?
March 19, 2017 6:12 p.m.
In the past decade or two, there has been a trend of making "darker and edgier" reboots of existing film and television franchises, which have achieved varying levels of success. Typically, "darker and edgier" means having greater violence, less humor, and an overall more serious and somber tone/feel, which usually works, but sometimes may seem weird or jarring in comparison to the previous, lighter, work.
Therefore, this thread is to discuss instances in which "darker end edgier" was done right, and when it was done wrong.
First, I shall mention several examples of when "darker and edgier" worked well.
One of the best-known examples of "darker and edgier," and perhaps the example that started the recent trend, was Christopher Nolan's 2005 film Batman Begins, which discarded the campiness, humor, and bright colors of Joel Schumacher's two Batman films to deliver a Batman film that was (mostly) very realistic and extremely serious. The film was an amazing success, and started one of the most highly-regarded film franchises in not only comic book history, but film history overall. As a side note, the first two Tim Burton Batman films, while not as dark as the Nolan films, were darker than the 1960's Batman series that had preceded them.
Released a year after Batman Begins was the 2006 Casino Royale film, which rebooted the James Bond film franchise, which is actually very interesting in that it has varied greatly between serious and campy in its tone during its long history; the first several Sean Connery films were very serious, but they gradually became more campy as time passed, leading into the Roger Moore era, whose films are often regarded as the campiest of all the James Bond films (but at least that era contained The Man with the Golden Gun, which was easily the best Moore-era film due to having Christopher Lee play the villain). After that, Timothy Dalton played a very serious and hard-edged Bond in a deliberate attempt to deviate from Roger Moore's portrayal of the character, but audiences (and the studio executives) were not quite ready yet for such a serious portrayal of the British super spy, so Pierce Brosnan's portrayal, while not as campy as Moore's, was not as serious as was Dalton's. However, when Daniel Craig assumed the role, everything changed; gone were the fancy gadgets, the super-powered cars, the ridiculous one-liners, and Bond's credibility-straining ability to seduce any woman whom he met; instead, Craig's James Bond was a much more human and vulnerable character who used his own abilities to solve problems and actually felt as if he was in genuine danger, compared to the near-superhuman feats of his predecessors. While the most recent Craig film, Spectre, did reintroduce some campy elements of the pre-Craig films, they were minimal, and hopefully will not become as prevalent as they previously were.
The reboots of Thundercats, Masters of the Universe, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles during the 2000's were all darker and more serious than their extremely campy predecessors in the 1980's. The original incarnations of each series were filled with corny one-liners and villains who were very difficult to take seriously as threats to the heroes, but the new incarnations fixed both of those problems, with villains who felt genuinely evil and threatening and the heroes being in actual danger.
However, there have also been instances where the "darker and edgier" approach has not worked, where it seemed to go too far and made the films and television series too dark and serious to be enjoyed.
First is Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice. Just as Nolan's films were darker than the Burton/Schumacher films, the makers of BvS attempted to make their film darker than the Nolan films. The film felt (to me) too depressing and devoid of any excitement or enjoyment, especially with how it portrayed the titular characters. First, Superman is not supposed to be a dark and brooding character; he is supposed to be idealistic and optimistic, always maintaining a positive attitude and inspiring the best traits in everyone. I understand that Christopher Reeve's portrayal of the character was good during the 1970's and 80's, but not serious enough for modern audiences, but the writers went too far in departing from Reeve's portrayal. To this day, my favorite portrayal of Superman is still Tim Daly's portrayal in Superman: the Animated Series, which managed to be very serious while still maintaining the optimism of the character. Second, while Batman is supposed to be a dark and brooding character, Ben Affleck's portrayal of him was simply too excessive in his depressing and gloomy mannerisms, acting as if there was nothing good remaining in the world and simply being extremely paranoid. Nearly every other incarnation of the character has shown that he still can enjoy life, an element that I dearly missed in this film.
Next is the upcoming Power Rangers film. Although it has not yet been released, and I do plan to see it, I cannot help but feel that making it "darker and edgier" is a violation of the original material. While the original series was campy and corny, that is inherent in its nature, which features brightly-costumed superheroes striking flashy poses, fighting ridiculous monsters with fantastic weapons, and piloting humongous mecha that usually imitate non-human animals and combine to form even larger mecha. How can that be made dark and edgy? Also, the series itself did become darker and edgier as it went along: the early seasons are extremely corny and campy, but they became more serious as time passed, with Wild Force being possibly the most serious season of all, albeit still with some campy elements. This film is likely attempting to capitalize on the success of Pacific Rim, which, in my mind, is an example of a film that proves that a mecha/kaiju film can be "dark and edgy" and still be well-made. Rather than make Power Rangers dark and edgy, the best way to make it less corny and campy would be to have greater continuity and less "monster of the week" episodes.
Finally, I shall mention the new Riverdale series, which is adapted from Archie comics. The original comics are a light-hearted series about the random misadventures of a cast of adolescent high school students, usually with much comedy and some romance, but this new series is a violent crime drama that bears little resemblance to its source material, making me wonder why the makers of that series chose to name it Riverdale and connect it to Archie comics, when they simply could have given it a different name and not have it be a darker adaptation of a very light series.
What does everyone else say about this? What are some examples that you can name of the "darker and edgier" trope done right and done wrong? I eagerly look forward to your responses.
March 19, 2017 5:25 p.m.
On that subject, with this card revealed, does anyone think that the Amonkhet block may have a strong emphasis on the graveyard or creatures dying, since death and the afterlife were hugely important to the ancient Egyptians, or is it too early to predict that from only one card?
March 18, 2017 1:44 a.m.
In Jhoira's deck, I would like to see Suffocating Blast reprinted, since it never has been, thus far. Also, Counterflux, Double Negative, Electrolyze, and Prophetic Bolt would all be nice, because they are all very awesome cards that woudl work well with her.
I imagine that Lovisa's deck shall contain plenty of warriors, barbarians, and berserkers, so Berserkers of Blood Ridge would make perfect sense, as would Raging Goblin and Goblin Striker. It also would be nice to see Lightning Bolt or Stone Rain reprinted, since they have not been reprinted in some time, as well.
March 18, 2017 1:41 a.m.
Why is this card not using the normal frame style for split cards? Is there some special reason for one spell on the card being horizontally-aligned and the other being vertically-aligned?
March 18, 2017 1:26 a.m.
WotC recently revealed the packaging for the upcoming Duel Decks: Mind versus Might set, and the two face cards are Jhoira of the Ghitu and Lovisa Coldeyes. I previously was not at all excited about this set, since it seemed that WotC was running out of ideas for their Duel Decks series, but these cards now have me very excited, since they are both lesser-known creatures that encourage specific and esoteric strategies. I especially am very happy about Jhoira being reprinted with with alternate artwork, since I have two copies of her in my red/blue deck, and it will be nice to have each one with different artwork.
Therefore, I believe that it is now time to speculate about the contents of this set. It seems that the "mind" deck will be focusing on combos with instants and sorceries, likely involving counterspells, copying spells, drawing, or similar tricks, while the "might" deck will focus on direct combat and have many cards that enhance creatures. I do hope that Lovisa's deck is not mono-red, or else this set will be too limited in what cards it can contain; hopefully, her deck shall be either red/white or red/green, to make it more directly opposed to Jhoira's deck.
What does everyone else say about this set? What are your expectations and predictions for it?
March 14, 2017 10:01 p.m.
I forgot to mention this in my above post, but I think that Khalim would be too powerful if he could fetch his artifacts, so is it better that he cannot?
March 14, 2017 3:49 p.m.
I spent much time devising the above cards, but I just now thought that Khalim should have some artifacts associated with him, as well, so here they are:
Khalim's Codex Show
,: draw a card. If you control a creature named Khalim, Master of Many, draw two cards instead.
Naturally, someone who has studied many different forms of magic would need to record everything that they have learned, so this book is where Khalim has stored all of the knowledge that he has acquired. Without Khalim, this card is no different from Jayemdae Tome, but, with him, it is better than the tome.
Khalim's Crystal Ball Show
: add one mana of any color to your mana pool. If you control a creature named Khalim, Master of Many, instead add two mana of any one color to your mana pool.
This card is to help a player cast Khalim and his signature spells; without Khalim, it is simply identical to a Manalith but, with Khalim, it is vastly superior to that card. Both this card and the previous card are legendary to prevent a player from having multiple copies of them on the battlefield simultaneously, as doing so would make them too powerful. What does everyone think of the name of this card? I like it, but I am considering replacing the word "ball" with either "scepter" or "crown," because they sound cooler.
Khalim's Creation Show
Artifact Creature - construct
Khalim's creation gets +2/+2 and has indestructible for as long as you control a creature named Khalim, Master of Many.
This creature is intended to be a guardian for Khalim, so it naturally receives a bonus when he is on the battlefield. Unlike Kahlim, who focuses on strategy and tactics, his creation instead focuses on pure force and power, hence its abilities. Should it have higher base toughness and power, or is it acceptable as it is?
March 14, 2017 3:48 p.m.
Some time ago, I had an idea to make cards that became more powerful if a player controlled a certain permanent, so I spent time refining that idea, and I produced a legendary creature who has several signature spells, which are acceptable on their own, but become much more powerful if their creator is present (symbolizing from a flavor perspective that the creator can cast their own spells much more effectively than can another mage).
The creator of this spells is mage named Khalim, who became bored of studying only one form of magic and traveled far and wide to learn many different styles of magic, eventually devising his own signature spells. I have not developed a more detailed backstory for Khalim than that, but I do not need to do so, at the present time. Due to his many years of studying, Khalim has devised a spell of each color, and they are as follows:
Khalim's Anger Show
Khalim's anger cannot be countered.
Khalim's anger deals 2 damage to each opponent and each creature that your opponents control. If you control a creature named Khalim, Master of Many, Khalim's anger instead deals 4 damage to each opponent and each creature that your opponents control and the damage cannot be prevented.
Khalim's Might Show
Creatures that you control get +2/+2 and gain trample until end of turn. If you control a creature named Khalim, Master of Many, creatures that you control get an additional +2/+2 and gain menace until end of turn.
Without Kahlim, this card is strictly worse than Overrun, although I did make its casting cost less strict to balance that. However, with Khalim, it becomes strictly better than overrun. I know that menace is usually associated with black and red creatures, but I believe that it makes sense from a flavor perspective in this case, especially considering that Bellowing Tanglewurm gives green creatures intimidate.
Khalim's Spite Show
Target player discards his or her hand and loses 1 life for each card discarded this way. If you control a creature named Khalim, Master of Many, that player instead loses 2 life for each card discarded this way.
This card is modeled after Wit's End, but with both a lower, albeit stricter, mana cost, as well as additional effects, since I believe that that card is simply too expensive for too little of an effect.
Khalim's Valor Show
Creatures that you control get +1/+1 and gain first strike until end of turn. If you control, a creature named Khalim, Master of Many, creatures that you control instead get +2/+2 and gain double strike until end of turn.
This card is intended to be a combat trick, akin to Aerial Maneuver, Call to Glory, Glorious Charge, Guardians' Pledge, Mighty Leap, Break of Day, Inspired Charge, Sanctified Charge, Show of Valor, Hold the Line, and so forth. Should there be an "untap all creatures that you control" clause, so that it can be used defensively as well as offensively?
Khalim's Will Show
Counter target spell. If you control a creature named Khalim, Master of Many, draw cards equal to that card's converted mana cost.
Without Khalim, this card is exactly the same as Cancel, one of the worst counterspells in the game, but, with Khalim, it is better than Dismiss; with that being said, should I reduce the number of cards drawn to a specific number, such as one or two?
After seeing these cards, I imagine that the anticipation for Khalim himself must be very high, so, without further ado, here he is, in all of his glory:
Khalim, Master of Many Show
Legendary Creature - human wizard
When Khalim, Master of Many enters the battlefield, search your library for a card named Khalim's Anger, Khalim's Might, Khalim's Spite, Khalim's Valor, or Khalim's Will, reveal that card, and put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.
Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, you may draw a card. If you do, discard a card.
Khalim himself can find one of his own spells, so he naturally has great synergy with them. His having hexproof and prowess are indicators of his immense magical skill, but I knew that I would need to keep his power and toughness low to balance those abilities. His "draw and discard" ability represents his ability to find a new solution by abandoning a previous one.
What does everyone think about these cards? How well did I do with them? Do you have any suggestions for them?
March 14, 2017 3:29 p.m.
|Playing since||Eighth Edition|
|Avg. deck rating||None|
|Helper Rank||None yet|
|Last activity||5 hours|