I definitely shall put vernal fen into this deck, but what land should it replace? I could replace a basic land, with it, but I wish to ensure that this deck still has sufficient basic lands, in the case that I use this deck against an opponent who has cards that punish the usage of non-basic lands, so I likely shall replace another dual land, with that one.

I am displeased at how this space opera set clashes so strongly with previous MTG sets, but I do appreciate how WotC is doing something so very different from any previous set, and many of the cards in this set are very awesome, indeed, and I am especially pleased that WotC is finally completing the cycle of dual lands from Battle for Zendikar (i.e., Prairie Stream, Canopy Vista, and so forth), as that cycle has been long overdue for being completed.

I know that I frequently as this question when WotC prints new creatures, but how is frenzied baloth remotely balanced? That creature is simply too powerful for a mere 2 mana, in my mind, so I hope that other users here agree with me, on that subject.

Mark Rosewater has commented on this matter, here, as well, and his response seems to agree with what everyone else here has said.

When I first began to play MtG in 2003, WotC would announce new sets or other products in articles on their website, announce only a single product at a time, and make such announcements seemingly at random, but, recently, they now announce new products in a video, announce products only once per year, and announce all products for the upcoming year, which I severely dislike, since I found the previous manner to be better at building anticipation for the upcoming products, because announcing all products for the upcoming year means that players shall forget about some of them, before they are released, so I am wondering why WotC decided to change the manner in which they announce new products.

What does everyone else say, about this? Why did WotC change the manner in which they announce new sets or other products? I certainly am interested to hear your thoughts, on this matter.

Caerwyn, you are correct that I do not play limited format, but I perfectly understand your point, as it makes sense.

legendofa, I definitely do not wish for a game to be in stasis, I simply wish to protect myself and my permanents while I amass my armies to defeat my opponents, which I imagine is something that all plays wish to do.

In this post, Mark Rosewater commented that WotC has emphasizing offensive cards over defensive cards, because games need to end, and I understand that perspective, but I still dislike and disagree with Rosewater's words, because waiting out one's opponent is a legitimate strategy in real warfare, so I dearly wish that WotC would again emphasize defensive strategies in addition to offensive ones.

What does everyone else say, about this? Do you wish that WotC would emphasize defensive strategies, in addition to offensive strategies? I certainly am interested to hear your thoughts, on this matter.

SaberTech, that makes sense, to me, so I thank you, for that explanation.

In this post, Mark Rosewater stated that WotC is not fond of "Lure" effects, so I wonder why that is, since I do not see any reason to not use effects such as that.

What does everyone else say, about this? Why is WotC not fond of Lure or similar effects?

In these two posts, Mark Rosewater stated that cards cannot have excessive amounts of text, as that text would not physically fit on the cards, so why can WotC not simply use a smaller font, to allow greater amounts of text to be printed on a card?

What does everyone else say, about this? Why does WotC not simply use a smaller font, to allow additional text to be printed on cards?

I have replaced Nezumi Bone-Reader with Korozda Guildmage, since the latter creature is a better match for the themes of this deck.

wallisface, no, your response is not harsh, but I was erring on the side of caution, since I believe that some creatures today are simply far too powerful (with Elder Gargaroth, Baneslayer Angel, or Phyrexian Obliterator being some key examples, and I shall think of more, later), so I can certianly modify both of these creatures, if you believe that that would improve them.

I find both Grim Feast and Proper Burial to be fascinating cards, but they both are rather underpowered in that they cannot do anything on their own (especially since the latter costs 4 mana to cast), so I have created creature versions of each of them, as seen, here.

For a mere 1 mana more over Grim Feast, this card is a 3/3 creature, and it made sense, to me, for it to be a zombie. This card likely could have been mono-black, as neither of its effects are particularly green, but the original card was black/green, so I made this card those colors, as well. I contemplated giving this creature deathtouch, to trigger its second ability more easily, but I decided that that would make it too powerful, so I did not give it such an ability.

I gave this creature vigilance because pallbearers are supposed to be watchful and careful as they carry the casket of the deceased to their grave, and I initially did not wish to give it a name that associated it with a specific faction, but I could not think of a better name, and the artwork of Proper Burial, the card that inspired this one, clearly depicts members of the Orzhov guild, so I decided that that was acceptable, in this case.

What does everyone here think about these creatures? How well did I do, with them?

All of these are excellent responses, so I thank everyone, for your answers!

legendofa, why would any player ever use Golgari Findbroker over Eternal Witness, when the former creature has a stricter casting cost and can return only permanents? I presume that its advantage is its higher power and toughness, making it better in combat?

DreadKhan, I was new to the game during the original Ravnica block, but Brainspoil is definitely a terrible card, and I cannot imagine ever actually casting it, rather than using its transmute ability, and, on that subject, I dearly would like to see WotC print additional cards with transfigure, which currently exists only on Fleshwrither.

Crow_Umbra, I would never do anything that degenerate, as Kinnan is merely a support card/value engine in my Chulance deck, and most of the creatures in that deck, outside of Craterhoof Behemoth, are fairly minor creatures that simply provide value, for me, until I can assemble one of that deck's win conditions.

Black, white, and green all focus on the concepts of rebirth and renewal, but each color has their own distinct approach to those ideas, so I would like to discuss that subject, here.

How do black, white, and green differ in their approaches to rebirth and renewal, in terms of both flavor and mechanics? I have been playing MtG since the release of Eighth Edition in 2003, so I hope that I do not sound like an amateur by asking this question, but I am very interested to discuss this subject, and hear what everyone else has to say, on this matter.

What does everyone else say, about this? How do black, white, and green different in their approaches to the ideas of rebirth and renewal? I certainly am interested to receive your responses!

Crow_Umbra, I do not view your answer as abrasive, at all, and I actually have not ever played against either Kinnan or Winota (although I do have a copy of Kinnan in my Chulane, Teller of Tales EDH deck), so I actually do not have first-hand experience with their power, but your explanations do help me to understand why they are on this list.

I do not wish to sound ignorant, but how are Kinnan, Bonder ProdigyGC and Winota, Joiner of ForcesGC worthy of being considered game changers? They certainly are powerful, but I do not think that they are nearly as oppressive as are Grand Arbiter Augustin IVGC or Urza, Lord High ArtificerGC, for example.

And how is Oko, Thief of Crowns not on this list? He is extremely powerful, and I believe that he most certainly can warp games if left unchecked.

In these two posts, Mark Rosewater stated that WotC is very careful about printing tutor effects, as such cards decrease variance in gameplay, and I understand his perspective, on that matter, but tutors have been a part of the game from its very beginning, so I believe that it would be wrong to stop printing them, and I would like to see tutors with creative effects that require the players to use them strategically, such as Beseech the Mirror or Grim Servant, both of which require proper deckbuilding to be used to their fullest potential.

What does everyone else say, about this subject? How can tutor effects remain interesting and not too powerful? I certainly am interested to hear your thoughts, on this matter.

In this post, Mark Rosewatwer stated that black shall no longer be able to steal permanents that are currently on the battlefield, and I am wondering why that is the case.

I presume that the reason for that change is because black can steal creatures from an opponent's graveyard, so it would be intruding on blue's territory if it could steal permanents that were currently on the battlefield, so what does everyone else say, about this subject? Why can black no longer steal permanents that are currently on the battlefield?