Creature — Human
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to Uncle Istvan by creatures.
Combos Browse all
|Commander / EDH||Legal|
|Commander: Rule 0||Legal|
Uncle Istvan Discussion
1 month ago
Similar to your chaplain, you’ve got Uncle Istvan as well....
3 months ago
This deck really is a greatest hits of old school jank (fun) and I love it. Any thoughts on adding Uncle Istvan ? He has to be one of the icons of this type of magic
5 months ago
The Fool - Jester's Cap
The Magician - Dark Ritual
The High Priestess - Argothian Enchantress
The Empress - Counterspell
The Lovers - Sower of Temptation
Justice - Equilibrium
The Hermit - Uncle Istvan
Wheel of Fortune - Wheel of Fortune
Strength - Unholy Strength
The Hanged Man
Death - Necropotence
The Devil - Lord of the Pit
The Tower - Grim Monolith
The Star - Falling Star
The Moon - Blood Moon
The Sun - Sol Ring
Judgement - Wrath of God
The World - Omniscience
I would look in particular to older cards (premodern) and / or Seb McKinnon cards, as in my opinion those cards have the art style that would suit a tarot card.
8 months ago
Creature types serve two main purposes. The first is mechanical, certain effects will apply only to certain types so the power of such cards is proportional to the number of cards with that type Elvish Clancaller. Notably there are also cards that don’t care about specific types so any creature type that is sufficiently large can get use out of them Coat of Arms. Because of this sparingly used creature types are generally not very good. Having a card like Uncle Istvan (pre-errata) would suffer due to not being part of a larger type. To be fair plenty of cards get by without any tribal support at all which is perfectly fine but by grouping some of these together you are opening up options for future tribal decks to be created. An example of this can be seen with cats and dogs. Cats are a unified creature type in magic. The leorin are cats, they aren’t catfolk, or Leonin creature type, they are cats. So cards like Regal Caracal work on all of them and you have plenty of cards to put together. Dogs on the other hand have jackals, as well as dogs. Dogs was a replacement for hound and all previous hounds were made into dogs so that wasn’t really a new creature type. Jackals will likely not fit into any dog deck and for that reason have less of a chance at being played. There is also the issue of creating cards that support a tribe in a creature type that have a lot of creatures such as elves or humans. Wizards could probably print a 1 mana 0/1 with the effect “other kraken’s you control get +2/+2 and flying” and this would be fine but replace that with elves and you have a card that would get banned harder than Oko. But if you want to create a card that benefits a creature type but it seems too powerful for the existing type it may be reasonable to create a new type to allow for this card and others in the future to thrive. Dinosaurs could have been kept as lizard if they really wanted to but the second goal of creature types is flavor. You want to get across a certain idea about a creature and it’s identity through its typing. And while dinosaurs are big lizards I think most people consider them drastically different enough to justify a new creature type. Warlock’s creation also fits into this second category by allowing the separation of people who get power from dark powers out of cleric which still could probably hold them but has a strong connotation of religion and demons (for dark clerics).
On the topic of creating the phyrexian creature type we can measure it against the criteria above. Does it serve a mechanical purpose? And is the difference in flavor large enough to justify it? Horrors, minions and constructs (a large part of old phyrexian cards) are not an overly supported tribes. Mechanically the main issue is that you wouldn’t be able to give cards across the spectrum buffs because of their variety especially when you consider that there are smaller pockets of other creature types that still could be phyrexian. Flavor wise are the phyrexians different enough as a group to justify a typing? almost all creatures have their type based on species and occupation (wizard, fighter, noble). From the species perspective, horrors and constructs still seem to fit the general theme of these cards quite well. Personally I don’t see their alterations to self as a new species separate from these categories or from other types that exist but this is where a lot of the discussion of the validity of this type will happen. Yes they are all United in purpose but the purpose is too specific for the general occupation creature types.
New creature types also always carry the baggage of should old types he errata’d into this new type? Hounds -> dogs was easy, all of things of 1 type are now other type. Phyrexian would involve a lot of changes that many people would not be able to guess by looking at the cards like they could probably do with dinosaurs. So I think the concern for retyping old cards is very valid.
Personally as much as I like Phyrexians I don’t see the need for the new type unless they are planning on adding specific support for it. And if they are adding support for it I don’t see it as worth the issues it causes as they probably would have to retype a lot of the old cards to make it make sense.
10 months ago
I agree with a lot of your points. I designed the walker above with that in mind, and with the thought that we don't really have a walker anymore who fits that design space since Gideon died. I thought that having a combat oriented walker, but based more off barbarian imagery rather than that of a soldier would be really cool. Plus as a fun easter egg I based him off Uncle Istvan.
I think it would be an absolute travesty if Raid does not make a return.
On to your other points about color combinations - what about Oko? I know he was recently printed in a standard set, but his color identity matches the one of the remaining color pairs, and even more compelling, he 1000% fits a 'Loki' trope that could factor prominently into the plot.
2 years ago
Uncle Istvan does not have the supertype "legendary". This means he can not be used as a commander. Feeling to you like he should be legendary does not make him legendary.
2 years ago
Is there an official rule as to whether or not Uncle Istvan can be used in an EDH deck as the Commander? He clearly "should" be a legendary but is instead currently a Human. This website does not give the red text that alerts you to UI being used as a commander either, and no one I have seen online says he cannot be used as well.
So...can I? Like, let's say that some mono black deck that just happened to use him was lucky enough to get into a competitive event, would that be allowed?
2 years ago
The foil for Uncle Istvan is worth 50 times more than the non-foil version, but then again that is only 5.5 dollars.
I would not consider this particular card an investment.