|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|Tempest Remastered (TPR)||Common|
Combos Browse all
Creature — Vampire Hound
Discard a creature card: Vampire Hounds gets +2/+2 until end of turn.
Vampire Hounds Discussion
3 months ago
Altoman, your suggestions are valid and I appreciate them, but I believe you're not seeing a couple aspects of the deck I would like to discuss with you.
First this is not intended to be a Turbo/all in version but rather a more resilient/slow version than typical RB strategies. Hence the lack of Dragon Breath, Stinkweed could join the list though, since it's still a nice recurrable blocker with enough power to fuel your gy all by himself (actually with a little help from symmetrical discard).
Putrid imp doesn't seem powerful nor resilient and depending on threshold is tricky. I'd rather play Vampire Hounds if I wanted something like that.
Predatory nightstalker is mainly there as an edict effect on a body, which can counter exhume's downside by himself. But I do believe 4 might be too many, and I probably can cut at least two of them. I consider him to be something like Phyrexian Rager or Chittering Rats , this is to say, a valuable and recurrable effect which happens to have a body which can block or even get some damage through, rather than focusing on his stats.
And finally, of the 14 big guys I'm playing many of them have cycling which is relevant to get them to the gy and get your reanimation spells to your hand. Notice there isn't another way to draw cards on the deck like Night's Whisper . The reason is taking full advantage/value of the cycling package, including Horror of the Broken Lands . So you cycle, get another card, reanimate the guy you cycled and pump HOTBL on an ideal scenario.
6 months ago
I'm going to lay it all on the table here to make my train of thought as clear as possible, and back up my statements with source material. I spent way too much time on this already, so I might as well post it!
Here's a Scryfall search showing all creatures with the Vampire subtype. Of them, thirteen (a mere 5.8% of all vampires) have an additional race subtype. Of those thirteen, three are undead Vampires ( Vampire Revenant , Nirkana Revenant , and Skeletal Vampire ), four are from the Eldritch Moon block and are Vampire Horrors ( Weirded Vampire , Voldaren Pariah Flip, Stromkirk Occultist , and Stromkirk Condemned ), and four were printed before the Grand Creature Type Update (hencefore GCTU) ( Vampiric Dragon , Vampire Hounds , Mirri the Cursed , and Irini Sengir ). The final two are Aetherborn Vampires from Kaladesh ( Yahenni, Undying Partisan and Gifted Aetherborn ).
All of this points to Vampires with two races being the vast minority (again 5.8%) of all Vampires ever printed. Aside from the pre-GCTU Vampires, they all have set-specific reasons for having two racial subtypes or are undead (which seems counter intutive as I've always considered Vampires to be undead already...but I digress).
Here again (for posterity) is the link to the GCTU Announcement. This clarifies what the stance is or R&D in their approach to creature subtypes. From the article, "...we implemented the "race class" model for Magic creatures..." This establishes a baseline for every single MTG creature from September 2007 onward. Elf Druid, Human Warrior, Zombie Knight, etc. This is a framework for card design.
I want to be clear, its a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. In general, they wanted to keep it simple as part of the New World Order of MTG which you can find in an article here. While the article doesn't explicitly state that creatures typing is part of the NWO, it can be inferred from it that simplicity is important in MTG going forward. With that in mind it only makes sense that they would try very hard while designing cards to keep to the "race class" system for both consistency and simplicity. Are they never going to print a card with two races? Of course not, as you mentioned Frilled Mystic and as I mentioned Vorel of the Hull Clade . Wizards isn't afraid to work outside their own general guidelines if it suits their purposes, fits with the lore (this one is important for this argument), and doesn't unbalance the game.
By your argument, every Vampire would have the "Pre-Vampire-Race Vampire Class" e.g. Elf Vampire Druid, Human Vampire Warrior, Vampire Zombie Knight. Could they do it? Sure, but it goes against R&D's stated goal for what they want for MTG going forward by adding needless complexity (and letterhead) to cards.
Your example of Ahn-Crop Invader brings up an interesting point though and I have a thought about it. Let's use some cards with current links as examples. For you side I produce Marauding Boneslasher . A Zombie Minotaur 'Race Race" just like your example. For my side I produce Merciless Eternal . A Zombie Cleric "Race Class." I think what this shows is that when Wizards does put two races on a card it is unlikely be two "Common" races. E.g. Zombie Human, Elf Goblin, etc., unless there are extreme circumstances (Looking at you Vorel). Again I think it comes back to complexity. If every undead or mutated creature had to state its pre-death/mutation type, there'd be way too many of the core tribes in the game. The vast majority of Vampires and Zombies were originally humans judging from their art. By giving cards like that the Human subtype, Humans as a tribe would become overly powerful simply from having a large pool to draw cards from. Keeping the number of races/classes on a card to a minimum could potentially be balance related.
1) Multi-Race Vampires are small percentage of all Vampires ever printed.
2) Wizards wants to consistent in its product and has chosen the "Race Class" model for subtypes
3) Wizards wants to keep the game simple when possible. Extra subtypes go against this and as such are only used when crucial mechanically (e.g. Horrors for the Eldritch Moon block) or from a lore perspective (e.g. Yahenni, Undying Partisan )
6 months ago
So I posted my big response here by accident. Since I'm here anyway I just wanna say that for what its worth, I see where you are coming from and agree with you 100%!
6 months ago
MontaukMonster - as the person designing the proposed cards, the onus is on you to defend their creation. You are the one opening up your cards for critique, after all. It is not enough to just say "because I can," particularly given the abnormal nature of these proposed cards. You also really need to work on your tone--as has been mentioned already, you're coming off very aggressive, and that's not fair to those who took the time to respond.
In the interest of discussion, however, I will offer what you have yet been reluctant to do--a defense of your core concept. Personally, I agree with what others have said--that planeswalkers need to be limited in scope, but I want to move the conversation past the discussion of the core concept so we can address the actual cards themselves.
- What is the justification for the game design, and the creation of common planeswalkers?
As of right now, Pauper does not have access to any planeswalkers. This proposal would give pauper access to additional cards, as well as make planeswalker-matters cards that are currently at uncommon viable options in pauper, expanding the card pool and increasing diversity.
- What is the lore justification for common planeswalkers?
The issue here is that Planeswalkers are, by definition, legendary. After all, only a minuscule number of people have a spark, and only a fraction of those have their spark ignited.
The justification here is that someone has figured out how to artificially create the ability to planeswalk (akin to the Planar Bridge or Weatherlight, but embedded in a creature). However, this is a temporary situation, and burns out the person's body (hence why they only have minus abilities).
- Creature types on Planeswalkers
These are just generic individuals who have an artificial spark; they are not great heroes. We've already seen tribal cards, such as instants and enchantments, which show there can be some mix-ups between creature subtypes and others.
I think a better option would be to come up with a single planeswalker type that could apply to all of these, and then flavour them through the art. Something like "Planeswalker - Ensparked" that captures the essence of what you're trying to do, without getting into the messy situation of adding creature types.
- Non-humans as planeswalkers.
Boza's point is invalid. In addition to Bolas, Ugin, and Karn, there's Ashiok, Tibalt, Kiora, Sorin, Angrath, Dovin Baan, Ajani Goldmane, Ob Nixilis, Mowu (sort of), Nahiri, Vraska, Kaya, Nissa, and so many more. So, that's not really an issue.
- Multiple creature types
I think that covers a lot of the basics, and at least gets us to the point where we can address the individual cards.
Pyrenisian Druid - this card is costed too aggressively. It's the same cost as Rampant Growth, for effectively the same effect, but repeatable twice.
I think a fair price would be . This is the same CMC as Cultivate , accounting for the fact you can get multiple lands, with the additional green added to offset any potential planeswalker synergies, such as proliferate or The Chain Veil .
Disciple of Raojan - this is a very powerful effect, as it's basically Shock with rebound. That card already exists in the form of Staggershock , and is costed three. Basing this on Staggershock , I think sounds reasonable.
I might also consider reducing this to "target player or planeswalker" to further limit its utility and make it more reasonable as a common.
I might reduce the starting loyalty to two, and change the mana cost to (so far, I think they're all pretty consistent at the 1XX level, provided the loyalties are adjusted accordingly). I would consider bumping this up to , due to the card being at common, depending on the removal situation in the hypothetical set.
One, with the potential for three, +1/+1 counters should probably cost more than . Again, I think you can probably get away with , and even keep the loyalty at 3.
Norina's Apprentice - five loyalty is way, way too high for this effect. That's a whole lot of cards it could potentially draw. To keep with the theme I have been using, I think 2 or 3 loyalty would be appropriate for that cost. Leaning toward 2 to make this more palatable as a common.
Moving on to the creatures:
Elvish Mulchkeeper - while Green can draw cards, it's usually in conjuction with lands ( Abundant Growth ), creature power ( Abzan Beastmaster ), or a combat trick ( Aggressive Urge ). It's a pretty big bend of the colour pie to have this type of card draw on a Green creature.
The repeatable shuffling your library is also not ideal--shuffling takes time and is not fun for anyone, and there are enough ways to untap creatures that you could have multiple shuffles in a single turn. That's a nightmare to play with or against.
You could probably do something a bit more green. : Reveal the top card of your library. If it is a land you may put it in your hand."
Counters are players are a bit annoying to keep track of, but there is precedent for it. White also has the ability to search for basic Plains, so, while it's a bit of a bend, it's on the acceptable side.
It's hard to evaluate this card in a vacuum, as I don't know how easy it would be to get service counters. I kind of like the concept, in that it's a decent card at any point in the game.
Scaletian Dreadbeast - the proper language is "Spend only mana produces by basic lands to cast Scaletian Dreadbeast." (Source: Imperiosaur I think this might be too aggressively costed and could be either a 4/2 or one mana more, just to avoid a Tarmogoyf situation, but I think you could probably get away with this in a non-standard set.
Drow Ascendant - As others mentioned, Regenerate has fallen out of use because it was not an intuitive mechanic (removing the creature from combat does not follow from the word itself; replacement effects trip up players; etc.).
This is an extremely problematic card though. Turn 4, Drow Ascendant into a turn 5 Fatal Push for a blood counter, then Damnation with regenerate/indestructible means you can keep this from being wrathed and then swing for a huge amount of damage.
I would probably leave it with the firebreathing and ping ability.
Gleeful Pyre - Nope. There is no reason for this card to exist. Functionally, it's the same as "You may have four copies of Gleeful Pyre and four copies of Lightning Strike in your deck." There might be some use for it in Standard, but standard usually has enough two mana burn spells floating about that I don't see the first ability as ever being all that relevant.
Book of knowledge - the language should read:
[mana cost], tap: Search target player's library for a card and exile it face down. Then that player shuffles their library. (source Praetor's Grasp
Then, as a separate static ability:
You may look at and play cards exiled with Book of Knowledge.
1 year ago
How do you get enough creatures to discard to Vampire Hounds?
2 years ago
Oops, did not realize Tormentor counted as Black/Blue. The more I know I guess.
Voldaren Pariah is great, especially in edh. I see no reason not to play her. She does work a lot better with more sac enablers though.
Heir is just what popped in my head when thinking of vampires that enable discard. I'm not familiar with a lot of vampires. Some other ones that might work:
2 years ago
I was running Gnaw to the Bone over Moment's Peace, but The more I playtest against the meta, I've realized that the card that the deck wants is actually Moment's Peace. I was looking at the modern variant of dredge, and saw that they ran Gnaw to the Bone over Moment's Peace. This is because Modern Dredge runs differently. I Delve, they don't. So it's hard to keep the creature count in grave so high. I knew about the card, I just thought something better existed.
I mentioned that Wild Mongrel was bad for this deck in the description, and Vampire Hounds is worse. Running a card that nets me card disadvantage is bad, even if I'm playing slightly above curve. Those two are probably the best Madness Enablers in the format. I don't play Madness, so they're not good here.
Fa'adiyah Seer. Holy Crap. I did not know this thing existed. Yes. I realized that you almost never draw the card. When possible, you always dredge. You always get the card, never discard, and you now have a card to feed back to grave. When impossible, it helps dig for something to dredge with. And if you see it in grave, you pick it back up. Yes.
Last Rites does seem ridiculous. Seems really good against Black, Teachings, Blue decks that aren't Delver-based aggro, and maybe even Blitz. Gonna find room for it in the side somewhere.
No data for this card yet.