Ham with a Fiend Glaze

[Arzangremmel]

Glaze Fiend is a flavor nightmare and evidence to me that R&D actively hates and derides the player base.

It's an artifact, sure. Esper gets creatures that are also artifacts that are also whatever colors they would be anyway. Fine. But instead of a traditional artifact creature type like Golem, Construct, or Pest, or a regular-creature-plus-etherium-filigree creature type like Vedalken, Human, or Homunculus, this one is an illusion.
Think about it, an artifact illusion. I would reject the card out of hand if it weren't for the fact that my kitchen table is also a ghost. As it stands I stake my first sign of shaky flavoring.

It's a black flying guy. Black gets fliers, especially wee imps and um, fiends I guess. This part checks out just fine.

The name "Glaze Fiend" suggests neither artifact, nor illusion. As far as I could find, the only other Fiend who is himself an illusion is Phantasmal Fiend, and I would hazard a guess that he gets the illusion creature type because of the "phantasmal" part and not the "fiend" part.
Glaze suggests windows and glass the same way Halcyon Glaze does, which suggests an enchantment. Being an enchantment that becomes a creature suggests using the illusion creature type. Being an imp made of glass does not.

It's a black creature that cares about artifacts. Black does not care about artifacts. It doesn't support them like blue, it doesn't destroy them like red, green, and white. It just doesn't notice.
This was a problem with Mirrodin and it is a problem with Alara's Esper. Forcing black to care about artifacts somehow is a mistake and makes this card and others like him feel forced themselves. If this were the only problem with the card, I would go after the shard of Esper instead of the card itself, but this on top of everything else makes the whole package look awful in the extreme.

Just what about this guy is black, exactly? Getting pumped from things happening? Being a 0/1 flier? Being an illusion?
As far as I can tell the only thing even remotely black about this guy is that he has "fiend" in his name.

So, it's an artifact illusion, a fiend that's not an imp or demon or devil or horror or something, and a black creature who loves artifacts. Also he's made of stained glass. Also he never learned to tie his shoes.

[Icedflame]

It's a black creature that cares about artifacts. Black does not care about artifacts.

Nim Shrieker

dunno but the whole nim cycle begs to differ...

Then again that was a once in a life time thing....

[White Magus]

I don't really see much wrong with Artifact Illusions... I can think of several ways they could work, including things like projector systems or small micro machines of some sorts. Yes I know both are stretches... but than again so is the entire game of magic lol

I get what you're saying with the other stuff, but frankly we get a card or two like this every set.

[Horseshoe_Hermit]

Originally Posted by Arzangremmel

Glaze Fiend is a flavor nightmare and evidence to me that R&D actively hates and derides the player base.

It's an artifact, sure. Esper gets creatures that are also artifacts that are also whatever colors they would be anyway. Fine. But instead of a traditional artifact creature type like Golem, Construct, or Pest, or a regular-creature-plus-etherium-filigree creature type like Vedalken, Human, or Homunculus, this one is an illusion.
Think about it, an artifact illusion. I would reject the card out of hand if it weren't for the fact that my kitchen table is also a ghost. As it stands I stake my first sign of shaky flavoring.

You're right on that mark. I have to figure this one out. You have to ask why an 'Illusion' can be a creature at all. I can see a phantasm causing harm, but how can a figment? Illusions in this game must be shadows. So the question is how can Glaze Fiend be both quasi-real, and an artifact?

The name "Glaze Fiend" suggests neither artifact, nor illusion. As far as I could find, the only other Fiend who is himself an illusion is Phantasmal Fiend, and I would hazard a guess that he gets the illusion creature type because of the "phantasmal" part and not the "fiend" part.
Glaze suggests windows and glass the same way Halcyon Glaze does, which suggests an enchantment. Being an enchantment that becomes a creature suggests using the illusion creature type. Being an imp made of glass does not.

Yeah. There is a type that comes to mind. Nmp. Emp. Or, Kmp. I'm not sure. HMMMMMM. . .

It's a black creature that cares about artifacts. Black does not care about artifacts. It doesn't support them like blue, it doesn't destroy them like red, green, and white. It just doesn't notice.

How do you suppose that is? I see you say Mirrodin had no backing. But why do you say? How are you sure Black has no connection to magical objects?

Just what about this guy is black, exactly? Getting pumped from things happening? Being a 0/1 flier? Being an illusion?

Taking the position of Wizards for a moment, I think they'd say he's Black because he profits the more objects you hoard.
Also, we can notice its power is 0, so the card is almost like a sleeper enchantment, except it's an artifact. When an artifact shows up, it becomes animate and harmful.

[TheWarden]

I love this card... to death! Bwah ha!

It's simply weird. It probably don't make a whole lot of sense really... but it is similar to the Nim cycle, and it has been done before as Vermiculos...

[Skander]

Glaze Fiend flavor text:

Before the zealots of the Ethersworn came to power, Esper illusionists dreamed up creations to mimic a variety of substances.

The creature is an illusion. It does not do anything but poorly mimic other artifacts for a short period of time. This would fit better in blue.

Originally Posted by Horseshoe_Hermit

You're right on that mark. I have to figure this one out. You have to ask why an 'Illusion' can be a creature at all. I can see a phantasm causing harm, but how can a figment? Illusions in this game must be shadows. So the question is how can Glaze Fiend be both quasi-real, and an artifact?

It is an illusion until it finds another creature to mimic, once it does it becomes a bad copy of it until the effects wear off. Having Artifact in the type line is a little problematic.

The only real problem I have with this is that if it is mimicking something, why should it get a bonus for each artifact that comes into play afterward?

[Dr.Awesome]

It's possible that MaRo and company are just doing more testing of where the limits of the colour pie are.

After all, they also put Time Ebb into this set in White, didn't they?

[Zaph]

As an acknowledged (I think ) flavour-goober, I beg to differ disagree.

I think a window coming to life feels more like an artifact than an enchantment right? Just because Halcyon Glaze existed first doesn't mean Halcyon Glaze is right.

Black doesn't care about artifacts?
It might not be too true when looking at it mechanically, but we are talking flavour: Arzangremmel, meet Phyrexia.


But what is Glaze Fiend? It's a malevolent illusion mimicing and "possessing" a window, using it as a body. That's why he is an artifact; his body is part illusionary glass and metal, part actual glass and metal. When other artifacts come into play, it mimics those too, becoming stronger.
It was created by old Esper illusionists to do this.

As a flavour-goober, I actually like it. I like how it tells us something about Esper from before the period of the Ethersworn. It's strawberry-flavoured-icelolly-level. Sweet and refreshing. Now if it would've had a decent art, it could've been closer to a praline, and if it had actually been good or fun, it would've been able to approach chocolate-chip-cookie-level

[blasppsp]

Originally Posted by Zaph

Now if it would've had a decent art, it could've been closer to a praline, and if it had actually been good or fun, it would've been able to approach chocolate-chip-cookie-level

See I haven't tested it at all yet, but with putting it into an artifact deck, i think it can be a pretty decent card. a 2/3 or 4/5 on your turn. kind of reminds me oona's prowler. conditional undercosted black flying? i dunno

[Stuve]

Two Sharuum the Hegemons = Infinite damage

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that yet.

And yes, an artifact illusion made me scratch my head. But I think it sort of works. It'd have been better off as a Fiend or whatever.

[magac]

Originally Posted by Stuve

Two Sharuum the Hegemons = Infinite damage.

2 if you have an artifact sac engine, otherwise 3, but nevermind.

[SSJ Alakazam]

The idea that black doesn't care about artifacts and simply false. Is it the color that cares most about artifacts? No. But it isn't the color that cares about them the least either - it's either #2 or #3 behind blue and white...hence the artifact theme of Esper. Blue, White, and Black care about artifacts. Red and Green don't..in fact, red and green hate them.

[Arzangremmel]

Thank you all for your responses.

@Nim and Mirrodin in general. Black had interaction with artifacts in this block because it had to, not because it philosophically or flavorfully should have. I had written all this off out of hand and I'm sticking by that. Much as I adore Cranial Plating, I've got to say "Not In My Backyard" on this one: Nim be damned.
Along these same lines, I'm pleased no one brought up anachronistic examples like Gate to Phyrexia, Phyrexian Gremlins, or Phyrexian Tribute to show me that black cares about artifacts.

Originally Posted by Horseshoe Hermit

How do you suppose that is? [that black does not care about artifacts] I see you say Mirrodin had no backing. But why do you say? How are you sure Black has no connection to magical objects?

I am taking example from printed cards as evidence of this color's orientation. I note three categories where black gets to mention artifacts at all in the rules text of its cards:

• examples like above with out-of-date mechanics,
• settings where interacting with the card type is an imperative because of the nature of the setting (Mirrodin, apparently esper, and I guess Antiquities in part above as well)
• and mechanics like fear and cards like Terror that specify "nonartifact."

I take the first as evidence that the color pie has moved on. I will probably have to defend my claim about the second several more times before I'm able to demonstrate that I like settings like this just fine. For now I once again claim that settings like Mirrodin force black to do things it normally would not do (I think this is a discussion best taken on its own).
As for the third, nothing convinces me more that black doesn't care about artifacts. This phrase and nature is both historical and modern in terms of color pie, and we'll probably see and be happy to play with black instants that have "nonartifact" on them for years and years. I hope this clarifies my position.

Originally Posted by Horseshoe Hermit

Taking the position of Wizards for a moment, I think they'd say he's Black because he profits the more objects you hoard.
Also, we can notice its power is 0, so the card is _almost_ like a sleeper enchantment, except it's an artifact. When an artifact shows up, it becomes animate and harmful.

[Underscores mine to replace original italics.]
He profits the most from getting a whole bunch of objects at once. For it to be more like hoarding, he would need to have a permanent bonus for them, or power tied to hoard count (the whole idea behind the Nim, I suppose). He would be much more like an enchantment if he had the ever more black phrase "~ can't block." And what you're saying is that the creature itself is more of an ephemeral being who is feckless until some machine comes around and then he can channel its latent power into himself, becoming the malace and force of that machine. Which is cool, and something that I could see in a blue enchantment.

Originally Posted by Dr.Awesome

It's possible that MaRo and company are just doing more testing of where the limits of the colour pie are.

After all, they also put Time Ebb into this set in White, didn't they?

The outermost parts of the pie are where colors get to have the greatest shift in mechanical identity from set to set. Mechanics that fall in this category will not always be in the same color between blocks, or if they are, will not have the same power level they had. My claim here is that black's disaffection for artifacts is deep down in its identity, toward the innermost pie. I take Time Ebb's becoming Excommunicate as a rather less extreme example of pie-bending. White gets spot creature removal and tempo games. The printing of Excommunicate is not offensive; simply boring.

Originally Posted by Zaph

I think a window coming to life feels more like an artifact than an enchantment right? Just because Halcyon Glaze existed first doesn't mean Halcyon Glaze is right.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. That action feels much more like an enchantment to me. Artifacts should suggest a device or fabrication. Enchantments should suggest a presence or aura, a feeling or a situation.

Originally Posted by Zaph

Black doesn't care about artifacts?
It might not be too true when looking at it mechanically, but we are talking flavour: Arzangremmel, meet Phyrexia.

I wonder if Phyrexia is the best example. For one, Phyrexia is supposed to be an anathema, at least to other planes in the multiverse: a place where a single color has finally achieved total autarchistic domination of everything, artifacts included I guess. I could be off on this one, as I'm not as much of a flavor buff. When something goes down as sour as Glaze Fiend, though, I wretch.

All of the examples I decried as anachronisms above also have ties to Phyrexia, so maybe I'm okay with Phyrexia being a place with lots of artifacts and lots of black mana.

Phyrexia also felt like more of a go-to word when the designers needed something cool sounding to call an artifact. Phyrexian Portal, Phyrexian Furnace, Phyrexian Dining Room Set. There's a staggering lot of cards that bear this word, I imagine many without need of it.

Originally Posted by Zaph

But what is Glaze Fiend? It's a malevolent illusion mimicing and "possessing" a window, using it as a body. That's why he is an artifact; his body is part illusionary glass and metal, part actual glass and metal. When other artifacts come into play, it mimics those too, becoming stronger.
It was created by old Esper illusionists to do this.

As a flavour-goober, I actually like it. I like how it tells us something about Esper from before the period of the Ethersworn. It's strawberry-flavoured-icelolly-level. Sweet and refreshing. Now if it would've had a decent art, it could've been closer to a praline, and if it had actually been good or fun, it would've been able to approach chocolate-chip-cookie-level

I admit that I don't get to say what Glaze Fiend is or should be in place of the Wizards flavor team. I admit the concept is rather neat, but when that concept is sorely misplaced in execution, it makes it feel to me like I'm being force fed the flavor of the card just so I accept it as a card. This is a ham-handed approach at its most elegant, and is way below the bar for professional designers. It just all feels so wrong.

But since you like cookies, you may have one.

Originally Posted by SSJ Alakazam

The idea that black doesn't care about artifacts and simply false. Is it the color that cares most about artifacts? No. But it isn't the color that cares about them the least either - it's either #2 or #3 behind blue and white...hence the artifact theme of Esper. Blue, White, and Black care about artifacts. Red and Green don't..in fact, red and green hate them.

I'm taking my caring in terms of absolute value on the caring continuum. I mean to say that a color "cares" about something when it interacts with that something.
Blue loves the little guys, can bring them back from the graveyard and search them out of the library, can tap or untap them, and can bounce them.
White is cool towards them, usually erring on the side of destroying them to simplify or clear things away. We get less and less disenchant as time goes on.
Green actively hates them, gets a spell to destroy them in every set, and often gets it as a bonus tacked on to creatures.
Red actively hates them, and often gets a spell to destroy one or many, sometimes even getting bonus damage on top of it or some other upside.
Black just doesn't notice. Black commonly gets the phrase "nonartifact" because robots can't be scared to death. Black is easily the color that cares about artifacts the least.

And I have a guess as to why.
Black mana sees something that represents power and actively seeks it out. Black wants everything for itself. Black is privation and selfishness. Artifacts can be cast with any color of mana, or even colorless mana. Everyone gets artifacts. Everyone can use artifacts. Black doesn't want something that just anyone can use. Black wants something that only it can use. If everyone can use a power, then it's like you don't even own that power at all.

I'm just short of writing an angry letter about it to Doug Beyer. So help me if he harps on it in Esper week coming up...POW!

[FoxBat]

This could be a great "ask wizards" question actually. If you don't go overboard on the ranting anyway.

[ludd_gang]

It's an artifact illusion. A stained glass window affects light. Window = artifact, altered light = illusion. Makes sense to me.

And oh yeah, magic isn't real niether.