I would say that +1/+1 counters, Auras, and Equipment are each going to exist at average levels. They are at neither high nor low ebb in this meta.
The reason that I like this card is because it presents an implicit question for new players. Vigilance + 0 power is appropriately jarring for somebody just learning to play. The answer to the question, of course, is that buffs exist, and that's how you make the creature work on the offensive. Even if it plays more-or-less like a Wall of Wood in most Limited games, I like it for the reasons mentioned. It will motivate players to search out the buffs.
Nine-Eyed Lemures - Lifelink can be very swingy ability... And for that reason Wizards don't put it on common creatures with power greater than 2 (yeah, there was one exception, but power 4 is just too much at common).
"Lemures" is a Latin word for "ghosts." (Whether it refers to a generic or specific kind of ghost is up for interpretation.) The primates are named after them. WotC has a spottyhistory with this word. ("Lemure" is not a word.) It doesn't have anything to do with fish, as far as I know.
But, I think "Lemures" (lem-yoor-ees) is a cool-sounding word and I want to use it. I just wanted to avoid all of the previous mishandling of the etymology, so I figured I'd have these Lemures be ghosts of something clearly not of primate origin. I always thought Quagmire Lamprey was a kind of weird and cool card, and I got a mental image of ghost lampreys sucking the lifeforce out of a person. "Nine-Eyed" refers to the appearance of lampreys as having nine eyes on each side of their head (even though eight of them are actually oddly-shaped gill slits.)
I like this card because it must be answered immediately, even if it's relatively easy to answer. In that sense, it's swingy. I have no problems making it uncommon. Assuming it remains a 4/1 French vanilla, how would you cost it as an uncommon? "The same" is my initial hunch.
With Haste being basically tertiary in green, there's no reason for it to appear at Common. Hence why White can get Intimidate, but Spectral Rider was uncommon. Green could be a 4/7 trample or something.
Hutan Raiders - Yeah green gets haste... But not at random crappy commons, this should rather have something like trample.
I just wrote about four paragraphs defending this, and laying out my reasoning for it. The result was that I convinced myself that it's a very bad idea.
Of course, now that I say that, I'm thinking of more things to say in its defense.
Let me instead pose a question: how do you make it so that haste is completely unsurprising? Is it possible?
Let me instead pose a question: how do you make it so that haste is completely unsurprising? Is it possible?
The immediate, snarky answer I think of is "Forecast". Really though, the only way to make haste not at all surprising is to make it appear frequently enough that people expect it. That's not really a good solution though, because the gameplay is much healthier if creatures can get outclassed before they turn sideways.
Gaea's Revenge is the only green card to have ever been printed with haste in a core set. And it's mythic to boot. New World Order wouldn't Do this. It's showcasing an element of green that is on the crust of its slice of the pie at common.
Gaea's Revenge is the only green card to have ever been printed with haste in a core set. And it's mythic to boot. New World Order wouldn't Do this. It's showcasing an element of green that is on the crust of its slice of the pie at common.
I'm not sure what that has to do with NWO. I don't think that distribution of keywords among colors is a complexity issue that affects new player acquisition.
Here's the thing about this card: it's not a design that would exist anywhere outside of monogreen. No other color (or combination of colors) wants a high-costed, big-butt, French vanilla creature with haste. It would be a disappointing as a :symrg:, :symrw:, or card. It isn't a monored or monoblack design. But as a monogreen card, it's an interesting (if not particularly efficient) curve-topper.
That said, I'm not trying to poach haste from red. I don't think it should appear in green with any greater frequency than it does already. So maybe common is a step too far. I think it accomplishes what I want it to accomplish as an uncommon.
I'm not sure what that has to do with NWO. I don't think that distribution of keywords among colors is a complexity issue that affects new player acquisition.
I don't think it's a complexity issue either. I think common green haste creature would misrepresent green on a level that would mislead new players.
Hutan Raiders - Aren't fine even at uncommon... If you look at all green creatures with haste in modern Magic, they have one thing in common - they all were constructed playable. It was stated by MaRo few times that constructed playability should be goal with haste in green.
Well, if you could find that statement and link it, I would appreciate it.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I must say. MaRo's reason for limiting green haste to tertiary status is because black haste opens up more design space in secondary status. And I agree with him - this is a question about maximizing design space.
As I said previously, this is not a design that either monored or monoblack would attempt. I think that if your primary and your secondary color both pass on the design, that's a good reason to see if your tertiary color can handle it. I don't see why that option has to be restricted based on the considerations of one format (Constructed.)
If this were a design that either monored or monoblack wanted, then I would agree: it shouldn't be in green unless there's a strong reason that your Constructed format needs that card to be a green card. But that doesn't apply to this card, IMO.
The article doesn't say green haste only appears on constructed cards, it says it only appears on higher rarity cards and is frequently useful to slap on green cards so they become constructed playable. Strangleroot Geist shows haste is okay at uncommon in monoG, so I have no objections to the card as is.
OTOH, you're correct that it would be fine in monoB as well because of the recent shift of big butt creatures into black's pie.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
OTOH, you're correct that it would be fine in monoB as well because of the recent shift of big butt creatures into black's pie.
Yeah, but that shift was made in order to differentiate black from red mechanically. Turning around and putting haste on a high-toughness black creature undermines the point of that shift in the first place.
Anyway, it doesn't sound like MaRo is communicating the consensus of WotC on green haste. It sounds like development loves it, but design are the ones saying no. And I understand design's reasons for saying no, but I think there are other "official" perspectives on this.
Giant Markov is too redundant and parasitic to be printed at common.
When I think of a murmuring phantasm, I think of a transparent ghost with no substance that just floats around. I'm not sure how a very tough non-flying wall relates to that.
I thought lemurs were monkeys. Is it because you were worried about being politically correct that you didn't want to make a black monkey card?
Bears are 2/2 for 2.
Why does Human Raiders have 3 types? Also why are they Apes?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I petition for a new pack structure: 1 Mythic Rare 3 Rares 5 Uncommons 7 Commons 1 Token/B. Land
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
It's Hutan not Human... Also since when creature can't have 3 types?
To be fair, most 3 creature type cards are race&race&class to symbolize a mixed blood creature or race&class&misc for various reasons (allies, most notably, but also quite a few mutants). The race&class&class model seen here is pretty unusual as far as I'm aware, but it is probably being used because the "creature" is really a group of creatures, some of which are warriors and some of which are shamans.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
I thought lemurs were monkeys. Is it because you were worried about being politically correct that you didn't want to make a black monkey card?
I do not know where in world you would get that idea. Especially after I gave a breakdown of my reasons (and the etymology of "lemures") on the first page of this discussion.
Creature — Goat [C]
Vigilance
[0/3]
Creature — Spirit [C]
Defender
[0/5]
Creature — Fish Spirit [U]
Lifelink
[4/1]
Creature — Bear [C]
Mountainwalk
[3/2]
Creature — Ape Warrior Shaman [U]
Haste
[4/6]
I would say that +1/+1 counters, Auras, and Equipment are each going to exist at average levels. They are at neither high nor low ebb in this meta.
The reason that I like this card is because it presents an implicit question for new players. Vigilance + 0 power is appropriately jarring for somebody just learning to play. The answer to the question, of course, is that buffs exist, and that's how you make the creature work on the offensive. Even if it plays more-or-less like a Wall of Wood in most Limited games, I like it for the reasons mentioned. It will motivate players to search out the buffs.
"Lemures" is a Latin word for "ghosts." (Whether it refers to a generic or specific kind of ghost is up for interpretation.) The primates are named after them. WotC has a spotty history with this word. ("Lemure" is not a word.) It doesn't have anything to do with fish, as far as I know.
But, I think "Lemures" (lem-yoor-ees) is a cool-sounding word and I want to use it. I just wanted to avoid all of the previous mishandling of the etymology, so I figured I'd have these Lemures be ghosts of something clearly not of primate origin. I always thought Quagmire Lamprey was a kind of weird and cool card, and I got a mental image of ghost lampreys sucking the lifeforce out of a person. "Nine-Eyed" refers to the appearance of lampreys as having nine eyes on each side of their head (even though eight of them are actually oddly-shaped gill slits.)
I like this card because it must be answered immediately, even if it's relatively easy to answer. In that sense, it's swingy. I have no problems making it uncommon. Assuming it remains a 4/1 French vanilla, how would you cost it as an uncommon? "The same" is my initial hunch.
Oh, come on. I think we've departed the era where the creature type "Bear" can only be applied to crappy 2/2 green creatures.
I just wrote about four paragraphs defending this, and laying out my reasoning for it. The result was that I convinced myself that it's a very bad idea.
Of course, now that I say that, I'm thinking of more things to say in its defense.
Let me instead pose a question: how do you make it so that haste is completely unsurprising? Is it possible?
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
I'm not sure what that has to do with NWO. I don't think that distribution of keywords among colors is a complexity issue that affects new player acquisition.
Here's the thing about this card: it's not a design that would exist anywhere outside of monogreen. No other color (or combination of colors) wants a high-costed, big-butt, French vanilla creature with haste. It would be a disappointing as a :symrg:, :symrw:, or card. It isn't a monored or monoblack design. But as a monogreen card, it's an interesting (if not particularly efficient) curve-topper.
That said, I'm not trying to poach haste from red. I don't think it should appear in green with any greater frequency than it does already. So maybe common is a step too far. I think it accomplishes what I want it to accomplish as an uncommon.
I don't think it's a complexity issue either. I think common green haste creature would misrepresent green on a level that would mislead new players.
That's what I was trying to say.
Well, if you could find that statement and link it, I would appreciate it.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I must say. MaRo's reason for limiting green haste to tertiary status is because black haste opens up more design space in secondary status. And I agree with him - this is a question about maximizing design space.
As I said previously, this is not a design that either monored or monoblack would attempt. I think that if your primary and your secondary color both pass on the design, that's a good reason to see if your tertiary color can handle it. I don't see why that option has to be restricted based on the considerations of one format (Constructed.)
If this were a design that either monored or monoblack wanted, then I would agree: it shouldn't be in green unless there's a strong reason that your Constructed format needs that card to be a green card. But that doesn't apply to this card, IMO.
OTOH, you're correct that it would be fine in monoB as well because of the recent shift of big butt creatures into black's pie.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
That's the magic of the internet! Everything's findable if you actually know what you're supposed to be looking for.
Yeah, but that shift was made in order to differentiate black from red mechanically. Turning around and putting haste on a high-toughness black creature undermines the point of that shift in the first place.
Anyway, it doesn't sound like MaRo is communicating the consensus of WotC on green haste. It sounds like development loves it, but design are the ones saying no. And I understand design's reasons for saying no, but I think there are other "official" perspectives on this.
And I don't design cards solely for Constructed.
When I think of a murmuring phantasm, I think of a transparent ghost with no substance that just floats around. I'm not sure how a very tough non-flying wall relates to that.
I thought lemurs were monkeys. Is it because you were worried about being politically correct that you didn't want to make a black monkey card?
Bears are 2/2 for 2.
Why does Human Raiders have 3 types? Also why are they Apes?
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
To be fair, most 3 creature type cards are race&race&class to symbolize a mixed blood creature or race&class&misc for various reasons (allies, most notably, but also quite a few mutants). The race&class&class model seen here is pretty unusual as far as I'm aware, but it is probably being used because the "creature" is really a group of creatures, some of which are warriors and some of which are shamans.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
Yeah, this is basically a Planet of the Apes card. That's where I'm going for flavor.
"Hutan" is simply Malay for "forest." It's one of the two words that make up the word "orangutan" (person of the forest.)
So, the idea is that this is a mixed warband of sapient great apes.
I do not know where in world you would get that idea. Especially after I gave a breakdown of my reasons (and the etymology of "lemures") on the first page of this discussion.