i’m also kind of in the neither boat, but not really, because i’m on neither at my base size but i use both in my upsize packs. i think courser is STRONGER, but Augur does something COOLER, and both are fairly strong, probably in the top 5-10 green 3s one could be running just on power, but neither is in my top 3.
General Fight Club
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
I'm on team Augur at the moment. Courser is one of those cards that felt unshakable, but Augur offers advantage in more manageable ways. Courser being firmly anti-aggro is a pretty big knock against it. Augur can still put up a defense without flat-out crippling aggros efforts in one package. Coven is pretty easy to get online, but does still offer opportunities for opponent interaction, which is good. Can't deal 3 damage at the moment? That's ok, take out the 1/1 and at least turn off the coven engine for a bit until you can find the tool you need.
Since I have a lands archetype, I feel like having at least one in my format is important. I can definitely see other formats going with "neither", especially with all the investigate and other ways to generate CA in green now. There's eccentric farmer as an option at lower power levels that also better supports milling strategies.
Since I have a lands archetype, I feel like having at least one in my format is important. I can definitely see other formats going with "neither", especially with all the investigate and other ways to generate CA in green now. There's eccentric farmer as an option at lower power levels that also better supports milling strategies.
yeah, the polarizing nature of courser against proactive decks is a knock against it for me as well.
and if you wanna do “lands” in green, basically every notable green 3 (tracker, excavator, witness, and then a ways further down the scale there’s Jadelight Ranger, Provisioner, Farmer) already interacts with that archetype, plus there’s Rallier, KOTR, Slogurk now, and Radha in the gold section, ALSO at 3, who push the same theme. you almost have to pull back a little so you’re not totally glutted at 3
and if you wanna do “lands” in green, basically every notable green 3 (tracker, excavator, witness, and then a ways further down the scale there’s Jadelight Ranger, Provisioner, Farmer) already interacts with that archetype, plus there’s Rallier, KOTR, Slogurk now, and Radha in the gold section, ALSO at 3, who push the same theme. you almost have to pull back a little so you’re not totally glutted at 3
I think Augur is pretty interesting, and Coven seems easy enough to trigger. In some green decks this is functionally a Magus of the Future, and dropping this on turn two via a mana elf seems really good (and 2/3 of coven). I see Augur going in the same deck that wants to run Collected Company
yeah, it’s got such a cool Coven payoff and has potential to draw you like 2 cards a turn! the floor is “fine” but the hard part is getting and keeping the Coven payoff. i think the juice is worth the squeeze in CoCo-type decks like you said
Obviously the Angel is a lot stronger, but I'm really wondering which will make for a more interesting game. Assume that there are a decent number of soldiers (about a third of the rest of my White creatures, things like Thraben Inspector, Militia Bugler, Esper Sentinel, etc.). Does Angel tend to wreck environments? I do support an amount of blink, so expect that these may be recurred. (Soulherder, Galepowder Mage, Teleportation Circle, and Flickerwisp)
I think token spam in general leads to somewhat uninteresting games...
Angel of Invention is probably a bit more interesting because it generates artifacts, pumps the whole team, and flies. The last two means it helps actually close out the game a bit faster than Captain IMO (less board clogging more swinging).
Angel of Invention is probably a bit more interesting because it generates artifacts, pumps the whole team, and flies. The last two means it helps actually close out the game a bit faster than Captain IMO (less board clogging more swinging).
angel is better, neither is gonna break your format unless you’re a retail format. tribal stuff is pretty much a hard pass for me at this point. also Captain’s art is silly
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
There have also been times (when I ran it in my cube) where it was correct to play it as a 4/3 flying lifelinker, and the difference between five and six mana is huge (more than one turn, on average). If you factor in the blink suite, Captain tends to clog up the board harder than Angel, simply because it makes 1.5 as many tokens, and blinking the Angel to "transform" into 4/3 flying, lifelink mode is actually a sweet option. I don't think the choice is all that close, tbh.
I will fight for this art--mono-W Soldiers was my first 'serious' kitchen table deck. But yeah, the tribal element is probably good to pass on unless it's either a) humans or b) entirely incidental to the card itself.
Regardless, it's time for this card to go, if only to cut down on tokens. RIP. Thanks for the input!
Last edited:
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Really? I think it takes the word "breastplate" a bit too literally. Let's just say this is a good way to guide opposing blades to your vital organs...
Oh, the art is garbage, no two ways about it. But it's iconically trashy like Frank Frazetta's stuff, and fantasy art owes a huge amount to that style. To me, it's a reminder of an era in art that no longer exists (for a good reason), and it does so in a way that mostly avoids its worst tendencies (full-on bikini armor, exoticism, etc.). Again, it's not good art--what's the background? Did we have to be so literal as to have one named NPC and three mooks on a card that makes three tokens?--but there's a lot of Magic art that falls into this category, and it feels remiss to not include some of that in my cubes.
I feel like this is a misunderstanding of the female gender and their psychology. All humans are a little bit the same but also a little bit different. Some women (and men) perform better when they are comfortable and some are more comfortable when they don’t have to worry about how they are looking. There are many examples of this in the real life.
I feel like it isn't, because I'm critiquing a painting. The lady in the art doesn't have any say on if she actually likes wearing makeup. It's not a real person that has agency in that decision, it's an artist's decision with paint on a canvas. If I was judging a photograph of a person wearing cosplay armor with makeup then please feel free to make this comment.
And because it's supposed to be a depiction of a Medieval-ish Military Captain it's a silly depiction as illustrated. Makeup didn't exist like it is in it's current form, and it wouldn't be practical to wear makeup with plate armor (you sweat a lot). Not to mention wearing your hair long and down (grabbable by an attacker) and holding a protective shield out behind you (not protecting you) are silly no matter the gender. And of course the sternum-shattering, sword-guiding boobplate is super silly. And the fact that she is in an impractical stance (hip popped forward and upper body twisted) is also silly. Just silly overall.
Women fighters can look badass/cool/beautiful/whatever while still looking realistic, which is something that women are pushing for: https://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/.
And we have seen WotC start to do better on this in more recent artworks, as well as improve their representation of more diverse characters (female and otherwise).
One of their biggest struggles remains leaving women soldiers and knights without helmets and with long hair.
Don’t worry about it, I will make comments to defend women whenever I want. Also if it is just in a talk about a non-existing woman and why she chose to wear make-up and lip-stick.
If you would please confirm that you understand that some women prefer to look good even when there is no need for good looks, then it would make me very happy. If not, then we will have to agree to disagree. It is just paint on a piece of art after all.
If you would please confirm that you understand that some women prefer to look good even when there is no need for good looks, then it would make me very happy. If not, then we will have to agree to disagree. It is just paint on a piece of art after all.
To be fair, fantasy artwork has a bad tendency of going "heroic people don't wear helmets, yeah?", which comes straight from Hollywood. Seriously, if you hired a big-name actor, the last thing you want to do is cover up their face.
I do find the pictures that you picked kinda funny, @sigh. The people on the left and right are obviously in some form of parade/sport dress (heck, Ser Left is straight-up in a joust), and the lady in the middle... I guess that she values her shoulders more than her actual vitals?
For reference, the order you layer your armor on is Head and Torso > Shoulders, Waist, and Thighs > Everything Else, with shields being less and less relevant as more of your body is covered. The heavier armor goes on the more important stuff.
I do find the pictures that you picked kinda funny, @sigh. The people on the left and right are obviously in some form of parade/sport dress (heck, Ser Left is straight-up in a joust), and the lady in the middle... I guess that she values her shoulders more than her actual vitals?
For reference, the order you layer your armor on is Head and Torso > Shoulders, Waist, and Thighs > Everything Else, with shields being less and less relevant as more of your body is covered. The heavier armor goes on the more important stuff.
Just remember that in this case you are defending a male artist's decision, and not defending an actual women.
Sure I understand this. This understanding played no part in my critique because there is no actual woman being shown making that choice. Same understanding I used when I didn't exclude the lady in the middle or right in my pictures, because in those cases I understand that I'm looking at real people making their own decisions and so felt no need to critique their missing armor pieces or use of makeup.
Lady on the right is wearing a perfectly practical plate harness. Sure it could be for "parade dress", but it is still shaped very practically (compared to the Captain's lmao). The plate harness the jouster is wearing is shaped the same basic way a harness would be for use as Calvary, it's just thicker and the shield is obviously designed for jousting. Also wouldn't it be badass to see an MTG depiction of jousters? No matter what gender? Feels like a missed art opportunity overall.
The lady in the middle isn't wearing a breastplate, but again, that's a real human being that can make that real decision. And considering how few soldiers in the medieval period could actually afford a plate harness, it's probably more realistic than you might suspect. Most soldiers could only afford a mail tunic, or not even that and stuck with a gambeson. For all we know she does have a breastplate with her, and just picked up her sword to let the photographer take a cool picture before she had put it on.
Go search up women in armor yourself if you'd like to find more "proper" pictures to share.
at this point i’m kinda regretting that i brought the art up at all lol
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I think this is something worth talking about, so I don't regret you bringing it up
