General Fight Club
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
There is some reasoning for adding Tusker (or Tanuki) over just doubling Beanstalk. Those can be discarded for value reanimator strategies, and Tusker is a very decent draw spell that can be a mediocre finisher if your control decks add green sometimes. Also, as Onde mentioned, Delirium synergies for the doggy.
No love for Shefet Monitor? Good.
As much as I love Tusker... I think Tanuki is a better inclusion if Natural Connection is worth casting in your environment, simply because the body is so much better. Vulpine Goliath isn't embarrassing to cast, while Tusker never really feels good to play as a creature.
As much as I love Tusker... I think Tanuki is a better inclusion if Natural Connection is worth casting in your environment, simply because the body is so much better. Vulpine Goliath isn't embarrassing to cast, while Tusker never really feels good to play as a creature.
Last edited:
Having played with both, I can confidently say that Greater Tanuki is the superior card.vs
–Tanuki has the same stats as Krosan Tusker while being one mana cheaper.
–Tanuki puts the land it grabs directly into play.
–Tanuki has a second relevant card type.
–Tanuki has trample.
–Tanuki is a fluffy doggo.
Really the only time Krosan Tusker is going to be better pound for pound than Greater Tanuki is when some sort of cycling matters shenanigans are going on. However, this isn't really a problem because the vast majority of Cube-ready "Cycling Matters" cards also trigger from a normal discard. You'd basically only be missing out on Astral Slide/Drift, Lightning Rift, and Drannith Stinger.
Tanuki does not draw though…
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Krosan Tusker is a green Divination with several upsides*, that's pretty sexy.
*instant speed, can't be countered, bins a fatty for reanimation/recursion purposes, is a fatty split card in the late game
"having played with both"
I think he realizes those upsides and has still determined Tanuki to be better.
In this day and age, a pseudo-divination.... really isn't exciting. Card advantage is built into the fabric of modern Magic. A ramp spell, however, is always a needed effect for certain styles of decks, and this ramp effect comes with a lot of upsides for a lot of siutations (including being a ramp target, a rare gem for a playstyle that can suffer from I-drew-my-cards-out-of-order syndrome)
I think he realizes those upsides and has still determined Tanuki to be better.
In this day and age, a pseudo-divination.... really isn't exciting. Card advantage is built into the fabric of modern Magic. A ramp spell, however, is always a needed effect for certain styles of decks, and this ramp effect comes with a lot of upsides for a lot of siutations (including being a ramp target, a rare gem for a playstyle that can suffer from I-drew-my-cards-out-of-order syndrome)
Except in the case when you want to reanimate, then the draw can be important. Furthermore, a bit later in the game you do not have a land drop to use out of your hand and then the tusker is (except the trample part) better.
I would never, ever run the enchantment creature unless I either
1. Had an enchantment theme going on in my cube in green or
2. Had no other choice.
(I personally run one enchantment creature in my Ascension because I have no other choice. I could custom it up but when picking from official cards, there is nothing to replace it. It's Moon-Circuit Hacker if you're interested.)
Here is an option for you
1. Had an enchantment theme going on in my cube in green or
2. Had no other choice.
(I personally run one enchantment creature in my Ascension because I have no other choice. I could custom it up but when picking from official cards, there is nothing to replace it. It's Moon-Circuit Hacker if you're interested.)
Here is an option for you
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Storybook frame 100% if you can expect your playgroup to know how adventure works.Here is an option for you
If not? I think I'd photoshop up a storybook frame with reminder text. (Or CardConjurer)
I legitimately don't get how people have problems seeing the artifact and enchantment creature frames they used in NEO. Do these somehow look identical to you?
EDIT: Like, going through the set on Scryfall, I can maybe see complaining about the Blue Artifact Creature and Black Enchantment Creature frames... but I find the others very easy to distinguish at a glance. And I'm saying this as someone who has trouble distinguishing colors and parsing images due to actual neurological problems.
EDIT: Like, going through the set on Scryfall, I can maybe see complaining about the Blue Artifact Creature and Black Enchantment Creature frames... but I find the others very easy to distinguish at a glance. And I'm saying this as someone who has trouble distinguishing colors and parsing images due to actual neurological problems.
Last edited:
I had to focus in for a bit to notice the difference on my screen and I'm sure I would struggle to see it in person.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Unprofessional card designer (tm) here: you've got to remember that magic cards are experienced in (mostly) this order as game pieces:I legitimately don't get how people have problems seeing the artifact and enchantment creature frames they used in NEO. Do these somehow look identical to you?
EDIT: Like, going through the set on Scryfall, I can maybe see complaining about the Blue Artifact Creature and Black Enchantment Creature frames... but I find the others very easy to distinguish at a glance. And I'm saying this as someone who has trouble distinguishing colors and parsing images due to actual neurological problems.
Name > (Rules > P/T > Mana Cost) > Art > Frame
Everything in brackets is probably person dependent, but they definitely come before art/frame. Typeline isn't even on this list, it's mostly implied from the rules text, or looked at after all of these IF it's called out by rules text (Goblin King).
Kamigawa's cards don't always do this, (something I consider an upside in a vacuum) because they're not usually counting the same thing. There's green/white cards that care about/are artifacts, and there's blue/red cards that care about/are enchantments.
Generally, people are trying to figure out what a given card does for them (which leads to the order above) and then they appreciate the aesthetics (if at all).
Human brains have trouble holding all these pieces of data holistically, so I'm not surprised the last few datapoints you read get lost in the sauce.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I'm typically only looking at a card's border peripherally, my main focus is on the art. Obviously you can tell these are enchantments, if you are looking for it, but the main nuisance (because I wouldn't call it a problem per se) is that the artwork on the enchantment cards themselves is not distinguishable from the normal non-enchantment cards. If you look at Hot-Shot Mechanic, it has a metal arm. That's an artifact creature, right there! On the other hand, there is literally nothing in the art of Golden-Tail Disciple that clearly signals "I am an enchantment". It has the same vibe, art wise, as Blade-Blizzard Kitsune, and that is what bothers people. Theros block had the same design challenge, and there they decided to use the Nyx starfield as a visual indicator, making it much clearer at a glance that you weren't looking at a regular creature in the case of, e.g.I legitimately don't get how people have problems seeing the artifact and enchantment creature frames they used in NEO. Do these somehow look identical to you?
EDIT: Like, going through the set on Scryfall, I can maybe see complaining about the Blue Artifact Creature and Black Enchantment Creature frames... but I find the others very easy to distinguish at a glance. And I'm saying this as someone who has trouble distinguishing colors and parsing images due to actual neurological problems.
For NEO, they tried showing the spirit realm on the artwork, e.g.
There are, apart from the subjective opinion that a lot of these arts simply do not look like enchantment creatures because they are in fact depicting perfectly normal-looking creatures, three (imho) objective flaws in the NEO approach. Firstly, there is no visual coherence between all the enchantment creature arts. Every card has a different spirit aiding them, and thus a vastly different visual representation of the spirit world. Secondly, the spirits themselves (except for the Go-Shintai) are not enchantment creatures in NEO, so conceptually it's not at all clear that being very in tune with the spirits should make you an enchantment creature. Thirdly, there are a few non-enchantment creatures in the set that show spiritual aid, making the line even more blurred, most notably
In short, I feel like the visual indicator on the NEO enchantment creatures could have been much, much clearer, in order to help players intuitively pick out the enchantment creatures.
Last edited:
That’s certainly not the issue.
@Onderzeeboot
100 % agree. It’s not a problem with the card frame because the frame tells us they are enchantments. You have now highlighted how the card art doesn’t look very enchantmenty.
Now let’s talk card text box.
Does the text box on the NEO enchantment creatures scream that they are enchantments?
Does something enchantmenty
Does something enchantmenty
Does something enchantmenty
Should not be an enchantment. It’s just a creature if you look at the text box. Imagine having an enchantment that just had ‘Lifelink’ in it’s text box.
100 % agree. It’s not a problem with the card frame because the frame tells us they are enchantments. You have now highlighted how the card art doesn’t look very enchantmenty.
Now let’s talk card text box.
Does the text box on the NEO enchantment creatures scream that they are enchantments?
Does something enchantmenty
Does something enchantmenty
Does something enchantmenty
Should not be an enchantment. It’s just a creature if you look at the text box. Imagine having an enchantment that just had ‘Lifelink’ in it’s text box.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
That's another solid point. I agree that nothing about that text box at all signals that you're looking at an enchantment. Really, it's only the frame and the type line that tell you it's an enchantment, and nothing else, and that's what's confusing people. It's just not, as MaRo would call it, a grokkable design@OnderzeebootNow let’s talk card text box.
Should not be an enchantment. It’s just a creature if you look at the text box. Imagine having an enchantment that just had ‘Lifelink’ in it’s text box.
For what it's worth, I don't agree that Golden-Tail Disciple should not be an enchantment. If a 2/3 lifelink enchantment creature is what makes your format better, than you should add it! In my mind, relying only on the frame and the type line to sell that concept is where the mistake lies. Compare e.g.
Nothing about these Theros creatures' text boxes particularly signals "I am an enchantment", but there's a clear and common visual representation, so it still works.
PS Looking back at Theros enchantment creature designs, it does occur to me how many of them had part of their rules text devoted to a permanent (well, as long as the creature lives) game-altering effect or repeating trigger to feel more enchantment-y, from common up to mythic, e.g.
NEO has a few of these (e.g. Akki Ember-Keeper and Eiganjo Exemplar), but also a way higher percentage of regular creature-y creatures (e.g. Bearer of Memory, Gloomshrieker, and Moon-Circuit Hacker).
I disagree
Nothing about these Theros creatures' text boxes particularly signals "I am an enchantment", but there's a clear and common visual representation, so it still works.
Alseid, Philosophy and Maggot are all three cards you could clearly have as enchantments. I don't think I have to find cards as references since you know that I'm right. There are variants of Weaver as well. Brute is the only one that feels as off (text box wise) as the NEO enchantment creatures.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
What I meant (and what I said) is that these do not necessarily feel like enchantments. Obviously there are enchantments, like Font of Fortunes, that sacrifice themselves to draw cards, but it's not an ability that is particularly associated with enchantments. There are 17 creatures that straight up sacrifice to draw one or more cards, and only 7 noncreature enchantments, for example. There's exactly one enchantment that imitates the Alseid, and no enchantment that mimics Brain Maggot, afaik. Likewise, there isn't a noncreature enchantment that straight up taps for mana, while there are a myriad of Elvish Mystic variants. Anyway, the point is not that these effects can't be done as an enchantment, the point is that they regularly appear on nonenchantment creatures, meaning that the card text itself doesn't really signal that you're looking at an enchantment creature. Importantly though, the art does however, because all of the enchantment creatures from Theros show the starry Nyxborn pattern! I think that point still holds for all five examples, and is what sets them apart from the NEO enchantment creatures.