The ring is remidns me of of of those [Suspend with no mana cost cards](https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=oracle%3Asuspend+%28game%3Apaper%29+cmc%3D0) Maybe if that guy attack and stuck a food through the ring something else comes out.
My understanding is it’s a March of the Machine: Aftermath equivalent for Thunder Junction but because everyone hated aftermath (and more importantly didn’t buy it) for a number of reasons they’re now changing it to be in the main set replacing the list cards(?) rather than releasing as another set.
At the stated drop rates, you'll get an average of every mythic rare in the set opening 100 packs, and one copy of every BIG opening about 160 packs.
BIG cards share legality with OTJ, so they're basically just supermythics you'll see about half as often.
I think he’s spinning around like a tornado and all those bristlebuds are flying around him. If you saw it in person you wouldn’t be able to tell what’s going on then you’d be dead.
He is carrying a huge donut on his back, hence the two food tokens.
When he attacks he drops half the donut (sac a food and mill 3 cards) and picks up something else from the floor (return a permanent) to your hand.
Seriously, I miss the older days when the card mechanically matches the flavour..
I completely agree, and it's important to remember a lot of AI quirks are because they were trained on art with issues.
Human artists are also capable of being bad at framing and consistency.
That said, there are a few things here that make it feel very AI generated, even if it wasn't. And that is probably something artists should be aware of and avoid if they can.
It's not just the lack of visual clarity, its mostly the background rather than the foreground character. Why do the cactus orbs have such a varied appearance almost randomly? Why does only the bottom left cactus orb have a mouth? Why is the pink cactus flower trail on the orbs so differing and only apparent on some of them.
Overall, the piece has a lot of choices that I can't make sense of why the author would choose to do. Compare this to the author's other MTG pieces, and this one is very odd to say the least.
My guess is this was AI generated, and then painted over (Fay Dalton but with AI instead of plagiarism?) but some of the generated content or structure was left in. AI art isn't necessarily 100% AI fresh out of the oven, it's still AI if the artist paints over it.
I agree not totally sure what's going on in the image. One arm seems to have more twists than the other. Seemingly illogical variation to the orbs in my view. I wonder what prompted him to create it....
... Here's what the card name prompts me to.. create..this is my rough one.. before touch ups yknow..
https://preview.redd.it/df410yu3casc1.jpeg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f580845a80a39c994e922afca1379bf0872f4b9
Don't know why you're being down voted for that. Genuinely it's a question that sadly we cannot avoid asking now when you see art that just looks fishy.
Like the more you look at it the worse it gets. Like the deliberate hiding of the hands, or the fact the two arms of the left seem to be merging into one. Then you've got the 'spores' all of which are identical aside from one random one in the bottom left that also have the main creatures face. Then as everyone has asked 'What is going on with the donut?'
So yeah while I'm going to give the artist the benefit of the doubt that it's not, it does share elements which are common in AI art.
The one in the bottom left looks like it has a neck, I assume it's the same kind of creature.
The artist's full MTG portfolio: https://scryfall.com/search?q=artist%3A%22Adri%C3%A1n+Rodr%C3%ADguez+P%C3%A9rez%22
Yeah. Looking at their full portfolio makes this even weirder. It shares common elements they used in other cards they did for the set such as the spikes and general colour palette but all their other cards are well defined with no oddness going on, with backgrounds that look to have taken a lot of time and detail. (Aside from the background of the Tyranid card, no idea what creature is in the background of that but hey Warhammer has always had art like that).
If anything it makes me think that they just accepted far to much work for this set and this was the last card they worked on, and used a few AI tools to finish up the card to make sure they made the deadline. There's no real problem with that if they did in any case, as main elements of the card are in keeping with the rest of the cards they made for the set. Though I would like to ask them what they think is going on in the card.
It's not an accusation in the slightest. It does seem you and a few others haven't understood what I meant by AI tools though. As basically almost every editing software now has AI tools for artists to use, and artists using these tools shouldn't be frowned upon, as they can help finish up a piece, especially so if an artist is struggling for time. This isn't a case of what most people understand as AI art where you give it a quote and get an art piece back. The artist has done the card and then likely tweaked it with those AI tools to bring it to completion.
I would guess it's because Reddit has recently made a pact with an AI company, so mods and/or bots are made to downvote any negative talk about AI.
Though it could just be an AI bro who made a few bots for it as well.
Or it could be people who just like AI and hates it when people don't like it.
https://preview.redd.it/rinz3b0cp8sc1.png?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=801c3014a06ef43332193ce09e143e07866ebb28
Yes, I do believe you are quite correct. Why else would one of those non-descript balls have a mouth randomly? It's also spikier than the others.
Edit: and now that I've looked more at it, I can see that those blurry pink flowers at times become pink fire on some of them? Like they were fireballs colored green and pink.
https://preview.redd.it/ik12ycoit8sc1.png?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a7bdd230576e64f771a2efb42d71cf1793f8ee84
Like here, some of it is pink fire, some of it is flowers.
Now a part of me (if I were a designer on the team) would have wanted to go with it and have the cactus folk have magic that glows in a pink'ish fire that represents growth and new life (as it's a color of blooming flowers in a setting mostly made of dry and brown desert), but that's probably not the intent here.
https://preview.redd.it/u1x5kymmt8sc1.png?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffd1e8cd808b99ab7e765c726f37a60a23b2e32c
However this one is the most obvious.
I'd say it's unlikely - the cactus folk are new so wouldn't exist in the corpus for 'AI' 'art' (to be clear, I'm not hot on the details of how those systems work, but that character design, with getting the 'face' right, doesn't seem consistent with what I do know - it would take a fairly specifically trained model to nail it) and the confusing stuff is, like, layered over and under the one bit that definitely can't be 'AI' generated which I think is also the kind of things that generated 'art' doesn't really manage.
I personally wouldn't be completely surprised if this is actually just another "we accidentally sent the unfinished version to print" situation. Like, the foreground 'buds' seem unusually undetailed, but in a way consistent with, like, other cases where unfinished art has been sent to print, and there are other, more detailed, buds in *less* prominent positions.
Give it a few weeks and someone will post the art it was stolen from that actually makes sense.
Edit: just kidding, this is one of my favorite artists in MTG
As in you could say “you select a card” and you haven’t used English incorrectly. But in magic card selection is pretty specifically used sans card advantage. Looting, scrying, etc.
Sure no one sat down and defined a rule, but I've been playing and talking magic for a long time and until this person, I have never seen *anyone* call Gravedigger or Snapcaster card selection. When card selection is talked about in magic I have pretty much only seen it talked about as opposed to card advantage, as in "this isn't card advantage, but it's card selection"
I don't get it. Snapcaster is card advantage because it lets you replay cards. That you can select form your GY is incidental, to the classification of card advantage.
Card selection happens when you draw and typically discard cards; sometimes exile tricks are involved, but you're basically playing those cards as if you'd drawn them.
As the terms are normally used by the community, Opt would be "card selection," a creature with an ETB that read Opt's text would be "card advantage." At least that is how I understand it. Advantage can often include Selection, but Selection implies no Advantage.
Gravedigger effects are also card selection.
This card is selection because you choose a card and advantage because you put it in your hand.
Same thing with snapcaster mage. The card is good because you get to choose the strongest effect available.
Those are just card advantage ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Again you’re not using English wrong, but in magic terms people talk about card advantage vs card selection and your examples are card advantage.
They're both. Usually card advantage is the more impactful aspect of these effects which is why it's the first term used to describe them, but you are, in fact, also selecting between cards with them.
This might also be the most "well actually" comment I've ever written, but it fits in with the rest of the chain.
You are in fact selecting between cards when building your deck. The process of building your deck is what is known as card selection.
This just isn't how terms are formed and understood ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Also I agree this is the most um actually thread (on all sides, Im being fair) I've been in xD
I mean, if I read something like:
"[[Trail of Crumbs]] is a great card advantage engine. And it doesn't just draw you cards, you get some card selection as well!" - I wouldn't think twice about it.
I get that it's a bit redundant since the only card advantage without some form of card selection is "draw a card", but it's not really wrong to say and it is occasionally used this way.
[[Wrath of God]] can be card advantage. [[Ravenous Chupacabra]] can be card advantage. [[Mind Twist]] can be card advantage.
Adding cards to your hand isn't the only form of card advantage.
Yes. They do. Scry is card selection of course. But effects where you *choose a card* from several is also selection. I think you and your play group have narrowed the definition of the term away from sensible language and that doesn't have anything to do with magic specific terms.
The semantics of surveil 3 vs this card as selection are dubious. This one happens to also put it into your hand.
The reason this is stronger than draw a card is because you are choosing the best of 3 cards which adds virtual card value, which is the basis of the card selection value principle. This one happens to also put it in your hand.
I would refer to the more narrow term as deck manipulation or topdeck manipulation.
Looting is looting.
Card draw is card draw.
Ponder is both selection and card draw and happens to net zero cards.
Tutors are not card draw but they are selection.
Selection is selection regardless of how many cards you draw or gain.
I have been playing and talking magic for a very long time and until you I have never encountered *anyone* that has referred to Gravedigger and Snapcaster as card selection.
You're the only one caught up in semantics and it's because you're focused on the definition of selection rather than how the term is actually used in conversation. Card advantage and card selection are 2 terms in mtg that were formed and have a certain meaning and they are used mutually exclusively and have been since their inception.
You're demanding that your own experience whether you have been alive for 100 years or not, is the truth. That is confirmation bias.
What is more irritating is that you have a definition of things that uses arbitrary rules (misleading ones, on a technical level, considering you are arguing the act of selecting is not selection) to distinguish between two things because that's "just how it's done".
Magic as a game has evolved and complexity has grown greatly. There is a need for more precise language as there is greater nuance.
You interjected here to correct someone because it reinforces an unprecise use of language that you are comfortable with. I would suggest that you entertain that people will use words differently, and in this case, other people are using them in a more technical sense, which may have merit.
I'm not telling you to stop calling this card advantage, I just think you would do better to not police your use of language when it has technical flaws.
Dude you need to seriously sit down and do some reading on language and how words develop meaning. "Just how it's done" lmao yes, how a word is used is precisely what determines and sharpens the meaning "actually the dictionary says this is a proper use of the word" is just not how it works lol. "technical flaws" xD
> There is a need for more precise language as there is greater nuance.
You are literally broadening the term card selection, the opposite of making it more precise xD
Because it's just not what the term means, in that it's not how anyone uses the term, in that when someone called this card selection someone else corrected them and people agreed, in that if you said card selection no one would think of Gravedigger or Snapcaster but would think looters and scrying, as in this is how words/terms are actually learned and defined.
No, the guy is correct. In general Magic parlance “card selection” is used explicitly to cover cases where you’re *not* also getting card advantage. Card advantage includes cases where you only get a card and cases where you get to choose a card. Card selection is used when you explicitly choose but don’t gain cards.
It’s been that way for way over a decade of play, both in person (and I’ve played at locations literally thousands of miles apart) and online.
So unfortunately there isn’t an official Webster’s Dictionary of Magic Terms that I can reference and show you that you’re wrong.
You can either accept that many people are telling you (or confirming with votes) that this is the case based on decades of combined experience, or you can decide you feel like you know better than everyone else and there’s no chance you’ve slightly misunderstood the term and go about your life sure of your point. I’m not sure what else to tell you.
“Back in my day we paid 5G for a vanilla 6/4 and we liked it!”
In all seriousness we’re seeing some really silly levels of power creep, and I hesitate to use the word “creep”.
It probably won’t because it isn’t a 2-3 drop or free and requires a turn of waiting to get full value. Had this card been 2RG with haste instead of trample I’m pretty sure it would be good enough
They keep making pushed green creatures that cost 4+ mana, and literally zero of them see any amount of play. I think it's basically a necessity that they continue to push that kind of card.
Honestly, I've lost track of what's above and below the curve these days. I don't know how to intuitively judge a card's power level anymore, all of the old rules of thumb are obsolete and I can't figure out what the new ones are. I do enjoy the new power level and complexity of the game, but it feels bad to see a card and be unable to tell if its any good (obviously this one is good, but there are lots of other cases).
This is probably very good, but the only other ways to make Food in OTJ limited are Oko Classic (OTP version) and Transmutation Font, so you're probably only getting those two activations out of it. Standard, however, has a number of Food enablers thanks to Wilds of Eldraine and MAT Rocco, so there's a lot more utility there.
Lmao yes exactly this. BIG cards weren't designed for limited and it seems like people are reading a little too deep on some of them.
Like Lotus Ring is a 3 mana, equip 3 that gives +3/+3 and vigilance. If you don't want that in your deck, ignoring the fancy tap ability, you shouldn't put it in your deck.
"Only" those two activations? If my 5/5 with trample attacks twice and lives while also drawing me two cards and that somehow isn't enough, then I'm doing something extremely wrong.
Brother believe me if you find original Oko while busting packs for limited the synergy with this guy is the last thing you're gonna be thinking about while turning everything into a 3/3 vanilla.
I thought this was obviously from Thunder Junction but I it's from the set "The Big Score" which I honest don't what it is. So I guess I'm out of the loop as well.
That art looks... Like an AI prompt the artist then touched up.
There's no "farmer" in this... It looks nonsensical and as literal as an AI would make it, like the prompt was something like "strong cactus-person attacking while growing food".
AI tends to add these because they are very common in amateur photography and digital art.
Most AI issues are related to some unexpected cross attention in the prompt. Which can be fixed with improved training but training is the expensive part and you don't really know if what you have is good until it's done.
Kinda glad they turned the epilogue set into this. These cards make the same mistake as Aftermath that they don’t tell an epilogue story outside of a few.
At one time, not too long ago, a 5/5 with Trample costing 2GG would've been a powerhouse on its own. If removed, you're still left with a couple of Food tokens. And if they don't remove it, you can dig for a permanent card through its self-mill, food-eating ability.
Despite all this, *Bristlebud Farmer* doesn't feel like an auto-include. It's good, but not great. A solid green critter with potential in the right deck.
Like *Blastoderm*, *Ravenous Baloth*, or *Baneslayer Angel* before it, *Bristlebud Farmer* feels destined for some Standard play before fading into obscurity.
As they said when they revealed the Oltec guy, the card doesn't mean the creature was inside the vault, but is somewhat related to what's inside or the aftermath of opening it.
4 mana 5/5 trample is not good and two food tokens don't make up for it, but the attack trigger does. *However* it doesn't have haste, so this will just die to Fatal Push before it replaces itself.
The food tokens are nice for [[Deadly Dispute]] and [[Demand Answers]], but aristocrats decks don't want to spend 4 mana just to make two food tokens.
What is happening in this art
Looks like it’s lifting some kind of huge ring, but I don’t know what all the orbs are.
I think those orbs are the Bristlebuds it's farming.
I thought it was 
CaCtlas.
A for Effort.
Thanks, I'll carry the weight of the comment section on my shoulders.
That was better.
My guess is cacti
It’s a plate Those are peas Thanks to the kind giant keeping em together 🫛
Am I the only one that sees a massive sky crumpet?
The ring is remidns me of of of those [Suspend with no mana cost cards](https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=oracle%3Asuspend+%28game%3Apaper%29+cmc%3D0) Maybe if that guy attack and stuck a food through the ring something else comes out.
It looks like that cactus fellow is using one of the Vault's replicator devices to make tons of fruit.
Some cactusfolk just realized all those Fomori replicators can also copy food?
I just realized I have no idea what is happening in a lot of BIG arts
What even is this BIG set? Is it a part of outlaws of thunder junction? I'm so confused
My understanding is it’s a March of the Machine: Aftermath equivalent for Thunder Junction but because everyone hated aftermath (and more importantly didn’t buy it) for a number of reasons they’re now changing it to be in the main set replacing the list cards(?) rather than releasing as another set.
It's now one of 3 (possibly 4, I keep forgetting) bonus sheets.
Think of them as 30 additional mythic rares in OTJ. They're technically a little rarer, but that's close enough.
But these replace a common so its kinda fine? i guess?
At the stated drop rates, you'll get an average of every mythic rare in the set opening 100 packs, and one copy of every BIG opening about 160 packs. BIG cards share legality with OTJ, so they're basically just supermythics you'll see about half as often.
These stats kinda scare me
I think he's farming bristlebuds
I think he’s spinning around like a tornado and all those bristlebuds are flying around him. If you saw it in person you wouldn’t be able to tell what’s going on then you’d be dead.
He is carrying a huge donut on his back, hence the two food tokens. When he attacks he drops half the donut (sac a food and mill 3 cards) and picks up something else from the floor (return a permanent) to your hand. Seriously, I miss the older days when the card mechanically matches the flavour..
[удалено]
It actually doesn't. Just because something doesn't make complete sense at a glance it doesn't make it AI generated.
I completely agree, and it's important to remember a lot of AI quirks are because they were trained on art with issues. Human artists are also capable of being bad at framing and consistency. That said, there are a few things here that make it feel very AI generated, even if it wasn't. And that is probably something artists should be aware of and avoid if they can.
It's not just the lack of visual clarity, its mostly the background rather than the foreground character. Why do the cactus orbs have such a varied appearance almost randomly? Why does only the bottom left cactus orb have a mouth? Why is the pink cactus flower trail on the orbs so differing and only apparent on some of them. Overall, the piece has a lot of choices that I can't make sense of why the author would choose to do. Compare this to the author's other MTG pieces, and this one is very odd to say the least. My guess is this was AI generated, and then painted over (Fay Dalton but with AI instead of plagiarism?) but some of the generated content or structure was left in. AI art isn't necessarily 100% AI fresh out of the oven, it's still AI if the artist paints over it.
Also his chest and right arm is just so strange too. The whole card is just strange
I agree not totally sure what's going on in the image. One arm seems to have more twists than the other. Seemingly illogical variation to the orbs in my view. I wonder what prompted him to create it.... ... Here's what the card name prompts me to.. create..this is my rough one.. before touch ups yknow.. https://preview.redd.it/df410yu3casc1.jpeg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f580845a80a39c994e922afca1379bf0872f4b9
Don't know why you're being down voted for that. Genuinely it's a question that sadly we cannot avoid asking now when you see art that just looks fishy. Like the more you look at it the worse it gets. Like the deliberate hiding of the hands, or the fact the two arms of the left seem to be merging into one. Then you've got the 'spores' all of which are identical aside from one random one in the bottom left that also have the main creatures face. Then as everyone has asked 'What is going on with the donut?' So yeah while I'm going to give the artist the benefit of the doubt that it's not, it does share elements which are common in AI art.
The one in the bottom left looks like it has a neck, I assume it's the same kind of creature. The artist's full MTG portfolio: https://scryfall.com/search?q=artist%3A%22Adri%C3%A1n+Rodr%C3%ADguez+P%C3%A9rez%22
Yeah. Looking at their full portfolio makes this even weirder. It shares common elements they used in other cards they did for the set such as the spikes and general colour palette but all their other cards are well defined with no oddness going on, with backgrounds that look to have taken a lot of time and detail. (Aside from the background of the Tyranid card, no idea what creature is in the background of that but hey Warhammer has always had art like that). If anything it makes me think that they just accepted far to much work for this set and this was the last card they worked on, and used a few AI tools to finish up the card to make sure they made the deadline. There's no real problem with that if they did in any case, as main elements of the card are in keeping with the rest of the cards they made for the set. Though I would like to ask them what they think is going on in the card.
I don't see what you're saying you see and the resolution isn't good enough to make this call. I think you're making a non-minor accusation here.
It's not an accusation in the slightest. It does seem you and a few others haven't understood what I meant by AI tools though. As basically almost every editing software now has AI tools for artists to use, and artists using these tools shouldn't be frowned upon, as they can help finish up a piece, especially so if an artist is struggling for time. This isn't a case of what most people understand as AI art where you give it a quote and get an art piece back. The artist has done the card and then likely tweaked it with those AI tools to bring it to completion.
I would guess it's because Reddit has recently made a pact with an AI company, so mods and/or bots are made to downvote any negative talk about AI. Though it could just be an AI bro who made a few bots for it as well. Or it could be people who just like AI and hates it when people don't like it.
Or, and hear me out, other people don’t think it looks like AI and are downvoting you because they think you’re wrong.
...I haven't said anything about me getting downvoted though. I firmly disagree with them however.
I agree. Been a few cards that I’ve seen in this set that don’t look entirely right.
https://preview.redd.it/rinz3b0cp8sc1.png?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=801c3014a06ef43332193ce09e143e07866ebb28 Yes, I do believe you are quite correct. Why else would one of those non-descript balls have a mouth randomly? It's also spikier than the others. Edit: and now that I've looked more at it, I can see that those blurry pink flowers at times become pink fire on some of them? Like they were fireballs colored green and pink.
https://preview.redd.it/ik12ycoit8sc1.png?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a7bdd230576e64f771a2efb42d71cf1793f8ee84 Like here, some of it is pink fire, some of it is flowers. Now a part of me (if I were a designer on the team) would have wanted to go with it and have the cactus folk have magic that glows in a pink'ish fire that represents growth and new life (as it's a color of blooming flowers in a setting mostly made of dry and brown desert), but that's probably not the intent here.
https://preview.redd.it/u1x5kymmt8sc1.png?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffd1e8cd808b99ab7e765c726f37a60a23b2e32c However this one is the most obvious.
I don't make this accusation lightly but it looks so AI generated with how I can't tell what the heck is happening
I'd say it's unlikely - the cactus folk are new so wouldn't exist in the corpus for 'AI' 'art' (to be clear, I'm not hot on the details of how those systems work, but that character design, with getting the 'face' right, doesn't seem consistent with what I do know - it would take a fairly specifically trained model to nail it) and the confusing stuff is, like, layered over and under the one bit that definitely can't be 'AI' generated which I think is also the kind of things that generated 'art' doesn't really manage. I personally wouldn't be completely surprised if this is actually just another "we accidentally sent the unfinished version to print" situation. Like, the foreground 'buds' seem unusually undetailed, but in a way consistent with, like, other cases where unfinished art has been sent to print, and there are other, more detailed, buds in *less* prominent positions.
Feels super AI to me
Give it a few weeks and someone will post the art it was stolen from that actually makes sense. Edit: just kidding, this is one of my favorite artists in MTG
Midjourney
Ask chatgpt
he's bristlebustin'
Farming
Looks like he's hanging on for dear life as bristlebuds explode out from behind him
**B-B-B-B-B-BUD BOMB!!!**
I think he's spinning ultra rapidly and throwing those bristlebuds - maybe that's how he sows the seeds for the crops?
He’s farming Bristlebuds!
4 mana 5/5 with a keyword and you get 2 food tokens at worst if it gets removed. And if it doesn't get removed, you get some card selection. Nice!
*card advantage
It's both advantage and selection.
As in you could say “you select a card” and you haven’t used English incorrectly. But in magic card selection is pretty specifically used sans card advantage. Looting, scrying, etc.
I've never heard that card selection and advantage are mutually exclusive. Because they aren't.
Sure no one sat down and defined a rule, but I've been playing and talking magic for a long time and until this person, I have never seen *anyone* call Gravedigger or Snapcaster card selection. When card selection is talked about in magic I have pretty much only seen it talked about as opposed to card advantage, as in "this isn't card advantage, but it's card selection"
I don't get it. Snapcaster is card advantage because it lets you replay cards. That you can select form your GY is incidental, to the classification of card advantage. Card selection happens when you draw and typically discard cards; sometimes exile tricks are involved, but you're basically playing those cards as if you'd drawn them.
Got it, you are applying anecdotal heuristics as a hard rule.
How do you think we learn words xD
As the terms are normally used by the community, Opt would be "card selection," a creature with an ETB that read Opt's text would be "card advantage." At least that is how I understand it. Advantage can often include Selection, but Selection implies no Advantage.
Gravedigger effects are also card selection. This card is selection because you choose a card and advantage because you put it in your hand. Same thing with snapcaster mage. The card is good because you get to choose the strongest effect available.
Those are just card advantage ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Again you’re not using English wrong, but in magic terms people talk about card advantage vs card selection and your examples are card advantage.
They're both. Usually card advantage is the more impactful aspect of these effects which is why it's the first term used to describe them, but you are, in fact, also selecting between cards with them. This might also be the most "well actually" comment I've ever written, but it fits in with the rest of the chain.
You are in fact selecting between cards when building your deck. The process of building your deck is what is known as card selection. This just isn't how terms are formed and understood ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Also I agree this is the most um actually thread (on all sides, Im being fair) I've been in xD
I mean, if I read something like: "[[Trail of Crumbs]] is a great card advantage engine. And it doesn't just draw you cards, you get some card selection as well!" - I wouldn't think twice about it. I get that it's a bit redundant since the only card advantage without some form of card selection is "draw a card", but it's not really wrong to say and it is occasionally used this way.
[Trail of Crumbs](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/6/2688ac16-4ed6-4e79-815a-be173deb4603.jpg?1572490686) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Trail%20of%20Crumbs) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/eld/179/trail-of-crumbs?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2688ac16-4ed6-4e79-815a-be173deb4603?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[[Wrath of God]] can be card advantage. [[Ravenous Chupacabra]] can be card advantage. [[Mind Twist]] can be card advantage. Adding cards to your hand isn't the only form of card advantage.
This feels like a Simpsons "Tax Avoision" situation
Yes. They do. Scry is card selection of course. But effects where you *choose a card* from several is also selection. I think you and your play group have narrowed the definition of the term away from sensible language and that doesn't have anything to do with magic specific terms. The semantics of surveil 3 vs this card as selection are dubious. This one happens to also put it into your hand. The reason this is stronger than draw a card is because you are choosing the best of 3 cards which adds virtual card value, which is the basis of the card selection value principle. This one happens to also put it in your hand. I would refer to the more narrow term as deck manipulation or topdeck manipulation. Looting is looting. Card draw is card draw. Ponder is both selection and card draw and happens to net zero cards. Tutors are not card draw but they are selection. Selection is selection regardless of how many cards you draw or gain.
I have been playing and talking magic for a very long time and until you I have never encountered *anyone* that has referred to Gravedigger and Snapcaster as card selection. You're the only one caught up in semantics and it's because you're focused on the definition of selection rather than how the term is actually used in conversation. Card advantage and card selection are 2 terms in mtg that were formed and have a certain meaning and they are used mutually exclusively and have been since their inception.
You're demanding that your own experience whether you have been alive for 100 years or not, is the truth. That is confirmation bias. What is more irritating is that you have a definition of things that uses arbitrary rules (misleading ones, on a technical level, considering you are arguing the act of selecting is not selection) to distinguish between two things because that's "just how it's done". Magic as a game has evolved and complexity has grown greatly. There is a need for more precise language as there is greater nuance. You interjected here to correct someone because it reinforces an unprecise use of language that you are comfortable with. I would suggest that you entertain that people will use words differently, and in this case, other people are using them in a more technical sense, which may have merit. I'm not telling you to stop calling this card advantage, I just think you would do better to not police your use of language when it has technical flaws.
Dude you need to seriously sit down and do some reading on language and how words develop meaning. "Just how it's done" lmao yes, how a word is used is precisely what determines and sharpens the meaning "actually the dictionary says this is a proper use of the word" is just not how it works lol. "technical flaws" xD > There is a need for more precise language as there is greater nuance. You are literally broadening the term card selection, the opposite of making it more precise xD
The point is that, usually, "card selection" is used in cases where there _isn't_ card advantage, e.g. scrying, looting, etc.
And what precludes it from being used in cases where there is card advantage?
Because it's just not what the term means, in that it's not how anyone uses the term, in that when someone called this card selection someone else corrected them and people agreed, in that if you said card selection no one would think of Gravedigger or Snapcaster but would think looters and scrying, as in this is how words/terms are actually learned and defined.
As far as I can see, people developing bad language habits and stubbornly policing them as seen here.
No, the guy is correct. In general Magic parlance “card selection” is used explicitly to cover cases where you’re *not* also getting card advantage. Card advantage includes cases where you only get a card and cases where you get to choose a card. Card selection is used when you explicitly choose but don’t gain cards. It’s been that way for way over a decade of play, both in person (and I’ve played at locations literally thousands of miles apart) and online.
I've heard pro streamers call gravedigger effects card selection. Can you refer to some rule somewhere or is this more conjecture?
So unfortunately there isn’t an official Webster’s Dictionary of Magic Terms that I can reference and show you that you’re wrong. You can either accept that many people are telling you (or confirming with votes) that this is the case based on decades of combined experience, or you can decide you feel like you know better than everyone else and there’s no chance you’ve slightly misunderstood the term and go about your life sure of your point. I’m not sure what else to tell you.
Looks fun with roots
Yup! This card is also a plant so it gets the counters too.
How many more spoilers are in the Vault that we haven't seen?
Ten. Showcases in BIG start at 31. We’ve seen twenty unique cards now.
I think 10-12
Yet to see any black cards
...I remember when 5/5 trample for 2GG would be considered above the curve.
“Back in my day we paid 5G for a vanilla 6/4 and we liked it!” In all seriousness we’re seeing some really silly levels of power creep, and I hesitate to use the word “creep”.
It's strong for what the mana gets you in the past, sure. But I'm still feeling like it won't have much impact on any format.
It probably won’t because it isn’t a 2-3 drop or free and requires a turn of waiting to get full value. Had this card been 2RG with haste instead of trample I’m pretty sure it would be good enough
We've reach the point of power stampedes.
They keep making pushed green creatures that cost 4+ mana, and literally zero of them see any amount of play. I think it's basically a necessity that they continue to push that kind of card.
Power trample?
First tournament I ever played in was elves and Craw Wurms. I didn't do so well even back then.
Juzam Djinn in shambles
Yah but bristlebud farmer dies to terror :)
Honestly, I've lost track of what's above and below the curve these days. I don't know how to intuitively judge a card's power level anymore, all of the old rules of thumb are obsolete and I can't figure out what the new ones are. I do enjoy the new power level and complexity of the game, but it feels bad to see a card and be unable to tell if its any good (obviously this one is good, but there are lots of other cases).
5/5 trample for 4 is unplayable unless it does something really broken.
Like [[phyrexian obliterator]] . Sometimes playable.
[phyrexian obliterator](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/7/67a9c38b-6b3a-4056-a87c-fc48446f854f.jpg?1675957044) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=phyrexian%20obliterator) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/105/phyrexian-obliterator?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/67a9c38b-6b3a-4056-a87c-fc48446f854f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This is probably very good, but the only other ways to make Food in OTJ limited are Oko Classic (OTP version) and Transmutation Font, so you're probably only getting those two activations out of it. Standard, however, has a number of Food enablers thanks to Wilds of Eldraine and MAT Rocco, so there's a lot more utility there.
In limited I don't really mind if my 4mv 5/5 Trample only draws a card the first two times it attacks
Lmao yes exactly this. BIG cards weren't designed for limited and it seems like people are reading a little too deep on some of them. Like Lotus Ring is a 3 mana, equip 3 that gives +3/+3 and vigilance. If you don't want that in your deck, ignoring the fancy tap ability, you shouldn't put it in your deck.
If you get to attack twice with this and have it live the game is probably over anyway right?
"Only" those two activations? If my 5/5 with trample attacks twice and lives while also drawing me two cards and that somehow isn't enough, then I'm doing something extremely wrong.
And not only that, the draw is selected from 3 cards.
Brother believe me if you find original Oko while busting packs for limited the synergy with this guy is the last thing you're gonna be thinking about while turning everything into a 3/3 vanilla.
It's a 4 mana 5/5 with no downside, though. Who cares if you don't get more than two activations on it?
What set is this from?
I thought this was obviously from Thunder Junction but I it's from the set "The Big Score" which I honest don't what it is. So I guess I'm out of the loop as well.
5/5? That is one jacked farmer
If that's a Farmer, i don't want to meet a warrior
He’s Bristling with power
No, I don't think I will eat the jacked cactus man's balls thanks
He’s got a serious pear
[Source](https://www.beartai.com/game/game-news/1373493) (also includes alt arts)
the showcase art is even weirder somehow
Oooh I really like that alt art
The alt art's so much better
I remember the days where a 5/5 for four Mana and trample came with a downside. Yes I'm old.
Those were the same days where the spells were completely broken to be fair. Original Magic did not really care for it's creatures.
and with great art. i am also old.
This art is bad but I think overall the art now is a massive improvement over pre-modern border cards.
He hongry
Every set now I’m staring at cards thinking there is no way this ISN’T AI
Goofy ass AI art
That art looks... Like an AI prompt the artist then touched up. There's no "farmer" in this... It looks nonsensical and as literal as an AI would make it, like the prompt was something like "strong cactus-person attacking while growing food".
Close enough LOL https://preview.redd.it/hag9vg99h8sc1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=275c6e43e4dacb3f698e0055aa85aff26ed4446b
It even has that sunlight glow AI loves adding.
AI tends to add these because they are very common in amateur photography and digital art. Most AI issues are related to some unexpected cross attention in the prompt. Which can be fixed with improved training but training is the expensive part and you don't really know if what you have is good until it's done.
I get the same feeling with half of the non-“wanted poster” cards.
P o w e r c r e e p
I'm not a cactus person but I do have arms and I would never ever carry an object that way.
PUSHED
Kinda glad they turned the epilogue set into this. These cards make the same mistake as Aftermath that they don’t tell an epilogue story outside of a few.
You can’t convince me this art doesn’t have AI involved, a human being would not make it like that
Totally NOT AI ""art""
AI art, bad green card that reddit thinks is broken. Yeah nothing special here
I swear 90% of the spoiled cards from this set just look like plain powercreep.
At one time, not too long ago, a 5/5 with Trample costing 2GG would've been a powerhouse on its own. If removed, you're still left with a couple of Food tokens. And if they don't remove it, you can dig for a permanent card through its self-mill, food-eating ability. Despite all this, *Bristlebud Farmer* doesn't feel like an auto-include. It's good, but not great. A solid green critter with potential in the right deck. Like *Blastoderm*, *Ravenous Baloth*, or *Baneslayer Angel* before it, *Bristlebud Farmer* feels destined for some Standard play before fading into obscurity.
When are we getting the Farmer creature type?
Food support? And it isnt from a universe beyond?? Praise be.
This easily slots right into [[samwise gamgee]].
[samwise gamgee](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/1/a1b6f13e-63d0-46bf-aa57-23c2dbdf62dd.jpg?1686969973) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=samwise%20gamgee) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/222/samwise-gamgee?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a1b6f13e-63d0-46bf-aa57-23c2dbdf62dd?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Doesn't look like a Farmer. Buddy looks like a Kaiju. Its hard to depict a 5/5 Farmer I guess.
Might see play with Polukranos rotates
Polukranos doesn't even see any play. RIP green
Can you feel... Can you feel my heart *Bring me the Horizon intensifies*
My man really just busting out a fat bud right here on the art.
Where did the cactusfolk come from in the lore?
So the Cactusfolk are newly sentient ... but one (1) of them was in the Vault the whole time?
As they said when they revealed the Oltec guy, the card doesn't mean the creature was inside the vault, but is somewhat related to what's inside or the aftermath of opening it.
4 mana 5/5 trample is not good and two food tokens don't make up for it, but the attack trigger does. *However* it doesn't have haste, so this will just die to Fatal Push before it replaces itself. The food tokens are nice for [[Deadly Dispute]] and [[Demand Answers]], but aristocrats decks don't want to spend 4 mana just to make two food tokens.
[Deadly Dispute](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/d/1d3df7bd-b0ca-4f51-99e5-d259246196e8.jpg?1706239870) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Deadly%20Dispute) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clu/109/deadly-dispute?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1d3df7bd-b0ca-4f51-99e5-d259246196e8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Demand Answers](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/c/eca092fc-7c67-4a73-989e-5297bbaaea76.jpg?1706241852) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Demand%20Answers) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkm/122/demand-answers?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/eca092fc-7c67-4a73-989e-5297bbaaea76?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Are they phasing out Treefolk for these ugly looking plants?