From back before Wizards mandated that reach was a strictly green effect.
themlsna
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
4/5 for First Strike and Reach outside of green.
divine_exodus
★☆☆☆☆ (1.6/5.0)(4 votes)
Ezuri's archers...
Aaron_Forsythe
★★★★☆ (4.6/5.0)(19 votes)
Aaron’s Random Card Comment of the Day #69, 3/31/11
There are more mono-white creatures with reach (5) than I would have initially guessed, but Longbow Archer is the quintessential one. Archers do fit in well with white’s flavor, although we tend to design them as creatures with “rangestrike” like Crossbow Infantry or Ballista Squad, letting the green Archers and Spiders have reach. White and green have a tendency to want similar types of small ground creatures, so in general we want to keep reach in green so as not to further blur the lines.
Note that the Sixth Edition version was printed as type “Soldier”—a change from the original Visions printing of “Archer.” I’m not sure why that was done exactly, but I have a personal tale about the two cards.
Mike Turian and I were both playing a W/g Rebels deck at Pro Tour—Chicago 2000, one of the rare Standard Pro Tours of that era. Many decks had access to the card Tsabo's Decree as a pretty savage hoser against the popular Rebel strategy, so I made sure that the Longbow Archers in my deck were the Visions versions that had the (at the time) wrong type on them—and I told Mike he should do the same—so that maybe we could trick some poor fellow into naming the wrong type. Chances were low that this would ever actually come up… but it did for Mike.
It was a close game—both players were top decking—and Mike had just a Longbow Archer in play, attacking for 2 as he likes to do. His opponent rips Tsabo's Decree and, being at a low life total, casts it and names “Archer.” Mike confirms: “Are you sure?” Opponent: “Yes.” Mike: “Okay.” He leaves his creature on the table. Opponent: “He dies.” Mike: “No he doesn’t. He’s a Soldier.” Opponent (absolutely confused): “Judge?”
A less-experienced lower-level judge comes over, Mike explains the story, the judge checks Oracle, and rules in Mike’s favor. I wouldn’t be surprised if his opponent vowed to quit Magic after the event was over.
Head Judge Jeff Donais caught wind of Mike’s little deception and went to find him, explaining that had his opponent appealed, not only would Jeff had ruled in his opponent’s favor, but he would have given Mike a warning for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
We can argue about if Jeff was right or not following a strict interpretation of the Floor Rules, but his stance made it clear to me that even trying to get away with something like that bordered to close on being a sçumbag for my tastes. Neither Mike nor I were the kind of player that tried to operate around the edges of the rules fishing for advantages, and, as interesting as this story is, I want to reinforce that it is uncharacteristic of either of us. I certainly never attempted anything like it again, and in my position of R&D Director, I try to make sure that our game isn’t about stuff like memorizing Oracle changes.
KramlmarK
★★☆☆☆ (2.7/5.0)(6 votes)
While I agree that the game *shouldn't* be about memorizing oracle changes, the reality is that, in that particular game, it was. What you and mike did was more than acceptable. It is not your job to make sure your opponent plays correctly, and if they make a mistake (even a mistake that shouldn't exist), you are under no obligation to correct it. I don't have to tell my opponent with Emerge Unscathed that he can use it to make narcolepsy fall off in Rise draft, do I? Why should this be any different? Especially at the Pro Tour level, no one should be penalized for playing within the rules. If the Wizards and the DCI wants to avoid situations like this, then they need to change the rules make such a move impossible (such as by requiring players with older printings to inform their opponents of the new oracle text).
Cheza
★★★★☆ (4.0/5.0)(2 votes)
@ KramlmarK: It's a cpmletely different thing to compare your Emerge Unscathed with some Oracle changes and clear stats printed on a card. You don't have to correct the gameplay of your opponent, but you SHOULD be responsible for any changes that happens to the cards you play, just because you used an older version of this card.
This kind of thinking reminds me on an ebay trick, where an article was sold using the word "Originalverpackung" in the de***ion, meaning original packing. However, this meant that you buy the packing, not the content. All that was missing was the word "in".
@ Aaron: I would really appreciate to see more green archers with the "real" archery ability instead. First of all, green is a friend of red and it would be cool, if it could do similar things. Dealing damage to creatures would be wonderful and the restriction on attacking/blocking creatures would fit really well into the green combat-focus. In addition, this works like First Strike as well, gives green more options against flying creatures than just reach or pure destruction and would further increase the overall power of green creatures in combat, as this works similar to flanking or bushido, if damage a blocking creature.
Last but not least, it would solve the "realism" problem, why green archers can shoot only at flying creatures, but not as unbelievable large monsters as well.
As for reach, I don't really care about the numbers on white cards, as I wouldn't restrict this on spider webs. I could imagine to see a white version of Spidersilk Armor.
DeadeyeDave
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
Remarkably efficient even by today's standards.
pedrodyl
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(2 votes)
what a pathetic looking dragon in the background
tavaritz
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
I'd must say that almost all older cards are oracled now and if you want to play with them in DCI sanctioned event I strongly suggest that you print out the oracled texts so that you remember how those cards work today.
NeoKoda
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
That was pretty wrong of Mike to do. But this is a great card. A 2/2 with first strike for two is always nice. Reach just makes it better.
willpell
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Reach on this card makes very little sense because it means that my dragon that's 500 feet up in the air has to swoop down and snack on this dork on top of a 30-foot tower. Reach ought to stick with creatures that can actually climb up there and get the flyer, not just shoot at it.
Thanks for the story, Aaron. I don't agree with your friend's behavior but it shoulds like he was a little guilty about it, which is good enough for me. I would have gone the extra mile and said "Are you sure? This isn't actually an Archer" instead of just "Are you sure?", but his conduct was within acceptible limits and I don't expect everyone to be as honorable as me.
EDIT - And as I reread this comment seven months after its original posting (June 5th, 2011), I find myself feeling differently and agreeing with the "skumbag" perception. Sure the guy ought to have stopped and wondered why his opponent was asking "Are you sure", but he shouldn't be punished for a lapse in judgment, and Mike should be punished for engaging in a deliberate effort at deception, intentionally playing a card with outdated text in an attempt to trick an opponent into a mistake. This doesn't prove Mike to be smarter than his opponent, it just proves him willing to be a jerk in order to claim a victory which is meaningless because he didn't learn anything from it. Very much the attitude of an armed thug rather than an honorable warrior, and not something that Wizards should see as setting a good example to those who look upon it as a role model.
TheWrathofShane
★★★★☆ (4.0/5.0)(1 vote)
@Aaron That is extremely low class and poor sportsmanship.
Comments (13)
There are more mono-white creatures with reach (5) than I would have initially guessed, but Longbow Archer is the quintessential one. Archers do fit in well with white’s flavor, although we tend to design them as creatures with “rangestrike” like Crossbow Infantry or Ballista Squad, letting the green Archers and Spiders have reach. White and green have a tendency to want similar types of small ground creatures, so in general we want to keep reach in green so as not to further blur the lines.
Note that the Sixth Edition version was printed as type “Soldier”—a change from the original Visions printing of “Archer.” I’m not sure why that was done exactly, but I have a personal tale about the two cards.
Mike Turian and I were both playing a W/g Rebels deck at Pro Tour—Chicago 2000, one of the rare Standard Pro Tours of that era. Many decks had access to the card Tsabo's Decree as a pretty savage hoser against the popular Rebel strategy, so I made sure that the Longbow Archers in my deck were the Visions versions that had the (at the time) wrong type on them—and I told Mike he should do the same—so that maybe we could trick some poor fellow into naming the wrong type. Chances were low that this would ever actually come up… but it did for Mike.
It was a close game—both players were top decking—and Mike had just a Longbow Archer in play, attacking for 2 as he likes to do. His opponent rips Tsabo's Decree and, being at a low life total, casts it and names “Archer.” Mike confirms: “Are you sure?” Opponent: “Yes.” Mike: “Okay.” He leaves his creature on the table. Opponent: “He dies.” Mike: “No he doesn’t. He’s a Soldier.” Opponent (absolutely confused): “Judge?”
A less-experienced lower-level judge comes over, Mike explains the story, the judge checks Oracle, and rules in Mike’s favor. I wouldn’t be surprised if his opponent vowed to quit Magic after the event was over.
Head Judge Jeff Donais caught wind of Mike’s little deception and went to find him, explaining that had his opponent appealed, not only would Jeff had ruled in his opponent’s favor, but he would have given Mike a warning for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
We can argue about if Jeff was right or not following a strict interpretation of the Floor Rules, but his stance made it clear to me that even trying to get away with something like that bordered to close on being a sçumbag for my tastes. Neither Mike nor I were the kind of player that tried to operate around the edges of the rules fishing for advantages, and, as interesting as this story is, I want to reinforce that it is uncharacteristic of either of us. I certainly never attempted anything like it again, and in my position of R&D Director, I try to make sure that our game isn’t about stuff like memorizing Oracle changes.
It's a cpmletely different thing to compare your Emerge Unscathed with some Oracle changes and clear stats printed on a card. You don't have to correct the gameplay of your opponent, but you SHOULD be responsible for any changes that happens to the cards you play, just because you used an older version of this card.
This kind of thinking reminds me on an ebay trick, where an article was sold using the word "Originalverpackung" in the de***ion, meaning original packing. However, this meant that you buy the packing, not the content. All that was missing was the word "in".
@ Aaron:
I would really appreciate to see more green archers with the "real" archery ability instead. First of all, green is a friend of red and it would be cool, if it could do similar things. Dealing damage to creatures would be wonderful and the restriction on attacking/blocking creatures would fit really well into the green combat-focus. In addition, this works like First Strike as well, gives green more options against flying creatures than just reach or pure destruction and would further increase the overall power of green creatures in combat, as this works similar to flanking or bushido, if damage a blocking creature.
Last but not least, it would solve the "realism" problem, why green archers can shoot only at flying creatures, but not as unbelievable large monsters as well.
As for reach, I don't really care about the numbers on white cards, as I wouldn't restrict this on spider webs. I could imagine to see a white version of Spidersilk Armor.
Thanks for the story, Aaron. I don't agree with your friend's behavior but it shoulds like he was a little guilty about it, which is good enough for me. I would have gone the extra mile and said "Are you sure? This isn't actually an Archer" instead of just "Are you sure?", but his conduct was within acceptible limits and I don't expect everyone to be as honorable as me.
EDIT - And as I reread this comment seven months after its original posting (June 5th, 2011), I find myself feeling differently and agreeing with the "skumbag" perception. Sure the guy ought to have stopped and wondered why his opponent was asking "Are you sure", but he shouldn't be punished for a lapse in judgment, and Mike should be punished for engaging in a deliberate effort at deception, intentionally playing a card with outdated text in an attempt to trick an opponent into a mistake. This doesn't prove Mike to be smarter than his opponent, it just proves him willing to be a jerk in order to claim a victory which is meaningless because he didn't learn anything from it. Very much the attitude of an armed thug rather than an honorable warrior, and not something that Wizards should see as setting a good example to those who look upon it as a role model.
That is extremely low class and poor sportsmanship.