Not a spectacular card, by any stretch of the imagination. However, in my unique Pandemonium/warrior tribal, he fits very, very well as a finisher. Pandemonium + Obsidian Battle-Axe/Ronin Warclub and this guy means 11 damage to the face plus 7 damage from attacking, provided the Battle-Axe is on the field.
Donovan_Fabian
★★★★☆ (4.3/5.0)(3 votes)
The thing that everyone is overlooking is.. this is a treefolk you -don't- play in a treefolk deck. The token and the treefolk are both warrior sub type, you find cards that affect warriors like lovisa, or etc. and it affects both the treefolk and the token. So, for example if you have a creature that says all warriors get +1/1 you effectivley get a 4/4 and the equivalent of a grizzlybear. If your playing a tribal treefolk deck then don't bother.
HairlessThoctar
★★★★☆ (4.9/5.0)(8 votes)
4 for 4/4 across 2 dudes? In relevant creature types? Yes please.
dudecow
★★★★☆ (4.8/5.0)(6 votes)
This is gold in my casual warrior deck. It's an already efficient 4/4 for 4, and with two creatures, so you can't simply Terminate it and be rid of it. Plus it makes two warriors, which is amazing with Bramblewood Paragon. There were better options for constructed, but this guy is still pretty useful. 3.5/5.
UNBAN_SHAHRAZAD
★★★★☆ (4.8/5.0)(6 votes)
Necessary for Morningtide Limited.
Talcos
★★★★☆ (4.9/5.0)(4 votes)
A Hill Giant that brings a friend along for the fight? Good for limited!
Aaron_Forsythe
★★★★☆ (4.6/5.0)(26 votes)
Aaron’s Random Card Comment of the Day #11, 10/11/10
In a vacuum, I adore this card. I love creatures that make tokens, specifically as a subset of creatures that give you more than a card’s worth of value. (Why should the máss removal and card drawing players be the only ones capable of generating such a resource advantage? Answer: They shouldn’t.) On top of that, the card is about as simple and elegant as they come.
So simple and elegant, in fact, that Mark Rosewater claims to have submitted it as part of the design handoff for seven different sets, and it was removed all six times prior to Morningtide. Always codenamed “Moose and Squirrel”—a reference to an ancient cartoon called “Rocky and Bullwinkle,” for those of you not over 30—it was initially designed for inclusion in Urza’s Saga almost a decade before. It is ironic that the set it ultimately ended up being printed in not only didn’t have squirrel tokens, but actually contained another green common creature that looked like a moose! (Game-Trail Changeling)
Why was it killed so many times before? Most often because a more on-theme card was deemed necessary for whatever set it was in. There is a lesson here about persistence, and a reminder that Magic design is rarely an exercise in instant gratification.
Ultimately, the fact that the card created creatures of two different types (Treefolk and Elf, both Warriors) are what made it fit well into Morningtide from design’s perspective, but I’m not sure how correct that philosophy was. The biggest flaw with Lorwyn and Morningtide, especially in limited, is that game states often degenerated into complex matrices of different races, clásses, changelings, and cards that could affect or target only some of what was in play. Figuring out what was going on—and how to attack and block—was more difficult in that block than any others in recent years, and I don’t consider that a good thing. I’m not saying that Ambássador Oak was part of the problem, but he certainly wasn’t part of the solution—suddenly your Treefolk deck had an Elf in play (or vice verse) and it’s a token, which is easy to lose track of. It is more irony, then, that the quality that allowed it to be printed is probably the reason—if there is one—why it shouldn’t have been. The card wasn't printed in a vacuum, but it might have been better if it had.
Perhaps he should have been called “Irony-Root Treefolk.”
Stray_Dog
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
Soooo much flavour!
TPmanW
★★☆☆☆ (2.6/5.0)(6 votes)
“Irony-Root Treefolk.”? Really Aaron you can do better.
The-D
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(2 votes)
Limited was fine. I read 95% of the content on this site and its rare, but sometimes it seems like you guys make up problems. It was Standard that was an issue. "Oh, you're playing Elves? Cool, good game."
Cheza
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(6 votes)
@ Aaron:
Another post that uses a personal experience and overextend it until it sounds like anyone agrees. If you would have skipped creature types completely, there wouldn't have been a problem. If you would have used Fungus+Saproling, no problem either.
The stupid part about this block was that the switch from race to class was an overdose. The split into a 2x2 block didn't really help.
@ Token: Come on. If you think that you can get lost with a single token including a relevant creature type, you would have never ever allowed artifacts that produce "token" copies of other artifacts/creatures. How stupid is this? Or what about Chronozoa? Tokens with counters?
In my opinion, R&D should reduce this token stupidness to the minimum. Searching for a copy or Looking at the top X cards and pick one card that fulfills a certain statement is much cooler and much more flavorful... and this would never ever produce problems about "keeping track".
bay_falconer
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
This card inspired the Splicers, who add the new fun of both generating golem tokens and being golem lords.
Comments (18)
In relevant creature types?
Yes please.
In a vacuum, I adore this card. I love creatures that make tokens, specifically as a subset of creatures that give you more than a card’s worth of value. (Why should the máss removal and card drawing players be the only ones capable of generating such a resource advantage? Answer: They shouldn’t.) On top of that, the card is about as simple and elegant as they come.
So simple and elegant, in fact, that Mark Rosewater claims to have submitted it as part of the design handoff for seven different sets, and it was removed all six times prior to Morningtide. Always codenamed “Moose and Squirrel”—a reference to an ancient cartoon called “Rocky and Bullwinkle,” for those of you not over 30—it was initially designed for inclusion in Urza’s Saga almost a decade before. It is ironic that the set it ultimately ended up being printed in not only didn’t have squirrel tokens, but actually contained another green common creature that looked like a moose! (Game-Trail Changeling)
Why was it killed so many times before? Most often because a more on-theme card was deemed necessary for whatever set it was in. There is a lesson here about persistence, and a reminder that Magic design is rarely an exercise in instant gratification.
Ultimately, the fact that the card created creatures of two different types (Treefolk and Elf, both Warriors) are what made it fit well into Morningtide from design’s perspective, but I’m not sure how correct that philosophy was. The biggest flaw with Lorwyn and Morningtide, especially in limited, is that game states often degenerated into complex matrices of different races, clásses, changelings, and cards that could affect or target only some of what was in play. Figuring out what was going on—and how to attack and block—was more difficult in that block than any others in recent years, and I don’t consider that a good thing. I’m not saying that Ambássador Oak was part of the problem, but he certainly wasn’t part of the solution—suddenly your Treefolk deck had an Elf in play (or vice verse) and it’s a token, which is easy to lose track of. It is more irony, then, that the quality that allowed it to be printed is probably the reason—if there is one—why it shouldn’t have been. The card wasn't printed in a vacuum, but it might have been better if it had.
Perhaps he should have been called “Irony-Root Treefolk.”
Another post that uses a personal experience and overextend it until it sounds like anyone agrees. If you would have skipped creature types completely, there wouldn't have been a problem. If you would have used Fungus+Saproling, no problem either.
The stupid part about this block was that the switch from race to class was an overdose. The split into a 2x2 block didn't really help.
@ Token:
Come on. If you think that you can get lost with a single token including a relevant creature type, you would have never ever allowed artifacts that produce "token" copies of other artifacts/creatures. How stupid is this? Or what about Chronozoa? Tokens with counters?
In my opinion, R&D should reduce this token stupidness to the minimum. Searching for a copy or Looking at the top X cards and pick one card that fulfills a certain statement is much cooler and much more flavorful... and this would never ever produce problems about "keeping track".