The art on each of these (where new) is absolutely incredible. I'm gonna have to get a playset of this one as soon as I find a way to do so.
Ace8792
★☆☆☆☆ (1.6/5.0)(11 votes)
I like the old art way more than this piece of junk.
KarmasPayment
★★★☆☆ (3.9/5.0)(4 votes)
Still, It's a foil Mox Diamond. I like it, but I would have liked the old art foiled more.
Yozuk
★★★☆☆ (3.2/5.0)(10 votes)
what are you people talking about? this art is great!
Lionhawk
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(5 votes)
Is this the new Mox Pearl? Oh wait the artwork has confused me...Card Text says: Mox Diamond. Where is Dan Frazier when you need him! The old artwork was better in my opinion. 4/5
Nikeyeia
★★★★☆ (4.8/5.0)(6 votes)
The nicest would have been a mixture of both artworks; the hands holding the old Diamond. Would have been awesome.
Atali
★★★★☆ (4.1/5.0)(10 votes)
@ channelblaze: "Moxen" is the plural of Mox, you're using it as a singular, which is not right, that's like saying "a geese" when referring to one goose. Sorry for being crazy grammar-police, but I just can't stay quiet.
channelblaze
★★★☆☆ (3.1/5.0)(4 votes)
Meh, I feel like the hands holding a moxen has just been overdone. I liked it on the original 5 moxen, but now...I wish they'd have a new great idea, you know?
But for the card....well, it's a moxen. What more do you want?
Edit: Oh, yeah, I guess your right...sorry =)
LordCapulet
★★★★☆ (4.0/5.0)(7 votes)
You're all deranged. The new artwork is amazing. It also would have been kind of ridiculous if they didn't extend the "mox-in-hand" art theme to the one mox they actually reprint in legal form, so for better or worse they made the right call.
murder100
★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0)(3 votes)
Very nice artwork
Zenzei
★★☆☆☆ (2.0/5.0)(4 votes)
The various hands ruin all new mox artwork.
Tobolococo
★★★☆☆ (3.0/5.0)(2 votes)
i love this art !!!
Long_Con
★★★★☆ (4.7/5.0)(5 votes)
I don't have any particular attachment to either artwork, but coming into it and comparing them, I think the old artwork is much more beautiful. Very nice sculptural relief in this one, but the old one focused more on the Mox itself, and the design is MUCH more 'fantasy-magical' than the new one.
I would love to get one of these though! Love the combos - Land Tax, HA! :)
Angry_Puppy
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
6/5. The only decks that don't get a solid advantage from this card are mono colored, and even then I bet theres a few that would make good use of it.
Tonymitsu
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Immensely less powerful than the original version, which could be tapped for mana before you had to sacrifice it, making it basically the same thing as Lotus Petal in that instance, this card is still ridiculously good. In any multicolored deck, this becomes mana ramp plus color-fixing, if you discard a land you already have in play.
4.5/5
kashonismw
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(2 votes)
Artwork debate aside, the text on this one seems very lengthy. The text on the old version seemed easier to understand when read quickly...
Why wizards why? I thought you supposed to redo cards with simpler updated text, not the other way around.
SgtSwaggr
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Weird and confusing wording. Should have read something like:
"When Mox Diamond enters the battlefield, discard a land card. If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond."
or
"As an additional cost, discard a land card."
Besides that, great card! A classic.
Stinga
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(4 votes)
Fun fact: In latin Mox means soon. What do the mox cards do? They let you do stuff soon. very soon.
Well done wizards.
mdakw576
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Weird and confusing wording. Should have read something like:
"When Mox Diamond enters the battlefield, discard a land card. If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond."
or
"As an additional cost, discard a land card."
Besides that, great card! A classic.
It's to catch people who try and cheat it into play and to force the player to discard the land to get any value out of the mox.
I believe the first wording would allow the player to still tap the mox for mana as a response to the trigger.
The second wording would not force the player to discard a land if it could be not hardcasted (e.g. tinker. of course you wouldn't tinker this into play, but that's beside the point).
Is it necessary? I don't know, because I don't play legacy or vintage so I wouldn't know how significant it would be to alter the wording. But it's not like this card needs a buff anyway, so whatever.
Almost no cost mana fix. This card is perfect in any deck with more than one color.
Zylo-
★★☆☆☆ (2.0/5.0)(1 vote)
This card is not nearly as good as everyone is saying.... You are giving yourself a card disadvantage by playing this.... With all the dual lands and shock lands, it's not even necessary to "mana fix" unless you are running a 4 or 5 color deck which is rare.... Sure you get two mana out on the first turn but you had to discard a land to do it restricting your mana base as the game progresses...... It's a good card but it's not game changing.
TheWrathofShane
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
I never liked this or chrome mox drawback. Ive never been a tourney player either. I guess its great with card draw, to replace the lost cards and still be ahead of your opponent.
The guy from Land Tax says, "What card disadvantage?"
DoragonShinzui
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
The reason it's awkwardly worded is that if it was just "when Mox Diamond comes into play, you may discard a land card. If you don't sacrifice Mox Diamond" you could tap it in response to its etb trigger, still getting mana for it.
DarthParallax
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
This card, and From the Vault: Realms, is the reason why "From the Vault: Deck" may be an actual real thing someday in the future, at 'semi-casual' tables only. Think seriously: Commander is a so-called Casual Format, but it costs about as much as Legacy, really, especially when you just HAVE to bling out your favorite cards. 'Casual' is not actually the same thing as 'Budget'.
Because it would ultimately be still an unwieldy deck with a bad mana base, I would say every card in an attempted "From the Vault: Deck" should be permissible as a 4-of. 4 Sol Ring, 4 Nevinyrral's Disk, and 4 Balance is specifically why you should not laugh this idea off so quickly despite the admittedly almost-awful mana. Realms doesn't give you everything you Want but it gives you everything you Need! :D
CJOLL4
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I'm probably wrong, but doesn't the card's new text prevent it from ever entering the battlefield? Since the resolution of its "would enter the battlefield" triggered ability puts it onto the battlefield, wouldn't that just trigger its own "would enter the battlefield" ability again?
will_dice
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
@CJOLL4: No, this is not a triggered ability, it's a replacement effect. A trigger would start with "when Mox enters the battlefield...". An replacement such as "if Mox would enter the battlefield..." applies only once to an event, and doesn't use the stack: you simply discard a land at the moment Mox is going to enter. If you do, Mox does enter; if you don't, Mox goes to the graveyard.
Continue
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Masticore, Memory Jar, and Mox Diamond are all on the reserved list... and yet Wizards reprinted them. OOPS.
Comments (34)
But for the card....well, it's a moxen. What more do you want?
Edit: Oh, yeah, I guess your right...sorry =)
It also would have been kind of ridiculous if they didn't extend the "mox-in-hand" art theme to the one mox they actually reprint in legal form, so for better or worse they made the right call.
I would love to get one of these though! Love the combos - Land Tax, HA! :)
In any multicolored deck, this becomes mana ramp plus color-fixing, if you discard a land you already have in play.
4.5/5
Why wizards why? I thought you supposed to redo cards with simpler updated text, not the other way around.
"When Mox Diamond enters the battlefield, discard a land card. If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond."
or
"As an additional cost, discard a land card."
Besides that, great card! A classic.
Well done wizards.
"When Mox Diamond enters the battlefield, discard a land card. If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond."
or
"As an additional cost, discard a land card."
Besides that, great card! A classic.
It's to catch people who try and cheat it into play and to force the player to discard the land to get any value out of the mox.
I believe the first wording would allow the player to still tap the mox for mana as a response to the trigger.
The second wording would not force the player to discard a land if it could be not hardcasted (e.g. tinker. of course you wouldn't tinker this into play, but that's beside the point).
Is it necessary? I don't know, because I don't play legacy or vintage so I wouldn't know how significant it would be to alter the wording. But it's not like this card needs a buff anyway, so whatever.
I guess its great with
Well, this card and the fact that Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Hymn to Tourach play really freaking well together XD
Because it would ultimately be still an unwieldy deck with a bad mana base, I would say every card in an attempted "From the Vault: Deck" should be permissible as a 4-of. 4 Sol Ring, 4 Nevinyrral's Disk, and 4 Balance is specifically why you should not laugh this idea off so quickly despite the admittedly almost-awful mana. Realms doesn't give you everything you Want but it gives you everything you Need! :D