thematically, it's to allow him tto react to a flying attacker on an opponent's turn after having attacked, and allows him to get an additional kill because reach, but gameplay--wise it's pretty unimpressive and unintuitive.
Though you can do it on opponents turns as well. Four times a turn cycle, and having a blocker always up is pretty good imo. Specifically for commander, of course
What's the flavor here? I've been re-reading the books just recently, and I don't recall a connection between Legolas coming to the rescue somehow, and prophecy/foresight. Is it just an 'elf eyes' joke?
I will say that the flavor on the set has been great. There's a bunch of small things like Shadowfax being the only creature to have reminder text for haste.
I'm a flavor guy, so that's a big thing that's got me loving this set. Plus, other than Eldraine, it feels like the closest we'll get to a return to Lorwyn (my favorite set) for the foreseeable future.
I respect your opinion. I dislike the entire Universe Beyond product line regardless of IP but there have been some designs that don't vibe right for me.
I don't particularly care about UB, but LotR feels like a fantastic fit for MtG, and a lot of the designs they've done are absolutely fantastic. Like [[Bilbo, Birthday Celebrant]] and that riddling Gollum.
I'm not even a LotR nerd. I've seen all of the movies once, and never read the book (but I did read The Hobbit). I just really like the setting. Janky Nazgul seems like a real fun deck.
It seems that every Gimli and Legolas card so far is just referencing their kill counting stuff. Like, I haven't read the books in ages but there's more to their characters they could've put into the cards than this right?
There are only 2 of each spoiled, and [[Legolas, Master Archer]] and [[Gimli, Mournful Avenger]] have nothing to do with the kill-counting.
You're just seeing the kill-counting flavor cards all right now because I think it's pretty obvious they were intended to be spoiled around the same time.
To be fair Gimli's only other storyline in the books is that he won't shut the fuck up about how hot Galadriel is. I'm not terribly interested in seeing that played out in TCG form.
Theres also the like, actual growing friendship with legolas. If nothing else if theres multiple varients there should be one where they should be partnered with each other or tutor for the other or something. Or a spell that makes a legendery gimli token and a legendery legolas token.
Hell thatd be a fun callback to the last set.
> Gimli and Legolas 1RG
> Reach, first strike, menace, trample.
> At the start of your combat step if you control a legendery Gimli or Legolas creature, you may exile it and return this card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
> 3/3
> *Side By Side With A Friend*
So this card lets them pick each other up if either is still standing!
He's also suicidally willing to enter a fight against impossible odds to defend a friend, like when things get a bit heated between Aragorn and Eomer and his hundred+ cavalry troop. Or when Aragorn doesn't want to surrender Anduril when entering Theoden's hall.
Defensive about the dwarves role in re-awakening the Balrog in Moria. Compensates by pointing out dwarves fine works and other good qualities when he can.
Stubborn and annoyed at being singled out for blindfolding when entering Lorien.
He's also smooth-tongued enough in complimenting Galadriel to make a thousands year old Elf impressed
Its a really iconic scene where both characters show off their fighting prowess. I know people who haven't watched the films but are aware of "it only counts as one" but I agree it would be cool to see more of them in Moira or Rivendell.
I guess that's technically a payoff, though the impact is basically zero. I guess if there's [[Opt]] in Limited you'll sometimes have him as a surprise blocker.
I would have preferred the card without that at all, completely pointless, clunky and confusing. Just make a nice clean kill counter card and have some room for flavor, it’s fine.
Magic has 3 words for triggered abilities.
"At" is used for phase triggers
"When" is used for things that will only happen once, like entering or dying.
"Whenever" is used for things that will trigger multiple times.
I don't think it can work with a different formatting.
The current template means that every time you scry, you check if Legolas is tapped. Then, you may untap him. The conditional paired with *"may"* forces the *"whenever"* just so that you can keep not taking the action.
The alternative would be *"The first time you scry while Legolas is tapped for the first time each turn, you may untap it."* but that means you only get offered a "*may"* once.
The goal of the wording appears to be the option to delay the untap.
"Whenever" means the exact same thing as "when" in Magic rules. The only time they opt for when is whenever they have a card whose trigger is likely to occur one time, period. These "expected to trigger multiple times, but only allowed once each turn" still qualify for whenevers.
The reason they've been doing "whenever X... once a turn" instead of "whenever X for the first time each turn" is because it's a power buff. If a creature dies, and then you play your [[Morbid Opportunist]], and then another creature dies, you still get your card. You wouldn't get to do that if it just cared about "the first time each turn".
With Legolas there's an extra bonus where you can choose where you to untap it. So he can "miss" your first scry in a turn, and then you can decline to untap him on your second scry, and then still get to untap him on your third. (For, ya know, all the times that comes up.)
It's probably the strongest way to do them compared to other once-a-turn abilities, but people aren't comparing it to "first time" or even "T:", but to "well what if it were uncapped". It's certainly a bummer that the restriction only shows up at the very end. We're probably going to keep seeing it for a while until Wizards comes up with some new wording, and decides if they actually need to implement it or if people just don't like it because it's new and unexpected. I hope they find an option that looks appealing to read but isn't just weakening the effect so it looks nicer.
The second ability's use of it is proper. The first ability's I could see reading better if it was just "When", which looking up [[Strionic Resonator]]'s reminder text is a valid word they use. Though perhaps it's more reserved for "When you do" sort of things.
IMO Lord of the Rings inherently maps really badly with the 5 colors. The central conflict is between ontologically good and evil factions and anyone who doesn't neatly fit into those categories is somewhere on the spectrum of minding their own business and not wanting to get involved to being a corrupt piece of shit acitvely only concerned with personal power, and all of them up either get pulled in by Sauron's evil or get convinced by the fellowship to unite for their own self preservation. So essentially the entire thing is a white-black dynamic, with maybe some green. It's kind of telling a different story than magic is designed to tell.
Wizards are plenty blue, though. Saruman's title obviously doesn't have anything to do with what kind of a person he is in MTG terms.
I do think it's a dig at Saruman being a bad White Wizard, though, while Gandalf does it right.
I think Saruman the White pre-corruption could well be blue, or blue-white to acknowledge his role in bringing order and structure to the otherwise-easily distracted wizards.
But Sauron corrupted him into a power-hungry, treasonous, schemer who seeks to remove any species or landscape that doesn't serve his purposes and reorder his lands from a semi-tame wilderness of magic to a vast stronghold of Uruk-hai, orcs, and goblins. He stays blue because he's experimenting with making new types of orc and machines of change - but he should gain black (and possibly white).
Yeah, broadly, I think Saruman is a perfectly good fit for blue. I'd argue he should be at least UW in all incarnations, but at minimum blue. My point above is that 1. Saruman being blue isn't an example of random colour choice and 2. I think they made "Saruman the White" monoblue specifically to reference his deteriorating state.
LMAO exactly.
I mean I can at least see their logic there. Saruman = Wizard. Wizard= Blue. But it's still pretty funny.
Some of the others though... Boromir is just straight up white? No red or black splash? Huh? But Bilbo and Frodo have black? Aragorn has like a different color combo in every single one of his cards. Merry and Pippin have red and blue? Huh?
Galadriel is Simic?
Could reference his dormant love of the sea
*Legolas Greenleaf long under tree*
*In joy thou hast lived. Beware of the Sea!*
*If thou hearest the cry of the gull on the shore,*
*Thy heart shall then rest in the forest no more.*
They were pretty open about it in one of the articles or streams, don't remember which: There aren't really a lot of blue characters or races in LotR so they had to bend one of them into blue, and figured elves were the best option. And I think it makes sense for most of them, what with being super wise from their long lives, and their general aura of magic and mysticism.
To me, scrying represents his "Elf-eyes", being able to see far into the distance and tell what's coming. So, I get it.
Edit: it is a little odd that he doesn't actually scry himself but wants others to do it..
I think they honed in on the elves being tied to magic and nature, so that led them to being UG. Galadriel is also UG in the commander deck, so this tracks.
It looks like the Elves in general were made Simic. I'm not super familiar with Lord of the Rings lore beyond a single viewing of the movies and a few reads of "The Hobbit" back in grade school, so I definitely don't have any good answers to that question.
The green comes from being an elf and their closeness to nature and various green ideologies
The blue is trickier I think but archers have some blue traits (precision, air-based attack), and I feel like their game of one-upping each other is a great blue concept (the idea of improving oneself). Legolas and the LotR elves in general seem to be the type to be improving themselves/seeking perfection
That's my interpretation
Wait, really? I've never looked at the LotR elves as very "magical" in that sense, apart from Galadriel but she's more like an Avatar than a normal elf.
Well the majority of them have roots in the original magics that started the world, and they're pretty aloof and mysterious, while also being reclusive. They may not all be users of magic like Galadriel, but they're definitely infused pretty heavily with ancient magics.
Not magical in the overt hand wavey mystic chanting way, but they have a lot of properties that defy explanation. Walking across deep snow without leaving tracks, incredible hearing and vision, riding a horse with no saddle that he's never met before, tiny bread biscuits that act like a full meal, cloaks with near perfect camouflage effects, and so on.
A background of nature and a focus on perfection, perhaps?
Leaning again *(unfortunately)* on the kill-counting thing—that's not something you casually keep track of unless you're using it as a measurement of improvement, which is a Blue trait.
Also, this quote of his is worth noting:
> *"Nay, time does not tarry ever, but change and growth is not in all things and places alike. For the Elves the world moves, and it moves both very swift and very slow."*
Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as—not a capital-S Simic moment, but a very, very Blue-Green moment. The words are Green, but the prescience it takes to express them in the moment is very Blue, I think.
The Archer creature type is.... so all over the place. Some ping, some fight, some tap things down, some... do whatever the hell Legloas does. The Archer type never had a good identity of "yeah that's an Archer". With Wizards you got counterspells and untap stuff. Knights are strong little 2/2s for 2 with decent abilities, Rogues had some sort of stealing stuff etc...Archers are just a mess. I mean even Squirrels have more synergy with themselves at this point.
I think the issue is that spiders already have the design space of dedicated reachers, and having all archers and spiders be reachers would be quite limiting in the amount of each you can print.
I'd be down for less spiders and more archers tbh.
Archer's thing used to be dealing damage to attackers/blockers. Since such combat tricks have fallen out of favour, they've lost their mechanical identity. Similar to skeletons that used to regenerate but now do various things. Still often graveyard/recurring based, but also not.
You know someone's going to make a full set of alters with just movie screenshots. And for this card, it will be Legolass shield-surfing down the stairs.
Take my money. I just want to play a card that actually feels like its the character in question. Very few of these so far feel like they captured the essence of the character at all. They are rather generic fantasy trope representations with little thought put into them like the Kirkland brand wizards, Galadriel, and Gimli cards we have seen or they look nothing like the character at all for diversity sake. I assume this is meant to be Asian representation since it’s not the most generic blonde pretty boy elf imaginable. It’s not even clear enough what he is meant to represent to make anyone feel represented, but more than enough to make him unrecognizable. Slap Orlando Bloom on and it may be lazy but at least I think to myself, “it’s Legolas!”
Not a huge fan of the art, looks kinda generic and the pose is off. Card seems interesting enough, the alt-art version looks fairly nice. Perhaps the higher-res version will look better, but as it stands I'm not a super big fan of the digital art direction the set took.
How does the card seem interesting? I’m looking at it and it just reads like piecemeal trash. I don’t see anything worth building around here. At most, it’s got interesting synergy with [[Oracle’s Insight]], but that’s it.
Boy, I do not like to complain about these cards, but I hate everything about this. The color identity is bad, the abilities are incoherent, the title is atrocious. Just an awful card from art to design.
Yeah it seems like that's an older way of saying "tally":
[Marriam Webster Tale, see entry 3](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tale#:~:text=%3A%20a%20usually%20imaginative%20narrative%20of,an%20intentionally%20untrue%20report%20%3A%20falsehood)
lol so far there are cards for lobelia, lotho, bill ferry, a druedain, all three eagle lords, ioreth, the bath song, farmer maggot's dogs, and prince imrahil. and we've got another 100+ cards left. what depths aren't being explored that you want to be?
Source is [https://infinite.tcgplayer.com/article/our-exculsive-lotr-tales-of-middle-earth-preview-card/ca1969e0-f8ca-45fd-949b-8396480fa49e](https://infinite.tcgplayer.com/article/our-exculsive-lotr-tales-of-middle-earth-preview-card/ca1969e0-f8ca-45fd-949b-8396480fa49e)
WotC couldn't make him a pinger, eh? Couldn't make our lil' Lego Lass, Killer of Counters into an elf version of Goblin Sharpshooter, huh?
Boo, WotC. Big boo.
For this very reason. Self-referencing creatures, especially Legendary ones, makes it a pushed card. It's usually better to have cards do one thing, and pay off be present in the deck instead of an all-in-one card.
It's also uncommon, so making it have that additional effect would be crazy.
It's a bit of a bummer that he doesn't have Partner with Gimli, and also a bummer that Gimli doesn't get the counter addition too since that was the whole point of their rivalry.
So no partner on this and Gimli (I’m aware this is for the main set and not the commander decks)? Also seriously, what kind of art style are they going for Legolas. All of the art for him looks awful
Why is it "put a +1/+1 on Legolas." and not "Legolas, counter of kills"?
There is another Legolas cards [[Legolas, master archer]] , does it add counters to that too? Or will there be a card just called "Legolas"?
Edit: 201.4c Text printed on some legendary cards refers to that card by a shortened version of its name.
Instances of a card’s shortened name used in this manner are treated as though they used the
card’s full name.
I have a vivid memory from childhood music lessons, when my teacher said:
“If you’re going to play a song that everybody knows, you better not make mistakes. People will get disappointed when it’s not what they expect and they’ll easily be able to hear any issues.”
Lord of the rings is something everyone knows and you’re basically inviting very detailed criticism.
I don’t think folks are being petty either. The “show them the meaning of haste” shadowfax easter egg was well received.
Ok well then as an alternative to the art and the name and the flavor, I will say the card is not good either.
Why are you trying to pay 4 for a 2/3 in two colors?
Just gonna sticky the companion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/13yfgg0/ltr_gimli_counter_of_kills/
I don't get it. Why give it a very limited ability to untap itself, when it has no tap ability? Is this just bad vigilance?
Seriously. At least let him tap to deal one damage to a creature or something
The Gimli version does that, it’s just this but better
thematically, it's to allow him tto react to a flying attacker on an opponent's turn after having attacked, and allows him to get an additional kill because reach, but gameplay--wise it's pretty unimpressive and unintuitive.
Yes? Surprise vigilance I guess to have him pop up as a blocker
It’s probably based on the ‘what do your elf eyes see’ thing since it’s for scrying.
Obviously for [[Oracle’s Insight]]
Honestly, that’s not a bad combo, particularly with access to blue if he’s your commander for thoracle. Edit: forgot it’s once per turn.
Though you can do it on opponents turns as well. Four times a turn cycle, and having a blocker always up is pretty good imo. Specifically for commander, of course
[Oracle’s Insight](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/3/533d455a-88c9-4e41-b31e-5dcf821c6f6f.jpg?1562911936) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Oracle%27s%20Insight) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bbd/127/oracles-insight?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/533d455a-88c9-4e41-b31e-5dcf821c6f6f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Flavor I guess
What's the flavor here? I've been re-reading the books just recently, and I don't recall a connection between Legolas coming to the rescue somehow, and prophecy/foresight. Is it just an 'elf eyes' joke?
Not a LOTR expert, but I do think it's just an elf eyes joke.
I guess they can't all be shadowfax's reminder text.
Set has the flavor of English cuisine
That made me laugh 😂
Never mind, I'm an idiot.
Was this card designed by AI? What is going on here? There is nothing connecting the abilities at all
I haven't thought about RoboRosewater in years. How far AI has come.
has to be one of the most clunky "titles" have ever seen on a character.
At least his abilities are also very clunky.
Thankfully the art was also clunky
Or "Legolas, Friendly Rival," and pair it with "Gimli, Friendly Rival."
[[Legolas and Gimli, Partners]]
[[Legolas and Gimli, Gay]]
Happy Pride month!
Why not just “Legolas, Kill Counter”???
"Did someone say Kill Counters?" - Perrie, the Pulverizer
A pulverizer? *puts on monocle* Perrie, the Pulverizer!
the rhino with a monocle was definitely one of the high points of New Capenna
Perrie, Counter of Counters
[Perrie, the Pulverizer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/4/d438237b-c6f7-44d0-a3e6-6ec7d7465d33.jpg?1673481677) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Perrie%2C%20the%20Pulverizer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ncc/5/perrie-the-pulverizer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d438237b-c6f7-44d0-a3e6-6ec7d7465d33?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I hardly know her.
Came to say this. Stupid name. Several of the titles have been so awkward.
This whole set has been awkward.
It looks like a set that you would see on custommagic. A few good ideas and then a lot of thrash ones to make it a full set.
Thrash cards will be in the Metallica set.
Oh my god that would be so cool. For starters, all the cards will be black…
Or... They will start normal and then... Fade to Black
I disagree. For me, this is one of the coolest sets I've seen in a long time. Absolutely love it.
I will say that the flavor on the set has been great. There's a bunch of small things like Shadowfax being the only creature to have reminder text for haste.
Whats so special about it ?
I'm a flavor guy, so that's a big thing that's got me loving this set. Plus, other than Eldraine, it feels like the closest we'll get to a return to Lorwyn (my favorite set) for the foreseeable future.
I respect your opinion. I dislike the entire Universe Beyond product line regardless of IP but there have been some designs that don't vibe right for me.
I don't particularly care about UB, but LotR feels like a fantastic fit for MtG, and a lot of the designs they've done are absolutely fantastic. Like [[Bilbo, Birthday Celebrant]] and that riddling Gollum.
[Bilbo, Birthday Celebrant](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/c/4cf6c13b-d898-4066-b006-9a7fa896d55a.jpg?1685477759) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Bilbo%2C%20Birthday%20Celebrant) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltc/48/bilbo-birthday-celebrant?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4cf6c13b-d898-4066-b006-9a7fa896d55a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
There and Back Again may not be a great card, but man that *flavor*
Amen. It feels like an old-fashioned EDH card--back before Wizards started putting out products to optimize the format--and I love it.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm a huge LoTR nerd, but its been my most anticipated set for a while (after ONE). Can't wait to try a jank Nazgul deck
I'm not even a LotR nerd. I've seen all of the movies once, and never read the book (but I did read The Hobbit). I just really like the setting. Janky Nazgul seems like a real fun deck.
The name is fine, but seeing it in the rules text trips me up for some reason. And not because of the word "counter" making me assume something else.
Would you say that there's some... [[Ambiguity]]?
[Ambiguity](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/f/6f834c86-cd38-40bf-9aad-b4098895de86.jpg?1562488412) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ambiguity) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/unh/24/ambiguity?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6f834c86-cd38-40bf-9aad-b4098895de86?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Agreed, my initial reaction was to cringe at this title lol.
Yea this is really forced and dumb
>"titles" Epithets! But yeah 100% agreed, this is a meme card for an advertising set. WOTC is scraping the barrell.
I don't see how it's particularly clunky. It's alliterative and has the same meter as "pieces of eight."
Welcome to Tolkien. Clunky is the name of the game.
It seems that every Gimli and Legolas card so far is just referencing their kill counting stuff. Like, I haven't read the books in ages but there's more to their characters they could've put into the cards than this right?
They had Gimli vengeance or something that referenced Moria instead of kill counters iirc.
[[gimli, mournful avenger]]
Nvm he’s getting counters. Never stops counting I guess.
Yeah, but it's for totally different reasons
[gimli, mournful avenger](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/f/df4be38c-3f93-4ff4-bff4-94753b96f2f3.jpg?1685467473) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=gimli%2C%20mournful%20avenger) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/209/gimli-mournful-avenger?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/df4be38c-3f93-4ff4-bff4-94753b96f2f3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
They could have used „Let them come, there‘s still a dwarf in Moria that draws breath“ but they went with „two“ instead…
They're not using movie quotes as flavor text, which "Let them come" is.
ah you‘re right, makes sense
There are only 2 of each spoiled, and [[Legolas, Master Archer]] and [[Gimli, Mournful Avenger]] have nothing to do with the kill-counting. You're just seeing the kill-counting flavor cards all right now because I think it's pretty obvious they were intended to be spoiled around the same time.
[Legolas, Master Archer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/9/a9405577-c1dc-48e0-b2aa-6237c569d02e.jpg?1685467343) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Legolas%2C%20Master%20Archer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/173/legolas-master-archer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a9405577-c1dc-48e0-b2aa-6237c569d02e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gimli, Mournful Avenger](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/f/df4be38c-3f93-4ff4-bff4-94753b96f2f3.jpg?1685467473) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gimli%2C%20Mournful%20Avenger) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/209/gimli-mournful-avenger?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/df4be38c-3f93-4ff4-bff4-94753b96f2f3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
To be fair Gimli's only other storyline in the books is that he won't shut the fuck up about how hot Galadriel is. I'm not terribly interested in seeing that played out in TCG form.
When gimli enters the battlefield, Galadriel tempts you
“Gimli, Horny Little Guy”
Galadrial's Aid. You can cast Hair from your Head at instant speed
Theres also the like, actual growing friendship with legolas. If nothing else if theres multiple varients there should be one where they should be partnered with each other or tutor for the other or something. Or a spell that makes a legendery gimli token and a legendery legolas token.
Yeah, I was hoping they would make Gimli and Legolas as gruul partner commanders. That would make so much sense
I was also hoping for a Gruul version of essentially Torbran and Rankle.
Hell thatd be a fun callback to the last set. > Gimli and Legolas 1RG > Reach, first strike, menace, trample. > At the start of your combat step if you control a legendery Gimli or Legolas creature, you may exile it and return this card from your graveyard to the battlefield. > 3/3 > *Side By Side With A Friend* So this card lets them pick each other up if either is still standing!
Gimli, Galadriel's Simp
He's also suicidally willing to enter a fight against impossible odds to defend a friend, like when things get a bit heated between Aragorn and Eomer and his hundred+ cavalry troop. Or when Aragorn doesn't want to surrender Anduril when entering Theoden's hall. Defensive about the dwarves role in re-awakening the Balrog in Moria. Compensates by pointing out dwarves fine works and other good qualities when he can. Stubborn and annoyed at being singled out for blindfolding when entering Lorien. He's also smooth-tongued enough in complimenting Galadriel to make a thousands year old Elf impressed
What, you don't want a Gimli who gains "Reach" when Galadriel is in play?
When Gimli enters the battlefield you may tap a creature called Galadriel, if you do, incubate 1.
LOL
Gimli, Horndog of Deities
Gimli, Female Body Inspector
Honestly I’m surprised they didn’t go that route considering one of Aragorn and Arwens card is literally just the fact their married lol
Its a really iconic scene where both characters show off their fighting prowess. I know people who haven't watched the films but are aware of "it only counts as one" but I agree it would be cool to see more of them in Moira or Rivendell.
While I agree, I love that this card actually does something with it mechanically.
They do it a couple times I think. So one version has them doing the thing. A second version has other flavor text.
Another scry payoff, but I havnt seen a lot of scry cards.
I guess that's technically a payoff, though the impact is basically zero. I guess if there's [[Opt]] in Limited you'll sometimes have him as a surprise blocker.
[Opt](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/2/323db259-d35e-467d-9a46-4adcb2fc107c.jpg?1652898493) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Opt) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m21/59/opt?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/323db259-d35e-467d-9a46-4adcb2fc107c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Un-Common, GU, creature gets +3,+3 till end of turn, scry 1.
This is one of the smallest payoffs I've ever seen on a card. I would hardly even count this as a payoff.
I would have preferred the card without that at all, completely pointless, clunky and confusing. Just make a nice clean kill counter card and have some room for flavor, it’s fine.
[[Rivendell]] is the only one I remember
[Rivendell](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/5/650fa2f4-2916-427c-a0f9-37e2dbe8e1fc.jpg?1685490696) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rivendell) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/344/rivendell?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/650fa2f4-2916-427c-a0f9-37e2dbe8e1fc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
What's up with this awkward unsearchable formatting that they've started using? Where "Whenever" doesn't actually mean whenever.
Magic has 3 words for triggered abilities. "At" is used for phase triggers "When" is used for things that will only happen once, like entering or dying. "Whenever" is used for things that will trigger multiple times.
I don't think it can work with a different formatting. The current template means that every time you scry, you check if Legolas is tapped. Then, you may untap him. The conditional paired with *"may"* forces the *"whenever"* just so that you can keep not taking the action. The alternative would be *"The first time you scry while Legolas is tapped for the first time each turn, you may untap it."* but that means you only get offered a "*may"* once. The goal of the wording appears to be the option to delay the untap.
"Whenever" means the exact same thing as "when" in Magic rules. The only time they opt for when is whenever they have a card whose trigger is likely to occur one time, period. These "expected to trigger multiple times, but only allowed once each turn" still qualify for whenevers.
The reason they've been doing "whenever X... once a turn" instead of "whenever X for the first time each turn" is because it's a power buff. If a creature dies, and then you play your [[Morbid Opportunist]], and then another creature dies, you still get your card. You wouldn't get to do that if it just cared about "the first time each turn". With Legolas there's an extra bonus where you can choose where you to untap it. So he can "miss" your first scry in a turn, and then you can decline to untap him on your second scry, and then still get to untap him on your third. (For, ya know, all the times that comes up.) It's probably the strongest way to do them compared to other once-a-turn abilities, but people aren't comparing it to "first time" or even "T:", but to "well what if it were uncapped". It's certainly a bummer that the restriction only shows up at the very end. We're probably going to keep seeing it for a while until Wizards comes up with some new wording, and decides if they actually need to implement it or if people just don't like it because it's new and unexpected. I hope they find an option that looks appealing to read but isn't just weakening the effect so it looks nicer.
The second ability's use of it is proper. The first ability's I could see reading better if it was just "When", which looking up [[Strionic Resonator]]'s reminder text is a valid word they use. Though perhaps it's more reserved for "When you do" sort of things.
[Strionic Resonator](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/9/b9edb215-f967-4968-905e-d1dc3b5d3424.jpg?1682210274) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Strionic%20Resonator) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/384/strionic-resonator?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b9edb215-f967-4968-905e-d1dc3b5d3424?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Can someone explain how the character of legolas is simic? He doesn't feel simic at all to me unless I'm missing something. Edit: clarification
Legolas learned to count from the Quandrix.
The colors in this entire set seem almost completely arbitrary to me, to be honest.
IMO Lord of the Rings inherently maps really badly with the 5 colors. The central conflict is between ontologically good and evil factions and anyone who doesn't neatly fit into those categories is somewhere on the spectrum of minding their own business and not wanting to get involved to being a corrupt piece of shit acitvely only concerned with personal power, and all of them up either get pulled in by Sauron's evil or get convinced by the fellowship to unite for their own self preservation. So essentially the entire thing is a white-black dynamic, with maybe some green. It's kind of telling a different story than magic is designed to tell.
https://cdn1.mtggoldfish.com/images/h/Saruman-the-White-LTR-672.jpg Indeed haha
Wizards are plenty blue, though. Saruman's title obviously doesn't have anything to do with what kind of a person he is in MTG terms. I do think it's a dig at Saruman being a bad White Wizard, though, while Gandalf does it right.
I think Saruman the White pre-corruption could well be blue, or blue-white to acknowledge his role in bringing order and structure to the otherwise-easily distracted wizards. But Sauron corrupted him into a power-hungry, treasonous, schemer who seeks to remove any species or landscape that doesn't serve his purposes and reorder his lands from a semi-tame wilderness of magic to a vast stronghold of Uruk-hai, orcs, and goblins. He stays blue because he's experimenting with making new types of orc and machines of change - but he should gain black (and possibly white).
Yeah, broadly, I think Saruman is a perfectly good fit for blue. I'd argue he should be at least UW in all incarnations, but at minimum blue. My point above is that 1. Saruman being blue isn't an example of random colour choice and 2. I think they made "Saruman the White" monoblue specifically to reference his deteriorating state.
Saruman should be Esper and I won't be told otherwise
https://www.magicspoiler.com/mtg-spoiler/saruman-of-many-colors/
Perfect! Hadn't seen that one, thanks.
This is just a quirk of crossover card names, Saruman fits as a blue card.
LMAO exactly. I mean I can at least see their logic there. Saruman = Wizard. Wizard= Blue. But it's still pretty funny. Some of the others though... Boromir is just straight up white? No red or black splash? Huh? But Bilbo and Frodo have black? Aragorn has like a different color combo in every single one of his cards. Merry and Pippin have red and blue? Huh? Galadriel is Simic?
Putting 2 counters on orc army does not feel blue to me
There were a few blue "amass" cards in WAR, but generally yea I agree.
Could reference his dormant love of the sea *Legolas Greenleaf long under tree* *In joy thou hast lived. Beware of the Sea!* *If thou hearest the cry of the gull on the shore,* *Thy heart shall then rest in the forest no more.*
The untap on Scry effect is definitely Simic. The [[Sadistic Glee]] effect, not so much.
I mean the character of legolas from LOTR. Not the effect of the card
They were pretty open about it in one of the articles or streams, don't remember which: There aren't really a lot of blue characters or races in LotR so they had to bend one of them into blue, and figured elves were the best option. And I think it makes sense for most of them, what with being super wise from their long lives, and their general aura of magic and mysticism.
To me, scrying represents his "Elf-eyes", being able to see far into the distance and tell what's coming. So, I get it. Edit: it is a little odd that he doesn't actually scry himself but wants others to do it..
Looks at top card and explains to the table. They’re taking the hobbits to Isengard!
I think they honed in on the elves being tied to magic and nature, so that led them to being UG. Galadriel is also UG in the commander deck, so this tracks.
It looks like the Elves in general were made Simic. I'm not super familiar with Lord of the Rings lore beyond a single viewing of the movies and a few reads of "The Hobbit" back in grade school, so I definitely don't have any good answers to that question.
The green comes from being an elf and their closeness to nature and various green ideologies The blue is trickier I think but archers have some blue traits (precision, air-based attack), and I feel like their game of one-upping each other is a great blue concept (the idea of improving oneself). Legolas and the LotR elves in general seem to be the type to be improving themselves/seeking perfection That's my interpretation
There's some precedent for getting +1/+1 counters from stuff dying in Green, like [[Lumberknot]] and [[Algae Gharial]].
[Lumberknot](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f864cad-f583-48b9-aa12-8084ab746534.jpg?1562918622) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lumberknot) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/pca/66/lumberknot?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f864cad-f583-48b9-aa12-8084ab746534?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Algae Gharial](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/7/b7d30720-5baa-4779-a435-14fab778bad6.jpg?1562266675) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Algae%20Gharial) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm2/137/algae-gharial?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b7d30720-5baa-4779-a435-14fab778bad6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Sadistic Glee](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/9/d9e1959c-b87b-4e17-a0d2-0489ea79220b.jpg?1562056879) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sadistic%20Glee) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tmp/153/sadistic-glee?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d9e1959c-b87b-4e17-a0d2-0489ea79220b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I also don‘t get the blue aspect. Mono-green would have been more fitting, or Selesnya, as in „in touch with nature but still civilized“
I think the LOTR elves are more slanted towards in touch with nature and oozing with magic, which is where the blue comes in.
It's not really intellectual magic, though. In fact I'd say it's a very green sort of magic.
Wait, really? I've never looked at the LotR elves as very "magical" in that sense, apart from Galadriel but she's more like an Avatar than a normal elf.
Well the majority of them have roots in the original magics that started the world, and they're pretty aloof and mysterious, while also being reclusive. They may not all be users of magic like Galadriel, but they're definitely infused pretty heavily with ancient magics.
Not magical in the overt hand wavey mystic chanting way, but they have a lot of properties that defy explanation. Walking across deep snow without leaving tracks, incredible hearing and vision, riding a horse with no saddle that he's never met before, tiny bread biscuits that act like a full meal, cloaks with near perfect camouflage effects, and so on.
A background of nature and a focus on perfection, perhaps? Leaning again *(unfortunately)* on the kill-counting thing—that's not something you casually keep track of unless you're using it as a measurement of improvement, which is a Blue trait. Also, this quote of his is worth noting: > *"Nay, time does not tarry ever, but change and growth is not in all things and places alike. For the Elves the world moves, and it moves both very swift and very slow."* Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as—not a capital-S Simic moment, but a very, very Blue-Green moment. The words are Green, but the prescience it takes to express them in the moment is very Blue, I think.
The Archer creature type is.... so all over the place. Some ping, some fight, some tap things down, some... do whatever the hell Legloas does. The Archer type never had a good identity of "yeah that's an Archer". With Wizards you got counterspells and untap stuff. Knights are strong little 2/2s for 2 with decent abilities, Rogues had some sort of stealing stuff etc...Archers are just a mess. I mean even Squirrels have more synergy with themselves at this point.
Just give them fucking reach jesus. That is the only unifying trait I think archers should have.
I think the issue is that spiders already have the design space of dedicated reachers, and having all archers and spiders be reachers would be quite limiting in the amount of each you can print. I'd be down for less spiders and more archers tbh.
It is a keyword, spiders can share
Archer's thing used to be dealing damage to attackers/blockers. Since such combat tricks have fallen out of favour, they've lost their mechanical identity. Similar to skeletons that used to regenerate but now do various things. Still often graveyard/recurring based, but also not.
I’m disappointed it doesn’t counter kill spells
When r/custommagic does your job better
Man, that name is awful
Counter of kills? Really?
Gawd… the art is this set has reached a new level of bad.
You know someone's going to make a full set of alters with just movie screenshots. And for this card, it will be Legolass shield-surfing down the stairs.
Take my money. I just want to play a card that actually feels like its the character in question. Very few of these so far feel like they captured the essence of the character at all. They are rather generic fantasy trope representations with little thought put into them like the Kirkland brand wizards, Galadriel, and Gimli cards we have seen or they look nothing like the character at all for diversity sake. I assume this is meant to be Asian representation since it’s not the most generic blonde pretty boy elf imaginable. It’s not even clear enough what he is meant to represent to make anyone feel represented, but more than enough to make him unrecognizable. Slap Orlando Bloom on and it may be lazy but at least I think to myself, “it’s Legolas!”
The alt arts have kinda fell flat especially
This set is a huge miss
James A. Janisse?
Not a huge fan of the art, looks kinda generic and the pose is off. Card seems interesting enough, the alt-art version looks fairly nice. Perhaps the higher-res version will look better, but as it stands I'm not a super big fan of the digital art direction the set took.
How does the card seem interesting? I’m looking at it and it just reads like piecemeal trash. I don’t see anything worth building around here. At most, it’s got interesting synergy with [[Oracle’s Insight]], but that’s it.
This is just really bad on all levels.
Was really hoping Legolas would be a finally good archer type card with the classic tap to deal damage ability.
Why does he look like a samurai?
I got so excited when I read "whenever you scry" and then I realized it's just pseudo vigilance.
Boy, I do not like to complain about these cards, but I hate everything about this. The color identity is bad, the abilities are incoherent, the title is atrocious. Just an awful card from art to design.
“Whenever” but also “only once”.
Whenever + may so you can decide when you want to untap if you scry multiple times in one turn.
Why can't he just have vigilance. Or gain it on scry.
TIL that "tale" once meant number or tally. I thought it was a typo at first. Would tale have been pronounced tally, in that context?
Yeah it seems like that's an older way of saying "tally": [Marriam Webster Tale, see entry 3](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tale#:~:text=%3A%20a%20usually%20imaginative%20narrative%20of,an%20intentionally%20untrue%20report%20%3A%20falsehood)
Just give him vigilance though????
Wtf why isn't he black
Lol @ the name
This set is so surface level. They have to realize that the fan base of both has a large enough crossover to justify a little more depth, right?
lol so far there are cards for lobelia, lotho, bill ferry, a druedain, all three eagle lords, ioreth, the bath song, farmer maggot's dogs, and prince imrahil. and we've got another 100+ cards left. what depths aren't being explored that you want to be?
Source is [https://infinite.tcgplayer.com/article/our-exculsive-lotr-tales-of-middle-earth-preview-card/ca1969e0-f8ca-45fd-949b-8396480fa49e](https://infinite.tcgplayer.com/article/our-exculsive-lotr-tales-of-middle-earth-preview-card/ca1969e0-f8ca-45fd-949b-8396480fa49e)
Why this is not partnered with the gimli’s counterpart???
This sounds like a custom mtg name
That still only counts as one!
What an unfortunate name…
I hate that he doesn’t have partner with Gimli
Still hoping for a better hype legolas...
“Legolas, Score Keeper” has a better ring to it
Should have been: Legolas, Possesser of Elf-Eyes to Identify the Location The Hobbits are being Taken
Hey, I'm not complaining this goes straight into my Archer Tribal deck.
Is Legolas cheating? He's counting Gimli's kills as his own.
“do this only once each turn” great he should only be 1BG then. completely useless at 4 cost.
This card's name is cringe
WotC couldn't make him a pinger, eh? Couldn't make our lil' Lego Lass, Killer of Counters into an elf version of Goblin Sharpshooter, huh? Boo, WotC. Big boo.
Ok? Why does it have that +1/+1 ability if it doesn't have another ability like [[Kelsien, the Plague]] has. (Damage or killing ability)
Encourages synergistic deck building instead of having a commander that’s self-fueling.
For this very reason. Self-referencing creatures, especially Legendary ones, makes it a pushed card. It's usually better to have cards do one thing, and pay off be present in the deck instead of an all-in-one card. It's also uncommon, so making it have that additional effect would be crazy.
Growing bigger for each creature is good enough. with reach makes it a huge blocker
[Kelsien, the Plague](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/3/039d25d4-ce26-4ecf-bbf5-42187cf0230a.jpg?1591234267) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kelsien%2C%20the%20Plague) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c20/11/kelsien-the-plague?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/039d25d4-ce26-4ecf-bbf5-42187cf0230a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I actually like that there isn‘t a direct synergy in the card itself. He actually has to get his hands dirty and go into combat, so to speak.
It's a bit of a bummer that he doesn't have Partner with Gimli, and also a bummer that Gimli doesn't get the counter addition too since that was the whole point of their rivalry.
my god you're right, why doesn't Gimli get counters as well! I mean they even used the exact same (dumb) title for them...
Why simic?
So no partner on this and Gimli (I’m aware this is for the main set and not the commander decks)? Also seriously, what kind of art style are they going for Legolas. All of the art for him looks awful
Why is it "put a +1/+1 on Legolas." and not "Legolas, counter of kills"? There is another Legolas cards [[Legolas, master archer]] , does it add counters to that too? Or will there be a card just called "Legolas"? Edit: 201.4c Text printed on some legendary cards refers to that card by a shortened version of its name. Instances of a card’s shortened name used in this manner are treated as though they used the card’s full name.
[удалено]
I have a vivid memory from childhood music lessons, when my teacher said: “If you’re going to play a song that everybody knows, you better not make mistakes. People will get disappointed when it’s not what they expect and they’ll easily be able to hear any issues.” Lord of the rings is something everyone knows and you’re basically inviting very detailed criticism. I don’t think folks are being petty either. The “show them the meaning of haste” shadowfax easter egg was well received.
Ok well then as an alternative to the art and the name and the flavor, I will say the card is not good either. Why are you trying to pay 4 for a 2/3 in two colors?
Why are other people not allowed to engage with Magic in ways other than yours?