#isamaru

[eleplay]

[eleplay]

i was rooting around in procreate this morning and i honest to god can’t remember if i already posted these doodles from ??? whatever, here

[eleplay]

the wizard

[eleplay]

also it’s almost 2am time to post lark & isamaru pastiche of a sexy promo illustration from an anime ive never watched

[eleplay]

wizard + normal dog

[xantchaslegacy]

;)

[cinderclaw]

mono white edh voltron equipment

@deelgathor

My Isamaru Voltron deck, they’ve printed a lot of cards in the past few years to make voltron better :)

[tanisfahr]

What’s a vanilla creature?

Recently there’s been a lot of discussion on social media about whether or not Dryad Arbor is a vanilla creature. After giving it a little thought I figured I might as well join in as well.

The whole discussion comes down to how one defines “vanilla creature”. From what I can tell there are two camps. The first camp defines vanilla creatures as creatures with no rules text. The second camp defines vanilla creatures as creatures with no abilities. It’s important to note that the disagreement stems over the definition. Thus the basic idea, in my opinion, is to choose a definition (whether it’s one of these two or another one) that matches up well with everybody’s expectations of what is meant by “vanilla creature” and will allow the creature (and all printings of it) to be readily identified as vanilla or non-vanilla. 

The Future Sight version of Dryad Arbor clearly has rules text: Dryad Arbor is green. The FTV: Realms version of Dryad Arbor doesn’t have any rules text. The reason it doesn’t have any rules text is because WotC came up with the color indicator to indicate it is green. In addition, at some point it was added to the rules that being a Forest means “tap to add 1 green mana to your mana pool”. What if WotC comes up with a symbol that means a creature has flying? Would future reprints of Storm Crow now be vanilla? The idea that Storm Crow could become vanilla because if future innovations with card design strikes me as ludicrous. Thus, I am forced to reject the definition of vanilla creatures as creatures with no rules text.

This means I’m leaning toward the definition of vanilla creatures as creatures with no abilities. That is a pretty straightforward definition. Dryad Arbor wouldn’t be a creature but Crimson Kobolds (being red is not an ability). The only card that might fall into a gray area with this definition is Isamaru, Hound of Konda. If you think being Legendary grants a creature an ability (if at any time you control another CARDNAME, sacrifice this CARDNAME or the other CARDNAME) then Isamaru is not a vanilla creature. If you think being Legendary does not grant an ability, then Isamaru is a vanilla creature.

Currently I think vanilla creatures are best defined as creatures with no abilities but for now I’m on the fence about Isamaru. And of course, somebody could point out something I’ve missed or an error in my reasoning. As always, I welcome any constructive discussion. Let me know what you think.