We're talking about the 1X 5-of cycle, which are relevant in modern and everything older, i'm not sure why you'd take the "in standard it wasn't played with blue cantrips so it isn't a design that scream play it with blue" since standard don't print anymore cantrips. But magic has more than 20 years where blue has always been charaterized by cantrips. Only because they changed their phylosophy recently it doesn't mean that a card in a 5-of cycle that is relevant in all formats outside standards has to be evaluated with a mindset of design toward the only format that isn't relevant to the discussion.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Magic: the Gathering - Shadows over Innistrad |OT| Blue's Clues
- Thread starter SigmasonicX
- Start date
- Status
We're talking about the 1X 5-of cycle, which are relevant in modern and everything older, i'm not sure why you'd take the "in standard it wasn't played with blue cantrips so it isn't a design that scream play it with blue" since standard don't print anymore cantrips. But magic has more than 20 years where blue has always been charaterized by cantrips. Only because they changed their phylosophy recently it doesn't mean that a card in a 5-of cycle that is relevant in all formats outside standards has to be evaluated with a mindset of design toward the only format that isn't relevant to the discussion.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Blue isn't fundamentally broken at all. It's more that the original developers undercosted everything back in the day because they consistently underestimated how good the things they assigned to the color were.
This is, of course, related to the fact that creatures were bad back in the day. I assume that design decision was just a reaction to the fact they probably thought if creatures were too good it would end the game too fast, and they wanted to encourage less games that end by blowout.
This is, of course, related to the fact that creatures were bad back in the day. I assume that design decision was just a reaction to the fact they probably thought if creatures were too good it would end the game too fast, and they wanted to encourage less games that end by blowout.
I think the biggest problem was more the reluctance of the developers of giving card draw to other colors (sometimes black was blessed) when card drawing is a cornerstone of any card game to avoid excessive variance. Plus the fact that everything blue was grossly undercosted compared to anything else. It's still a problem that exist to this day when you consider than the blue PWs are like always 1 mana under curve and the red ones are 1 mana over the curve.
card draw, deck manipulation, and denial of your opponent's spells are all things that interact with the fundamentals of the game in a way that, say, direct damage, lifegain, or making lots of tokens don't imo.
you only have to look at the original 1 - for - 3 spells to see that blue is the most broken colour, because drawing three cards is just plain better than your other options.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Uh, that aura is not that dissimilar to an Illusory Angel with haste. For Limited purposes, it's 100% rare material - it's going to lead to a lot of amazing bad-beat stories.
Depending upon the environment it gets printed in, it could be absolutely bonkers. Fortunately, I think WotC has gotten wise to printing cards like Invisible Stalker.
Depending upon the environment it gets printed in, it could be absolutely bonkers. Fortunately, I think WotC has gotten wise to printing cards like Invisible Stalker.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I mean, I don't agree with your premise here to begin with but even assuming I did, I don't get how that's particularly broken if you're paying enough mana for it.
It could blow you out in a specific circumstance, but its just as likely to be a dead mana sink because you need a specific creature to put it on to get serious value out of it and the specific creature in question is probably bad on its own (e.g. a 1/3 with Skulk).
Mana is a concept that exist to balance those things. "fundamentals of the game" is something that is totally out there and completely change depending on who you ask. I'm of the opinion that mana denial should be a fundamental part of the game as well as prison decks, but many people think those things are bad for the game no matter what. I'm of the opinion that more levels of interaction just help keeping decks honest and make for a more interesting game then race to the curve , or heartstone with instants. Of course some people see that they get locked out of the game and thinks "this is stupid why can't i play my cards" instead of "maybe i should actually acknowledge that my opponent may do something to hinder my strategy and plan my deck accordingly". Never understood that mindset, if you get frustrated by complicated and obscure interactions and different angle of attacks, go play single player games.
charlequin
Banned
People complained about how red didn't have a card for this completely imaginary cycle, then they printed a super good red card that fit the parameters, so I'm not really interested in equally imaginary reasons why it doesn't count. "This card is actually color {X}" is only actually interesting when it's a factual statement about metagame use (which is what the original Tarmogoyf comment was about), not when it's just a random way to say it "doesn't count" for some arbitrary purpose.
The point about Standard is just to try to emphasize that in the formats anyone in R&D actually cares about during design, this card was built around playing in a variety of red-heavy decks instead of supporting a blue strategy.
The actual problem with land destruction decks (and prison, and draw-go style permission, and oppressive discard) is that no matter what only one deck is actually playing the game. If the disruptive strategy works, the other deck is basically blank and the game is just that disruptive strategy playing out. When it doesn't work, the whole game is just the other deck doing its normal thing only a little slower than usual and the disruptive deck is basically blank instead. When WotC says they want to encourage interaction, they really mean encourage decks that have to take the opponent's specific strategy into account to win.
then go play vintage and have fun with your turn 1 infinite combo, nerd.
I think if your point here is that the Magic designers just didn't really understand how a collectible card game would actually work and what would be good, then I agree. In fairness, if you go back and look at Pro Tour winning decklists from the first few years it becomes clear that nobody knew what would actually work or be good in a collectible card game for like ten years. These guys are running 14 lands!
I don't really think that "draw a card" is that different from "gain X life" or "make a token." Only one of those is easy to fuck up if you don't understand the value of a card, though, so I think that kind of got the better of them.
For 3 mana. A 4/4 (angel) flier attacking every turn.
All you have to do is put it on a creature with a big but or something with menace or skulk.
Or they have to block your big guy so you throw this on the creature they really don't want to block.
I frickn love this card for limited deck full of 3 drops
All you have to do is put it on a creature with a big but or something with menace or skulk.
Or they have to block your big guy so you throw this on the creature they really don't want to block.
I frickn love this card for limited deck full of 3 drops
Yes, put this enchantment that doesn't do anything to protect its target on a creature that your opponent already wants to use removal on. What could go wrong?
What could go right?
Honestly in limited this card is a lot stronger than most of the Commons you will get. I'm not saying it's first pickable.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
To the extent someone says "Pyromancer is blue" you could just as easily argue "Snapcaster is red" because blue and red's section of the color pie for "instant/sorcery matters" is practically identical to a degree that very few other mechanics are.
Auras are mostly trap cards because you get blown out. Just saying, compare that aura to the original:
They have that: totem armor. But I agree, it'd be fun to bring it back.
You can also think of Bestow as reverse totem armor.
Yeah, but that was only in case the creature got destroyed, no? -X/-X and Exile effects still worked.
(I admit I had totally forgotten Totem Armor and am trying to save face.)
Auras are mostly trap cards because you get blown out. Just saying, compare that aura to the original:
Yeah I get it. But it's a 3 mana card. Can I really not just put this in the spot of that shitty 3 drop I don't really want in my 23 card deck?
Maybe not? Maybe this is my time to learn just how bad auras are in this game.
charlequin
Banned
And SCM decks in Vintage always run red so they can Snap back Lightning Bolt and Pyroblast!
Except that wasn't the point? My point was that you can't consider Pyromancer anywhre close to the imaginary 5- 1X cycle because all the other see play in a variety of decks and their power is defined by their ability to go almost anywhere (see Confidant which goes in storm, aggro, and control, as well as SFM that goes in control and aggro, not as much in combo, or Goyf that goes literally everywhere) whereas pyromancer is bounded to one archetype. You could argue that snapcaster is sorta similar but snapcaster is still a way better card. So my point is that considering that, the imaginary 5-color cycle still miss the red card. One card being made great by the cantrip cartel doesn't make said card great in itself, pyro imho is just really good, but more than that, it's really narrow. The fun thing is that before monastery mentor was printed, Pyromancer was actually played as an alternative win condition for combo.
Except this isn't true at all? I never understood this argument. Some games may be blowouts where variance kill one of the player, but this is true of all formats no matter what because of the variance of the cards, but by the very definition prison decks always interact, they just slow down things.
Just take legacy eldrazis for example, which play 4 Chalices and 4 Thorns + Wastelands and is the closest thing to a prison deck in Legacy (you could argue land but lands is more of a control/combo with the ability to fetch tabernacle/chasm imho). If you play a deck like RUG delver, yeah, you get blown out by a chalice for 1. But that's not different from saying that beast tribal isn't viable in legacy for completely different reasons. On the other hand, 4-Color delver vs Eldrazis is one of the funniest and most interactive MU in legacy even after a chalice on 1 and especially so i'd say. Decay, Angler, Pyromancer that make tokens even under Chalice, Dismember that is castable for 1 even under chalice etc... you constantly play around said restriction and that make for an interesting game imho.
Heavy permission decks are unplayable when cards like vial and Cavern of Souls exist and are widely played, and the closest thing to it, Miracle, is still a deck with clear weaknesses that can be exploited. No game against miracle will ever feel uninteractive to you (sometimes even too interactive as they flashback and cast their fifth Swords to plowshares of the game)
Heavy discard is fringe playable with pox, for the simple reason that discard is inconsistent as it does nothing if topdecked, but were discard more prevalent, people would play more cards good against it (see for example wilt-lief liege in D&T as a tech vs Reality smasher) and it would become just another strategy.
Not even vintage shops is anymore all about locking out players permanently (after the cotv restriction) but more about slowing them down significantly and punishing them if they play certain kind of decks, while winning with threats that aren't slowed by your own prison pieces. Of course i don't think Vintage will ever be a "balanced" format by definition, but it's still an incredibly interactive format that is brought down by the swinginess of 1-ofs and the fact that threats are way better than answer in that format.
Also, just for information, legacy Eldrazi has basically already been hated out of the meta, with a lot of lands, loam and midrange bant-abzan decks going around. On the other hand, the fact that it was played a lot (especially for the cheapness) before essentally killed storm and canadian delver variants (RUG) which played only 1-cmc cards (except daze). Decks that will probably come back (especially storm) seeing how the current meta heavy on midrange and loam decks is extremely bad vs storm in general. The cycle of life i'd say.
Yeah that white card is boss.
How do you get around indestructible in limited? I think they just made a card that gets rid of it. Maybe that red burn spell?
The other one is 1 mana and late game sink plus it has 2 things for delerium
Time to have some guac and chips and cut up today's proxies with a cold beer.
I noticed something in play testing limited today with my buddy at the sushi restaurant today.
I kept thinking of madness being this awesome mechanic you wanted to chase but in reality it felt more like madness was the yang to the Ying of discard.
What I mean by that is madness doesn't actually do much for you. It's the discard cards that do a lot for you but you need the madness to enable those cards!
It really clicked when I played that black 3/5 common. I said aloud. Dang I hope I don't need to discard soon.
Low and behold I had the 3 mana bring 2 creatures back discard as the last card in my hand a few turns later and that sucked til I drew a land to toss.
That's when it clicked for me. Discard enables those amazing madness cards. And those weak madness cards enable the great discard cards.
How do you get around indestructible in limited? I think they just made a card that gets rid of it. Maybe that red burn spell?
The other one is 1 mana and late game sink plus it has 2 things for delerium
Time to have some guac and chips and cut up today's proxies with a cold beer.
I noticed something in play testing limited today with my buddy at the sushi restaurant today.
I kept thinking of madness being this awesome mechanic you wanted to chase but in reality it felt more like madness was the yang to the Ying of discard.
What I mean by that is madness doesn't actually do much for you. It's the discard cards that do a lot for you but you need the madness to enable those cards!
It really clicked when I played that black 3/5 common. I said aloud. Dang I hope I don't need to discard soon.
Low and behold I had the 3 mana bring 2 creatures back discard as the last card in my hand a few turns later and that sucked til I drew a land to toss.
That's when it clicked for me. Discard enables those amazing madness cards. And those weak madness cards enable the great discard cards.
Sacrifice, -X,-X, Exile, bounce, destroy the enchantment. You can also just outrace them, since it only triggers on their turn.
OK so anything that isn't dealing dmg essentially? And like you said it being there turn only is a loop.I can try and find
In this particular case, even (non-combat) damage can do the trick, because you can just respond to the trigger. Something like Gideon's Reproach or Divine Verdict won't work since it'll be too late, but Fiery Temper will, provided to do it in response to the trigger.
In general, Indestructible just means "can't be destroyed." Destroyed is a specific game term. Creatures dealt lethal damage are destroyed as a state-based action. Effects that outright destroy creatures (like Reave Soul) are the only other way to destroy something.
I think Abzan would make the most sense. Sarkhan is already originally from Mardu; a Mardu walker hating him would feel too close to his feud with Zurgo. Abzan also tends to be more white-leaning, so wanting to change things back for the betterment of the plane would fit.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
At first the flavor felt very weird in white but thinking about it nah its "eye for an eye", very classic white
SigmasonicX
Member
Nahiri's Machinations and Thraben Gargoyle seem pretty good in Limited. Red's "deal damage to blockers" is actually something I'd like to see more of, given that we aren't getting pingers that can hit creatures anymore.
Wait, what? That's like the only thing that makes red creatures playable in limited.
SigmasonicX
Member
You haven't noticed that there haven't been any pingers that hit creatures for years?
They still do them, but they make them one-time effects, expensive, or avoidable.
[EDIT] Honorable mention:
When you say respond to trigger. Do you mean when my opponent says entering combat. I can do it then and kill the creature with damage on the stack?
Also, using that card again, I have to call that trigger out when I enter combat or technically it doesn't happen, correct? (Obv fmn is more LAX)
The trigger targets a creature, so it needs to be declared at the beginning of combat. The target is chosen as the ability is put on the stack, then, before it resolves, you can just kill the creature it's targeting.
Generally speaking, at Regular REL, if this trigger was missed, the game would either be backed up (Assuming nothing of note has happened) or it would just be considered missed and ignored. Most triggers at Regular REL can just be added to the stack when it's noticed that it's been missed as long as it hasn't been too long, but this one confers too much of a bonus to do that.
SigmasonicX
Member
Well, this is a "No true Scotsman" point, but by "pinger" I meant stuff like Prodigal Pyromancer, and only the first and last you posted are even similar.
With that red mana symbol even?
charlequin
Banned
This is exactly why this conversation is so annoying, because people whined about this "missing card" for the "cycle" for years, and then retroactively invented a bunch of extra requirements about what it takes to be in it once a fitting card was printed.
This is why I specifically made the point about executing gameplans. Technically, by a certain definition, everything a deck does is "interactive" since if it's locking out the opponent or milling their cards or damaging them or whatever it's affecting them in a way that leads to the end of the game. But the definition that's being used is tactical, two-way interaction: that anything either player does has plausible, meaningful responses that change the game state and can themselves be responded to tactically. Standard decks these days are all about these kinds of interactions: dropping a PW to deal with an opponent's permanents, playing a hasty creature to deal with that PW, bouncing that creature at EOT to swing in with your own guys, etc. The strategies that WotC have pared back very specifically don't play on that level: they just keep you from playing spells and then kill you with whatever, and this type of tactical back and forth never happens.
I don't really count Vintage or Legacy as being part of the same conversation. Yes, decks based around what are miserable, uninteractive strategies in Standard make for fascinating games in Vintage, but there's two reasons for that: one, these decks have 23 years of cards to draw on so there's almost guaranteed to be some weird answer to every possible problem in a way that isn't true in shorter formats; and two, they've had twenty years to tweak that format into place with bans and restrictions, which again is not really possible to duplicate in a rotating format. A lot of those tactical responses in Vintage are the result of cards that could never ever be reprinted in Standard (Force of Will), that are the best possible execution of a concept out of many many tries over the game's history (Spellskite), or just do something that only really makes sense in the context of a ten-kinds-of-broken eternal format (Flusterstorm.) You can't duplicate that in a format built around a small cardpool, you just get boring as shit grind-out Magic that's lousy to play and lousy to watch.
Remembrance
Member
That gargoyle... feels like it could just be printed without transform as a bad core set gargoyle. The flavor is not really any different either.
Will there ever be a cool gargoyle card? It's at the point now where their whole mechanical identity is "late flyer pick in limited."
Will there ever be a cool gargoyle card? It's at the point now where their whole mechanical identity is "late flyer pick in limited."
Stonecloaker is a fantastic card in EDH.
Tower Gargoyle is efficient fat in limited.
Graven Dominator and Nullstone Gargoyle are expensive but cool.
SOI proxied thus far https://imgur.com/32pAruc
I actually have multiples if most uncommon and and up as well but I pulled them last week when I realized that was pointless.
Going to need to figure out how to test some sealed pools with it for fun once Friday comes
I actually have multiples if most uncommon and and up as well but I pulled them last week when I realized that was pointless.
Going to need to figure out how to test some sealed pools with it for fun once Friday comes
Cosmo Clock 21
Banned
this card is amazing
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Holy shit
- Status