|
I'm guessing they cost this sort of card out of even the remotest of playability in case they miss some dumb combo. But at that point you're printing utterly pointless poop.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
I love to look at weird cards and figure out what they could be good at but holy god thats a pile of garbage
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Ramos posted:This will go great in my... five color EDH deck? I guess that might be the only kind of game where the matches would go long enough to have it become viable. Even then you have to hope they don't have enchantment hate or else you just spent 7 mana to do what Tormod's Crypt does for free.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Bread Set Jettison posted:I love to look at weird cards and figure out what they could be good at but holy god thats a pile of garbage I think it would be playable if it cost 5 mana and removed the color requirements from casting the cards. Drawing 3 or 4 probably-not-land cards from your opponent's deck would be pretty good in limited if it didn't cost infinity mana.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
This could work in a Mono-Black devotion build playing Nykthos. Gary is still a fairly potent card, and there are significant 1, 2, and 3 drops with B or BB in their casting costs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:This could work in a Mono-Black devotion build playing Nykthos. Gary is still a fairly potent card, and there are significant 1, 2, and 3 drops with B or BB in their casting costs. There are so, so many better things to do at 7 mana.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:
Neat ability, but you're gonna be sad when you open this in draft and your opponent opens a Regent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Entropic posted:There are so, so many better things to do at 7 mana. I bet the translation will be "cast without paying the mana cost" since you are limited to once per turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Devor posted:I bet the translation will be "cast without paying the mana cost" since you are limited to once per turn. But then why bother letting you play their lands?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Devor posted:I bet the translation will be "cast without paying the mana cost" since you are limited to once per turn. Then it would actually have a shot at being good. Always bet against the lovely 7 mana enchantment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Cernunnos posted:But then why bother letting you play their lands? Because it's on flavor? You still can't play more than one land per turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Has anyone realized that Decent of the Dragons with Dragon Tempest out is basically an instant kill if you have 3 or 4 tokens to sac into becoming dragons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Has anyone realized that Decent of the Dragons with Dragon Tempest out is basically an instant kill if you have 3 or 4 tokens to sac into becoming dragons? It's been mentioned once or twice, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Devor posted:Because it's on flavor? You still can't play more than one land per turn. Also the only lands in their graveyard are going to be fetches. Can't wait to pay 7 mana to play off-color fetches, guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Hedonist's trove is pretty bad but I have a deck it will slot nicely into for when I do multiplayer games so hooray I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Has anyone realized that Decent of the Dragons with Dragon Tempest out is basically an instant kill if you have 3 or 4 tokens to sac into becoming dragons? Oh yeah, along with comboing with Battlefield Thaumaturge means you can do all sorts of Izzet-y nonsense. I've actually been looking at that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Please don't try that new counter in Merfolk. You can run Cancel which is always unconditional for three mana, or the new counter which is Cancel if you have a Mutavault in play. You already have Cursecatcher which is cheaper and doesn't require you to hold up mana.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Has anyone realized that Decent of the Dragons with Dragon Tempest out is basically an instant kill if you have 3 or 4 tokens to sac into becoming dragons?  qbert posted:Also the only lands in their graveyard are going to be fetches. Urborg makes them swamps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:Yes, but if you have it in play and animated, you control a Dragon, and thus it's full Counterspell. 1UU for a full counterspell seems pretty freakin' powerful. e: lollin' at the "draw perfect 9 cards in 11 cards for a T4 kill" reddit masterpiece.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
End of Life Guy posted:Here was a mock up from reddit Dragon Tempest and tokens sounds like an interesting deck idea, and you could have Ascendancy and Shampulse to help you dig for it, but it's pretty drat Christmas land-y
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
End of Life Guy posted:Here was a mock up from reddit One more point of damage if you use Monastery Swiftspear over Zurgo. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Hedonist's Trove seems like it would be awesome to drop in a blue-based Control mirror and just start looting their counters and Treasure Cruise spells (plus incidental lands from Tasigur activations?) while depriving them of Delve fuel. I meant the red one is much better, since even in the fail case it's a decent card and in the succeed case it's a Legacy-playable burn spell (not saying that this is legacy playable, since it clearly isn't, but Searing Blaze is). As for Descent of Dragons combo, that chart is stupid. You have a lot of flexibility for the combo, you just need three creatures for the kill, though four allows you to drop Tempest/Thaumaturge and Descent on the combo turn. I'm going to play the deck but I'm not under any illusions about how good it is. It'll steal free wins from people, though, and I like that you can sideboard it very aggressively-- I'm going to fill my board with burn spells and more efficient dudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
hedonists trove reminds me of a lovely yawgmoths agenda. Just reprint agenda, that card owned
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Big Ol Marsh Pussy posted:hedonists trove reminds me of a lovely yawgmoths agenda. Just reprint agenda, that card owned Agreed, but they should design a new version of Agenda using some of that card's templating, like replacing the "only one spell per turn period" with the "only one spell from the graveyard per turn" so it's less of a straitjacket. Agenda was niche playable but not anywhere close to broken; there's room for improving it without it being a problem, especially in this environment where everybody will be trying to shove creatures up your rear end while you're trying to set up with your graveyard durdle deck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:
Oh man this is like getting to play my friend's EDH decks while I get to play my own EDH deck thanks wizards, great addition!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
RME posted:Oh man this is like getting to play my friend's EDH decks while I get to play my own EDH deck Ok I liked this post
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:1UU for a full counterspell seems pretty freakin' powerful. Yeah. Powerful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
End of Life Guy posted:Here was a mock up from reddit Pfft, Mono-R already has a T3 kill that's much easier to pull off. T1: Swiftspear T2: Swiftspear, Titan's Strength T3: Titan's Strength, Titan's Strength.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
End of Life Guy posted:Here was a mock up from reddit Admittedly Thaumaturge + Descent is kindof interesting, I'm just not sure you want that do-nothing enchantment that's only good in a 3 card combo with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Yeah. Powerful.  was made for this thread apparently
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
I want to see more of the draft commons, dammit. Show us the common Exploit creatures so I can decide if Mirror Mockery is a bomb rare or not. Slapping it on a Silumgar Butcher seems really really good, but ideal that deck has other good exploit creatures in it too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
rabidsquid posted:
We get so many legit bad opinions from bad players who like bad cards that it's impossible to tell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:We get so many legit bad opinions from bad players who like bad cards that it's impossible to tell. I guess this would be a great place for satire designed to get people who love correcting others to look dumb then. If you were into that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
rabidsquid posted:I guess this would be a great place for satire designed to get people who love correcting others to look dumb then. If you were into that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:We get so many legit bad opinions from bad players who like bad cards that it's impossible to tell. I agree that the guy championing the UU counter as being good when you activate mutavault had A Bad Opinion on Bad Cards and is therefore a Bad Player, but thinking the guy responding to that Bad Player has a bad opinion rather than a sarcastic correction to their bad strategy is probably also bad rather than being sarcastic makes you The Bad Opinion-haver. In other bad opinion-having-ness, which of the two new blue commands does everyone agree is better than Cryptic? The one that does less in white, or the one that does less in black?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
 Morph is deceptively powerful, but this cycle seems pretty weak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
It can set off that infinite combo at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Also, I don't get why today's green hate card is so much better than the rest Hits all permanents (the rest only cover creatures) unconditionally and instantly, on top of protection
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
What? Am I missing something, or are you missing "noncreature" in that text? Killing Narset or Sorin with it probably makes you feel pretty good but it doesn't seem that great to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
It's noncreature only. So it's two massively conditional clauses on top of each other, I don't think it will see much play ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:28
|
|