|
What it will be insane against at the very least is U/B, I dont think those colors have a single way with dealing with enchantments that have hit the board. It being a one drop also means it will typically be able to dodge hand disruption, and get down before a huge amount of counters are ready to deal with it. The more I think about it, the more I like.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
I feel like control decks want cards that generate card advantage, answers to opposing threats and win conditions and this card does absolutely none of those things well or reliably. I admit I could be wrong about it though. Especially if it was a format with a lot of cantrips or something to actually power it up quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:What it will be insane against at the very least is U/B, I dont think those colors have a single way with dealing with enchantments that have hit the board. It being a one drop also means it will typically be able to dodge hand disruption, and get down before a huge amount of counters are ready to deal with it. The more I think about it, the more I like. They can't kill it other than with a Vault or an Ugin but UB probably won't be the best control deck after DTK rotates in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Its a fine card, its just funny that yet again, everyone needs to know if this Prowess card is a control card.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Its a fine card, its just funny that yet again, everyone needs to know if this Prowess card is a control card. I've been really excited to try it in jeskai tokens because I feel like it solves a lot of problems in that deck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They can't kill it other than with a Vault or an Ugin but UB probably won't be the best control deck after DTK rotates in. Other than by Hero's Downfalling it or whatever other destroy spells are worth playing (Murderous Cut)? I mean, if you actually try to do anything with it ever. If you just want it to sit there and look pretty then yeah I guess UB's options are pretty limited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Except that unlike the prowess mechanic, this enchantment rewards both proactive and reactive spells? It just sits on the battlefield and generates tokens from regular play, seems like a fairly divergent circumstance to make that comparison.quote:Other than by Hero's Downfalling it or whatever other destroy spells are worth playing (Murderous Cut)? Of course it can die to that sort of removal, but the ability to wait and time the moments it becomes vulnerable can allow a control player to set up a definitive moment to attack with all sorts of counterspell backup. Deofuta fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Other than by Hero's Downfalling it or whatever other destroy spells are worth playing (Murderous Cut)? Yeah but you get to control the timing of when it's vulnerable to Downfall effects...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Would it be possible to say "Choose a creature. Its controller sacrifices it" to get around hexproof/shroud or does that break the templating they use? I can't think of any other cards that do that, it's always "target player sacs a creature."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:I've been really excited to try it in jeskai tokens because I feel like it solves a lot of problems in that deck. Yeah, that's where it looks like it fits to me. Its a fake-prowess guy that enables Prowess on your other guys. Its just funny because I think we had a similar conversation with Ojutai Exemplars and Narset. White was good enough for control last year because Supreme Verdict, Sphinx's Revelation and Elspeth were good enough to put it over the top. White's removal is just too slow and too conditional to replace black. Terrible Horse posted:Would it be possible to say "Choose a creature. Its controller sacrifices it" to get around hexproof/shroud or does that break the templating they use? I can't think of any other cards that do that, it's always "target player sacs a creature." Yes, but I doubt they'd ever print that card because it's confusing. The reason you can do that with for example, Deflecting Palm, is because the idea/flavor is that the "target" is the damage, not whatever actually hit you. The closest we've come to "opponents sacs their best creature" is Crackling Doom. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:Would it be possible to say "Choose a creature. Its controller sacrifices it" to get around hexproof/shroud or does that break the templating they use? I can't think of any other cards that do that, it's always "target player sacs a creature." I don't know if there's a standard phrasing for it, but yeah they do stuff like that. What immediately springs to mind that's recent is Godsend: "Whenever equipped creature blocks or becomes blocked by one or more creatures, you may exile one of those creatures." Same deal of picking something without actually targeting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:Would it be possible to say "Choose a creature. Its controller sacrifices it" to get around hexproof/shroud or does that break the templating they use? I can't think of any other cards that do that, it's always "target player sacs a creature." I think the whole idea behind the word 'sacrifice' is that the player gets to choose what's getting sacrificed. I doubt they'll ever do an indirect way of targeting sacrifice effects.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
qbert posted:I think the whole idea behind the word 'sacrifice' is that the player gets to choose what's getting sacrificed. I doubt they'll ever do an indirect way of targeting sacrifice effects. The closest they've come is Crackling Doom since it limits their options significantly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
qbert posted:I think the whole idea behind the word 'sacrifice' is that the player gets to choose what's getting sacrificed. I doubt they'll ever do an indirect way of targeting sacrifice effects. There's target X's controller sacrifices it templates but they always use target afaik (Arcum Dagsson, Mercy Killing). I think it's just that they don't want to get around hexproof cuz I mean they could just say "choose a creature, destroy it" or use the council's judgment template with will of the council.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:The closest they've come is Crackling Doom since it limits their options significantly. Oh yeah, they're definitely fine with limiting options. Celestial Flare is another example. Zoness posted:There's target X's controller sacrifices it templates but they always use target afaik (Arcum Dagsson, Mercy Killing). I think it's just that they don't want to get around hexproof cuz I mean they could just say "choose a creature, destroy it" or use the council's judgment template with will of the council. Oh wow, I had never seen those cards before. Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
qbert posted:I think the whole idea behind the word 'sacrifice' is that the player gets to choose what's getting sacrificed. I doubt they'll ever do an indirect way of targeting sacrifice effects. Mercy Killing and Ashling the Extinguisher are two counterexamples that spring immediately to mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Zoness posted:There's target X's controller sacrifices it templates but they always use target afaik (Arcum Dagsson, Mercy Killing). I think it's just that they don't want to get around hexproof cuz I mean they could just say "choose a creature, destroy it" or use the council's judgment template with will of the council. "Destroy all creatures, then return all but one of those creatures from the graveyard to the battlefield." Or exile, whatevs. Would actually have some interesting design space aside from being a way to style on hexproof, since it'd trigger ETB effects.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Council's Judgement is exactly non-targeted specific killing. Edit: I'm stupid and Zoness said that whoops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
clamiam45 posted:Council's Judgement is exactly non-targeted specific killing. Making a card like that is kind of a thing you have to do when you gently caress up and print TNN
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:"Destroy all creatures, then return all but one of those creatures from the graveyard to the battlefield." Or exile, whatevs. This reminds me of the design-stage templating for Life's Finale: "Search target opponent's library for up to three target creatures and put them onto the battlefield. That player shuffles his or her library. Then destroy all creatures."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:This reminds me of the design-stage templating for Life's Finale: "Search target opponent's library for up to three target creatures and put them onto the battlefield. That player shuffles his or her library. That sounds flavourful as hell, I love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
So unless there's a land between Vial of Dragonfire and Evolving Wilds, that's it for lands in the set. You'd think they would have at least some allied-color tap lands or something shoved in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Mercury Crusader posted:So unless there's a land between Vial of Dragonfire and Evolving Wilds, that's it for lands in the set. You'd think they would have at least some allied-color tap lands or something shoved in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:I don't really see why every set has to have tap lands now? Because its ostensibly a multicolored set since its based around drafting into the clans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:I don't really see why every set has to have tap lands now? Any kind of multicolored land fixing, really. We're coming off a large set that gave quite a lot of land fixing for its three-color stuff, and now we're entering a large set that likes allied pairs but the only fixing we get is Evolving Wilds. And we never did get [CLAN] Panoramas that would go great in my wedge EDH decks
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Mercury Crusader posted:Any kind of multicolored land fixing, really. We're coming off a large set that gave quite a lot of land fixing for its three-color stuff, and now we're entering a large set that likes allied pairs but the only fixing we get is Evolving Wilds. panoramas are so awful though i mean sometimes you'd play a shard one but you were never happy to pick one and they always went late
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Because its ostensibly a multicolored set since its based around drafting into the clans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:Obviously we haven't seen enough commons to be certain yet, but they actually implied it isn't a multicolor focused set and it looks like "multicolor" is something in this timeline the dragons kept for themselves. Most draft environments don't require deep color fixing to support people drafting two colors. It also seems like, if you don't end up with a multicolored dragon that enemy color pairs are just as draftable because you can get stuff like butt fight or whatever in the third pack
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Now that I look at it, all the multicolored stuff is dragons, Commands, and the planeswalkers. I knew they said Dragons of Tarkir wasn't going to be a three-color set, but they dialed that multicolored stuff back really hard in that case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Mercury Crusader posted:So unless there's a land between Vial of Dragonfire and Evolving Wilds, that's it for lands in the set. You'd think they would have at least some allied-color tap lands or something shoved in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Mercury Crusader posted:Now that I look at it, all the multicolored stuff is dragons, Commands, and the planeswalkers. I knew they said Dragons of Tarkir wasn't going to be a three-color set, but they dialed that multicolored stuff back really hard in that case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Based on the number crunch the only two nonbasics in the set are Evolving Wilds and Haven of the Spirit Dragon. Vial of Dragonfire is #247, Wilds is #248, Haven is #249, the first Plains is #250, and the rest of the basics cover up through #264. Unless they're mixing in a Dryad Arbor cycle that they plan to break convention with and sort them with their colors rather than the lands (as Arbor was in FUT) then there are no more lands coming. So much for the Hasbro (more like HasBLOW amirite?) edict that every large set needs duals To Sell Packs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Not that I agree with any Hasbro rumors but the rumor was "all fall large sets must have a cycle of duals to sell packs" Saying otherwise is silly since AVR didn't have a cycle. Did RoE? I feel like no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
BXCX posted:Based on the number crunch the only two nonbasics in the set are Evolving Wilds and Haven of the Spirit Dragon. Vial of Dragonfire is #247, Wilds is #248, Haven is #249, the first Plains is #250, and the rest of the basics cover up through #264. Unless they're mixing in a Dryad Arbor cycle that they plan to break convention with and sort them with their colors rather than the lands (as Arbor was in FUT) then there are no more lands coming. So much for the Hasbro (more like HasBLOW amirite?) edict that every large set needs duals To Sell Packs. I mean, couldn't they just do the same thing they did in Fate Reforged and Dragon's Maze, just insert Fetches into the land slot as before? I mean, I doubt it, but that shouldsatisfy the edict, if there truly is one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
BXCX posted:Based on the number crunch the only two nonbasics in the set are Evolving Wilds and Haven of the Spirit Dragon. Vial of Dragonfire is #247, Wilds is #248, Haven is #249, the first Plains is #250, and the rest of the basics cover up through #264. Unless they're mixing in a Dryad Arbor cycle that they plan to break convention with and sort them with their colors rather than the lands (as Arbor was in FUT) then there are no more lands coming. So much for the Hasbro (more like HasBLOW amirite?) edict that every large set needs duals To Sell Packs. DTK is the Dragon Set, that's what they're counting on to sell packs. Nothing sells cards to Timmy like Dragons. Normally I would expect DTK to have fairly poor sales numbers for a large set (average power level, no rare dual cycle, not drafted nearly as much as a normal large set, released shortly before insanely anticipated and high MSRP supplemental product) but I think DRAGONS!!!!! are going to be a huge draw. Never underestimate how many packs Timmy buys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
I can't believe that there's not a huge amount of fixing in this set that encourages drafting two color decks, unlike normal sets which encourage you to draft monocolor decks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:Not that I agree with any Hasbro rumors but the rumor was "all fall large sets must have a cycle of duals to sell packs" RoE had one nonbasic IIRC and it was Eldrazi Temple and it is not a good card.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
You don't need a lot of fixing unless there's a lot of gold cards. I don't think we've even seen any multicolored commons, have we?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:RoE had one nonbasic IIRC and it was Eldrazi Temple and it is not a good card. evolving wilds was first printed in RoE
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
So I'm only a stupid noob but that Myth Realised card doesn't have haste, does that mean you can't attack with it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:59
|
|
