|
Entropic posted:The others aren't even khans though. Zurgo's demoted to Bellringer. Anafenza is a ghost heretic. Sidisi is zombie sidekick. Surrak is just a hunter guy. And Narset's now a planeswalker. I think the main issue messing with people's heads is that 4 of the 5 are now mono-colored legendary creatures, so Narset muddles what people expect out of the cycle. If she had been a pure blue planeswalker I think everyone would have been fine with it
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
Count Bleck posted:It will go in my good posts edh deck. You only need about 90 more to finish the deck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
I like Entropic's logic, especially before he edited his post to show that the card that had received a legend wasn't legendary enough for him to remember and therefore anything players don't know shouldn't have a legend. And since no one knows a legend until they make a legend - and even then, it's a bit of a struggle apparently - they just shouldn't make legends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I think the main issue messing with people's heads is that 4 of the 5 are now mono-colored legendary creatures, so Narset muddles what people expect out of the cycle. Given her fluff piece it's funny she bothers people who really want things to fit into patterns they find familiar!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Entropic posted:They should print a block consisting entirely of 4-card cycles. I want to see what their original plan for a four khan KTK would have looked like
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Entropic posted:They should print a block consisting entirely of 4-card cycles. I wasn't around for it so I'm not fully certain, but I think Odyssey-Torment-Judgment had a number of incomplete cycles since a theme of the block was singling out black as a color (Torment was very black-heavy, then Judgment had far less black and more green-white). The Tainted lands are one example, at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
OTJ owns and I think the unbalanced thing rates an 11 on the storm scale. Unrelated to cycles of cycling cycle talk, if we assume there are eight promos like KTK the list as I see it looks something like this  Anyone got any guesses on the missing two? Or have they contradicted it'll go patterned this way? Entropic posted:Are you referring to my confusing Taigam's Scheming with Tasigur's Cruelty? Unless I can figure out a sweet Taiga-m pun. You know like, he was WUR and then he went UBG? Spiderdrake fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:I like Entropic's logic, especially before he edited his post to show that the card that had received a legend wasn't legendary enough for him to remember and therefore anything players don't know shouldn't have a legend. Are you referring to my confusing Taigam's Scheming with Tasigur's Cruelty? The four cards in the cycle are characters that already had a legendary creature card, and these are alternate versions of them -- and for some reason people are mad that there isn't a fifth one of a character previously only mentioned in flavor text? I really don't get what people are so mad about here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
I just wanted to see/play Taigam, I thought he was an interesting character. It never clicked for me that the charcters in that cycle are, like, exactly the same characters that were khans in KTK. I just completely breezed past it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
It's more that the cycle is the 5 ex-khans, but they could have easily finished a second cycle with a single card for a character that had previously been named and was relevant in the lore. Not a big deal, but a little disappointing maybe
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
There's no pleasing Magic players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
I agree we needed Mother of Loons (Narset's Mother) as the blue legend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
I don't think anyone's particularly upset about there not being a Taigam, there's just this feeling that Wizards can't stop making 5 color cycles, so having a 4 color one (for a good reason!) seems odd. Cycles really homogenize set design like nothing else does; there are definitely good and bad parts about that. I don't mind them occasionally not giving us a full cycle if there are good reasons, as it keeps the cards from blending together too much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Entropic posted:How much play did Illness in the Ranks see? I don't remember anyone running it even in sideboards, and it shared a Standard with Lingering Souls. I had friends bring it in against Murdergoats because lol red-black answers to Enchantments, but obviously that is an extreme example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Nothing about Taigam was particularly memorable to the point we really needed a card for him beyond what we got. People are just mad about no blue legend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
It kinda sucks because we're either being deprived of four allied-color legends or blue players lose out on a new one and/or are forced to share it with white.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
GODDAMN IT WIZARDS FIRST AZAX-AZOG THE DEMON THANE AND NOW THIS?????
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
This set looks good I look forward to darfting it
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Nibble posted:I wasn't around for it so I'm not fully certain, but I think Odyssey-Torment-Judgment had a number of incomplete cycles since a theme of the block was singling out black as a color (Torment was very black-heavy, then Judgment had far less black and more green-white). The Tainted lands are one example, at least. Tainted lands were a complete cycle, it's just that there could only be 4 of them. Unless you really wanted a land that only makes colorless unless you control a swamp, in which case it makes black or black. I guess you could consider Cabal Coffers the fifth in the uncommon swamp-related land cycle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Myriad Truths posted:I don't think anyone's particularly upset about there not being a Taigam, there's just this feeling that Wizards can't stop making 5 color cycles, so having a 4 color one (for a good reason!) seems odd. Cycles really homogenize set design like nothing else does; there are definitely good and bad parts about that. I don't mind them occasionally not giving us a full cycle if there are good reasons, as it keeps the cards from blending together too much. The thing is that it seems like it is a full cycle; it just goes along flavor lines rather than strict color and card type lines. Which breaks people's minds, apparently. (Though in all honesty I might not have gotten it myself without Entropic's post.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Just remember, the slot Taigam would've taken is held by Clone Legion. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Did prices crash on DTK singles? I was looking to get a few things and prices are down from what they were yesterday. Collected Company was 8.50 now 4.50 at tcgplayer and Deathmist raptor was close to 10 and is now around 6. e - Narset is low 30's now and sarkhan is 21-22.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Just remember, the slot Taigam would've taken is held by Clone Legion. edit: Though I will say I think there's a bit of imbalance in this set, I think there's actually an extra Dromoka watermark in the rares? Eh w/e, maybe they're doing something else. Spiderdrake fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Bugsy posted:Did prices crash on DTK singles? I was looking to get a few things and prices are down from what they were yesterday. Collected Company was 8.50 now 4.50 at tcgplayer and Deathmist raptor was close to 10 and is now around 6. A lot of places don't bother to put up preorders on stuff until the whole set it out so they can try and figure out out what demand is actually going to be like. The guys who put up super early preorders are usually hoping to catch people early who get overly excited about a card without actually thinking it through, e.g. every single person who currently has a preorder on Narset Transcendent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:No, it's either Living Lore or Blessed Reincarnation. I posted the slots above. Most likely Living Lore. Yeah, you're right. Just wanted to prod. That having been said, I like how Living Lore is a 4-mana 8/8. That'll be fun to tool around with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:This set looks good I look forward to darfting it Same. And this is my favorite art, thread, as previously posted by Entropic 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Yeah, you're right. Just wanted to prod. So like, dreadnot, I guess. Card owns. (probably not playable, but it is very easy to trigger, so who knows?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:Dream big man. Pitch trespass to tormenting voice and create the Lorexian almost-Dreadnought. I like it so much. All it needs is to fight and survive (since you need to sacrifice it to its trigger), and if you manage to get something expensive on it, it's big enough to demand a blocker. Of course it also would demand spot removal, which is less optimal. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
 I can't wait for this horrible speculation to gently caress me in the rear end, no lube.  This isn't even a big gamble gently caress me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Came 3rd at fnm running mono black humans aggro and pulled an ugin, woop
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
If losing $50 will ruin you please do not speculate on wizard poker cards. Actually just don't do that ever probably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
rabidsquid posted:If losing $50 will ruin you please do not speculate on wizard poker cards. This is pretty whatever, yeah. If I win, I make some extra money. If I lose, whatever, I wanted a foil anyway, and it's 50 bucks, who cares. The Atarka's Commands are mine anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Unrelated to spoilers: I occasionally try giving thought to what sort of design space is still untapped when it comes to competitive dual land cycles, since that's one area where it feels like the available space left for really good rare cycles with interesting conditional come-into-play-untapped clauses that we haven't seen before is drying up a bit (or maybe I'm just not as imaginative as WoTC). Recently had an idea pop into my head that feels like a combination of core-set checklands and the SOM fastland cycle. Something along the lines of: quote:You may have ~ come into play untapped as long as you control another nonbasic land. If you do, ~ deals 1 damage to you. Otherwise, ~ enters the battlefield tapped. So basically a guaranteed tapped dual if it's your first play of the game, but you get it untapped at a small cost for subsequent turns assuming you have some other non-basic in play (felt like not including the damage might make it way too overpowered, though 1 damage might be negligible enough, too). Different enough from other rare dual cycles in that hands with all duals have advantages and disadvantages compared to recent conditional cycles (better than a hand of all checklands, worse than a hand of all fastlands until you're past turn 3, etc..), and there's obviously other subtle pros/cons when basics are involved compared to those other cycles. Just throwing this out there as an unrelated thought exercise, if anyone wants to chime in cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:Unrelated to spoilers: I occasionally try giving thought to what sort of design space is still untapped when it comes to competitive dual land cycles, since that's one area where it feels like the available space left for really good rare cycles with interesting conditional come-into-play-untapped clauses that we haven't seen before is drying up a bit (or maybe I'm just not as imaginative as WoTC). Personally, I think the differences are too subtle to be worth a whole new cycle. In the interest of both (harder) deck building choices, player enthusiasm, and just more interesting cards, I think the differentiation between rare land cycles - hallmarks, of a sort - shouldn't be too granular.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:Unrelated to spoilers: I occasionally try giving thought to what sort of design space is still untapped when it comes to competitive dual land cycles, since that's one area where it feels like the available space left for really good rare cycles with interesting conditional come-into-play-untapped clauses that we haven't seen before is drying up a bit (or maybe I'm just not as imaginative as WoTC). An idea I've had would be similar to the tribal reveal lands, but tailored to the opposite color, and typed. And each color gets assigned a card type. So like the UR land would be type - Island, and come into play untapped if you reveal a red creature. Or the GW would be a forest that comes into play undtapped if you reveal a white enchantment, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
I've got a super good idea for a competitive dual land cycle-super good idea posted:Subglacial Volcano
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
LGD posted:I've got a super good idea for a competitive dual land cycle- Subglacial Volcano Snow Land — Island Mountain T: Destroy target Volcanic Island or Steam Vents. Rinkles posted:Personally, I think the differences are too subtle to be worth a whole new cycle. In the interest of both (harder) deck building choices, player enthusiasm, and just more interesting cards, I think the differentiation between rare land cycles - hallmarks, of a sort - shouldn't be too granular. The only real design space left for dual lands are basically lands that care specifically about block mechanics. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Same. oh the jewels make him hexproof cause the enemy gets distracted by the pretty lights, that's neat the jewels are hard so he gets more tough too, 10/10 flavor masterpiece
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:oh the jewels make him hexproof cause the enemy gets distracted by the pretty lights, that's neat I didn't notice this initially either, but I think it's a she
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:40
|
|