|
mcmagic posted:You can't just keeping paying G to get an energy and returning it, right? If you have 2 energy, you have to pay 2... afaik you can never be forced to pay a cost, but the "if you can't" is new to me so I don't know if it works functionally different than "if you don't".
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Serperoth posted:So why couldn't this be a red card? there is probably a similar red card that gets haste at least, even tho that's like almost useless since most permanents leaving the battlefield happens with combat
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:afaik you can never be forced to pay a cost, but the "if you can't" is new to me so I don't know if it works functionally different than "if you don't". I think something that lets to pay G for 1 energy as many times as you want is probably too good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:This seems very playable. Very. yeah thats busted as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Deserved better art. dollars to donuts it's going to be an fnm promo
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think something that lets to pay G for 1 energy as many times as you want is probably too good. its not. you dont get the choice to not pay the energy. edit: but muktiple 3\4 on turn 3 is going to be an issue
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:afaik you can never be forced to pay a cost, but the "if you can't" is new to me so I don't know if it works functionally different than "if you don't". my read is that you're required to pay if you can, because it says "pay 2 E" instead of "you may pay 2 E" by the way, what is up with that elephant's tusk?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Revolting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
It should have added E when you cast, and removed E with an ETB ability so you could play fun tricks with the energy while it's on the stack and get your bounce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:It should have added E when you cast, and removed E with an ETB ability so you could play fun tricks with the energy while it's on the stack and get your bounce. Cast abilities are Eldrazi Only - RnD
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:So why couldn't this be a red card? Red Must Suck  consulate dreadnaught's crew cost should definitely be lower. I have been in many 7/11s that were crewed by only one or two people 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
If you have GG, you can still just play that on turn 2. I guess we get to see how good a turn 2 vanilla 3/4 is in standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
odiv posted:W U: Counter a spell with cmc 2 or less. Revolt - Counter a spell with CMC 4 or less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:U:
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:U: Fixed it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Fish Of Doom posted:If you have GG, you can still just play that on turn 2. I guess we get to see how good a turn 2 vanilla 3/4 is in standard. No you can't. If you have no energy it would cost GGG. You can Attune into that on T2 though...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Oh wait, spoiler season is when we complain about how WotC hates our color of choice so I bet it'll be more like UUUU Counter target spell, draw a card Revolt - draw another card card Sorcery. mcmagic posted:No you can't. If you have no energy it would cost GGG. You can Attune into that though... Turn 1 play it. Turn 2 play it twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No you can't. If you have no energy it would cost GGG. You can Attune into that though... turn 1: play stupid-tusked elephant, make an energy turn 2: play stupid-tusked elephant, make an energy, then play it again I don't think that's good though
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Oh wait, spoiler season is when we complain about how WotC hates our color of choice so I bet it'll be more like So why couldn't this be a red card?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Oh wait, spoiler season is when we complain about how WotC hates our color of choice so I bet it'll be more like True
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
You can crew with that elephant before it bounces, it's really good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:U: I don't think we're getting Vastly Superior Spell Snare, though I sure wouldn't complain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
 So this set is REALLY aggressive...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:U: Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Yeah no if we got this it would be UU1 and mythic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:
before anyone says anything no this is not good enough for affinity
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
what happens when adaptive automaton gets the bramblewood paragon treatment
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:afaik you can never be forced to pay a cost, but the "if you can't" is new to me so I don't know if it works functionally different than "if you don't". You can be forced to "pay a cost", such as things that make you sacrifice a creature during your upkeep. As far as I know there is no card that forces you to pay mana for anything, because it would be pointless, because you could just not activate mana abilities and then not have the mana so mana payments would always be optional anyway. Energy just sits around in your reserve so you can certainly have effects that force you to pay it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:
Wow this is pretty loving good in limited with Servos, or Artificers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:before anyone says anything no this is not good enough for affinity But probably good enough for Merfolk
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:
So why couldn't this be a red card?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Lets Pickle posted:You can be forced to "pay a cost", such as things that make you sacrifice a creature during your upkeep. As far as I know there is no card that forces you to pay mana for anything, because it would be pointless, because you could just not activate mana abilities and then not have the mana so mana payments would always be optional anyway. Energy just sits around in your reserve so you can certainly have effects that force you to pay it. The interaction I'm basing that guess off of is a creature that must attack an opponent who has an untapped Archangel of Tithes
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:But probably good enough for Merfolk Merfolk probably has enough lords already. But elves doesn't have a 2-mana one in modern yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:U: This at 1U is pretty drat good I think
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Greenbelt rampager + elemental bond?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:The interaction I'm basing that guess off of is a creature that must attack an opponent who has an untapped Archangel of Tithes All the must attack abilities say "attacks IF ABLE." Which means that if there is an extra cost associated with attacking the creature might not be able, such as if you don't pay the cost. In your example no creature would have to attack the opponent with the Archangel because you can just not pay the 1 mana.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:before anyone says anything no this is not good enough for affinity Are you sure? It says artifact on it...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:
Well, since B got a one-mana answer to 90% of the deck, Merfolk deserved another 2-drop Lord
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Procrastinator posted:Merfolk probably has enough lords already. Merfolk would sleeve up an entire deck of Seas, Vials, and 2 mana lords if it could
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:This at 1U is pretty drat good I think And it still wouldn't be good enough for modern at 1U. It would probably be legacy playable though
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:10
|
|