|
apistat posted:
Man please don't say the name of a really cool card to refer to a really lame enchantment 
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:53
|
|
?
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
apistat posted:
Nah it's just the mandatory goofy do-nothing red rare enchantment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Man, it's like two mana for a hasted Bird of Paradise. Think of the value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
So who killed Sidisi? Has that been explained? Are all the Khans going to be undead (or dead) besides Narset?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Nah it's just the mandatory goofy do-nothing red rare enchantment. I think its there to be the thing that pisses you off when you open it in draft. Granted, I could be wrong, but WOTC doesn't seem too keen on dragons that cost less than 5 CMC anyways, so I just assume it will be too hard to really build a limited deck around the type. mr. mephistopheles posted:So who killed Sidisi? Has that been explained? Are all the Khans going to be undead (or dead) besides Narset? Its just the Silumgar/Sultai who make zombies. Surrak, the Hunt Caller is (apparently) alive, and we know for a fact that Zurgo, the Bell-Ringer is alive (and way less badass).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Nah it's just the mandatory goofy do-nothing red rare enchantment. Not complicated enough. I'm sure there's going to be something that costs more and does it randomly. Spiderdrake posted:Man, it's like two mana for a hasted Bird of Paradise. Think of the value. Two Time Walks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
apistat posted:
There's no watermark, so the latter. Entropic posted:Nah it's just the mandatory goofy do-nothing red rare enchantment. You know, this is actually one of the better ones because it's cheap and actually kind of does something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:So who killed Sidisi? Has that been explained? Are all the Khans going to be undead (or dead) besides Narset? So far all we know is that Sidisi is a zombie sidekick, Zurgo has been demoted from helm-smashing to bell-ringing and Narset has glowy eyes. No word on Annie or Surrak Bear-Botherer yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:So who killed Sidisi? Has that been explained? Are all the Khans going to be undead (or dead) besides Narset? I think they just have the Khans as various not-Khans. In the Khans future the naga rule over the Sultai and in Dragons the best of them has been reduced to a zombie. Surrak has become the Huntmaster and kind of a huge racist? Taigam is with the Ojutai this time around and Zurgo is the Bellringer for the Kolaghan. Only person we don't know about is Anafenza. Angry Grimace posted:I think its there to be the thing that pisses you off when you open it in draft. Granted, I could be wrong, but WOTC doesn't seem too keen on dragons that cost less than 5 CMC anyways, so I just assume it will be too hard to really build a limited deck around the type. With all the dragons they have in the set, I don't think it will be useless in draft, but not something you'd p1p1, y'know?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Hell, I'm not sure the Silumgar have any live servants whatsoever. Seems the Sultai let the naga and many humans keep their lives, at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Elyv posted:You know, this is actually one of the better ones because it's cheap and actually kind of does something. Yeah. Probably won't pop up in limited unless you pull this and have a deck that's 40% dragons, but this looks pretty fantastic for a casual tribal deck and let's face it, 50% of casual decks are tribal decks. Starving Autist posted:Hell, I'm not sure the Silumgar have any live servants whatsoever. Seems the Sultai at least let the naga and many humans keep their lives, at least. Even for an elder dragon that's ridiculously powerful, that seems highly unsustainable. They probably just pick up the dead from battle as a nice added bonuses to whatever fights they win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:So who killed Sidisi? Has that been explained? Are all the Khans going to be undead (or dead) besides Narset? Spin the MTG plot wheel and get, Phyrexians??? No that can't be right. Spin again and come up with Nicol Bolas. PErfect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Entropic posted:So far all we know is that Sidisi is a zombie sidekick, Zurgo has been demoted from helm-smashing to bell-ringing and Narset has glowy eyes. No word on Annie or Surrak Bear-Botherer yet. Surrak, the Hunt Caller is referenced on the alternate-art Ugin's Fate cards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I think they just have the Khans as various not-Khans. In the Khans future the naga rule over the Sultai and in Dragons the best of them has been reduced to a zombie. Surrak has become the Huntmaster and kind of a huge racist? Taigam is with the Ojutai this time around and Zurgo is the Bellringer for the Kolaghan. Only person we don't know about is Anafenza. Yeah, this was what I called last thread after the Uncharted Realms article(not that it was hard to figure out at that point).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure if Tasigur isn't an artifact in Dragons I'm going to cry irl. E: Tasigur the Bling - 4 2T: Turn your graveyard facedown, shuffle it, then put the top card into your hand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
I'm going to enjoy killing new Sidisi in response to her trigger, just like the old sidisi 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Ramos posted:Even for an elder dragon that's ridiculously powerful, that seems highly unsustainable. They probably just pick up the dead from battle as a nice added bonuses to whatever fights they win. I'm serious, the only non-zombies we've seen so far there are the dragons themselves. What seems unsustainable is bothering to let any of your underlings live when they'd be much more dependable and lower maintenance as zombies. It's very much in black's flavor to view all your subordinates as utterly disposable, makes sense to me. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:I'm serious, the only non-zombies we've seen so far there are the dragons themselves. What seems unsustainable is bothering to let any of your underlings live when they'd be much more dependable and lower maintenance as zombies. It's very much in black's flavor to view all your subordinates as utterly disposable, makes sense to me. I think the women(?) standing at guard in front of Silumgar are alive, in any case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:I'm serious, the only non-zombies we've seen so far there are the dragons themselves. http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=grim+haruspex
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:The first Silumgar card we saw was a human speaking to Silumgar so nope, already seen non-zombies. Does that represent a version from the past of FRF or from the alternate future of DTK? I mean, things can change if you give them 1000 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I'm pretty sure if Tasigur isn't an artifact in Dragons I'm going to cry irl. I really want him to be a color shifted Squee. It wont happen though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
I apparently missed pages of argument over new Sidisi, so I'll just say that upon first look, she seems loving awesome and I can't wait to text her out. 4/6 Deathtouch for 5 is already very solid value, and the exploit makes her nuts, especially post board when your deck is potentially full of silver bullets. The white 7cmc return permanent to battlefield I'm less hot on, as that's an expensive cost for a not very consistent effect. It's not easy to manipulate your graveyard to have 2 permanents worth that cost. Are new Silumgar and old Silumgar affected by the Legendary rule?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
qbert posted:I apparently missed pages of argument over new Sidisi, so I'll just say that upon first look, she seems loving awesome and I can't wait to text her out. 4/6 Deathtouch for 5 is already very solid value, and the exploit makes her nuts, especially post board when your deck is potentially full of silver bullets. No. The Legendary rule requires the same English-equivalent name. Unlike the Planeswalker rule, the Legendary rule doesn't care about type.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:
Solemn wasn't in m11.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:I'm still calling him Scrooge McDragon and no one will stop me. It's Slumdog Dragonnaire or we're fighting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:It's Slumdog Dragonnaire or we're fighting. Scrooge McDragon is vastly superior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:Does that represent a version from the past of FRF or from the alternate future of DTK? I mean, things can change if you give them 1000 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
The Rockefellar Drake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Scrooge McDragon is vastly superior. That clearly belongs with Hoarding Dragon or Covetous Dragon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Megamorph is pretty dumb, it would work fine as regular morph with a "When ~ is turned face up, put a +1/+1 counter on it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
But that works with manifest and megamorph specifically doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I think the women(?) standing at guard in front of Silumgar are alive, in any case. It's hard to tell, they don't look obviously decomposed, but their skin does look a bit greenish. They don't exactly seem to be full of life, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
redstormpopcorn posted:Megamorph is pretty dumb, it would work fine as regular morph with a "When ~ is turned face up, put a +1/+1 counter on it." But you can't sell a themed set of triggers as a new mechanic if you don't put a fancy word on it. See also most non-keyword ability words.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
redstormpopcorn posted:Megamorph is pretty dumb, it would work fine as regular morph with a "When ~ is turned face up, put a +1/+1 counter on it." If you read Maro's article, they were clearly flailing about for an "alternate twist on Morph" mechanic, tried a whole bunch of stuff, and ended up so close to where they started that they might as well not have bothered giving it a new name, but by that time they were probably well into development and already pretty committed to the idea that it would be a new mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
How ironic that Scrooge McDragon is probably a dollar mythic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
odiv posted:But that works with manifest and megamorph specifically doesn't. Right, okay. "When ~'s morph cost is paid, etc etc."
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:How ironic that Scrooge McDragon is probably a dollar mythic. He's destabilizing the set's economy to make his own wealth more valuable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Oh, I wasn't nitpicking, just pointing out an important difference. I'd actually prefer it synergize well with Manifest, but that probably broke something in testing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Instead of Megamorph they should have added a third mechanic that allows you to play facedown cards and flip them. Make this block as complicated as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
redstormpopcorn posted:Megamorph is pretty dumb, it would work fine as regular morph with a "When ~ is turned face up, put a +1/+1 counter on it." I want to think that the shortcut is useful somewhere or that there might be a card with both megamorph and morph at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:37
|
|