|
Elder was a cool creature type that they haven't used in a long time and they're putting it to good use here. Typing a creature with Elder is a good way to signify they're 1300 years older than their previous version and to signify the change on the card.
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Doub Beyer explains why they used the type 'Elder.'
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:What, was it like literally being printed when KTK came out? I know they finalize cards way before they're released, but I don't see what would stop them making an emergency change. basically, yeah. there's a reason it's called the Future Future League, when it was just the Future League it didn't go out far enough ahead for them to make any meaningful changes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Shaman's second ability is probably designed to a specific subset of Johnny's. It's a strong ability in certain circumstances, but those circumstances are difficult to set up. Some people (myself included) have fun trying to gain value or win in weird and goofy ways, and if that ability were easier to activate it wouldn't be as fun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Anybody that doesn't want Dragons in Magic: The Gathering: Dragons of Tarkir: We Put a Shitload of Dragons in This Set is going to be sorely disappointed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:I hate dragons so I'm hoping there's just enough cool other poo poo to make it fun. Do you hate dragons because you hate medium-to-large flying creatures with tribal elements or because they're big overhyped lizards? Because if it's the latter, good news, you can just pretend they're all sphinxes or giant rats with rotors strapped to them and the game will be mechanically equivalent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
IIRC there's 26 dragons slated to be in this set. 1 common dragon (moved to uncommon during development), uncommon and rare cycles for both monocolored and multicolored, plus the dragonlords.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
"Blocking a spell with a magical barrier non-nonchalantly" is a fairly common counterspell motif.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I kept reading for a little longer after, but my eyes started rolling when I read "Magic cards are completely different from how they used to be  " and never stopped.Not that that's wrong, but it was phrased in such a way that it made it seem like it was a strictly bad thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
The probability of opening at least one dragon in a DTK pack is about 60% if you include the dragon mana-rocks (if you don't it's about 50%). When you include the cards that reference dragons either in rules (Sarkhan's Triumph), in name or flavor text (Vial of Dragonfire), or in art (Artful Maneuver), you'll almost assuredly get something to do with dragons in any given pack.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I think DTK is fine without any fixing lands. The multicolour theme is very light (there are no multicoloured commons and only 5 uncommons) so you could just be splashing for your bomb dragons, and FRF does have a tonne of dual lands to help you out more if you need it. I guess there is a cycle of (enemy!) commons in FRF but those will probably just be last picks. The development team likes to define a strategy for each 2 color pair in limited, so it will likely still be possible to go after an enemy color pair in the two Dragons packs then get rewarded in the third pack when you can pick up 1-3 of your pair's multicolor common. BW will still be warriors and can pick up the hella strong Harsh Sustenance, UR can be what the Goblinslide deck never was because new-Goblinslide makes 2/2 flyers, BG still has some toughness matters cards, RW still functions as the army colors and it's got War Flare, Volcanic Rush, and Magmatic Chasm as finishers, and UG is still the morph color pair (both colors have 3 common megamorphers as opposed to 2 in the others).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:Modern isn't an Eternal format, it's a Constructed format All eternal formats are constructed, you were looking for "non-rotating." Also who cares, to 99% of players eternal and non-rotating are the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Well how about that!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I like how the chat keeps acting like its MTGO's fault. The terrible audio is related to mtgo in that they both stem from wizards' inability to do anything right with technology. Randy's bad-skype-connection quality audio was bad enough, but when it started cutting out completely I closed the stream.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Wizards doesn't own Twitch or Skype last I heard. That, or I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to say. I'm saying that wizards is unwilling to put the time, effort, or money into making their stream look and sound good, like MTGO. The audio cutting out wasn't due to the stream buffering which means it was probably on their end, not twitch's, and Randy could use a better mic, both things controllable by Wizards. Although I tuned back in and it does sound better now, but it was really rough at the beginning.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Its Randy's Skype connection. This is really grasping at straws. Even if the Twitch connection was bad, WOTC doesn't *own* it - they're just letting Randy use their official page to stream some stuff. Then rent a mumble server so they're not using peer to peer. The point is there's a way to make sure that a production is high quality, and wizards doesn't care enough about its quality to do it / make sure Randy does it / give Randy a small budget to do it. Maybe this doesn't need to be high quality because it's just a fun thing they put together in their free time, but if they invested into SSL (yes Wizards doesn't run it but they could help) it could have way more production value.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:In the ongoing adventures of MODO programming, WotC is hiring a few devs. It's all fairly blah except for this one position Working on MTGO for a small time (like a year) is on my bucket list. I just gotta see how bad it is. I do feel bad for their digital department, though. From what I can tell they get a shoestring budget and wizard's (from what I hear, garbage) management won't give them the resources they need to make a functioning piece of software.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
I'm fine with Scry being a sometimes mechanic. Remember pro tour journey into nyx, where half the decisions that were being made were done in a place that spectators couldn't see? Imagine that happening all the time in standard because Scry is in every set. I guess if it's evergreen it won't be used as much as it was in Theros but then it probably wouldn't show up outside of blue and maybe one other color.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:As a player, I find those kind of decisions regarding cards to keep and bottom, what order to stack Ponder cards and what cards to put back with Brainstorm. are some of the most enjoyable ones to make. I personally find it boring when my opponent spends a minute deciding what to do with cards I can't see and the end result nets me no more information than "they might draw a card they want" or "they will definitely draw a card they want" too often. It's interesting up to a point to determine why they chose what they did but without any other information there's only so much you can glean. There needs to be filtering, deck manipulation, etc, because people like it and it helps make the game work, but I prefer when it yields some public information (cards discarded, revealed, exiled, or on the battlefield) which scry does not.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Zoness posted:I mean sure but the legendary supertype can also be called this so I mean like how is this a problem. The legendary rule has a cost, along with every interaction that isn't spelled out on a card. Wizards has decided that it's worth that cost, while they've decided that +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters together are not worth that cost. In a vacuum both rules may be just as easy to explain, but in a game as complex as Magic they have to decide what's important enough to keep around and what's not.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if Mizzium Interceptor showed up in the sideboard of a Twin deck during a modern pro tour. Not that it's likely, but I could see it being useful in the mirror and pro tour decks can get weirdly specific in their sideboard hate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Some of the art is pretty bad but then there's also the goblin swooning over ol' Vic so I mean 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
I for one hope that they use video evidence to solve rules issues on feature matches so that they don't have to halt the game for 20 minutes while the judge figures out what happened when they could literally just watch what happened.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:That kinda doesn't work given its own stats. That's what makes it a cool design. It will destroy what it finds ugly, but the only difference between it and what's ugly is that it's an elf, and elves are always beautiful. GeneX posted:Elves are almost always xenophobic dicks
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Roshambo posted:It reminds me of updraft elemental from the last set. Playable, but I'd really only be happy to get it really late into a pack. A 1/3 flier for 3 that turns into a 2/4 is way better than a flying horned turtle. It's comparable in power to just plain Wind Drake and that card is extremely playable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Roshambo posted:I guess, but it's going to be turn 5 before it untaps and you can use it as a 2/4 flyer. Sure, but if you're attacking with it every turn it's only dealing 1 less damage than wind drake would and if it gets famous (and sometimes even if it doesn't) it's stellar on defense too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Horizon Canopy and Grove are not loving cycles, people, they're part of the same cycle and they're intended to play to the color pairing. Well Graven Cairns was a part of its own cycle, but that's because it was already in a cycle in Shadowmoor and they previewed it in Future Sight. I could see them making a cycle out of the four others if they thought any of them were particularly compelling designs, but they definitely didn't have any plans when they made them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 00:51
|
|