|
Also keep in mind that none of the fetchlands can find ♦, you'd need to play things like Evolving Wilds or Pilgrim's Eye to find a Wastes in Standard. They'd need to be incredibly highly powered cards to be worth running. In Limited, you'd have only half support for a ♦/x archetype in the BFZ pack. You'd be drafting two colors for the first two packs, and only one color in the last pack. You could just say that the whole mechanic is meant to be splashed, but that just seems really bad for (I assume) a major mechanic in Oath and would again need to be really powerful to be worth doing. It just seems far too parasitic to be worthwhile.
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
I can't see how ♦ could be good for limited. The only way a ♦/x archetype works in draft is if it has massive support in Oath - and consequently, fewer colored cards - because BFZ has only six cards that produce colorless mana and only 23 cards that do not require colored mana to cast. Your choices in limited end up being to either go ♦/x in the first two packs knowing that the third pack is going to have almost nothing for half your deck or being forced to ignore a hefty amount of cards in the first two packs in order to have a better chance at getting playable cards in pack three. The alternative would be that there isn't a huge amount of support for ♦ in Oath and the (presumably) marquee mechanic is only usable as a splash, which just sounds like a stupid idea.
ElectricRelaxation fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:How did you come with that 6 number? There's 18 cards that make scions alone. Also, no cards in BFZ require colorless mana to be cast. The one thing was a typo, only 23 cards in BFZ don't required COLORED mana to cast. And you're right, I forgot about Scions, but a quick Gatherer search shows that only 14 additional cards in BFZ produce Scions, and they're all in Blue, Black, or Green, so I think the point still stands that there would need to be a relatively huge proportion of colorless cards in Oath in order to make a ♦/x deck a viable archetype, and I think that would hurt the Limited environment overall. Fuzzy Mammal posted:Either you or I are really confused here. BFZ has exactly zero cards that require colourless. Also the number of cards that require colourless in their costs is no issue since wastes is a basic and you can add as many as you want during deckbuilding. It's an issue in the same sense that any splash hurts your manabase, except that in this case, ♦ seems like it would be a marquee mechanic for Oath and I'd imagine they wouldn't want it to simply be a splash mechanic. ElectricRelaxation fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Edit: NEVER MIND, I'M AN IDIOT.
ElectricRelaxation fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Lancelot posted:I've still got mine! Are you sure you have foils viewable? ...well I sure feel like a dumbass, although I really have no idea how that box got unchecked. I had to search around for it. Welp, time to follow up that complaint to Wizards.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Mikujin posted:So what are everyone's LGS' release plans looking like? Up my way it's $30 entry drafts, the only prize being free entry into the next draft for the winner (which seems like a pretty lovely deal). I get that this means they'll end up firing a lot more events (people will draft, lose, drop, and start over), but as far as prize support goes it seems pretty laughable to consider that the prize pool is essentially 3 packs. Store near me is doing $55 drafts with pack-per-win prizes. Oh, but it's ok, because they throw in one of these (while supplies last!):  I think I'll pass.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 10:22
|
|