From Doug Beyer preview: "In the abstract, one of red’s specialties is supposed to be emotion—the whole rich, complicated, fervently-felt spectrum of unique feelings." *SPECTRUM*
Well, if Doug Beyer says it - then I guess it's true. No ad hoc rationalization for a poorly constructed story card here - no, red has always been the color of parental love. Goblin Warrens and all that.
From Doug Beyer preview: "In the abstract, one of red’s specialties is supposed to be emotion—the whole rich, complicated, fervently-felt spectrum of unique feelings." *SPECTRUM*
Well, if Doug Beyer says it - then I guess it's true. No ad hoc rationalization for a poorly constructed story card here - no, red has always been the color of parental love. Goblin Warrens and all that.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/seeing-red-2004-07-12
From 2004
"Red follows its emotions. These emotions include love, lust, camaraderie, and friendship. Red cares about others. At least the ones to which it has some emotional ties. And red will go to great lengths to help or protect its loved ones."
You're talking out of your ass there. This has definitely been part of the color's philosophy for a long time, and even if hypothetically it wasn't, then it is now- WotC defines the color pie because they define the game.
[quote from="Fabricate3 »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/756016-cathartic-reunion?comment=80"]Red lusts, it doesn't love.
From Doug Beyer preview: "In the abstract, one of red’s specialties is supposed to be emotion—the whole rich, complicated, fervently-felt spectrum of unique feelings." *SPECTRUM*
Well, if Doug Beyer says it - then I guess it's true. No ad hoc rationalization for a poorly constructed story card here - no, red has always been the color of parental love. Goblin Warrens and all that.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/seeing-red-2004-07-12
From 2004
"Red follows its emotions. These emotions include love, lust, camaraderie, and friendship. Red cares about others. At least the ones to which it has some emotional ties. And red will go to great lengths to help or protect its loved ones."
You're talking out of your ass there. This has definitely been part of the color's philosophy for a long time, and even if hypothetically it wasn't, then it is now- WotC defines the color pie because they define the game.
Dredge player: Cathartic Reunion
Opponent: Negate
Dredge player: Land for turn, Bloodghast trigger, end, Amalgamate, amalgamate.
Opponent: *looks at mana leak and lightning bolt* GG.
It's not card advantage if you're down 3 and up 3..
If you use this fairly, then yes, it is a good and fair card selection spell with no card advantage. The problem is that it's very easy to use it unfairly or even break it completely by turning the discard into an upside. See Lantern's example above, it can read as "Get 3-8 power on the board for no extra mana, draw three cards". Even that is just exploiting it`s worst side, you can easily pitch Imps/Grave-Trolls on the discard and then dredge them right back on the draw half and fill your graveyard with 10-12 cards (plus draw the third card!), which will probably give you a Narcomoeba to trigger two Amalgams and leave a Bloodghast or two waiting for the next land drop, and of course more dredgers for the next draw step and possibly a Pharaoh to kill any attackers. Now that`s card advantage. Oh, and this is on turn 2.
Modern Dredge is easily the most obvious example of a deck able to break this card, but I`m sure there are other decks out there too, possibly Goryo (but probably not) and Storm (no idea).
Sorcery
Deal 3 damage to target creature or player.
Deal 3 damage to target creature or player.
Draw 3 cards.
I'd play that.
You forgot to add 'as an additional cost discard two cards'
he casts them for the madness cost... that's why its 1RRR
Still, if you start with 5 cards in hand and you cast cathartic reunion. You don't end up with 7 cards (which it what would happen if it said draw 3) you only end up with 5, because as an additional cost you must discard 2...
Still, if you start with 5 cards in hand and you cast cathartic reunion. You don't end up with 7 cards (which it what would happen if it said draw 3) you only end up with 5, because as an additional cost you must discard 2...
What? The "spell" he wrote doesn't mention having a hand of seven. Said card was an amalgamation of two madness R burn spells and one 1R card that would both activate madness and draw cards, hence the cost and effect. The implication (that you should play this as a madness enabler) has nothing to do with having seven cards in hand...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Latest proof this forum is a trashfire:
Your authoritarianism will be the reason the company suffers another 60M in losses.
It was clear enough before, pedant. Card advantage was not part of the discussion. The fact you break even was not part of the discussion.
I think he was just trying to point out that casting Reunion and pitching two Fiery Tempers isn't actually as good as the spell LouCypher proposed, since you're spending three cards as opposed to one. All his original comment said was that the proposed spell should have a "discard two cards" clause to accurately parallel the effect of casting Reunion and discarding two Tempers. It was minor but relevant correction to a fairly offhand comment, upon which others began arguing with him, so it seems unnecessary to insult him when all he's doing is defending the point he made (which was correct).
Well that example would in most constructed cases be better, simply because this card is strong in dredge and the like, and you have 4-5 cards to spare, if that means you will go massive in self-milling yourself.
The numbers become a problem if they get out of the ordinary huge.
Discard 7 + casting this card, would be a thing, as that would be something you have to work for (but even then, if it resolves and you can take advantage of it, its incredible powerful).
At some point they will most likely just do an X version of this effect.
~ XR
Sorcery
As an additional cost to cast ~, discard X cards.
Draw X plus one card.
Would totally do it, and it would be really strong, as it could just cantrip for R in worst case.
... I... *walks into corner*
*walks out of corner*... do want that card tho.
Well, if Doug Beyer says it - then I guess it's true. No ad hoc rationalization for a poorly constructed story card here - no, red has always been the color of parental love. Goblin Warrens and all that.
You know there's nothing more fleeting than a mother's love for her child... ugh.
That would have been way better but I'll take the current incarnation of the card as long as Chandra's mom is blue.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/seeing-red-2004-07-12
From 2004
"Red follows its emotions. These emotions include love, lust, camaraderie, and friendship. Red cares about others. At least the ones to which it has some emotional ties. And red will go to great lengths to help or protect its loved ones."
You're talking out of your ass there. This has definitely been part of the color's philosophy for a long time, and even if hypothetically it wasn't, then it is now- WotC defines the color pie because they define the game.
Temperamental does not necessarily mean fleeting.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/seeing-red-2004-07-12
From 2004
"Red follows its emotions. These emotions include love, lust, camaraderie, and friendship. Red cares about others. At least the ones to which it has some emotional ties. And red will go to great lengths to help or protect its loved ones."
You're talking out of your ass there. This has definitely been part of the color's philosophy for a long time, and even if hypothetically it wasn't, then it is now- WotC defines the color pie because they define the game.
"Rek't"
Fixed it twice.
Modern Dredge is easily the most obvious example of a deck able to break this card, but I`m sure there are other decks out there too, possibly Goryo (but probably not) and Storm (no idea).
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
he casts them for the madness cost... that's why its 1RRR
"Additional cost to cast" So no cards in hand means you can't cast this spell.
Still, if you start with 5 cards in hand and you cast cathartic reunion. You don't end up with 7 cards (which it what would happen if it said draw 3) you only end up with 5, because as an additional cost you must discard 2...
What? The "spell" he wrote doesn't mention having a hand of seven. Said card was an amalgamation of two madness R burn spells and one 1R card that would both activate madness and draw cards, hence the cost and effect. The implication (that you should play this as a madness enabler) has nothing to do with having seven cards in hand...
1R
Sorcery
As an additional cost to cast Cathartic Reunion, discard four cards.
Draw five cards.
You don't always have a hand full of cards.
Hex comes to mind.
.
It was clear enough before, pedant. Card advantage was not part of the discussion. The fact you break even was not part of the discussion.
I think he was just trying to point out that casting Reunion and pitching two Fiery Tempers isn't actually as good as the spell LouCypher proposed, since you're spending three cards as opposed to one. All his original comment said was that the proposed spell should have a "discard two cards" clause to accurately parallel the effect of casting Reunion and discarding two Tempers. It was minor but relevant correction to a fairly offhand comment, upon which others began arguing with him, so it seems unnecessary to insult him when all he's doing is defending the point he made (which was correct).
Well that example would in most constructed cases be better, simply because this card is strong in dredge and the like, and you have 4-5 cards to spare, if that means you will go massive in self-milling yourself.
The numbers become a problem if they get out of the ordinary huge.
Discard 7 + casting this card, would be a thing, as that would be something you have to work for (but even then, if it resolves and you can take advantage of it, its incredible powerful).
At some point they will most likely just do an X version of this effect.
~ XR
Sorcery
As an additional cost to cast ~, discard X cards.
Draw X plus one card.
Would totally do it, and it would be really strong, as it could just cantrip for R in worst case.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮