For a moment there I misread the name and thought we had our WURG Quad-land previewed...
Well straightforward member of a straightforward cycle coming through... I'm expecting "Destroy all Artifacts" for Red or "Destroy all (Artifacts and) Enchantments" for Green already...
Cyclonic rift only targets opponents stuff and is instant. So yes it is strictly worse than cyclonic rift.
A better Comparison would be Devastation Tide which is still better cause it can cost 2.
Imma gonna go with the other poster. You don't know what strictly worse means. The floor for this card is that it costs 5 generic and 1 blue mana. The ceiling is that it's a 1 mana devastation tide.
I think it's realistic to assume that you will have 3 opponents when you cast this so it only costs 4 mana total. 4 mana is pretty cheap for a spell like this. The fact that it also bounces your stuff isn't really a downside (if you play drawgo you really don't have nonland permanents outside of random value etb dudes)
People should stop using 'strictly better/worse' when they don't know what they are talking about.
A Strictly Better card is a card that has one of those when compared to other card:
- Same cost, with the same effect with more value.
- Cost less, with the exact same effect.
- Cost less, with the same effect with more value.
With 3 opponents, it costs 4 CMC. But, as opponents get knocked out over time, then the casting costs becomes higher. I guess Wizards expects that if the game is down to two players, there should be plenty of mana to cast this for 6 CMC. I'd probably still want Cyclonic Rift over this.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
since it hits my own stuff and is a sorcery, the only time i'd ever run this is in a 7+ player pod just to grind it to a halt and be that ******** blue player
People should stop using 'strictly better/worse' when they don't know what they are talking about.
A Strictly Better card is a card that has one of those when compared to other card:
- Same cost, with the same effect with more value.
- Cost less, with the exact same effect.
- Cost less, with the same effect with more value.
Both Rift and this card can have different effects and cost. So one can't be strictly better.
This card in particular can be also game breaking when being cast at 2 or 3 mana.
I like the perspective but who plays Incinerate? Lighting Bolt is a hard act to follow.
The intent of Coastal Breach is multi-player game. I think 4 to 6 players this card would rock because of the reduce cost, I will expect casual multi player decks will find a use for the card especially 60 card decks. Outside of that I don't see it being played.
This can be cheaper than Cyclonic Rift, but Rift doesn't bounce your own stuff, for better or worse.
This is cheaper than Cyclonic Rift. Coastal Breach only costs 7 if you have ended every other player in the game already. If you have an opponent standing, it already is at 6. And gets cheaper from there.
This can be cheaper than Cyclonic Rift, but Rift doesn't bounce your own stuff, for better or worse.
This is cheaper than Cyclonic Rift. Coastal Breach only costs 7 if you have ended every other player in the game already. If you have an opponent standing, it already is at 6. And gets cheaper from there.
Yeah, it is cheaper but not "strictly worse" - if it were this would be the exact same card and effect for an overload cost of 8 instead of 7, for example. Or it would bounce all of your things as well for the same overload cost while having everything else the same. Effects must be similar with minor variations. And even then, it's scenario based.
Yeah, it is cheaper but not "strictly worse" - if it were this would be the exact same card and effect for an overload cost of 8 instead of 7, for example. Or it would bounce all of your things as well for the same overload cost while having everything else the same. Effects must be similar with minor variations. And even then, it's scenario based.
I'm not judging it one way or another, simply stating a detail of its cost being... misleading. Since the keyword is 'each opponent' not 'each opponent after the first.'
I have no judgment over the value of the card, other than I do not need it for my decks. It could be amusing in Maelstrom Wanderer, to cascade into, but that is a fleeting thought.
I like the perspective but who plays Incinerate? Lighting Bolt is a hard act to follow.
I choose the Ligthining Bolt/Incinerate example exactly to show how "Better" is different from "Strictly Better". Ligthning Bolt can be light years better than Incinerate (obvious), but will never be Strictly Better.
The same case happens here. This card can be never played and Cyclonic Rift can be light years better, yet, Rift will ever be Strictly Better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Spoiler Editorhttps://twitter.com/nic_bunce/status/790921704566624256
DISCUSS!!111!
I don't think you know what that means.
Well straightforward member of a straightforward cycle coming through... I'm expecting "Destroy all Artifacts" for Red or "Destroy all (Artifacts and) Enchantments" for Green already...
(edited "strictly better" to "strictly worse")
Imma gonna go with the other poster. You don't know what strictly worse means. The floor for this card is that it costs 5 generic and 1 blue mana. The ceiling is that it's a 1 mana devastation tide.
I think it's realistic to assume that you will have 3 opponents when you cast this so it only costs 4 mana total. 4 mana is pretty cheap for a spell like this. The fact that it also bounces your stuff isn't really a downside (if you play drawgo you really don't have nonland permanents outside of random value etb dudes)
A Strictly Better card is a card that has one of those when compared to other card:
- Same cost, with the same effect with more value.
- Cost less, with the exact same effect.
- Cost less, with the same effect with more value.
- Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock. (Same cost, with the same effect with more value)
- Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Lightning Strike. (Cost less, with the exact same effect)
- Lightning Bolt IS NOT STRICTLY BETTER THAN Incinerate. (effects are different)
Both Rift and this card can have different effects and cost. So one can't be strictly better.
This card in particular can be also game breaking when being cast at 2 or 3 mana.
This can be cheaper than Cyclonic Rift, but Rift doesn't bounce your own stuff, for better or worse.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
I like the perspective but who plays Incinerate? Lighting Bolt is a hard act to follow.
The intent of Coastal Breach is multi-player game. I think 4 to 6 players this card would rock because of the reduce cost, I will expect casual multi player decks will find a use for the card especially 60 card decks. Outside of that I don't see it being played.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
I have no judgment over the value of the card, other than I do not need it for my decks. It could be amusing in Maelstrom Wanderer, to cascade into, but that is a fleeting thought.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The same case happens here. This card can be never played and Cyclonic Rift can be light years better, yet, Rift will ever be Strictly Better.