It's kinda useless to dump your hand into and then not have anything to do afterwards with. Having city's blessing and an empty hand seem counter intuitive. Also, if you're playing three enchantments on turn two, and your ascend "abuser", congrats. We are only a few days away after all. And after turn 5-6, if your deck is designed to do something, it should probably be able to
Well, we obviously haven't seen just how good other Ascend cards are. If this is as good as they get, then that play obviously isn't a winner. But if they also include, say, efficient card-draw (so this hand-dumping just rolls right into efficient hand-replenishing) or some means of outright game winner (a la Approach) then it has the makings of something competitive.
Well, we obviously haven't seen just how good other Ascend cards are. If this is as good as they get, then that play obviously isn't a winner. But if they also include, say, efficient card-draw (so this hand-dumping just rolls right into efficient hand-replenishing) or some means of outright game winner (a la Approach) then it has the makings of something competitive.
But those cards are good because they always work. The games you draw into 8 permanent by turn two, well, Merry Christmas to you too. The games you don't, or the games that they draw literally any removal, and if you're relying on either side of it, you're pretty screwed. Will some decks try and speed towards ascend super early? Probably. But likely it'll be a mid to late game upgrade to a few cards. Even in your scenario, you're down to 1-2 cards in hand after casting your ascend trigger, and don't really have too much of a lead to show for it
If the blue one is "draw till you have seven cards in hand", that is going to make ascend fairly busted. As you can practically refill your hand and not really suffer the consequences for playing so many cards.
If the blue one is "draw till you have seven cards in hand", that is going to make ascend fairly busted. As you can practically refill your hand and not really suffer the consequences for playing so many cards.
Depends on mana cost really. We just got a draw 7 mythic for 7, so I don't think we're due another one for less. Hopefully blue's will be an extra turn spell
But you realize that any of the abundance of creature removals spells in standard makes this useless, right? Fatal Push, Lightning Strike, Harnessed Lightning, Sweltering Suns, etc. With ascend in the format it's very easy to see what you're trying to do and none of the answers to a creature centric ascend strategy are hard to find because they're being run in nearly every standard deck anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
But you realize that any of the abundance of creature removals spells in standard makes this useless, right? Fatal Push, Lightning Strike, Harnessed Lightning, Sweltering Suns, etc. With ascend in the format it's very easy to see what you're trying to do and none of the answers to a creature centric ascend strategy are hard to find because they're being run in nearly every standard deck anyway.
Dies to Doom Blade argument? Really? What next? Every deck is packing Cancel or Negate? I thought this was MTG where I throw questions at you and you either come up with better questions or you have answers for my questions. Just because Wrath of God existed in standard at one point didn't mean creature-based decks still didn't try to work. Likewise if your opponent has UU open, do you never play a spell again?
Where if the local meta swings too far in one direction such as packing lots of creature hate, you can always swap to a creature-lite strategy such as treasures or lands and you just created new questions that the meta may not be prepared to handled.
But you realize that any of the abundance of creature removals spells in standard makes this useless, right? Fatal Push, Lightning Strike, Harnessed Lightning, Sweltering Suns, etc. With ascend in the format it's very easy to see what you're trying to do and none of the answers to a creature centric ascend strategy are hard to find because they're being run in nearly every standard deck anyway.
Dies to Doom Blade argument? Really? What next? Every deck is packing Cancel or Negate? I thought this was MTG where I throw questions at you and you either come up with better questions or you have answers for my questions. Just because Wrath of God existed in standard at one point didn't mean creature-based decks still didn't try to work. Likewise if your opponent has UU open, do you never play a spell again?
Where if the local meta swings too far in one direction such as packing lots of creature hate, you can always swap to a creature-lite strategy such as treasures or lands and you just created new questions that the meta may not be prepared to handled.
Dies to removal is a valid argument for mechanics that require a threshold though. That's why battalion and ferocious were fine. It's why auras typically suck. We're talking about how keeping someone off of ten permanents ia already part of every strategy. When was the last time you lost a game where you controlled ten permanents?
Besides, the more cards you dedicate to getting ascend asap, the less cards you will have to abuse Ascend with. It isn't as one sided as you seem to think. We have zero indication otherwise
It would be a little reminiscent of Reverse Engineer. That’s a card that can draw you 3 cards for 2 mana once you’ve established a lot of board (it just requires your board to include at least 3 untapped artifacts rather than Ascend needing ten total permanents).
Except in this case, it is actually a valid argument. In the Standard example given (Legions Landing/Cartouche of Solidarity) all someone has to do is kill one of your enchanted tokens to take out 2 of your permanents, setting you back from Ascending (Fatal Push works, as does any of the other things he mentioned)
If your deck is so dependent on Ascend that you are willing to spend that many resources to hit it ASAP, losing 2 permanents early hampers you pretty well. Especially since you can remove the 2 permanents in responce to the Ascend spell - effectively weakening it and requiring them to pull another Ascend card to trigger it.
I remain unconvinced that this mechanic will be broken in Standard the way Energy and Delerium-without-hate were. Sure, you could make cases for Modern and EDH but honestly I don't care about those formats. That said - in my mind Ascend is no more or less interactive than Affinity. Is Affinity considered 'non-interactive' too? It seems to me that it's broken because of it's sheer power, not it's non-interactiveness.
If I were to try to abuse Ascend - I'd bee looking first to Weaponcraft Enthusiast in Standard, and maybe Marionette Master later in the game. It seems to me at that point though, Ascend becomes 'win more' once you have 10 permanents. It's a nice 'push' over the edge in a long game that might otherwise stall (The way Planeswalker Emblems are generally designed to be)
My only real gripe with it is that it's not actually an Emblem or any other 'object' in world space (This was my complaint about the Monarch mechanic too - but it was in a non-Standard set so I didn't care too much). I kind of wish that it were so that it would open the door to cards that might interact with Emblems (which is where the whole non-interactive argument comes in) but Emblems themselves are not currently interactive in any way - and for all the comparisons to Energy/Delerium/Threshold/etc I haven't heard anyone complain about Emblems being non-interactive - at least not in this thread.
I kind of wish that it were so that it would open the door to cards that might interact with Emblems (which is where the whole non-interactive argument comes in) but Emblems themselves are not currently interactive in any way - and for all the comparisons to Energy/Delerium/Threshold/etc I haven't heard anyone complain about Emblems being non-interactive - at least not in this thread.
Emblems off Plainswalkers are expected to end the game. Not all ultimates do, but the ones that see the most play either finish the game or cause a scoop because they're too much to deal with. That's the best example of uninteractive design in mtg. Emblem down, permanent game state change. Permanent advantage for related plus up type cards.
When recently have they created a mechanic that they've failed to push and enable in the set in some way?
Deck designs for Ascend are pointless right now because we have literally ONE CARD.
ITT: People complaining about a mechanic that we've only seen on one card.
I honestly don't think the city's blessing will be a huge deal. I mean, 10 permanents, right? That can be a huge deal for decks other than tokens and maybe ramp.
At the same time, I don't think it'll be a wincon in itself. After all, Epic Struggle exists and requires 20 creatures. (It's also winmoar by the way.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Cycling was pushed and enabled heavily (mostly on Minotaurs) I'd somewhat argue that Fabricate and Improvise were meant to work together, but weren't strong enough (which is okay - they could have easily tipped over into 'too strong') I agree with you on most of the rest though - except that The Scarab God is a major player and it's ability is 'effectively' Eternalize.
At the same time, I don't think it'll be a wincon in itself. After all, Epic Struggle exists and requires 20 creatures. (It's also winmoar by the way.
And that's just it. I feel as though Ascend will likely be winmoar in most scenarios - but this particular card might be good to tip a stalemate on a game that has gone on way longer than normal (for Standard) I'm not sure that pushing ascention is a viable strategy as every (Standard) example given to do so is somewhat fragile.
In Standard - if the game's not over by the time someone has 10 permanents, typically something's wrong and everyone is top-decking. I wouldn't be surprised if this card gets banned in EDH (mostly because it affects all opponents, as well as it being easier to hit 10 permanents)
I feel like Vona's Hunger will see tournament play. It's an edict at worst and a way to end a stalemate in a longer game. It might only make the sideboard against certain decks though. It potentially punishes control decks that rely on a single 'finisher' creature to win.
What creature removal is banned in EDH? This won't get banned in EDH and will likely not be terribly good in most decks. Fleshbag Marauder is usually better because it can be recurred.
That said, my commander is Toshiro Umezawa and I might test this out. Not sure if it is better than To the Slaughter though.
That said, my commander is Toshiro Umezawa and I might test this out. Not sure if it is better than To the Slaughter though.
I'd wager it is. because it hits all players. You tend to draw less hate in the political game if you hit everyone equally than if you specifically single out one person (I used to play Ghost Council of Orzhova as my commander before they removed damage going on the stack rules - I had a lot of cards that leeched life from everyone and I usually was underestimated as a threat until my life total was double theirs or I had Divinity of Pride in play). Even players who played by 'First Blood' rules (attack the person who deals damage first) didn't count me since I hit everyone. I never understood the logic - but it happened pretty consistently.
Sure, it doesn't hit planeswalkers (except potentially Gideon - since it's an instant) but if cast after you hit the Ascend mechanic you can halve the number of creatures each person has an potentially open up their planeswalker to attack (Especially if you do it after they've attacked and some of their creatures are tapped)
To the Slaughter only gives 1 Umezawa trigger - Vona's Hunger gives 1 trigger per player (minimum)
Lots of theorycraft reasons why Vona's Hunger is better than To the Slaughter. It just depends how often you need to make players sac their 'walkers - and whether or not you have any other options to do so already in your deck.
My problem would more be that my deck has a much, much easier time hitting Delirium than Ascend. And I don't need multiple triggers, usually. As a creature light deck, I do have problems with Planeswalkers sometimes, but not often enough to sway it too much towards To the Slaughter. I just worry that too often it'll be a Diabolic Edict that I can't put on a stick
And out of the black-accessible commander decks I typically see, three mana removal instants tend not to see as much play as things that are repeatable. Even removing half of each opponent's creatures isn't really that back breaking.
But you realize that any of the abundance of creature removals spells in standard makes this useless, right? Fatal Push, Lightning Strike, Harnessed Lightning, Sweltering Suns, etc. With ascend in the format it's very easy to see what you're trying to do and none of the answers to a creature centric ascend strategy are hard to find because they're being run in nearly every standard deck anyway.
Dies to Doom Blade argument? Really? What next? Every deck is packing Cancel or Negate? I thought this was MTG where I throw questions at you and you either come up with better questions or you have answers for my questions. Just because Wrath of God existed in standard at one point didn't mean creature-based decks still didn't try to work. Likewise if your opponent has UU open, do you never play a spell again?
Where if the local meta swings too far in one direction such as packing lots of creature hate, you can always swap to a creature-lite strategy such as treasures or lands and you just created new questions that the meta may not be prepared to handled.
I'm not at all sure what that first paragraph has to do with what I said. I was stating that your creature token based ascend strategy is incredibly fragile due to the ubiquitousness of cheap, efficient creature removal in the format which is being played by the the two most common decks in the format which combined make up over 45% of the field and are also common in all sorts of popular rogue strategies from Mardu Vehicles to Pirates to Dinosaurs. If your thesis in laying out that curve was that ascend is easy to achieve quickly, mine is this: If your easy to achieve and consistent strategy folds to extremely common cards in a given format, it is neither easy to achieve nor consistent because the event that your opponent disrupts it and leaves your strategy in shambles is now extremely likely. This isn't just playset of Doomblade taking out one creature. This is severalcommoncards that completely debilitate the crucial strategy you're trying to build your entire deck around in the example you gave. These aren't all of them but the vast majority are two cmc or less and instant speed.
If you now want to lay out a strategy for achieving ascend in a similar manner to what you showed with creature tokens then that's fine. But that's not what you showed. I'd like to see one that is as easy and fast to achieve ascend as what you wanted to claim.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
I was the one who mentioned Cartouches and Landings (#132) not the person you’re replying to. But I’m not fighting this argument because I stated it realizing it’s a glass cannon. I only posted it to illustrate the possibility of getting early Ascend in Standard, not the viability of it. I’m waiting for more Ascend cards to get spoiled before I try to make a viable quick-ascend deck, because the payoff of this one isn’t there yet.
Blue will probably be Ascend and draw a card for U at Sorcery, then if you Ascended, draw 3 cards instead.
Well, we have it now, and it’s ... not so good. It’s draw 2 for 1UU, or draw 3 instead if you ascended. So it’s more color-heavy Divination in its normal form, and a discounted Concentrate if you meet the Ascend/Blessing condition.
Blue will probably be Ascend and draw a card for U at Sorcery, then if you Ascended, draw 3 cards instead.
Well, we have it now, and it’s ... not so good. It’s draw 2 for 1UU, or draw 3 instead if you ascended. So it’s more color-heavy Divination in its normal form, and a discounted Concentrate if you meet the Ascend/Blessing condition.
This is simply a common, let's see what rare blue Ascend card(s) we get.
But those cards are good because they always work. The games you draw into 8 permanent by turn two, well, Merry Christmas to you too. The games you don't, or the games that they draw literally any removal, and if you're relying on either side of it, you're pretty screwed. Will some decks try and speed towards ascend super early? Probably. But likely it'll be a mid to late game upgrade to a few cards. Even in your scenario, you're down to 1-2 cards in hand after casting your ascend trigger, and don't really have too much of a lead to show for it
Depends on mana cost really. We just got a draw 7 mythic for 7, so I don't think we're due another one for less. Hopefully blue's will be an extra turn spell
Christmas Day I wouldn't be too shocked if we found out (MaRo's annual mtg Christmas surprise.)
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
-Chandra Nalaar
Where if the local meta swings too far in one direction such as packing lots of creature hate, you can always swap to a creature-lite strategy such as treasures or lands and you just created new questions that the meta may not be prepared to handled.
Dies to removal is a valid argument for mechanics that require a threshold though. That's why battalion and ferocious were fine. It's why auras typically suck. We're talking about how keeping someone off of ten permanents ia already part of every strategy. When was the last time you lost a game where you controlled ten permanents?
Besides, the more cards you dedicate to getting ascend asap, the less cards you will have to abuse Ascend with. It isn't as one sided as you seem to think. We have zero indication otherwise
That's one way of bringing an Ancestral Recall variant into Standard.
Except in this case, it is actually a valid argument. In the Standard example given (Legions Landing/Cartouche of Solidarity) all someone has to do is kill one of your enchanted tokens to take out 2 of your permanents, setting you back from Ascending (Fatal Push works, as does any of the other things he mentioned)
If your deck is so dependent on Ascend that you are willing to spend that many resources to hit it ASAP, losing 2 permanents early hampers you pretty well. Especially since you can remove the 2 permanents in responce to the Ascend spell - effectively weakening it and requiring them to pull another Ascend card to trigger it.
I remain unconvinced that this mechanic will be broken in Standard the way Energy and Delerium-without-hate were. Sure, you could make cases for Modern and EDH but honestly I don't care about those formats. That said - in my mind Ascend is no more or less interactive than Affinity. Is Affinity considered 'non-interactive' too? It seems to me that it's broken because of it's sheer power, not it's non-interactiveness.
If I were to try to abuse Ascend - I'd bee looking first to Weaponcraft Enthusiast in Standard, and maybe Marionette Master later in the game. It seems to me at that point though, Ascend becomes 'win more' once you have 10 permanents. It's a nice 'push' over the edge in a long game that might otherwise stall (The way Planeswalker Emblems are generally designed to be)
My only real gripe with it is that it's not actually an Emblem or any other 'object' in world space (This was my complaint about the Monarch mechanic too - but it was in a non-Standard set so I didn't care too much). I kind of wish that it were so that it would open the door to cards that might interact with Emblems (which is where the whole non-interactive argument comes in) but Emblems themselves are not currently interactive in any way - and for all the comparisons to Energy/Delerium/Threshold/etc I haven't heard anyone complain about Emblems being non-interactive - at least not in this thread.
Emblems off Plainswalkers are expected to end the game. Not all ultimates do, but the ones that see the most play either finish the game or cause a scoop because they're too much to deal with. That's the best example of uninteractive design in mtg. Emblem down, permanent game state change. Permanent advantage for related plus up type cards.
When recently have they created a mechanic that they've failed to push and enable in the set in some way?
Deck designs for Ascend are pointless right now because we have literally ONE CARD.
I honestly don't think the city's blessing will be a huge deal. I mean, 10 permanents, right? That can be a huge deal for decks other than tokens and maybe ramp.
At the same time, I don't think it'll be a wincon in itself. After all, Epic Struggle exists and requires 20 creatures. (It's also winmoar by the way.)
On phasing:
Cycling was pushed and enabled heavily (mostly on Minotaurs) I'd somewhat argue that Fabricate and Improvise were meant to work together, but weren't strong enough (which is okay - they could have easily tipped over into 'too strong') I agree with you on most of the rest though - except that The Scarab God is a major player and it's ability is 'effectively' Eternalize.
And that's just it. I feel as though Ascend will likely be winmoar in most scenarios - but this particular card might be good to tip a stalemate on a game that has gone on way longer than normal (for Standard) I'm not sure that pushing ascention is a viable strategy as every (Standard) example given to do so is somewhat fragile.
In Standard - if the game's not over by the time someone has 10 permanents, typically something's wrong and everyone is top-decking. I wouldn't be surprised if this card gets banned in EDH (mostly because it affects all opponents, as well as it being easier to hit 10 permanents)
I feel like Vona's Hunger will see tournament play. It's an edict at worst and a way to end a stalemate in a longer game. It might only make the sideboard against certain decks though. It potentially punishes control decks that rely on a single 'finisher' creature to win.
That said, my commander is Toshiro Umezawa and I might test this out. Not sure if it is better than To the Slaughter though.
I'd wager it is. because it hits all players. You tend to draw less hate in the political game if you hit everyone equally than if you specifically single out one person (I used to play Ghost Council of Orzhova as my commander before they removed damage going on the stack rules - I had a lot of cards that leeched life from everyone and I usually was underestimated as a threat until my life total was double theirs or I had Divinity of Pride in play). Even players who played by 'First Blood' rules (attack the person who deals damage first) didn't count me since I hit everyone. I never understood the logic - but it happened pretty consistently.
Sure, it doesn't hit planeswalkers (except potentially Gideon - since it's an instant) but if cast after you hit the Ascend mechanic you can halve the number of creatures each person has an potentially open up their planeswalker to attack (Especially if you do it after they've attacked and some of their creatures are tapped)
To the Slaughter only gives 1 Umezawa trigger - Vona's Hunger gives 1 trigger per player (minimum)
Lots of theorycraft reasons why Vona's Hunger is better than To the Slaughter. It just depends how often you need to make players sac their 'walkers - and whether or not you have any other options to do so already in your deck.
And out of the black-accessible commander decks I typically see, three mana removal instants tend not to see as much play as things that are repeatable. Even removing half of each opponent's creatures isn't really that back breaking.
that completely debilitate the crucial strategy you're trying to build your entire deck around in the example you gave. These aren't all of them but the vast majority are two cmc or less and instant speed.
If you now want to lay out a strategy for achieving ascend in a similar manner to what you showed with creature tokens then that's fine. But that's not what you showed. I'd like to see one that is as easy and fast to achieve ascend as what you wanted to claim.
-Chandra Nalaar
Well, we have it now, and it’s ... not so good. It’s draw 2 for 1UU, or draw 3 instead if you ascended. So it’s more color-heavy Divination in its normal form, and a discounted Concentrate if you meet the Ascend/Blessing condition.
This is simply a common, let's see what rare blue Ascend card(s) we get.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate