So, looking at cards like Archfiend of Ifnir and Faith of the Devoted, with the wording of "whenever you cycle or discard a card [effect]," I think there is essentially no other option but to have a variant of cycling that does not consist of the discarding of cards. Seeing that Shadow of the Grave returns cycled cards, that means that the variant of cycling will result in cards going to the grave. My assumption is that it will be like the Urza's Destiny "cycle from play by sacrificing" cards, like Yavimaya Elder, Slinking Skirge, Plague Dogs, and others. Here is an article where MaRo discusses cycling (from LONG ago), stating that those cards were intended to use the term "cycling," but the idea was scrapped.
Essentially, the "whenever you cycle or discard a card [effect]" phrasing is redundant for all forms of cycling that currently exists (as cycling consists of discarding, so writing "discard a card" would have been enough), and Magic tries to minimize redundant wording. If they only wrote "cycles a card," then it would work with all existent and future variants of cycling, but not with other forms of discard. Thus, in order to make it work with all forms of discard and all forms of cycling, the wording they used is necessary, but only if a future variant of cycling does not entail discarding the card.
There is an official perfectly fine explanation for the new wording: The consistency of correctly playing cycling with trigger conditions worded "When you discard a card" left something to be desired. When the same abilities were worded "When you cycle or discard a card" the correct interaction is more apparent and - without functionally changing the ability for any existing effect - removes opportunity for confusion or gamepley errors (missed triggers).
The effect of the new wording is desirable without the addition of a new type of cycling that works in a different way (e. g. using sacrifice over discard). I wouldn't be surprised if that's the whole story and cycling will always be equal to discard for the remainder of the block and beyond.
Outside of that consideration there is certainly a nonzero chance of cycling expanding into new space. This would be a nice way to ease into a new ability that certain previously introduced rule changes lacked (e. g. the startling ill-timed introduction of the colorless mana symbol in the middle of BfZ-block - prodding even immediate reprint of errata'd tokens).
Extending the existing themes of decay etc. from discard to e. g. sacrifice as you suggest with a return to "boardcycling" is certainly one way to show "devastation" in a magnified way if the second set is the cataclysmic scenario widely expected since the moment its name was revealed as Hour of Devastation, so there is merit to the idea.
I personally don't think the odds favor a new cycling variant since it doesn't quite fit well with the way cycling just this set has been tied to discard. If anything I expect the discard theme (outside of cycling) to be expanded e. g. with another mechanic that uses discard as part of its cost/effect.
I'm also not comfortable with certain assorted trigger conditions we have seen in Amonkhet with an eye on whether they are well-chosen if the next set potentially introduces a chance to make both death-triggers and discard-triggers part of the options for cycling. Would you e. g. expect no cards with "When a [...] creature you control dies" triggers alongside cycling triggers that would effectively become a subset of those during the next set? It would create confusion that just has been addressed with the new way discard triggers were worded for this set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I think cycling from the battlefield (2, Sacrifice CARDNAME: Draw a card) would be the right move. The "cycling or discard" wording makes more sense, and MaRo has stated several times that he wishes he'd keyworded 'cycling from play' in Urza's block.
Plus, sacrificing things feels very Bolas-y.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Gaymer
Custom Card / Set Reviewer
When reviewing custom cards / sets, I look for (a) flavour, (b) function, and (c) cohesiveness, generally through a risk focus.
Cycling from the battlefield would also work with Revolt and turn on Bontu. If I remember correctly, Sam Stoddard's Friday article said they wanted Amonkhet's mechanics to mesh well with Shadows' mechanics.
I think cycling from the battlefield (2, Sacrifice CARDNAME: Draw a card) would be the right move. The "cycling or discard" wording makes more sense, and MaRo has stated several times that he wishes he'd keyworded 'cycling from play' in Urza's block.
Plus, sacrificing things feels very Bolas-y.
If they do end up keywording this in Hour,
they better do the decent thing and give us the enemy-colored versions of Horizon Canopy.
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
If they do end up keywording this in Hour,
they better do the decent thing and give us the enemy-colored versions of Horizon Canopy.
That would be awesome!
I agree!
To be fair, though, it probably won't happen.
They have said before that they consider both Grove of the Burnwillows
and Horizon Canopy "too strong for Standard" (what isn't these days?),
but they have reversed such opinions before, so there is room for at least a glimmer of hope.
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
It's likely that Hour has a variant on Cycling (such as Wizardcycling, Basic-landcycling etc)
That's why they start the block with normal cycling.
Cycling without discard sounds too complicated, and we have a valid reason for that wording: Newer players might misinterpret "whenever you discard" and not notice it includes cycling.
It's likely that Hour has a variant on Cycling (such as Wizardcycling, Basic-landcycling etc)
That's why they start the block with normal cycling.
Cycling without discard sounds too complicated, and we have a valid reason for that wording: Newer players might misinterpret "whenever you discard" and not notice it includes cycling.
Well it would be nice to have type-cycling, as they've had land-cycling before, but that's already happened. Specific creature-type cycling would creature issues similar to Transmute, and besides, the only Amonkhet tribe with multiple sources of support (sorry Neheb, the Worthy and Regal Caracal) is Zombies, several of which can't be cycled for as they're only zombies when embalmed.
I must admit, one thing going against Lifecycling is the wording of "Whenever you cycle or discard [a/another] card...", which implies that it must be a card and technically cannot be a permanent. They could always adjust the meaning of 'card' as used in this context without it getting too confusing. I imagine if they did use Lifecycling it would only go on creatures, though I could see lands as being considered to have life in them (Nissa says yes creatively and functionally).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Gaymer
Custom Card / Set Reviewer
When reviewing custom cards / sets, I look for (a) flavour, (b) function, and (c) cohesiveness, generally through a risk focus.
If they do end up keywording this in Hour,
they better do the decent thing and give us the enemy-colored versions of Horizon Canopy.
That would be awesome!
I agree!
To be fair, though, it probably won't happen.
They have said before that they consider both Grove of the Burnwillows
and Horizon Canopy "too strong for Standard" (what isn't these days?),
but they have reversed such opinions before, so there is room for at least a glimmer of hope.
At this point "too strong for Standard" is just a buzzword for something that is even remotely playable. How can you say with a straight face that Grove is too strong for Standard and pretend to be taken seriously? Nevermind Horizon Canopy, which while better to the Cycle duals, it's still pretty similar in function (cashing in a dead land for a card).
I must admit, one thing going against Lifecycling is the wording of "Whenever you cycle or discard [a/another] card...", which implies that it must be a card and technically cannot be a permanent. They could always adjust the meaning of 'card' as used in this context without it getting too confusing. I imagine if they did use Lifecycling it would only go on creatures, though I could see lands as being considered to have life in them (Nissa says yes creatively and functionally).
Yeah, that's a good point, and I noticed that too, but was hoping that it was just worded that way as a shortcut to make it not too wordy. Cards are cards only in the hand, graveyard, exile, and the library. I expect that cycling from the graveyard wouldn't return the cycled card to the graveyard, so that's out. Cycling from exile is probably not going to happen either, though that would be pretty interesting. Cycling from the library is possible, but that form of cycling likely won't be printed on the card that you end up cycling, just like Manifest didn't appear on the cards that you generally ended up manifesting. I can imagine the phrasing "Cycle the top card of your library." There are a few cards that might point to self-milling be a broader mechanic (and cycling the top card of your library would be an interesting new variant): Embalm works nicely with it, Aftermath does as well. There are cards that use it: Naga Oracle, Winds of Rebuke, Liliana, Death's Majesty, Benefaction of Rhonas, and Embalmer's Tools.
Maybe it was to circumvent the whole deal with "What does cycling count as? Is it discarding or is it cycling?" questions.
We all know MTG is getting dumbed down bit by bit, given how regenerate got taken out since it gave problems.
This may partially be the reason, but I think it's more they are getting better at making sure cards work going forward. For example, what if they print a card that lets you cycle from the top of your library. Would that be discarding? No, so it wouldn't work with stuff like this.
I think it's more they are getting better at making sure cards work going forward. For example, what if they print a card that lets you cycle from the top of your library. Would that be discarding? No, so it wouldn't work with stuff like this.
I have seen it first hand, someone who should not have missed a trigger, miss a Drake Haven trigger from one of my cards that forced a discard.
When you focus on the card being one sided to when you cycle a card only, it limits usefulness. If Drake Haven only said when you discard a card, you'd forget more often when you cycle.
This is the kind of pandering we need for newbies to get into the game. Smartly worded things that actually cause no problems with the game on the whole but are much closer to (Reminder text in parenthesis.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
In regards to the new cards like Drake Haven in EDH:
I'm glad for the extra wording because it expands the usefulness of the card. Even more important is that there are many decks with self-mill and self-discard themes and things like Drake Haven gave new life to these themes.
The moment I first saw one of these new self-discard triggered effects I immediately understood the value in specifying the wording this way. WoTC made new avenues for deck building with that wording.
I'm saddened to see people prefer as little text as possible. Think of what we never would have had, if the trigger was only for the cycling keyword. The world of MTG has more variability because of the added wording. Reducing the creative variability in MTG is not what we want.
I think my point might have gotten lost somewhere with the last few responses: I'm glad about the discard being written on there. That's not what I was noting. If it only said "discard a card," it would work with all extant cycling variants, so what I'm saying is that the added word "cycling" is what feels unnecessary. I can appreciate if its on there for clarifying reasons, but I haven't noticed WotC printing cards like that. They would usually clarify that cycling is discarding via a reminder text on the common and uncommon cards, and leave the reminder off of the rares and mythics.
Crazy idea, but what if they introduced something like this:
Supercycling -cost- (-cost-, Discard this card and another card: Draw two cards.)
Essentially, you get to cycle two cards at once. Could work wonders with Madness in Standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Haha, yeah, I knew that was going to get the Megamorph comparison.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
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.
I agree though that it's a complicated mechanic to mak work and you get some ugly questions like: If I use bicycling/supercycling do I trigger Drake Haven twice? Yes? Cool! Then can I use my bicycler to trigger Resounding Thunder? Eh?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
My stance on the matter is that all cycling is discarding, but not all discarding is cycling. It doesn't count as cycling unless you're activating the card's cycling ability; the "discard another card" part is simply part of the cost much as it is on Tormenting Voice and the like. So Drake Haven will trigger twice off "Bicycling", but Resounding Thunder will not count as being cycled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
At this point "too strong for Standard" is just a buzzword for something that is even remotely playable. How can you say with a straight face that Grove is too strong for Standard and pretend to be taken seriously? Nevermind Horizon Canopy, which while better to the Cycle duals, it's still pretty similar in function (cashing in a dead land for a card).
I might point out that with Grove of the Burnwillows, at least, the argument given at the time for why the cycle has not been completed was because certain cards in the cycle (those having blue) would be better than the others because Control decks really couldn't care about giving their opponents life, while aggro decks generally do.
So while I agree that 'too powerful for Standard' might be overused, particularly with MaRo on Blogatog, he uses is as shorthand for a wide plethora of actual reasons that boil down to 'we can't really let this into Standard'. Something of this nature occurred just a week or two ago on there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Essentially, the "whenever you cycle or discard a card [effect]" phrasing is redundant for all forms of cycling that currently exists (as cycling consists of discarding, so writing "discard a card" would have been enough), and Magic tries to minimize redundant wording. If they only wrote "cycles a card," then it would work with all existent and future variants of cycling, but not with other forms of discard. Thus, in order to make it work with all forms of discard and all forms of cycling, the wording they used is necessary, but only if a future variant of cycling does not entail discarding the card.
Did anyone else notice this?
The effect of the new wording is desirable without the addition of a new type of cycling that works in a different way (e. g. using sacrifice over discard). I wouldn't be surprised if that's the whole story and cycling will always be equal to discard for the remainder of the block and beyond.
Outside of that consideration there is certainly a nonzero chance of cycling expanding into new space. This would be a nice way to ease into a new ability that certain previously introduced rule changes lacked (e. g. the startling ill-timed introduction of the colorless mana symbol in the middle of BfZ-block - prodding even immediate reprint of errata'd tokens).
Extending the existing themes of decay etc. from discard to e. g. sacrifice as you suggest with a return to "boardcycling" is certainly one way to show "devastation" in a magnified way if the second set is the cataclysmic scenario widely expected since the moment its name was revealed as Hour of Devastation, so there is merit to the idea.
I personally don't think the odds favor a new cycling variant since it doesn't quite fit well with the way cycling just this set has been tied to discard. If anything I expect the discard theme (outside of cycling) to be expanded e. g. with another mechanic that uses discard as part of its cost/effect.
I'm also not comfortable with certain assorted trigger conditions we have seen in Amonkhet with an eye on whether they are well-chosen if the next set potentially introduces a chance to make both death-triggers and discard-triggers part of the options for cycling. Would you e. g. expect no cards with "When a [...] creature you control dies" triggers alongside cycling triggers that would effectively become a subset of those during the next set? It would create confusion that just has been addressed with the new way discard triggers were worded for this set.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Plus, sacrificing things feels very Bolas-y.
Custom Card / Set Reviewer
When reviewing custom cards / sets, I look for (a) flavour, (b) function, and (c) cohesiveness, generally through a risk focus.
If they do end up keywording this in Hour,
they better do the decent thing and give us the enemy-colored versions of Horizon Canopy.
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
That would be awesome!
I agree!
To be fair, though, it probably won't happen.
They have said before that they consider both Grove of the Burnwillows
and Horizon Canopy "too strong for Standard" (what isn't these days?),
but they have reversed such opinions before, so there is room for at least a glimmer of hope.
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
That's why they start the block with normal cycling.
Cycling without discard sounds too complicated, and we have a valid reason for that wording: Newer players might misinterpret "whenever you discard" and not notice it includes cycling.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
Well it would be nice to have type-cycling, as they've had land-cycling before, but that's already happened. Specific creature-type cycling would creature issues similar to Transmute, and besides, the only Amonkhet tribe with multiple sources of support (sorry Neheb, the Worthy and Regal Caracal) is Zombies, several of which can't be cycled for as they're only zombies when embalmed.
I must admit, one thing going against Lifecycling is the wording of "Whenever you cycle or discard [a/another] card...", which implies that it must be a card and technically cannot be a permanent. They could always adjust the meaning of 'card' as used in this context without it getting too confusing. I imagine if they did use Lifecycling it would only go on creatures, though I could see lands as being considered to have life in them (Nissa says yes creatively and functionally).
Custom Card / Set Reviewer
When reviewing custom cards / sets, I look for (a) flavour, (b) function, and (c) cohesiveness, generally through a risk focus.
At this point "too strong for Standard" is just a buzzword for something that is even remotely playable. How can you say with a straight face that Grove is too strong for Standard and pretend to be taken seriously? Nevermind Horizon Canopy, which while better to the Cycle duals, it's still pretty similar in function (cashing in a dead land for a card).
Thanks to DNC from Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sig
Check my Pauper Cube!
Yeah, that's a good point, and I noticed that too, but was hoping that it was just worded that way as a shortcut to make it not too wordy. Cards are cards only in the hand, graveyard, exile, and the library. I expect that cycling from the graveyard wouldn't return the cycled card to the graveyard, so that's out. Cycling from exile is probably not going to happen either, though that would be pretty interesting. Cycling from the library is possible, but that form of cycling likely won't be printed on the card that you end up cycling, just like Manifest didn't appear on the cards that you generally ended up manifesting. I can imagine the phrasing "Cycle the top card of your library." There are a few cards that might point to self-milling be a broader mechanic (and cycling the top card of your library would be an interesting new variant): Embalm works nicely with it, Aftermath does as well. There are cards that use it: Naga Oracle, Winds of Rebuke, Liliana, Death's Majesty, Benefaction of Rhonas, and Embalmer's Tools.
This may partially be the reason, but I think it's more they are getting better at making sure cards work going forward. For example, what if they print a card that lets you cycle from the top of your library. Would that be discarding? No, so it wouldn't work with stuff like this.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Seems we both came to the same conclusion.
When you focus on the card being one sided to when you cycle a card only, it limits usefulness. If Drake Haven only said when you discard a card, you'd forget more often when you cycle.
This is the kind of pandering we need for newbies to get into the game. Smartly worded things that actually cause no problems with the game on the whole but are much closer to (Reminder text in parenthesis.)
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
I'm glad for the extra wording because it expands the usefulness of the card. Even more important is that there are many decks with self-mill and self-discard themes and things like Drake Haven gave new life to these themes.
The moment I first saw one of these new self-discard triggered effects I immediately understood the value in specifying the wording this way. WoTC made new avenues for deck building with that wording.
I'm saddened to see people prefer as little text as possible. Think of what we never would have had, if the trigger was only for the cycling keyword. The world of MTG has more variability because of the added wording. Reducing the creative variability in MTG is not what we want.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/334931-what-is-the-most-pimp-card-deck-youve-seen-or?comment=5361
Commander
RGOmnath, Locus of Rage Grenades! EDHGR
UWSygg's Defense, EDH - Voltron & ControlWU
BUGMimeoplasm EDH ft. Ifnir Cycling-discard comboBUG
WBTeysa, Connoisseur of CullingBW
BWSelenia & Recruiter of the Guard suicice combo EDHWB
UBRWGO-Kagachi - 5 Color Enchantments - EDHUBRWG
Custom Card / Set Reviewer
When reviewing custom cards / sets, I look for (a) flavour, (b) function, and (c) cohesiveness, generally through a risk focus.
Supercycling -cost- (-cost-, Discard this card and another card: Draw two cards.)
Essentially, you get to cycle two cards at once. Could work wonders with Madness in Standard.
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.
Megacycling: put a +1/+1 counter on this card then discard it to draw a card. /s
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.
How you should approach every game of Magic.
Mod Helpdesk (defunct)
My Flawless Score MCC Card | My Other One | # Three!
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.
Not calling it bicycling is a crime.
I agree though that it's a complicated mechanic to mak work and you get some ugly questions like: If I use bicycling/supercycling do I trigger Drake Haven twice? Yes? Cool! Then can I use my bicycler to trigger Resounding Thunder? Eh?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
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 might point out that with Grove of the Burnwillows, at least, the argument given at the time for why the cycle has not been completed was because certain cards in the cycle (those having blue) would be better than the others because Control decks really couldn't care about giving their opponents life, while aggro decks generally do.
So while I agree that 'too powerful for Standard' might be overused, particularly with MaRo on Blogatog, he uses is as shorthand for a wide plethora of actual reasons that boil down to 'we can't really let this into Standard'. Something of this nature occurred just a week or two ago on there.