I) You can get multiple uses out of planeswalkers with the same name. Lily in particular becomes more powerful because you can't get stuck on 1 loyalty anymore when you want them to sac.
The Liliana problem is really my biggest issue with this. It makes her a LOT better, and she's already the number 2 planeswalker ever printed (I give her the edge over Elspeth due to CMC)
THis change makes me believe they just wont to sale more legenary stuff such as planeswalkers the price on these will go up because they just got more powerful.
WotC doesn't make money on the secondary market. This accusation has no merit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks:
Modern
Modern Warp / UR Control / UR Storm / Naya Breachshift / ElectroBalance
Legacy
Solidarity / Lands / Sneak and Show / Grixis Delver / Reanimator / Belcher / Storm / Dredge
WotC doesn't make money on the secondary market. This accusation has no merit.
More expensive walkers in the secondary market = more people willing to pay the pack lottery to crack one. The other night some kidscame into my local game shop to buy packs. I heard them talking about how they wanted a Ral Zarek. Lucky kids crack a voice of resurgence. Instead of keeping it and trading it for a Ral which easily could have been done I'm sure, they sell it to the shop and continue playing the pack lottery. Every money card they cracked they sold back to the store and bought another pack. I think they actually did end up getting a Ral, but this is just too show how expensive and desirable walkers will actually cause packs sales to go up
More expensive walkers in the secondary market = more people willing to pay the pack lottery to crack one. The other night some kidscame into my local game shop to buy packs. I heard them talking about how they wanted a Ral Zarek. Lucky kids crack a voice of resurgence. Instead of keeping it and trading it for a Ral which easily could have been done I'm sure, they sell it to the shop and continue playing the pack lottery. Every money card they cracked they sold back to the store and bought another pack. I think they actually did end up getting a Ral, but this is just too show how expensive and desirable walkers will actually cause packs sales to go up
This makes me want to open up a card shop that sells singles.
Profit on the pack sales
Profit when a single is cracked, sold back to the shop, and ultimately sold again
Profit when collections are bought and sold
Profit from the entry fees for events
Profit when the value of the singles stock increases, keep in mind how this particular collectible has roundly trounced the S&P 500
...those kids went double-down on profits to the LGS. I love it when people support the LGS. Finally a profit I don't have to feel upset about.
I don't agree. It's probably the biggest change (that or 'legends aren't removal anymore'), but it doesn't make that big of a difference. We're talking about at most 4 cards out of 60 of which you'd need to get two on hand and you'd have to be in a situation where you'd want this extra use. You're wasting a liliana this way, which you could use if the first gets decayed, bolted or attacked to death - which isn't very rare at all.
The situation where you want to -2 and she's stuck at 1 is of course relevant, but it does not change that much because it's a pretty marginal occurence. Much like getting two brainstorms out of Jace or two mana bursts out of cradle.
(Also, Tezz is probably next after Liliana, not Elspeth.)
I'm not 100% sure on that. Until the new rules come into effect we really have no idea how "marginal" an occurance might be. Because no one's ever really used the card that way. I'm just saying that these kind of interactions seem dangerously exploitative.
Hopefully it's not that big a deal, and instead of oppressive stuff like this we see cool stuff like Thespian Depths.
Miss Elspeth and her army would like a word with you
Elspeth is certainly better in a vacuum, but Tezz is far more powerful when properly built around.
Tezz when he's built around is even stronger than Jace would be in the same deck (though of course this doesn't stop you from running both).
So you can run 4x Lotus Petal and 4x Mox Opal now. Mox Opal being a slightly better Lotus Petal because it nets you a mana every turn and an extra Mox Opal in hand nets you an extra two mana one turn and 1 mana from then on.
Seems ok to me.
What decks are at all interested in running 4x Lotus Petal 4x Mox Opal? The decks that run the former aren't interested in the latter and the ones that run the latter aren't interested in the former.
What decks are at all interested in running 4x Lotus Petal 4x Mox Opal? The decks that run the former aren't interested in the latter and the ones that run the latter aren't interested in the former.
Not to nitpick, but how can you look at what was the previous status quo under the old rules and say no decks wanted this... the project forward and suggest that clearly no deck wants this under the new status quo. We don't know yet as the we have no idea how decks will adapt to this change.
That said. Clearly not every deck wants this.
Decks that might... Tezzarator, Affinity, and possibly a MUD build might want this.
Note I'm not suggesting it's an auto include, just that the drawback has been greatly minimized on Mox Opal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Heterological" is heterological if and only if "heterological" is autological
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
I just don't see putting a "Discard this card and use your land drop for the turn: Untap your other Cradle" is broken or backbreaking.
Maybe I've just been unlucky enough where every cradle deck I've played against has never had the NEED to tap a cradle twice.
Could someone PM me and explain why Mox Opal suddenly becomes so busted with this rule change?! I'm just not seeing it, how is it any better than when I use Ravager to turn them into Lotus Petals? Except, this time it's mandatory sacking of one, and I get no counters on my ravager for it...
It's a bigger problem in Modern where a Lotus Petal effect is a bannable offense.
Yeah, my Lands deck just got a new toy. Question is, what the hell do you take out? I guess maybe Mindslaver to start. That just leaves one other card. Academy Ruins maybe? I mean if we don't need the Mindslaver lock we can probably ditch Ruins.
Why is no one talking about the changes to Indestructible! It's an ability now and thus works better.
I don't see how this changes anything in the broad sense. Do you mean in terms of manipulation of copying abilities or Humility or something? Can you explain it to me?
Huh. Fair point, actually. I wonder if Wizards would be bold enough to give them basic land types - otherwise they'd be useless. I doubt it would change much about the accessbility of Legacy, though, since it would still be better to run the originals + eventual legendualsies if needed.
But it would be a start
I think it would make the format a good deal more accessible, particularly many of the decks that use Underground Sea. Most combo decks would no longer require any original duals at all, or merely 1-2. Reanimator and TES, for instance. Team America and RUG Delver would both require far smaller outlays to play.
I don't see how this changes anything in the broad sense. Do you mean in terms of manipulation of copying abilities or Humility or something? Can you explain it to me?
Before Indestructible was just a property of the card. For example, if I cast Withstand Death on a Grizzly Bears it just would BE indestructible and Humility couldn't take that away. Now that it's an ability Humility can. Honestly the interaction matters a lot more in Standard than any other format, but it's still a good change in my opinion.
The land drop rule is ok too. It's now closer to how we were all playing the game rather than how it actually was. I'm a bit of a rules lawyer and even I would say "Second land for the turn" instead of "using my bonus land play from Exploration/Azusa"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Okay right. For me, it is mostly cosmetic because there just aren't that many times in which Indestructible and Humility are orbiting my planet at the same time. By that I mean, ever.
Before Indestructible was just a property of the card. For example, if I cast Withstand Death on a Grizzly Bears it just would BE indestructible and Humility couldn't take that away. Now that it's an ability Humility can.
Bad example because effects are applied in layers and time stamp order. Adding and removing abilities is all in the same layer so you apply each in the order they came into play. Humility being a permanent with a continuous effect will generally be applied first while Withstand Death being an Instant can write over Humility giving your 1/1 Indestructible for that one turn. This is all under the new rules of course.
Just to clarify for people who don't understand. Currently the words "Darksteel Colossus is indestructible." is NOT an ability. It functions exactly like "Dryad Arbor is Green". Currently; Humility or other "lose all ability" effects will not be able to take that away.
I am unsure of the new rules. But mainly because i don't like having all the new cards read "Indestructibility". They didn't specify but im pretty sure they are changing the word to a noun to conform with all the other keywords. That's the only way it can have meaning as a standalone word..... a keyword. Or they can have it as "X gains indestructible" in which case they are just grammatically wrong. I don't really care about people with bad grammar on facebook or forums but im kinda OCD about my cards.
I am not really fond of this change. Heck when i read the rule i instantly went "Dammit Jitte" and i also feel that it kills flavor. It also does warp the format a bit, so yeah. I am not to fond of this rule change.
But i guess i am going to have to deal with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wield your heart, and the world will tremble!!!-Doran, the Siege Tower BWG
The effect could prove so discombobulating to combo players, in particularly, they may fizzle and run away screaming. "From that day the Curse of the Plateau was upon me, and I found every hand I ever pull from a combo deck is a mulligan."
Member of Anti-Blue Alliance (Just Say "Yes" to Spells!) Members: 8 known, add to your sig to join!
What I want to know most about this change is if anyone at wizards actually tested it for Legacy. They have said time and time again they dont test for legacy, and they talk about banning things that get too strong in the article. I dont like the sound of any of this.
Bad example because effects are applied in layers and time stamp order. Adding and removing abilities is all in the same layer so you apply each in the order they came into play. Humility being a permanent with a continuous effect will generally be applied first while Withstand Death being an Instant can write over Humility giving your 1/1 Indestructible for that one turn. This is all under the new rules of course.
Just to clarify for people who don't understand. Currently the words "Darksteel Colossus is indestructible." is NOT an ability. It functions exactly like "Dryad Arbor is Green". Currently; Humility or other "lose all ability" effects will not be able to take that away.
The bolded part is wrong. Under the current rules, "Darksteel Colossus is indestructible" is an ability that can be taken away by Humility or any other card. It's treated the same as "This thing cannot be blocked by red creatures." The only part of the change that will affect Darksteel Colossus is that he'll now say "Indestructible" rather than the whole sentence. At this time, the actual state of being indestructible, however, is not an ability. So, for example, if I have an Eldrazi Monument out, and you then play Humility, I'll have 2/2 dudes without flying, but that are indestructible. The new change will allow Indestructible that's been granted by outside sources to be taken away by Humility and Humble type effects.
I am unsure of the new rules. But mainly because i don't like having all the new cards read "Indestructibility". They didn't specify but im pretty sure they are changing the word to a noun to conform with all the other keywords. That's the only way it can have meaning as a standalone word..... a keyword. Or they can have it as "X gains indestructible" in which case they are just grammatically wrong. I don't really care about people with bad grammar on facebook or forums but im kinda OCD about my cards.
They're making the keyword Indestructible, so some cards that grant indestructible will be a bit awkward, but in the end, it's better to avoid confusion such as happened above.
The Liliana problem is really my biggest issue with this. It makes her a LOT better, and she's already the number 2 planeswalker ever printed (I give her the edge over Elspeth due to CMC)
WotC doesn't make money on the secondary market. This accusation has no merit.
Modern Warp / UR Control / UR Storm / Naya Breachshift / ElectroBalance
Solidarity / Lands / Sneak and Show / Grixis Delver / Reanimator / Belcher / Storm / Dredge
More expensive walkers in the secondary market = more people willing to pay the pack lottery to crack one. The other night some kidscame into my local game shop to buy packs. I heard them talking about how they wanted a Ral Zarek. Lucky kids crack a voice of resurgence. Instead of keeping it and trading it for a Ral which easily could have been done I'm sure, they sell it to the shop and continue playing the pack lottery. Every money card they cracked they sold back to the store and bought another pack. I think they actually did end up getting a Ral, but this is just too show how expensive and desirable walkers will actually cause packs sales to go up
This makes me want to open up a card shop that sells singles.
...those kids went double-down on profits to the LGS. I love it when people support the LGS. Finally a profit I don't have to feel upset about.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Miss Elspeth and her army would like a word with you
I'm not 100% sure on that. Until the new rules come into effect we really have no idea how "marginal" an occurance might be. Because no one's ever really used the card that way. I'm just saying that these kind of interactions seem dangerously exploitative.
Hopefully it's not that big a deal, and instead of oppressive stuff like this we see cool stuff like Thespian Depths.
As with most rules changes (everything?), there will be pro's and con's.
I wanna go on record as saying, "I like the changes."
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
Elspeth is certainly better in a vacuum, but Tezz is far more powerful when properly built around.
Tezz when he's built around is even stronger than Jace would be in the same deck (though of course this doesn't stop you from running both).
I'm going to wait to see how Liliana 2.0 and JTMS mirrors are going to play out, but Jitte mirrors are going to be abysmal.
Not to nitpick, but how can you look at what was the previous status quo under the old rules and say no decks wanted this... the project forward and suggest that clearly no deck wants this under the new status quo. We don't know yet as the we have no idea how decks will adapt to this change.
That said. Clearly not every deck wants this.
Decks that might... Tezzarator, Affinity, and possibly a MUD build might want this.
Note I'm not suggesting it's an auto include, just that the drawback has been greatly minimized on Mox Opal.
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
I just don't see putting a "Discard this card and use your land drop for the turn: Untap your other Cradle" is broken or backbreaking.
Maybe I've just been unlucky enough where every cradle deck I've played against has never had the NEED to tap a cradle twice.
Safari rules, gentlemen: Don't touch the poop!
It's a bigger problem in Modern where a Lotus Petal effect is a bannable offense.
They do because they can reprint cards to generate sales.
Modern masters is selling out for them because of the secondary market.
Oh my god. Yes.
This. This I will build.
Why is no one talking about the changes to Indestructible! It's an ability now and thus works better. M14 won't be ALL bad!
Welcome to 43 Lands new win con
Paper: WUR Waffle Control, RG and U Tron
MTGO: U Tron, BRG Living End, B Infect
Testing Modern on MTGO and helping to craft decks on a Budget
I stream!
Hermit Druid Combo:
I've already been brewing. There's a thread in developing started by Finn.
WGURBLands!WGURB
WGUInfectWGU
Legacy Lands Primer
Top 8 SCG Oakland 2014
Helpdesk
My Cube on CubeTutor
Yeah, my Lands deck just got a new toy. Question is, what the hell do you take out? I guess maybe Mindslaver to start. That just leaves one other card. Academy Ruins maybe? I mean if we don't need the Mindslaver lock we can probably ditch Ruins.
Thoughts?
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
I think it would make the format a good deal more accessible, particularly many of the decks that use Underground Sea. Most combo decks would no longer require any original duals at all, or merely 1-2. Reanimator and TES, for instance. Team America and RUG Delver would both require far smaller outlays to play.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Before Indestructible was just a property of the card. For example, if I cast Withstand Death on a Grizzly Bears it just would BE indestructible and Humility couldn't take that away. Now that it's an ability Humility can. Honestly the interaction matters a lot more in Standard than any other format, but it's still a good change in my opinion.
The land drop rule is ok too. It's now closer to how we were all playing the game rather than how it actually was. I'm a bit of a rules lawyer and even I would say "Second land for the turn" instead of "using my bonus land play from Exploration/Azusa"
Anyway, thanks for clearing it all up.
Bad example because effects are applied in layers and time stamp order. Adding and removing abilities is all in the same layer so you apply each in the order they came into play. Humility being a permanent with a continuous effect will generally be applied first while Withstand Death being an Instant can write over Humility giving your 1/1 Indestructible for that one turn. This is all under the new rules of course.
Just to clarify for people who don't understand. Currently the words "Darksteel Colossus is indestructible." is NOT an ability. It functions exactly like "Dryad Arbor is Green". Currently; Humility or other "lose all ability" effects will not be able to take that away.
I am unsure of the new rules. But mainly because i don't like having all the new cards read "Indestructibility". They didn't specify but im pretty sure they are changing the word to a noun to conform with all the other keywords. That's the only way it can have meaning as a standalone word..... a keyword. Or they can have it as "X gains indestructible" in which case they are just grammatically wrong. I don't really care about people with bad grammar on facebook or forums but im kinda OCD about my cards.
But i guess i am going to have to deal with it.
BWG
Member of Anti-Blue Alliance (Just Say "Yes" to Spells!) Members: 8 known, add to your sig to join!
The bolded part is wrong. Under the current rules, "Darksteel Colossus is indestructible" is an ability that can be taken away by Humility or any other card. It's treated the same as "This thing cannot be blocked by red creatures." The only part of the change that will affect Darksteel Colossus is that he'll now say "Indestructible" rather than the whole sentence. At this time, the actual state of being indestructible, however, is not an ability. So, for example, if I have an Eldrazi Monument out, and you then play Humility, I'll have 2/2 dudes without flying, but that are indestructible. The new change will allow Indestructible that's been granted by outside sources to be taken away by Humility and Humble type effects.
They're making the keyword Indestructible, so some cards that grant indestructible will be a bit awkward, but in the end, it's better to avoid confusion such as happened above.