My guess is the new card type are all going to be alternate win conditions, possibly ones that you play face down at the start of the game. You'd draft a Conspiracy, and then draft your deck to go with it. It'd add a new dimension to the usual multiplayer politics.
That'd actually be really cool if they make the win conditions interesting enough. An interesting way to change the dynamic of multiplayer. It reminds me a bit of the Battlestar Galactica board game, (If you've never played it, get 4 friends, go in on buying a copy online and play it. It's well worth the price tag, even if you've never seen the show. I hadn't seen any of it when I first played.) every player starts the game with their own agenda and the game is totally dependent on getting people to blindly trust that you're not screwing them over.
I think I'm going to have to leave MTGS for at least a few months. My wife just told me that her uncle is offering to bring us on his annual trip to Alaska this year and it was an offer I couldn't refuse. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to leave control of the thread under someone else. CrustaceanCrusader is probably the most active one on this thread, so he's going to facilitate slow judgings for a couple months.
See you all later.
What an unfortunate set of fabricated circumstances.
I find myself notably perturbed by the absence of proper assessment. What could be the point of an activity such as this if it finds itself missing a large portion of the "Winner is Judge" that preceded it.
Borgmis, the Ultimate Lifeform3WR
Artifact Creature - Goblin Construct MR
Indestructible, first strike
Whenever Borgmis, the Ultimate Lifeform blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +8/+0 until end of turn. "He was just a regular goblin, then the simic took him in. We freed him of their bonds, and through artifice, gave him power beyond belief."
4/1
I find myself amused that cards not of a cyclical nature, 'vertical cycles' as you proles have a tendency of describing them, are considered a 'cycle' regardless. It is as if you assume this hypothetical loop plummets back to the common rarity following the pinnacle of rarity. It is more a linear progression than a 'cycle'.
Scrap Monitor4
Artifact Creature - Construct C Salvage - :symtap:, Sacrifice Scap Monitor: Add 2 to your mana pool, spend this mana only to cast artifact spells.
2/3
Scrap Hunter5
Artifact Creature - Contruct U
Whenever another artifact creature dies, put a +1/+1 counter on Scrap Hunter. Salvage - :symtap:, Sacrifice Scap Hunter: Add 1 to your mana pool for each +1/+1 counter on Scrap Hunter. Spend this mana only to cast artifact spells.
2/2
Scrap Regent8
Artifact Creature - Contruct R
Whenever you sacrifice another artifact creature, double the amount of mana in your mana pool. Salvage - :symtap:, Sacrifice Scap Regent: Add 1 to your mana pool for each artifact you control. Spend this mana only to cast artifact spells.
7/5
I have composed a query. Why have we been constrained to composing a card of sub-par quality? I cannot fathom that creating poor quality conceptual cards is a respected design philosophy.
Mox Sangrite0
Artifact T, Sacrifice another nonland permanent: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. "The bloodstone may be the key to our search for power. But harnessing it requires devastating sacrifices."
-Therum, Archartificer of the New Seekers of Carmot
I take exception to the implication that such an informally garbed water fowl is in the remote proximity to myself in terms of class. Your pathetic attempt at derisiveness is exclusively indicative of your own lack of sophistication.
This activity appears particularly enticing. I will endeavor to accomplish victory for the sake of my personal gratification.
Redefine5UUU
Sorcery M
Each player shuffles all nonland permanents he or she owns into his or her library, then for each card shuffled into his or her library this way that player searches for a card that shares a type with it and reveals it. Each player shuffles his or her library, then puts all cards revealed this way onto the battlefield.
That'd actually be really cool if they make the win conditions interesting enough. An interesting way to change the dynamic of multiplayer. It reminds me a bit of the Battlestar Galactica board game, (If you've never played it, get 4 friends, go in on buying a copy online and play it. It's well worth the price tag, even if you've never seen the show. I hadn't seen any of it when I first played.) every player starts the game with their own agenda and the game is totally dependent on getting people to blindly trust that you're not screwing them over.
What an unfortunate set of fabricated circumstances.
IIW: Sophisticated cards.
Evidently, this organization does not lack for class.
IIW: Sophisticated Cards
IIW: A sophisticated card.
I take exception to the implication that such an informally garbed water fowl is in the remote proximity to myself in terms of class. Your pathetic attempt at derisiveness is exclusively indicative of your own lack of sophistication.
I believe this satisfactory, however I am unqualified to speak to the opinions of my contemporaries.
No emoticon afforded by this message board is sufficiently sophisticated.
What, perchance, are you insinuating?
IIW: Sophisticated cards