And nothing that you said is objective or fact. You must play Mono Red.Quote from Kaiyla Han »Quote from Etherium Sage »Quote from Kaiyla Han »So much for their "promise" to stop printing the Jacestice league so much.
>They never said they'd stop printing Gatewatch walkers altogether.
>Jace got only 1 card since the GW was a thing.
>Jace is the only GW walker we see or even get any hints about in this leak, and other than him, Ajani is the only one who we may or may not see in Ixalan at all.
Seriously, come on.
Jace is also the most boring and uninspiring walker. Just like Superman is boring and unispiring.
From what I see, and what I can assume... Is Jace is isolated, alone, and probably screwed. Vraska has a vendetta against him. I wanted him killed since Ravnica, maybe he's finally going to get killed now.
Especially after he became the living guildpact and abandoned his duties he deserves to die.
-
- GildanBladeborn
- Registered User
-
Member for 7 years, 5 months, and 16 days
Last active Fri, Nov, 3 2017 11:43:31
- 0 Followers
- 105 Total Posts
- 34 Thanks
2
You are free to house-rule them in, but they are never going to be part of the Vintage card pool anymore than a custom fan-created set of cards would be, so they are never going to be legal in Commander, regardless of how well they function within the rules.
2
1
1
It's also worth pointing out that while wheel of the sun and moon does negate the downside of exiling cards with cycling if they would go to your graveyard for reasons other than being cycled there, it also totally hoses your ability to cast cycling cards from your graveyard (the reason you would run this artifactin the first place) by preventing you from putting cards into it at all. Mixing a form of graveyard recursion with a card that turns your graveyard off strikes me as something of a nonbo.
1
You are debating basic semantics to argue that WotC is sticking to their word, but what you are arguing is nonsense because the example you keep returning to was a 1-off exception that, at the time players were told to expect more complete cycles in blocks, was from a set that came out 6 years prior. If they were talking about Nimbus Maze, there would not have been a reason to say anything in the first place: they were already not repeating that scenario, and had been for the better part of a decade.
Releasing 4 to 5 new ally color dual land types for every 1 cycle they complete, usually years later (if ever), for the enemy color pairs has pretty much been the pattern for most of Magic's history, you are arguing that 4 years ago the players were told to expect exactly that going forward, and got excited. That does not make any sense.
2
...Are you for real? For the final time, let's examine why I keep telling you that your assertions are utter nonsense (not the idea of completing land cycles, that's something a great many players want and a constant source of frustration whenever WotC does not): For cards to be considered a cycle, the design must be such that each shares certain mechanical similarities, such that having seen one example the text for other cards in the cycle can be partially/completely guessed at. For a cycle to be complete it must have a representative card for each color combination in the scope of the cycle. If that is a set of 5 mono-color spells, or lands that only produce 1 color of mana, then 5 would be a "complete cycle", because there are 5 colors in Magic. When you add in a second color, you now require 10 cards to comprise a full cycle, because there are 5 colors in Magic.
You are arguing that what Sam Stoddard meant when he said "we are moving more towards printing full cycles of lands in a block" was that WotC intended to release 5 lands in either the ally or enemy color pairs in any given bock, and that whenever they do just that, they are living up to their word. Here is why that is ludicrous - the part of that sentence where the words "we are moving toward" is, cannot possibly be interpreted (by a reasonable person) to mean "continue doing exactly what we always have since Revised", because that makes no sense whatsoever; if the end result is the status quo, there is nothing to move towards. This is the clearest possible repudiation of your argument and the fact you refuse to acknowledge it is maddening. Particularly because every single "incomplete (ie, ally colors only) cycle of lands that produce 2 different colors of mana are not only from the same block, they were printed in the same set. Full stop.
You seem to think that stuff like the Future Sight ally-color duals were not a weird exception (a partial cycle itself comprised of 5 other incomplete cycles), but across the entire history of Magic and its various types of "dual lands", there are only two other sets of those lands that break the standard 5 ally/enemy breakdown: the tainted lands from Torment (a cycle of 4 cards, 1 for every color pair with black in it), and the tribal lands from Lorwyn (a mixture of ally and enemy color dual lands that corresponded to the colors each tribe was in). That's it, a set containing all 5 ally color producing lands and then maybe years and years later the corresponding 5 enemy color producing lands is the long established pattern, so when a Magic developer tells us multiple times that their design philosophy is shifting towards printing full cycles of lands in blocks, there's just no grounds to interpret that statement to conclude "5 lands in just the ally colors is a full cycle" like you have.
That a full cycle of dual lands by definition must contain 10 lands (at least) or be considered incomplete, that's not something I need to prove, it's how numbers work, but I went the extra mile and provided statements from the developers to back up all my points, and the cards themselves support my position - if you continue arguing that WotC has in fact not said one thing and then done the opposite, Sam Stoddard's statements must be pointless and nonsensical for your interpretation to be correct (one does not "move towards" continuing to do the same thing you've already been doing for 20 years). Unless you are seriously going to suggest that his statements are in fact nonsense, the only possible number of lands he could be referring to when he says a "full cycle", in the context of dual lands, is 10.
Telling me to "play with what I have" is both patronizing and completely besides the point.
3
As ridiculous as most of the things you complain about are (like suggesting WotC should have made Rhonas' Last Stand go from questionable to straight out garbage by costing it at 3 CMC, presumably because it offended your sense of symmetry by costing less than the other 2 cards in the cycle that were spoiled at the time), almost NONE of those things are indicative of bad design. In point of fact, almost all of the complaints everyone makes about cards on this forum can be blamed on Development. Why does this card cost so much, it would be so much better if it didn't have this clause, etc etc... odds are the version Design handed off did cost less, and didn't have those riders that render it basically unplayable. It may also have been horrendously broken and cause no end of complaint for entirely different reasons if Development passed it through unchanged, no way to know for sure unless they release an M-Files article on it.
MaRo is responsible for a lot of stuff, but gets blamed for even more.
2
The 3 drop is a fine limited card, the 1 drop is just garbage.
1
1