There probably won't even be a movie. Just because Fox got the rights, doesn't mean they will actually make use of it.
Tons of intellectual property options are bought by Hollywood studios. Most of them don't become anything. In most cases they are simply held until the rights expire. Sometimes they get sold to other studios if there is interest. Maybe they even go into pre-production, but the vast majority do not actually get green light to be actually made.
Movies cost a lot of money to make and there are many factors that go into how Hollywood "Does Business". One of the prime examples of a major franchise deal that fell through was the Halo movie. Fighting over money between the studio and the producers ultimately doomed it. You can read up on it here: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/halo-movie-generation-xbox/
I'm not sure exactly whats so appealing about Demonic Bargain. What is X? I am assuming it has something to do with the cost because the card doesn't specify where the counters are based on so I can only assume that this card will have X in its casting cost somewhere right?
If that's the case, let's look at the options for casting cost.
XB is probably the cheapest this card can be.
At 1B: It is worse than sign in blood
At 2B: It is worse than sign in blood
At 3B and up: It is worse than phyrexian arena
Any other cost it is worse than Phyrexian Arena. Am I not seeing something? What's so appealing about it?
@Guyincognito: Or maybe the player is willing to be patient? I don't understand why people WANT the game (or ANY tabletop game, for that matter) to be fast-paced. I thought Magic was supposed to be a relaxing game, not a frenetic one...
That's why I said casual. In any other competitive environment it definitely matters.
I can't believe Revenge of Necromancy is actually winning the poll. That card is terrible. It simply does nothing without something else: discard.
A realization that came to me when speculating on card power levels from new sets was: Cards that don't do anything on their own are very bad and never see play unless its part of a game winning combo: Donate, or is very synergistic with other cards in your deck: Astral Slide.
The reason is simple: You have invested a card and the mana to play it, you can't afford for that card to just sit there doing nothing.
Not to mention this card is incredibly narrow and doesn't do anything for a deck not dedicated to discard. It may be fun in some casual decks, but will never see any play outside of that. How about voting for something that might actually see some general use instead of this?
This is actually very good secondary market engineering for Modern. Wizards really wants to support Modern, and they know that lands are a barrier of entry. They don't want to make the same mistake that Legacy has with insanely high priced lands. Dumping a large amount into this current block will mean much cheaper prices for Modern once they rotate out of Standard. They are also attempting to solve some of the problems with other high priced cards with MM, so this makes sense.
I wouldn't be surprised if they print all 10 of the buddy lands in the next core set and keep them a staple in all future core sets like they used to do with the painlands.
Everything is being planned to keep manabase costs as low as possible, which i think is a very good thing for the game overall. Rare lands help sell sets because everyone needs them, so reprinting rare lands not only helps sell packs, they also put more into circulation which helps reduce their cost on the secondary market. It's win-win.
As for the fetchlands, I believe we will see a reprinting of them eventually, probably sometime after shocks rotate out of standard. They could reprint the allied ones, the enemy ones, or even all 10; I'm not sure which is more likely. Another possibility that I have speculated is banning the enemy fetchlands from Modern and never reprinting fetchlands again. I don't think this is likely since people don't like having their high priced cards banned, but it would reduce the manabase costs even more. Also I seem to remember Wotc stating fetchlands are bad for the game since they create unnecessary shuffling and slows games down; which might be another reason for not reprinting them.
The seer seems good only in certain situations. He can be good against top heavy decks, but he also seems really bad against mono-red or BR zombies. I'm not sure if I would ever maindeck it. Maybe it can be good as a sideboard card? Giving both players the card I don't feels is a very big advantage for the controller, but a 4/4 flyer for 4 is pretty good.
The only way I can think of to make infinite mana with only 2 cards is this and Tidewater Minion. Is there any other ways to do it? I can see some self mill deck with 2 Fatestitchers being unearthed also going infinite with this but that would mean 3 cards.
Back in the early 2000's, I traded away 4 Guru lands: Island, Swamp, Forest, Mountain to a store in order to get standard cards I needed at the time (Skizziks and Blazing Specters).
I also traded in birds of paradise (at the time worth 20), to the same store in order to get my playset of Force of Wills at only 8 each.
The Rock is historically a GB board control deck. I have played them a lot throughout the years. It started with Plaguelord and Hermit giving a good way to kill creatures in play.
The Apocalypse set is what really turned the Rock into a powerhouse deck. It employed the same strategy of controlling the board, but did it better by just gumming up the board with value creatures like wall of blossoms and yavimaya elder. Opponents had to over commit to the board and then pernicious deed would just sweep them.
The Rock generally wins with card advantage and attrition like a traditional blue control deck would. The end game usually ends with recursion of threats with genesis, and volrath's stronghold. Back then, graveyard hate wasn't common and this was a very powerful way to trump even blue's "all counterspell" type control decks.
This kind of deck simply does not exist anymore. Threats are generally more powerful so most decks are better off having some sort of proactive strategy. Even traditional UW control decks these days have some sort of light threat like stoneforge.
Calling a deck like Jund "Rock" is simply wrong. Jund is a proactive strategy that actively plays threats. Rock shouldn't be used to call all GB decks either because it just adds to the confusion of what it is.
+1: Shuffle up to 1 target card in a graveyard into it's owners library.
Based upon the "restocking your library or messing with your opponents best-laid plans" part of it. As well as it would be synergistic with his ultimate as you could shuffle their bomb into their deck then fish it out with the ultimate next turn, whereas you couldn't if it was just stacking it to the top of the deck.
If that is what it is, then the current version is better. That ability is very minor and does next to nothing. At least the current +1 actually does something relevant and has an effect on the board.
The proxy has 0 rules text on it at all. Its just a checklist, so you can mark what card it is supposed to be. When you play said card, you can go do-dab the card you need.
You obviously didn't bother to read my post correctly.
Ok so according to twitter, the checklist proxy card are all the same. It's literally just a list of all the transform cards on one side and the magic back on the other. You use a pen or something to mark which card it is suppose to represent.
The thing is that, in rule terms, the objects in your library/hand are "cards." So (unless you're playing with sufficiently opaque sleeves and choose to put the transform card in your deck), the checklist card is the "real card" as far as the rules are concerned. This may seem pedantic, but it really is the crucial distinction. Allowing "cards" to exist in a player's library/deck without a standard Magic back would have been a total rules/gameplay disaster, and that's what a lot of people were talking about when they were discussing "2-sided cards."
Agreed that this implementation does create some logistical hassles, but when I thought (based on how they unveiled this) that they'd allowed the former idea to see print, I was pretty irked. I'm looking forward to this set, and that mechanic would have just killed it.
What I am trying to say is that if you are trading for one of these cards the card you trade for and is worth money is the double-sided card; not the proxy since the double-sided card is required, the proxy isn't (only if you don't have sleeves). I'm not talking about the in game rules. It's obvious you need to have the double-sided card, if you only had the proxy, you wouldn't be able to tell what was the rules text when it gets transformed unless you had a smartphone or something official to look it up and not get accused of cheating.
Ugh, I wish they hadn't announced this by (apparently) saying "Transform cards are double-sided!"
That's not really what's going on here... the thing you actually put in your deck (i.e., the "card", as the rules + everyone calls it) has a regular card back. You just use the 2-sided thing instead of the "card" to represent a Transform permanent in play.
That creates some hassles for draft, but its not the end of the world. But by making the announcement in a sensational way ("2-sided cards!"), they were probably hoping to generate excitement and, it seems, mostly just created confusion and pissed a lot of people off. I know some people were really happy about it, but it still seems like a lousy way to unveil something they knew would be controversial.
The double-sided card is the real card. The one with the regular back is just a proxy. You may use the proxy if you want or if you don't have sleeves, or you can just use the real double-sided card if you have sleeves for them.
It seems like an incredibly inelegant way to do things. The proxy card isn't worth anything and you can't play it without actually having the real double-sided card somewhere with you. Newer players however, might not get this and think the proxy is the real card since it has the regular magic back? I don't know if this is the case. We will just need more information on what their solution is and how it works.
I don't think Rewind is good for anything. I would certainly play Cryptic Command over it in almost any deck, especially a fish deck (which was not the intent of this thread). Counter-Draw is exactly what control decks want because you are up a card. It goes towards the overall goal of burying them in card advantage.
Fish decks want to deploy threats and have counters to back them up. The counters they want are generally free like daze, force, or mental misstep. Rewind is not free. It costs 4 mana which is way more then you would ever want in any fish deck. If I was going to play something like merfolk in modern I would first consider the cheapest counterspells available like spell snare, remand, or mana leak (maybe even disrupting shoal?).
The decks with Mistbind Clique/snakes/lots of flash creatures seems more aggro-controllish then what I was intending. My goal was to make a draw-go deck with lots of 2 for 1s. Cryptic counters and draws, spellstutter counters and gets a guy, threads and shackles steal creatures, etc.
The areas where Rewind would be good seem pretty narrow to me. In most cases counter+draw just seems better then untapping lands. What are the things to do after untapping? Play a guy? Seems like something an aggro-control deck wants to do.
Tons of intellectual property options are bought by Hollywood studios. Most of them don't become anything. In most cases they are simply held until the rights expire. Sometimes they get sold to other studios if there is interest. Maybe they even go into pre-production, but the vast majority do not actually get green light to be actually made.
Movies cost a lot of money to make and there are many factors that go into how Hollywood "Does Business". One of the prime examples of a major franchise deal that fell through was the Halo movie. Fighting over money between the studio and the producers ultimately doomed it. You can read up on it here: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/halo-movie-generation-xbox/
If that's the case, let's look at the options for casting cost.
XB is probably the cheapest this card can be.
At 1B: It is worse than sign in blood
At 2B: It is worse than sign in blood
At 3B and up: It is worse than phyrexian arena
Any other cost it is worse than Phyrexian Arena. Am I not seeing something? What's so appealing about it?
That's why I said casual. In any other competitive environment it definitely matters.
A realization that came to me when speculating on card power levels from new sets was: Cards that don't do anything on their own are very bad and never see play unless its part of a game winning combo: Donate, or is very synergistic with other cards in your deck: Astral Slide.
The reason is simple: You have invested a card and the mana to play it, you can't afford for that card to just sit there doing nothing.
Not to mention this card is incredibly narrow and doesn't do anything for a deck not dedicated to discard. It may be fun in some casual decks, but will never see any play outside of that. How about voting for something that might actually see some general use instead of this?
I wouldn't be surprised if they print all 10 of the buddy lands in the next core set and keep them a staple in all future core sets like they used to do with the painlands.
Everything is being planned to keep manabase costs as low as possible, which i think is a very good thing for the game overall. Rare lands help sell sets because everyone needs them, so reprinting rare lands not only helps sell packs, they also put more into circulation which helps reduce their cost on the secondary market. It's win-win.
As for the fetchlands, I believe we will see a reprinting of them eventually, probably sometime after shocks rotate out of standard. They could reprint the allied ones, the enemy ones, or even all 10; I'm not sure which is more likely. Another possibility that I have speculated is banning the enemy fetchlands from Modern and never reprinting fetchlands again. I don't think this is likely since people don't like having their high priced cards banned, but it would reduce the manabase costs even more. Also I seem to remember Wotc stating fetchlands are bad for the game since they create unnecessary shuffling and slows games down; which might be another reason for not reprinting them.
I also traded in birds of paradise (at the time worth 20), to the same store in order to get my playset of Force of Wills at only 8 each.
The Apocalypse set is what really turned the Rock into a powerhouse deck. It employed the same strategy of controlling the board, but did it better by just gumming up the board with value creatures like wall of blossoms and yavimaya elder. Opponents had to over commit to the board and then pernicious deed would just sweep them.
The Rock generally wins with card advantage and attrition like a traditional blue control deck would. The end game usually ends with recursion of threats with genesis, and volrath's stronghold. Back then, graveyard hate wasn't common and this was a very powerful way to trump even blue's "all counterspell" type control decks.
This kind of deck simply does not exist anymore. Threats are generally more powerful so most decks are better off having some sort of proactive strategy. Even traditional UW control decks these days have some sort of light threat like stoneforge.
Calling a deck like Jund "Rock" is simply wrong. Jund is a proactive strategy that actively plays threats. Rock shouldn't be used to call all GB decks either because it just adds to the confusion of what it is.
Sorry for going off topic.
If that is what it is, then the current version is better. That ability is very minor and does next to nothing. At least the current +1 actually does something relevant and has an effect on the board.
You obviously didn't bother to read my post correctly.
What I am trying to say is that if you are trading for one of these cards the card you trade for and is worth money is the double-sided card; not the proxy since the double-sided card is required, the proxy isn't (only if you don't have sleeves). I'm not talking about the in game rules. It's obvious you need to have the double-sided card, if you only had the proxy, you wouldn't be able to tell what was the rules text when it gets transformed unless you had a smartphone or something official to look it up and not get accused of cheating.
The double-sided card is the real card. The one with the regular back is just a proxy. You may use the proxy if you want or if you don't have sleeves, or you can just use the real double-sided card if you have sleeves for them.
It seems like an incredibly inelegant way to do things. The proxy card isn't worth anything and you can't play it without actually having the real double-sided card somewhere with you. Newer players however, might not get this and think the proxy is the real card since it has the regular magic back? I don't know if this is the case. We will just need more information on what their solution is and how it works.
Fish decks want to deploy threats and have counters to back them up. The counters they want are generally free like daze, force, or mental misstep. Rewind is not free. It costs 4 mana which is way more then you would ever want in any fish deck. If I was going to play something like merfolk in modern I would first consider the cheapest counterspells available like spell snare, remand, or mana leak (maybe even disrupting shoal?).
The decks with Mistbind Clique/snakes/lots of flash creatures seems more aggro-controllish then what I was intending. My goal was to make a draw-go deck with lots of 2 for 1s. Cryptic counters and draws, spellstutter counters and gets a guy, threads and shackles steal creatures, etc.
The areas where Rewind would be good seem pretty narrow to me. In most cases counter+draw just seems better then untapping lands. What are the things to do after untapping? Play a guy? Seems like something an aggro-control deck wants to do.