Generic White Weene :w:
KickerLikeThing - If when you play this spell you have :w::w::w: in your mana pool
Generic White Weene into play with a +1/+1 Counter. One can summon any creature, but to improve that creature while it is being summoned is the true sign of an advanced mage.
1/1
Is this your personal opinion or do you have other sources?
It's my opinion based on the assumption that Odie's info is real. I don't know if it's real... but if it is, that's my guess.
But I was thinking more about Chutzpah X (If you have 6 or more mana in your mana pool, you may play this spell without paying its mana cost.) I think that it's too good when it works, and useless when it doesn't. Probably too swingy as a mechanic. I agree with RickCorgan that it's elegant, but I'm not that confident in it. Still, I might try it on a few cards in the NCSI forum.
flavor-wise it would make a whole lot of sense to create abilities that would help out a group of creatures with the same abilities, as opposed to the same creature type.
Remember, the theme of the block is supposedly 'guilds', not 'tribal' like onslaught. It would make sense if they used abilities as the guilds' glue rather than creature type. (not all black creatures would join the theiving guild, but there would be some blue and red creatures who would)
Also, since we're also speculating that they will be pushing multicolored play, it's a much better idea to use abilities rather than color for the mechanic as well. This way, one guild can presumably have members from each color, and their weave abilities would only affect them. cool.....
This is why I think that if weave isn't exactly as you've speculated, it'll be close. Since we've also heard of some kind of "affiliation", this could also work in that regard as well to really underscore the idea that a black creature and a red creature do have things in common, and can be friends and work together if they wanted to.
So, the abilities make sense, we only have to wait to find out the truth.
peace
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If your liver winds up in a dish with a little ruler next to it, there's something wrong with your liver." -Dr. Mahl, GI specialist, UB Med
I just noticed how well Chutzpah works with my Palouranos set's theme, monocolor. If it's real, I'm probably gonna love it. If it's not, at least I can use it!!
No, no, weave is where you have pentagon shaped cards overlaying each other. Also, it's a term from a new Wizards game, called Hecatomb. I doubt they are going to use it in both games.
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
-
Creature - Townsfolk (C)
Breakout (You may play Buttwanker Guildsman for .)
Haste, fear
3/3...how would you buttwank?
The way you present this, it looks like this new ability could just be a keywording of alternate mana costs, which would be cool but not exactly "new". Personally, I doubt that wizards would even try to make another balanced free mechanic, after the fiascos with Rewind etc. and Affinity. I just find it hard to believe they would be that dense. Then again, they have done stuff like Land Grant and the legates, neither of which were too powerful... but I still think we might be misunderstanding the mechanic. Odie, can you be any more specific?
I call Fake. WAY too early to get info this detailed on mechanics. Someone else pointed out that this mechanic shares a name with a mechanic from Hecatomb.
I'll give it a 2 out of 10 chance of being real.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"But then are we most in order when we are most out of order."-Jack Cade
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
I agree. I don't think they would mirror Glissa's ability as a mechanic, because she was supposed to be unique. And free spells have a history of being abusable. And the first would be no different than just giving you the mana back as part of the spells resolution, like Priest of Gix.
Well, to play devil's advocate for a second, the 'free' ability need not restrict players to monocolored play. Say a white creature cost , but had 'chutzpah' for 3 blue mana. The creature is cheaper if you play with both colors, but is a bit worse in monowhite. For that to work, the ability would need to have an 'if you control a plains...' type restriction to keep players from playing off-color spells for free. But if the block indeed focuses on two-color pairs, this ability could be worked into it as a benefit for playing both colors in a pair.
'flavorwise 'weave' sounds good as a named mechanic and ties in with the guild-theme (weaver-guilds are not unheared of)
Weave does sound interesting, but it'd be kind of lame. I mean "Weave Flying - +1,+1" would mean creatures w/ flying get +1,+1 until end of turn, right? Which is just unweildy.
Weave does sound interesting, but it'd be kind of lame. I mean "Weave Flying - +1,+1" would mean creatures w/ flying get +1,+1 until end of turn, right? Which is just unweildy.
I would expect it to be more like:
Knight's Strike 1W
Instant
Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
Weave - First Strike (Each creature with first strike gets +1/+1 until end of turn)
Obviously the wording is off, but you get the idea. The spell targets a creature, but the spell also effects each creature with the indicated ability. Otherwise it'd just be:
Knight's Strike 1W
Instant
Creatures with first strike get +1/+1 until end of turn.
I was just thinking how could "Chutzpah" work in a multicolored block.... maybe as long as you have the mana that matches the colors in a card. maybe something like
Blatent Growth 1UG
Sorcery
Chutzpah - 6 (If you have 6 or more mana that is Blue or Green in your mana pool, you may play this card without paying its casting cost)
Search your deck for a basic land and put it into play tapped. Then shuffle your library. Draw a card.
Well, to play devil's advocate for a second, the 'free' ability need not restrict players to monocolored play. Say a white creature cost , but had 'chutzpah' for 3 blue mana. The creature is cheaper if you play with both colors, but is a bit worse in monowhite. For that to work, the ability would need to have an 'if you control a plains...' type restriction to keep players from playing off-color spells for free. But if the block indeed focuses on two-color pairs, this ability could be worked into it as a benefit for playing both colors in a pair.
This is probably the best way to make this a multicolor mechanic.
Some interesting stuff here to be sure, I'm still quite surprised we've got no further towards finding out the full details of the Saviors mechanics, but i guess thats only a matter of days away...
*Prays for R_E's sources to reveal something today*
Weave is interesting enough, and fits in well with the 'guild aiding' abilities that have been speculated onthus far...
There was another "free" mechanic that showed up in Mirrodin block, just take a look at Deconstruct and Turn to Dust. They essentially do the reverse of the hypothetical mechanic, filtering your mana to green (at least in Deconstyruct's case). Did they break the environment wide open? Hardly. But then it was only two cards (and one very very narrow at that). Would a block theme based around this be broken? I have no way of saying for sure, Though cards that produce their mana back in a fair way (Priest of Gix, Deconstruct) don't really cause any problems. Even the Urza's 'free' spells would have probably been fine if they had just inserted a 'basic land' clause. Hell, even affinity would have been fine except for the artifact lands.
I think Wizards has learned it lesson, and if there is any sort of free mechanic, its been tested to death and found to be balanced, whic on the surface this seems to be.
Clearly, because WotC has done so well evaluating mechanics and costs in the last two years or so. Ohwaitasec...
Fact is, every set since Invasion has had some kind of cost-reduction mechanic. Invasion had gating. Odyssey had madness and to a certain extent threshold. Onslaught had morph. Mirrodin had affinity. Only Kamigawa doesn't, and in its place is card advantage via splicing. The next set will almost certainly have some kind of aggressively-costed mechanic system that will reduce costs in some way, and it will be part of the next set of strong constructed decks.
Clearly, because WotC has done so well evaluating mechanics and costs in the last two years or so. Ohwaitasec...
Fact is, every set since Invasion has had some kind of cost-reduction mechanic. Invasion had gating. Odyssey had madness and to a certain extent threshold. Onslaught had morph. Mirrodin had affinity. Only Kamigawa doesn't, and in its place is card advantage via splicing. The next set will almost certainly have some kind of aggressively-costed mechanic system that will reduce costs in some way, and it will be part of the next set of strong constructed decks.
Don't forget echo. I really think it was the defining ability that lead to the creature of all cost-reduction abilities. (Alternate casting costs could be considered as well.
affinity would have been fine except for the artifact lands.
Affinity would have been fine without the artifact lands, yeah. Or it would have been fine without so many powerful spells that had affinity. Or it would have been fine without so many cheap 0cc and 1cc artifacts to accelerate it. Basically, R&D just didn't test it deeply enough. They probably saw that it was good, but they probably didn't aggressively test it. If they had, they would have found that they made it a bit too good.
I think people are looking at mechanics the wrong way. A mechanic can't be broken. Only cards can be broken. You can make any mechanic you want, even all kinds of "free" spells. But if you tweak the cards the mechanic appears on enough, and watch how many powerful support cards you print around the same time, the game won't get stupid. Even "chutzpah" could be made to work, as long as they're careful, and test it aggressively.
Quote from Omega Gir »
I think Wizards has learned it lesson, and if there is any sort of free mechanic, its been tested to death and found to be balanced...
That's what people said when Masques came out. "Thank goodness, R&D finally understands the game, and we'll never see a broken card again!" Then came degenerate rebel decks, followed by something pretty much every second set that blew the game wide open.
Are they stupid? Are they screwing up? Did they stop testing again and get lazy? No. They're doing it on purpose in most cases. Skullclamp was no mistake - they knew they were going to release it to pump sales for one set, and ban it right after. Affinity was probably known to be a little abusive (how can you slap a bunch of artifact lands and some affinity spells together and NOT see that it's fast?) but they probably let it slide on purpose. Maybe they just didn't know exactly how good it would end up being. Regardless, I don't think they should have banned artifact lands - that's just silly. "Oops, a lot of people like affinity, it's getting played a lot, we'd better ban half the deck." :slant:
Affinity would have been fine without the artifact lands, yeah. Or it would have been fine without so many powerful spells that had affinity. Or it would have been fine without so many cheap 0cc and 1cc artifacts to accelerate it. Basically, R&D just didn't test it deeply enough. They probably saw that it was good, but they probably didn't aggressively test it. If they had, they would have found that they made it a bit too good.
:slant:
Affinity was fine pre-ravager. I mean, affinity had the tools... better tools, in the form of Atog. Add Skullclamp + Ravager and you have combo. Add Cranial Plating and you have super-agro.
And for hte last time: Affinity isn't broken, people are just sick of losing to the best deck in T2. Maybe enforcer shoulda cost 8, and surely Cranial Plating shouldn't have seen play... but affinity was a solid aggro-combo deck. With just a couple of broken non-affinity pieces... disciple and plating... and skullclamp.
Wow thats a prety negative attitude. I personaly see no motivation for wizards to take actions that will diliberatly anger players. There goal is after all to make money and that would cause them to lose money. I think the problem started when they decided to make an artifact block. So many things can go wrong when dealing with artifacts and when you make so many..........
I think you are definetly right about the mechanics. Any mechanic can be made its just that when dealing with free mechanics you need to be extra carefull.
Are they stupid? Are they screwing up? Did they stop testing again and get lazy? No. They're doing it on purpose in most cases. Skullclamp was no mistake - they knew they were going to release it to pump sales for one set, and ban it right after.
Not that I disagree with the general principle (I really doubt they expected to have to ban it, just because that is a pretty undesirable position for Wizards to be in, but I'm sure they knew Skullclamp would be wicked strong) -- but, uh, if this were true, don't you think they would've made Skullclamp rare too?
:biggrin3:
Not that I disagree with the general principle (I really doubt they expected to have to ban it, just because that is a pretty undesirable position for Wizards to be in, but I'm sure they knew Skullclamp would be wicked strong) -- but, uh, if this were true, don't you think they would've made Skullclamp rare too?
:biggrin3:
And not only that.. -not- put it in a precon deck?
One thing we all have to realize, though, is that R&D only really realized that Affinity was too good a month or so ago. This wouldn't have given them nearly enough time to back out of another free mechanic in Ravnica. So you can't really take into account them having "learned their lesson" with Mirrodin; undoubtedly they did, but maybe not soon enough.
I think by the time Skullclamp came out they knew that they were likely to have to ban it, but I don't think they designed it with that in mind and I do believe that what R&D said was true - that they hoped that players would come up with solutions to it that they missed. I don't blame WotC for clamp.
I do blame them for releasing reduced cost mechanics again and again, and being forced to either apologize for the environment or actively fix the environment again and again. I mean really, wasn't madness bad enough? Didn't they learn that good enablers + cheaper stuff is a dangerous road to go down, and results in a very static metagame? Apparently not, as it occurred 2 years down the road.
The main reason they banned the lands was because it was just not fun to play in a format where affinity was the dominant archetype, and that was showing up in tourney attendance, which in turn directly affects WotC's bottom line.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Generic White Weene :w:
KickerLikeThing - If when you play this spell you have :w::w::w: in your mana pool
Generic White Weene into play with a +1/+1 Counter.
One can summon any creature, but to improve that creature while it is being summoned is the true sign of an advanced mage.
1/1
It's my opinion based on the assumption that Odie's info is real. I don't know if it's real... but if it is, that's my guess.
But I was thinking more about Chutzpah X (If you have 6 or more mana in your mana pool, you may play this spell without paying its mana cost.) I think that it's too good when it works, and useless when it doesn't. Probably too swingy as a mechanic. I agree with RickCorgan that it's elegant, but I'm not that confident in it. Still, I might try it on a few cards in the NCSI forum.
.
Remember, the theme of the block is supposedly 'guilds', not 'tribal' like onslaught. It would make sense if they used abilities as the guilds' glue rather than creature type. (not all black creatures would join the theiving guild, but there would be some blue and red creatures who would)
Also, since we're also speculating that they will be pushing multicolored play, it's a much better idea to use abilities rather than color for the mechanic as well. This way, one guild can presumably have members from each color, and their weave abilities would only affect them. cool.....
This is why I think that if weave isn't exactly as you've speculated, it'll be close. Since we've also heard of some kind of "affiliation", this could also work in that regard as well to really underscore the idea that a black creature and a red creature do have things in common, and can be friends and work together if they wanted to.
So, the abilities make sense, we only have to wait to find out the truth.
peace
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Creature - Townsfolk (C)
Breakout (You may play Buttwanker Guildsman for .)
Haste, fear
3/3...how would you buttwank?
The way you present this, it looks like this new ability could just be a keywording of alternate mana costs, which would be cool but not exactly "new". Personally, I doubt that wizards would even try to make another balanced free mechanic, after the fiascos with Rewind etc. and Affinity. I just find it hard to believe they would be that dense. Then again, they have done stuff like Land Grant and the legates, neither of which were too powerful... but I still think we might be misunderstanding the mechanic. Odie, can you be any more specific? -
I'll give it a 2 out of 10 chance of being real.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
First, the top mechanic is a free mechanic. I could be wrong, but I don't expect wizards to make another free mechanic after affinity for a few years.
Second, that mechanic seems to be drastically at odds with the 'lots of gold cards' mechanic we expect the set to have.
And on weave: It doesn't seem like a very interesting ability, or one which you could make lots of cards around. I could be wrong, but...
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Weave does sound interesting, but it'd be kind of lame. I mean "Weave Flying - +1,+1" would mean creatures w/ flying get +1,+1 until end of turn, right? Which is just unweildy.
I would expect it to be more like:
Knight's Strike 1W
Instant
Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
Weave - First Strike (Each creature with first strike gets +1/+1 until end of turn)
Obviously the wording is off, but you get the idea. The spell targets a creature, but the spell also effects each creature with the indicated ability. Otherwise it'd just be:
Knight's Strike 1W
Instant
Creatures with first strike get +1/+1 until end of turn.
No need for a keyword then.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Blatent Growth 1UG
Sorcery
Chutzpah - 6 (If you have 6 or more mana that is Blue or Green in your mana pool, you may play this card without paying its casting cost)
Search your deck for a basic land and put it into play tapped. Then shuffle your library. Draw a card.
This is probably the best way to make this a multicolor mechanic.
*Prays for R_E's sources to reveal something today*
Weave is interesting enough, and fits in well with the 'guild aiding' abilities that have been speculated onthus far...
I think Wizards has learned it lesson, and if there is any sort of free mechanic, its been tested to death and found to be balanced, whic on the surface this seems to be.
Fact is, every set since Invasion has had some kind of cost-reduction mechanic. Invasion had gating. Odyssey had madness and to a certain extent threshold. Onslaught had morph. Mirrodin had affinity. Only Kamigawa doesn't, and in its place is card advantage via splicing. The next set will almost certainly have some kind of aggressively-costed mechanic system that will reduce costs in some way, and it will be part of the next set of strong constructed decks.
Affinity would have been fine without the artifact lands, yeah. Or it would have been fine without so many powerful spells that had affinity. Or it would have been fine without so many cheap 0cc and 1cc artifacts to accelerate it. Basically, R&D just didn't test it deeply enough. They probably saw that it was good, but they probably didn't aggressively test it. If they had, they would have found that they made it a bit too good.
I think people are looking at mechanics the wrong way. A mechanic can't be broken. Only cards can be broken. You can make any mechanic you want, even all kinds of "free" spells. But if you tweak the cards the mechanic appears on enough, and watch how many powerful support cards you print around the same time, the game won't get stupid. Even "chutzpah" could be made to work, as long as they're careful, and test it aggressively.
That's what people said when Masques came out. "Thank goodness, R&D finally understands the game, and we'll never see a broken card again!" Then came degenerate rebel decks, followed by something pretty much every second set that blew the game wide open.
Are they stupid? Are they screwing up? Did they stop testing again and get lazy? No. They're doing it on purpose in most cases. Skullclamp was no mistake - they knew they were going to release it to pump sales for one set, and ban it right after. Affinity was probably known to be a little abusive (how can you slap a bunch of artifact lands and some affinity spells together and NOT see that it's fast?) but they probably let it slide on purpose. Maybe they just didn't know exactly how good it would end up being. Regardless, I don't think they should have banned artifact lands - that's just silly. "Oops, a lot of people like affinity, it's getting played a lot, we'd better ban half the deck." :slant:
.
Affinity was fine pre-ravager. I mean, affinity had the tools... better tools, in the form of Atog. Add Skullclamp + Ravager and you have combo. Add Cranial Plating and you have super-agro.
And for hte last time: Affinity isn't broken, people are just sick of losing to the best deck in T2. Maybe enforcer shoulda cost 8, and surely Cranial Plating shouldn't have seen play... but affinity was a solid aggro-combo deck. With just a couple of broken non-affinity pieces... disciple and plating... and skullclamp.
I think you are definetly right about the mechanics. Any mechanic can be made its just that when dealing with free mechanics you need to be extra carefull.
High Mage of Frontier Knowledge in the [Izzet] clan:symru: Want to know the secret to chaos Click Here
Not that I disagree with the general principle (I really doubt they expected to have to ban it, just because that is a pretty undesirable position for Wizards to be in, but I'm sure they knew Skullclamp would be wicked strong) -- but, uh, if this were true, don't you think they would've made Skullclamp rare too?
:biggrin3:
And not only that.. -not- put it in a precon deck?
I do blame them for releasing reduced cost mechanics again and again, and being forced to either apologize for the environment or actively fix the environment again and again. I mean really, wasn't madness bad enough? Didn't they learn that good enablers + cheaper stuff is a dangerous road to go down, and results in a very static metagame? Apparently not, as it occurred 2 years down the road.
The main reason they banned the lands was because it was just not fun to play in a format where affinity was the dominant archetype, and that was showing up in tourney attendance, which in turn directly affects WotC's bottom line.