I like that you get the mana source before you are attacked.
Don't really like the idea of asking everyone at the table to attack me, but I'm sure there are decks that can take advantage of that.
That's a lot of risk for a single lotus petal per turn.
Are you talking about the risk of playing a 4 cost enchantment? Or is there some other risk to this card I'm not seeing? It seems like all upside decent imo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My favorite flavor text: Time of Heroes
Feel free to tell me yours!
That's a lot of risk for a single lotus petal per turn.
Are you talking about the risk of playing a 4 cost enchantment? Or is there some other risk to this card I'm not seeing? It seems like all upside decent imo.
I think the risk is forcing players to attack you. Seems like a high enough risk to me. At the very least, forcing your opponents to attack you is definitely not an upside.
That's a lot of risk for a single lotus petal per turn.
Is it? If they wanted, they would attack you anyway but this forces them to attack even if they don't want to. In 1v1, this is definitely an upside. Not so sure about multiplayer, but it should work out if you have some fat blockers.
Hmmmm... seems risky to me. Requiring attacks against you for 1 treasure token doesn't seem like a great plan especially at 4cmc. Maybe in the big fatty Dino enrage deck. Still doesn't sound all that great.
I guess all the risk talk is about EDH. It's good to specify the format your opinion is based on.
In two-players game, forcing your opponent is only a downside when playing with too-cautious beginners, otherwsie you don't really care.
Given that a similar enchantment that created eldrazi token was in standard for a while, had additional upside attached and did not see play, I doubt this will be successful. It does combo with the alt-win-con black enchantment to double the speed of the win-con.
We /could/ see a janky standard deck with the treasure counterspell.
Could be neat in the right edh deck I guess. Effects like Propaganda and Ghostly Prison counteract the downside as this can't force your opponent to pay for them, so if you have some sort of pillow fort going on it could just be free mana every turn. Honestly still doesn't seem that good, though.
Seems bad, because it's so long before you are paid back. Maybe if it said "at the beginning of EACH end step" it'd be playable.
The card does have significant downside in casual multiplayer because often players will want to attack for some trigger or just to do something, but not really have a target in mind. This card makes you the schelling point for player to attack in those situations.
But maybe in a Kazuul, Tyrant of the Cliffs deck.
I wouldn't use it in any multiplayer environment but in a one-on-one game I would definitely use this, especially if my creatures are at least as good as the opponent's creatures or I am using creatures into which they do not wish to attack such as Gifted Aetherborn or an enrage dinosaur. This definitely would have been better with cards like Immolating Glare but nothing is perfect.
I think the risk is forcing players to attack you. Seems like a high enough risk to me. At the very least, forcing your opponents to attack you is definitely not an upside.
In multiplayer it is not necessarily good (but "can" if you prepare for it).
In normal magic and especially limited, this will "force" the opponent to suicide attack into your big dinosaur.
Which is a hilarious flavor win, a dinosaur that sits on a island with treasures and uses it to lure people to eat.
----
If your opponent wants to attack anyway, it will do nothing, if they dont want to attack, they force them, which is a upside for you.
The treasures help you to get the big dinos out or win with something else treasure related.
With "vehicles" in the set, it might force them to crew a bigger ship to attack with it, which you can then kill on the defense.
Anyway, forcing the opponent to attack is actually a real benefit, its almost never bad, outside of multiplayer.
Very interesting card, in the right deck this becomes all upside. Forcing opponents to attack you gets rid of at least one of their blockers even without any kind of protection, worst case you take the damage in EDH with 40 life no big deal (unless it's a Blightsteel Colossus or something, then you were probably going to lose anyways). This screws up combat for the whole table as well which is great. If you combine this with cards that benefit you from them attacking then this gets even better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"People are the worst. The worst thing about music is that people play it." - Mike Patton
I think the risk is forcing players to attack you. Seems like a high enough risk to me. At the very least, forcing your opponents to attack you is definitely not an upside.
In multiplayer it is not necessarily good (but "can" if you prepare for it).
In normal magic and especially limited, this will "force" the opponent to suicide attack into your big dinosaur.
Which is a hilarious flavor win, a dinosaur that sits on a island with treasures and uses it to lure people to eat.
----
If your opponent wants to attack anyway, it will do nothing, if they dont want to attack, they force them, which is a upside for you.
The treasures help you to get the big dinos out or win with something else treasure related.
With "vehicles" in the set, it might force them to crew a bigger ship to attack with it, which you can then kill on the defense.
Anyway, forcing the opponent to attack is actually a real benefit, its almost never bad, outside of multiplayer.
That is fair. My initial evaluation was based on multiplayer Magic. In 1v1, you are right that it probably is more of an upside as it forces an attack they normally wouldn't make (and if they would make it, they would attack anyway).
That's a lot of risk for a single lotus petal per turn.
Are you talking about the risk of playing a 4 cost enchantment? Or is there some other risk to this card I'm not seeing? It seems like all upside decent imo.
I think the risk is forcing players to attack you. Seems like a high enough risk to me. At the very least, forcing your opponents to attack you is definitely not an upside.
If it were optimal for the opponent to attack you they would anyway. It isn't a huge upside, but it is actually an upside because it forces them into potentially bad attacks.
Edit: Apologies for restating what had already been said.
I'm not a huge fan of it outside of decks that are designed to control the combat step - in that, I think it's fun.
On a totally unrelated note, Shivam is a really poor replacement for Nate on that podcast. Can't stand Shivam - I've actually stopped listening to their podcast because they made him a regular.
It goes really well in RG ramp, if there is such an archetype after rotation. Unless thier opponent's creatures have evasion this will mean that oppoent will lose a creature on their combat phase, a RG deck will almost certainly have bigger creatures on the battlefield and therefore will rarely trade when blocking.
I really wish it was at the beginning of each opponent's upkeep you gain the Treasure token. Then it would feel more like they are attacking you because you are gaining something on their turn, plus it would be better in multiplayer, while not being too pushed in 1v1. As is gaining 1 Treasure token and forcing 3 other players to attack me is not good. In 1v1, I feel like they will most likely want to attack me anyway. I think this card was very close, but needed some re-wording to make it playable.
I really wish it was at the beginning of each opponent's upkeep you gain the Treasure token. Then it would feel more like they are attacking you because you are gaining something on their turn, plus it would be better in multiplayer, while not being too pushed in 1v1. As is gaining 1 Treasure token and forcing 3 other players to attack me is not good. In 1v1, I feel like they will most likely want to attack me anyway. I think this card was very close, but needed some re-wording to make it playable.
Hell, it could just say that you get a treasure token at the beginning of each opp's upkeep, and you'd get attacked by everyone in multiplayer even without the requirement that they attack.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I like that you get the mana source before you are attacked.
Don't really like the idea of asking everyone at the table to attack me, but I'm sure there are decks that can take advantage of that.
Are you talking about the risk of playing a 4 cost enchantment? Or is there some other risk to this card I'm not seeing? It seems like all upside decent imo.
Feel free to tell me yours!
Is it? If they wanted, they would attack you anyway but this forces them to attack even if they don't want to. In 1v1, this is definitely an upside. Not so sure about multiplayer, but it should work out if you have some fat blockers.
In two-players game, forcing your opponent is only a downside when playing with too-cautious beginners, otherwsie you don't really care.
Given that a similar enchantment that created eldrazi token was in standard for a while, had additional upside attached and did not see play, I doubt this will be successful. It does combo with the alt-win-con black enchantment to double the speed of the win-con.
We /could/ see a janky standard deck with the treasure counterspell.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
The card does have significant downside in casual multiplayer because often players will want to attack for some trigger or just to do something, but not really have a target in mind. This card makes you the schelling point for player to attack in those situations.
But maybe in a Kazuul, Tyrant of the Cliffs deck.
It DOES seem like a fun card for Zedruu, doesn't it?
In multiplayer it is not necessarily good (but "can" if you prepare for it).
In normal magic and especially limited, this will "force" the opponent to suicide attack into your big dinosaur.
Which is a hilarious flavor win, a dinosaur that sits on a island with treasures and uses it to lure people to eat.
----
If your opponent wants to attack anyway, it will do nothing, if they dont want to attack, they force them, which is a upside for you.
The treasures help you to get the big dinos out or win with something else treasure related.
With "vehicles" in the set, it might force them to crew a bigger ship to attack with it, which you can then kill on the defense.
Anyway, forcing the opponent to attack is actually a real benefit, its almost never bad, outside of multiplayer.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
If it were optimal for the opponent to attack you they would anyway. It isn't a huge upside, but it is actually an upside because it forces them into potentially bad attacks.
Edit: Apologies for restating what had already been said.
On a totally unrelated note, Shivam is a really poor replacement for Nate on that podcast. Can't stand Shivam - I've actually stopped listening to their podcast because they made him a regular.
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
I Stream MTGO on Twitch: broodwarjc
I also post recordings of those streams on Youtube: broodwarjcavidgamer
Standard Deck:
BUPirates
Modern Deck:
B8-Rack
Hell, it could just say that you get a treasure token at the beginning of each opp's upkeep, and you'd get attacked by everyone in multiplayer even without the requirement that they attack.