Now this is a good modal DFC! Early on it's a land, lategame it removes a blocker and adds some extra damage to the board. Act of Treason is only really good for closing out a game, so I don't mind paying an extra 1R. The only situation both sides are straight up bad is when you have fallen way behind. I think this might even be the best Act of Treason ever printed.
Please, mill me. Mill my important cards. Mill my lands. Mill it all. Because I will still deal 20 damage before you can mill 45 cards most every time.
I think people are too hard on the dfc lands. They have the potential to be good. I know the spell sides tend to cost a bit more than it looks like they should, but there's always been a premium to versatility and sometimes it's worth it.
The ability to reduce mana screw and mana flood at the deck construction level is something that we sorely need more of.
Now this is a good modal DFC! Early on it's a land, lategame it removes a blocker and adds some extra damage to the board. Act of Treason is only really good for closing out a game, so I don't mind paying an extra 1R. The only situation both sides are straight up bad is when you have fallen way behind. I think this might even be the best Act of Treason ever printed.
Yeah, people are hating on this but I think it's actually got a place in limited. A 5 mana uncommon treachery probably means that the typical red/black "steal and sac" limited archetype will be bad, but as a card for aggressive decks that are just happy to steal a bomb and swing in for lethal, it works.
I think people are too hard on the dfc lands. They have the potential to be good. I know the spell sides tend to cost a bit more than it looks like they should, but there's always been a premium to versatility and sometimes it's worth it.
The ability to reduce mana screw and mana flood at the deck construction level is something that we sorely need more of.
I agree, but so far it feels like many of the effects on the spell side are cards I probably wouldn't play outside of limited in the first place. They all appear to be sideboard/limited fodder.
I also feel like they could have made most of the spells sides 1 mana less than they cost, or at least 1 mana more than the standard spell effect. 5 mana for a basic Treason effect is heavy.
I think people are too hard on the dfc lands. They have the potential to be good. I know the spell sides tend to cost a bit more than it looks like they should, but there's always been a premium to versatility and sometimes it's worth it.
The ability to reduce mana screw and mana flood at the deck construction level is something that we sorely need more of.
They HAD the potential to be good. That potential was wasted when WotC decided to make them not good. Otherwise known as bad.
I think people are too hard on the dfc lands. They have the potential to be good. I know the spell sides tend to cost a bit more than it looks like they should, but there's always been a premium to versatility and sometimes it's worth it.
The ability to reduce mana screw and mana flood at the deck construction level is something that we sorely need more of.
They HAD the potential to be good. That potential was wasted when WotC decided to make them not good. Otherwise known as bad.
No, they had the potential to broken, but Wizards just made them good. This mechanic reads much weaker than it is.
Please, mill me. Mill my important cards. Mill my lands. Mill it all. Because I will still deal 20 damage before you can mill 45 cards most every time.
I think people are too hard on the dfc lands. They have the potential to be good. I know the spell sides tend to cost a bit more than it looks like they should, but there's always been a premium to versatility and sometimes it's worth it.
The ability to reduce mana screw and mana flood at the deck construction level is something that we sorely need more of.
I agree, but so far it feels like many of the effects on the spell side are cards I probably wouldn't play outside of limited in the first place. They all appear to be sideboard/limited fodder.
I also feel like they could have made most of the spells sides 1 mana less than they cost, or at least 1 mana more than the standard spell effect. 5 mana for a basic Treason effect is heavy.
I agree in thinking that these cards all feel very niche or like sideboard / draft cards. If they were more common effects that see play in standard decks but just cost a little more, they might be really useful.
This kinda remind of bestow where they got a afraid and costed everything one or two mana more than needed. That said some effects aren't too pricey and I would run them in a lands deck that is already ramping above curve so not much of an issue. Maybe they are planning/excepting on having decks ramping up faster this season.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I think people are too hard on the dfc lands. They have the potential to be good. I know the spell sides tend to cost a bit more than it looks like they should, but there's always been a premium to versatility and sometimes it's worth it.
The ability to reduce mana screw and mana flood at the deck construction level is something that we sorely need more of.
I agree, but so far it feels like many of the effects on the spell side are cards I probably wouldn't play outside of limited in the first place. They all appear to be sideboard/limited fodder.
I also feel like they could have made most of the spells sides 1 mana less than they cost, or at least 1 mana more than the standard spell effect. 5 mana for a basic Treason effect is heavy.
I agree in thinking that these cards all feel very niche or like sideboard / draft cards. If they were more common effects that see play in standard decks but just cost a little more, they might be really useful.
Personally, I really like the DFC lands... though I understand that my like needs a whole bunch of clarification and caveats:
1. These cards are not worth taking up "spell slots" in any deck so far. The question needs to be whether they are worth taking land slots.
2. The way I see it, these cards allow you to have fewer than normal lands in your library (decreasing dead draws in the mid/late game) while replacing the normal increased number of mulligans such a shift would normally require with the arguably less painful (depending on meta and deck) one-turn tempo hit on occasion. I view this as kind of promising.
3. With all of this in mind, you want there to be a better chance of drawing these cards later in the game than there is a chance of needing to use them as land. As such, if the format/meta is so aggressive that you don't make it to the "late game", these cards are bad.
5. If you are running a midrange or control deck, I can seriously imagine some of these cards seeing play.
6. As you want to minimize the odds of seeing them in your opening hand, however, these cards come with diminishing returns. You don't want to run 8+ of these DFC lands. More likely, I expect you'll see a deck running 1-2 copies of something like the regrowth/Inquisition of Kozilek expy.
7. Even with this said, not all of the actual cards are made equal. I don't see this as being a format where this specific card will see too much play.
This and the protection spell are the kinds of effects I want to see on the flip lands since it's inconsistent when these cards are worth including in a deck, but when it comes up that they're good, they're really good.
The Regrowth is never bad, efficiency aside, which bothers me in terms of balance of power between colors, though one could argue that green is the color that does lands / finding lands the best so its flippy lands should be better and I suppose I could buy that argument on some level.
Act of Treason, but now also a land. Here's the song Riley made to commemorate this card.
Source: Riley Knight
The ability to reduce mana screw and mana flood at the deck construction level is something that we sorely need more of.
this DFC cards // lands are real, real dangerous.
you're losing some efficiency on spells and speed on lands to get close to completely avoiding mana flood if you go full retard into the mechanic.
not sure how this will shape up in the end, but I'm scared.
Yeah, people are hating on this but I think it's actually got a place in limited. A 5 mana uncommon treachery probably means that the typical red/black "steal and sac" limited archetype will be bad, but as a card for aggressive decks that are just happy to steal a bomb and swing in for lethal, it works.
I agree, but so far it feels like many of the effects on the spell side are cards I probably wouldn't play outside of limited in the first place. They all appear to be sideboard/limited fodder.
I also feel like they could have made most of the spells sides 1 mana less than they cost, or at least 1 mana more than the standard spell effect. 5 mana for a basic Treason effect is heavy.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
They HAD the potential to be good. That potential was wasted when WotC decided to make them not good. Otherwise known as bad.
No, they had the potential to broken, but Wizards just made them good. This mechanic reads much weaker than it is.
I agree in thinking that these cards all feel very niche or like sideboard / draft cards. If they were more common effects that see play in standard decks but just cost a little more, they might be really useful.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Personally, I really like the DFC lands... though I understand that my like needs a whole bunch of clarification and caveats:
1. These cards are not worth taking up "spell slots" in any deck so far. The question needs to be whether they are worth taking land slots.
2. The way I see it, these cards allow you to have fewer than normal lands in your library (decreasing dead draws in the mid/late game) while replacing the normal increased number of mulligans such a shift would normally require with the arguably less painful (depending on meta and deck) one-turn tempo hit on occasion. I view this as kind of promising.
3. With all of this in mind, you want there to be a better chance of drawing these cards later in the game than there is a chance of needing to use them as land. As such, if the format/meta is so aggressive that you don't make it to the "late game", these cards are bad.
5. If you are running a midrange or control deck, I can seriously imagine some of these cards seeing play.
6. As you want to minimize the odds of seeing them in your opening hand, however, these cards come with diminishing returns. You don't want to run 8+ of these DFC lands. More likely, I expect you'll see a deck running 1-2 copies of something like the regrowth/Inquisition of Kozilek expy.
7. Even with this said, not all of the actual cards are made equal. I don't see this as being a format where this specific card will see too much play.
I read it as STRONG MAD TREACHERY
Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com/
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
The Regrowth is never bad, efficiency aside, which bothers me in terms of balance of power between colors, though one could argue that green is the color that does lands / finding lands the best so its flippy lands should be better and I suppose I could buy that argument on some level.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill