Could it mean that we might see an evergreen/disidous mechanic out of Runes? Like them using it to just name an already existing mechanic like how Aura was?
Behold is majorly powerful even if your always paying 4 total. The ability to split the difference late game without having to fully pay at once is pretty great. As a bonus sorcery out the initial pay then 2 at eot on their turn to set your draw and get card advantage without losing momentum.
Could it mean that we might see an evergreen/disidous mechanic out of Runes? Like them using it to just name an already existing mechanic like how Aura was?
A la an Artifact Enchantment for instance?
Rune is probably just a subtype of enchantment with no specific mechanical rules attached, so they don't need a rules blurb to describe it.
Could it mean that we might see an evergreen/disidous mechanic out of Runes? Like them using it to just name an already existing mechanic like how Aura was?
A la an Artifact Enchantment for instance?
Rune is probably just a subtype of enchantment with no specific mechanical rules attached, so they don't need a rules blurb to describe it.
That makes sense. I guess I was just hoping that it would be something....more. Like at least something like curse or what not.
Could it mean that we might see an evergreen/disidous mechanic out of Runes? Like them using it to just name an already existing mechanic like how Aura was?
A la an Artifact Enchantment for instance?
Rune is probably just a subtype of enchantment with no specific mechanical rules attached, so they don't need a rules blurb to describe it.
That makes sense. I guess I was just hoping that it would be something....more. Like at least something like curse or what not.
That's exactly what curses are though. They just happen to have a mechanical similarity in their text box. Honestly, you could have a curse that just says 'enchant player, during that player's upkeep they loose one life" or you could have exactly that same card without the curse subtype. The curse subtype doesn't do anything special anymore than the Shrine subtype does, or being a Dragon does. But once other cards start to reference that type, then it becomes interesting.
Could it mean that we might see an evergreen/disidous mechanic out of Runes? Like them using it to just name an already existing mechanic like how Aura was?
A la an Artifact Enchantment for instance?
Rune is probably just a subtype of enchantment with no specific mechanical rules attached, so they don't need a rules blurb to describe it.
That makes sense. I guess I was just hoping that it would be something....more. Like at least something like curse or what not.
That's exactly what curses are though. They just happen to have a mechanical similarity in their text box. Honestly, you could have a curse that just says 'enchant player, during that player's upkeep they loose one life" or you could have exactly that same card without the curse subtype. The curse subtype doesn't do anything special anymore than the Shrine subtype does, or being a Dragon does. But once other cards start to reference that type, then it becomes interesting.
Curses more align to what I was saying earlier. The Curse subtype specifically denotes an Aura that enchants an opponent specifically. What I was getting off of the first response was more specifically like the Cartouches or the Shrines.
When Curse was first revealed, they even denoted specifically that it was exactly what it was: Enchantment-Aura, Enchant Target Opponent. It is a rules baggage that is on every curse. Shrine on the other hand can be on any enchantment, but has only appeared on non-aura ones.
The two things are similar but definitely not the same, it isn't as much as how creature types work but instead how the enchantment itself acts. So it would be more right to say that, if it is like Curses, that it would specifically be something akin to Enchantment-Aura, Enchant Target Artifact et cetra.
That makes sense. I guess I was just hoping that it would be something....more. Like at least something like curse or what not.
That's exactly what curses are though. They just happen to have a mechanical similarity in their text box. Honestly, you could have a curse that just says 'enchant player, during that player's upkeep they loose one life" or you could have exactly that same card without the curse subtype. The curse subtype doesn't do anything special anymore than the Shrine subtype does, or being a Dragon does. But once other cards start to reference that type, then it becomes interesting.
Thing is though: Curses did get a section explaining them in the Innistrad Mechanics article; the same is true for Gates and the Return to Ravnica Mechanics article. The issue here is: Maybe the Runes don't have enough mechanical weight/cohesion to qualify as a mechanic for the article(?!?), which is unusual for noncreature, nonplaneswalker subtypes they put on cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Conuly »
Heck, every day I wake up, I don't go out and kill people - and I'm rewarded by not having legions of enemies! Amazing how that works.
Although ninjas are experts of camouflage and concealment, they are actually horrible liars. This means that no matter where you are, you can shout out, “Are there any ninjas here?” and if there’s a ninja within earshot, he’ll be compelled to respond.
Nice--at common we can get an instant-speed scry 2 draw 2 for only 1U, risking only our opponent guessing what we have face-down. Very similar to Glimmer of Genius, which saw a lot of play in its day.
That makes sense. I guess I was just hoping that it would be something....more. Like at least something like curse or what not.
That's exactly what curses are though. They just happen to have a mechanical similarity in their text box. Honestly, you could have a curse that just says 'enchant player, during that player's upkeep they loose one life" or you could have exactly that same card without the curse subtype. The curse subtype doesn't do anything special anymore than the Shrine subtype does, or being a Dragon does. But once other cards start to reference that type, then it becomes interesting.
Thing is though: Curses did get a section explaining them in the Innistrad Mechanics article; the same is true for Gates and the Return to Ravnica Mechanics article. The issue here is: Maybe the Runes don't have enough mechanical weight/cohesion to qualify as a mechanic for the article(?!?), which is unusual for noncreature, nonplaneswalker subtypes they put on cards.
Exactly what I was meaning. I wish it would be more associated with mechanics like Gate or Curse, and less so like Shrine. I would hecka loved to see Rune be the opposite of curse tbh (Aura, Enchant Self) or something like Aura, Enchant Artifact. But with the lack of a mention, it would more so seem to just be a superfluous typing beyond just interactions.
Dominant blue cards in draft, certainly. Phantom Monster and Foresee were already sweet cards limited cards. (Behold the multiverse is a bit different than foresee, but generally a bit better).
Wow! Augury Raven is only the second-ever strictly better Phantom Monster (after Voyager Drake), and the first one at Common. Though we've seen lots at 2UU Rare.
If you need an explanation on how the new mechanics, here's the mechanic article is up. Oddly enough, no mention of Runes.
EDIT: Also up is the long and complicated explanation of how the boosters will work in this set.
Could it mean that we might see an evergreen/disidous mechanic out of Runes? Like them using it to just name an already existing mechanic like how Aura was?
A la an Artifact Enchantment for instance?
Rune is probably just a subtype of enchantment with no specific mechanical rules attached, so they don't need a rules blurb to describe it.
That makes sense. I guess I was just hoping that it would be something....more. Like at least something like curse or what not.
That's exactly what curses are though. They just happen to have a mechanical similarity in their text box. Honestly, you could have a curse that just says 'enchant player, during that player's upkeep they loose one life" or you could have exactly that same card without the curse subtype. The curse subtype doesn't do anything special anymore than the Shrine subtype does, or being a Dragon does. But once other cards start to reference that type, then it becomes interesting.
Curses more align to what I was saying earlier. The Curse subtype specifically denotes an Aura that enchants an opponent specifically. What I was getting off of the first response was more specifically like the Cartouches or the Shrines.
When Curse was first revealed, they even denoted specifically that it was exactly what it was: Enchantment-Aura, Enchant Target Opponent. It is a rules baggage that is on every curse. Shrine on the other hand can be on any enchantment, but has only appeared on non-aura ones.
The two things are similar but definitely not the same, it isn't as much as how creature types work but instead how the enchantment itself acts. So it would be more right to say that, if it is like Curses, that it would specifically be something akin to Enchantment-Aura, Enchant Target Artifact et cetra.
Thing is though: Curses did get a section explaining them in the Innistrad Mechanics article; the same is true for Gates and the Return to Ravnica Mechanics article. The issue here is: Maybe the Runes don't have enough mechanical weight/cohesion to qualify as a mechanic for the article(?!?), which is unusual for noncreature, nonplaneswalker subtypes they put on cards.
Although ninjas are experts of camouflage and concealment, they are actually horrible liars. This means that no matter where you are, you can shout out, “Are there any ninjas here?” and if there’s a ninja within earshot, he’ll be compelled to respond.
Exactly what I was meaning. I wish it would be more associated with mechanics like Gate or Curse, and less so like Shrine. I would hecka loved to see Rune be the opposite of curse tbh (Aura, Enchant Self) or something like Aura, Enchant Artifact. But with the lack of a mention, it would more so seem to just be a superfluous typing beyond just interactions.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG