What is interesting is that Kamigawa was and still is an 8 on the Rabiah scale. This just shows that whomever created the scale (was it Rosewater?), does not have final say of what plane is visited. Very hopefully (and probably right) that it takes the whole team to determine what planes to revisit.
Attached are screenshots of the scale, itself, and where Kamigawa stands on it.
As with a lot of Mark's scale, it's A) based off what Mark *thinks* is the likelihood, not personal preferences, and B) only 10 really represents "never going to happen". As the scale notes, an 8 is "unlikely to return, but possible if the stars align". While I'm sure we'll find out more as previews go on, this strikes me as similar to Madness' comeback from also being an 8, where things lined up just right to make this an appealing call.
Unstable was printed 4 times. That's pretty good sales.
People keep saying this without evidence to back it up. The unstable set did excellent! Maybe the original Un-Set didn't do well, but since then they have been gold.
Unhinged also didn't do great on sales metrics (hence the long gap between it and Unstable), but the Marks were able to show that it wasn't because it wasn't selling, they just overprinted it to start with. They printed it like a 3rd set of the block, which sell *way* more than supplemental sets, and Wizards ended up with a bunch of unsold Unhinged.
So... I think that I kickstarted some of the recent discussion regarding the "triggers once per turn" discussion that was recently going on over on blogatog. As far as I can tell, there are three different wordings that have three different implications.
1. "Whenever you *insert text* the first time each turn" (look at bloodhaze wolverine and the like for the general template).
2. "At the beginning of combat on your/each turn" OR "At the beginning of your/each end step" OR "At the beginning of your postcombat main phase". (look at Luminarch Aspirant, Neheb, the Eternal, or Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist)
3. "This ability triggers only once each turn."
For version 1, if you met the condition before you cast the spell, it is too late for it to trigger that turn. While I don't think that it has been outright stated, I am guessing that this quirk of such abilities causes it to be misplayed by some newer players.
For version 2, you trigger regardless of whether you met the condition before or after you played the card, though you must have met the condition AND played the card before the noted trigger time. The trigger time can also make some effects awkward (it's hard to have a trigger that can produce a surprise blocker in mid-combat, for example, if the ability only checks whether or not you get a token at the start of combat).
For version 3, meeting the condition before casting the spell doesn't give you the trigger but doesn't stop you from meeting the trigger later on that turn (a mistake some people would likely make for #1). It is also more flexible in utilization than option #2 as it does not have to be gated to triggering at a specific time in the turn. Linguistically, however, this is the only version where the limitation has to be listed at the very end of the ability, which can make it feel much worse than abilities that introduce functionally similar limitations up-front.
If there was a way to template the wording so you could get the mechanics of Version #3 while organically putting the limitation at the start of the ability, I think that would be the best option. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be an option.
I'd point out an additional limitation on version 2: gating it to a specific time means the opponent can wait to see if you trigger it, then remove it before you get the actual benefit. Or you can lose the opportunity to benefit if the creature dies before the appointed time. For example, a Morbid Opportunist that triggered on the end step would be much much weaker, as it would miss out on drawing cards from Wraths or trading in combat if it doesn't survive them.
Feel like they should've kept the template "Whenever <condition> the first time each turn, <effect>.". That way it'd read less like a nerf and more like a natural part of the ability and it'd be less disappointing reading the awkward rider at the very end.
That would cause sequencing issues. Using that template, if you played Welcoming Vampire after a 2-drop enters the battlefield, you can't get a card anymore for the rest of the turn.
It's really amusing to me how many people are calling for strictly worse versions of templating, just because "this ability triggers once each turn" is at the end?
They either need to pare down the list (eliminating the chaff) or put a list card in EVERY set booster. Their stinginess is far beyond welcome.
As far as we can tell, the frequency of these cards will be seperate from The List's size. If they're guarenteeing one in every 8 set boosters, they'd have to be either 50% of The List (unlikely), or they're effectively a seperate "slot" from the normal The List. The latter seems far more likely to me. So the main question mark to me is whether they'll be supplating "normal" pulls, meaning that the frequency of other The List cards will go down to 1/8 (to make it 1/4 packs having "The List" cards in them), or if they'll be supplemental. Either way, there should be plenty in circulation.
I think that what they are trying to say is that World of Fire end games, Sway of Star doesn't.
Yes I get it. And this is against the social philosophy of the format, as I tried to explain. Sway of the Stars could lead to interesting games. Worldfire never.
And that's why it's still banned. People will put Sway into lists as a "well maybe it'll make for an interesting story" card, and end up making everyone at the table miserable. Worldfire is a card that clearly communicates "use this to win immediately", Sway doesn't.
I keep wondering if the cards would all have been over-powered if they simply set to "day" (or "night") instead of this wordy conditional version?
Yes, it would have made switching easier, but IMO that's a plus because all these cards depending on day or night switching a really weak if you can't make the switch often enough to be worth it.
It's likely less about power level of these cards, and more about ensuring they don't screw werewolves over by making the switch back to day too trivial.
Who thought that vivisection was overtuned as a common?
Likely less "overtuned" and more "much stronger in an environment where decayed tokens are rampant and thus the cost to sacrificing a creature is much lower."
it is just a payoff for pitiless plunderer and chatterfang. You actually still need a *gasp* repeatable sacrifice outlet. Granted this card is amazing as part of the 99 - but it isn't anymore of the combo than zulaport cutthroat/blood artist/bastion or any of the other 8 million payoff cards.
Chatterfang is a repeatable sac outlet, you just sac the treasure you create to pay thr black.
You know, it abilities like this started with “the first time each turn that” or “at the beginning of your postcombat main phase” instead of listing a perfectly good ability and adding a restriction like “triggers once per turn” or “use only as a sorcery” to the end, I don’t think that we’d be complaining about these abilities nearly as much.
I think that the modern template for these abilities “feels bad”.
Which is really funny, because the versions you listed are strictly worse than "triggers once per turn". Like, the modern template is more powerful, so it's weird that it's seen as worse than the more restrictive versions.
With New Capenna coming down the pipe this might be a strong card to invest in.
oh yea thats a great point out this is probably a prep for that set.
wont last long though once dominaria united comes it this rotates out
That is incorrect. Midnight Hunt rotates with the fall/Q3 set in 2023, not Dominaria United. Dominaria will rotate out the 4 sets before Midnight Hunt, as normal.
While mechanically the effects could probably be done without being double sided, it loses *all* of the flavor. A version of the card that works with counters would have no room for flavor text at all, much less the two pieces seen here. And without transformation, the feeling of "flipping through" the book disappears.
This is not the sort of card that would make you add DFC's to a set, but once they're already in, it's an interesting and flavorful design that makes good use of them.
I do not know about anyone else's opinion here, but I am starting to get a bit tired of seeing zombie tokens with decayed. With this set I would hope for having some zombie tokens that can block, and zombie tokens that do not die after one attack. I get it, that is the flavor of the tokens and the set, but sometimes they can push a mechanic a little too much. I see them push mechanic too much in the past, such as the second time we visited Zendikar.
There's a lot more I really like in the set, but I do feel let down on the zombie tokens.
They typically only use one type of token for each creature type in a set. Your best bet for zombie tokens without decayed is in the commander decks, but its unlikely.
This is not the sort of card that would make you add DFC's to a set, but once they're already in, it's an interesting and flavorful design that makes good use of them.