MTG Salvation

WOTC already does very little to nothing to cater to the Vintage and Legacy crowd other than Eternal Weekend events. They do not design cards or sets with those formats in mind. If a newer card breaks into those formats it's by accident, not design. Vintage and Legacy players are NOT the drivers behind card prices. Those formats only absorb a few. if any, new cards per year.
Vintage and Legacy players are usually long term, entrenched players. There's not a new crowd of people out rushing to enter into those formats. The price barrier alone is enough to keep most away. And the expense to enter those formats has to do with the Reserved list, not expensive cards that can be reprinted.
The largest drivers of prices are Standard, Modern, and Commander. And you can tell which format these cards are going into. Vedalken Orrery is pricey because of Commander, not Vintage and/or Legacy. "Discontinuing" Legacy and Vintage would have zero impact on card prices since those formats are basically dead to non-franchised players anyway. Plus those formats aren't competing in the same card pool.

Just because they've discontinued the Masters sets doesn't mean there isn't an outlet for reprints. There are Commander decks(for what they're worth). Battlebond and the Conspiracy sets had all sorts of great reprints of higher dollar cards. Also Core sets, they just put Crucible of Worlds in a core set and it didn't break Standard, showing that carefully placed, high end reprints can slip into Standard without ruining it, and bring down the price somewhat without killing it. Plus they've given us Modern Horizons, which gives them more flexibility in a set with reprints(however, I felt they were too into the new cards and didn't include enough reprints).
WOTC has always been conservative with higher end reprints, after all they wouldn't want to disrupt the secondary market(that they disavow) too much. They will reprint cards until they've hit a price point that WOTC thinks is OK without tanking it on the open market.

As to the bannings during Kaladesh, those bannings were not of reprinted cards those were design and play test errors that needed correcting.
During the Kaladesh block two cards broke into Legacy and Vintage, Fatal Push in Legacy(somewhat), and Paradoxical Outcome in Vintage. Neither of those cards carries a high price tag. Now compare the to the recently banned(in Commander) Paradox Engine which, until it's ban, was a much pricier card than the other two I mentioned.
WOTC has to tread a fine line between reprinting cards enough so that players don't become disgruntled and leave the game, but also keep higher end cards from wild fluctuations so that LGSs don't buy those cards only to lose their shirts. As such they've been opting on t he side of caution(mostly).
Players always want cheaper cards, until it comes time to sell them, then they want top dollar. As players we're all kind of hypocrites, we want to buy cards on the cheap but expect to make a profit off of selling them. Cannot have it both ways.

People will always figure out which cards are good, and those cards will gain value over time. Folks on the internet have made that faster and easier, but the phenomenon has always been there. Can't stop people on the internet from talking about Magic, so really it's a non sequitur, the cat's out the bag.

Quote from peteroupc »

In general, when you copy Seedtime with Isochron Scepter, the copy will have all abilities of the original, including "Cast this spell only during your turn" (C.R. 108.1, 706.2, 207.1), so that you can cast the copy of Seedtime only if it's your turn (see also C.R. 601.3).

I'll assume this also includes the clause that your opponent must cast a blue spell during your turn.

Edited: just realized that your opponent casting a blue spell is required to get the extra turn.

Oh for the love of all that is unholy just run this: Master Warcraft. LOL!

Or any other cards that let the attacker determine how blocking will commence.

If I imprint Seedtime onto an Isochron Scepter I still am bound by all of Seedtime's casting restrictions, correct?

Thanks. I mostly figured as much, but....
I was just asking in case I missed something somewhere and Doomed Artisan's static ability wasn't somehow imparted on the tokens.
Lately I find that I gloss over new cards a bit much and often miss some of the finer points.

And yes, I do understand how "Summoning Sickness" works, LOL.

So say I've made a bunch of Sculpture tokens with Doomed Artisan, if the Doomed Artisan leaves the battlefield the Sculptures can then attack and block, correct?

Quote from Lithl »

Quote from Perodequeso »

Rasputin Dreamweaver- marginal, fragile mana ramp

Marginal? He's one of the best blink commanders, IMO. Whereas cards like Roon do the blinking, Rasputin is an incredible blink target. Spend a couple mana to get 7 mana? Yes please! He instantly goes infinite with Eldrazi Displacer or Nim Deathmantle and any repeatable sac outlet that costs 3 or less mana to activate. He's an incredible target for Vanish into Memory (draw 4, discard 1, gain 7 mana). And if you're not using his counters for mana, he's also effectively a 4/8.

Touche-

Fire Diamond $2.50
Shaper Guildmage $0.30
Teferi’s Isle $5.00
Soar $1.40
Benevolent Unicorn $1.50

These are low ebay prices.

Quote from Boyachi »

Livonya Silone would be playable in my meta as most of my group uses legendary lands. An unblockable gruul commander is dangerous.
Johan seems like he wouldn’t be good, but in a multiplayer format, vigilance is highly underrated.
Most of the elder dragons aren’t up to snuff with the power of creatures these days, what with their 8 cmc and upkeep cost. That being said, Nicol Bolas can really logistically knock a player out of the game with one hit while Vaevictus Asmadi essentially reads [1]:+1/+0 until EoT. That mana friendly fire-breathing can 1 hit KO an opponent with a decent buff, aura, or equipment.

Lastly, I am not going to repeat one’s from the above post, but what about Halfdane? Halfdane can always be the biggest creature on the board and has a very decent cmc. Halfdane isn’t good if you are winning, but it can be the scare you need when you are behind. I feel like both piloting and facing a Halfdane deck would be a positive experience.

In case you suspect bias, my first legend was Chromium. It will always be a fond memory, but not the best if you want to cast your commander more than once.

Livonya, Halfdane, and Johan should of been on my list, considering some of my other picks.
While Vaevictus has fire breathing, I’d rather have Palladia-Mors, I feel trample is better when facing blockers.
Back in ‘96, I believe, I would cast Buried Alive first turn, put three Nicol Bolas in the grave. Turn two cast Shallow Grave. Fun times.

"Playable" has many determining factors, first and foremost being format. For the purposes of my list I'm only considering Commander, Old School, and kitchen table casual. I'll also rank the playable cards: playable-worth putting in decks, marginal-worth using but there are better options, and niche-good with certain mechanics only, possibly-not sure but believe so.

Adun Oakenshield- playable
Angus Mackenzie- very playable, great commander
Dakkon Blackblade- marginal, great for flavor
Gwendlyn Di Corci- playable as a commander, one of the better discard creatures
Hazezon Tamar- possibly
Jacques le Vert- marginal, not the worst toughness booster but not the best either
Lady Evangela- marginal, OK combat trick
Nebuchadnezzar- niche, good in discard or Lobotomy style decks
Nicol Bolas- marginal, reanimate with haste early game and he's good
Rasputin Dreamweaver- marginal, fragile mana ramp
Rubinia Soulsinger- playable
Sol'kanar the Swamp King- playable, there are better things for this CMC but I think he's good
Tetsuo Umezawa- playable
Tuknir Deathlock- marginal, might be a tad expensive for it's ability and P/T
Xira Arien- marginal, although not the worst repeatable card draw in those colors

That's more than I expected, remember this list is highly subjective. I'm open to suggestions, critiques.

Not sure if Ragnar belongs on this list.

Honorable mention:
Rohgahh of Kher Keep- very niche, but I do love me some Kobolds

Being able to attack Planeswalkers with creatures makes sense from a mechanical and lore perspective. In the game you the player are a planeswalker, and you attack planeswalkers with creatures. So when the planeswalker card type was introduced it fit in with that aspect of the game. Also, being able to attack planeswalkers separates them, mechanically, from creatures.

In a ground based war, you send in the troops. The defensive position chooses to either engage or retreat.
Magic’s combat system captures this perfectly well. If you are the attacking force and you wish to stop a retreating force, you need ranged weapons, hence removal spells.
When an army amasses on the battlefield to attack, they don’t attack individual combatants, they attack the position, in that moment the defending army decides how to respond.
Active player yells “charge” and sends in the troops(attacking), the defending player either engages(blocking) or retreats(not blocking), that’s warfare in a nutshell. If you want your predator drone to drop a bomb on my general, that’s not a massive, infantry attack, that’s a targeted attack, well represented by spot removal. If you want to napalm your enemy’s troops, massive removal spells. If the battlefield is too cluttered to your disadvantage nuke it.

Watch any movie depicting a bronze age, iron age, medieval, or Napoleonic battle. You’ll never see an amassed force targeting individual soldiers in a charge, except for high value targets. But the targeting of high value targets is easily represented by either spells or activated abilities. Even archers and infantry gunners(smooth bore musket types) don’t target, they engage in volley fire. Artillery pieces don’t target individuals, they target areas or fortifications.

Either way I’ll leave you be, WOTC will not likely go in the direction you’re suggesting so this entire discussion just idle banter.

There have been many changes to the game over it’s history, they been incremental, usually fixing flaws or adding to existing design space(planeswalkers). And not every change was for the better, with some of those changed being revisited and re-tweaked.(combat damage on the stack for instance). Also these changes were all implemented by design and development teams, being tested(albeit not always thoroughly enough). So if your idea, or one like it, could work, without breaking the game, WOTC designers would explore it. They do try to milk every bit of design space, but slowly over time(they have to milk the cash cow for years to come).
If you want people to be less negative about your idea spent dozens of hours play-testing it in multiple formats. Work out odd and troublesome interactions. Have a third party play-test it to find stuff you may have missed, take notes and then present your findings. Science it out then get back to us.
People come to these forums all they time with their purposed “fixes” for the game, most of which stem from either a newness to the game or a lack of understanding of the game’s design rules. Most often these ideas are not well received. A large part of the Salvation community is very well versed in the game’s design, rules, and complexity nuance. My time on these forums has been very educational many of the regulars and moderators really know their stuff, so please understand that there is a deep well of knowledge this community brings to the discussion. Magic rules are like scientific peer review, better to be cautious and not screw it up than it is to accept something that needs retroactive fixing(WOTC already screws this up enough as it is).

Quote from SwordSkill »

Quote from Perodequeso »

Quote from SwordSkill »

Exactly, this is why it was suggested that evasion should be mitigated, if not in creatures, in summons surely.

So what exactly is the difference between a “creature” and a “summon”?
Other than one is just an obsolete term for the other.

A summon in this context is the term we used to describe an object that is able to act as a creature except it's controller can choose what to attack in attacker's step, that changes nothing for defending player though as he is still able to block as normal.

Summons would most likely be able to attack other summons as well as players and/or planeswalkers and being able to be blocked by defending player's creatures and/or summons.

Edit: We decided to reuse the term exactly because it was rendered obsolete.

So you want to create a whole new type of card that basically acts like creatures but are not creatures. That would never be confusing for new players, right? LOL
Old creature cards have the word “summon” in their type line, So what happens if I have a mix of older and newer cards, more confusion?
And by your purposed rules that your summons can only attack other summons, then what’s the point? You’ve created a new card type that is mechanically and flavorfully no different from a preexisting type just to fulfill some unwanted flavor need. Once again, more rules for little gameplay value.
Say you run a deck full of these summons, that can attack each other, planeswalkers, and players, I’ll just play with creatures that your summons cannot attack. That way if you refuse to run removal I have the advantage.
My biggest point is this: is the complexity and potential for confusion adding enough play value and fun to be worth it. You’re so completely blinded by your idea that it seems that you cannot see the negatives. And you treat most criticism as though it’s from people who simply cannot grasp your vision.
We grasp your vision, were just not impressed by it. Not all ideas are good ideas. Most successful creative endeavors are collaborative because most ideas need editing. Creative people tend to be more in love with their creations than those creations deserve. While Richard Garfield was genius in creating Magic you have to admit that the original design needed work. Mechanically the game has benefitted from the input of others. Many ideas end up on the cutting room floor, no offense but that’s where this one belongs.

Instead how about a mechanic like Fight, or a take on Fight.
Like a green enchantment that reads something like “your creatures gain Tap: fight target creature”
A Boros legendary creature with a tribal ability “All your soldiers gain Tap: fight target creature”
An Instant or Sorcery that say “any number of creatures fight any number of target creatures.”
There are ways to limit complexity and still get your point across mechanically and flavorfully yet stay within existing game parameters.

Another big problem with your “summons” is their parasitism. They interact with each other one way, but in all other aspects they might as well be creatures. They are literally creatures with a built in weakness and a ton of rules baggage. Is that necessary?

Quote from SwordSkill »

Exactly, this is why it was suggested that evasion should be mitigated, if not in creatures, in summons surely.

So what exactly is the difference between a “creature” and a “summon”?
Other than one is just an obsolete term for the other.

Look, both sides of this debate have only provided anecdotal evidence. Either side’s evidence is equally convincing.
Both sides are subject to confirmation bias. So to sit here and argue is just childish.
And since this is the internet, each side’s evidence is spurious at best, LOL.

Quote from user_938036 »

Quote from Melkor »

Quote from Perodequeso »

Quote from WarMachinePrime »

Where does burden of proof lie?

I have my own anecdotal evidence over the course of years and hundreds if not thousands of packs purchased. I have seen visual evidence online. I have read large sellers cracking hundreds of CASES corroborating what I have encountered. Is it incontrovertible evidence proof? No. Is it probable? Most definitely.

They have done it in the past and are most likely doing it now. Evidence of seeing an uncut sheet means almost less than nothing. They could print that sheet in greater or lesser amounts than other sheets. Without numbers from WotC we cant definitively prove it. They aren't going to show them without government intervention in the form of gambling laws. The video was spot on.

Prove me wrong.

In science burden of proof is on those trying to prove a thing. In the US legal system burden of proof lies on those trying to prove guilt.
By that logic, anyone claiming track printing is happening has the burden of proof.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”
Hatcher’s video provides zero evidence to back up his claim. At the moment all any of us have is anecdotal evidence. Until anyone provides empirical evidence all the hot air we can blow amounts to squat. Just opinions and nothing more.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

I would think that the anecdotal evidence along with the established fact that it has been done in the past would be sufficient to put the ball in your court. If Wizards has ever explicitly stated that they actually stopped doing what they used to do that was exactly this, that would be a different story. and with the commonly accepted statement that prerelease packs are intentionally better than average, it would indicate that it is something they are actively doing. it would not be sufficient to meet burden of proof for a verdict, but it would be more than enough to justify a warrant if this were a crime being investigated. when UMA came out, I got 2 boxes. Not one copy of any of the 7 most valuable most valuable cards, but I got two Lord of Extinction and FOUR copies of Stirring Wildwood (and a 5th as the box topper, that stung more than a bit)

Wizards has said they stopped doing this. They admit there used to be U1 U2 and U3 for uncommons and a similar sorting for rares. They say they stopped doing this. The only thing we have the comes close to actual evidence of either option is uncut sheets stolen from printers that support there not being track printing. On the other hand is lots of anecdotal evidence that tracy printing is a thing. People have claimed there are people who have 'run the numbers' but these people are apparently being just as hush hush as wizards about the numbers they have so it amounts to evidence of a conspiracy in the opposite direction rather than evidence supporting their claim.

I just have two points: I’ve seen or heard just as much anecdotal evidence on one side as I have the other, so I feel no need to provide evidence.
Two, I’m not claiming it absolutely doesn’t happen, I’m just saying I’m not convinced it is, and thusly need to be convinced by more than anecdotes. I also have anecdotal evidence based upon my own observations and conversations with others. To change my mind I’d need to see something physically substantial.