im less convinced they would encroach on supertypes like that. i was just thinking along the lines of run-of-the-mill legendary creatures that are all 'elf planeswalker' and 'humans planeswalker' etc, with stuff almost akin to tribal synergies to build around in uncommon. also like you mention 'planeswalker' might not be the best type to tag onto certain cards because it doesnt make much sense conceptually. like how can an inanimate, or otherwise unliving 'thing' be a planeswalker? something like 'legendary enchantment - planeswalker aura' makes more sense to me; otherwise you would have cards like bedevil killing enchantments. not completely implausible, but i think its confusion easily avoided.
ive seen other ideas similar to the spark counter thrown around, or like it being something that changes your board when you have it vs. when an opponent does. however they always sounded too close to energy by being some extra resource (which obviously didnt work out that well in standard), or like 'monarch' from the conspiracy sets where you either have it or you dont. the gameplay of such things tends to be rather binary, and thus swings on who draws better. not very interesting imo.
one thing i imagine they will try to touch on is the idea of 'gathering support' to a get a sense that sides are being formed and battles are being fought.
- Registered User
Member for 5 years, 3 months, and 20 days
Last active Mon, Feb, 18 2019 18:51:51
- 1 Follower
- 2,047 Total Posts
- 621 Thanks
Feb 17, 2019Posted in: Modern
cant say ive ever seen a full set run in hardened scales; mostly just as like a 1 or 2-of at most as a flex piece.
i do think its a card that is extremely likely to continually creep up in price as we get further away from kaladesh rotating. so its a pretty safe pickup even if you dont end up using all the copies.
really though its gonna be the foil versions that are gonna go up quicker. im not an edh player but i imagine its a card that can fit nicely into a lot of things now, and will continue to; and edh players drive demand on foils much harder.
Feb 17, 2019maybe they will play around with 'planeswalker' as a creature subtype. i could see that being an avenue of showing the theme at common and uncommon.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
but yeah 36 actual 'legendary planeswalkers' in the set just doesnt make much sense. as mentioned above you are just burning through so much design capital by having to think up and showcase that many activated abilities; let alone the balancing nightmare. so yeah its either walkers in creature form, or as a masterpiece type deal.
i guess my idea of planeswalker split cards with like 2 activations on each side so it can fit is still on the table; but i made that in jest.
Feb 16, 2019yeah when i was doing some research on certain set card quality, mm15 came up as one of the worst - both foils and non-foils. it also looks to be partially what sparked peoples closer scrutiny and harsher criticisms of card quality, whereas it was moreso just grumbling and being mostly overlooked before that.Posted in: Modern
Feb 16, 2019from what ive read they are just like the first challenger decks were based on competitive decks around a pro-tour. in the case for these decks that would be pro-tour GRN. also its safe to assume the 'value' reprints will be centered on cards that will rotate in the fall. this is why they push a faster turnaround on the product, because it gives those sets a bit of extra equity in their sunset in the standard environment.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
some white weenie deck is pretty much a shoe-in with Ajani's Pridemate confirmed to be in one of the decks. at the time boros was popular, and so was just straight W. personally i also think a GB explore deck is a no-brainer since you hit cards like jadelight ranger, carnage tyrant, and vraska's contempt - which all fit the bill as expensive and rotating.
just consider the 'top' decks around that time: GB explore/midrange, boros heroic weenie, mono red frenzy, mono blue tempo, jeskai control, UR drakes/phoenix, boros angels, GW tokens, bant fog
then consider some key reprints they might wanna hit:
-history of benalia (wouldnt be surprised to see this as a 4-of in the white weenie deck)
-ajani, adversary of tyrants
-search for azcanta
-settle the wreckage/cleansing nova
there should still be some reprints from GRN, but id expect much fewer rares/mythics and in lower numbers. so like 1 shock land, lava coil, niv mizzet, find/finality, aurelia, etc.
teferi is open to debate for inclusion in any of the decks. seems like the obvious 'chandra' of this set of challenger decks, but teferi floated a higher price point than chandra through his stay in standard thanks to ample demand from non-rotating formats (yeah i know chandra sees some play in red prison in modern/legacy). also building a jeskai control deck as a challenger deck is already difficult enough to balance value wise being 3-color; but i could see a 1-of teferi in a jeskai drake control deck as plausible maybe with an azor's gateway + banefire/expansion package in there.
what you absolutely should not expect is a 2-3 color deck based around mana-bases and cards from RNA.
Feb 15, 2019i dunno i guess i interpreted things differently. the system that ral zarek designed is supposed to both send out a signal drawing walkers to ravnica, and track when each arrives. so i just assumed the candles being snuffed out was supposed to symbolized that the stage is set with everyone gathered, and all thats needed to start the show was bolas himself arriving.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Feb 14, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from idSurge »Quote from gkourou »
In the case someone says that the "disruption of normal play" is the criterion and the "unfun to play against" clause is just the symptom of the first, which was also @KTK's answer back then, (and I took it), I have to say that Aetherworks Marvel is also being quoted in their text. Marvel did not cause logistical reasons, did not take aeons to play against. It was just unfun to play against, because it was causing "turn 4 scoop it up" moments.
I personally dont think much of their ban list 'logic'. In other words, I think they just do what they want.
that is what i was trying to get across in my post yesterday. there has never been a world where they havent done what they want. they have been making judgement calls based on opinion and perception because they have to. there is rarely black and white scenarios, and you have to bridge the gap with rationalizations. we here in this thread are proof positive that people 'tuned in' to modern can have wildly different perspectives on any number of topics and can hardly agree; yet when we see glimpses that this is also the case for a bunch of regular people trying design something as nebulous as an attractive entertainment/game experience we default to believing they just dont know what the hell they are doing or are incompetent.
also i get that it is easy to tunnel vision on modern, but modern is just one facet of MtG. a facet that will have objectives and purposes built in specifically to set it apart from others.
for example is it implausible or unreasonable to believe that at one point in the past that wizards worried about modern presenting itself as 'solved'? that the twins and junds and pods were just 'it', and how it might stunt the growth of the format long term?
like what is the value of diversity in the first place? why place an importance on having card choices being dynamic or situational? how might this impact the perceived room to experiment and explore? why could this be important in modern, but less so in other environments?
in the end it has to be a lot of 'i thinks' and 'maybes' with plenty of mistakes and wishes for 'do-overs', and what is true at one point may not be true at another. if players cant grasp that, then that naivety is going to set you up for disappointment.
Feb 14, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from The Fluff »It's just a part of the life cycle of thread. Discussions flow smoothly for days or a few weeks, then twin would be revisited one way or the other. Although I'm surprised it came back with a lot of intensity today.
in fairness it wasnt out of the blue. that whole bit in the TCC + Blake Rassmusen + Steve Sunu 'fact/fiction' interview about twin was a cock-up. the fact that it was a user/player submitted question, the way it was phrased, it being selected as something worth talking about, and the subsequent almost dismissive and unrelated response.
it just highlights how naive the community has and continues to be, and goes to show why wizards employees are often better served not saying anything at all lest it be blown out of proportion after being put under a microscope. 2 guys who likely have minimal to no say in ban/unban decisions, one of which openly said he wasnt even there when the twin ban decision was made (Steve), giving an unrelated and opinionated answer to a loaded question isnt some special insight to be used as proof/evidence of anything.
Feb 14, 2019if 'obnoxious nonsense' was this binary where you were either it or not with no scale or context; then yes you would ban those decks and pretty much every other deck in the format.Posted in: Modern
its absolutely in wizards purview to ban for those reasons, or any of the other grey areas they deal with when determining what is 'healthy' or aligns best with their goal for the format. these reasons also arent isolated, but are just an inclusion in a list of evidence spanning any number of factors.
Feb 13, 2019its relative to the environment. for instance you may see 3cmc ounnters are unplayable garbage and thus a sign of a concerted effort to screw over control, yet absorb is one of the most played spells in standard with esper control one of the most played decks. they ARE giving control good stuff, and have been in the majority of standard formats.Posted in: Modern
Feb 12, 2019Posted in: Aggro & TempoQuote from Izzet Stormteller »Hello guys.
Im considering buying into the deck. And the first question I have if there is a way to play a fetchless version of it.
And im thinking if I should wait to buy the phoenixes now or wait for it to drop... I already have 2 of them. Same goes for thing in the ice. I own 2 of them and could borrow another 2 if I wanted to play it somewhere
yeah you can play fetchless, using Shivan Reefs with a full set of spirebluffs + steam vents. pretty much the fetchless storm manabase. i wouldnt consider it as good as a fetch base since you will likely take more self inflicted damage, also you lose access to blood moon out of the side which isnt going to be good in every meta or matchup but is one of the most potent cards when it is. alpine moon would be your alternative.
imo the choice to buy the 2 phoenixes is dependent on how quickly you wanna play the deck. they have peaked in price because the hype wave is still in full swing. they arent going to plummet or anything, but just recognize you are (now) paying a premium to play a archetype/deck that a whole lotta other people want to play as well. for reference ive been watching the price of phoenix (as well as titi, and manamorphose), and they have all stabilized and held steady for a month and a half; so dont worry about missing out because its very unlikely prices go up significantly.
Feb 11, 2019yeah if they reprint fetches at rare, plus whatever juicy stuff, in 4 dollar packs it is going to sell like hotcakes. sell so well in fact, that id expect the product and whatever charms it holds as some cool and wacky way to play to be overlooked.Posted in: Modern
i agree its hard not to assume they arent printing direct-to-modern. however you have to note that at no point did they say it was designed specifically for modern. that is a leap you have to take with a bit of optimism. if you arent sure what im talking about its like battlebond and edh. battlebond was like weird 2hg shennanigans, but the product was partially aimed at edh. in that sense, it is the format getting the 'impact'.
as for what about it would be exciting or attractive, that is where the split in the camps happens. if you believe that high costing modern staples being reprinted in something NOT a premium costed set is sufficient to match their statements, then its a possibility. if you dont think so, then it isnt; making the only reasonable conclusion a non standard set being deemed modern legal.
as mentioned in my previous post, i dont think getting cheap fetches or whatever else counts. however im jaded enough to believe that wizards would believe it is. like somehow decks costing 700 instead of a 1000 is going to offset wizards possibly cutting back on modern tournaments, its relevancy in the mythic championship series, and instead pushing a new non-rotating format. im not saying that is going to happen, rather just pointing out how different those two things are.
Feb 11, 2019given its wizards we are talking about here, im expecting just a set that is related to modern insomuch as it has value reprints.Posted in: Modern
even with this pretty low expectation, id still be disappointed if it turns out to be true. mostly because it means those statements by maro and blake were extremely misleading. in that initial 'fact/fiction' interview where the announcement was spoiled the topic was about modern players being worried and uncertain about their format of choice being relegated to irrelevancy in the face of arena and its upcoming nonrotating format. in that context card availability is irrelevant, we already know they are shifting the load from the masters sets onto ancillary products. dont try to prop it up as some show of support. reprint fetches? guess they must be supporting legacy too!
Feb 11, 2019yeah when i watched the interview myself i immediately noticed how it was just a statement of reality. its a tricky set to make and requires serious design and testing time. you can assume that this difficulty has kept it off the table, or that its something for the distant future. however its just that, an assumption.Posted in: Modern
now its hard to assume that the product is anything but something that injects cards into modern that werent previously there. its now confirmed to be one of the Innovation Sets, of which were previously Conspiracy and Battlebond. if they arent designing new cards specifically for it, and are constrained to modern reprints; then how is it any different than a rebranding of modern masters.
the only explanation would be a cheap modern masters, and its 'impact' that people would like is how cheap some cards get.
Feb 10, 2019Posted in: Modern
ktkenshinx covered most of it. for the vast majority of modern players, a real meta doesnt exist. so i agree with you on that front, and i believe ive said stuff similar to your post sans the defeatism.Quote from cfusionpm »Trying to metagame against a field of decks that is as wide as is available in Modern, you are leaving much of these results up to luck of the draw (or pairings, so to speak), and we can reverse-engineer justify why these decks may or may have done well, but it means nothing and provides no meaningful information in preparing for the next event. I'll be at GP LA next month, but doubtful I'll bother to register for the main event, unless that's the only way to get a foil Bolt. But if I do, I'm just going to play a powerful, fast, linear/semi-linear deck like GDS or Phoenix. Because it's not worth trying to play guessing games and hope to get lucky with stuff like control and midrange. Not when entry is $70.
however, as was pointed out by idsurge a while back, i think there IS a 'winners meta' that is driven by perception. ktkenshinx pointed out the literal previous GP results, but i would extend that to community hype and what players believe are the decks to beat at any point. maybe its because of some 'expert' arbitrarily saying so, buying into new deck hype, being told by another to 'play x', etc.
regardless, what this does is impact what the most competitive/skilled players (pros, grinders, etc) choose to sleeve up. call it self fulfilling, a feedback loop, or whatever. this has a definite impact on what is likely to show up at the top tables. that is the 'winners meta'.
so there are two options to be sucessful in modern, and subsequently large tournaments. specializing in a few (or one) decks, which is recommended for most players who dont have easy access to multiple. OR be just really freaking good at magic in general, then 'metagame' against what other really good magic players are likely to bring.
for the latter you may think that there is too much variance (in other words no skill), however its perfectly reasonable to seek out an advantage under the assumption some criteria is met. to put it another way its capitalizing on when or if you get lucky. maybe that luck is dodging matchups, maybe its running hot, or maybe its just getting paired with someone not very good at the game. if it doesnt work out, bad beats, whatever. if it does, suddenly you get an edge that improves your chances deeper in the tournament.
that top 8 aligns with what people think is good right now, so it being what it was isnt very random.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.