MTG Salvation

I really like the idea of reverse backbuild personally.
I am also a fan of pauper, but some of the problems with the form mat I think would keep it interesting. I wouldn't mind a push toward more monocolored decks for a special week. While I am a fan of 5 land and manlands, their loss would at least alter what kinds of decks can be played. One thing is for sure though, watch out for foil, but most of its friends are not able to show up.
EDIT:I also wouldn't mind a nostalgia them for week 100, but to be honest, I couldn't connect to it. The idea of using only cards from 2005 and older sounds neat though, but it seems like a decent number of decks aren't really affected by this (for better or worse). 5 land and foil are the ones that stick out to me.

Crap, I totally forgot that spawning pool could block and tap for mana to regen. I would have done quite a bit better otherwise.

For the other two polls

E. Usually they should be two in a row

B. Mostly the Same

I would not mind little changes like bannings in the second week. Also, little changes can help to fix any inheritant problems that get realized a little late. For those reasons, I picked B. For the most part, I would like them more or less identical, though changing it up to keep it interesting would be fun.

One downside is that the combo requires you to pay six mana all at once, something that you don't have to do with painter. You also have to have played any draw/filtering cards before hand to fetch the pacts first, or else you will be giving them answers.
The other problem of course, is the possibility of the opponent having that color of mana. To counteract this, you would have to run the resiliency, which will fill your deck with a lot of dead cards.
That said, it seems like a fun idea, though I don't think it will be too competitive.

First and foremost, I am new to the format too.

I've been looking at a 5-land variant, and it certainly is tricky in this format. 4 or 3 land might be a better idea. Time Spiral is probably your best bet for lands. These are the ones I liked:

Desert
Keldon Megalith
Kher Keep
Molten Slagheap
Pendelhaven
Swarmyard
Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
Urza's Factory
Zoetic Cavern

Wow, I was not expecting to take second, or for there to be near this many people.
Thanks Mogg, that was a colossal effort.

Oddly enough, despite taking second here, I didn't do so well against a small local pod I had set up. I used the exact same deck, but it just didn't hold out as well.

Another neat thing I noticed was just how few of the "net decks" recommended in Dom's article showed up. I was really expecting a few more people to play foil, one of the cards I was extremely weary of when making my deck.

I think you make a pretty good point. Shroud would have been a good way of balancing out the large risk involved in sacrificing all your dudes for a creature that can just be killed off via targeted removal.

First, chance encounter costs 4, not 5.

I am not a huge fan of the combo, but there are some other advantages. The fact that frantic efreet can at least attempt to skitter removal is an advantage.
The other advantage is that since the cards are already in red, and require 7 total mana, you can run the red rituals in order to cast them earlier.

Shackle of Destiny
Legendary Artifact
3

As far as the flavor issues are concerned, a hellion would work for a flame wurm.

The whole point of this thread is for the creation of big green (and mostly vanilla) creatures that push the limits. Right now Tarmogoyf is in a class all of his own, with really no other green creatures being playable outside of elves, survival, and 9 land stompy, and I wouldn't really call those decks tier 1 (but lets not derail the thread). So, I figured that with green being the creature color, it deserves to actually have the best big creatures.
Anyways, the point of this thread is to try and create some big beefy green creatures that could skitter on the curve, but not be blatantly over it, like our good friend Goyf. The format in question is legacy, though it helps if the creature could actually see print in a modern set.

These are what I can think of, though I am sure some of them need their P/T adjusted:


Smashin' 1 drop G
Creature-Beast
~This's power and toughness are equal to the number of forests you control.
At the end of turn, if you control more than 3 forests, sacrifice ~this.
*/*

I don't think this guy is really too far above the curve, if anything I think that he is below it. While he is easily a 2/2 on turn two in a lot of formats (though not in a multicolor standard deck), in legacy I don't think he would be a 2/2 by turn 3 normally. The only decks that would have double green by turn 2 wouldn't even play this guy, as he would just be too inefficient a bunch of the time.
I don't think he would be a danger to standard either, since he would require a heavily green initial land drops, which most decks would not want to make. Plus, with all the non-basics, I really don't see him getting too big.


Crazy 2 drop GG
Creature-Beast
At the end of turn, if you control any non-basic lands, sacrifice ~this.
4/4

I have no idea what to set this creature's power and toughness to. In legacy, I think he could easily be a 5/5, and still no receive a whole lot of play.
I set the casting cost to GG, but I think that might be too difficult for a lot of decks, this could possibly be 1G, but I think that would just be too easy.
The reason I set the sacrifice trigger to end of turn is so that fetch lands could still be played, while still making it a difficult condition to fulfill.
The biggest problem I see with this guy is that he is far too dangerous to the casual crowd. In that case, he is just flat out broken, so I don't think it could ever see print.
Increasing the cost to 1GG and setting an appropriate size might also be a good idea.


So what do you think? Are my guys just far beyond any reasonable curve, or are they just too weak and unplayable? Another possibility is that they are too far above the curve, yet unplayable (a distinct possibility). Any creatures that you would like to add?

That's a pretty cool idea for a card, and I think more or less equally awesome as a cycle.
It reminds me a lot of the slith cycle, which are some of my all time cards, seeing as I started playing around then. What I would like to see is what would happen if they remade slith firewalker like that, how would they balance it? Would they just add one more counter, or would that be too overpowered for red?
EDIT: I think the counter should be removed whenever it blocks too, though that would be for the cycle that I am envisioning, not necessarily what Rancored Elf is thinking of.

First and foremost Ember, no actually quits magic, not permanently at least. I tried quitting, and many of my friends have, but they all come back.
Anyways, back on topic, I don't think MaRo was ever implying that we will visit a 4-color/Nephilim plane, just that they they weren't originally from Ravnica, which I guess makes sense, though I didn't pay enough attention to the plot of Ravnica to tell you.

I keep hearing players say that the bears will not go because they are the term that plays refer to when they talk about any 2/2 for 2, however, what about gray ogre? I always hear that card mentioned to refer to any 2/2 for 3 and that card has not been in print since fourth edition. Hell, most player have never actually played a gray ogre, yet they know what the phrase means.

The imageshack bandwith has been exceeded, just to warn you.