I don't think there is many people at all who just follow what R&D does. Many people will follow what R&D does closely, many will just follow in their own designs, but I doubt there is more than a few who don't consider things could reasonably be different in others designs. I myself, for example, follow R&D pretty much exactly in my own design rules, but I understand that others have no obligation whatsoever to do so. It certainly seems at times that people may not be thinking openly and just being conservative, but many of those times, it's not true. It's just what is being said that is so, and that's not representative of their larger viewpoint, it's more that the debate needs to continue to elaborate on either sides points and determine a resolution.
@Manite
And now you've just keyworded mill. My problem with this whole idea, it's not really it's own mechanic, it's a construction of elements made into a mechanic but it doesn't really fit as a cohesive unit. The original idea is done like exploit, but it's not, there is no decision making, you just play it and mill and get a bonus. The bonus doesn't have any reason why it's there, there's no condition to be met (like with Ferocious or Metalcraft), there's no cost to be paid (like Exploit or Replicate), it's not based around the bonus (Prowess, Outlast), it's just there. It makes no sense to be a mechanic.
@IcariiFA.
Absolutely. I don't know why you would be concerned about development things before we have even seen the relevant cards. I think it's related to the concerns over Prowess being evergreen, that people can be openly critical of R&D without reason, some sort of negativity bias.
If you are saying that new cards might break an existing deck, they can reverse any effects by banning whatever cards break the deck. Any change they can make to modern they can reverse. Perhaps they might want to ban currently balanced cards if they introduce other cards that make those cards OP, but that would be because they think that the new cards are better to support, so whatever. Development will always do what they think is best for the game, it's in their interests to cater to our interests.
I'm scared of Prowess being evergreen... Currently, only creature were printed with Prowess, limiting their use to WUR. But now, we are bound to get an Aura or a spell that gives Prowess to target creature. And if that happens... I'm afraid to say T1 Infect if they aren't careful.
And development knows this. That's why they have a ban list.
I don't think this warrants a mechanic, but a cycle or a few cards with this would be great. I'm all for interesting utilisations of existing design such as this.
My reasoning behind the name is that, since the creature with the ability normally isn't the one the creature is being sacrificed to, the flavour makes sense to be more of a ritualistic magic thing. The idea is that whenever you sacrifice, the innate power of the sacrificial ritual is used by the creature with Chaotic to draw power. The name "Chaotic" makes the primal magic flavour and also pushes the flavour of the faction more, the combination of Jund and Grixis is all about Chaos. Same applies for Endurance, being all about defence and long term planning, Convert, being the constant improving of things for their own end, Charge, being raw strength, speed and ferocity, and Prosper, being about vitality, unity and growth.
Clockwork Spider: Good
Dark Iron Elementalist: a bit conflicting in timing, but likely good
Crypt Lord: should have lifelink instead of vigilance. Vigilance isn't black and lifelink matches the token for symmetry.
Zilean: Good.
@Jereshroom.
This set isn't necessarily designed for the current standard. The synergies you listed could actually be good to help cards from this set into modern, so I am favour of leaving everything as-is.
I second the evergreen changes podcast. I would suggest expanding into a general discussion on evergreen mechanics with a highlight of talking about the changes.
"Incorrect. See Trostani's Judgment, Iona's Judgment, and Angelic Edict."
Those are colour pie violators as well. See Swords to Plowshares as well.
I point to several recent designs that prove my point of view on the matter is in fact support by Wizards and you tell me I'm still wrong? The violator is you, friend.
"In a set about malice an antagonizing your opponent? Yup."
Bad design is bad, it doesn't matter whether your theme supports it. Supporting the theme is only enough to push a borderline printable into printable, so that's what this needs to be (or better). And I am hesitant to think this is good enough, thematic or not. Maybe.
You call it bad design, yet you've said nothing to support that point of view. If you're trying to convince me, you need to actually present an arguement here. Black is the color that can get almost any effect at a price, and this wouldn't be the first time black has crossed the line doing so for a counter spell. Hell, I'd be fine bumping this up to 3 if it turns into such a concern, but given it's a choice effect that makes it weaker than most counters, yet plays into the sets themes (If I choose to sac a creature instead of just let it be countered, morbid becomes a factor this turn) I see it as a valuable addition to black in this set.
Black can't get almost any effect for a price. It can for some, many even perhaps. But counterspells are not in the category of things that WotC are OK with spreading, due to their ability to produce unfun gameplay. They were almost put in white once, but they still aren't today, it is the same reason.
I agree.
More cards added, some tweaks
I don't think there is many people at all who just follow what R&D does. Many people will follow what R&D does closely, many will just follow in their own designs, but I doubt there is more than a few who don't consider things could reasonably be different in others designs. I myself, for example, follow R&D pretty much exactly in my own design rules, but I understand that others have no obligation whatsoever to do so. It certainly seems at times that people may not be thinking openly and just being conservative, but many of those times, it's not true. It's just what is being said that is so, and that's not representative of their larger viewpoint, it's more that the debate needs to continue to elaborate on either sides points and determine a resolution.
And now you've just keyworded mill. My problem with this whole idea, it's not really it's own mechanic, it's a construction of elements made into a mechanic but it doesn't really fit as a cohesive unit. The original idea is done like exploit, but it's not, there is no decision making, you just play it and mill and get a bonus. The bonus doesn't have any reason why it's there, there's no condition to be met (like with Ferocious or Metalcraft), there's no cost to be paid (like Exploit or Replicate), it's not based around the bonus (Prowess, Outlast), it's just there. It makes no sense to be a mechanic.
Absolutely. I don't know why you would be concerned about development things before we have even seen the relevant cards. I think it's related to the concerns over Prowess being evergreen, that people can be openly critical of R&D without reason, some sort of negativity bias.
And development knows this. That's why they have a ban list.
Enemy colour rares added. Mythic Ceaseless Harvest added.
More cards added, formatting updated, typos fixed
Dark Iron Elementalist: a bit conflicting in timing, but likely good
Crypt Lord: should have lifelink instead of vigilance. Vigilance isn't black and lifelink matches the token for symmetry.
Zilean: Good.
This set isn't necessarily designed for the current standard. The synergies you listed could actually be good to help cards from this set into modern, so I am favour of leaving everything as-is.
I second the evergreen changes podcast. I would suggest expanding into a general discussion on evergreen mechanics with a highlight of talking about the changes.
MaRo disagrees. It's debated, though.
And one that WotC's templating team agrees with. What's the reason to diverge?
Black can't get almost any effect for a price. It can for some, many even perhaps. But counterspells are not in the category of things that WotC are OK with spreading, due to their ability to produce unfun gameplay. They were almost put in white once, but they still aren't today, it is the same reason.