Y-yeah... that's the point. It's almost like we never had a mechanic stretch over three sets in the past when these were still called a "block" and basically defined the mechanical landscape of a year's worth of time. MDFC may not be the best mechanical tie to have around, but at least we know now that the individual sets went for lower numbers.
I really like the things they do in conjunction with "Year of Commander" here. Having a spell on the flip-side of a legendary creature is doing a lot of neat things. Look at how you can sacrifice creatures to pay for that spells commander tax! It's silly.
Something doesn't quite add up about this discussion. Fan art isn't protected by copyright afaik, since it is itself infringing on copyright, so the artist shouldn't need permission to use it.
IIRC from another case WotC may have the ability prohibit someone from using their characters, but cannot simply claim and use the fan-art without permission either since they only have the right to the character not that particular piece of art. So that should put this in a situation where neither party has sole proprietorship of the artwork. A third party selling a second level infringement to either of them wouldn't follow the usually incorrect formula of "two wrongs make a right" either.
Pretty absurd in limited where you will cast this for X = 4 pretty much every time you aren't mana screwed. A 5 mana 4/4 that scry's 1, draws a card, and bounces the opponents best creature.
Probably their worst creature. There is nothing that says you choose the creature, just the player, so the choice goes to the one doing the returning.
Well, when you consider that taxing is primary white and secondary blue. You are right that this could be blue. But because it isn't discard no matter how much it looks like discard it isnt black. It isn't close to anything black does.
Sure it's close to something black does. It's like a rhystic discard that you pay as you cast the card. This is a perfectly fine effect for e. g. a white-black hybrid card down the line. But it definitely is white in that it taxes one particular card.
I want to talk about Lorehold Command. That last choice is unique for a red or white card. Since when do red or white sacrifice things to draw? Weirder yet combined with the first choice you can convert this card into basically reading "draw two cards". Five mana is a bit much to draw two but since when does this color pair get unconditional or in this sell fulfilling card draw?
Boros Locket and Hedron Archive. I always thought red should have this "Sacrifice something. If you do, draw cards." effect as an extension of rummaging; also reminiscent of Aggressive Mining. Often the permanent you sacrifice will be worth a card. On a gold card this is not making a definite statement on whether one of the colos individually, or even either can have it, or whether it's reserved for them together.
They do combat plane-fatigue? How about the dizziness of not staying long enough with a plane to care? Kaldheim certainly seems like it just raced past.
I mean one thing is liking tha change, one thing is bull*****ting that magic was about crossovers all along
Don't really understand why Mark Rosewater is being hypocritical about this.
Outside of the discussion whether MaRo should have changed his opinion (or even has; I've not invested any research into whether this is a development he personally favors), I think,, seven/eight years is enough of a time to consider a change of opinion just that, rather than calling it hypocrisy.
Not that he is specifically stating personal opinion in the quoted reply either, reads more like a statement about the company's stance and policy at the time.
What I find remarkable are the endless wishlists and requests for actual Magic worlds, characters, returns and themes that are still awaited, or denied.
I don't suspect this product will take away from any of that, but it does feel jarring.
Nah, world building is a significant bottle neck. Which is why their departure from three-set blocks was accompanied with a significant expansion of their Creative team. This is probably a partial reason why this cross-over experiment does make business sense: Using an outside IP saves them building a world from scratch. Though building worlds from scratch is actually a strength I value in their product.
Did you notice how none of the commons you cite remove planeswalkers, but almost all of the rares do?
They were so busy looking for a Praetor, they never saw the Eldrazi Titan coming...
Y-yeah... that's the point. It's almost like we never had a mechanic stretch over three sets in the past when these were still called a "block" and basically defined the mechanical landscape of a year's worth of time. MDFC may not be the best mechanical tie to have around, but at least we know now that the individual sets went for lower numbers.
I really like the things they do in conjunction with "Year of Commander" here. Having a spell on the flip-side of a legendary creature is doing a lot of neat things. Look at how you can sacrifice creatures to pay for that spells commander tax! It's silly.
IIRC from another case WotC may have the ability prohibit someone from using their characters, but cannot simply claim and use the fan-art without permission either since they only have the right to the character not that particular piece of art. So that should put this in a situation where neither party has sole proprietorship of the artwork. A third party selling a second level infringement to either of them wouldn't follow the usually incorrect formula of "two wrongs make a right" either.
Probably their worst creature. There is nothing that says you choose the creature, just the player, so the choice goes to the one doing the returning.
The jump from X=3 to X=4 is quiet a big one.
Actually, yeah. There was some interesting potential in splitting them across two colleges.
Sure it's close to something black does. It's like a rhystic discard that you pay as you cast the card. This is a perfectly fine effect for e. g. a white-black hybrid card down the line. But it definitely is white in that it taxes one particular card.
Boros Locket and Hedron Archive. I always thought red should have this "Sacrifice something. If you do, draw cards." effect as an extension of rummaging; also reminiscent of Aggressive Mining. Often the permanent you sacrifice will be worth a card. On a gold card this is not making a definite statement on whether one of the colos individually, or even either can have it, or whether it's reserved for them together.
Only if the copy spell doesn't target, because spells cannot target themselves.
It might be they overlap in some cards. Would that be satisfactory?
Outside of the discussion whether MaRo should have changed his opinion (or even has; I've not invested any research into whether this is a development he personally favors), I think,, seven/eight years is enough of a time to consider a change of opinion just that, rather than calling it hypocrisy.
Not that he is specifically stating personal opinion in the quoted reply either, reads more like a statement about the company's stance and policy at the time.
Nah, world building is a significant bottle neck. Which is why their departure from three-set blocks was accompanied with a significant expansion of their Creative team. This is probably a partial reason why this cross-over experiment does make business sense: Using an outside IP saves them building a world from scratch. Though building worlds from scratch is actually a strength I value in their product.