No one else has asked yet so I suppose I will: what purpose? Is everyone in Naktamun going to sacrifice themselves to Bolas?
Anyway, it doesn't look like it is possible (in Limited or Standard) at this time to get 3 brick counters on the pyramid before turn 4, even with a Winding Constrictor on turn 2 (in which case you will have 4 brick counters on it). Seems risky, but if your turn 5 play not only catches you up with your opponent but also puts you ahead I suppose it could be worth it.
I wonder, then, why more Standard players aren't using Horribly Awry? It costs 1U and counters then exiles creature spells with a cmc <= 4, a condition which hits at least 85% of the creatures in the two largest archetypes in the format right now. *shrug* A rhetorical question only which does not actually require a response.
Why can't we have a strong counterspell for the format?
Just out of curiosity, then, what are your criteria for being a strong counterspell? The question is non-format-specific but I think most of us can agree that a strong counterspell in Standard will look differently than a strong counterspell in Modern.
This card's flavortext was probably the teams mantra when they designed Amonkhet, because I don't have even the faintest idea what this set wants me to do.
erm, folks--jturphy and I were merely discussing philosophical approaches to the game and how those apply to assessing and evaluating cards. I was just going to walk away, myself, figuring that the actual best approach to the game is somewhere in between where I stand and where jturphy stands. *shrug*
Why don't more people try to figure out how a card can work instead of seeing only the ways in which it cannot?
The hype is for Limited/Sealed and Standard, formats where this card can--and will--start winning some games on turn 4.
Because why waste looking for a reason to make a bad card work? The card is fun and will be fun in casual formats. But spending time trying make a bad card work competitively is just a waste of time. 4 Mana cards that do not create instant card advantage or can win the game on their own are not good competitively.
That is a fair assessment--this card is, ultimately, nothing more than the set-up card for your real finisher. Still, I don't mind spending the time to see if it can work in Standard and I already know it should be good in Limited (depending upon what else you open). Modern....no, thank you--I tried Modern about a month ago and did fairly well for my first time but my personality and the personalities of some of the people who play Modern at my local store don't mix very well, so we simply avoid each other now.
The problem with Hedonist's Trove is that it required your opponent to have a fairly well-stocked graveyard, which most decks don't have; the ones which do are better at manipulating their own graveyard than you will be via your enchantment. I tired to make it work, too, but its pre-Fate version Villainous Wealth was always better.
I still think this enchantment could be good in a BG shell with low-cost creatures and Cryptolith Rite as it represents a To the Slaughter every turn starting on turn 5. Once on the battlefield, your opponent will start off by losing half the creatures they might be casting and then in only two or three turns they will run out of gas and start losing life, not counting the damage being inflicted by your creatures and/or spells.
That just warrants good karma, I hope if your playing at the Pre-release you pull 3 Mythics in the 6 packs.
Thank you. I just see the same arguments over and over again about everything that gets spoiled--costs too much, dies to x, isn't as good as <my favorite card from some set that came out 10 years ago>, etc.
No, it is possible to cast the champion on turn 3, attain delirium on turn 4, find the one copy of the game-ending creature in your deck via traverse, then attack and put the game-ender on the battlefield.
People are going to build around this card, it is true, but some of those people are also going to win games quickly because of it.
Okay, so now all green decks will be able to start winning on turn 5, presuming they haven't used a mana dork or psuedo-ramp to get to 4 mana on turn 3. Of course, if you are playing that deck and you are on the play then Void Winnower does prevent your opponent from being able to marvel or cat.
The sad and disheartening thing is that they needed the feedback to begin with. I mean, someone in power actually thought using the same five planeswalkers over and over was a good idea? It wreaks of uncreative, non-playing business people sticking their noses where they don't belong.
From a marketing perspective having the same five planeswalkers over and over *is* a good idea--it creates product identification (if you see a picture of Chandra on a poster you pretty much know who it is even if the poster has no text or context) in the same way it does when Kellogg's uses Tony the Tiger. All companies need feedback from their customers, though, otherwise they won't know when a product is failing, succeeding, or if there are problems with it that need to be addressed. As far as being "uncreative" or "non-playing"...well, if they were not creative they wouldn't be able to continue releasing products but I do have to admit I don't know how often, of even if, anyone at the corporate headquarters actually plays Magic (consider the HR people who work there, or those over in Accounts Payable).
"Sticking their noses where they don't belong", though....Magic is *their* product--they may do with it whatever they please, up to and including discontinuing the entire product line effective immediately. If they want to kill off all planeswalkers except the Gatewatch Five they could do that, too.
As with many things, the wheels of progress turn slowly but at least they are listening and trying to keep their customer base as happy as possible.
On the other hand, the copycat combo now comes with twice as many cats--it's new and improved!
Anyway, it doesn't look like it is possible (in Limited or Standard) at this time to get 3 brick counters on the pyramid before turn 4, even with a Winding Constrictor on turn 2 (in which case you will have 4 brick counters on it). Seems risky, but if your turn 5 play not only catches you up with your opponent but also puts you ahead I suppose it could be worth it.
No...dessert would have been great.
I wonder, then, why more Standard players aren't using Horribly Awry? It costs 1U and counters then exiles creature spells with a cmc <= 4, a condition which hits at least 85% of the creatures in the two largest archetypes in the format right now. *shrug* A rhetorical question only which does not actually require a response.
Just out of curiosity, then, what are your criteria for being a strong counterspell? The question is non-format-specific but I think most of us can agree that a strong counterspell in Standard will look differently than a strong counterspell in Modern.
This sets want you to mummify cats then reanimate their mummified corpses. Sounds a little dark when you say it like that, doesn't it?
That is a fair assessment--this card is, ultimately, nothing more than the set-up card for your real finisher. Still, I don't mind spending the time to see if it can work in Standard and I already know it should be good in Limited (depending upon what else you open). Modern....no, thank you--I tried Modern about a month ago and did fairly well for my first time but my personality and the personalities of some of the people who play Modern at my local store don't mix very well, so we simply avoid each other now.
I still think this enchantment could be good in a BG shell with low-cost creatures and Cryptolith Rite as it represents a To the Slaughter every turn starting on turn 5. Once on the battlefield, your opponent will start off by losing half the creatures they might be casting and then in only two or three turns they will run out of gas and start losing life, not counting the damage being inflicted by your creatures and/or spells.
Thank you. I just see the same arguments over and over again about everything that gets spoiled--costs too much, dies to x, isn't as good as <my favorite card from some set that came out 10 years ago>, etc.
The hype is for Limited/Sealed and Standard, formats where this card can--and will--start winning some games on turn 4.
People are going to build around this card, it is true, but some of those people are also going to win games quickly because of it.
Okay, so now all green decks will be able to start winning on turn 5, presuming they haven't used a mana dork or psuedo-ramp to get to 4 mana on turn 3. Of course, if you are playing that deck and you are on the play then Void Winnower does prevent your opponent from being able to marvel or cat.
From a marketing perspective having the same five planeswalkers over and over *is* a good idea--it creates product identification (if you see a picture of Chandra on a poster you pretty much know who it is even if the poster has no text or context) in the same way it does when Kellogg's uses Tony the Tiger. All companies need feedback from their customers, though, otherwise they won't know when a product is failing, succeeding, or if there are problems with it that need to be addressed. As far as being "uncreative" or "non-playing"...well, if they were not creative they wouldn't be able to continue releasing products but I do have to admit I don't know how often, of even if, anyone at the corporate headquarters actually plays Magic (consider the HR people who work there, or those over in Accounts Payable).
"Sticking their noses where they don't belong", though....Magic is *their* product--they may do with it whatever they please, up to and including discontinuing the entire product line effective immediately. If they want to kill off all planeswalkers except the Gatewatch Five they could do that, too.
As with many things, the wheels of progress turn slowly but at least they are listening and trying to keep their customer base as happy as possible.