2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on New Capenna Police Tropes
    Quote from user_938036 »
    I would first like to say its interesting how you say you wanted to show law enforcement because without actual law enforcement crime is just a word. Then proceed to only create one law enforcement card with lots of corrupt cops that would just fall into the mob families.

    Police Corruption, I like the feel of are you giving into the corruption or not. It doesn't feel white.

    Brutal Vigilante, this is definitely a green card. Delaying the card draw isn't enough to shift it so much out of color.

    Lose the Evidence, this is great but shouldn't be common. Even with cycling you don't want so many in a draft.

    Mob Boss, this is sadly awful. The cost of keeping it tapped is inconsequential while there's also little incentive to keep it tapped. Making a clue actually makes this a threat.

    Blind Eye doesn't need the cost to be unblockable. Its a fairly cheap ability.

    Stake Out, this is the exact kind of card that should never be printed. You never want to encourage your players to not win or play the game.

    I should note about the color identities that I thought more about what colors I want to have access to these effects in the context of deckbuilding than historical precedent. By that I mean I don't think any of these card effects specifically do something a color shouldn't do, but also the cards aren't limited to what the colors traditionally do either. I wanted W to be focused on the Investigate mechanic because it's so closely linked with the flavor of law enforcement, which is a very W institution. I realize that an abundance of unconditional card draw is probably not something W should have access to, so I was careful to find holes for it to jump through to get Clues:

    • Stake Out requires that you play defensively, and makes you decide between drawing extra cards or being more active. I agree that having cards that disincentivize action isn't the best thing in the world, but I don't think a single card at a high rarity is an issue, especially since the overwhelming majority of the rest of the cards in any given set will encourage exactly the opposite, which makes the choice of drawing cards or being active that much more compelling. You either choose to be rewarded by other cards for being active, or you choose to lay low and be rewarded by this card.
    • Brutal Vigilante uses the R in its color identity to define the hoops the player has to jump through. This card requires that the creature deal damage, however it can, and even gives you the ability to fight with it. All of that is very mechanically red, and in the context of this set, the Clue is tied to the white half of the color identity. I understand that in most sets, W wouldn't be the card draw color, but colors have bent in the past to accommodate set themes and I think this is an example of one of those moments. Again, as long as W has to do specific things that fall in the color identity of the card (even if it's a second color like on this card), it's fine. That means that this card is less a RW card and more a R card that requires that you also be playing W in your deck. I don't believe that every multicolor card needs to include rules text that specifically represents each of its colors. Mana cost at its core exists to determine which decks are allowed to have access to it, and that's what drove this design.
    • Police Corruption uses a one-time investigate trigger, which is less than a cantrip, something any color can do. Again, this is less of a WB card and more of a B card that you can only play in a deck that's also playing W. I chose to put W in the mana cost to signal the theme of the color pair for the set (W is investigate, B is Treasure, WB is tokens).

    I also want to reiterate that I specifically avoided using WU for investigate because I assume the crime families will be ally colored and I didn't want to step on the toes of the WUB or GWU families. I also just think the flavor works out better this way (in this context, W believes in following the rules, RW believes in following its own rules and punishing those who break the rules, and WB believes in manipulating the rules to protect itself).

    As for your other comments, my goal was to show the state of law enforcement on New Capenna, not to show what it ideally would be in a perfect world. Here, (presumably) law enforcement is divided between good cops (investigate) and bad cops (treasure), and the bad cops clearly have the upper hand. The police being corrupt demonstrates that there was, at one time, a formidable force against crime, but that force has since been considerably weakened. The story this tells speaks to just how deeply entrenched New Capenna as a plane is in organized crime, and emphasizes how powerful the crime families are, while still offering up the possibility that there are still good cops fighting the good fight, even if it's a losing battle.

    And as for the balancing of the rest of the cards, I took my best guess at costs and abilities, but mostly designed them from the top down. I figure after playtesting they'd change a bit. I chose these iterations because they are the best at demonstrating the flavor I was going for.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on New Capenna Police Tropes
    Quote from Grapefruit21 »
    I don't love that police corruption uses a mechanic to create a token it will never make. I really like the flavor of the card but the execution is clunky. I love the flavor of the other two enchantments though. Stake Out in particular is really cool, I don't think WotC would print it in white but as a card to play with I love it in any color.

    Blind Eye is great but does the flavor make more sense if it taps the enchanted creature rather than making it unblockable? It's a very different card that way but I think it captures the idea of an officer pocketing the bribe and looking away better if it's a negative enchantment on an opposing creature.


    Police Corruption is a "may" ability. You can choose to actually get a Clue.

    I could see Blind Eye changing a bit. Tapping could work just as well as unblockable. With unblockable, I see it as the creature with Blind Eye on it (as in the creature the "blind eye" is being turned to) pays off whoever is in the way.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on New Capenna Police Tropes
    We know New Capenna is gonna be the MTG "Gangster" world, and that it will focus on five three-color crime families (most likely ally colors). However, one of the staple elements of organized crime stories is law enforcement and detective work. Without those elements, the word "crime" has no meaning. So I thought it would be neat to show the state of law enforcement on New Capenna given the elevated status of organized crime.

    Notably, multicolor cards here will be enemy colored to differentiate themselves from the presumably ally colored crime families.

    Police Corruption WB
    Enchantment (R)
    When ~ enters the battlefield, investigate.
    If you would create one or more tokens, you may create that many Treasure tokens instead.

    Brutal Vigilante 1RW
    Creature - Rogue (R)
    3/3
    Whenever Brutal Vigilante deals damage, investigate.
    2, Discard a card: ~ fights target creature you don't control.

    Lose the Evidence 1R
    Instant (C)
    Exile target artifact.
    Cycling 2

    Mob Boss 2B
    Creature - Demon Noble (R)
    */4
    Flying
    ~'s power is equal to the number of Treasures you control.
    At the beginning of combat on your turn, an opponent may have you create a Treasure token. If they do, tap ~.

    Blind Eye U
    Enchantment - Aura (C)
    Enchant Creature
    When ~ enters the battlefield, create a Treasure token.
    1: Enchanted creature can't be blocked this turn.

    Stake Out W
    Enchantment (R)
    At the beginning of your end step, investigate.
    Whenever you cast a spell or attack with a creature, sacrifice ~.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Streets of New Capenna - 3 color set... Triomes again?
    This is a pretty good bet. I predict that they'll be called "_____ Turf" instead of "Triome", to lean into the theme of territorial crime families.

    The inclusion of triomes would probably hinge on the inclusion of cycling, though. If this is like other typical faction sets where each faction has its own mechanic, that'll make the set a little crowded. (Strixhaven didn't have faction mechanics, but it also had larger set themes to fill that space. I don't think this set will be the same.) Still, it's happened before.

    Alternatively, cycling might also just be a deciduous/evergreen mechanic by the time this set comes out, so maybe it doesn't need to be a set theme.
    Posted in: Baseless Speculation
  • posted a message on Metamorphosis 3.0
    I think WotC is gearing up to transition from 4 standard set releases per year to 6. This occurred to me when I was thinking about why they shifted the release dates of the upcoming Innistrad sets. This would result in a new rotation model, and here's how I think it'll work:

    1. Standard sets will release every two months rather than every three.
    2. As a result, rotation will happen every 8 months rather than every 12. This is to maintain the size of the standard card pool (5-8 sets at all times). This means that rotations would happen in September, then May, then January, then September again, and repeat.

    Here are the reasons I believe they're doing this. Note that I'm not saying this is why they SHOULD transition to this model, only why I think they WOULD. This is a prediction, not a wish.

    1. More products = More $. WotC is a business, and has demonstrated that they are willing to ignore player frustration if what they're doing makes them more money. Increasing from 4 set releases to 6 would pressure standard players to buy new cards more often.

    2. Faster rotations is an answer to player frustration. I know this contradicts my last statement, but hear me out. WotC is undoubtedly aware that players are frustrated with standard stagnating because of sets like Throne of Eldraine. Players want to start playing the next standard last month, not next month. WotC's two options to combat this are to either try to design standard sets more carefully, which they've been trying to do with very mixed results; or to decrease the amount of time sets like this remain in standard. Faster rotation allows them a safety net in case they fail on the first option. Again, WotC has demonstrated that they're willing to ignore this kind of frustration in the past, but as I explained in my first reason above, 6 sets a year can potentially make them more money, so their interests and player interests happen to align.

    3. This could succeed where the 2 block paradigm failed. The first change in standard rotation caused a lot of player frustration because their cards were suddenly in standard for 6 fewer months, meaning that they got a lot less out of their investment. Oddly enough, a 6-set year is both a little better and a little worse than that, because a given standard set would remain in standard for up to 16 months rather than 18 (even shorter than with the 2 block paradigm), yet rotations would happen every 8 months rather than every 6 (less frequent than the 2 block paradigm). This means that individual cards would, in fact, rotate out quicker, but the standard format as a whole would be a bit more static. I have no idea whether that would increase or reduce frustration on this point, but it at least accomplishes one of the goals that the 2 block paradigm tried to accomplish in an arguably better way: making standard less stagnant by making the format harder to solve. There are also a number of notable differences between the metagame and the state of MTG as a whole between 2016 and now. SaffronOlive wrote a pretty in-depth article detailing these differences (take a look), but it essentially comes down to the difference in the average cost of a standard deck and how that's affected by Project Booster Fun and the presence of MTG Arena. Tl;dr: Players are in a much better position to be able to accept faster rotations now than in 2016.

    There are, of course, potential issues with this model. For example, players are already getting worn out with the increasing number of product releases in a single year, and adding two extra standard sets into the mix would not help on that front unless WotC reduces the number of supplemental product releases to compensate, which I'm skeptical of them doing. Still, even on that front, MTG has a lot of different player bases, and we've already seen frustration with the speed of standard rotation that seems to contradict the product exhaustion. I think it's entirely possible that the standard player base will be much more willing to forgive the increased frequency of set releases in exchange for a more exciting format. I think that the MTG playerbase as a whole is in a sort of transition period between a state where most players can comfortably buy a bit of every product and a state where players' interests are more focused and segregated between the different kinds of products. Basically, I have a feeling that product overload fatigue is eventually going to wear off as players get more used to the increased number of products per year, whereas frustration toward stagnating formats is the kind of thing that only ever gets worse.

    There's also the question of how this will effect the development of these sets. Right now, standard sets average between 2 and 3 worlds per year, plus a core set. Upping the number of sets from 4 to 6 complicates that a bit. They can still maintain that average of 2 to 3 worlds per year by staying on more worlds for multiple sets in a row (like Innistrad), and even adding a second core set per year or something like that. Still, this is more about speculating what kind of sets we'll see under this model rather than the pros and cons of the model itself.

    I personally would be interested in trying a model like this. What do yall think?
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Some Commanders
    Quote from rowanalpha »
    I swear, every time I read one of Reap's posts its like someone took a regular post through Google Translate six times before hitting Reply.

    Thor is probably over costed. I'd say it should be have some kind of combat keywords and cost 2RR.

    Varloz' ability needs to cost more unles you add "Activate as a sorcery and only once each turn."

    The only issue I see with Soul of Muraganda is that when it dies and you recast it your best target is just gone, so you'll have to have a bunch of big vanillas in your deck. Not sure a good fix, maybe "exile with a petroglyph counter" and copy of any card with a petroglyph counter"

    An interesting angle for leovold would be to combine the mana and spell ability together. "T: Target player adds three mana of any color. Until end of turn, they don't lose this mana as steps and phases end. The next time that player casts a spell this turn, if they are an opponent, you may cast a spell of equal or lesser mana value without paying its casting cost."

    I'd let Lazav hit any graveyard, for utility of gy removal as well as more copy options.

    Council is too strong: 5 mana, play an free Ugin (even one that died) and all my planeswalkers are Ugins too. Something like "When cardname comes into play, search your graveyard and library for a planeswalker card of each color, reveal them and put them into your hand, then shuffle." and then a cost reduction mechanic of some sort would be much more utility in superfriends (my main EDH deck, by the way)


    I based Thror's cost on the typical mana-doubling effect, seeing as this is that but arguably better. Conservatively, I think five mana is safe, although I could see adding some keywords or other abilities too. Just not sure what to add. It's just so simple and clean as is.

    When I was costing Varolz' ability, I was comparing it to Mikaeus, the Unhallowed. It's basically the undying ability, except that you pay mana per death, which already seems like a significant drawback. Not being limited to non-Human creatures is a plus, but not a huge one. Being able to add as many counters as you'd like is definitely a bonus too, although the mana cost scales with it, and it also doesn't change the fact that you still only get one trigger per creature (unless you're doing combo stuff, and even that's harder because this card costs at least one mana per trigger). It's really hard to tell whether Varolz is appropriately costed when compared to Mikaeus, but I'm not convinced that increasing the cost of the activated ability or limiting it to once per turn is all that necessary.

    Between what you and the others have said about Soul of Muraganda, I can definitely get behind using counters on the exiled cards the same way my Lazav does, so that you can pick and choose which creature you want to use as a token at any given time and still be able to use the same creature card as a target in commander games when you're re-casting Soul. The only problem I see with that is that it means you really only have to include one huge vanilla creature in your commander deck. You'd always go with the biggest creature since it has no abilities anyway, unless you're taking stuff like color or creature type into account, which I can't imagine would happen very often. I guess you could, but I just don't know if it would be more interesting to give the player that option, or to force the player to build more heavily into vanilla creatures to maximize how much value they can get out of Soul after casting it multiple times. How about, to mix things up, we change how the exiled card gets exiled:

    Soul of Muraganda 1GU
    Legendary Creature - Avatar (R)
    3/3
    Whenever you cast a creature spell that has no abilities, you may exile that card with a fossil counter on it. If you do, you may create a token that's a copy of a card you own in exile with a fossil counter on it.
    If you would create one or more creature tokens, instead you may create that many tokens that are copies of a card you own in exile with a fossil counter on it.

    This way, the way a game plays out will at least depend on what vanilla creature you draw, rather than the first one you tutor out.

    The tricky thing with Lazav is mirror matches. If he could hit any graveyard, then he'd have to be able to copy cards you don't own, which means that an opponent's Lazav could copy cards you've put into exile with your Lazav, which is just awkward. Added gy removal and selection is nice, but I don't think it's worth the added risk.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Some Commanders
    Thror, Mountain King 3RR
    Legendary Creature - Dwarf Noble (M)
    4/4
    Whenever you tap a Mountain for mana, create a Treasure token.

    Varolz, Sage of Scars 3BG
    Legendary Creature - Troll Shaman (M)
    5/5
    Menace, trample
    X: When target creature you control dies this turn, if it had no +1/+1 counters on it, return that card to the battlefield under its owner's control with X +1/+1 counters on it. X can't be 0.

    Soul of Muraganda 1GU
    Legendary Creature - Avatar (R)
    3/3
    When ~ enters the battlefield, search your library for a creature card with no abilities, exile that card, then shuffle.
    If you would create one or more creature tokens, you may create that many tokens that are copies of the exiled card instead.

    Leovold, the Benevolent 3GWU
    Legendary Creature - Elf Advisor (R)
    3/3
    Whenever an opponent casts a spell, if you haven't cast any spells this turn, you may cast a card with equal or lesser mana value from your hand without paying its mana cost.
    T: Target player adds three mana in any combination of colors.

    Lazav, Collector of Secrets 2UB
    Legendary Creature - Shapeshifter (M)
    3/3
    When ~ enters the battlefield, exile up to one target creature or planeswalker card from your graveyard with a disguise counter on it.
    1: Exile ~. Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step. You may have it enter the battlefield as a copy of a card you own in exile with a disguise counter on it, except it has this ability.

    Council of the Superfriends WUBRG
    Legendary Creature - Avatar (R)
    5/5
    When ~ enters the battlefield, you may put a planeswalker card from your hand or graveyard onto the battlefield.
    Each planeswalker you control has all loyalty abilities of each other planeswalker you control.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Two Guild Mechanics
    Rakdos: This is a riff on Amass that I think is a complete flavor home-run. Functionally, it leans into the aggressive, self-destructive nature of Rakdos.

    Entertain N (Audiences you control get +N/+N until end of turn. If you don’t control one, create a 0/0 Audience creature token with haste first.)

    ex.

    Tragicomedy 3BB
    Instant (C)
    Destroy target creature or planeswalker. Entertain 2.

    Rakdos Conductor 1R
    Creature - Human Wizard (R)
    1/3
    Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, entertain 1.
    Whenever an Audience enters the battlefield under your control, add R and exile the top card of your library. You may cast that card until the end of your next turn.

    Rakdos, Master of Mayhem BR
    Legendary Creature - Demon (M)
    6/6
    This spell costs 1 more to cast for each card in your hand.
    Flying, trample
    When ~ enters the battlefield, entertain 6.

    Azorius: I liked the idea of the Azorius creating laws that enforce themselves. Ravnica’s law magic is more tangible than on any other plane, so it seemed fitting to have it represented by enchantments that come alive. Functionally, this helps bridge the gap between white’s focus on creatures and blue’s focus on non-creatures. It’s also a slower, more durdly mechanic that leans into the controlling playstyle of the Azorius. As an added bonus, +1/+1 counters synergize with Simic, if they happen to be in the same set.

    [cost]: Enforce N (If this enchantment isn’t a creature, put N +1/+1 counters on it and it becomes a 0/0 enchantment creature.)

    ex.

    Above the Law 2WU
    Enchantment (U)
    Creatures you control have flying.
    4: Enforce 4.

    Imminent Ban WU
    Enchantment (R)
    As ~ enters the battlefield, choose a nonland card name.
    Whenever a player casts a spell with the chosen name, if ~ is a creature, counter that spell. Otherwise, put three +1/+1 counters on ~ and it becomes a 0/0 enchantment creature.
    1: Enforce 1

    Regular Reports 2UU
    Enchantment (R)
    At the beginning of your end step, draw a card.
    3: Enforce X, where X is the number of cards in your hand.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Pushed Dual Land Ideas
    Preface: These are ideas aimed at standard environments and intended to be similar power level to shocklands. For simplicity, they will all have basic types, but that isn’t important to their design, meaning that it’s fine if those get removed.

    Most of these involve interacting with the opponent in some way, which I believe is an interesting, nearly untapped well of design space for duals. Some are probably worse than shocks for that reason, and definitely feel tricky, but I believe this kind of interaction would enhance gameplay by raising the stakes a little and potentially kickstarting counterplay.

    Anyway, let me know what you think, and which is your favorite.

    Tolled Canyon
    Land - Mountain Plains
    As ~ enters the battlefield, you may have an opponent create a Treasure token. If you don’t, it enters the battlefield tapped.

    Canyon Tableau
    Land - Mountain Plains
    As ~ enters the battlefield, you may have an opponent create a Clue token. If you don’t, it enters the battlefield tapped.

    Guarded Canyon
    Land - Mountain Plains
    As ~ enters the battlefield, you may have an opponent manifest the top card of their library. If you don’t, it enters the battlefield tapped.

    Canyon Archive
    Land - Mountain Plains
    As ~ enters the battlefield, you may have an opponent scry 2. If you don’t, it enters the battlefield tapped.

    Expansive Canyon
    Land - Mountain Plains
    As ~ enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice another land or discard a land card. If you don’t, it enters the battlefield tapped.

    Taxed Canyon
    Land - Mountain Plains
    As ~ enters the battlefield, any opponent may pay {mana}1{/mana}. If they do, it enters the battlefield tapped.

    Toxic Canyon
    Land - Mountain Plains
    As ~ enters the battlefield, any opponent may pay 2 life. If they do, it enters the battlefield tapped.

    Canyon Library
    Land - Mountain Plains
    As ~ enters the battlefield, any opponent may have you draw a card. If they do, it enters the battlefield tapped.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Release dates for every set in 2021
    Quote from signofzeta »
    I don't understand why WOTC couldn't have, y'know, released Midnight Hunt on October 2021, and Crimson Vow on January 2022. I read some comments on reddit that said that between the release gap between Fall and Winter is too long, and I don't buy that. They could have just released Midnight Hunt in October, and Crimson Vow in January, and there would have been a 3 month gap.

    If WOTC really wanted to release a standard set in November, they could've released D&D set in August, Midnight Hunt in November, and Crimson Vow in February, with the set after that released in May, and mimic the release schedules of Pokemon and Yugioh.

    I don't like this new release cycle. There should never ever be 3 sets within a span of 6 months.

    I also read that some people say that Crimson Vow is "supposed to be" the Winter 2022 set released a few months early, and then referencing the "There are still 4 standard sets per rotation year". This does not mean that Crimson Vow is the "Winter 2022" set, because we might get a Winter 2022 set, Spring 2022 set, Summer 2022 set, and Fall 2022 set, with rotation being pushed up to be in between Spring and Summer 2022 set. Maybe the slot where Core Sets would have been aren't the last set, but first set in the rotation?


    Idk about how rotation will work, but my theory is that the two Innistrad sets are so close together because they want to mitigate plane-fatigue. We'll have had two consecutive years of new planes with every set. It's possible WotC think that staying on Innistrad too long will make players bored of the setting, which is part of the reason they dropped the block model.

    I could be completely wrong though. We won't really know why the sets are so close together at least until we have a better idea of what's coming in 2022. They might be planning an increased number of supplemental sets that they want to space out a bit more evenly.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on STRIXHAVEN - Card Speculation, Themes, Cycles, Reprints, and More
    For cycles, we can assume some things and predict others. We already have the commands, and Elder Dragons have been mentioned. Finishing a cycle of dual lands seems fitting.

    There’s one possible cycle I’m interested in though, and that’s a mythic cycle of MDFCs, where each face is a different color. My reason for this prediction is the Kenrith twins. They’re pictured on the packaging, so they’re in. They’re a really good fit for Prismari. But every time they’ve been in a set, they’ve had a unique twist. First, they had partner. Then they were on the same card. This time, I predict that they will be a single MDFC, where one side is Will and the other side is Rowan.

    It stands to reason that, if Prismari gets a mythic MDFC, the other colleges will too.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Strixhaven inspired mechanics
    Riposte is flavorful, but super narrow. Not sure how often you could get the bonus or even how much design space there is, considering it can only go on instant-speed cards.

    Display is sorta neat, but I feel like the display cost should be less, not more, unless the spell actually resolves AND gets displayed. Even then, it feels a lot like Foretell.

    Dissect is cool. I like the open-endedness of it. No idea how it would actually play, but I'd give it a test drive for sure.

    Excavate read really nicely until the last two sentences. If you chop those, I feel like you have a really clean card engine mechanic going. I like the idea of effects that excavate multiple cards at a time because you can still only actually draw one per. Seems like too much card flow for RW though. And when I think about excavation, I imagine graveyard interaction instead of library. But w/e. Still neat.

    Quote from dangerousdice »
    wait how does caculous mauler work?

    I'm guessing anything that has a genetic counter also has all of your genetic abilities. That's a neat idea, but it could be reworded to be a little less reliant on intuition alone:

    "Creatures you control with gene counters have trample.
    1G, T: Put a gene counter or +1/+1 counter on target creature."
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Custom Phoenix Legend
    I like the direction the original was going in. The other versions are fine too. As long as we're suggesting different takes, here's one:

    Ralitha, Sky Aflame 3RR
    Legendary Creature - Phoenix
    4/4
    Flying, haste
    Whenever a Phoenix enters the battlefield under your control, you may discard a card. If you do, draw a card. Then, if that creature entered the battlefield from a graveyard, ~ deals damage to any target equal to the number of cards you've drawn this turn.
    WUBRG: Search your library for a Phoenix card and put that card into your graveyard. Then shuffle your library.

    Added a 5c ability to make it a flexible Phoenix tribal commander. Also, as a commander-oriented card (I assume, anyway), it doesn't really need a reanimator ability for itself.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Kaldheim set booster box leak
    Quote from MrMoustacheMM »

    In fact, it was so poorly received that it is the best-selling set in Magic's history as of September 2019: https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/187585089848/how-would-you-respond-to-the-polite-criticism-that

    Between the popularity of the first Zendikar block, the mounting anticipation of a more coherent story, exceptional marketing, and the inclusion of the first and best Masterpieces, the commercial success of BFZ likely had very little to do with the set itself.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Strixhaven : Harry Potter :: Ikoria : Godzilla
    As much as I would hate this, I believe that there is a significant chance we get a HPxMTG crossover with Strixhaven. I like the HP books, and I like the premise of a faction set where the factions are different schools of magic, but I cringe at the thought of them being shoehorned together. That said, I can’t help but speculate on what that could mean for the set.

    What kind of cards might we see that are inspired by HP? Is this as likely as I think it is? Is this as cringey as I think it is?
    Posted in: Baseless Speculation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.