2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Warrior LFG: Quest for the Holy Relic
    Yeah, I was getting tired last night and couldn't write any more.

    Equipments and auras would follow creatures around. You could play a version where the map is unexplored or one where both players see everything. In an 8x8 map, you could have 12 of each land and 4 non-basics at the corners. It seems like its the kind of thing that would need playtesting.

    The idea behind "skeins" is that players can strategically cut other players off from mana and a player doesn't need to move himself if he doesn't want to.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on Warrior LFG: Quest for the Holy Relic
    how about MTG:the board game. make an 8X8 board form a combined 100 card deck of lands, traps, and some instants. you send creatures form your deck to explored the board. you can buy artifacts for equipment, and you complete quests until you discover the secret of how to ascend. sounds fun no?

    Each spot on the board is a land. You move a marker (representing you) around the board and you "control" any land you are on.

    Each turn, you get a "skein", in the place of a land drop (if a spell or ability grants you more land drops, you get more skeins instead). Each skein lets you take control of one land adjacent (including diagonals) to another land you already control. Any land along a chain of skeins can be used. This ability counts as a land drop.

    Another player can take control of a land you control with a control land spell, or he can simply place his skein on your land (provided he has a skein on an adjacent land), replacing your skein with his. A land with a control land spell on it cannot have skeins placed on it.

    If a player gains control of a land, any skeins that cannot be traced back through adjacent controlled lands to their owner are removed from the game.

    Instead of placing a skein, a player may travel along any number of adjacent lands he or she controls, removing any skeins he or she encounters on the path.

    If a player plays a spell that allows searching for lands, he or she may move to any matching land (if the spell specifies forest, then that player may travel to a forest) that either he or she controls, or one adjacent to a land he or she controls.

    Spells that destroy or exile lands destroy skeins instead.

    Creatures and planeswalkers are cast at the location of their owner or at the location of a planeswalker of a matching color controlled by that player. Creatures (without summoning sickness), players and planeswalkers may move 1 space during the declare attackers portion of the attack phase. Flying creatures may move 2 spaces. Creatures with defender may not move.

    If a move causes a creature to move into the same space as a creature controlled by an opponent, those creatures function according to the standard rules of an attack phase. If there is more than one creature defending, the controller of those creatures chooses which creatures block which attackers. If there are no remaining defending creatures at the end of combat, the attacking creatures now occupy the space.

    If a situation occurs in which a creature cannot block another creature, the defending creature(s) move(s) to an adjacent space unoccupied by an opponent's creatures. If there are no adjacent spaces or that creature cannot move, that creature is sacrificed. (For example: A Mindless Null is surrounded on all sides by an opponent's Thallids. The Null is attacked by an opponent's Serra Angel. Because there is nowhere for the Null to go, it is sacrificed)

    Instants and enchantments may only target spaces containing lands controlled by the casting player, as well as spaces adjacent to a player or a planeswalker of matching color(s) to the spell. Sorceries may target one space further than instants and enchantments.

    Artifacts and enchantments may only be cast on spaces that contain lands controlled by the spells caster. If that player loses control of the land, he or she also loses control of the artifact or enchantment.

    Lands may be placed on any space adjacent to a land currently controlled by the player. These lands replace any lands already there.

    There's more that could be clarified, but that's the rough idea.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on BWG Ob Nixilis
    Can we call the deck Nixilis Cage?
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on [ZEN] Baloth Woodcrasher
    I'd like to see a guy try and drop 4 lands the next turn and swing for the win.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Enemy Fetch's Impact on Standard.
    Quote from Gatt
    Off the top of my head, I strongly believe that 4 of the cards known so far will be restricted in Type I, and I'm pretty confident they'll end up banned in Type 2. There's still nearly 200 cards to be seen, this worries me.

    I'd like to call "bad logic" on this one. There's no way small sample like the cards we've seen so far even remotely represents the whole of the set. Wizards has historically been very careful about the particular cards they preview. They're counting on people like you to react like this on seeing a fraction of the evidence, it makes for good publicity.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on ooze garden SUCKS
    primal forcemage + ooze garden= +3/+3 for 1G
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on [ALA] Tuesday Preview 9/16: Where Ancients Tread & Spearbreaker Behemoth
    Anyone notice the odd wording on the behemoth?

    "Target creature with power 5 or greater is indestructible this turn."

    Have they dropped "until end of turn" for a more concise wording?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [ALA] Rafiq of the Many Speculation
    Quote from darkhiroki
    his ability reads...

    "rafiq of the many may attack as though he were alone"

    that'd be cool for exalted.

    Quote from heroicraptor
    "Creatures you control attack as if they were attacking alone."

    I see what everyone is getting at, but wouldn't it be easier to understand: "For each creature you control with exalted, attacking creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn," or "When ~ attacks, ~ gets +1/+1 until end of turn for each creature you control with exalted."

    I know it lame-ifies the elegance of being so indirect, but seriously, what other benefit can Rafiq gain from that ability at this point?

    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on [ALA] Unearth
    The reason why unearth works is that they cut the cost compared to hard-casting. This doesn't preclude them from creating a future, more expensive, mechanic that fulfills combo fantasies, but this one says "you get it for one turn only at a discount".

    Imagine the unearth cost as a spell that creates a token creature for one turn and it might seem a bit more reasonable.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on [ALA] "this spell costs BBRRRGG"
    Quote from rancored_elf
    From a design standpoint, there's nothing a black and green spell can't deal with. Token or non, yours or another player's, any kind of permanent, cards in library, cards in hand... it's all fair game.

    If I were to design a spell with that cost, it might be something like "bury any number of target permanents".

    ...Well that encompasses my: "Choose a permanent. Bury all other permanents."

    I just wanted the dood in the middle to live.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on [ALA] Relic of Progenitus
    It's a balanced cost because it's symmetrical. Strange, though, how Wizards places such a small cost on removing graveyards from the game...
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [ALA] Tri Color Lands!!!!?
    Quote from NDZooDZoo
    This was what i thought of:

    Brilliant. To my mind this is the simplest and best of the lot. It prevents abuse in that to run two different Shard lands, you'd need two different supporting basic lands.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on [ALA] Reprints
    Here's a thought:

    There may not be any reprints that a shard would not need. For example:

    * Naya wouldn't have any artifact removal because it hasn't ever seen any artifacts (or at least extremely powerful ones; we may have a Naya mana fixer artifact).
    * Bant would likely have enchantment removal because it is both the colors of enchantments and enchantment removal.
    * Removal spells that target non-black creatures would have no place in Grixis, a shard dominated by creatures that are black.

    And so on...

    ...what might some other shard-based restrictions be?
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on [ALA] Sarkhan Vol speculation
    We have a few more clues that haven't been mentioned:

    1.) The size of each ability line is equal to previous planeswalkers and can't fit more than ~126 characters (See Ajani, the most wordy planeswalker so far).
    2.) The image of Sarkhan shows burning/glowing hands, which could imply some sort of direct damage ability.

    Given the mad look on his face, the burning hands and the general lack of anything else clue-wise, here goes:

    Sarkhan Vol
    +1: You may put a 5/3 Legendary Creature token with trample into play named Sarkhan Vol.
    -2: Sacrifice a creature. Target player takes damage equal to that creature's power.
    -4: Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control for each damage target player has taken this turn.
    3 Loyalty
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on [MOR] Logical Evokers
    An Evoker that returns to your hand at end of turn if it's in your graveyard would require a higher evoke cost than casting cost.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.