I think the gunk mechanic is less interesting than it initially seems. Assume 60 card decks, 5 turns in, so 48 cards left in the library. Putting 5 gunk cards in your opponent's deck still means they only have like a 1 in 10 chance of drawing one each turn. And in most contexts, drawing a blank card is equivalent to just not drawing a card (although you can loot it away or discard it to wild mongrel), so you can get nearly the same effect with vastly less hassle by doing something like "when an opponent would draw a card, flip a coin 3 times. If the flip comes up heads all 3 flips, that opponent doesn't draw a card", or something like that. But really, a 60 card deck where you draw once each turn is SO different from a 13 card or so dominion deck where you draw 5 each turn, that I just don't think it translates.
I think gunk could be interesting, but only at a power level that would be physically implausible. A card with Gunk 10 probably averages out to being a Mind Rot, but costing it like one would mean you'd have to carry around and repeatedly resleeve a huge number of gunk cards.
Yes and in the article they explained why they wanted to move to creatures that can't sacrifice themselves, which is why he is worded the way he is. Oh, but wait Gnawing Zombie can sacrifice itself, so what was the point Wizards of this card and the article?
You should read the article again. Gnawing Zombie sacrificing itself actually does something. What they're trying to get away from is cards that sacrifice themselves to give themselves bonuses that will never happen.
I'm not convinced that I like this change, but it is more consistent than you're making it out to be.
Nevermore is still Standard-legal, and the Standard lands aren't strictly better than each other. So no card is strictly better than any other in Standard.
I think the Zendikar manlands might actually be strictly-better-except-for-Mindslaver than the original taplands. All the hate I can think of for them either turns them into taplands or also hits the taplands.
Elo worked fine for magic, and I kind of wish it was still here--it gave you a somewhat objective view of how good you actually were. True, magic is higher variance than chess, so the ELO range is smaller (the ELO point difference between the best and the worst in chess is like 2800+, while in magic its like 600 points), but it is still a pretty good skill measure. A good rule of thumb was that a 400 point gap equated to a 90% win rate, and a 200 point gap was about a 70% win rate.
The problem is that magic isn't just higher variance than chess, the variance also... varies differently with skill level. If you win 70% of your games against me, and J. Random Pro wins 70% of his games against you, ELO is going to predict that JRP wins something like 84% of his games against me (at least according to this calculator). In reality I'd be amazed if his win rate were better than 80% -- that is, the return on increased skill differential diminishes much more quickly in Magic than it does in chess.
This is not to say that an ELO-like system couldn't work, but you'd probably have to do a ton of data mining to make it work properly.
If your opponent play Rest in Peace or Tormod's Crypt against that card he will screw himself.
With a empty graveyard, you can reanimate creatures by simply discarding it with Lotleth Troll.
Only after removing the Rest in Peace. (I agree that Tormod's Crypt is no good, which is why I didn't mention it.)
People see Dreadbridge Chant 'random' clause and start to freak out without noticing the effect is JUST LIKE drawing cards from your library except:
- when you draw a creature you can cheat cast it right away !
- you can use graveyard abilities such as scavenge and flashback.
- you can easily manipulate your graveyard with Deathrite Shaman, something you can't do with the top cards of your library.
- your opponent can easily manipulate your graveyard with Deathrite Shaman or blank it with Rest in Peace, something s/he can't do with the top cards of your library.
On balance, it's probably still better than Honden of Seeing Winds, but it's not a strict upgrade...
I'm totally with you on the first five (where we have Beck//Call to start us off), but is there some reason you chose your second five in preference to:
(i.e., 3 shards and 2 wedges) because that's the only way you can fit Beck/Call into a 5-card cycle of 3-color split cards in which each card has one RTR guild and one GTC guild, and a different common color.
I think gunk could be interesting, but only at a power level that would be physically implausible. A card with Gunk 10 probably averages out to being a Mind Rot, but costing it like one would mean you'd have to carry around and repeatedly resleeve a huge number of gunk cards.
If Wizards ever does an online-only set, maybe...
Textless cards that get shuffled into your opponent's deck, sort of like Curses from Dominion.
They probably want it to be a Dryad instead of a Spirit.
You should read the article again. Gnawing Zombie sacrificing itself actually does something. What they're trying to get away from is cards that sacrifice themselves to give themselves bonuses that will never happen.
I'm not convinced that I like this change, but it is more consistent than you're making it out to be.
Bribery counters, not Bribery the card.
I think the Zendikar manlands might actually be strictly-better-except-for-Mindslaver than the original taplands. All the hate I can think of for them either turns them into taplands or also hits the taplands.
Blink effects, especially repeatable ones like Conjurer's Closet and Venser, the Sojourner (and moral-equivalent-of-blink effects like Parallax Wave).
Doubling SeasonMatt Tabak's tumblr already has some discussion of the Brothers Yamazaki issue. The gist is that the new rules work the way AtheistGod says they do, but he's not ruling out the possibility of an erratum...
The problem is that magic isn't just higher variance than chess, the variance also... varies differently with skill level. If you win 70% of your games against me, and J. Random Pro wins 70% of his games against you, ELO is going to predict that JRP wins something like 84% of his games against me (at least according to this calculator). In reality I'd be amazed if his win rate were better than 80% -- that is, the return on increased skill differential diminishes much more quickly in Magic than it does in chess.
This is not to say that an ELO-like system couldn't work, but you'd probably have to do a ton of data mining to make it work properly.
Only after removing the Rest in Peace. (I agree that Tormod's Crypt is no good, which is why I didn't mention it.)
- your opponent can easily manipulate your graveyard with Deathrite Shaman or blank it with Rest in Peace, something s/he can't do with the top cards of your library.
On balance, it's probably still better than Honden of Seeing Winds, but it's not a strict upgrade...
I'm totally with you on the first five (where we have Beck//Call to start us off), but is there some reason you chose your second five in preference to:
(WUB) Azorius - Orzhov
(URG) Izzet - Simic
(WBR) Rakdos - Boros
(GUB) Golgari - Dimir
(GWR) Selesnya - Gruul
?
Because they look indistinguishable to me from a symmetry standpoint, at least until we see one of them previewed.
I'm almost positive we'll see a mixture. Specifically, a 5-card rare cycle should have split cards in:
Simic/Azorius
Dimir/Rakdos
Gruul/Golgari
Orzhov/Selesnya
Boros/Izzet
(i.e., 3 shards and 2 wedges) because that's the only way you can fit Beck/Call into a 5-card cycle of 3-color split cards in which each card has one RTR guild and one GTC guild, and a different common color.