somebody please translate that awful wording for me.
Thanks in advance.
-
- rancored_elf
- Registered User
-
Member for 19 years, 3 months, and 16 days
Last active Sun, Nov, 12 2017 15:33:07
- 0 Followers
- 13,159 Total Posts
- 409 Thanks
-
Oct 25, 201624
Univited Ghost posted a message on Coastal Breach Nic Bunce TwitterPosted in: The Rumor Mill -
Oct 25, 2016
1
havocentral posted a message on Oath of Druids Reprintmissed opportunity for errata to simpler wording.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
"At the beginning of each players upkeep if another player controls more creatures than that player, he or she may reveal cards from the top of his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. If he or she does, that player puts that card onto the battlefield and all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard."
Great reprint tho -
Oct 25, 20161
cyberium_neo posted a message on Oath of Druids ReprintPosted in: The Rumor MillQuote from rancored_elf »Wow, that's an .... unfortunate..... wording. Talk about counter-intuitive. That much text on a card normally makes a person want to skim it for a second, give up, and toss the card aside.
But hey, it's Oath of Druids, it can be fun and playable! Not that it's going for more than $5 lately. And with reprint, that's going way down.
Holy crap, Rancored Elf, I haven't seen you in a long, long while! -
Oct 24, 2016
1
Deep_Woods posted a message on Commanderin' Podcast preview - Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Zedruu reprintI think someone at wizards has 50,000 Teferi's Puzzle box in storage and just keeps printing things until it becomes a $20 card.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Anyway it is a simic general that gives mana and draws cards. Not exactly winning awards for originality, but the Partner generals seem to be about what they do with someone else, not what they do on their own. -
Oct 19, 20161
Rondiggity posted a message on Rotation reverted.Wow, that didn't take long. Guess they must have seen some major market indicators that they were going to lose money.Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
Sep 24, 20161
FirstSwordOfBant posted a message on Kaladesh InventionsPosted in: The Rumor MillQuote from rancored_elf »Quote from Marquisd »Please try to focus the discussion on the cards themselves. The concept of Masterpiece sets in general is off topic
Which thread allows discussion of the new concept "Masterpiece sets"? I don't see one.
This should be the one you're looking for. -
Sep 19, 20162
nerf posted a message on New Japanese Cardstock 100% Recyclable; Stiffer Than Other PrintingsAs someone who typically buys a box of Japanese cards per set this is unwelcome news : /Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
Sep 13, 2016
2
clan_iraq posted a message on Four commons from majorspoiler.comGuess we get an inkling of how the next magic story or two turns out.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
I'm really not getting why twin bolt needed a functional reprint -
Sep 12, 20165
Silver_Spellthief posted a message on Masterpiece DisscussionI agree that even attempting to say that Masterpieces are going to do jack to help the accessibility of older cards is a complete and utter joke. We saw this with Expeditions already. The price of the originals was essentially untouched. All that happened was that an even more expensive version of each already expensive land card was also on the market. Yay.Posted in: Magic General
Seriously, I wouldn't even has put the blurb about accessibility in the article.
What these likely will do, however, is drive down the prices of singles from each set down. Though I predict this won't last for long, depending on what Masterpieces are released in each set. Undoubtedly we're going to have a round somewhere down the line that no one is really excited about.
I've also heard from several people who draft as their main way of playing the game but also don't have lined pockets that this may just kill any justification that they have for playing as they're even less likely to be able to justify the cost of drafting because they'll be able to recoup even less of the cost by selling their pulls. Just heresay on that point, though. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
In the meantime, what's the consensus..... is Etched Monstrosity a 5/5+ for 5? I could see arguments either way but I lean toward "yes".
1
- The top of each break line shows the power of that colour's weenies (mainly 1 and 2 cmc). W } G } R } B } U
- The bottom of each break line shows the power of that colour's fatties (such as 5+ cmc). G } R } B } U } W
- Black and blue may be converging somewhere around the 8-mana mark, but it's hard to tell. Black's break line might need adjustment (see above) as it's quite hard to place due to the 5/1 jutting out at 3B. It's possible that it should be ignored, and considered an outlier design, not one meant to set precedent or change black's identity.
- White's break line is remarkable, showing that white is best at weenies but worst at fatties, "crossing over" all other colours.
- I had previously thought red overtook green in the higher mana costs, but after the detailed analysis it seems like they might be close to tied. Of course, green has much more toughness than red, even if red does almost keep up with green in the power department. Both may get a 7-power creature for 6 mana (as an example), but you can be guaranteed the green one will have about twice as much toughness as the red one.
- The colourless break line doesn't tell me much. Seems like it's very safe, running down the middle of the data, like an average (or slightly less than average). It's not best at anything, but it's also not worst at anything.
I'll do some more analysis of this later on.
Also, thank you VERY much bravelion for all that! You don't have to hide it behind spoilers, bro, post the main stuff at least out in the open. You did a lot of work. I'm going to take my time going over it before commenting specifically. Wow, that's a lot of good stuff
1
- Shorecrasher Elemental (3/3+ for UUU) doesn't change blue's identity much, as it just slides right into the data where you'd expect it to. (Side note: I'm noticing that CCC and 3C often produce the same stats. I'll keep an eye on that pattern.)
- Goliath Sphinx (8/7+ for 5UU) helps reveal where blue's break line is. It looks more and more like blue is just a non-artifact colourless colour. By that I mean blue's identity is almost exactly the same as colourless' identity. Making a colorless creature's mana cost bluer doesn't boost the creature's stats. For every other colour, making the cost more coloured (and less colourless) allows the stats to increase, but with blue, the only advantage to being more blue is that you're no longer killed by Shatter. (Of course, blue has cheaper access to keywords like flying that colourless creatures don't.)
- Blue is rarely topheavy but can be VERY bottomheavy. That said, it is still by far the weakest colour for creatures overall. The exception is probably at 1U and 0 power, where blue beats every other colour by having a creature with 6!! toughness, no drawbacks, and an upside. What other colour can match Dragon's Eye Savants? Not that Sidisi's Faithful is any slouch.
- Having 2 more power than toughness seems to be about the limit for blue. A 3/1 for 2U looks likely (a Merfolk Soldier perhaps). 4/2+ for 3U hasn't been done yet, but certainly could, and probably will.
Snapface Turtle - 3U
Creature - Turtle
Whenever Snapface Turtle blocks, it gets -4/+8 until end of turn.
4/2
- Expanding red's data to higher and/or more red-intensive costs revealed Thunderblust, Knollspine Dragon, Tyrant of Discord, and Living Inferno as significant data points.
- Thunderblust adjusted red's break line out slightly, though it turns out it is only about as aggressive as Regathan Firecat.
- Red is great at topheavy creatures, especially at higher mana costs. (People think of red as the most-aggressive weenie colour, but that distinction goes to green and white.)
- 8/4 for 3RRR or 6R looks good. 9/5+ for 5RR and 10 power for 7R (Bearer of the Heavens aside) are easily doable.
Topplespire - 3RRR
Creature - Titan (R)
First strike
Topplespire can't be blocked except by 2 or more creatures.
7/4
- I haven't focused much on colourless in this thread, but the data's there. It's just not that interesting, although it does provide a baseline for stats in the other colours.
- Hexplate Golem and Artisan of Kozilek helped expand the picture, the latter confirming colourless' break line nicely. The break line is also approached by Memnite and Insatiable Souleater (2 cards that need no improvement).
- Notice the gaps along the breakline at 1, 2, and 3. Those will go unfilled, as 1 will never buy you a 2/1, 2 will never buy you a 3/1, and 3 will (probably) never buy you a 4/1.
- There's room for a 6/3+ at 5, and lots of designs to be explored in the 7 and 8 range.
I'm now working on unifying the data and analysis done on "break lines". It will probably replace my discussion of "confines" and polygons in this thread. It's a more complete and detailed model to explain the master list, and to help it hint at potential designs.
1
Observations:
- Phyrexian Obliterator, Halo Hunter, Hollowborn Barghest, Lord of the Void, and Demon of Death's Gate helped flesh out black's data when I incorporated heavily-black and 6+ mana costs.
- The addition of Halo Hunter and Demon of Death's Gate to the data helped answer the question of where black's line in. Without them, there weren't enough data points to see where to place it. (And of course, the line is subjective and meant as an approximation only.) Now we can see Rotting Fensnake isn't a random anomaly - it actually fits within black's confines (albeit barely).
- Dakmor Rat from above (2/1 for B) now looks even more obvious.
- Black lately has been getting 2/2+ for 1B, and has no problem with topheavy creatures. Why no 3/1 for 1B yet? It's certainly not overpowered and would fit nicely within black's confines. It's probably around the corner.
- Black has no 8 power creatures without drawbacks. 7 and 9, yes, but no 8. Actually that's not true, I've just learned about Fell Shepherd, an 8/6+ for 5BB which isn't eligible for the master list. But it does give some indication of official design philosophy. I think an 8-power monstrosity might cost 4BBB.
Killbloodpain Demon - 4BBB
Creature - Demon
Flying
Sacrifice another creature: Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn and Killbloodpain Demon gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
8/8
I'm not 100% sure about black's line ("break line" might be a good term for it, since any stats to the right of the line are "broken"). Green and white's were more obvious. It's entirely possible that the break line could be more of a break curve. I'll carry on and finish up with red and blue, and that will probably give us some clues about black. It's definitely better than it was before I did this latest analysis though
1
Yeah, I've been reading your posts on it, and looking forward to more. But what I meant to say was I haven't been putting rarities on the sample cards I come up with. I've just been leaving them out of any designs that come from the data and analysis, except for the Dakmor Rat.
I appreciate your feedback! I'll post an in-depth look at white before I go to bed tonight. Looks like there aren't any surprises there, just another data point or two to confirm the slope we're already seeing on the data.
The master list (both in text form and charted form) is up-to-date. The wording in the OP will need revamping when I post a fresh version of this thread (after some more analysis is finished up).
I'll go through my first few posts on the thread tonight and make them as up-to-date as I can. But a fresh thread (letting this one sink down) is what it'll eventually need
EDIT: Here's white's extended chart.
Observations...
- Vengeful Archon is the only significant data point after opening up the data to costs above 6, and costs involving more than 2 coloured mana (WW). It falls perfectly where one would expect it to, and helps solidify the line drawn down the right side of white's data.
- Like green, white's weenies can be topheavy... in fact white's weenies are the most topheavy of any colour. White's fatties, on the other hand, tend not to favour power at all, and even a 7 power creature costs white 4WWW.
- I've put a strike through some of the stats, indicating instances where it has little impact on white's "identity" as a color, which is more represented by the line down the right side than anything else. They're still useful data, but they don't set white's confines.
- There are a few gaps on the "safe" side of the line that will probably be filled at some point, and are up for grabs for design. Keep in mind, not everything that can be done SHOULD be done. This analysis just shows what it would probably look like.
Loxodon Convert probably isn't white's cheapest possible 4-power creature. Given white's love of topheavy weenies like Accorder Paladin, a 4/1+ or 4/2 for 1WW is no problem.
Spiritpouncer - 1WW
Creature - Spirit
1WW: Spiritpouncer gains first strike, flying and vigilance until end of turn.
4/1
While a 2/2 seems a shoe-in, there's no room for a 3/1 at W. That doesn't mean a 3/1 with a drawback is out of the question, though. A miniscule drawback is sometimes enough to balance out an otherwise overpowered design, such as a 2/2 haste Goblin for R. My 3/1 won't have haste, but 3/1s inherently cost more than 2/2s, so I'll need a larger-than-miniscule drawback.
Curious Lynx - W
Creature - Cat
Whenever Curious Lynx becomes blocked, it gets -3/-0 until end of turn.
3/1
Bit of a nod to Ignoble Soldier there.
And now, something maximizing toughness for 3-power creatures, looks like it could fit nicely in the above image at 1WWW.
Stalwart Hometroops - 1WWW
Creature - Human Soldier
Vigilance
3/8
That would be a nice uncommon. Or knock it up to a rare 3/7 with an additional non-keyword ability (such as "whenever Stalwart Hometroops blocks, it gains lifelink until end of turn").
1
Anyway, here's my rough work on a new way to analyze the master list. This builds off some of my earlier stuff, and bravelion's analysis has touched on similar topics.
I was doing polygons before. The more I look at this stuff, the more obvious it is that the right-hand side of the data is the business side. Each color has a fairly obvious slope that can be drawn (although black has that 5/1 vanilla sticking way out in the midrange, so I'm not completely sure where to draw that one).
Once drawn, the lines tell a few things.
1) The upper-left point of the line shows how powerful that colour's weenies can be. W > G > R > B > U (looks good)
2) The lower-right point of the line shows how powerful that colour's fatties can be. R > G > B > U > W (red may get 6/2 for the same price green gets 5/5, so red fatties have the highest power)
3) The center point of the line shows how powerful that colour's creatures overall can be. G > R > B > W > U (rings true)
4) The line shows (by precedent) what is likely "safe" to be printed without rocking the boat. Designs on the line might be possible, but designs to the right of the line become increasingly unlikely. A 3-power at BB seems inevitable. Blue is very unlikely to get a 4-power creature without drawbacks for under 4 mana. 7 power for 3RR and up looks good. And so on.
5) The left side of the data deals more with bottomheavy (higher toughness) creatures. It seems far less strict, meaning most colours (aside from red) have access to creatures with much higher toughness than power. I won't spend much time analyzing the left side. Creatures aren't played for their toughness much in Magic, except maybe at very low mana costs. Above 3 mana or so, no amount of toughness really changes the playability of a creature, and Wizards' designers don't seem to worry too much about them, judging by their design decisions.
I noticed that my recent in-depth analysis of green helped me decide where to draw the green line above. Perhaps going more in-depth (into higher and more colour-intensive mana costs) for the other colours would be useful, too. I'll do red or white next and see how that goes. I'll re-post green here:
1
thinkknow I'm oversensitive to being told "you can't design like that here", or anything remotely like that, because I get it a lot in this forum. There's an attitude of "you're cheating at design because you just want everything to be broken" or something. That's not it at all. I think it takes skill to find that fine line between playably-strong and over-the-top. I like this aspect of design, and it's a creative outlet for me. I know it's not for everybody, and that's okay, but I feel defensive when I get told that my style isn't welcome. I don't like designs that needlessly obsolete something already in print, along with almost all other designers out there. But I DO like finding out where the boundary is, and I think there's value in knowing.I'm not a fan of power creep, but I can see it happening nonetheless. Much like inflation in the economy, it's always there and it's probably bigger than we notice. At some point, it will have major damaging effects on things if left unchecked.
"disagree with the analysis that you have made for the "filling the holes" section"
Cool, well feel free to get into specifics about what can be changed. Keep in mind it's still in rough form, and I share your concern for creating designs that fill holes but damage a colour's identity. I think I wrote about that here in the thread, saying that not every design is meant to see print, it's just an example of the stats that such a creature might have if it DID see print. Black may very well get a 2/1 for B, according to the analysis, but why hasn't it ever been printed? Are they waiting for the right time, or would they just prefer to print 2/2s with drawbacks because that's more black's style? So don't worry, I get what you're saying. And yet.....
Dakmor Rat - B
Creature - Rat (C)
They've been there all along - you just weren't looking.
2/1
BTW bravelion83, more great work! Thank you!
1
What I'm hoping/planning to do, is continue to work on the list (it's getting pretty close to accurate now I think), and also the analysis, here in the thread. I'll keep the OP updated with as much content as I can. I welcome others to join us in either doing analysis or suggesting improvements on other peoples' stuff. At some point, I'll start a fresh thread, re-write a lot of the OP, and I think that thread will be useful for people to bookmark and come back to. For now, I consider this a working draft, but what we've already got is pretty sweet.
My latest analysis is a more in-depth look at green. Until now I hadn't looked above 6cc, and didn't look at any costs involving more than 2 coloured mana (GG). Once I opened up the search to include that, the following creatures were incorporated into the data: Leatherback Baloth, Arbor Colossus, Terra Stomper, Kalonian Behemoth, and Ghoultree.
I then spaced out the mana costs so that each CMC (1, 2, 3, etc) got three full lines of text. The little notches down the left mark the separations between CMCs.
Observations...
- The right side of a colour's confines is by far the most important. This is the "topheavy" side, or the side that favours power. This appears to be the limiting factor in how powerful a creature can be. Toughness matters, I'm not at all saying it's insignificant. But I'm saying power matters most, and is the primary factor determining a creature's stats for a given mana cost. Power is what helps you get closer to winning the game, because power is what kills your opponent (and his creatures). Toughness helps your creatures stick around, so it certainly matters, but power (essentially the right side of the data) is the first consideration.
- Toughness can really vary in green. It's usually at-or-near the creature's power, and not very often much lower than power - except in weenies (like 3/1s). You're not very likely to see 8/2 creatures in green. But you'll see stuff like 2/8, 0/13, and so on. For the most part, toughness above 5 or 6 becomes less relevant, and by 8 or 9 it's almost completely pointless to keep going. Very few burn spells (even added together) can compete with ultra high toughness, and the same goes for creatures it meets in combat - they'll rarely be able to take it out when the toughness is hitting double digits.
- Leatherback Baloth, Arbor Colossus, Terra Stomper fit very nicely into the data we've already got. In the case of the Baloth, my "strong analysis" had previously predicted 4/4 at 1GG and 4/6 at 3G, so GGG naturally gives us a 4/5. The other 2 slid just as nicely into the numbers. I don't know how useful this is, though. The splashable costs (like 3G) and the more color-intensive costs (like 2GG) seem to provide enough of a "skeleton" that we can flesh out the numbers quite adequately. Maybe the 1GGG (and up) costs are worth checking into, but myself I'll probably only do that if there's a reason to.
- As for going above 6cc, I feel similarly. It's probably useful to look into, especially if you're not sure about some data and need more to go on, but the lower costs (up to 5 or so) provide most of the info required. In green's case, Terra Stomper, Kalonian Behemoth, and Ghoultree provide not really a proper skeleton, but more like a backbone. It's enough to go on. Clearly, green is allowed 8-power creatures for 6 mana, 9 power for 7 mana, and 10 power for 8 mana (all with extra bells and whistles). And those creatures, while attractive to Timmy, aren't tearing up the tournament scene, so there is probably some minor room for designs with higher power, but I wouldn't suggest pushing it too much further to the right. The trend is pretty clear.
- Green doesn't get super topheavy creatures at mana costs above 4 or 5. Toughness almost always matches power, or close to it. Green can have topheavy weenies like 3/1 and 5/2, but once power hits 6 and up, toughness tends to be in the same ballpark.
- I've put a strike through some of the stats, indicating instances where it has little impact on green's "identity" as a color, which is more represented by the line down the right side than anything else. There's nothing wrong with a 2/8 for 4G and I'm not saying Jaddi Lifestrider should come off the master list. But it doesn't set any precedent. It could be 2/3 or 2/9 and still really not matter. At 6 or 7 power, though, the chosen toughness would certainly matter a lot more to a creature costing 4G. (A 7/4 would be interesting.)
- This makes the 2/2 for G I suggested in my "strong analysis" even more obvious. I can't say I think it'll be printed, but I really do think that's the correct cost for a Grizzly Bears. Savannah Lions was in Alpha. 20 years of power creep has taken its toll!
- I wonder if a vanilla mythic creature is possible. I like to think that it is, if designed properly. With an epic mana cost (something that hasn't been done before and has some visual appeal), very high (and unique/interesting) stats that are still appropriate, and the right name/flavour/creature type(s), it's doable. I think mono-green is a good candidate.
And a card to finish up the post, which pretty much just came out of the above analysis. I'm sort of shocked it hasn't already been printed.
Coppice Hydra - XG
Creature - Hydra
Coppice Hydra enters the battlefield with X+1 +1/+1 counters on it.
0/0
1
Thanks Legend! Glad you like it. It's still rough right now but I plan to keep working on it, as well as update it as required, so it stays a relevant tool for designers. All input is welcomed.
Right on! I really appreciate your efforts so far, and look forward to read what you come up with for analysis. I'm going over your mono-colored data now, so far haven't found anything more to add to my master list, but your cataloging of some extended mana costs is helpful. I'm not venturing into multicolored creatures yet, so your data collection on that is valued.
Thanks for letting me know about the 1/6 Zombie for 3B. I'll add that. FYI, 2/5 (Rotted Hulk) is on the master list, there's no 2/6.
What do you guys think about including mythics? These are the mythic creatures that would be on the master list: Indomitable Archangel, Baneslayer Angel, Sun Titan, Torrent Elemental, Grave Titan, Thundermaw Hellkite, Inferno Titan, Transcendent Master, and Ojutai Exemplars. Looking at each of them, none expand the boundaries of power and toughness for their mana cost all that much. The titans all bothered me a lot, but then I realized that even the worst creature colour now gets a 6/6+ for 4UU! And besides, shouldn't there be at least a few mythics on the master list, which has well over 120 creatures on it? The appearance of a few mythics shouldn't lead me to believe they're necessarily costed unfairly. Maybe a few are, but those could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
I guess I'm leaning toward including mythics. But I'd like to hear other opinions.
2
It's a compliment to have Wizards come up with so many cards I thought up quite some time ago. I don't have any rumor-milling abilities anymore, but I'm still able to "predict" what they'll print!