All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Magic Market Index for April 20th, 2018
Pauper Review: Dominaria
The Limited Archetypes of Dominaria
  • posted a message on Errata and Dominaria Up on Gatherer
    Quote from Raindance »
    I was wondering why I didn't get any results for Upwelling when I used "empty" and I didn't get any results in the gatherer.

    Yeah, the term "lose" is getting overloaded a lot.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on New Aura/Equipment template
    Quote from italofoca »
    But it also means pacifism would need to have a 0/0 box, which may seem not very elegant for now (but totally oable).

    Once again, no. If you change the rules already, there is nothing stopping you from declaring that a missing p/t box is equivalent to having 0/0 - considering the rule regarding undefined numbers that's actually already the default.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Ravnica: Other Guild Equipments (counterparts of Rakdos Riteknife)
    Quote from genesys »
    My inspiration for this series if Rakdos Riteknife. I always thought it would be worth a Guild cycle (even though the original is quite weak). The only card that could qualify as such I think is Sunforger.

    Are you aware that Rakdos Riteknife and Sunforger are already part of a cycle with Bloodletter Quill, Plague Boiler etc.? So I hope you give Rakdos a non-Equipment artifact to make up for the rest. Smile
    Boros Wargear 2
    Artifact - Equipment (R)
    If equipped creature has power 4 or greater, it has menace. If it has toughness 4 or greater, it has vigilance.
    {W/R}: Equipped creature gets +1/+0 if it's red and +0/+1 if it's white.
    Equip 3 or WR

    Your card violates the cycle. Why go hybrid? The point is that you get the best use only if you play both colors of the guild.

    The colored equip cost saves you only one mana in the end.

    Even the hybrid cost is actually quite redundant on this card since a generic cost there still wouldn't get around the color restrictions in the ability.

    I don't see why this is a replacement for Sunforger - it doesn't even play into the themes of Boros that much better (which is saying much with how loose original Ravnica Boros went with its theme.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on New Aura/Equipment template
    Quote from saneatali »
    I would not include it in the description for creating tokens the way you have done. Not all Equipment and Auras grant P/T changes, but I think that baking it into the token definition, rather than making it an ability the token has, would require all future equipment and aura tokens (rare now, but you never know) to include a P/T, even if it is 0/0.

    That's a bold statement I entirely disagree with. If the Equipment has no static p/t altering ability (e. g. Cobbled Wings) the Equipment card under tzhe new template would have no p/t box saying +0/+0. Accordingly a token that doesn't alter p/t shouldn't have to mention it. At the very least it's nit as given as you assume.

    There are already creature tokens that don't explicitly say "create a P/T creature token" if there is no predefined or static power and toughness.
    Some Auras grant different effects depending upon what they are enchanting. How would your template handle Clutch of Undeath?

    Same way as the above mentioned Adventuring Gear and Cobbled Wings? If there is no universal +P/+T boost use card text as usual.

    Look at it this way: The new template is an option you should use if possible, but if not possible the old template still works for all existing cards.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Gvar Barzeel, Kolaghan Warrior and Oret of the Dromoka
    These don't partner particularly well unless I'm missing something.

    Bolster is not a flashy enough keyword action to re-use without reminder text.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on New Aura/Equipment template
    Even if the solution currently looks awkward in MSE that just means that maybe their would have to be some update e. g. to the font to make the plus signs less awkward, though I personally just tried it and it looks fine - as it should since it is actually currently used on existing cards: Half-Orc, Half- is one of them.

    It's something I tried before and am fine with - especially if one plans to use the technique for tokens.
    Quote from Manite »
    I feel the change would help immensely if the Sigils are implemented as Equipment tokens. Instead of writing "Create a Sigil, a colorless Equipment artifact token with equip 1 and 'Equipped creature gets +1/+1'", you can write "Create a Sigil, a +1/+1 colorless Equipment artifact token with equip 1." This is simialr to how creature token p/t is listed, like a 1/1 white Soldier creature token.

    Of course I would prefer that Sigils simply be artifact tokens with Exalted, but that's one example of where the new template would really benefit. Imagine +1/+0 Weapon tokens and +0/+1 Armor tokens.

    Having worked with this in the past I strongly suggest favoring a single square +1/+1 Equipment token over two separate +1/+0 and +0/+1 tokens. More strongly skewed tokens e. g. +2/+0 might be something else, but using too small p/t boni encourages more tokens - which in turn means more clutter on the battlefield/board complexity.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Potentially More Unique Buy-A-Box Promos
    Quote from Robinhoody430 »
    From today's MTR release notes

    Section 6.3 (Standard Format): This section has been updated to account for the new Buy-a-Box promos that are part of an expansion, but do not appear in that expansion's boosters.

    This seems to indicate that there will be more on the horizon, and indeed with the design & printing lead time for cards, I would expect to see another unique buy-a-box promo for C19, if not the fall set as well.

    Not surprising. Even if they fare poorly and will be discontinued, the feedback won't be in after just one set. And this is not the kind of promotional thing to be done just for Dominaria specifically since there is nothing regarding the set that makes this kind of promo card more fitting to it than any other arbitrary set.

    As long as the promos eventually all show up in unlimited supplemental sets. Just let the exclusive nature be temporary, please.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Planeswalkers-matter cards
    Quote from Etherium Sage »
    So, as suggested, I scrapped the Jace spell

    Just to be clear: I suggested scrapping the cited clause.

    I'm certain making plenty of planeswalker copies on the cheap is an issue as well - even without the clauses protecting the original, so scrapping the whole card is understandable. It probably has issues.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Planeswalkers-matter cards
    Quote from Etherium Sage »
    I did used to post individual cards a lot, but I tend to have multiple cards in mind these days, and I don't want to get in trouble for spamming the sub-forum.

    That's a good idea. It seems you get the best feedback on about half a dozen cards that are thematically linked or individual outstanding cards.

    For these I think the hard part in evaluating them is that they are clearly not (all) meant for your average set. Though some work better in a vacuum than others.
    Quote from Etherium Sage »

    Jace's Misdirection XXUU
    Create X tokens that are copies of target planeswalker you control, except they aren't legendary if that planeswalker is legendary. Those tokens have "Creatures can't attack nontoken planeswalkers you control with this planeswalker's name." and "Nontoken planeswalkers you control with this planeswalker's name have hexproof."

    Regarding the "if that planeswalker is legendary" line: Its ambiguous (well, actually not if punctuation is taken into account, but I take a gamble that not everyone will). Depending on whether it's meant to restrict you from using the spell to copy copied tokens again or just meant to say that legendariness is only removed from copies of legendary originals, it seems either like a contrived restriction with little impact or unnecessary. Either way I'd scrap it.
    Teferi's Trickery 7U
    You may cast planeswalker cards as though they had flash.
    You may activate the loyalty abilities of planeswalkers you control on any player's turn at any time you can cast an instant.

    This seems like it wants to be cool, but is far too expensive. Giving you double activations on your planeswalkers is obviously powerful, but it seems bad that it makes the cost so prohibitive that you'll never do the cool thing and flash this enchantment in immediately followed by a surprise Liliana of the Veil to be used as a Cruel Edict.

    Is that just something I would enjoy? How cheap could it be if this just allowed you a free activation any time you could activate an instant during the turn a planeswalker enters the battlefield? I feel that would make for more rewarding gameplay moments.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Planeswalkers-matter cards
    Quote from Etherium Sage »
    To explicitly state that it's the mana cost.

    Wouldn't putting the cost on the same line as the name do that? At least to the same degree its explicit on actual cards doing so.
    Also, you didn't express a problem with that before, so why now?

    Are you certain? One issue at a time, I guess. I probably was confused about it on one of the cards specifically - not finding the mana cost in its usual spot. It might have something to do with the amount of cards making it easier for multiple cards to bleed into one another without bolded cardnames or boxes. Aren't you usually just posting individual cards? Just guessing. I might mix you up with another user. I have no active recollection.

    Well, it is less disruptive than putting the p/t at the top since it actually respects the order of information, but something about this post made it more prominent.

    Now that I try to remember, I think it had to do with the colored artifact vs. colorless artifact with colored activation cost reading weirdly.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Planeswalkers-matter cards
    Why is the mana cost on a separate line?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Card Quality as a Resource
    I have my doubts. Draw up a decklist with some cards using that mechanic and I may playtest it next week, because I am curious enough to see whether it is actually usable or salvagable in a form different from the suggestion to just make it "or less/more".

    So technically the card title just talks about "card quality" and not necessariyl converted mana cost, so there are already examples for that.

    I actually like the subtle aspect that each card will always let you discard a land plus an additional copy of the card - which is often just something you are fine with to dig two cards deeper into your deck.

    EDIT: A negative side effect of this is obviously that this favors discarding cheap cards, while especially in Limited you also will want to have an option to throw away that late game card to find some action against early pressure, but this might be valid as a deliberate choice to encourage aggressiveness in red.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on The Digsite: An extra deck themed around unlocking the lost powers of Wastes.
    Quote from mondu_the_fat »

    Library of Wastes
    Land -- Waste
    T: add C to your mana pool.
    1U,T: draw a card. Use this ability only 4 times a game and only as a sorcery.

    How playable do you think is that? Do you think playing this card is a drawback if you're playing blue?

    You know. I think that may be what "rethinking the costs" may be about.

    For example, would you play this:

    Library of Wastes
    Land - Waste
    T: Produce C.
    U,T, Tap another untapped Waste you control: Draw a card. Activate this ability only N* times a game and only as a sorcery.

    *) N might not be four as BlazingRagnarok points out.

    Probably. But now you have to start thinking about your mana, because this is effectively two colors. And all it would take is recosting the card from 1 mana blue mana ? mana to blue mana ? mana ? mana .

    If the effect reads "You may have activated up to seven other effects before this this game" though the card reads far less reliable as well. The issue here are the lack of thought put into buuilding the digsite.

    Here is the one issue with the digsite: Every single card in the digsite is essentially a cantrip - replacing itself with the next card in the digsite and in addition the first one is free card advantage. The effective cantrip can be adressed by effective costing - the free first card is kinda problematic.

    An alternative way to use this is to use "As an additional cost to cast this spell, sacrifice a Waste." on certain effects rather than simple "waste mana". That way you get closer to Blasted Landscape.

    Another way might be to use the alternate backside and actually put a text on it like: " 1 mana ? mana : Turn the top card of your library face-up." and change the rule so you can only play the top card. Then some of them could be actual cantrips by turning the next card face-up while others won't and you have to pay the cost to "dig it up" again. A benefit of this would be that the actual mana costs printed on the face-site would look more acceptable to the players only just introduced to the mechanic (since they don't have to account for the "invisible" cantrip when evalluating cost vs. effect).

    Alternatively card-back ccould have "Whenever a waste land enters the battlefield under your control, you may turn the top card of your digsite face-up." though that come with its own issues.

    I personally like "Whenever a waste land enters the battlefield under your control, you may entomb the top site of the digsite there. You may look at and cast the entombed cards." and have cards like

    Ancient Knowledge ? mana blue mana *
    As an additional cost to cast this spell, tap the land it is entombed on.
    Draw a card.

    Cursed Tomb ? mana black mana *
    As an additional cost to cast this spell, sacrifice the land it is entombed on.
    Create a 2/2 black Zombie creature token with menace.

    *) Note: Here I'm not using ? mana to represent "waste mana", but to show that I'm not certain whether/how much generic mana should be added to the cost.

    As mentioned earlier I'm thematically a great fan of actually sacrificing/discarding the wastes you are stripping of their hidden treasures.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Dominaria Slivers (Cycle)
    Quote from Flisch »
    After listening to the podcast today on Dominaria lore and creative direction, I stumbled over their statement that there was no room for slivers in Dominaria. The thing is, I do agree that slivers shouldn't have been a major element of Dominaria (and this comes from an avid sliver fan!) but I think leaving them out completely was unnecessary. Immediately I thought of ways to include "low-maintenance" slivers, so slivers that work fine by themselves. The most obvious path is letting the slivers create more tokens themselves, so they can also work in a non-sliver deck. As I thought, I came across the following designs, which I think not only work well as stand-alones, but also perfectly exemplify the sliver's flavour of "overrunning everything if left alone".

    As a solution to Slivers these seem fairly problematic since they are all rare. Also a whole cycle of a single creature type is a lot of room if you don't even get a small draft theme out of it (since once again: these are all rare).

    On the other hand any other rarity doesn't work with this mechanic since multiples are so strong, so you write yourself into a corner.

    Alternatively they could have gone the Thrull/Kavu way and just included a single Sliver e. g. replacing Pardic Wanderer with another vanilla artifact Sliver (the Troll answer, but if they planned on including Slivers in the next set certainly a way to get people talking) or a nonvanilla artifact Sliver with an ability for a change similar in ability to e. g. Sparring Construct.

    There are plenty of Sliver designs that are straight-forward enough to "work" in small numbers expanding on Predatory Sliver as a self-contained card.

    Not that I think any of those solutions are necessary. A set without Slivers is okay. Put Slivers in a set that benefits from it. I don't need a set that has historic really wants them. Slivers are not Sagas. You usually get only one artifact Sliver and one legendary Sliver per block/arc - maybe an additional artifact. Otherwise Slivers are almost orthogonal to the historic theme, even a bit antithetical with the real desire to avoid being legendary. (Another point against putting a rare cycle into Dominaria since that's space also occupied by legendaries - and reserving a whole cycle of nonlegendary creatures might make things tight.)

    And Slivers would take up the space of a lot of references. What point is there to including Slivers if that means you take out e. g. the Thrull, the Kavu and the Homarid? When does the satisfaction of Sliver fans get overruled by the satisfaction of the fans of other aspects of the game?

    Last but not least: Making all the Slivers in the set so similar to each other may actually be disappointing in its own way. Slivers are about building your own creature army. If all the cards already share one ability, it feels less special. Suddenly all Slivers in all colors are all about that very ability.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Banned and Restricted Announcement: No Changes
    Quote from thatmarkguy »
    And as usual, the real culprit is fetchlands. It always comes back to fetchlands.

    This is correct. That's probably why MaRo hinted that the next follow-up to Modern (if/when they do a new one) would probably not start with KTK like the format sometimes referred to as "Frontier", but would more likely start with ORI - leaving out fetchlands.

    I personally would welcome a nonrotating format without fetchlands - this would double as being a change of pace from the other fetchland formats while also reducing the economic pressure/demand for fetchlands for anyone who wants to play a sanctioned Eternal/nonrotating format. I think the land-base would get cheaper in the older formats.

    A side-effect of that idea is that fetchlands would no longer be printed in Standard-legal products, but that could be handled if they continue to make good supplemental products that eventually contain them. (I'm not refering to Masters products, though as long as that series continues that's where high-demand lands like the fetchlands will go - but I'd prefer them more in a cousing to Conspiracy/Unstable.)
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.