This card isn't designed to show off the new innovative stuff from Lorwyn (innovation being a thing that many tournament players despise)....
What? I know bad players like to take cheap potshots at tournament players whenever possible, but this one doesn't even make sense. Why, exactly, would tournament players despise innovation?
Yes, the creature will still die if the 2 damage is enough to kill it. Deathtouch will only trigger if the Archers are still in play when damage is dealt, and remember that if you Blink the Archers they come back as a different object and their Deathtouch will not trigger from damage that was stacked before they were Blinked. If you Blink or rescue your Archers with combat damage on the stack, their 2 damage will still be dealt but they won't Deathtouch.
I'm failing to see how adding more keywords raises the bar for new players. All non-rare keyworded cards have reminder text after their keywords. Maybe its just that seasoned players don't even notice the reminder text (I know I don't), but it is there for the newbs to read.
If anything, it helps to more quickly integrate new players into the vocabulary of the game. It gives us one standard word set to describe how things work without the need to read anything more than what is on the card (Exactly the reason "Spiritcraft" should have been keyworded).
Reach is perhaps the best example of all. Prior to this wording, I've heard such creatures referred to as "spiders", "webbed," or the flavorless "can block fliers." Now we have one universal term for it, and all the players who have never seen a Web before know what the heck is being talked about.
The more game terminology you have to memorize while playing, the more difficult it is to get into the game. This is a fairly intuitive concept. The reminder text is certainly helpful when it exists (and the "all non-rare cards" rule only applies to core sets, by the way), but it's not the actual rules text of the ability and it doesn't explain all the cases. Experienced players often don't even think about them, but you'd be surprised how much of a stumbling block they can be for people just getting into the game.
Quote from Alestra »
In common Internets parlance, ">" and "<" mean "is better than" and "is worse than", respectively.
I know that. I was just pointing out that he/she used the wrong one.
Reach - Again, Web > Reach for theme, historical reasons, etc.
> means "greater than", actually. I assume you meant <, since only 19 of the 43 creatures with reach are using webs to get it, and only 2 of the 6 reach-granting enchantments use webs (I'm counting Hidden Spider as a creature, here). With more than half of the instances of reach being matters of ranged attacks, tree climbing abilities, or sheer size, it certainly would be nonsensical to call it web!
If by this you mean "doesn't work at all" and "ruins the flavor of any past magic card it "effects" or "is effected by", then yeah. Enjoy using the best masques card to tutor for an overpriced pacifism. I'll not enjoy reading "creature" after 99% of the cards that mention creatures by type now. Goblin creatures get +1,+1. Scr*w you Tribal.
How, exactly, does it run the flavor of cards it affects or is affected by? In fact, what's wrong with it at all? It had to be either a supertype inconsistent with the other supertypes (in that it modifies the rules of its type) or a type inconsistent with the other types (in that it cannot exist without another type). It doesn't really fit neatly into either of the established categories, but it had to be one of them. They made it the slightly more intuitive one (it toys with subtypes, so it's a type). There's no advantage to it being a supertype, so what exactly is wrong with it being a type?
And regarding "doesn't work at all": It works just fine.
but no, they chose this overly complex and confusing route which is going to land them in so many rules issues... it's a ridiculous move, if you ask me.
This is neither complex nor confusing. If you really think it is either of those things you should probably stay away from the Comp Rules because they will blow your mind.
As for all the new keywords, I always worry when they keyword old abilities because each new keyword raises the bar for new players entering the game just a little bit. Being able to look at a card and just know what it does is important, and keywords do impose a certain difficulty on that. Oh well, I suppose it's not too bad.
Specific keyword notes:
Reach: OH THANK YOU. Enough of this "as though it had flying", "as if it had flying", "does it have flying or not?" nonsense. Reach and the alteration to the text of flying is a nice, elegant solution.
Shroud: Why is this keyworded? My first guess was that shroud must appear on the blue sliver in the cycle of slivers with "new" abilities (like Lymph Sliver or Virulent Sliver), but then I realized that Mesmeric Sliver is already in that slot. True Believer and Ivory Mask saying "You have shroud." is really strange and doesn't seem particularly intuitive. Anybody know why they did this one?
I also worry about cards getting lost in various graveyards. I mean, how can you know easily check whether the Volute got into a graveyard as a part of an enchant effect, or whether it got dumped there by something else? Confusion.
What? I can't see it mattering whether the Volute was killed by SBEs or a Disenchant.
Duh, it actually just occurred to me while typing that you might mean that you think the Volute is in a graveyard while enchanting an instant. Read the FAQ entry in the article. While enchanting something, the Volute is in play. Sorry, I can be dense sometimes.
1st Hellkite = 4 to itself, 1 to owner.
Rinse, and repeat.
So they do a total of 4 damage to the owner. Then next turn, he just attacks you FTW.
Actually, the smart play would be for the first three Hellkites to do 4 to themselves and 1 to the tiger, and then the fourth Hellkite can do 4 to itself and 1 to its owner. This way the tiger dies too and the owner only takes 1 damage total.
I'm not certain that Venser counters the spell. If he doesn't and the spell effect stays on the stack, that's really good.
But if he does counter the spell...
When asking if he counters the spell, the question you should be asking yourself is "What spell?"
Example: Your opponent taps out to play Dark Withering on your Pardic Dragon during his precombat main phase. In response, you drop Venser. He resolves. When his CiP trigger goes on the stack, you target Dark Withering. His ability resolves and Dark Withering bounces back to your opponent's hand. The stack is now empty. Your opponent passes priority, then you pass priority, and the game moves into the end of turn step. No spell was countered this turn, and the only spell that resolved this turn was Venser. You still have a Pardic Dragon, and your opponent has Dark Withering in his hand but can't cast it again because he tapped out.
Llanowar Reborn - A free +1/+1 counter. Unique? Just more of the same.
You spelled "yes" wrong.
Unless you're saying that the fact that it's a land isn't good enough, and that it's not unique because there are lots of green cards that give +1/+1 counters in various ways... in which case West of Tolaria is not unique, since the fact that it's a land isn't good enough, and it's not unique because there are lots of blue cards that transmute for various costs. (Incidentally, this would mean that West of Tolaria fails all of the same checks that Llanowar Reborn did, as it's not a win condition and it's not card advantage.)
You should try to apply logic to card evaluations rather than your personal bias. We all like transmute better than +1/+1 counters, but that doesn't mean that we can pretend that it is somehow a more valid or unique mechanic (from a design standpoint).
Instants are good because you have the option of playing them at EOT and/or when the timing is worst for your opponent. If I'm staring down a Radha, I would prefer you add RRRRRRRRRR to your mana pool so there are no surprises and I can just beat your face in with my <insert creature here> next turn.
Yes, Mirri's Vamp ability is worthless, but the card is aggressively costed and the playable standard 4 drop that MBA was looking for.
You know, I could just attack with Radha and play an instant during combat for free or at least cheap and then STILL play an instant later when timing is bad for you. You also probably shouldn't count on <insert creature here> attacking next turn, since I now have twice as many chances to drop an instant speed burn spell on it.
A bunch of essentially correct stuff that people didn't want to hear
The fact is that Hasbro and WotC have done actual market studies and they've gathered, analyzed, and verified the data. Nobody here appears to have anything more than anecdotal evidence (myself included), and so our data is worth a lot less than WotC's. Has anybody actually done any studies on a reasonably large, reasonably random sample? If they tell us that the people who visit rumor sites represents a tiny fraction of the playerbase, how can we possibly disagree without actual, verifiable evidence to the contrary? If you want to fight about this, you need data. Your opinions, assumptions, and "what seems right to you" don't count for very much. It sure seems like traffic increased immensely both here and at the WotC site, so much so that both sites were experiencing server problems because of it. Is it a coincidence that it happened during one of the slowest and quietest rumor seasons in recent history? I don't know, but WotC's data says it isn't, and I certainly don't have any actual, verifiable data that disagrees. Does anybody else?
On-topic: I'm sure there will be some way to make it clear that the PC timeshifted cards are timeshifted, but it might not be something that we're likely to guess. The purple subset thing has proven that WotC is willing to do some awfully bizarre things, and I think we probably won't be able to make a reasonable prediction until we get some more info. At this point we're just shooting in the dark. As someone said earlier, though, I think the FS timeshifted cards will be completely unidentifiable until their counterparts are printed in the future, probably in the next block. I think that this is a fairly creative way to approach the integrated block design thing that Wizards is doing to make Standard more cohesive. What better way to make two blocks intermingle than to actually print cards that belong in one block in the other?
What? I know bad players like to take cheap potshots at tournament players whenever possible, but this one doesn't even make sense. Why, exactly, would tournament players despise innovation?
Prodigal Sorcerer is still called Tim. I've heard a few people calling Prodigal Pyromancer Tom.
The more game terminology you have to memorize while playing, the more difficult it is to get into the game. This is a fairly intuitive concept. The reminder text is certainly helpful when it exists (and the "all non-rare cards" rule only applies to core sets, by the way), but it's not the actual rules text of the ability and it doesn't explain all the cases. Experienced players often don't even think about them, but you'd be surprised how much of a stumbling block they can be for people just getting into the game.
I know that. I was just pointing out that he/she used the wrong one.
> means "greater than", actually. I assume you meant <, since only 19 of the 43 creatures with reach are using webs to get it, and only 2 of the 6 reach-granting enchantments use webs (I'm counting Hidden Spider as a creature, here). With more than half of the instances of reach being matters of ranged attacks, tree climbing abilities, or sheer size, it certainly would be nonsensical to call it web!
How, exactly, does it run the flavor of cards it affects or is affected by? In fact, what's wrong with it at all? It had to be either a supertype inconsistent with the other supertypes (in that it modifies the rules of its type) or a type inconsistent with the other types (in that it cannot exist without another type). It doesn't really fit neatly into either of the established categories, but it had to be one of them. They made it the slightly more intuitive one (it toys with subtypes, so it's a type). There's no advantage to it being a supertype, so what exactly is wrong with it being a type?
And regarding "doesn't work at all": It works just fine.
This is neither complex nor confusing. If you really think it is either of those things you should probably stay away from the Comp Rules because they will blow your mind.
As for all the new keywords, I always worry when they keyword old abilities because each new keyword raises the bar for new players entering the game just a little bit. Being able to look at a card and just know what it does is important, and keywords do impose a certain difficulty on that. Oh well, I suppose it's not too bad.
Specific keyword notes:
Reach: OH THANK YOU. Enough of this "as though it had flying", "as if it had flying", "does it have flying or not?" nonsense. Reach and the alteration to the text of flying is a nice, elegant solution.
Shroud: Why is this keyworded? My first guess was that shroud must appear on the blue sliver in the cycle of slivers with "new" abilities (like Lymph Sliver or Virulent Sliver), but then I realized that Mesmeric Sliver is already in that slot. True Believer and Ivory Mask saying "You have shroud." is really strange and doesn't seem particularly intuitive. Anybody know why they did this one?
What? I can't see it mattering whether the Volute was killed by SBEs or a Disenchant.
Duh, it actually just occurred to me while typing that you might mean that you think the Volute is in a graveyard while enchanting an instant. Read the FAQ entry in the article. While enchanting something, the Volute is in play. Sorry, I can be dense sometimes.
Actually, the smart play would be for the first three Hellkites to do 4 to themselves and 1 to the tiger, and then the fourth Hellkite can do 4 to itself and 1 to its owner. This way the tiger dies too and the owner only takes 1 damage total.
When asking if he counters the spell, the question you should be asking yourself is "What spell?"
Example: Your opponent taps out to play Dark Withering on your Pardic Dragon during his precombat main phase. In response, you drop Venser. He resolves. When his CiP trigger goes on the stack, you target Dark Withering. His ability resolves and Dark Withering bounces back to your opponent's hand. The stack is now empty. Your opponent passes priority, then you pass priority, and the game moves into the end of turn step. No spell was countered this turn, and the only spell that resolved this turn was Venser. You still have a Pardic Dragon, and your opponent has Dark Withering in his hand but can't cast it again because he tapped out.
You spelled "yes" wrong.
Unless you're saying that the fact that it's a land isn't good enough, and that it's not unique because there are lots of green cards that give +1/+1 counters in various ways... in which case West of Tolaria is not unique, since the fact that it's a land isn't good enough, and it's not unique because there are lots of blue cards that transmute for various costs. (Incidentally, this would mean that West of Tolaria fails all of the same checks that Llanowar Reborn did, as it's not a win condition and it's not card advantage.)
You should try to apply logic to card evaluations rather than your personal bias. We all like transmute better than +1/+1 counters, but that doesn't mean that we can pretend that it is somehow a more valid or unique mechanic (from a design standpoint).
Define "extremely consistantly".
You know, I could just attack with Radha and play an instant during combat for free or at least cheap and then STILL play an instant later when timing is bad for you. You also probably shouldn't count on <insert creature here> attacking next turn, since I now have twice as many chances to drop an instant speed burn spell on it.
The fact is that Hasbro and WotC have done actual market studies and they've gathered, analyzed, and verified the data. Nobody here appears to have anything more than anecdotal evidence (myself included), and so our data is worth a lot less than WotC's. Has anybody actually done any studies on a reasonably large, reasonably random sample? If they tell us that the people who visit rumor sites represents a tiny fraction of the playerbase, how can we possibly disagree without actual, verifiable evidence to the contrary? If you want to fight about this, you need data. Your opinions, assumptions, and "what seems right to you" don't count for very much. It sure seems like traffic increased immensely both here and at the WotC site, so much so that both sites were experiencing server problems because of it. Is it a coincidence that it happened during one of the slowest and quietest rumor seasons in recent history? I don't know, but WotC's data says it isn't, and I certainly don't have any actual, verifiable data that disagrees. Does anybody else?
On-topic: I'm sure there will be some way to make it clear that the PC timeshifted cards are timeshifted, but it might not be something that we're likely to guess. The purple subset thing has proven that WotC is willing to do some awfully bizarre things, and I think we probably won't be able to make a reasonable prediction until we get some more info. At this point we're just shooting in the dark. As someone said earlier, though, I think the FS timeshifted cards will be completely unidentifiable until their counterparts are printed in the future, probably in the next block. I think that this is a fairly creative way to approach the integrated block design thing that Wizards is doing to make Standard more cohesive. What better way to make two blocks intermingle than to actually print cards that belong in one block in the other?
You run Bob and Soul Spike in the same deck? Gutsy....