No... Swamp/Plains/etc-cycling was around way before Channel, which established that cycling can take on the form of: "Cost, Discard this card: Effect", where vanilla cycling has the effect as "Draw a card", Swampcycling has the effect as "Search your library for a swamp, reveal it and put it into your hand" and Reinforce has the effect of "Put some number of +1/+1 counters on target creature." Channel is a variant of cycling (specifically a variant of cards like Decree of Justice, without the cantrip part), not the other way around.
-E
Date of first use has nothing to do with the mechanic relations.
Channel is: [discard card from hand: get an effect]
The original debut of Channel was actually a subset of itself: the specific effect is "one-time effect related to the creature's on-board repeatable effect"
Cycling is a subset: the specific effect is "draw a card"
Transmute is a subset: the specific effect is "search for..."
Reinforce is a subset: the specific effect is "put counters on a creature"
In terms of cycling, I think R&D is taking a more kicker-like attitude to strict cycling now. Reinforce is cycling. Transmute is cycling. Channel is cycling.
Almost, but the other way around. They are all Channel, not cycling. Cycling is a specific form of Channel, as are Reinforce and Transmute.
I like the mana symbols on the right, it allows you to see the mana cost with the cards in your hand, although the overall design could be better.
Think about holding a hand of these cards. You can see the mana cost of every card, as it is the left side you see as you fan them out. Having them on the right corner made this difficult, not easy.
Open FireFox
goto gatherer.wizards.com
type 'goblin' and hit enter
results -> the word goblin is replaced with 'avarice', and that's it (no search)
Open IE
goto gatherer.wizards.com
type 'goblin' and hit enter
results -> correctly searches for goblin
It may just be a browser-specific bug. I see things like this happen all the time for one browser or the another. It's been like this for weeks, though.
I've been wondering this ever since I first heard about the format. I've still never tried it, because of my reaction, which was:
So, it's a format invented to let bad players win, too? I don't get it.
I'm not trying to be a hardon, or put down anyone who enjoys it. I'm all for fun, but isn't this just like playing Bingo with pictures of dragons on the number card?
Based on experience, the vast majority of serious limited players.
Which, from my experiance, is a small minority of players in general. Seeing as tournament players aren't the only ones interested in a fair game, this would be a bomb.
I'm pretty sure that the intent was to find people who think like R&D does, making any answer but Izzet "incorrect." Reasons for another answer may be personally correct for you, but that's not what they were looking for. I'm not saying that is good nor bad, but the way it is.
I went to the prerelease, and as far as I could tell, every man, woman and child over the age of 5 in the room knew everything there was to know about the set and the cards in it before they walked in the door.
I'm not commenting on whether it is better to be spoiled or not. However I can safely state that their attempt at having it not spoiled did not work.
Date of first use has nothing to do with the mechanic relations.
Channel is: [discard card from hand: get an effect]
The original debut of Channel was actually a subset of itself: the specific effect is "one-time effect related to the creature's on-board repeatable effect"
Cycling is a subset: the specific effect is "draw a card"
Transmute is a subset: the specific effect is "search for..."
Reinforce is a subset: the specific effect is "put counters on a creature"
Buyback is a specific form of Kicker.
Almost, but the other way around. They are all Channel, not cycling. Cycling is a specific form of Channel, as are Reinforce and Transmute.
Think about holding a hand of these cards. You can see the mana cost of every card, as it is the left side you see as you fan them out. Having them on the right corner made this difficult, not easy.
Normally, in a small set (if it's 55/55/55), you get 11 commons, or one-fifth of the commons, in each booster pack already.
Open FireFox
goto gatherer.wizards.com
type 'goblin' and hit enter
results -> the word goblin is replaced with 'avarice', and that's it (no search)
Open IE
goto gatherer.wizards.com
type 'goblin' and hit enter
results -> correctly searches for goblin
It may just be a browser-specific bug. I see things like this happen all the time for one browser or the another. It's been like this for weeks, though.
So, it's a format invented to let bad players win, too? I don't get it.
I'm not trying to be a hardon, or put down anyone who enjoys it. I'm all for fun, but isn't this just like playing Bingo with pictures of dragons on the number card?
Which, from my experiance, is a small minority of players in general. Seeing as tournament players aren't the only ones interested in a fair game, this would be a bomb.
I think that pretty much answers that question?
Edit: Guess not, age counters.
I'm not commenting on whether it is better to be spoiled or not. However I can safely state that their attempt at having it not spoiled did not work.
Wow and I thought I had been playing for a long time!