I think Promised Tomorrow triggers on each end step.
Also, whyyyyy does the Kodama have Partner? I know it has no immediate impact, but this thing is so spicy, there's got to be a partner that breaks this thing in half.
Ritokure, please stop feeding the troll. No genuine person could possibly present a full quote definitively proving themselves wrong and present it as proof they are right. They'll stop mucking up this thread if you stop provoking them.
Boy, I read the title and hoped for a mythic Zombify. If anything is getting people to play overcosted reanimation, it's putting a land on the other side.
I believe you are kind of making my point. If a member can recognize where the evaluation of a card is coming from, there isn't a need to blindly strike back with a "no it doesn't" or "you're wrong".
Secondly, wanting a card to be more powerful isn't a binary decision of 0 crap or 10 bonkers. Cards could be made slightly stronger by playing around with casting costs or rarity shifts very easily. I don't want all cards to be 10's!!! But then again I don't want to see a bunch of useless 1's. How about a nice mix that isn't obviously nerfed? MDFC's from what I've seen need a small power bump for eternal formats, and it wouldn't ruin Standard in the process. Standard's nearly ruined as it is.
The issue is, different formats care about different ranges on that scale. While a commander deck will happily play a 2 if it synergizes well with the commander, eternal formats rarely care about anything that's not a 9 or a 10. It's just not reasonable to expect a set to have many, many 9s and no 10s. I do hope a 9 MDFC gets revealed, but a) it's too early to say the mechanic is bad just because you haven't seen a 9 yet and b) this mechanic is way stronger than it looks.
Wait, you don't have to target an opponent's artifact. Auto-equip Colossus Hammer and get a 12/11 flier for 2U!
Edit: The hammer removes flying. Still beefy, though.
I think the disparity here between opinions stems from what formats a player is basing their evaluations on/of.
EDH/Draft/Standard players have a MUCH different viewpoint than Constructed/Eternal(Legacy,Modern,Pioneer) players. What might be playable in EDH/Draft/Standard very well may be weak or trash in the eternal formats and vice versa.
Most of the stuff spoiled from this set is a powered down pile of disappointment for constructed/eternal players. EDH players never met a card they didn't like. Drafters will basically play anything. These are where most of us are disagreeing. I don't comment every time an EDH player goes bonkers for some piece of overcosted eternal chaff. I think members here need to be more discriminating in their reading of posts and let evaluations slide if it is obvious its aimed at a certain format of play.
Its okay to think a card sucks or is Gucci. Its because they CAN be at the same time.
If you're coming at this from a Modern/Legacy perspective (or god forbid, Vintage), then that's true of very nearly every set. The only sets in recent memory that aren't like that are Modern Horizons and Ikoria, and I'm pretty sure you'd prefer MDFCs become the next Adventure rather than the next Companion. MDFCs muck around with a fundamental assumption of the game, so the risk of making a new Companion is higher than you'd think.
Color-pie-wise, white is allowed to remove any threat for any reason. That's the color's defining strength. White prefers to play fair with its removal, so I guess having to control a bunch of creatures is considered fair now.
I think people are too hard on the dfc lands. They have the potential to be good. I know the spell sides tend to cost a bit more than it looks like they should, but there's always been a premium to versatility and sometimes it's worth it.
The ability to reduce mana screw and mana flood at the deck construction level is something that we sorely need more of.
They HAD the potential to be good. That potential was wasted when WotC decided to make them not good. Otherwise known as bad.
No, they had the potential to broken, but Wizards just made them good. This mechanic reads much weaker than it is.
Now this is a good modal DFC! Early on it's a land, lategame it removes a blocker and adds some extra damage to the board. Act of Treason is only really good for closing out a game, so I don't mind paying an extra 1R. The only situation both sides are straight up bad is when you have fallen way behind. I think this might even be the best Act of Treason ever printed.
I hope it is a sign they are finally going to let all colors do stuff but they must do it in a way that is (yes) handicapped in some way that is flavorful to what that color wants to do.
Maybe.
It could be great or it could completely ruin significantly change the color wheel and by extension the game itself.
The thing is though..it feels like they've basically alrady been doing this in red for nearly a decade now, nibbling around the edges here and there. And the game didn't break in half. Based on recent comments out of R&D seems like they went on a similar path for white (and we're going to start seeing a lot of it). Maybe black's getting some adjustments too.
Maybe the rules that Red & Black can't deal with enchantments is just stupid-flavor-driven and not actually good for game play? What if the game actually gets better when each color can do what it needs to do but might have to pay some additional costs in order to do some of those necessary things? We might find out here pretty soon.
The only problem is (as they found out with on-purpose colorshifted stuff like Damnation) you can't un-print stuff. Once you've done it, you've done it and the game can't really go back. (And I believe some those cards have definitely caused some problems in formats over the years.)
It does feel a little strange they printed this here and not in Theros..
Just because a color rarely does something doesn't mean that that's its intended weakness (the one needed for game balance). Like, there's only one white extra combat spell, but it's still perfectly in-color. The weaknesses are as follows: White is the worst at card draw, blue can't permanently remove threats it hasn't countered except by replacing them with a new threat, red can't remove enchantments, and green can't kill creatures or draw cards except by using creatures, as its true weakness is overreliance on creatures. Black already can't destroy artifacts, it doesn't need to have red's weakness as well.
Also, whyyyyy does the Kodama have Partner? I know it has no immediate impact, but this thing is so spicy, there's got to be a partner that breaks this thing in half.
The issue is, different formats care about different ranges on that scale. While a commander deck will happily play a 2 if it synergizes well with the commander, eternal formats rarely care about anything that's not a 9 or a 10. It's just not reasonable to expect a set to have many, many 9s and no 10s. I do hope a 9 MDFC gets revealed, but a) it's too early to say the mechanic is bad just because you haven't seen a 9 yet and b) this mechanic is way stronger than it looks.
Edit: The hammer removes flying. Still beefy, though.
If you're coming at this from a Modern/Legacy perspective (or god forbid, Vintage), then that's true of very nearly every set. The only sets in recent memory that aren't like that are Modern Horizons and Ikoria, and I'm pretty sure you'd prefer MDFCs become the next Adventure rather than the next Companion. MDFCs muck around with a fundamental assumption of the game, so the risk of making a new Companion is higher than you'd think.
No, they had the potential to broken, but Wizards just made them good. This mechanic reads much weaker than it is.
And green has Harmonize, and red has Chaos Warp. The existence of old color pie breaks doesn't mean that's not the color's intended weakness.
Just because a color rarely does something doesn't mean that that's its intended weakness (the one needed for game balance). Like, there's only one white extra combat spell, but it's still perfectly in-color. The weaknesses are as follows: White is the worst at card draw, blue can't permanently remove threats it hasn't countered except by replacing them with a new threat, red can't remove enchantments, and green can't kill creatures or draw cards except by using creatures, as its true weakness is overreliance on creatures. Black already can't destroy artifacts, it doesn't need to have red's weakness as well.