Black already has a number of nice competitive enchantments. Look at red, blue, green. Yes, they have a few nice ones (Survival of the Fittest, Propaganda, Sulfuric Vortex, etc) but these colors have had their design space for enchantments explored a lot less than white or black.
In black, what are we going to do? Something that's already been done most likely - Lose some life for some sort of card advantage. In fact, spoiler alert, this is the black card that we would end up with.
No one's going to want to look at new design space (Unless wizards forces us into it), because the current design space for black enchantments works well and generates competitive cards.
Whatever we vote on likely won't be anything new and innovative, just some run-of-the-mill black ability stuck onto an enchantment with some triggering condition.
If you're designing a red enchantment or a blue enchantment or a green enchantment you have way more options and a much better chance to see something new and innovative, rather than a "Hurr hurr, black card advantage enchantment"
^ This ^
Also, I wonder if there could be crossover from the MTGS YMTC to the Wizards one. I was most impressed with the green Oblivion Ring variant that turned it into a Forest. I'm going green to support a playable green removal spell, or another example of doing somethign another color does in a green way instead. Unlikely to happen as YMTC will likely be a Rare and Patrick O'Blivion Ring (it's funny because Irish and green...don't hate me) would likely be Uncommon.
At least it will likely be a big-mana-green-EDH-friendly card.
Would you mind posting some sort of reference for that answer (either from one of the Tournament Rules docs or from an announcement or article on the Wizards' site)? I agree that it's intuitive, but I can't find any hard evidence.
So, I am aware that Rancor is legal in Pauper Classic/Legacy/Vintage, due to its being printed at common during Urza's Block.
However, if one is playing Standard-only Pauper, then, in the sets included, Rancor would only have been printed at uncommon. I personally find it intuitive then that it would not be a legal card, seeing as the sets concerned see it as an uncommon (as in a search with the parameters of "Common" and "Standard" would not show Rancor, making it counter-intuitive that you would then have to cross-reference every common with older sets).
So, what is the "official" ruling on this matter? I don't see anything on the subject on Wizards' site except things reminding people that you can use uncommon versions of the card if there is a legal common version.
More specifically, is there an opportunity after the cascade trigger begins resolving in which you can activate abilities for mana that are not mana abilities in order to pay the additional cost?
You should probably take off It's a Trap! from that list, since it was difficult to calculate and no one should go through that headache again.
Agreed, and I'm sure dozens more will make it up there. I'm a fan of Two-Face and Bane weeks, though they may need to be renamed to skip over the original flavor intended.
Also:
Feyd is now officially my new hero for this thread.
Crap, you're right about that as well. I was counting ratchet bomb as just blowing up my tokens, and if I spreading seas her urborg on my second turn on the play I kill her before she can smallpox. But since howlpack alpha is a zero-cost, that makes it a loss for me as opposed to a split.
On a related note, I think smallpox/ulamog pulling a perfect week is an indicator that it might be too strong of a strategy. What do you guys think?
Absolutely. I've been running it (to moderate to great success) for weeks now, but I've just gotten bored of it. It's time to move on. Besides, Smallpox is only good in that one strategy that has only 1 card changeable.
Yeah, wouldn't hurt to ban Smallpox. Though I'm more curious as to why you decided on the discard rule you have now instead of mirroring 2CB's discard rule.
I like it better this way. It's different than Vintage 5CB, neither more nor less strict, allowing for different cards to be used. I had a deck that took out people's whole hands on turn 2, which I couldn't run in Vintage, whereas this nixes Thoughtseize as a staple. Also, no discard is lame, but it'a too powerful in 2CB.
XScorp's was good too. Maybe better.
Hmm.. in honor of HoD's love of polls...
When I post a round, I could add a poll where everyone can vote for who gets the creative bonus. It'd become a permanent thing starting next round. It'd create a little more through-the-week interaction, and be completely unbiased. Sound good?
Additionally, I think there should be a participation bonus. No one who enters can get less then 1 PoTM point per round. Specifically for times like this, where we got a few very valid entries who where shot down due to the special's meta, which I think we can all agree was my fault for doing the test deck the way I did.
Thoughts?
A) Yay Polls!
B) Yay unbiased now that it isn't my bias!
C) Participation bonus seems pointless. If you only get 1 point in any given round, your odds of getting PotM dwindle to maybe 1% (random statistics are random), whereas you go to like .5% with 0 points. You have to nearly ace a round, and rock the others to come back from that. The 0-1 difference is less pronounced than the 2-2.5 difference in terms of materiality in my opinion.
D) Don't blame yourself on the test deck! It ended up being hilarious!
^ This ^
Also, I wonder if there could be crossover from the MTGS YMTC to the Wizards one. I was most impressed with the green Oblivion Ring variant that turned it into a Forest. I'm going green to support a playable green removal spell, or another example of doing somethign another color does in a green way instead. Unlikely to happen as YMTC will likely be a Rare and Patrick O'Blivion Ring (it's funny because Irish and green...don't hate me) would likely be Uncommon.
At least it will likely be a big-mana-green-EDH-friendly card.
However, if one is playing Standard-only Pauper, then, in the sets included, Rancor would only have been printed at uncommon. I personally find it intuitive then that it would not be a legal card, seeing as the sets concerned see it as an uncommon (as in a search with the parameters of "Common" and "Standard" would not show Rancor, making it counter-intuitive that you would then have to cross-reference every common with older sets).
So, what is the "official" ruling on this matter? I don't see anything on the subject on Wizards' site except things reminding people that you can use uncommon versions of the card if there is a legal common version.
Thanks!
Flying, Vigilance, Haste, Sometimes 90 degrees, Sometimes 270 Degrees.
3/4
More specifically, is there an opportunity after the cascade trigger begins resolving in which you can activate abilities for mana that are not mana abilities in order to pay the additional cost?
Old Man of the Sea
Independent Game-Maker. Eponymous. Marzipan....goes boom...
Umm...
Marzipendonymous Gamesplosion!
Agreed, and I'm sure dozens more will make it up there. I'm a fan of Two-Face and Bane weeks, though they may need to be renamed to skip over the original flavor intended.
Also:
Feyd is now officially my new hero for this thread.
However...I can't the excel thing to open...
I totally didn't read the different decks...LOL. I'll be interested to see how it did then once things clear up.
Otherwise I would have submitted one of the ideas I had:
Runeflare Trap
Reiterate
If they have 2 cards in hand, it kills on turn 60. 120 if they have 1. Otherwise...
Absolutely. I've been running it (to moderate to great success) for weeks now, but I've just gotten bored of it. It's time to move on. Besides, Smallpox is only good in that one strategy that has only 1 card changeable.
I like it better this way. It's different than Vintage 5CB, neither more nor less strict, allowing for different cards to be used. I had a deck that took out people's whole hands on turn 2, which I couldn't run in Vintage, whereas this nixes Thoughtseize as a staple. Also, no discard is lame, but it'a too powerful in 2CB.
A) Yay Polls!
B) Yay unbiased now that it isn't my bias!
C) Participation bonus seems pointless. If you only get 1 point in any given round, your odds of getting PotM dwindle to maybe 1% (random statistics are random), whereas you go to like .5% with 0 points. You have to nearly ace a round, and rock the others to come back from that. The 0-1 difference is less pronounced than the 2-2.5 difference in terms of materiality in my opinion.
D) Don't blame yourself on the test deck! It ended up being hilarious!