I like most the bit where he completely ignored one of the most important changes to scavenge. A bunch of players had asked why Scavenge didn't have a number to go with it. Here we see a playtest card of almost-finished scavenge that does indeed have a number, yet it is absent (without comment) from the final version.I'm guessing it was because they felt they didn't need the extra layer, but I'm curious if there was a more specific reason for the omission.
The Basic rulebook, read it! A lot of basic questions are answered there!
How to autocard :
Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus.
Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One.
The number + mana cost template you see in the playtest cards is pretty ugly, and I don't think Wizards has used it before.
Creator of the Multiverse database for custom sets, the Magic Turing machine (proving Magic Turing-complete) and the random Magic card generator.
typical just add +1 to P/T for same cost for no apparent reason
FWIW, Reinforce isn't the only 2-parameter mechanic: Suspend was as well. But then that was pretty fiddly. New Niv-Mizzet is interesting. Can't hit creatures at all, but can more easily draw you multiple cards a turn. But, crucially, it's less comboriffic, which makes me think it's a bit of a failure as an Izzet card. It's very interesting to see the evolution of digestible/scavenge. I'm curious as to whether they end up being a bit eggs-in-one-basket, like devour, especially since a bounce spell with Overload seems pretty much a given. (Now that's an interesting question. People think Vapor Snag is strictly better than Unsummon, but it's not, because there are times you want to bounce your own creature. So does the overload bounce spell say "target creature you don't control", or not?)
The combo you want now is Mycosynth Lattice + Cadaverous Bloom. No wonder his most recent duel deck was against the Golgari: he clearly just wants to steal their stuff. And take back Mirrodin from the Phyrexians somehow.
57193048 wrote:You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:69511863 wrote:Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME!
Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha
69511863 wrote:Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
56734518 wrote:Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
It's disappointing to see the Sorcery speed stamp on the Scavenge mechanic. It is already win more by asking to have a creature in play and now it begs for a removal spell to fizzle. Considering that Reinforce itself wasn't a big hit, I wonder why they decided to bring it back on a nerfed form.
It's disappointing to see the Sorcery speed stamp on the Scavenge mechanic. It is already win more by asking to have a creature in play and now it begs for a removal spell to fizzle. Considering that Reinforce itself wasn't a big hit, I wonder why they decided to bring it back on a nerfed form.Overall, it seems to me that Ken felt that New Phyrexia was too Spikey and decided to compensate with a set that looks far more simplistic and casual this time. That's a shame considering that New Phyrexia was awesome but since the shocklands are back I won't complain too much.
I think Niv 2.0 is great precisely because they didn't venture too far from what made the first one so appealing.He's better at controlling the board than 1.0, too.
The combo you want now is Mycosynth Lattice + Cadaverous Bloom. No wonder his most recent duel deck was against the Golgari: he clearly just wants to steal their stuff. And take back Mirrodin from the Phyrexians somehow.Try Orochi Leafcaller.
. . . Can't wait to pull the Niv-Niv combo off in EDH.Doesn't work. New Niv only triggers on damage from himself
I think Overload has a bit more design space left than they give it credit for, once you branch out into other colors' spell effects and experiment with different/no targeting restrictions. Probably not enough to fill up a block, but maybe it could come back in another set.
Actually, I like this version and now want to see what a Golgari refrigerator looks like.
(There's at least one scavenge creature with a power that changes while it's in your graveyard, but Sluiceway Scorpion's power is always 2 when it's in your graveyard.)
From Mark Rosewater's Tumblr: the0uroboros asked: How in the same set can we have a hexproof, unsacrificable(not a word) creature AND a land that makes it uncounterable. How does this lead to interactive play? I believe I’m able to play my creature and you have to deal with it is much more interactive than you counter my creature.
MaRo: One of the classic R&D stories happened during a Scars of Mirrodin draft. Erik Lauer was sitting to my right (meaning that he passed to me in the first and third packs). At the end of the draft, Erik was upset because I was in his colors (black-green). He said, "Didn't you see the signals? I went into black-green in pack one." I replied, "Didn't you see my signals? I started drafting infect six drafts ago."
MaRo: I redesigned him while the effect was on the stack.
As far as I see it, all mechanics have a downside, except Detain:Overload cost much more than the original, unleashed creatures can't block, in order to scavenge, you have to get the creature in the graveyard first, and Populate just seems weak, being almost no relevant tokens out there.But Detain, it just SEEMS like it has no downside. You stop a nonland permanent from doing anything, and there's no but.If there is one, can anyone tell me it's flaw?
2. New World Order. Scavenge at instant-speed is deemed to complicated =(
tnessfftto asked: On the forums, someone still thinks this: "New World Order. Scavenge at instant-speed is deemed to complicated =(" Can you reaffirm once and for all that putting things at sorcery speed is done to improve gameplay and force players to make choices on how they spend their mana (and not wait until their opponent's end step to commit), and NOT primarily to reduce complexity?Making scavenge work at “sorcery speed” (yeah, not really a thing but you all know what we mean) is about good game play and not New World Order. Making players have to make choices rather than being able to wait until the choice gets made for them leads to better game play.
Making scavenge work at “sorcery speed” (yeah, not really a thing but you all know what we mean) is about good game play and not New World Order. Making players have to make choices rather than being able to wait until the choice gets made for them leads to better game play.
How many cards can they make with that? Not many.
"Nothing in my view is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position, which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take. You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate; your hope is to be asked back, to consult, to be on a board or prestigious committee, and so to remain within the responsible mainstream...." -Edward Said
Re Overload: Insert usual comment about how while I respect that double-edged mechanics are less popular at first glance, they are ultimately interesting, so I wish R&D would merely reduce their presence rather than eliminate them entirely. Overloads that affected your stuff too are *interesting*. Bonfire of the Damned is not interesting: do you want to destroy your opponent's board yes/no. Hypothetical Mizzium Mortars that said "target creature" is less Timmy riffic, sure, but leads to interesting gameplay situations. Can I stick more 5+ toughness creatures in my deck? Is it worth clearing out 3 enemy critters while losing 1 of my own + Hypothetical Mortars that targeted anything? I'm not saying that the "target you do control / don't" isn't clever, and certainly it's fine for SOME effects (especially flying / first strike type dealies), but you can have at least a few spells that might go out of control and backfire. Which seems rather Izzet.
Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.
I've seen angels fall from blinding heights. But you yourself are nothing so divine. Just next in line.
191752181 wrote:All I'm saying is, I don't really see how she goes around petrifying swords and boots and especially mirrors. How the heck does she beat a Panoptic Mirror? It makes no sense for artifacts either. Or enchantments, for that matter. "Well, you see, Jimmy cast this spell to flood the mountain, but then the gorgon just looked at the water really hard and it went away."