Weird. The front face clearly shows him wearing wolf pelts, yet he makes wolf tokens. I get the life gain from hunting, but the token-making doesn't make sense if he's hunting wolves. (Unless these are naked wolf tokens.) The art should have been more like that of Master of the Wild Hunt , which clearly "explains" the wolf-making.
The double abilities certainly look clunky, but their multiple symmetries are really beautiful. I'm sure it plays smoother than it reads. Well done.
Weird. The front face clearly shows him wearing wolf pelts, yet he makes wolf tokens. I get the life gain from hunting, but the token-making doesn't make sense if he's hunting wolves. (Unless these are naked wolf tokens.) The art should have been
I liked the uncommon wolf previewed by PlanetMTG (Immerwolf) better than this one. What, my Reckless Waif is a 4/3 and can't transform back? Awesomesauce. Might be able to stick those two into a RDW now...
I liked the uncommon wolf previewed by PlanetMTG (Immerwolf) better than this one. What, my Reckless Waif is a 4/3 and can't transform back? Awesomesauce. Might be able to stick those two into a RDW now...
so, instead of "it deals 2 damage to target opponent and 2 damage to up to one target creature", couldn't it just have been a may for both sets of 2 damage? a little less powerful, but also less words and (to me at least), sounds less clunky...
so, instead of "it deals 2 damage to target opponent and 2 damage to up to one target creature", couldn't it just have been a may for both sets of 2 damage? a little less powerful, but also less words and (to me at least), sounds less clunky...
so, instead of "it deals 2 damage to target opponent and 2 damage to up to one target creature", couldn't it just have been a may for both sets of 2 damage? a little less powerful, but also less words and (to me at least), sounds less clunky...
Well the triggered ability has to have legal targets (otherwise it's countered altogether), so yeah they had to say "may" for the creature part...
Well the triggered ability has to have legal targets (otherwise it's countered altogether), so yeah they had to say "may" for the creature part...
Hmmm......a werewolf that myopponents want to KEEP me from transforming over and over and over again ALLOWING MY OTHER WEREWOLVES TO NOT HAVE TO TRANSFORM.............SIGN ME UP!! So want to pull this in a draft.
Hmmm......a werewolf that myopponents want to KEEP me from transforming over and over and over again ALLOWING MY OTHER WEREWOLVES TO NOT HAVE TO TRANSFORM.............SIGN ME UP!! So want to pull this in a draft.
I thought Tom LaPille is leaving, but he's still writing articles?
I believe that he said that since he was so involved in Dark Ascensions that he would still be coming back to write a couple of articles for the preview weeks.
I believe that he said that since he was so involved in Dark Ascensions that he would still be coming back to write a couple of articles for the preview weeks.
Have to agree with Pedrodyl here, the uncommon preview of Immerwolf is far more exciting than this mythic and is what I was hoping for ever since werewolves were first previewed last year. I thought they would print something like it in the final set, didn't expect it this soon and to take creature form either. To bad both these previewed werewolfs in this article mechanically clash with Immerwolf and the other previewed werewolf Tovolar's Magehunter. That doesn't mean they're bad cards by any means, they just don't fit werewolf tribal too well, I can see this mythic werewolf being a awesome card in non-werewolf decks.
Have to agree with Pedrodyl here, the uncommon preview of Immerwolf is far more exciting than this mythic and is what I was hoping for ever since werewolves were first previewed last year. I thought they would print something like it in the final set
Are the triggered abilities really necessary? It seems that most of these cards' functionality could have been preserved by saying things like "At the beginning of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform this and do blah". This would have three advantages:
it would make the cards less wordy,
it would require fewer clicks on MTGO, and
the more immediately relevant information would be visible; i. e., if you looked at Huntmaster of the Fells, you would know what was going to happen as soon as it transformed.
Are the triggered abilities really necessary? It seems that most of these cards' functionality could have been preserved by saying things like "At the beginning of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform this and do blah". This wou
I made the complaint about werewolves already, but... even more so than werewolves, this is card that flavor-wise seems like it wants to switch sides. He's fighting the same people he was in death that he was in life! That's not scary, that's inspirational. I realize that, say, a 3/2 for W that becomes a 2/1 enemy Zombie upon death from combat damage is *super* swingy gameplaywise, but it'd fit better. If Loyal Cathar's going to become Loyal Zombie Helper, tell the artist to draw a pitiable zombie dressed in the same clothes going through the motions, and have flavor text along the lines of "He kept on fighting, although he couldn't remember quite why." That's a solid card flavor-wise too, but it's not what "Unhallowed Cathar" banging down the door implies.
I made the complaint about werewolves already, but... even more so than werewolves, this is card that flavor-wise seems like it wants to switch sides. He's fighting the same people he was in death that he was in life! That's not scary, that's insp
I made the complaint about werewolves already, but... even more so than werewolves, this is card that flavor-wise seems like it wants to switch sides. He's fighting the same people he was in death that he was in life! That's not scary, that's inspirational. I realize that, say, a 3/2 for W that becomes a 2/1 enemy Zombie upon death from combat damage is *super* swingy gameplaywise, but it'd fit better. If Loyal Cathar's going to become Loyal Zombie Helper, tell the artist to draw a pitiable zombie dressed in the same clothes going through the motions, and have flavor text along the lines of "He kept on fighting, although he couldn't remember quite why." That's a solid card flavor-wise too, but it's not what "Unhallowed Cathar" banging down the door implies.
2/2 vigiliant dies and becomes 2/1. This isn't necessarily a combat card, as I suspect it is being used to fuel a WBR tokens archetype. WB tokens using BR "consumers" such as Falkenrath Aristocrat and Sorin and a maker/abuser. Loyal Cather then becomes double food (and a +1/+1 counter) for the Aristocrat. This cannot have been unintentional. The vigilance ability is therefore somewhat more defensive than aggressive, while you shift into aggro after eating the guy in response to removal or something other (without first strike, its going to die a little easier than Elite Inquisitor ).
2/2 vigiliant dies and becomes 2/1. This isn't necessarily a combat card, as I suspect it is being used to fuel a WBR tokens archetype. WB tokens using BR "consumers" such as Falkenrath Aristocrat and Sorin and a maker/abuser. Loyal Cather then becom
I like the story Loyal/Unhallowed Cathar tells, it's a very tragic character. He's a devout guy, doing his duty in the face of incredible odds, and fearing the consequences if he fails. Kind of like one of the Men of the Night's Watch from the Game of Thrones series who are also duty-bound defenders of their people who fear coming back from the dead as the very threat they are defending against. Then, his fears become realized and despite Thalia's reassurances, he becomes a zombie and turns on his people. The flavor text reinforces the tragic nature of the character. The bit about not being able to block then reads as a sign of the total loss of his former self: he goes from someone who is a defender of the people to something that can't defend at all.
I like the story Loyal/Unhallowed Cathar tells, it's a very tragic character. He's a devout guy, doing his duty in the face of incredible odds, and fearing the consequences if he fails. Kind of like one of the Men of the Night's Watch from the Game
Qilong: Gameplay wise, it's a solid card. Just the flavor doesn't work for me; it needed to be a "nice zombie" if the rules text is kept the same, not a "turned berserk zombie."
Tap4Mana: Yeah, but the fallen of the Night's Watch who aren't burned attack their former friends. This guy attacks the same bad guys still, although the loss of his ability to block is somewhat flavorful, I'll grant.
Qilong: Gameplay wise, it's a solid card. Just the flavor doesn't work for me; it needed to be a "nice zombie" if the rules text is kept the same, not a "turned berserk zombie."Tap4Mana: Yeah, but the fallen of the Night's Watch who aren't burned at
I agree with the posters who have said the text on the mythic rare card is clunky, especially the back face. I really hate the "up to one target" wording. I understand the reasoning behind it: to allow the two damage to the opponent to still resolve even if he or she controls no creatures. But that, in my opinion, doesn't justify the clunkiness of "up to one". I know that this would have been a bit more powerful, but couldn't it have been worded "Deals 2 damage to each of up to two target creatures or players"? Yes, it loses the symmetry of "make a creature and gain 2 life, kill a creature and deal 2 damage", but it's much more aesthetically appealing. Better yet, the card could have been B/G, so the symmetry could be perfected: "Whenever this creature transforms into Ravager of the Fells, target opponent loses 2 life and sacrifices a creature." Also, I liked the idea of triggered abilities that trigger on transformation, but after reading goblinrecruiter's post about appending it to the transform trigger, "transform Wolfman and do blah" does seem like a slightly better way of doing it.
However, I do enjoy the front face. Cool design. I just wish the back face had been polished a little better before being finalized.
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
I agree with the posters who have said the text on the mythic rare card is clunky, especially the back face. I really hate the "up to one target" wording. I understand the reasoning behind it: to allow the two damage to the opponent to still resolve
I really hate the "up to one target" wording. I understand the reasoning behind it: to allow the two damage to the opponent to still resolve even if he or she controls no creatures. But that, in my opinion, doesn't justify the clunkiness of "up to one".
Agreed completely. I vividly remember when Conjurer's Bauble first brought that wording to my attention and made me blow a gasket. The targeting rules are one of the screwiest things in Magic and I wish they would do away with the imprecise usage of English in favor of some sort of abbreviation- or icon-based encoding which clarifies whether targeting is optional or mandatory.
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
We know from the checklist card that this is the only gold DFC in the set (unless there are two checklist cards designed to create that illusion, but I think that surpassingly unlikely). More likely we'll get a card for the legendary werewolf leader described in the flavor articles last fall, and he will be all mythic and legend-y and such specifically because he never turns back into a puny human anymore. He'll just be a standard fatty in and of himself, but when there's a bunch of Gastaf Shepherds behind him flipping back and forth and he just stands there looking like the unholy love child of Lon Chaney and Dolph Lundgren the whole time, it'll send a heck of a message.
Agreed completely. I vividly remember when Conjurer's Bauble first brought that wording to my attention and made me blow a gasket. The targeting rules are one of the screwiest things in Magic and I wish they woul
Qilong: Gameplay wise, it's a solid card. Just the flavor doesn't work for me; it needed to be a "nice zombie" if the rules text is kept the same, not a "turned berserk zombie."
Tap4Mana: Yeah, but the fallen of the Night's Watch who aren't burned attack their former friends. This guy attacks the same bad guys still, although the loss of his ability to block is somewhat flavorful, I'll grant.
In the game he's still attacking the same creatures... but on the card he's busting into the building he was guarding as a Cathar... so it makes more sense that he's attacking humans, not monsters.
In the game he's still attacking the same creatures... but on the card he's busting into the building he was guarding as a Cathar... so it makes more sense that he's attacking humans, not monsters.
I agree with the posters who have said the text on the mythic rare card is clunky, especially the back face. I really hate the "up to one target" wording. I understand the reasoning behind it: to allow the two damage to the opponent to still resolve even if he or she controls no creatures. But that, in my opinion, doesn't justify the clunkiness of "up to one". I know that this would have been a bit more powerful, but couldn't it have been worded "Deals 2 damage to each of up to two target creatures or players"? Yes, it loses the symmetry of "make a creature and gain 2 life, kill a creature and deal 2 damage", but it's much more aesthetically appealing. Better yet, the card could have been B/G, so the symmetry could be perfected: "Whenever this creature transforms into Ravager of the Fells, target opponent loses 2 life and sacrifices a creature." Also, I liked the idea of triggered abilities that trigger on transformation, but after reading goblinrecruiter's post about appending it to the transform trigger, "transform Wolfman and do blah" does seem like a slightly better way of doing it.
However, I do enjoy the front face. Cool design. I just wish the back face had been polished a little better before being finalized.
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
I don't think that pre-flip rules text affecting the card post-flip works within the rules nicely. You could probably do something with counters along the lines of "at the beginning of your upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn put an angry counter on, and transform, ~" then have the flip side say "remove an angry counter from ~, do cool stuff" since counters stay on the permanent regardless of it's flipped or unflipped status.
I could be completely wrong, but I could see how it could be a bit of a can of worms.
I don't think that pre-flip rules text affecting the card post-flip works within the rules nicely. You could probably do something with counters along the lines of "at the beginning of your upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn put an angry counte
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
There is a cycle of mythic nonlegendary multicolor creatures in DA, so I guess this one in part of that, and the legendary one is a multicolor single-faced card like Willpell says.
Are the triggered abilities really necessary? It seems that most of these cards' functionality could have been preserved by saying things like "At the beginning of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform this and do blah". This would have three advantages:
it would make the cards less wordy,
it would require fewer clicks on MTGO, and
the more immediately relevant information would be visible; i. e., if you looked at Huntmaster of the Fells, you would know what was going to happen as soon as it transformed.
It would also read very bad. On the day side, you would see the words about damage, and on the night side you see the words about life gain and companion creation. That's not aesthetically pleasing.
Also they have to slightly alter the card, as the day side also triggers on entering the battlefield.
There is a cycle of mythic nonlegendary multicolor creatures in DA, so I guess this one in part of that, and the legendary one is a multicolor single-faced card like Willpell says. It would also read very bad. On the day side, you would see the words
Are the triggered abilities really necessary? It seems that most of these cards' functionality could have been preserved by saying things like "At the beginning of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform this and do blah". This would have three advantages:
it would make the cards less wordy,
it would require fewer clicks on MTGO, and
the more immediately relevant information would be visible; i. e., if you looked at Huntmaster of the Fells, you would know what was going to happen as soon as it transformed.
I think they chose not to do it like that to keep the "werewolf ability" the same as on all the other werewolf cards. This has the advantage that ones you know how werewolves work you can basically ignore those 3 lines of text on each side because you already know what they say. This saves time in game and while evaluating cards during drafting. Also as players might already act accordingly due to Innistrad, "hiding" additional information in there might not be a good idea.
I think they chose not to do it like that to keep the "werewolf ability" the same as on all the other werewolf cards. This has the advantage that ones you know how werewolves work you can basically ignore those 3 lines of text on each side because yo
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured there would be a legendary Human for G/W and a werewolf for R/G. And I was thinking...this is it...until I saw the card. So it fits in with the mythic cycle of multi-colored non-Legendary creatures for DA but it doesn't seem like anything will fill the holes left in Innistrad. I kind of wonder why Mikaeus wasn't G/W instead of just white. Yeah, I know he's a cleric, but G/W (and moreso green) is THE color combination for creating +1/+1 counters without any stipulation (unlike B/R vampires where the creatures need to damage the opponent or kill a creature). A G/R mythic legendary werewolf that transformed would be nice indeed. But it looks like we're not gonna get one at all. And I still see a lack of G/W among the mythics. Where's my G/W uber legendary human token/enhancement machine?
My other thought is that Huntmaster of the Fells would have been perfect for the pre-release card, you know, if pre-release cards were still mythic. It was pretty awesome to show up for a pre-release tournament and get Ajani Vengeant, Wurmcoil Engine, Emrakul, or Sun Titan. Now we get standard transforming rares. Is that maybe because, like mythics, you're never guaranteed a rare transformer in a booster while you'll always get either mythic or normal rare?
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured
This new legendary Werewolf could be useful in a Birthing Pod deck methinks, you always get a wolf and most likely a transformation out if it most of the times since you're Pod. I am not sure about the CMC of DFC when they transform though... is it 0 or the same as their regular side?
This new legendary Werewolf could be useful in a Birthing Pod deck methinks, you always get a wolf and most likely a transformation out if it most of the times since you're Pod. I am not sure about the CMC of DFC w
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured there would be a legendary Human for G/W and a werewolf for R/G. And I was thinking...this is it...until I saw the card. So it fits in with the mythic cycle of multi-colored non-Legendary creatures for DA but it doesn't seem like anything will fill the holes left in Innistrad. I kind of wonder why Mikaeus wasn't G/W instead of just white. Yeah, I know he's a cleric, but G/W (and moreso green) is THE color combination for creating +1/+1 counters without any stipulation (unlike B/R vampires where the creatures need to damage the opponent or kill a creature). A G/R mythic legendary werewolf that transformed would be nice indeed. But it looks like we're not gonna get one at all. And I still see a lack of G/W among the mythics. Where's my G/W uber legendary human token/enhancement machine?
Green kinda merges as a color that doesn't necessarily "jive" with a solid Humans color; its where most of them are, but I tend to think this is largely due to influence of cards like Kessig Cagebreakers , where you get "humans" who do not really ally themselves to the plight of the "civilized" lands. Solid white already has a strong emphasis of the defensive nature of the Humans of Gavony and Thraben, who are trying to survive, so structurally, Mikaeus works just how he is.
I am, perhaps, looking forward to the G/W side of this cylce, but then, those are my prefered playing colors.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured
In response to the legendary comments, they did say during the Innistrad previews that they'd designed a cycle of mythic creatures and that the werewolf one got pushed back. They seemed very careful about not calling the cycle legendary.
I completely understand why there's no legendary Werewolf. The rules would be very strange, allowing you to have two copies of the card in play as long as they were on different sides. I am curious, though, about that DFC equipment on the checklist card, which definitely sounds legendary. I wonder if there's something about that card that avoids confusion. Maybe the other side is some sort of non-legendary enchantment or something that wouldn't clash with having another copy in play.
In response to the legendary comments, they did say during the Innistrad previews that they'd designed a cycle of mythic creatures and that the werewolf one got pushed back. They seemed very careful about not calling the cycle legendary.I completely
As the son of a witch and someone with a strong preference for spirituality and nature-veneration over organized religion and theocracy, I would have very much liked to see more than slight hints about the survival of heathen nature-cults among the folk of Kessig - it's alluded to on two or three cards in ISD but we still see plenty of evidence that the church is still relied upon. I like the idea of playing up a grudging cooperation between these pagans and a church that probably persecuted them prior to the monsters getting worse, but of course Wizards's storytelling is neither that sophisticated (simplistic three-act structure which only scratches the surface of the story environment) nor that controversial (they like having objective good guys, not moral complexity).
By the way was I the only one who noticed him saying "one" DFC in Ascension is a noncreature on both sides? That would be the chalice, which means that my hope for the Binding Blade to be an equipment sword which turns into a creature is getting fulfilled. I may have to get that card even if it's rare.
As the son of a witch and someone with a strong preference for spirituality and nature-veneration over organized religion and theocracy, I would have very much liked to see more than slight hints about the survival of heathen nature-cults among the f
This is a pretty interesting card and it reads fine. You immediately get a 2/2 wolf when it comes into play, then you want to transform it as soon as possible (either by transforming all humans, or having your opponent cast no spells, which is more unlikely). However, you could play this, play Moonmist, then at the end step, because two spells were played this turn, it transforms back and you get a second wolf. You'd need 6 mana (2G, 1R, 3C) to pull it off, which would not be difficult for green. But for that 6 mana, you'd get a 4/4, gain 4 life, get two 2/2 wolf tokens, deal 2 damage to opponent, and kill off a 2 toughness creature. Very mana efficient. Just stock up this and Moonmist and you're good to go.
This is a pretty interesting card and it reads fine. You immediately get a 2/2 wolf when it comes into play, then you want to transform it as soon as possible (either by transforming all humans, or having your opponent cast no spells, which is more u
Green kinda merges as a color that doesn't necessarily "jive" with a solid Humans color; its where most of them are, but I tend to think this is largely due to influence of cards like Kessig Cagebreakers , where you get "humans" who do not really ally themselves to the plight of the "civilized" lands. Solid white already has a strong emphasis of the defensive nature of the Humans of Gavony and Thraben, who are trying to survive, so structurally, Mikaeus works just how he is.
I am, perhaps, looking forward to the G/W side of this cylce, but then, those are my prefered playing colors.
I tend to favor G/W as well. I was thinking of Elder of Laurels, considering it's the foil rare in the Innistrad human tribal pre-con deck. Plus there's Hamlet Captain which is an obvious human tribal card. Maybe it's just that the human faction is supposed to be scattered (especially in DA) so the cards indicate that it's not quite so organized at this point.
And yes, flavorwise, Mikaeus should be all white since he's a cleric and represents holy power. Mechanically, he could have been G/W, though.
I'm also thinking in terms of Commander since that's my preferred format right now. I've notced that many of the Innistrad cards work exceedingly well with the pre-con Commanders, almost as if they made a lot of cards specificically with those Commanders in mind (or did they make the Commanders with Innistrad in mind?). So Mikaeus being white makes him easier to cast, but it limits the type of Commander deck you could build with him. However, he should be an absolute beast in a Ghave, Guru of Spores Commander deck, as would Sorin, Garruk, all of the token generators, Morbid and any of the new Undying creatures. All of the graveyard cards work very well with The Mimeoplasm and flashback works well with Riku. Angelic Overseer is perfect with Khalia. the red/blue curses work well with Zedruu since the chosen player is still cursed regardless of who controls the enchantment.
I tend to favor G/W as well. I was thinking of Elder of Laurels, considering it's the foil rare in the Innistrad human tribal pre-con deck. Plus there's Hamlet Captain which is an obvious human tribal card. Maybe it's just that the human faction is s
I sincerely hope not. I don't care how cool it is (and it's fairly cool), it's non-functional from a physical gameplay reality. Ya'll did the best you could but Transform is a bad mechanic, especially the werewolf ones, and it needs to be released into the wild, never seen from again.
Either make a digital game, or accept that there are physical limitations.
One day, we might do double-faced cards again.I sincerely hope not. I don't care how cool it is (and it's fairly cool), it's non-functional from a physical gameplay reality. Ya'll did the best you could but Transform is a bad mechanic, especially the
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured there would be a legendary Human for G/W and a werewolf for R/G. And I was thinking...this is it...until I saw the card. So it fits in with the mythic cycle of multi-colored non-Legendary creatures for DA but it doesn't seem like anything will fill the holes left in Innistrad. I kind of wonder why Mikaeus wasn't G/W instead of just white. Yeah, I know he's a cleric, but G/W (and moreso green) is THE color combination for creating +1/+1 counters without any stipulation (unlike B/R vampires where the creatures need to damage the opponent or kill a creature). A G/R mythic legendary werewolf that transformed would be nice indeed. But it looks like we're not gonna get one at all. And I still see a lack of G/W among the mythics. Where's my G/W uber legendary human token/enhancement machine?
My other thought is that Huntmaster of the Fells would have been perfect for the pre-release card, you know, if pre-release cards were still mythic. It was pretty awesome to show up for a pre-release tournament and get Ajani Vengeant, Wurmcoil Engine, Emrakul, or Sun Titan. Now we get standard transforming rares. Is that maybe because, like mythics, you're never guaranteed a rare transformer in a booster while you'll always get either mythic or normal rare?
Confirmed on Mark Rosewater's tumblr page, Mikaeus is part of the legendary cycle, and so is this card. Which means, yes, no GW mythic human lord, and no legendary werewolf lord. I'm mostly okay with Mikaeus (I don't mind him being mono-white. My only real problem is that they decided to make mono-white the "good" color, which is the biggest anti-twist possible). I do have a problem with the fact that the werewolf in the cycle isn't a legendary creature though. They established a cycle of five cards, one for each tribe, each a legendary representing that tribe, each allowing a Commander deck for that tribe to be built. They established this with four cards, and promised us the fifth card in three months. And those three months passed, with the existence of the cycle, all four of which were legendaries, providing undeniable evidence that the fifth card in it would also be a legendary. That it would also be able to serve as a Commander for a werewolf deck. The single tribe that most needed it, since it was the new tribe! And then, they get to Dark Ascension and say "Yep, we never SAID he was a legendary, just a mythic. Psych." No, Mark, you didn't say it would be a legendary. But the way cycles work, the way the human brain interprets patterns, clearly did say it would be a legendary. You didn't lie to us with words, but you cannot say you didn't lie to us at all.
MaRo has also confirmed on his tumblr that we will be getting no more mythic rare prerelease cards. I had thought that the last two had only been rares because there was only one mythic DFC, and they didn't want to devalue it. Apparently, the lack of mythic rare prerelease cards is scheduled to continue indefinitely. I am not happy about this.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured there would be a legendary Human for G/W and a werewolf for R/G. And I was thinking...this is it...until I saw the card. So it fits in with the mythic cycle of multi-colored non-Legendary creatures for DA but it doesn't seem like anything will fill the holes left in Innistrad. I kind of wonder why Mikaeus wasn't G/W instead of just white. Yeah, I know he's a cleric, but G/W (and moreso green) is THE color combination for creating +1/+1 counters without any stipulation (unlike B/R vampires where the creatures need to damage the opponent or kill a creature). A G/R mythic legendary werewolf that transformed would be nice indeed. But it looks like we're not gonna get one at all. And I still see a lack of G/W among the mythics. Where's my G/W uber legendary human token/enhancement machine?
My other thought is that Huntmaster of the Fells would have been perfect for the pre-release card, you know, if pre-release cards were still mythic. It was pretty awesome to show up for a pre-release tournament and get Ajani Vengeant, Wurmcoil Engine, Emrakul, or Sun Titan. Now we get standard transforming rares. Is that maybe because, like mythics, you're never guaranteed a rare transformer in a booster while you'll always get either mythic or normal rare?
Confirmed on Mark Rosewater's tumblr page, Mikaeus is part of the legendary cycle, and so is this card. Which means, yes, no GW mythic human lord, and no legendary werewolf lord. I'm mostly okay with Mikaeus (I don't mind him being mono-white. My only real problem is that they decided to make mono-white the "good" color, which is the biggest anti-twist possible). I do have a problem with the fact that the werewolf in the cycle isn't a legendary creature though. They established a cycle of five cards, one for each tribe, each a legendary representing that tribe, each allowing a Commander deck for that tribe to be built. They established this with four cards, and promised us the fifth card in three months. And those three months passed, with the existence of the cycle, all four of which were legendaries, providing undeniable evidence that the fifth card in it would also be a legendary. That it would also be able to serve as a Commander for a werewolf deck. The single tribe that most needed it, since it was the new tribe! And then, they get to Dark Ascension and say "Yep, we never SAID he was a legendary, just a mythic. Psych." No, Mark, you didn't say it would be a legendary. But the way cycles work, the way the human brain interprets patterns, clearly did say it would be a legendary. You didn't lie to us with words, but you cannot say you didn't lie to us at all.
MaRo has also confirmed on his tumblr that we will be getting no more mythic rare prerelease cards. I had thought that the last two had only been rares because there was only one mythic DFC, and they didn't want to devalue it. Apparently, the lack of mythic rare prerelease cards is scheduled to continue indefinitely. I am not happy about this.
Just because the Tribal "Legendary" Cycle didn't get completed this set doesn't mean it won't be in the final set. I could see them doing this because of how awkward it would be to have a legendary flip card that isn't a planeswalker.
With no DFCs in Avacyn Restored werewolves won't be flip cards anymore and just be perma-werewolf creatures ( I really can't see them taking out werewolves in the last set, they are most likely going to do this without the DFCs) Thus making it easy to make a Legendary Werewolf. Probably Skaharra or Ulrich, both alphas of powerful howlpacks.
But what do I know, I'm not in development. Can only hope.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured
I sincerely hope not. I don't care how cool it is (and it's fairly cool), it's non-functional from a physical gameplay reality. Ya'll did the best you could but Transform is a bad mechanic, especially the werewolf ones, and it needs to be released into the wild, never seen from again.
Either make a digital game, or accept that there are physical limitations.
@ Wizards: Please dont listen to this guy. Transform is a great mechanic!
~ Tim
@ Wizards: Please dont listen to this guy. Transform is a great mechanic!~ Tim
I sincerely hope not. I don't care how cool it is (and it's fairly cool), it's non-functional from a physical gameplay reality. Ya'll did the best you could but Transform is a bad mechanic, especially the werewolf ones, and it needs to be released into the wild, never seen from again.
Either make a digital game, or accept that there are physical limitations.
@ Wizards: Please dont listen to this guy. Transform is a great mechanic!
~ Tim
I should only have to say that the mechanic that you enjoy is such that Wizards tells you you shouldn't put them into your deck. You know what that's called? Not having a single deck. It means you have to fudge around the mechanics of the game just to make a gimmick work, and let me tell you: just like Forsythe's recent feature article said, it was just a gimmick and it didn't wash over well. You can't push a square peg into a round hole -- and those cards are very square.
@ Wizards: Please dont listen to this guy. Transform is a great mechanic!~ Tim[/quote]I should only have to say that the mechanic that you enjoy is such that Wizards tells you you shouldn't put them into your deck. You know what that's called? Not ha
I sincerely hope not. I don't care how cool it is (and it's fairly cool), it's non-functional from a physical gameplay reality. Ya'll did the best you could but Transform is a bad mechanic, especially the werewolf ones, and it needs to be released into the wild, never seen from again.
Either make a digital game, or accept that there are physical limitations.
@ Wizards: Please dont listen to this guy. Transform is a great mechanic!
~ Tim
I'm curious: what do you think makes it a great mechanic? What positives exist about this mechanic that overcome the sheer physical design issues, the conditionality of the G/R cards, a conditionality similar to and demonstrated to be bad back in Odyssey block (the Punisher mechanic), the awkwardness of having to have extra cards or sleeves or both to deal with the issues this brings up including losing your cards or being unable to see all the data you need to make decisions as a player?
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't like it and I do recognize that it's 'cool' but I've been playing this game for 18 years and this is one of the worst mechanics I've ever had to deal with so I really don't know why someone would love it. Flavor trumped design and Design 101 says that it should never be this way. So: what about this mechanic is great? Difficulty: It's flavorful cannot be part of the answer.
Card games have existed for hundreds of years with one uniform side and there are good reasons for that. Breaking that rule is one that has tremendous consequences and so far, those consequences have outweighed the benefits: this mechanic is, to me, what happens when you let The Glory Of Cool Things override The Real World, where people go out to stores, pubs, or kitchen tables and play the game.
@ Wizards: Please dont listen to this guy. Transform is a great mechanic!~ Tim[/quote]I'm curious: what do you think makes it a great mechanic? What positives exist about this mechanic that overcome the sheer physical design issues, the conditionalit
Oh, and a question: Is this our legendary werewolf, then? Because from where I'm sitting, it's not legendary...
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured there would be a legendary Human for G/W and a werewolf for R/G. And I was thinking...this is it...until I saw the card. So it fits in with the mythic cycle of multi-colored non-Legendary creatures for DA but it doesn't seem like anything will fill the holes left in Innistrad. I kind of wonder why Mikaeus wasn't G/W instead of just white. Yeah, I know he's a cleric, but G/W (and moreso green) is THE color combination for creating +1/+1 counters without any stipulation (unlike B/R vampires where the creatures need to damage the opponent or kill a creature). A G/R mythic legendary werewolf that transformed would be nice indeed. But it looks like we're not gonna get one at all. And I still see a lack of G/W among the mythics. Where's my G/W uber legendary human token/enhancement machine?
My other thought is that Huntmaster of the Fells would have been perfect for the pre-release card, you know, if pre-release cards were still mythic. It was pretty awesome to show up for a pre-release tournament and get Ajani Vengeant, Wurmcoil Engine, Emrakul, or Sun Titan. Now we get standard transforming rares. Is that maybe because, like mythics, you're never guaranteed a rare transformer in a booster while you'll always get either mythic or normal rare?
Confirmed on Mark Rosewater's tumblr page, Mikaeus is part of the legendary cycle, and so is this card. Which means, yes, no GW mythic human lord, and no legendary werewolf lord. I'm mostly okay with Mikaeus (I don't mind him being mono-white. My only real problem is that they decided to make mono-white the "good" color, which is the biggest anti-twist possible). I do have a problem with the fact that the werewolf in the cycle isn't a legendary creature though. They established a cycle of five cards, one for each tribe, each a legendary representing that tribe, each allowing a Commander deck for that tribe to be built. They established this with four cards, and promised us the fifth card in three months. And those three months passed, with the existence of the cycle, all four of which were legendaries, providing undeniable evidence that the fifth card in it would also be a legendary. That it would also be able to serve as a Commander for a werewolf deck. The single tribe that most needed it, since it was the new tribe! And then, they get to Dark Ascension and say "Yep, we never SAID he was a legendary, just a mythic. Psych." No, Mark, you didn't say it would be a legendary. But the way cycles work, the way the human brain interprets patterns, clearly did say it would be a legendary. You didn't lie to us with words, but you cannot say you didn't lie to us at all.
MaRo has also confirmed on his tumblr that we will be getting no more mythic rare prerelease cards. I had thought that the last two had only been rares because there was only one mythic DFC, and they didn't want to devalue it. Apparently, the lack of mythic rare prerelease cards is scheduled to continue indefinitely. I am not happy about this.
Just because the Tribal "Legendary" Cycle didn't get completed this set doesn't mean it won't be in the final set. I could see them doing this because of how awkward it would be to have a legendary flip card that isn't a planeswalker.
With no DFCs in Avacyn Restored werewolves won't be flip cards anymore and just be perma-werewolf creatures ( I really can't see them taking out werewolves in the last set, they are most likely going to do this without the DFCs) Thus making it easy to make a Legendary Werewolf. Probably Skaharra or Ulrich, both alphas of powerful howlpacks.
But what do I know, I'm not in development. Can only hope.
I confess that I, too, am disappointed that Huntmaster is not Legendary. Part of the social contract that the cycle set up was that there was a legendary Zombie, Vampire, Spirit and Human and the werewolf was postponed to give the Mythic DFC slot to Garruk (when it really should have been Garruk in DKA and the Werewolf in ISD, IMO). Werewolves, when resurrected for this block were explained to have been ignored for years becaus they wanted a good way to evoke the flavor, hence DFCs. I would expect less than 5% of players would say they didn't expect the mythic Werewofl DFC to be a legend. We all did, and we were all let down. Even if they make a Legendary Werrewolf for AVR it won't be what we looked forward to. I can't see having both sides be legendary be a big rules issue. DFCs are already ruled to be a single entity, regarless fo which side is up. Enchantments don't go away, counters stick around. It's a one sentance addition to the CR to say that a DFC triggers the legend rule regardless of which face is up when another enters the battlefield (which is how it would intuitively work to anyone not trying to break the mechanic for no good reason). The feel of the card is Legendary, the expectation was for legendary. I would just like to know why they decided not to make it a legend.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Innistrad had a tribal mythic semi-cycle of multicolored legendary creatures (Grimgrin (zombie), Olivia (vampire), Geist of St. Traft (spirit)) with nothing in Green/White or Red/Green. So I figured
I can't see having both sides be legendary be a big rules issue. DFCs are already ruled to be a single entity, regarless fo which side is up. Enchantments don't go away, counters stick around. It's a one sentance addition to the CR to say that a DFC triggers the legend rule regardless of which face is up when another enters the battlefield
Actually, the way the Legend rule works, only two legendary permanents with the same name are mutually destroyed. Each side of a DFC on the battlefield has its own name (as well as other characteristics) and doesn't remember the name of the other side. DFCs only remain the same permanent in the way that a card like Dimir Doppelganger does. The name, color, stats, rules text etc. all change, but it's still the same card and thus counters and enchants stay on. So two copies of the same legendary DFC wouldn't know they were the same as long as they were on different faces. However, since after just one transformation, all werewolves synch up, I can't see temporarily having two copies of the same legendary card on the battlefield being THAT big of a problem. No more so than having Kamahl, Fist of Krosa and Kamahl, Pit Fighter both out. So I still say they should have made it legendary. The werewolf tribe needs a Commander, and this was their big chance to get one.
To those saying it'll probably come in AVR, well, judging from how MaRo's talking about it on his tumblr, it really doesn't sound like it. I could be wrong, but I'm leaning towards us not getting a legendary werewolf at all this block. Still, I hope I'm wrong.
Actually, the way the Legend rule works, only two legendary permanents with the same name are mutually destroyed. Each side of a DFC on the battlefield has its own name (as well as other characteristics) and doesn't remember the name of the other sid
Yes, I understand the Legend rule, that's why I mentioned a one line add to the CR that since they already rules 2 sides of a DFC as the same entity it's a natural extrapolation to to say a DFC that is legendary on both sides suffers from teh legend rule regarless of which side is up when another ETB.
It's a one sentance addition to the CR to say that a DFC triggers the legend rule regardless of which face is up when another enters the battlefield (which is how it would intuitively work to anyone not trying to break the mechanic for no good reason).
Maybe they didn't want the huntmaster affected by clones?
Yes, I understand the Legend rule, that's why I mentioned a one line add to the CR that since they already rules 2 sides of a DFC as the same entity it's a natural extrapolation to to say a DFC that is legendary on both sides suffers from teh legend
I'm curious: what do you think makes it a great mechanic? What positives exist about this mechanic that overcome the sheer physical design issues, the conditionality of the G/R cards, a conditionality similar to and demonstrated to be bad back in Odyssey block (the Punisher mechanic), the awkwardness of having to have extra cards or sleeves or both to deal with the issues this brings up including losing your cards or being unable to see all the data you need to make decisions as a player?
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't like it and I do recognize that it's 'cool' but I've been playing this game for 18 years and this is one of the worst mechanics I've ever had to deal with so I really don't know why someone would love it. Flavor trumped design and Design 101 says that it should never be this way. So: what about this mechanic is great? Difficulty: It's flavorful cannot be part of the answer.
That last sentence implies that you already know part of the answer.
So I will skip that bit...
I like how using both sides of the card allows each side to be simpler as an object in itself (the cards arent overcrowded, too wordy, and you dont need to wade through irrelevant information that pertains to the side that isnt in play). I also like how each side gets its own art (without looking awful, like the Kamigawa flip cards). By physically turning the card over you get to actually see it transform on the table - you can see at a glance what is what, without having to tell which way up it is, or counting how many counters are on it and comparing them to the numbers in the little boxes.
You dont need to read anything upside-down (Flip cards) or ignore portions of the card (Level Up). You effectively get 2 "cards" for your money, as well (two lots of art, two distinct card faces).
Personally I use checklist cards in my deck, and put my DFCs in clear-backed sleeves. This means I dont need to de-sleeve anything during play, and I get to flip my cards over and slap them down on the table when they transform - and this feels really good.
Yes there are drawbacks, and downsides, and logistical factors to consider, but personally, I feel that the flavor (oops), clarity, extra art, and the pure joy I feel when transforming my cards, more than makes up for it. And TBH, even things like filling in checklists and carrying spare transparent sleeves makes them feel special - not awkward.
Just my personal feelings of course, but I would hate for Wizards to think that no-one likes the mechanic just because some people dont (as usual, the people who are unhappy are more likely to speak up). At my FLGS today, several people stated outright that Transform was one of their favourite mechanics - along with others that didnt like it.
I wouldnt want it all the time, every set, or even every year, but when its appropriate, I would like to see it used again.
~ Tim
That last sentence implies that you already know part of the answer. ;)So I will skip that bit... I like how using both sides of the card allows each side to be simpler as an object in itself (the cards arent overcrowded, too wordy, and you dont need
So: what about this mechanic is great? Difficulty: It's flavorful cannot be part of the answer.
That last sentence implies that you already know part of the answer.
He was asking you the question, it wasn't rhetorical.
I like how using both sides of the card allows each side to be simpler as an object in itself (the cards arent overcrowded, too wordy, and you dont need to wade through irrelevant information that pertains to the side that isnt in play).
As noted by LaPille, both sides of Huntmaster of the Fells are just as wordy combined as Ice Cauldron 's Oracle text. That's a lot of effing text. One of the arguments made about two-facing the cards was that it would allow the cards to have more room for flavor or whatever. This works with non-werewolf-cards, but werewolf-cards have this mandatory set of about 6 lines that is required of them to flip back and forth. They don't get away with the wordiness issue because suddenly they are just as wordy (if not more so) than any other common in the set, and most uncommons. Moreover, several of them do not have flavor text, owing to the apparent need to have extra abilities on one or both sides. In some cases, flavor text only occurs on one side, as a demonstration of how wordy they have become. The extra space was given as an excuse to add more flavor, something flip cards lacked, but it is being used to add more rules text.
Like flip cards, many DFCs can't flip back, and one card (Immerwolf ) was printed so as to prevent werewolf-cards from switching faces. This is due to an issue of limited and constructed play where the power of the "main" face of the card had to be severely weakened to make you want to use the other face, and in fact make that the whole point. Thus, they eventually punished you for having a "weaker" face, and allowing your opponent to control when you lost your werewolf and it became a human. This is also why all of the non-werewolf helper cards printed so far are common or uncommon (Full Moon Rise , Moonmist , and now Immerwolf ).
I also like how each side gets its own art (without looking awful, like the Kamigawa flip cards). By physically turning the card over you get to actually see it transform on the table - you can see at a glance what is what, without having to tell which way up it is, or counting how many counters are on it and comparing them to the numbers in the little boxes.
See, now you're just justifying your argument by dissing flip cards. This isn't about flip cards, and really isn't about their feasibility versus other ways to execute the card. There are other ways to have made the cards, but R&D chose this one as a "gimmick," which meant they could go further with them than they needed to because (like flip cards) they would never come back to them.
You dont need to read anything upside-down (Flip cards) or ignore portions of the card (Level Up). You effectively get 2 "cards" for your money, as well (two lots of art, two distinct card faces).
There are a lot of things wrong with DFCs that flip cards get right, and vice versa. One pointing out the pros of DFCs does not validate the argument that they are better.
DFCs: pros
More text room [gameplay] - allowing higher functionality or "cool" things to be had
More flavor text room [flavor]
More card image room [flavor, reception]
The image that the card face represents a single, distinctive card [gameplay, reception]
They are something that Magic: the Gathering has never done before [reception]
DFCs: cons
More flavor text room [flavor] - because this means less rules text
You can't see both sides of the card at the same time [gameplay, reception]
You can't see both arts at the same time [flavor, reception] - this feeds directly into observing "the transformation"
You have to manually turn the card around every time it "transforms" [gameplay] - and this is more troublesome for werewolves than anything else as very few non-Wolf DFCs can transform back
There are memory issues involved with counting spells every turn, instead of just sitting back and playing [gameplay]
They are something that while MtG never did this before, DFCs were made in Wizards' other game Duel Decks where they were kept out of decks on purpose, while the WoW TCG used the mechanic for their heroes (also, not in decks) [gameplay, reception]
The DCI requires you to use checklist cards instead of these in your deck, so you can't actually treat these as deck-cards [gameplay, reception]
You have to show these cards off in draft because otherwise you are intentionally hiding and therefore "cheating" [gameplay]
More in depth listings of the pros, cons, and solutions to them here, here, and here.
Personally I use checklist cards in my deck, and put my DFCs in clear-backed sleeves. This means I dont need to de-sleeve anything during play, and I get to flip my cards over and slap them down on the table when they transform - and this feels really good.
Just as a note, if you "slap them down on the table," you could be disruptive On the other hand, you have to show your opponent you are playing with certain cards, especially if they are werewolves. Do you rotate, pinwheel, whirldwind slam your tokens? The same principle effectively applies!
Yes there are drawbacks, and downsides, and logistical factors to consider, but personally, I feel that the flavor (oops), clarity, extra art, and the pure joy I feel when transforming my cards, more than makes up for it. And TBH, even things like filling in checklists and carrying spare transparent sleeves makes them feel special - not awkward.
To be honest, that means you put the flavor aspects of the DFCs far, far above their technical aspects, and thus enjoy them for a particular reason. I could literally say thing to you and you wouldn't bat an eye at them, because flavor trumps whatever I said. This is an extrapolation. Note above I categorized my comments in regards to a listing of "flavor," "reception," and "gameplay." The first is what you pick to regard as fun, or cool, and thus resonating emotionally within you. These cards speak to you emotionally, and the superego in you has every reason to ensure you stay pleased to the point it drowns out the logical id. Id cares about the "gameplay" aspects, and despite that they outweigh the number of "flavor" aspects, you will side with the self-satisfaction angle, and the ego backs you up.
Just my personal feelings of course, but I would hate for Wizards to think that no-one likes the mechanic just because some people dont (as usual, the people who are unhappy are more likely to speak up). At my FLGS today, several people stated outright that Transform was one of their favourite mechanics - along with others that didnt like it.
Aaron Forsythe recently noted: "It is not without controversy, however, as many players are not fans of the marquee components of the set—the transforming double-faced cards. Let me be clear that such controversy was anticipated and was part of the appeal of doing them for me. I realize they put a logistical strain on the game and throw a hand-grenade of public information into the otherwise pristinely private world of Booster Draft. But their goal was not to be the next great innovation in good gameplay. They were meant to be what they are—a gimmick. A conversation starter. A shocking development that makes you sit up in your chair in disbelief and then compels you to check out the set. They aren't meant to be the future of how Magic will be played—they'll be gone in a few months, replaced by the next cool thing."
So WotC is well aware that the reception was not perfectly positive, nor that it was mostly positive. It has it's fans, but it has its detractors: "To those of you who like them—thank you. I'm very proud that we managed to pull them off. To those of you who aren't fans—thank you for playing along."
So I sincerely doubt we will see them again in any large spattering as we've seen them this "block." It was enough that I chose to stop playing Standard to avoid dealing with the Block, especially since R&D and Creative decided to trample all over the meaning of "Gothic Horror" and just decided to start using "horror movie" tropes to fill the set (down to brain-eating zombies ... ugh! -- you have to hate Romero at this point for starting this trend). See here for more, including that Coulton song that they all so love which stems from this trope (and Romero).
That last sentence implies that you already know part of the answer. ;)[/quote]He was asking you the question, it wasn't rhetorical.As noted by LaPille, both sides of Huntmaster of the Fells are just as wordy combi
That last sentence implies that you already know part of the answer.
So I will skip that bit...
Actually, that last sentence is there to ensure nobody squiggles out of the answer by trying to use flavor to justify The Glory Of Cool Things--which is precisely what is wrong with the mechanic.Flavor cannot trump design. Just so we're clear about why I did that.
I like how using both sides of the card allows each side to be simpler as an object in itself (the cards arent overcrowded, too wordy, and you dont need to wade through irrelevant information that pertains to the side that isnt in play). I also like how each side gets its own art (without looking awful, like the Kamigawa flip cards).
You've just said the same thing twice and both of those things have to do with aesthetics, not mechanics.
By physically turning the card over you get to actually see it transform on the table - you can see at a glance what is what, without having to tell which way up it is, or counting how many counters are on it and comparing them to the numbers in the little boxes. You dont need to read anything upside-down (Flip cards) or ignore portions of the card (Level Up). You effectively get 2 "cards" for your money, as well (two lots of art, two distinct card faces).
I can see what you're going for there. That hasn't been my experience at all-I've actually lost games because I couldn't read all the necessary text, due to it being hidden on the underside of the card-but this is mechanically related.
However, I'm going to say that; denying a player necessary information-like what a card does-by covering it up is a huge problem. As an opponent, it is quite detrimental to be unable to just look at the board, read what's on the card and make decisions. Flip cards/level up cards didn't do that.
Personally I use checklist cards in my deck, and put my DFCs in clear-backed sleeves. This means I dont need to de-sleeve anything during play, and I get to flip my cards over and slap them down on the table when they transform - and this feels really good.
How a mechanic feels is not what makes it good; the feeling you get by doing that isn't an evaluation of the quality of a mechanic's execution. That is: it might feel really good to band your creatures together, but that doesn't change the fact that banding is a logistical nightmare, or that storm might feel like a good way to win but it's destructively non-interactive and kills games. See what I'm going for here?
What Transform has done (among other things) is insist that we have more working parts to our decks than we used to have-which you talk about below. In addition, the fact that you have to add more 'stuff' to your deck suggests that this mechanic is inelegant, which is a drawback.
Yes there are drawbacks, and downsides, and logistical factors to consider, but personally, I feel that the flavor (oops), clarity, extra art, and the pure joy I feel when transforming my cards, more than makes up for it. And TBH, even things like filling in checklists and carrying spare transparent sleeves makes them feel special - not awkward.
Everything you like about this is precisely what I take issue with. Flavor is a terrible reason to do something and as soon as you lose or damage an element of your deck because you have to break it into discreet parts I wonder how your special feeling will go then. Not that I wish it on you but the long and short of it is that decks are made up of anywhere from 40-100 pieces [cards] depending on your format and these things can get lost/damaged. The more 'things' there are the more likely it is something bad is going to happen.
The fact that you felt you had to bring flavor into the discussion to justify something that, from a design perspective is not good, tells me that this mechanic is a weak one.
Just my personal feelings of course, but I would hate for Wizards to think that no-one likes the mechanic just because some people dont (as usual, the people who are unhappy are more likely to speak up). At my FLGS today, several people stated outright that Transform was one of their favourite mechanics - along with others that didnt like it.
And I would hate for Wizards to think that this mechanic is a good one, just because some people feel it's cool-because feeling that it's cool is what brought us something that has had some serious issues. Worst of all, the G/R ones are executed so badly I can't believe it passed muster: mechanics that the player cannot control are inherently terrible.
I wouldnt want it all the time, every set, or even every year, but when its appropriate, I would like to see it used again.
~ Tim
I can't say you've convinced me or made an argument for the mechanic so much as you've listed reasons you like the act of transforming cards but I recognize that the game is for many, many players and I'm glad you're enjoying this.
Actually, that last sentence is there to ensure nobody squiggles out of the answer by trying to use flavor to justify The Glory Of Cool Things--which is precisely what is wrong with the mechanic.Flavor cannot trump design. Just so we're clear about w
I can't say you've convinced me or made an argument for the mechanic so much as you've listed reasons you like the act of transforming cards but I recognize that the game is for many, many players and I'm glad you're enjoying this.
Thanks.
Just to be clear, I wasnt trying to change anyones mind, or even make arguments - I just wanted to put across an opposing viewpoint.
Cheers!
~ Tim
Thanks. :)Just to be clear, I wasnt trying to change anyones mind, or even make arguments - I just wanted to put across an opposing viewpoint. :)Cheers!~ Tim
I can't say you've convinced me or made an argument for the mechanic so much as you've listed reasons you like the act of transforming cards but I recognize that the game is for many, many players and I'm glad you're enjoying this.
Thanks.
Just to be clear, I wasnt trying to change anyones mind, or even make arguments - I just wanted to put across an opposing viewpoint.
Cheers!
~ Tim
By "argument" I mean a logical progression of thoughts that support a point of view, so I certainly hope that is what you were doing. /smiles
I think, though, it's been demonstrated how this mechanic breaks down in terms of why someone likes it and why someone doesn't and with the data Qilong has provided, it's something we probably won't see again.
Thanks. :)Just to be clear, I wasnt trying to change anyones mind, or even make arguments - I just wanted to put across an opposing viewpoint. :)Cheers!~ Tim[/quote]By "argument" I mean a logical progression of thoughts that support a point of view,
I could literally say thing to you and you wouldn't bat an eye at them, because flavor trumps whatever I said.
I'm not getting into this discussion again. Both sides have argued in circles for the past three months, and I'm tired of it. I only come here to point out that this statement applies equally to you. There are definite pros, ones that you do not include in your list, that have been posted in the past discussion, but since you place more importance on the logistical issues, no amount of pointing out the pluses will cause you to bat an eye.
It was enough that I chose to stop playing Standard to avoid dealing with the Block
Which means you have not actually played with them. So how can you make judgment calls on how they play (such as claiming having to remember number of spells played per turn is difficult, or that they disrupt gameplay when you have to turn them over)? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'd tend to give more weight to someone who has played with them and found them fun than to someone who has just read about them and decided they're more trouble than it's worth.
I can see what you're going for there. That hasn't been my experience at all-I've actually lost games because I couldn't read all the necessary text, due to it being hidden on the underside of the card-but this is mechanically related.
You are allowed to look at both faces of a DFC any time it is in a public zone. So if you'd needed that information to avoid losing, you could have simply asked to see the other face. If your point is that the information isn't available at a glance, then you're right. But I consider this an upside, as you don't have to see all the currently-irrelevant text when you're checking the board over to grok the gamestate.
What Transform has done (among other things) is insist that we have more working parts to our decks than we used to have-which you talk about below. In addition, the fact that you have to add more 'stuff' to your deck suggests that this mechanic is inelegant, which is a drawback.
This isn't a complaint against the gameplay of the mechanic. You're right, it does add to the bookwork outside of the game, but once the DFC is in play, it's really simple, elegant even. It's also emotionally satisfying that your card actually changes when the creature it represents changes.
There are upsides to DFCs besides flavor. To name a few: added capacity for rules (and flavor) text, keeping the board state simple, adding design space to the game (see Garruk Relentless , who could never have been designed without DFC technology), and fun gameplay. Those who are in support of DFCs admit to their downsides, so why can't those who are against them accept the existence of upsides? Some people like them, some people don't. When it comes time to decide if they're bringing the mechanic back, Wizards of the Coast will look at sales data, not old threads on the forums. Can we please drop the discussion now? It's been over three months.
I'm not getting into this discussion again. Both sides have argued in circles for the past three months, and I'm tired of it. I only come here to point out that this statement applies equally to you. There are definite pros, ones that you do not inc
I can see what you're going for there. That hasn't been my experience at all-I've actually lost games because I couldn't read all the necessary text, due to it being hidden on the underside of the card-but this is mechanically related.
You are allowed to look at both faces of a DFC any time it is in a public zone. So if you'd needed that information to avoid losing, you could have simply asked to see the other face. If your point is that the information isn't available at a glance, then you're right. But I consider this an upside, as you don't have to see all the currently-irrelevant text when you're checking the board over to grok the gamestate.
I am aware of what I am allowed to do. This doesn't change the fact that I lost because I couldn't see rules text I needed to and that text is highly relevant: I'm not even sure where you think you can say that there is 'currently-irrelevant' text in a game of Magic.
You like it; great. It's still a design flaw that players cannot merely look at the board, read the available text, and grok the situation. You considering it an upside doesn't actually make it one. As a matter of fact, I think that it's weird that you would consider information that is supposed to be public but is instead hidden an upside: It feels wrong. But to each his/her own.
What Transform has done (among other things) is insist that we have more working parts to our decks than we used to have-which you talk about below. In addition, the fact that you have to add more 'stuff' to your deck suggests that this mechanic is inelegant, which is a drawback.
This isn't a complaint against the gameplay of the mechanic. You're right, it does add to the bookwork outside of the game, but once the DFC is in play, it's really simple, elegant even. It's also emotionally satisfying that your card actually changes when the creature it represents changes.
Actually, it is a complaint against the gameplay of the mechanic, because the mechanic is implimented so inelegantly. Your emotional satisfaction doesn't change the logistical issues, it just means you're willing to overlook them. Fine for you! But as I said earlier: The game is for many, many people.
There are upsides to DFCs besides flavor. To name a few: added capacity for rules (and flavor) text, keeping the board state simple, adding design space to the game (see Garruk Relentless , who could never have been designed without DFC technology), and fun gameplay. Those who are in support of DFCs admit to their downsides, so why can't those who are against them accept the existence of upsides? Some people like them, some people don't. When it comes time to decide if they're bringing the mechanic back, Wizards of the Coast will look at sales data, not old threads on the forums. Can we please drop the discussion now? It's been over three months.
1) Please do not try and tell me what I should or should not talk about. I wasn't even talking to you, so why are you being rude like that?
2) As a customer, I'm going to say what I want to say to the people who make it. Feel free to not have this discussion with me but if you choose to talk to me, then don't expect me to just drop it.
3) 'Fun' is an extremely subjective thing: it is, in a way, at the root of the conversation. So let's just drop that. I'm OK with you liking it! It doesn't change the logistical issues with this mechanic, nor the poor execution of the G/R versions it just means you are willing to overlook those issues and I am not.
4) I have admitted there is coolness here and on my blog and the SCG forums. I've been pretty up front about understanding why people think this mechanic is cool and, as my interactions with LMTRK demonstrate, perfectly happy that they like it. My issue is that this coolness isn't a reason to break what is centuries of established card game setup and the fact that a group of people think it's cool doesn't mean that it's a good mechanic for the game.
5) The mere existence of this (repeated) discussion and my own experience with double faced cards says that this mechanic does not keep the board space simple. If it was simple, we'd all just check it out and move on.
So--go, do enjoy yourself! You can be happy with the existence of these cards, and I can feel better with the knowledge that they will probably never do this again.
And yet....You are allowed to look at both faces of a DFC any time it is in a public zone. So if you'd needed that information to avoid losing, you could have simply asked to see the other face.If your point is that the information isn't available at
I could literally say thing to you and you wouldn't bat an eye at them, because flavor trumps whatever I said.
I only come here to point out that this statement applies equally to you.
Arguably, yes. It applies to everyone. I try, at least, to distance myself from my superego, so that my id takes over. It's a bit of a struggle to avoid personal gratification in trying to tell myself I am right. I'd rather have someone say I am wrong, carefully deconstruct my argument to show me why I am wrong, and build their own argument so I may do the same. Part of this requires divesting myself of as many preconceptions as I can. I prefer the argument and the deconstruction over the pandering.
Which means you have not actually played with them. So how can you make judgment calls on how they play (such as claiming having to remember number of spells played per turn is difficult, or that they disrupt gameplay when you have to turn them over)? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'd tend to give more weight to someone who has played with them and found them fun than to someone who has just read about them and decided they're more trouble than it's worth.
I have actually played with them. I attended both the paper and digital releases. I decided before I would say anything further beyond my initial posts during the preview weeks that I would give myself the experience of playing with them, and seeing how other people were dealing with them and the logistical complications that were foreseen by R&D, and figure out if they were enough.
You say you give more value to someone who found them fun (paraphrasing) and I think that's part of the problem with the argument. You are more willing to disagree with someone who had a terrible experience of them than to disagree with someone who didn't. You are already set. I have played them, and place the mechanical, functional and dexterity issues above those of flavor and concept because (and this is a big one) this is how constructed PLAY works. I take a different focus on this than you, and thus it would be impossible to agree using those focuses. I am also interested in flavor, and my first link in my post up there explained how interesting and fun I thought the execution. Deconstructing the desigm, however, leads to its errors and flaws ... and one needn't look too deeply.
So here's an excercise: Find all the things that flip cards did better than DFCs. Or Level up. Or any of the myriad other "transform" variants R&D has been attempting to devise since the games inception.
My brother is of the same mind, but wanted to play with Werewolves, solely out of flavor, yet also feels they could be one-faced. In other words, the appeal is the Tribe, not the DFC. Similarly, "transform" could have been enacted in a way that dealt with a single face, a single card, and flip cards were just such a way this was done, regardless of how unpopular they were. This is why R&D's first step in creating DFCs was to diss flip cards as much as possible. You devalue and destroy the other implementations and produce a new form, showing how your form got all the things right which the others got wrong. This is stupid, and it allowed them to ignore what they got wrong.
I only come here to point out that this statement applies equally to you.[/quote]Arguably, yes. It applies to everyone. I try, at least, to distance myself from my superego, so that my id takes over. It's a bit of a struggle to avoid personal gratifi
You like it; great. It's still a design flaw that players cannot merely look at the board, read the available text, and grok the situation. You considering it an upside doesn't actually make it one. As a matter of fact, I think that it's weird that you would consider information that is supposed to be public but is instead hidden an upside: It feels wrong.
The text of the face-down side of the card is not having an impact on the gamestate, so why should it be mucking up the board, making it harder to find the information that is having an impact? That is all I meant. It's not too hard to pick up the card and look at the other side when you need to know what it does.
But as I said earlier: The game is for many, many people.
As long as the cards have value to a decent number of people, and that's how it seems, then they have a reason to exist. Those who don't want to deal with the hassle of the cards can simply choose not to play with them. The vast majority of the hassle vanishes once they're on the battlefield, and that's the only time you'll ever have to deal with your opponent's DFCs.
Please do not try and tell me what I should or should not talk about. I wasn't even talking to you, so why are you being rude like that?
It was not my intention to be rude, nor to tell you what you can or cannot say. I apologize if it came across that way. I merely meant to express fatigue with the whole debacle. It's been three months. Those who like them, like them; those who dislike them, dislike them. Neither side is likely to be budged at this point, and Wizards isn't going to decide whether or not to bring the mechanic back in the future based on a forum discussion. I'd just like to see us all move on to hating something more recent. Let's not let Wizards get complacent
Arguably, yes. It applies to everyone. I try, at least, to distance myself from my superego, so that my id takes over. It's a bit of a struggle to avoid personal gratification in trying to tell myself I am right. I'd rather have someone say I am wrong, carefully deconstruct my argument to show me why I am wrong, and build their own argument so I may do the same. Part of this requires divesting myself of as many preconceptions as I can. I prefer the argument and the deconstruction over the pandering.
I appreciate that mindset. To clarify, I'm not trying to say that my position holds any more weight than anyone else's. I'm just trying to express the fact that there are merits to both sides.
You say you give more value to someone who found them fun (paraphrasing) and I think that's part of the problem with the argument. You are more willing to disagree with someone who had a terrible experience of them than to disagree with someone who didn't. You are already set.
That was not my intent. I only meant that I placed more weight on the judgment of someone who has tried them than on that of someone who hasn't. Knowing that you have given them a try, I am willing to concede that you find them too much of a hassle to play. Like I said, they're not perfect. It's good to know you at least gave them a shot, rather than dismiss them outright (as many people seem to have done).
The text of the face-down side of the card is not having an impact on the gamestate, so why should it be mucking up the board, making it harder to find the information that is having an impact? That is all I meant. It's not too hard to pick up the ca
You like it; great. It's still a design flaw that players cannot merely look at the board, read the available text, and grok the situation. You considering it an upside doesn't actually make it one. As a matter of fact, I think that it's weird that you would consider information that is supposed to be public but is instead hidden an upside: It feels wrong.
The text of the face-down side of the card is not having an impact on the gamestate, so why should it be mucking up the board, making it harder to find the information that is having an impact? That is all I meant. It's not too hard to pick up the card and look at the other side when you need to know what it does.
OK, just real quick:
1) I never said it was hard. But it IS a barrier and Design 101 says that any barrier that is unnecessary is bad.
2) The face down text very much makes a difference: Anecdote != data but here you go: I'm at 18 life facing Kruin OutlawandInstigator Gangwith aSpectral Lynxand aMeekstonein play. I can't read the back of the cards because, as WotC suggested: my opponent is using opaque sleeves. I know that I'll be facing a 5/5 and a 3/3 if I don't play any spells and I remember that the Gang will give bonuses to attackers, but I think can block, regenerate, take the other damage and his creatures will be tapped down. All I can see about the Outlaw is that it will become a 3/3.
So I do nothing, the werewolves flip, my opponent swings for 20, I can't block anything and die. The text I couldn't read had a huge impact on my decisions as a player, because I could have played a spell and kept those humans from transforming. Yes, I could've looked at those cards/had my opponent desleeve but the point of this story is that: There was a barrier for me to get the information I needed and that barrier is entirely the result of the way this mechanic was designed.
OK? I'm not trying to create trouble with you, I'm just bringing up an actual real-world event where something bad happened because of this particular design, not because I'm a terrible player or because I was being screwed by my opponent but because of the issues of the design. It's great that you or others are having fun with this! The question is: do the issues that this mechanic bring up outweigh fun? For me, for a variety of reasons, they don't--even though I understand why it's cool.
Finally, I understand that you may be tired of this discussion but I am not and as it's the biggest mistake WotC has made in awhile, I feel like harping on it a bit, so they know that the problems they hoped would gloss over, did not.
The text of the face-down side of the card is not having an impact on the gamestate, so why should it be mucking up the board, making it harder to find the information that is having an impact? That is all I meant. It's not too hard to pick up the ca
I am confused by some of the things being said about DFCs. Things along the lines of 'why does it matter if you can't read the transformed side when the card isn't transformed'. Isn't the answer to that obvious? Isn't the answer even tackled on the DFCs themselves, since they put the transformed P/T on there?
How can anyone have played with DFCs and not see they have a bunch of logistical problems? I mean sure they have pros as well, and while that may make the experiment a net positive for many people, it doesn't remove the issues.
I was playing with them last week in a casual playgroup and a guy was using the checklist cards. This was in a not so well lit pub and it was a multiplayer match so he was some way away from me. When he'd cast the checklist card from hand he'd replace it with the DFC on the board, exactly the style of DC usage I'd go for too. Now I have no reason to think he was cheating, but logistically I didn't want to have to look at the checklist card and make sure it properly matched the DFC he just put in, then check side one of the DFC, then check side 2 of the DFC, then turn it back over and hand it back to him. Also there were numerous bounce effects flying around so stuff was hopping in and out of his hand, turning from DFC to checklist.
DFCs involve a much higher level of logistical faff than non DFCs. This is a fact. It is a problem. Don't pretend it isn't.
I am confused by some of the things being said about DFCs. Things along the lines of 'why does it matter if you can't read the transformed side when the card isn't transformed'. Isn't the answer to that obvious? Isn't the answer even tackled on the D
