|
9 months ago ::
Sep 03, 2012 - 1:59PM
#31
|
|
|
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.
Not really. I don't know why people keep saying it has more design space. It's extremely shallow.
Basically, it only wants effects that can both target one creature and all creatures. Players not so much, since then it does nothing in duels. Most effects that work with Overload even feel pretty similar. You've got your basic destruction (-X/-X, destroy, sacrifice, exile, burn), your temporary removal (blink, tap, bounce), and your buffs (grant keywords, increase stats).
How many cards can they make with that? Not many.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 03, 2012 - 2:36PM
#32
|
|
|
Actually, I like this version and now want to see what a Golgari refrigerator looks like.
At the PAX wordbuilding panel, they joked about how since there isn't really a very realistic way to keep everyone in Ravnica fed, they must have access to a "refrigerator plane".
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 03, 2012 - 3:24PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2004
|
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.
From the mechanics article:
(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.)
You try making a creature with a variable scavenge without adding a bunch of extra text. And don't use X in the scavenge cost. That's cheating.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 03, 2012 - 3:41PM
#34
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 03, 2012 - 5:27PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2010
|
Man, I like the new Nivvers. Yeah sure, he doesn't have the obvious combo with curiosity  and friends, but in a vacuum he's quite a bit stronger than the original. I like that you can use his activated ability and attack with him on the same turn, something that the previous Niv lacked. I like when my dragons can gnaw your face off in combat. Oh hey...I see there was something about golgari in there too. Almost missed you there Scavenge. Overload is plenty shallow in terms of design space, but what it does have is pretty awesome. I realize that "all upside" effects may seem too potent, but as long as they are costed correctly, I think they are okay.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Post #777
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 03, 2012 - 8:55PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2001
|
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?
It's a keyword friendly way to say "Tap target creature, it doesn't untap on it's owners next untap step." which isn't a very strong effect , it's weakness is that it doesn't do much.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 04, 2012 - 2:31AM
#37
|
|
|
2. New World Order. Scavenge at instant-speed is deemed to complicated =(
markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/3085720586...
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.
Seems I got the wrong reason, even though the reason itself wasn't wrong =)
Also, this might be true in the case of Scavenge, but not everything that is sorciefied is done for gameplay, some thing are for NWO.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 04, 2012 - 7:29AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2001
|
How many cards can they make with that? Not many.
You might be surprised -- a few cards are now possible that wouldn't make sense otherwise:
Illusory Cover:
Target creature with hexproof loses hexproof -- Overload 1UU
Breath of Kozilek
Target creature loses protection -- Overload 7
Consider all the things that don't make sense (or are even illegal) when done to a single creature but would be useful to do to all creatures of a given classification. The 'creatures you control - creatures you don't control' dichotomy is just the simplest possible implementation; different design parameters could give much more interesting options.
--
Pauper
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 04, 2012 - 7:56AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2012
|
The problem with your Illusory Cover is that it could just be printed as   : All creatures lose Hexproof. The Kozilek one would work even with a mana cost, though. Probably needs to be cantrip since it's a narrow ability, but a colorless spell that makes creatures lose protection could actually be quite useful.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 04, 2012 - 5:02PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2008
|
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.
I will whole-heartedly agree with this. The backfiring is definitely Izzet flavor-worthy.
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.
|
|
|
