Magic The Gathering

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Flexo said:
For those curious here's the new card type. Side A
Click to expand...
I only just noticed the rules text reminder says that you CAST the flip side. Surely that isn't right? Surely it just enters the battlefield transformed? Or its just a typo? So basically your opponent can opt to not counter the front side, then when you invest the damage into the battle instead of their face they can just counter your payoff? Or that if there's a really good battle that will see play in modern, you can just put chalice on 0 and it will fuck over all the flipped battles?
 
More double sided cards, too, this is such annoying faggotry in paper magic. It also says the person who cast it can attack as can other players. Why is a mechanic like this in a Standard legal playset? Just put this in all the explicitly made for multiplayer games material they put out every year.
 
Cast is a keyword so I'm betting they intended to let people counter the flipped card. It's still weird but they might be doing that as a sort of release valve, if it's too powerful the option is always there to just run interaction and not errata a card they already printed in the thousands. As far as using chalice, I think you'd have to put it on the cmc of the front of the card to counter it if it functions how dual faced cards work in the rules now when checking for cmc.
 
So guys, who wants some story spoilers?
qb6du4pxnjqa1_jpg.png
 
misplaced nut said:
Cast is a keyword so I'm betting they intended to let people counter the flipped card. It's still weird but they might be doing that as a sort of release valve, if it's too powerful the option is always there to just run interaction and not errata a card they already printed in the thousands. As far as using chalice, I think you'd have to put it on the cmc of the front of the card to counter it if it functions how dual faced cards work in the rules now when checking for cmc.
Click to expand...
It wasn't super clear in the rules when I was looking over them.

If its the way you say, then the Zendikar bolt lands are lands with a nonzero CMC since the front face is a spell/creature.

Also what is the casting cost if the CMC is based on the front side?
 
The real thing that will determine if these are accepted or rejected by the community will be of the front sides are playable. Invasion feels playable if only since it’s just veggies again… I also wonder if we’ll see more generic non land permanent removal cards. I’m really not a fan of the design idea this far, but I’ve felt that way for the last few set’s new gimmick mechanics.
 
AGreatDipAtAFairPrice said:
More double sided cards, too, this is such annoying faggotry in paper magic. It also says the person who cast it can attack as can other players. Why is a mechanic like this in a Standard legal playset? Just put this in all the explicitly made for multiplayer games material they put out every year.
Click to expand...
If whoever kills the battle with damage gets the transformed effect it's dead in the water, even group hug decks aren't interested in a 4 mana ramp 2 basic lands that gives someone else a 4/4 mana dork. And if instead the owner always gets the transformed effect the ability for other players to attack it is flavor text in commander because unless there's politics involved no one is gonna waste 4 damage worth of attacks on your planeswalker attached to someone else. I do think that depending on some of the strict definitions eluded to in the text that that is a playable standard card with some interesting strategic depth though. Really good in limited for an uncommon as well.
 
Wow and if you thought War of the Spark was bullshit. Remember the tagline "Magic will change forever." Tamiyo and the other guy are dead, that's a fucking reach WOTC and you know it. Glad I did not get my hopes up libtards can't write shit.

Also, WOTC stop using like x in your stories, it comes across as basic and fantasy circa 1996. I read so many similes in those stories.
 
misplaced nut said:
Cast is a keyword so I'm betting they intended to let people counter the flipped card. It's still weird but they might be doing that as a sort of release valve, if it's too powerful the option is always there to just run interaction and not errata a card they already printed in the thousands. As far as using chalice, I think you'd have to put it on the cmc of the front of the card to counter it if it functions how dual faced cards work in the rules now when checking for cmc.
Click to expand...

The casting cost when it's not on the stack is the front side. Since it's being cast it should still be CMC 0 I do believe.

Like if Ravager of the Fells was out in play the CMC is 4, but in the case of these cards they are cast, not already existing in the battlefield.
 
Ebonic Tutor said:
The casting cost when it's not on the stack is the front side. Since it's being cast it should still be CMC 0 I do believe.

Like if Ravager of the Fells was out in play the CMC is 4, but in the case of these cards they are cast, not already existing in the battlefield.
Click to expand...

712.4c While a transforming double-faced permanent has its back face up, it has only the characteristics of its back face. However, its mana value is calculated using the mana cost of its front face. If a permanent is copying the back face of a transforming double-faced card (even if the card representing that copy is itself a double-faced card), the mana value of that permanent is 0.
712.4d While a modal double-faced spell is on the stack or a modal double-faced permanent is on the battlefield, it has only the characteristics of the face that’s up.

In my experience this comes up most often when my black opponents in explorer try to get rid of my flipped brutal cathars with fatal push. Sometimes they tell the game to target them anyway even though they are not a reasonable target then pay the ward cost only to look like goofy goobers and shame scoop.
 
I loved MTG as a kid, staring at the cool monsters and the weird art filled me with wonder and inspired me.
I've got no words to accurately describe how embarrassing the franchise is now, the gay nigger trannies, the shameful promotional crossovers, the saturday morning cartoon "lore".
It's just too much, it's not like there's just one thing wrong with it that I dislike, more like every single aspect has been handcrafted to sabotage MTG and make it unbearable. Not that I ever expected "Hasbro" to be a classy company but the cynical way they gutted everything remotely likeable about Jews of The Cost is insane to see.
 
P
AGreatDipAtAFairPrice said:
I really dislike the new cardtype Battle which is like a reverse Planeswalker thing that a player gives the opponent who has to Defend/Protect it and if it gets killed somehow, the other player wins the Battle and gets to do some sort of effect. There's already major flavor problems for me here. I'm still mad that Planeswalker is a card type. I felt like the players were supposed to be those (that's how it was explained to me in the 1990s) and the most important ones. However, the idea of a sub-game in the game called Battle that provides a benefit for winning the Battle, well, isn't just interacting with the other opponents supposed to be the Battle? So what does this mean now? Will the game overall in Standard be called a War and players can win Battles and still lose the War? I mean, I guess. There are phrases such as,"win the battle but lose the war" and "Pyrrhic victory" and all that, but ew.

The worst kept secret in Standard is they're going to do some fundamental, radical changes to the way the game is played in Standard, which is, how can you radically alter the way something has been done since the 1990s and then say that is the Standard? Really concerned with the idea of these rumored Gameplay changes.
Click to expand...
The player is still supposed to be a planeswalker from my understanding. Planeswalker cards have "loyalty" because they were supposed to represent how loyal another planeswalker was to you and how willing to use magic for you and they left if they took too much damage.

Of course now planeswalkers are just grindy effect cards that "generate value". Hiring the former pro players will prove fatal to the game. You dont want the dealer on their own product.
 
Chaotic Pizzaparty said:
Wow and if you thought War of the Spark was bullshit. Remember the tagline "Magic will change forever." Tamiyo and the other guy are dead, that's a fucking reach WOTC and you know it. Glad I did not get my hopes up libtards can't write shit.

Also, WOTC stop using like x in your stories, it comes across as basic and fantasy circa 1996. I read so many similes in those stories.
Click to expand...
They can't even leave Ajani dead.
1680195093220.png
 
Watch fucking Jace be an antagonist now. Awful writing it was an opportunity for them to really have a fresh start. To end Phyrexia but with a price like uhhh originally but nope everyone is cured. The anthesis of awful writing is that things happen with no consequence. Our next big bad will probably be Emrakyl at this point.

I am still shocked that it was their one time to actually do a decent story but we got absolutely nothing. It's actually worse than War of the Spark because it makes the original lore so shit now because Karn wakes up even though decapitated and Isis's Norn.

Elspeth's lore has been raped too and was sheer wish fulfillment, the bitch should have never left Theros.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom