tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post3151580307874823131..comments2024-03-11T02:32:15.295-04:00Comments on Goblin Artisans: Weekend Design Challenge Review 012315—Dragons of Tarkir mechanicUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-15155233957419894672015-03-03T11:27:05.607-05:002015-03-03T11:27:05.607-05:00Megamorph should actually be a decent iteration on...Megamorph should actually be a decent iteration on morph in practice. It's poised to play more like kicker than echo. It should play well with manifest, and in a different way than morph did. I think it'll be fun.<br /><br />That doesn't change the deflated-balloon reaction a lot of people are having who hoped for something more novel, a more distinct alternate evolution of the mechanic. But it ought to allay their concerns a bit.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-67175646149950176352015-03-03T10:58:58.479-05:002015-03-03T10:58:58.479-05:00A few of them, yup.
I'm sure megamorph will pl...A few of them, yup.<br />I'm sure megamorph will play well, but it's definitely not as new and exciting as I expected.<br />I have to assume they tried crazier things and none of them worked out for one reason or another. Would love to hear more about that.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-77086342055489501572015-03-02T14:28:19.286-05:002015-03-02T14:28:19.286-05:00Anybody else prefer many of these designs to what ...Anybody else prefer many of these designs to what R&D actually came up with (megamorph) ? :/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15941977219304581236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-59997227349185515532015-01-30T11:56:08.890-05:002015-01-30T11:56:08.890-05:00OK! Well, fingers crossed :) Thanks.
If I can'...OK! Well, fingers crossed :) Thanks.<br /><br />If I can't see any reason something can't work, I'm right about half the time, which I think is good odds for Dragons, but far from certainty :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-50430293373377089652015-01-30T11:25:09.193-05:002015-01-30T11:25:09.193-05:00I don't know any reason that can't work. I...I don't know any reason that can't work. If so, it's beautiful.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-62870464368682335662015-01-30T11:15:12.686-05:002015-01-30T11:15:12.686-05:00Thanks for reassuring me about the links, I think ...Thanks for reassuring me about the links, I think that's fine, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something and annoying everyone by leaving the links out :)<br /><br />For clarity, I suck at exact templating, but I'm proposing reminder text something like "You may cast this face down as a 2/2 creature for 3. You may cast it from the battlefield for its spellmorph cost."<br /><br />That's simpler than every other proposed set of rules I've seen. I thought the only problem with that was that prior to Fate Reforged, sorceries couldn't be on the battlefield face down. Now they can. Now it looks to me like that simplest possible rules for spellmorph work intuitively exactly as written.<br /><br />I don't see any reason to consider more complicated versions unless you think my simple version doesn't work. But no-one else is proposing that, so I assume I'm missing something. But what? Why doesn't that work?<br /><br />I've seen casual designs fo permanents with "this may be cast from the battlefield". Wizards would never print that because it's confusing and misleading. But AFAIK that works under the rules. So I assumed spellmorph would work equally well, but also be intuitive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-54170940625956149762015-01-30T10:55:11.235-05:002015-01-30T10:55:11.235-05:00You could write spell-morph "You may cast thi...You could write spell-morph "You may cast this from the battlefield while it's face-down."<br /><br />One natural way to write it is to mirror morph: "You may turn this face-up at any time for its spellmorph cost. Cast it without paying its mana cost." That's the version that is no longer possible.<br /><br />(Sadly, the underline method only works in the body of a post, not in the comments, so apart from adding an HTML anchor tag for clickability, no there's no better way to link cards in comments.)Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-91299599339190882002015-01-30T10:28:06.364-05:002015-01-30T10:28:06.364-05:00Then it sounds like we mostly agree, I'm not s...Then it sounds like we mostly agree, I'm not sure why it looked like we didn't. (Sorry :))<br /><br />Except that, I'm still not clear why "turn face up" is part of casting it.<br /><br />The first step in casting a spell is 601.2a says "To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs," It doesn't say "turn face up" or even "reveal" first, even if you're casting from hand where opponent can't see it.<br /><br />Likewise Colfenor's Plans http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=146581 says "exile the top seven cards of your library face down" and then "you may look at and cast them". It doesn't say "turn face up first".<br /><br />I agree, if the "exile then cast" is necessary, wizards can do that, but I still don't understand why it WOULD be necessary. Sorceries can't be face up while they're ON the battlefield. But I don't see why that prohibits them being cast FROM the battlefield.<br /><br />Understand the rules has LOTS of edge cases and I'm not a judge, so I'm likely to be missing a reason that doesn't work. But what is it?<br /><br />(Is there an easier way to link to cards?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-91550504018953013682015-01-30T10:02:26.990-05:002015-01-30T10:02:26.990-05:00The rule expressly forbids us from turning a face-...The rule expressly forbids us from turning a face-down permanent face up if it's a sorcery or instant. But both Aura's and Evan's executions first exile the card, which means it's no longer a permanent and that rule doesn't apply. That details takes almost no text space, and so it seems like a reasonable execution. I would personally love to see this mechanic.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-22136411176884279872015-01-29T18:29:14.839-05:002015-01-29T18:29:14.839-05:00Doh, blogspot ate my reply again.
Thank you! I re...Doh, blogspot ate my reply again.<br /><br />Thank you! I read them, but hadn't noticed you were saying spellmorph was technically possible. But I'm not sure having that paragraph for things like Ixidron means introducing spellmorph is a hack or is in some way skirting that rules, it feels like most rules have a rule like this one that rules out unfortunate edge cases, it doesn't seem to make spellmorph any less ok? (Assuming it works in the rules as either cast from the battlefield or exile first then cast, which I assume it can.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-92217848173172091132015-01-29T17:26:41.952-05:002015-01-29T17:26:41.952-05:00That's not true; he's said it's a mult...That's not true; he's said it's a multicolor block but not a wedge block. He has never said DoK wasn't a multicolor set, and there is every reason to think it will be.Czynskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06571024598754991621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-3035807751528626532015-01-29T12:04:35.459-05:002015-01-29T12:04:35.459-05:00There will be some multicolour in DTK, but no way ...There will be some multicolour in DTK, but no way is it a theme. MaRo's been really clear to emphasise there may be a wedge card or two, but no theme, so as to avoid the disappointment of Theros' lack of enchantment matters cards. We won't see any at common. Probably a cycle at uncommon as that seems to be the default now. Maybe a couple of rares (I presume Ramaz will appear and be Temur).Basshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796834860620921124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-84454143167401691582015-01-29T10:47:37.503-05:002015-01-29T10:47:37.503-05:00Core sets include only mono-colored cards, but two...Core sets include only mono-colored cards, but two-color decks remain the norm and I would expect no less from DTK. All the color-matters cards in FRF will remain as useful as the Kird Ape cycle in M13 was.<br /><br />So I disagree with the logic that precludes DTK being a monocolor set. That said, DTK shifting to be a shard set is a really interesting idea, and certainly possible.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-18679496888470074752015-01-29T10:34:12.619-05:002015-01-29T10:34:12.619-05:00The next two review cards.The next two review cards.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-33366871019365965772015-01-29T08:44:17.459-05:002015-01-29T08:44:17.459-05:00I'm sorry I'm being dumb -- you mean the n...I'm sorry I'm being dumb -- you mean the next two review cards or the next two paras of comp rules?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-42696146032765574372015-01-28T19:23:22.490-05:002015-01-28T19:23:22.490-05:00I very much doubt it DTK is going to be either mon...I very much doubt it DTK is going to be either mono colored or allie colored. As it would make so much of FRF useless (Runemarks, Hybrid activations, uncommon color matters cycle etc).<br />If you take this into account as well as the idea that DTK is an alternate KTK then I think the answer is going to be SHARDS.<br />All the clans (now probably dragon broods considering the new watermarks) will shift over one color to become shards, thus the reason they have changed around the order of the mana costs as well. So that abzan cards retain the same ordering as the bant faction it probably becomes.<br /><br />Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-28447985892667670362015-01-28T13:05:27.931-05:002015-01-28T13:05:27.931-05:00Why wouldn't I leverage my educated guess? I&#...Why wouldn't I leverage my educated guess? I'm likely a ways off, and maybe a long ways off, but this is an exercise in speculation, so it's got to have some context. Your expectations are as valid as mine, but that doesn't mean I should apologize for having my own (nor you yours).<br /><br />It REALLY is hard to make an alternate morph mechanic not wrapped around manifest. Super hard. None sprung to my mind. That's what I was so impressed with the challenge's results.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-15015754845332305722015-01-28T12:59:29.307-05:002015-01-28T12:59:29.307-05:00Read the next two entries, jack.Read the next two entries, jack.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-84342425083589516702015-01-28T12:59:10.398-05:002015-01-28T12:59:10.398-05:00I'm reading this trend differently. I don'...I'm reading this trend differently. I don't think DTK will be based on allied color pairs, I think that FRF went there as a transition between KTK's three-color cards to DTK's mono-color cards. I believe we know the five clans will continue to exist in the new reality, though they will be different, perhaps based [more] on dragons, somehow.<br />I fully expect there to be red cards, white cards and black cards with dash, and so I'd expect all three Sultai colors to use the mechanic that's associated with that clan. (And we know dash will be in DTK because they told us.)<br />I could be way off, of course.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-7580504979412964412015-01-28T10:09:58.246-05:002015-01-28T10:09:58.246-05:00I agree with Jade Phoenix that Mindswipe doesn'...I agree with Jade Phoenix that Mindswipe doesn't need to be in green. I was also surprised to see you say that multicolour has been "hinted strongly against". I think you may have been letting your own assumptions about DTK leak out here. I'm expecting DTK to be allied-focused with a reasonable number of allied-colour gold cards.<br /><br />It is pretty hard to come up with a mechanic involving face-down 2/2s that isn't a wrapper around manifest. I tried and couldn't, which was why I didn't submit an entry this week (that and having a very busy weekend).AlexChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05674122775216494431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-6685811337047863492015-01-27T22:58:59.741-05:002015-01-27T22:58:59.741-05:00Thanks Jade, that's what I was thinking with M...Thanks Jade, that's what I was thinking with Mindswipe. Also, the trigger would only make opponents discard once per draw - everyone discards one if anyone discarded a creature rather than everyone discarding equal to the number of creatures.<br />That said, they've avoided keywording mill up till now so they probably aren't about to start.Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14318011531403551812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-19786862672470079912015-01-27T22:06:41.149-05:002015-01-27T22:06:41.149-05:00Thanks for the kind words about Voidgate! I starte...Thanks for the kind words about Voidgate! I started from Ugin's Construct (thinking about another pair like Pilgrim of the Fires/Witness of the Ages) and twisted it into something like a set mechanic, and it came out way better than expected.Czynskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06571024598754991621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-17536344336539602642015-01-27T19:10:22.018-05:002015-01-27T19:10:22.018-05:00I'm on a Mac now, so annoyingly, I don't h...I'm on a Mac now, so annoyingly, I don't have MSE to catch mechanics that are too wordy before submitting them. I'm sure if I had MSE I could've made Camouflage more appealing. That's before we get into the possibility it might be completely undevelopable for constructed as it could kill all strategy in combat. Dang. Next time.<br /><br />Also, Voidgate is great. I thought about "how to combine Ninjutsu and Morph", and I felt, in the end, it's not worth it. But I'd really like to see how the "face-down creatures might be something in my hand" could work out.Basshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796834860620921124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-36539365142727134652015-01-27T14:55:15.067-05:002015-01-27T14:55:15.067-05:00I didn't know that about 701.31e. But I'm ...I didn't know that about 701.31e. But I'm not as sure that it rules out spellmorph. Suppose they were doing manifest in block 2 and spellmorph in block 3. (And I'm lumping together anything that's functionally equivalent, like exiling first.)<br /><br />What would the requirements for the comprehensive rules be?<br /><br />1. When block 2 comes out, there has to be a rule that allows non-permanents facedown on the battlefield, and copes with what happens if they would be turned up.<br />2. Even after block 3 comes around, there has to be an answer to "what happens when a non-permanent is turned face up by an effect", which probably isn't "it's cast for free".<br />3. Whatever they do in step 1 has to not explicitly mention spellmorph or it gives it away.<br /><br />Given that, how would 701.31e have been different when spellmorph is coming? If it would be the same, it doesn't tell us anything either way.<br /><br />Also, I'm not sure 701.31e forbids spellmorph. Even with spellmorph, I expect non-permanents to never ever be face up on the battlefield. It says "can't be turned face up". It doesn't say it can't be revealed or cast, and I'd expect spellmorph to be templated as something like "reveal it, cast it for its spellmorph cost" (or maybe exile, cast if that's necessary.)<br /><br />If I'm right, the rules update for the next block would simply leave 701.31e as it is, and add a rule for casting things with spellmorph. Am I missing something, why doesn't that work? I'm not convinced this is the answer, but I'm not convinced it isn't either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-55254002956739579162015-01-27T14:10:32.973-05:002015-01-27T14:10:32.973-05:00Something like "Shuffle any number of non-tok...Something like "Shuffle any number of non-token creatures you control, then manifest them."Tommy Occhipintihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495646355536064735noreply@blogger.com