The only reason this card needs discussion is the 2W cost. 3 mana.... Not 2. At 2, it's a 4-of. At 3... I think it still is.

2 power flying for 3 is pretty good... Make that Flash, and it's a good deal, since it virtually has haste+evasion. Throw in the fact that it is a virtual white counterspell vs. ALL the bomb-searchers and mana-fixers, and you have an instant 4-of.

The 3 mana will make all fishermen say "pffft, coulda made my life easier by making it 2CC." Life is hard, play this card.

I just saw this on Salvation. Apparently I'm not so crazy.

Salvation lists it as:

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=45797&stc=1&d=1176468659

Force of Savagery   2G
Creature - Elemental
Trample
8/0

I had UUU for a flying 6/0... This basically gets an evasion and two more power, with an easier casting cost. Accounting for the difference? The fact that I had some developed support cards for the U ones. As a one-of, "Force of Savagery" is right on target.

The question gets more dicey when you don't KNOW the deck you are facing. Imagine facing an unknown opponent, who is on the play... It's Game 1. What is the prudent strategy for Forcing Lotus? While that is quite a few constraints, I know it comes up a lot, and would be good to figure out.

Thanks for reading!

Often players state, without hesitation, that the best card in their deck is Black Lotus, some going so far as to keep running tallies of win-loss records when the card comes up. Often it is the single most important card of any win.

Given that, I find it strange how rarely Lotus is met with FoW, especially on the first turn. I am guilty of this as well; if I have an active FoW, many times I believe it would be better to wait for the ACTUAL bomb to counter. However, in the Age of Storm, this is Magic's Maginot Line.

What I would like to know, is what are the general feelings on FoW vs. Lotus? Should FoW be held back against this bomb? Late game, almost never, but 1st/2nd turn becomes quite debatable... Maybe even third turn. Under what game scenarios/opponents would you counter Lotus, to letting it slide?

I will go first! I would always Force the Lotus if my opponent did not drop a blue land first... And that is my only hard rule. Aside from that, Lotus will crack against me for 3 of any color, and I will hope to find another pertinent Force target later.

I find it amusing that anyone here can claim to know a thing about the employment structure at WotC, and what they can and can't develop because of manpower constraints.

Generally, I ignore the hyperbolic, and just focus on the concrete criticisms. Anyone who simply says "it will fail" does not turn my ear. Ever. No matter how loudly it is screamed. Not in real life, and certainly not in a forum for a card game. It's certainly not PLEASANT, which is generally the way I like my associations, but on an open forum (this one in particular), I don't have that option.

I had hoped for more interesting discussion, especially from the detractors. Something like "This is ridiculous, Imzy, BUT, if it DID work, it would have to incorporate the following:". Stopping at "This is ridiculous", no matter how long-winded, is worthy of little debate, or consideration.

Don't hang your hat on Rod and Chalice. Those simply stop 0CC mana... They do not PUNISH it, as I was suggesting.

I was able to glean a few good points, though.

1. The set would need to have good answers for fast mana, yet apply to an overall strategy (i.e. no DIRECT hosers)
2. In the current set of keyword abilities, there are no good ways to ensure unpowered viability. New keywords/effects are going to be needed.
3. Replacing an Un- set would allow it to fit in seamlessly with the rest of their products.

Another point to consider: since this set would be made for a group of people that are already dedicated collectors, They might do well to include more rarities, like:

Common
Uncommon
Rare
Ultra-Rare
Chase
Ancient

I had thought the Ancient cards could be like "Ancient Lightning Bolt", R for 4 damage to any target, but the kicker is a "Unique" keyword... There is only one in the world. It could easily be signed by the designers, and the Unique keyword could cause it to be revealed before the game, etc. These kinds of things could be wonderful for collectors.

The cards you mention that affect moxes, etc. negatively do so in a secondary way... They were not DESIGNED to defeat those cards, they were designed with their blocks in mind. Any effect on T1 was an aftereffect.

It is not be hard to create cards that are balanced, interesting, and punish 0CC mana.

I am not trying to get rid of moxes, or say they are bad. (where did I say they needed to be removed?) I'm just saying that Wizards would do well to sell me cards... Since currently, they don't.


I contend that it would be fun, would be interesting, and would generally be a success. The rest of your argument is just hyperbole, and you simply don't get it. Yes.

Perfect. That is the perfect way to release the Eternal Only set, and as you mentioned, the perfect timing would be at the same time Extended does their sit-and-sp.... I mean, rotating.


A great point I had not considered, probably since I do not play T2 at all, so it never occurs to me that my set might become 'worthless'. What a huge 'metareason' for T2 players to buy the set.

Frankly, I think this set would be HUGE among casual fans. A whole new scale of power for them to tool with, metagame be damned. Every card, in every pack, would be, "OMG Chuck, check this thing out. omgomgomg....." I remember that, and it was exhilarating.

I could come up with 10 cards, in about 10 seconds, that would reduce the utility of the cards you mentioned to virtually nothing, and make their worth less than the paper they are printed on. I'm sure you could too. If they don't have to worry about breaking T2, limited, extended, etc., they could print cards that are that powerful. To do so in a meaningful way, though, would require time, effort, and balancing. But it *can* be done.


The premise of Vintage is you can use virtually any card printed, sans ante/dex cards. How does an Eternal-only set defeat that? IT DOESN'T. I totally fail to see how having MORE options would actually create LESS enjoyment... Especially for the players who can't enter T1, without a lower cost of entry.

The second ability is amazingly strong, at least as strong as the first.

You could stay at  and 2 without it, but you couldn't do 2 life at any kind of reasonable casting cost while keeping the "can't make me discard it" part.

A good idea. Should probably put "As long as *** Vision is in your graveyard, all Visions get +0/+1" on every one of the creatures, without being out of balance for their cost, even with the enabling enchantments.

Note: these are Visions, not Illusions. If we make these bump up Illusions, we would have to take into account all previous Illusions printed, which I have not done.

Also, note that the enchantments affect all your creatures, this new Vision text is Vision-only, for both players. Was that intended? This is not REALLY supposed to be Slivers part II, though there are similarities. Affecting only your creatures was part of the charm, for me.

An interesting note: there could be some very interesting needs for giving your opponent's creatures first strike during combat, with this new text added!

"If a spell or ability controlled by an opponant casues you to discard this, gain 2 life instead"

should read:

If a spell or ability controlled by an opponent would cause you to discard Refreshing Glimmer, instead gain 2 life.

This would work on wheel of fortune, chains, duress, hymn, anvil... I like it.

It is undercosted, however. Instead of 2 life, should be 1 life everywhere.

It seems obvious to me that at the very least, they have an idea of what they are doing now, unlike during Alpha. You won't see a lot of Creature Bond, Psychic Venom, and Lifelace. At the VERY least, the art is better now.


With a well designed 'Ancient Archive', they could create cards that are not so niche as to be useless against all but a few hard targets, but still are good hate vs. their intended targets... Like the cards you described.


Now that's the spirit. How great would it be for Vintage to not just get the sloppy seconds out of each set, and instead, gain 100-150 new cards to drool over, all designed for US? I think that would be awesome.


Thanks for reading!

OMG... I wasn't actually suggesting THOSE cards. Simply the theory that it would not be difficult to come up with cards that could turn the tables on fully powered decks. If that wasn't clear, it should be now.

edit: It's kind of the "If you build it, they will come" mentality. There are so many people that play Magic, that don't play Vintage. For the most part, they don't play because it's expensive to enter, and Wizards doesn't support it. The set of people that don't play because it's "not fun" exists as well.

If Wizards DID produce this set, that would count as supporting it. The cost of entry would absolutely crash as well, assuming (which I am!) that the set allows for multiple Tier 1 viabilities to new entrants into Vintage. Being able to compete with fully powered decks would be exciting; defeating Mr. Power 9 with a small priced deck has its own satisfaction, i.e. fun, for people that weren't interested in T1 before. Those are three roadblocks to full viability, and all have been manadrained... Err, countered.

Think outside the box for a moment. Don't focus on the cards I threw out there, as they weren't meant to represent concrete ideas, just the theory. Don't think about a set that makes equivalent cards to what we have now, as that would (as previously suggested) tank the collectibility. As mentioned, a 3R Wheel of Fortune does NOT make anyone want to buy 'Ancient Archive'. Think about a set that allows someone with limited funds to enter the Vintage scene with punitive answers to Lotus, Will, A. Recall etc., and defeat those decks using the new cards (whatever they might be). I think that would be exciting.

Thanks for reading!

It couldn't mess up casual. Long before I started with tournaments, I remember popping packs open and gawking at AWESOMELY powerful creatures and spells. I certainly wouldn't have looked at the most powerful and say, "This makes me vomit, it's going to totally wreck the metagame."

Type 1 *is* a popular format. It's just the cost of entry is prohibitive. What if WotC created a set that eased the entry into fully viable decks? It would be so easy to do. All you have to do is make small, simple spells that have utility, and counter-defeat high powered decks. Such as:

1WU creature , 2/2 null rod on legs.
2UU Storm sorcery, take control of target creature.
XR Storm, destroy target artifact with casting cost X.
GGGG creature, can't be countered, 5/5.
1 artifact, artifacts can't be played.

If you get a whole set of cards like this, that will create an environment where powered decks are equal in winability to unpowered. It's really not that hard to do.

There may be fewer people playing Vintage, but I contend that those people can buy more cards, per person... Not to mention the self-fulfillment of not supporting the T1 format, so there isn't a T1 format. I know my sum of 0 boxes purchased yearly could be improved to WotC's liking.

And hey, if it kills Vintage, isn't that what Wizards wants anyway? They can't lose!

...The obvious inference being that I/we don't understand marketing/sales. Why could they never make another like it? Why couldn't they actually make a Vintage block, and keep making them? There is no reason not to... UNLESS it sold poorly.

They get none of my money currently. This is not some kind of "jump-the-shark" moment. This is an untapped market that WotC is foolish for not exploring.

We already have cards in the pool on that power scale in T1, and you are limited by the 60 card rule. Adding more cards at that "power level" does not make decks more powerful. Theoretically, it simply gives more choices, and also, more deck archetypes, too.

I'm not saying they should print more Ancestral Recalls. Far from it; that card got restricted in our format. I am talking about a set where all the cards are in the correct power-scale, as 4-ofs. Introducing more restricted cards - design 'mistakes' - would be something to avoid, unless they desire a few rares in the new set to introduce new archetypes, with a power card the is sooo required to be restricted in the new archetype.

I had figured that a huge part of their motivation would be to get more people to buy the cards, and thus, be able to compete in T1 with the new cards. I'm sure they would print equally powerful hosers to keep the field dynamic. They could force the legitimacy of a vast number of new decks, just by printing a single new set.

One of the problems with coming up with inventive new cards is the absurd prospect of making them suitable for print in a limited environment, while sneaking in abilities that have utility to us, the Eternal lovers. This, like most things, got me thinking.

I think WotC should print a set of cards on the old power scale: let's call it 'Ancient Archive'. It should have cards on the old power scale: you know R for 3 damage, U for 3 cards, what have you. I also think it goes without saying that the set should be printed in the old format, with the old symbols.

The key? The set would not be in any block, and would not be legal for Standard or Limited play. Ever. This would allow their designers the freedom to unleash their most powerful ideas.

Now now, please, hear me out. I know you are all clawing at your monitors to tell me I'm batshit insane, and they would never, EVER support our format, because they make no money from us. That is the OBVIOUS answer. Let's be positive, and STAY positive, and see if we can come up with some reasons why they SHOULD do this.

I will go first! I do not currently buy boxes of cards. Nor do any of my buddies, of which I can count at least two dozen, who NEVER buy boxes. The reason is obvious: we ONLY play T1, so why should we buy boxes of CRAP for our format, when we can get anything I want for orders of magnitude less money from eBay?

We are all professionals, too: a lawyer, a Ph.D., a biochemist, Lead Graphic designer at EA, a couple programmers, to name a few. We have plenty of disposable income, and I am guessing that many other T1 players are older, and therefore, in all likelihood also are making more money than when they started M:tG. So, where we lack in numbers, we make up for it with more disposable income. I would like to buy boxes that support my hobby, but I can't justify it now. I could with 'Ancient Archive'.

I would like to apologize in advance if this post is in the wrong forum (card creation seemed logical). I did my due diligence to search for articles similar to this, and couldn't find any.

Stay positive, and thanks for reading!

I think what I would suggest would be three creatures:
U, 2/0 Flying (This one might need to be 3/0) (Common)
UU, 4/0 Flying (Uncommon)
UUU, 6/0 Flying (Rare)

The cycle of enablers could be changed to be more generic, like this:
Vision of Death
B
Sorcery
Draw a card.
As long as this is in your graveyard, your creatures get +0/+1.
His life flashed before his eyes. Then, it was gone.

I like this. You CANNOT play the creatures without enablers. I would also suggest that the "Vision of ..." enablers keep their naming system, so that there is deference to them being important for a Vision Creature deck. They would STILL be useful to other creature styles.

These cheap, cantrip creature boosters should NOT have power boost. They are also quite conditional, which is OK: these kinds of cards start at 1B (Bad Moon), so anything less should have a penalty. The cantrip keeps it useful, and balances the lack of power boost.

I would suggest that the black enabler is uncommon, the others common. There should be a couple of multicolor enablers that give other abilities too... But all related enablers should give at least (or exactly) +0/+1.

A slight change, for flavor of the previous card:

Vision of Death
B
Sorcery
Draw a card.
As long as this is in your graveyard, all Visions get +0/+1.
His life flashed before his eyes. Then, it was gone.

Excellent, beautiful, elegant. Good point on giving the enablers something positive and minor.

As noted earlier, I would like to keep all the critters as straight blue (no colorless, even), and all of the enablers in other colors, or multi- with blue. It is also important to keep the Vision creatures at suck level, by themselves. U for a 2/0 flyer, UU for a 4/0 flyer, or UUU for a 6/0 flyer really sucks. BUT, given the enablers, you get real synergy, and the cards become quite powerful, as intended.

A cycle of these little enchantments could be very neat.

Vision of Life
W
Enchantment
Draw a card.
As long as you have equal or less life than each opponent, all Visions get +0/+1.
His prayers were answered as far as he asked. But, no more.

Vision of Vengeance
R
Enchantment
Draw a card.
As long as you have more life than each opponent, all Visions get +0/+1.
Vengeance would be his. But, only once.

Sustaining Vision
G
Enchantment
Draw a card.
As long as you control more enchantments than each opponent, all Visions get +0/+1.
The table was set. But, dining on magic is not common cuisine.

That's what I was talking about. I also think every enchantment should have at least "+0/+1" so any of them can keep the Visions alive. Some of your enablers are creatures, which gets away from the 0 toughness idea. Also, the first one is an aura, which can't help keep things alive that have 0 toughness.

Except you stole my thunder by creating the Vision Lord. Sniff. I wanted to do that. He should definitely have a 0 toughness too.

Maybe a new ability for Visions?

Visionary (gains +0/+1 for each enchantment you control)

Oh boy, maybe a new generic ability??

[X] Monger: (gains +0/+1 for each X you control)

Black should not have enchantment destruction, especially at instant speed, moreso that it doesn't target. I would suggest that the graveyard removal actually do something, like power up the critter, or do damage, or loss of life. Flash is unneeded as well (and out of color?). Maybe like:


Craven Defiler  1BBB
Creature - Ghoul Wizard
X, Sacrifice Planedefiler, remove your graveyard from the game: remove all graveyards from the game, where X is the number of cards in all opponent graveyards. Target opponent loses X life.
Can you sacrifice the dead? I think it has found a way.
3/3

The templating is tougher, and this is NOT a multiplayer card, but I think it's fair at any time in the game (If you have the mana!).

edit: This might be more interesting if it did NOT sacrifice. Hmmm...

I was thinking that these creatures feed on enchantments - the raw magic of enchantments. Thus, the enchantments that will 'feed' them, also enable them... Like the UBR enchantment mentioned above. Kind of like slivers, but where the 'SLIVERNESS' of the cards is actually in the enchantments.

For the creature introduced above, for example... An enchantment would give the flash and card draw, but to all Ilusions/Visions. As a flying 6/0, maybe UUU, or UU1.

Ooo, new thought: maybe all the Visions are solid blue, and all the enchantments have other colors. Ooooooo...........

There was only supposed to be one Reality Break card... I removed the other one.

I don't think there are any good enchantments/artifacts for giving tiny bonuses to toughness, which is what these need.

Reality Break
UU
Enchantment
Illusions and Visions gain +1/+1.
When Reality Break comes into play, you may pay UU. If you do, search your library for a Reality Break card, and put it into play.
They aren't real, are they?

Insanity
UBR
Enchantment
Illusions and Visions are unblockable.
Creature cards with Illusion or Vision creature types can't be countered.

I read in the rules here that card cycles are ok, but don't do too many... Should I go ahead and display the support cards?

This is probably only good if a cycle is created, otherwise it requires something to keep itself alive, while having nothing to share in the synergy.

UU
Shimmering Vision
Creature -- Illusion
Flying
4/0

UU
Shimmering Vision
Creature -- Illusion
Flying
(Creatures with zero toughness are placed in the graveyard.)
4/0
I think a cycle of creatures, type "Vision", with enormous power and zero toughness, would be very cool. There is no need for an upkeep cost: it already requires something else to keep it alive.

Shadow as evasion would also be in flavor, instead of flying, but I thought to introduce this type of card as simply as possible.

Did you even read the Original Post? I outline there every basic reason I have for wanting to try single elim... Some more sprang up throughout this thread.

My dislike of draws is not irrational, unlike your conclusion that I (or anyone!) would prefer a loss to a draw. Far from it. Ties are boring. BORING! I would much prefer the purity of win/loss vs. ties; the ability to go for a win (and risk a loss) rather than stall out tactics so prevalent in game 3s that basically ensure ties. That seems more exciting... Seems more like Magic. Also, strategies that involve more shuffling than others will not be falsely turned aside, for fear of going to time and ensuring too many draws.

But, whatever. I am not going to run a single-elim tournament anytime soon, and it's apparent that very few people here will either, and a virtual lock that nobody will run one in the Indianapolis area, so the whole idea is moot anyway, I am sorry for wasting your time. Since the discussion is not even close to being enjoyable, I will simply acknowledge that fact, and move along.

I would be happy to explain. It's a question of probability. With fewer people in each round, the likelihood of any single match being the outlier you describe drops significantly. In Swiss, you are guaranteed that guy is going to grind down your tournament timing, whether or not he wins or loses. In bracket, it's only if he wins. Fewer matches per round means shorter rounds.

As far as your grinder format... I would much prefer a life total tiebreaker, than settle for a TIE. Also, a 256-person swiss format simply gives me convulsions.

The semantics are cute, but they don't really accomplish anything. Besides, I hesitate to speak for anyone other than myself, or present my own experiences as representative of a larger whole.

Mostly, I am talking about tournaments at GenCon. There is outstanding pressure to leave a tournament early, to go do other things you can only do at GenCon. At a local shop, it is probably better to do Swiss. But at GenCon, where chasing a Top 8 after a first round loss is generally fruitless, perhaps single elim is the way to go. I guarantee GenCon has motivation to get players through the tournies as fast as possible, as well.