This was indeed my point; it wasn't "you should be playing Ichorid" but rather "Ichorid is an inherently stronger, if more hosable (and hosed) deck".


I dunno about "still lose"; stax does that, and it can certainly win if it goes nuts on its GAT hate. I've seen a few T8 stax decks recently who basically went with 6+ spheres, a full or near-full complement of strip effects, and the odd keg or barbarian ring. There is also that RG deck, which runs Magus of the Moon, Tin-Street Hooligans, and a bunch of strip effects and some burn as well to keep those Dryads off the board. I mean, it is pretty clear that GAT is hatable, and a lot of that hate is much more powerful in general than Ichorid hate, which tends to be a lot worse against random decks. There really aren't many decks that Magus of the Moon or Strip effects are bad against, but there's plenty of decks that don't really mind a turn 0 leyline. I think that as time goes on, hate will increase for the deck.


Oh, I agree.

Why not just:

Counter target spell with converted mana cost X. Search your library for a card with converted mana cost X, reveal it, then shuffle your library and put that card on top of it.

It doesn't need to be "the countered card's converted mana cost"; that adds needless complication. It won't resolve without a legal target, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

That is not lame; that is called bad metagaming. You can't build a metagame deck in a highly diverse format precisely because it doesn't have a small enough meta to meta against. If you have a good mix of archetypes, and a good mix of decklists, then a "meta deck" won't work because the very premise of a meta deck is that it hoses a certain deck or subset of decks. Its your own fault if you bring the wrong meta deck to a tournament, or bring a meta deck into a diverse meta, and lose horribly.


Oh, you can hate out Gush. To be honest, the more I look at it, the less impressed I am with the deck. The deck runs 15 lands, yet needs every land it gets because otherwise Gush doesn't work, and Gush can't get too ridiculous without a Fastbond out before turn 4 or so. If people really didn't want Gush decks to win, they'd run wastelands and strip mines, and possibly some hand/land hate besides. I doubt GAT would enjoy facing a deck like that because it makes it difficult to actually use Gush effectively. And, if you look at the T8s, you'll see some people did apply that strategy - several decks had a number of strip effects in them, some as many as the full five. Maybe people just hate running LD, but LD is not Gush's friend, especially coupled with a second form of disruption or a fast clock.

Ichorid is a stronger deck than Gush is; you have to run a huge amount of hate to stop its game plan, otherwise it will walk over and kick you in the nuts. But few people complain that every sideboard includes 4-6 pieces of Ichorid hate, and some decks even MD a fair amount of it, just to fight that deck. Sure, hosing Will occaisionally with Leylines is nice, but right now that's largely incidental as compared to stopping Ichorid from running you over (and to hose Flash, which is an added bonus). Do you think if everyone suddenly decided they never again wanted to lose to Gush that Gush would do as well as Ichorid does? I doubt it.

I think the biggest problem with this is that the card simply isn't white. White has mass removal through its "balancing things" aspect; Wrath of God "balances" the creatures both players have the same way Armageddon "balances" the lands both players have. Plague Wind really isn't a white effect.

Er, no, it really doesn't answer that question at all. You obviously were the man in the cube draft; you drafted what looked like a constructed deck, whereas the other decks looked like limited decks (albiet with powerful cards). You obviously outdrafted everyone else in that format and crushed them all, and Hoaen and Chan's decks simply weren't going to beat sui black.


I don't think it is really fair to say you'd have done better in the auction could you redo it, as I think most people in the auction had complete disasters of decks. Less than half of the people got reasonable deals on their decks, let alone good ones, and people really did not call deck power correctly; transformers and cultural exchange were much stronger than several of the decks which were actually bid on, even though they both look like piles (though at least Transformers has 8 sweeper spells and a bunch of other removal or semi-removal...).

So what'd you think about the playskill of the pros? Do you think they're much stronger players than you, or do you think it was your deck choices and/or deckbuilding that sunk you? Or some combination of the two?

Well, I think its going to boil down to preparation and skill. I think he went low on elves; as bad as a lot of the decks are, when they get a free better than ancestral on turn 1, things are bound to get ugly, and elves dont' have a lot of the inherent power some of the other decks do.

I don't think Smennen is quite as good as a lot of the pros there in terms of playskill, but I think he's much better prepared than most of them, which will serve him well.

Uh, these are commons? Where did he say that? From looking at them, they look like rares, though that is because of the drawback; really their effects aren't generally rare. The first one is an uncommon, the second and third are commons, the fourth is common or uncommon, and the last one is a rare (reanimation effects are almost never common anymore, and this one is much more rare-feeling than uncommon-feeling).


I think its more "these aren't cool enough" rather than "these aren't good enough", though maybe you mean the same thing.

Also, it IS okay for commons to occaisionally have drawbacks, but having an entire cycle of drawbacks is probably a bad thing, especially if they're pure-downside drawbacks. Sangrophage and some of the various black commons have drawbacks, which is okay, but they tend not to be crippling (though a lot of these, such as Sangrophage and the boggart from Lorwyn, are just bad cards). More importantly though, if a card at common has a drawback, it should have a VERY obvious upside. For instance, Echo is a fine mechanic at common because people see it as "this creature is cheaper" rather than "I have to pay for this twice".

Well, first off, for templating, I'd recommend the template:

At the beginning of your upkeep, if CARDNAME is in your graveyard, remove it from the game. If you do, X.

Second, Seeds of Illusion doesn't feel very blue; more of a white card in its effect (make two 1/1 flying creatures at instant speed).

Seeds of Forgiveness should be "Prevent all damage that would be dealt this turn."

And the black one is dangerously powerful; Footsteps of the Goroyo had to be sorcery speed to be fair, and this is arguably stronger, costing less and making the creature that comes back stronger. I can't say for sure that it is overpowered, but it seems likely.

This feels like the sort of card that is either ridiculously awful or ridiculously powerful, with no room for interesting in between.

Well, first off, the way these are templated is wrong. It'd actually be as such:

Sample Bear One
G
Creature -- Bear
Forestborne 1 - When CARNDAME comes into play, put a +1/+1 counter on ~this~ if you control one or more untapped forests.
1/1

It'd be an ability word rather than a keyword (see other similar examples, such as Threshold and Hellbent). This also solves the templating problems for instants and sorceries.

I think the biggest problem with this mechanic, though, isn't the templating - it is what it is. I mean, Sample Bear One is not exactly an interesting card. Sure, you can play it on turn 2 as a 2/2, but you could also play a Grizzly Bear on turn 2 for the same cost. It fundamentally increases the cost of the card artificially, and the difference between this and actually adding +1 to the cost is marginal a fairly high proportion of the time. While higher costs add more to the differentiation, really this is reminding me a lot of Kicker cards. This doesn't really feel like a good mechanic; it feels awkward and unnatural.


This card is unprintable. This is Stone Rain, except in blue.


A strictly worse version of this card appears in the core set. Additionally, White doesn't really get to tap lands. I don't think obsoleting the card in the core set is a particularly good idea.


While cool, I don't really see what this has to do with the mechanic.


I don't really see what this has to do with your mechanic, and this card is way too narrow to be really useful.


This is a cute variant on the land that they printed in Lorwyn, but it feels too similar in functionality (though this is obviously stronger).


These are both strictly better than basic lands and are thus unprintable as such.


Why would I ever want to play that card?

I don't think "creatures you control have double strike" is going to ever be reasonably costed, and that's fundamentally what these cards do. Its just broken. Even if you limited this to 1-drops only, they're still incredibly dangerous cards, though less broken.

It isn't just tarmogoyf that the green one breaks - its every cheap, efficiently costed creature. Watchwolf, Scab-Clan Mauler, even that 3/1 for 1W from Future Sight, not to mention cards like Kird Ape, Savannah Lions, and Isamaru. Its also off-color.

I dunno. Giving all creatures, or even a large subset of creatures, double strike is incredibly dangerous from a design perspective, as suddenly Giant Growth domes for 6 damage.

Are we forgetting the lesson of Goblin Warchief here? Granting all creatures haste is an extraordinarily powerful ability.

I disagree, some of them are good enough to see play - just not in vintage. The CITPT being part of the keyword is going to cause massive confusion.

This card is ridiculously broken. The 2 life isn't a real drawback in any format, especially given that in the long term, that card you grapped was almost certain to be more trouble to you than 2 life. I, too, am shocked it is real - it is just hideously overpowered. I'm pretty sure every black deck that runs mana will run 4 copies of this card without thinking twice. I thought it was fake (or 1B) when it first went up, but obviously I was wrong.

Ew. I really want this card to be fake or different; I really don't want Duress to be obsolete.

This is my thought for a deck for standard once Lorwyn becomes legal. It has 40 rares and probably costs $400, but here it is:

4x Secluded Glen (T: Add U or B to your mana pool. CITP tapped unless you reveal a faerie from your hand)
4x River of Tears
4x Underground River
4x Faerie Conclave
3x Island
2x Swamp
1x Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth

4x Oona Prowler (3/1 Flying for 1B, opponent may discard a card to give -2/-0 until EOT)
4x Spellfumbler Sprite (1/1 flying for 1U, Flash, CITP counter target spell with converted mana cost equal to or less than the number of faeries you control)
4x Scion of Oona (1/1 flying for 2U, Flash, Other Faeries get +1/+1 and shroud)
3x Tapper faerie (2/1 flying for 2U, Flash, CITP tap or untap target permanent)
2x Mistblind Clique (4/4 flying for 3U, Flash, CITP RFG a faerie you control or sacrifice this, if it leaves play, the RFGed faerie comes back, CITP tap all lands target player controls)
2x Faerie Legend (3/3 flying for 2UB, Flash, UB Pay 2 life: Return ~this~ to its owner's hand)

4x Rune Snag
4x Cryptic Command (1UUU, Instant, Choose 2: Counter target spell, tap all creatures target player controls, return target permanent to its owner's hand, draw a card)
3x Psionic Blast
4x Profane Command (XBB, Sorcery, choose 2: Return target creature with casting cost X in your graveyard to play under your control, target creature gets -X/-X until end of turn, target player loses X life, up to X target creatures gain fear until end of turn)
4x Thoughtseize (B, Sorcery, Target player reveals his or her hand, choose a nonland card from it, that player discards that card, you lose 2 life)

Thoughts? Obviously the sideboard needs creature hate (Deathmark, most likely, and potentialy others) but it seems very strong.

The reason I was harsh was because the ruling is in needless contradiction with the comprehensive rules of the game and makes Mindslaver - Wish interactions differ between casual play and tournament play. It apparently came down from OP, not R&D or the CRs, and is quite silly.

Clariax, you're wrong, and here's why:p

Read Burning Wish. What does it say? Its oracle text, as of right now, is as follows:

You may choose a sorcery card you own from outside the game, reveal that card, and put it into your hand. Remove Burning Wish from the game.

Now, you may choose what card they find with their wish according to rule 507.3. Now, you're thinking "the comp rules don't mention the sideboard", but this is totally irrelevant. The reason is that 507.3 allows you to see ALL cards your opponent owns that aren't in the game to choose from them. The tournament rules state that these cards are all RFGed cards that player owns and the player's sideboard. Therefore, because you can see their cards that are outside the game to choose among them, and those cards are the sideboard in tournament play, you can choose a card from among them and see their sideboard. QED.

Please also note the extremely relevant Mindslaver ruling:

12/1/2004 You can see everything that player can see but you normally could not. This includes that player's hand, face-down creatures, and any cards in his or her library that he or she looks at.

You're wrong, and I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Do you think players themselves cannot look at the cards that aren't in the game?

Official Rulings are precisely that - official. By definition, Clariax can't be wrong, because his post is informing TMD of a new official ruling. Your points could have been made without the inflammatory accusations of "You're wrong". Verbal Warning.
-Godder

Would you play

Super Mox Emerald
0
Artifact
T, pay 3 life: Add G to your mana pool.
When Super Mox Emerald comes into play, draw a card.

I know I would, and that's basically what this is; a single card that acts as a land + Mox Emerald.

Well, I swore at him for dying when I saw this thread. Dang it, I wanted the twelth book. Plus I could then get the whole series signed... ah well. It is too bad he died, I liked his books and thought he did a good job.

This strikes me as a limited/Timmy mechanic; it doesn't seem likely to be very spikish as it is unlikely a creature will stick around that long. Indeed, this has sort of already been done, in the form of the Flip cards from Kamigawa block. Those dudes who got Ki counters, then flipped when they got 2 or 3 of them and went from sucking to awesome. All of them sucked save Erayo, He Who Ends Games In Vintage, because it took too long/was too difficult to flip them to make it really worthwhile.

I concur, one event does not a meta make. If too many major events show the same thing though, Gush, Brainstorm, or Merchant Scroll needs to be restricted, most likely Gush. But you guys are leaping on a single T8.

And hey, Ichorid is still good! A deck with no mana always makes me smile.

There's nothing wrong with it; it being green isn't awful, but I can't really think of a whole lot of green non-basic land hosers. Indeed, I was more thinking red as a second color. But green is entirely justifiable, as it does have something to do with lands and green does care about land cards.

I think it is fine, though I'm not sure how green it is.

I had thought of the black one being

Taboo Bog (I like your name better though)
Enchantment Land
(Taboo Bog is not a spell)
Add B to your mana pool whenever a creature you control is put into your graveyard from play.

This is weaker than your version, and still seems like a combo engine. I don't really think you need to add more than one mana per creature because it makes it harder to hit 20 mana from just one of these. I'm worried about its potential brokeness with a combo like Project X's, but then again, Project X can give infinite life instead, so I'm not sure it really makes a difference.

And I agree with the issue of the blue one, it bothered me as well. However, the blue one is not strictly better than the green one because the green one gives it to you during your turn, while the blue one doesn't. I think Andrew's suggestion of adding mana when an opponent plays a spell might be a good one; what do you think?

As for the red one... two in play doesn't seem like an enormous problem, though I should probably make sure that it doesn't enable storm too much. But given a storm deck isn't going to be able to go off with two of these in play until turn 5 or so, requiring five lands in play, I'm not sure how much of a problem it is.

I'm making a cycle of enchantment lands for my North American Native American themed set. I came up with four, but the fifth one I still don't like. They exist as enablers for the Great Circle theme of the set, where you get some bonus for having an artifact, a creature, an enchantment, and a land in play simultaneously. The red one helps support the Weave mechanic of the set, a mechanic which reduces the cost of a spell by 1 for each spell currently on the stack.

The four I like are as follows:

Clouded Peak
Enchantment Land
(Clouded Peak isn't a spell)
Whenever you play a spell, add R to your mana pool for each other spell on the stack.

Magical Vale
Enchantment Land
(Magical Vale isn't a spell)
At the beginning of each of your main phases, add G to your mana pool.

Sparkling River
Enchantment Land
(Sparkling River isn’t a spell)
At the beginning of each of your opponent’s main phases, untap target land.

Windswept Plains
Enchantment Land
(Windswept Plains isn't a spell)
At the beginning of your precombat main phase, choose an opponent. Add W to your mana pool plus an additional W for each land more than you that opponent controls.

I'm looking for a land for black, as well as feedback as to these four. The black one needs to not tap to add mana to the mana pool and to be thematically black. Anyone have suggestions/feedback?

September 20th.

It isn't an unbreakable rule, and indeed, as I pointed out above, it doesn't matter in the slightest; the rules handle it just fine.


Incorrect. The rule for priority is 408.1c:

408.1c The active player gets priority at the beginning of most phases and steps, after any game actions are dealt with and abilities that trigger at the beginning of that phase or step go on the stack.

You wouldn't gain priority in the middle of resolution because game actions were still going on.


Split Second works the way it does so that it can be answered, plain and simple. This spell can be responded to, so it isn't non-interactive either. It is entirely about interactivity.


There is no "forcing all players to pass priority"; that's not how the card works. It works like any other spell does. It goes on the stack, can be responded to as normal, and only when it resolves does it cause the other spell to resolve - nothing really unusual save that it causes another spell to resolve as well. It works just fine under the game rules, which means MTGO should be able to handle it.

The thing is that there is no "reader"; it simply doesn't exist under the rules. Currently, the only way for a spell or ability to resolve is for it to be on top of the stack; however, resolution is not dependent on being on top of the stack under the rules. Resolution can, in fact, occur at any time, including during the resolution of other spells or abilities; there's nothing in the comprehensive rules preventing it, it is simply that (to my knowledge) up to this point in time nothing has allowed for it to occur. Rule 413.2 clearly spells out how resolution works; note that rule 413.1 simply states when under the current rules a spell resolves but doesn't say that a spell can't resolve any other way. Indeed the rules are written in such a way that Finalize doesn't even require the Comprehensive Rules to be amended. Rearranging the stack -would- require it, but because Finalize doesn't actually rearrange the stack, merely simulates a rearrangement, it doesn't matter. Resolution is fully covered under the rules, and there's no reason a card couldn't cause a spell to resolve via rule 413.2.

I looked at the comprehensive rules after I thought up this card months ago because I wanted to see if it actually worked; there's absolutely nothing within the rules that says it wouldn't. Indeed, the game handles it quite well. Let's say that I played Shock targeting a Grizzly Bears my opponent controlled, and my opponent, in response, cast Giant Growth targeting those same Grizzly Bears. I then cast Finalize in response, targeting my own Shock. My opponent doesn't have any response, so the following actions occur:

Finalize begins resolution
Finalize checks that its target is still there, and finds it.
Reading from top to bottom, the first step of Finalize says that its target, Shock, resolves.
Shock begins resolution.
Shock deals 2 damage to the Grizzly Bears.
Shock is done resolving, and goes to my graveyard.
Finalize tells me to draw a card, so I draw a card.
Finalize is done resolving, and goes to my graveyard.
State-based effects are checked, and the 2/2 Grizzly Bears have taken 2 points of damage, and thus are put into the graveyard from play.
We each pass priority.
Giant Growth begins resolution.
Giant Growth looks for its target, fails to find it, and is countered, putting it into its owner's graveyard, on top of the Grizzly Bears.

None of this doesn't work under the current comprehensive rules. It may seem a bit wierd, but it doesn't really matter; it still works just fine and dandy, and the way you'd expect it to work under the rules. The only real potential source of confusion is the order of Finalize and Shock in your own graveyard, but that never matters anywhere other than Legacy and Vintage, and hardly ever matters there either, and in any event, if you're playing Legacy and Vintage, there are far more confusing cards around that work in far less intuitive ways. Finalize works pretty much exactly as you'd think it would.

EDIT: As an aside, I'm glad everyone likes this card and like to see that it has created discussion.