TheManaDrain.com
April 25, 2019, 05:37:47 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: [SOI] Rules updates  (Read 1339 times)
thecrav
Basic User
**
Posts: 219


Seems good.


View Profile WWW Email
« on: March 07, 2016, 01:18:40 pm »

[LINK]

The thing that is probably most important for vintage players:

Quote
Converted mana cost

Remember when I said that the characteristics of the face that's up are all that matter? That wasn't quite accurate. Under the new rules, the converted mana cost of the back face of a DFC is based on the mana cost of the front face. (Previously, because the back faces lacked mana costs, their converted mana costs were all 0.) The one exception is if something is a copy of the back face of a DFC, its converted mana cost is 0. So If I control Insidious Mist, it has no mana cost, but its converted mana cost is 4. If I then put a copy of Insidious Mist onto the battlefield, that copy's converted mana cost is 0.

Engineered Explosives and Pernicious Deed at X=0 no longer wipe out flipped cards. Seems like they both just got way worse against Delver strategies.
Logged

Instead of tearing things down we should calmly explain our opinions.
fsecco
Basic User
**
Posts: 560



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2016, 01:25:52 pm »

I don't think I like these changes... I mean, it just sounds confusing if you have to look at the original side of the cards just to check its converted mana cost.
Logged
CHA1N5
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 345

bluh


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2016, 02:03:02 pm »

Is this the first example we have of converted mana cost not being based on the mana cost of the object in question?
Logged

Workshop, Mox, Smokestack
Tangle Wire spells your Doom
Counter, Sac, Tap, Fade

@KevinCron on Twitter :: Host of the So Many Insane Plays podcast.
Varal
Basic User
**
Posts: 165


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2016, 02:06:02 pm »

Is this the first example we have of converted mana cost not being based on the mana cost of the object in question?

There are the clone effects but I think that's it.
Logged
Ten-Ten
Basic User
**
Posts: 473


Shalom Aleichem


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2016, 05:54:50 pm »

I dont see the need for this change..
Its not Like there were any issues or confusion before. Smh.
Logged

Colossians 2:2,3
 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, both of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
thecrav
Basic User
**
Posts: 219


Seems good.


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2016, 06:08:42 pm »

I dont see the need for this change..
Its not Like there were any issues or confusion before. Smh.


The only thing I can really think of is that they want to do something with CMCs in this set or a set coming soon.
Logged

Instead of tearing things down we should calmly explain our opinions.
MirariKnight
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 428

Lotus, YawgWill, Lotus, Go

xHollyw0odx
View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2016, 07:09:38 pm »

This change irks me for two reasons (and a third, less legitimate one):

1) The mana cost of the card is now not visible if the card is transformed. That's just terrible logistics, not to mention being totally unintuitive. Why does this one case work differently than every other card/object in Magic that doesn't have a mana cost?

2) This actually has really annoying gameplay implications. Stuff shouldn't be getting harder to answer. Now we can't EE/Abrupt Decay/Repeal/Ratchet Bomb/Deed, etc. Things being answerable is a good thing. Those cards represent a significant portion of the answers in Vintage. Not only that, but this is very reminiscent of GP Flash, when like 3/4 of the field weren't even aware that Flash received errata because it was only posted in one tiny article on the WoTC site. I guarantee this will be a thing when someone tries to Repeal a Jace or something.

3) We're still doing cards with non-magic backs yet there's still no mention of Collector's Edition legalization. I've had no choice to accept that not only will DFCs exist, but they'll also be Vintage playable. Let's at least get something good to come from it.
Logged
Aaron Patten
Basic User
**
Posts: 132


Mox Dragon of the Lotus


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2016, 12:44:59 pm »

It seems like change for the sake of change.
Logged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8

University is just another one of those pyramid schemes like chain letters, the Freemason Society, Scientology, and... hmm... what's that really famous one? Oh yeah, Capitalism.
evouga
Basic User
**
Posts: 537


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2016, 01:38:15 pm »

Right. With a corner case for copy effects, just for extra confusion.
Logged
rikter
Basic User
**
Posts: 139


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2016, 11:12:17 am »

It seems like change for the sake of change.

I think they may be trying to tinker with modern for this. Its true, there are implications for Vintage and  Legacy but I think it's going to be a a bigger deal in modern. At the very least you can no longer Abrupt Decay a Huntmaster. I don't think any of the new flip cards that would see play in Vintage or even Legacy are above 3cmc anyways, so Decay would still work, but Modern may have more use for some of the higher CMC stuff, and perhaps Wizards felt that in that format, they didn't want Ratchet bomb to turn into a 2 mana wrath-like effect or to have Decay just be an uncounterable answer to all the new toys.

It's kind of a bummer that Explosives takes a bit of a hit vs Delver.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.049 seconds with 20 queries.