-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Magic: the Gathering |OT11| Amonkhet - Have you ever had decks with a Pharaoh?
- Thread starter SigmasonicX
- Start date
- Status
I'm with him, vanilla matters has to be the lamest theme people ask MaRo for. No one wants to play with a bunch of vanilla creatures. It's just stupid.
Lots of good points brought up there. I've speculated in my free time how a "Vanilla matters" set would work, and I can't think of a great way for it. The best way I can see to make a Vanilla creature stand out on its own is to make it undercosted for it's P/T, but that only regularly shows up in Green.
Despite the existence of Muraganda Petroglyphs, Muraganda needs a different theme. Maybe a harsher "Predator vs Prey" theme, like what Jund had in Alara. Or it could be another "Mono Color matters" set with a "Basic Lands matter" theme based on what they did with Imperiosaur.
I just don't know why anyone would think this a good idea! Go play Portal if that's what you want.
FreedomFrisbee
Member
Vanilla matters does not have enough space to make a whole set around, simply as a function of there being a limited number of vanilla creatures that can be made. Muraganda should be an amalgamation of vanilla matters, basic matters, and monocolor matters. It should have full art vanilla creatures and introduce basic creatures. And have dinosaurs.
shrapnelmagnet
Member
Interesting. I have been thinking about a Muraganda Petroglyphs (60-card casual) deck for a while now. Vanilla creatures are an interesting deck-building challenge, I've found
Or wizards could have just printed good removal. Lingering souls would have been banned if not for the oodles of graveyard/mini boardwipe that were available.
Giant Panda
Member
Are people making BW zombies or full esper zombies for the prized amalgams and Gisa and Geralf?
AMONKHET UPDATE BULLETINCOMPREHENSIVE RULES CHANGES
AMONKHET UPDATE BULLETINORACLE CHANGES
There's some functional changes, now when you name a card with Meddling Mage or similar cards, the spell can't be cast even if it comes out of an Isochron Scepter or similar.
AMONKHET UPDATE BULLETINORACLE CHANGES
There's some functional changes, now when you name a card with Meddling Mage or similar cards, the spell can't be cast even if it comes out of an Isochron Scepter or similar.
I'm still confused how WoTC are pinning the issues with Standard down to the lack of core sets.
Here's a short list of recent-ish changes to Magic that I consider to have significant impact on Standard:
1: Removal getting significantly weaker. Dreadbore to Hero's Downfall to Ruinous path. Searing Spear effects too good, switched to sorcery if not omitted from Standard entirely.
2: Creatures significantly stronger. Pushed ETB effects lose focus (Thragtusk, Titans, Resto, Snappy, etc) in lieu of higher P/T and strong on-board effects that require an answer to prevent them from taking over the game. (Tireless Tracker, Selfless Spirit, Smuggler's Copter, Sylvan Advocate, Rhonas.)
3: Removal of core sets.
4: Switch to two set blocks, two a year.
5: Higher focus on in-block synergy to compensate for the block switch. Synergies pushed further than in recent sets.
6: Creatures getting higher P/T and beneficial effects at lower P/T. (Red getting 2/1s for 2 with no downside, 2/3 seemingly being the new baseline for a 2-drop, etc)
7: No more silver-bullet hate spells.
8: Countermagic strengthened slightly.
9: Faster rotation.
10: Nvm, slower rotation again.
11: Insistence that story cards be competitively relevant; Wizards employees reacting with glee at a Liliana vs Emrakul pro tour.
12: Nvm again
13: Statistical analysis of MTGO matches banned in hopes of formats being solved slower.
How can they know what's going wrong when they're changing so much so quickly? Is there no one to step in and say "hey, we should probably hold off on these major changes to design philosophy until we see the impact of the shorter rotation"?
Here's a short list of recent-ish changes to Magic that I consider to have significant impact on Standard:
1: Removal getting significantly weaker. Dreadbore to Hero's Downfall to Ruinous path. Searing Spear effects too good, switched to sorcery if not omitted from Standard entirely.
2: Creatures significantly stronger. Pushed ETB effects lose focus (Thragtusk, Titans, Resto, Snappy, etc) in lieu of higher P/T and strong on-board effects that require an answer to prevent them from taking over the game. (Tireless Tracker, Selfless Spirit, Smuggler's Copter, Sylvan Advocate, Rhonas.)
3: Removal of core sets.
4: Switch to two set blocks, two a year.
5: Higher focus on in-block synergy to compensate for the block switch. Synergies pushed further than in recent sets.
6: Creatures getting higher P/T and beneficial effects at lower P/T. (Red getting 2/1s for 2 with no downside, 2/3 seemingly being the new baseline for a 2-drop, etc)
7: No more silver-bullet hate spells.
8: Countermagic strengthened slightly.
9: Faster rotation.
10: Nvm, slower rotation again.
11: Insistence that story cards be competitively relevant; Wizards employees reacting with glee at a Liliana vs Emrakul pro tour.
12: Nvm again
13: Statistical analysis of MTGO matches banned in hopes of formats being solved slower.
How can they know what's going wrong when they're changing so much so quickly? Is there no one to step in and say "hey, we should probably hold off on these major changes to design philosophy until we see the impact of the shorter rotation"?
Simply Sarah
Member
A logical change, honestly. It more fits what I think the average player expects.
In some ways, it's sort of a reversion. Until SOI, madness gave you the choice of discarding to the graveyard or exile.
Maybe i'm too dumb but what does this mean in the context of the game?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
A lot of people underestimate how popular Eldritch Moon draft was with the pros. I read a few of them saying it was as like top 5.I don't think you'd get a quorum on this from most people. Basically every 112 draft format ever is famously bad. There's only a very few 123 formats that tend to crack people's top lists -- mostly IPA, RGD and TPF. If we're real honest with ourselves Draft is just a better format when your whole cardpool comes from one single curated set.
I mean, at that point how is this really different from just having two blocks? If you want to do this, just get serious about actually reducing complexity in the sets proper and sell a set of tournament staples with local creative as a deck product every fall.
People say stuff like this, but it's not actually like there was this great era of storytelling previously that was lost with this switch. KTK is one of the few blocks that actually pulled it off -- Theros had basically no story over the three actual expansions, RTR had a laughably incoherent story that wasn't reflected in the cards, Innistrad's would've worked fine as just ISD -> AVR (and same for ZEN -> ROE), etc.
"This problem, which the literal best minds available have not solved in twenty years, can now be solved because it would be inconvenient if it couldn't." This is the Donald Trump approach to set design.
He also said that he had zero involvement with C17 on his blog
It's bad inasmuch as it's a set that retailers hate, players don't care about, and nobody buys, which it's been from approximately 5th edition onward until its demise.
SigmasonicX
Member
As people previously understood the new madness rules, a card with madness isn't actually discarded when you discard it then don't cast it, because it is exiled before it goes to the graveyard. This rule clarifies that it is considered to be discarded anyway.
Simply Sarah
Member
Sure. And this change should have been made with that.
I feel like a vanilla creatures matter block would become "Build your own creature." Sort of like Boggles. Or Dino-Riders.
Imagine a Muraganda set where most of the creatures (dinosaurs) were vanilla creatures all across the p/t and cmc spectrum, but you kit them out with laser beams (oops, wait, no guns in MTG), auras, equipment, etc. They start as a Grizzly Bear or Mountain Giant, and end up as Heart of Kiran.
Imagine a Muraganda set where most of the creatures (dinosaurs) were vanilla creatures all across the p/t and cmc spectrum, but you kit them out with laser beams (oops, wait, no guns in MTG), auras, equipment, etc. They start as a Grizzly Bear or Mountain Giant, and end up as Heart of Kiran.
SigmasonicX
Member
Developing Embalm and Aftermath
* After people bringing up SOI and Amonkhet as a sign of the two set block model forcing them to run out of ideas, it's funny to hear that they originally intended for a three-set SOI to be immediately followed by a three-set Amonkhet, with the intention of having the graveyard themes overlap.
* In retrospect, they feel they should have better defined how the graveyard themes of SOI and Amonkhet would differ earlier on, so they would feel more comfortable including graveyard hate in Kaladesh.
* They made sure there would be a mix of cards that you "cheat" into the graveyard, ones where you want to cast both "sides" on the same turn for maximum values, and ones where you want to cast one side early and one much later.
* SOI meant they didn't have to include strong graveyard enablers in Amonkhet, and they could balance the new cards around known factors. In contrast, see Kaladesh's artifact and energy problems in Standard.
* After people bringing up SOI and Amonkhet as a sign of the two set block model forcing them to run out of ideas, it's funny to hear that they originally intended for a three-set SOI to be immediately followed by a three-set Amonkhet, with the intention of having the graveyard themes overlap.
* In retrospect, they feel they should have better defined how the graveyard themes of SOI and Amonkhet would differ earlier on, so they would feel more comfortable including graveyard hate in Kaladesh.
* They made sure there would be a mix of cards that you "cheat" into the graveyard, ones where you want to cast both "sides" on the same turn for maximum values, and ones where you want to cast one side early and one much later.
* SOI meant they didn't have to include strong graveyard enablers in Amonkhet, and they could balance the new cards around known factors. In contrast, see Kaladesh's artifact and energy problems in Standard.
Simply Sarah
Member
I feel like a vanilla creatures matter block would become "Build your own creature." Sort of like Boggles. Or Dino-Riders.
Imagine a Muraganda set where most of the creatures (dinosaurs) were vanilla creatures all across the p/t and cmc spectrum, but you kit them out with laser beams (oops, wait, no guns in MTG), auras, equipment, etc. They start as a Grizzly Bear or Mountain Giant, and end up as Heart of Kiran.
Well no, because as soon as you started putting auras and equipment and such on them or having global effects granting abilties they'd stop being vanilla creatures and only the first played effect would matter due to timestamp order + dependencies.
Edit: Just to add, yes, they could format things so that this could work but it would be a complete mess not worth the effort or complexity.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Primal (This creature is counted as having no abilities in all zones)
Simply Sarah
Member
I'm not sure if I should laugh at this or glare at you for such a terrible joke. Maybe both.
I feel like a vanilla creatures matter block would become "Build your own creature." Sort of like Boggles. Or Dino-Riders.
Imagine a Muraganda set where most of the creatures (dinosaurs) were vanilla creatures all across the p/t and cmc spectrum, but you kit them out with laser beams (oops, wait, no guns in MTG), auras, equipment, etc. They start as a Grizzly Bear or Mountain Giant, and end up as Heart of Kiran.
I'd be totally up for that, honestly. Voltron is fun as long as you can interact with it, even if it might be historically bad in limited.
Finding ways to give global pseudo-abilities to your vanilla nonsense could also be fun:
1WW
Enchantment
Vanilla creatures you control get +1/+1.
Vanilla creatures you control can block an additional creature each combat.
2U
Enchantment
Creatures you control with no abilities get +0/+2.
Creatures with abilities can't block vanilla creatures you control.
1BB
Enchantment
Creatures you control with no abilities get +1/+0.
Whenever one or more vanilla creature you control attacks, gain 1 life.
2RR
Enchantment
Vanilla creatures get +2/+0.
Whenever one or more vanilla creature you control attacks, target creature can't block this turn.
Probably too clunky/limited design space, but it'd give you a way to go wide.
"God's Beard!"
Member
I feel like a vanilla creatures matter block would become "Build your own creature." Sort of like Boggles. Or Dino-Riders.
Imagine a Muraganda set where most of the creatures (dinosaurs) were vanilla creatures all across the p/t and cmc spectrum, but you kit them out with laser beams (oops, wait, no guns in MTG), auras, equipment, etc. They start as a Grizzly Bear or Mountain Giant, and end up as Heart of Kiran.
So like super Theros.
FreedomFrisbee
Member
Add things that can only be cast with basic land mana to the pile of ideas for Muraganda.
Really, the prehistoric setting is something that they have so not touched that it's ripe with obvious ideas.
Really, the prehistoric setting is something that they have so not touched that it's ripe with obvious ideas.
Ok, so its discarded INTO exile upon paying the madness cost, correct?
SigmasonicX
Member
If you cast the spell, it doesn't trigger any "when you discard" effects. If you don't cast it and it goes to the graveyard, it does trigger those effects.
divisionbyzorro
Member
People who want Muraganda Petroglyphs to become a thing are second only in lameness to people who want Steamflogger Boss to become a thing.
No, that's not how it works. Whether or not you decide to cast a card for the madness cost, it's still discarded and will trigger effects like Drake Haven. The thing is, whether you cast it or just send it to the graveyard, it changes zones from exile, thereby becoming a new object. This means that, even if you don't cast a card for its madness cost, Shadow of the Grave wouldn't be able to 'see' it as a discarded card. This rule makes it so that's not the case by making an exception.
What if they played with emblems to boost creatures?
Red Dragon 2R
Haste
Emblemize - 4R: Exile this creature and pay 2 life then create an emblem that has "All creatures with no abilities have haste"
2/3
White Eagle 3WU
Flying
Emblemize - 5WU: Exile this creature and draw a card then create an emblem that has "Whenever a nontoken creature with no abilities enters the battlefield create a copy of it. It gains flying until end of turn"
Red Dragon 2R
Haste
Emblemize - 4R: Exile this creature and pay 2 life then create an emblem that has "All creatures with no abilities have haste"
2/3
White Eagle 3WU
Flying
Emblemize - 5WU: Exile this creature and draw a card then create an emblem that has "Whenever a nontoken creature with no abilities enters the battlefield create a copy of it. It gains flying until end of turn"
What's the benefit of jumping through hoops to give creature non-ability abilities? What's the benefit over just giving them abilities to begin with?
In the case of emblems, for example, there's two issues. First is that R&D wants emblems to be a planeswalker-only thing (which is annoying, because Sigma Lasher really should give an emblem). Second, emblems are impossible to interact with. It makes for bad gameplay, especially in limited, to have a way to permanently get a bonus that the opponent can't interact with at all.
In the case of emblems, for example, there's two issues. First is that R&D wants emblems to be a planeswalker-only thing (which is annoying, because Sigma Lasher really should give an emblem). Second, emblems are impossible to interact with. It makes for bad gameplay, especially in limited, to have a way to permanently get a bonus that the opponent can't interact with at all.
SigmasonicX
Member
Whoops, yeah, I forgot what the madness discard confusion was.No, that's not how it works. Whether or not you decide to cast a card for the madness cost, it's still discarded and will trigger effects like Drake Haven. The thing is, whether you cast it or just send it to the graveyard, it changes zones from exile, thereby becoming a new object. This means that, even if you don't cast a card for its madness cost, Shadow of the Grave wouldn't be able to 'see' it as a discarded card. This rule makes it so that's not the case by making an exception.
Simply Sarah
Member
For the record, those don't stack. And beyond all that you still end up needing to run a bunch of vanilla creatures and then a bunch of things to interact with them. It becomes really awkward tribal with the addition of also having a ton of rules baggage.
What if they made them symmetrical so they work like old slivers? Or an ability that lets you cast a creature and pay an alternate cost to have it enter as vanilla? Have lords that boost and flexible creatures that work with them.
Its an interesting design challenge because if you create a undercosted creature with high P/T you basically have made a new tarmogoyf
What if they made them symmetrical so they work like old slivers? Or an ability that lets you cast a creature and pay an alternate cost to have it enter as vanilla? Have lords that boost and flexible creatures that work with them.The reason they don't do symmetrical lords anymore is twofold: It creates board states that are harder to keep track of, and it can often lead to game states where not playing your best cards are the best strategy because it helps your opponent more than it helps you.
It's not hard to make undercosted creatures and its not hard to make creatures that get better as the game goes on like Goyf. They do it all the time.
CoconutTank
Member
We could invoke ur-sets for inspiration perhaps
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
These aren't vanilla though.
Eldritch moon was soured by the loss of investigate. Made that one pack of soi look sad.
Simply Sarah
Member
It really isn't that interesting. And you can't have an alternate cost to enter as vanilla because that doesn't even make sense. Vanilla means no rules text.
You can't have lords without the overhead of something like:
Vanilla (This doesn't even have a rules meaning!)
Creatures you control with no abilities, except those granted to them by sources with Vanilla, get +1/+1 and have flying.
And I'm not even sure that really works. And all this is for bad tribal and lords that don't care about each other.
I just did my first Amonkhet draft today. It was a cheap 10 Euro draft that did not have any prizes, other than the launch promo and the FNM promo (top 4), so I just went to get used to the new cards.
This is what I opened first and second pack, back to back.
I went 2-1 and tied for 2nd. I have to say, I am really liking Amonkhet draft so far.
Needles to say, I will not open any other good cards in the coming drafts since I used all my luck on this one...
This is what I opened first and second pack, back to back.
I went 2-1 and tied for 2nd. I have to say, I am really liking Amonkhet draft so far.
Needles to say, I will not open any other good cards in the coming drafts since I used all my luck on this one...
I think the kickback when Maro finally gets his way and makes a mythic vanilla creature should show them it's a dead end. Why he's determined to do that is beyond me.
God, what would a Mythic Vanilla even look like. I remember Isamaru being a thing, but how far would you go to make a Mythic with no abilities? Would it just be another 1cc 2/2 only now not Legendary?
Vanilla mythic is coming this year according to MaRo.
I think it's going to be like 0/100 for WWWW or a 20/20 for GGGGGGG of something like that.
SigmasonicX
Member
I expect it to be a 20/1 creature for 6RR or something.
- Status