Oust also gives them life and is from a set where the limited environment was super slow, so the odds of redrawing the card were much better. Better comparisons to chronostutter are Time Ebb, Griptide and Totally Lost. At 3U it's a better griptide. 4U probably would've been fine (or 3UU).
Magic: The Gathering |OT3| Enchantment Under the Siege
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
I believe, what they're specifically looking for is an evergreen creature keyword that blue and red can share. Not all creature mechanics have to be directly related to combat. Hexproof for example, isn't technically a combat mechanic, but is a creature mechanic. It's the only color pair that doesn't share any evergreen creature mechanics at lower rarities (red typically only gets flying at higher rarities).
WU - Flying, Defender, Flash*
WB - Lifelink
UB - Flying, Unblockability*
UR - N/A
BR - Intimidate, Haste
BG - Deathtouch, Regeneration, Haste
RG - Haste, Trample, [Fight]
RW - First Strike, Double Strike
GW - Vigilance, Indestructible
GU - Hexproof, Flash
Green doesn't have much haste, I would put remove it from RG and BG personally. WB might have flying as the second?
narcosis219
Member
Oh that's why I didn't see anymore updates in OT2. That was quick
How is "I'm not playing Red or any artifact dudes so I can't block this Bladetusk Boar" so much different from "I'm not playing Green (for reach dudes) or White/Blue (large number of flyers) so I can't block Chorus of Tides" that it crosses the line into being a problem?
To say nothing that you still need an evasion mechanic that isn't flying or unblockable. Green gets one flyer every ten sets or something, Red pretty much only gets flying on Phoenix/Dragons which are rare or higher 99% of the time and Black gets flyers much less frequently than White/Blue. That has serious, negative implications for limited. Furthermore, flavorly, there are a limited subset of creature types you can put flying on. Boars and Wurms are never going to have flying, it doesn't make sense to give flying to most Zombies, etc. If your goal is to make a good Zombie/Elf/whatever for constructed and you want to give it evasion, flying won't be what you want in many settings/worlds.
What do you replace intimidate with than still allows you to use evasion mechanics in Jund colors? "Burrowing" that would be the same as "Flying" but with a different name (but then that requires you two have two mechanics with different names at the same time that are actually the same)?
Can't be blocked except by x or more creatures, horsemanship, shadow and cannot be blocked by clauses like daxos/mistmeadow skulk spring to mind
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well Horsemanship is just a nameswap of Flying, and I know they're never going to bring Shadow back because of how non-interactive it is. Can't be blocked except by X or more creatures is a cool idea though.
SigmasonicX
Member
The full set will be spoiled Thursday night / Friday morning.
Anyway, the keyword discussion got me to look through the cards spoiled so far for M15, and I realized that we haven't seen a single card with protection yet. Granted, we could probably see one tonight for all I know.
Would be pretty neat if Khans of Tarkir had a bit of Warhammer 40K sprinkled on them.
that's 2gud4me
divisionbyzorro
Member
So one of my favorite things about Innistrad Garruk was that he had a triggered ability on him. I thought it would be really fun if this Garruk did something like that again. I think it would be sweet if he didn't have a + ability, but instead had a triggered ability to add loyalty whenever a creature died, and then a {0} to put a deathtouch wolf onto the battlefield. Then a couple of - abilities; one small, one large.
divisionbyzorro
Member
If you're going to do it, do it right. I like the idea of "Target player loses the game" as a massively expensive ultimate. Which is really sweet alongside gaining loyalty as things die.
I'm assuming that this Garruk is going to be flavor Garruk, not spike-y tournament staple Garruk. That would be taking the design in an entirely different direction.
I'm assuming that this Garruk is going to be flavor Garruk, not spike-y tournament staple Garruk. That would be taking the design in an entirely different direction.
Weren't they hinting that he'd be quite good?
Also, I liked the converse nature of "lose 100 life" with the Ajani from Journey.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Don't they always?
BG Garruk must have something Pernicious Deed-ish. Maybe a -X Ultimate (Destroy all non-land permanents with CMC X or less). That'd be busted though... maybe if he built up loyalty very slowly or costed like 6 mana but idk.
EDIT: Oooh I know, a -0 Ultimate with "Remove all loyalty from Garruk, destroy all non-land stuff with CMC X or less where X is the number of loyalty removed".
EDIT: Oooh I know, a -0 Ultimate with "Remove all loyalty from Garruk, destroy all non-land stuff with CMC X or less where X is the number of loyalty removed".
Because hosing randomly isn't interesting gameplay. Hosing specifically (via niche cards) is.
blindrocket
Member
+0 make wolf
-0 target wolf gains death touch
-5 destroy all creatures
5 loyalty
Edit: Gimmicky, just for fun
-0 target wolf gains death touch
-5 destroy all creatures
5 loyalty
Edit: Gimmicky, just for fun
Ok I thought of how my BG Garruk would look like.
Evil Garruk 2BG
+1: Destroy up to one target creature that was dealt damage this turn.
0: Sacrifice a creature. If you do, draw cards equal to that creature's Power, then discard three cards.
0: Remove all loyalty counters from Garruk. Destroy all non-land permanents with converted mana cost equal to or less than the number of loyalty counters removed this way.
Starting Loyalty: 3
Evil Garruk 2BG
+1: Destroy up to one target creature that was dealt damage this turn.
0: Sacrifice a creature. If you do, draw cards equal to that creature's Power, then discard three cards.
0: Remove all loyalty counters from Garruk. Destroy all non-land permanents with converted mana cost equal to or less than the number of loyalty counters removed this way.
Starting Loyalty: 3
Horsemanship & Shadow are strictly worse than flying, from the WOTC interactivity perspective, because fewer things can interact with them (horsemanship vs. shadow vs. flying & reach) and it goes on fewer creatures (only soldier and knights on horseback can have horsemanship and shadow creatures are ethereal beings trapped between Planes). Can't be blocked by X creatures also has some flavor restrictions (often associated with creatures with multiple heads or as a response to war cries) and I think it almost exclusively on red cards. Hard to block clauses like Daxos and Skulk don't work because they aren't uniform, they aren't something you can keyword.
All the coresets are light on keywords like protection though. M14 had 1, M13 had 3, M13 had 2, etc. If we get 1 to 0 protection cards in M15 I'm not sure it super indicative of anything.
Er you didn't address like a single point I made. How is Bladetusk Boar "random" but Chorus of Tides not random in terms of how your opponent can interact with the card? What do Jund colors do in limited when looking for evasive keywords? How do you reconcile that the flavor of flying restricts the creature types (which can be SUPER important to the design of a card or relevant to the creative vision of a Plane) it can appear on? You have to overcome ALL those issues before you can just ditch Intimidate. Also I have no idea what you mean by "niche" cards. Sideboard cards? That doesn't seem relevant to limited commons or cards for constructed WOTC is intentionally trying to push. Bladetusk Boar wasn't meant to be a sideboard card, it was meant to be a high pick Red common creature.
Jund colored creatures are most likely to get trample, can't be blocked except by two or more creatures, etc.
keeblerdrow
Member
Garruk the Veiled Cursed 4(G)(B)
+2 Until your next turn, you may redirect the targets of any Planeswalker activated ability.
-3 Destroy target Planeswalker you don't control. Put X 2/2 wolf creature tokens with deathtouch onto the battlefield where X is the number of loyalty counters on the destroyed Planeswalker.
-13 exile all permanents you don't control.
3
I know. I'm wishing. But it seems like it's keeping in with the flavor of the story of him hunting Planeswalkers.
+2 Until your next turn, you may redirect the targets of any Planeswalker activated ability.
-3 Destroy target Planeswalker you don't control. Put X 2/2 wolf creature tokens with deathtouch onto the battlefield where X is the number of loyalty counters on the destroyed Planeswalker.
-13 exile all permanents you don't control.
3
I know. I'm wishing. But it seems like it's keeping in with the flavor of the story of him hunting Planeswalkers.
They want to make sideboarding matter. Bladetusk Boar is "random" because it just says "if youre opponent isn't playing red, I'm probably unblockable. If they are, I'm not." They want cards that more consistently function the same in match to match. And for color-hosers, that means making them sideboard cards you bring in. Cards that turn off or on arbitrarily based on matchups with no intent required don't add skill to the game, they add luck/variance, and they add it in a place you probably don't want it.
Jund has flying in Black, Falter in Red, and Trample in Green, for evasion, btw.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Damn, apparently I only had a bit over 300 posts in OT2. Figured it'd be more over those 18 months.
I like it. More PW's should be at higher cmc's so they explore more interesting options like with this.
Thank god, it's still Rare.
Y'all can stop guessing
I like it. More PW's should be at higher cmc's so they explore more interesting options like with this.
Also this is back per Starcity Games preview:
Thank god, it's still Rare.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
At seven mana I don't see room for him in Constructed (unless Khans is a really slow format) but damn, they certainly made him feel deadly
There's gotta be some ramp going on or something somewhere, right?
SigmasonicX
Member
Yeah, I like how they included Trostani (the current Selesnya guild leader(s)) and don't have a flying bird in green.
Garruk is cool, and obviously won't see Constructed play, but that's fine. Interesting how it gives an opponent an emblem.
Also, article about all the designer cards. It cleared up one of my questions by showing that the decision to make Brad Muir's card Ob Nixilis came from the creative team and he just wanted to make a tutor-hosing demon.
divisionbyzorro
Member
This article about the guest designer cards is a lot of fun to read:
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/working-some-best-minds-gaming-2014-06-30
I actually really like the guest designer cards, and the core set is the perfect place to inject a little bit of outside creative energy into the game.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/working-some-best-minds-gaming-2014-06-30
I actually really like the guest designer cards, and the core set is the perfect place to inject a little bit of outside creative energy into the game.
All those colors already have those tools but they do different things than Intimidate. Bladetusk Boar is a totally different card (worse) with a different role with trample/can't be blocked excpet by two dudes.
If you're opponent isn't playing a certain subset of blue, white or green creatures then fliers are also unblockable. The distribution of fliers and reach creatures isn't equal across the colors so there is already a "color hosing" element. This really feels like trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. In certain matchups your intimidate dudes are near unblockable and in other they aren't. In certain matchups you fliers are unblockable and in other they aren't. I looked through Theros block and there are 67 creatures or cards that make creatures that can block a creature with flying (add 7 more if you include cards that grant flying or kill fliers directly) but there are 77 creatures (4 of them are Gods though) that can block a Bladeusk Boar. What's the big cause for concern?
I'm also aware that Jund colors have other "evasive" mechanics (trample is barely evasion) but they do different things than Intimidate and go on different creatures. "Falter" isn't a creature keyword so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion. Stromblood Berserker is a good man but Viashino Runner is pretty trash as far as limited commons go - it's in the colors advantage to get "Snapping Drake" tier cards for limited.
Black makes great use of intimidate on creatures that for flavor reasons shouldn't have flying and are too small to use trample effectively (or also wouldn't have trample for flavor reasons - trample is rare in black be deafult). For Lifebane Zombie to have flying, it needs to be a Zombie Knight/Siren etc. instead of a Zombie Warrior. But what happens if you want it to be a Warrior or you don't want it to be a bird, siren, etc (WOTC does care about creature types outside of tribal blocks in design)? Intimidate opens you up to creative interpretations that flying does not (and vice versa of course).
Green probably needs intimidate the least but cards like Gastaf Howler aren't cards you can just slap trample on and call it a day.
TLDR: I disagree with the assertion that Intimidate is swingy enough in a way Flying isn't to be worth getting rid of the keyword given the design, development and flavor benefits it has.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Y'all can stop guessing
Flavorful, at least. Does a lot of awesome things, and ramp shells exist. But so does Downfall and Thoughtseize. Somebody good will try to break him open.
6->7 is huge.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked