General Fight Club

[Velrun]

This might be a subjective opinion thing. I personally have a very generous and light approach towards Wizards. If they do something that kind of makes sense, then fine. I can always give them the benefit of the doubt. But I also can't stand it when they go straight against logic like with The World Tree.

So to me (and this is just me, I know this) I accept an enchantment creature if it can be explained lore-wise, if it makes a bit sense in the art and if the card text is acceptable as an enchantment. This means it doesn't have to be the best design ever. But a Eidolon of Philosophy is certainly something that could be an enchantment and could be a creature so it's fair as an enchantment creature. Nyxborn Brute not so much. It's not an enchantment by anything except the rules.

 

[ravnic]

I still don't understand why you are so hesitant to let that topic go. There are hundreds of artifact creatures having non-artifact abilities since forever.



They've been doing this since alpha, and none of these could work as a noncreature artifact.

 

[Velrun]

For me artifacts and enchantments are not synonyms.

 

[LadyMapi]

I'm just going to chalk my bafflement down as "my brain doesn't process stuff properly", because apparently the fact that my brain processes cards in this rough order (with stuff in brackets happening roughly simultaneously)...

frame → (typeline → the fact that it has art, I guess → name) → textbox→ (mana cost → P/T → art).

is really weird.

Yes, before you ask... alternate frame treatments do, in fact, fuck up my ability to identify a card at a glance.

 

[Rusje]

I still don't understand why you are so hesitant to let that topic go. There are hundreds of artifact creatures having non-artifact abilities since forever.



They've been doing this since alpha, and none of these could work as a noncreature artifact.

Because the flavour was that enchantments changed permanents in play/ the rules of the game. It is hard to hit someone with an illusion(or how should I name it?)/buff or something like that but you can make the illusion such that you hit yourself.
Artifacts on the other hand are perfectly capable of hitting someone. Either a creature adjusted/compleated or fully automatic.
This flavour is more complicated because artifacts and enchantments occupy the same design space


Ergo, enchantment creatures seem to be a flavour fail which was mitigated by being a mix between a creature and an enchantment. Too be honest, they did this before and without making the creature an enchantment.

I still have to wrap my head around the sleeper enchantments of urza block, which was 15 years ago.
However, if you think deeper and allow that enchantments change the rules of the game, why should they not be able to be a creature as well?

My feeling when I read between the lines of some comments is that adding something (artifacts/enchantment) should be visible, flavourful and necessary. Just adding it to creatures to solve a problem is not a great way to solve the problem.

 

[Sheltem]

I still have to wrap my head around the sleeper enchantments of urza block, which was 15 years ago.

Urza block actually has been 24 years ago. And these sleeper enchantments didn't make much sense then. They even printed something similar not too long ago.
daxos's torment
One even can argue that curse of leeches is another sleeper enchantment.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I never had too much trouble with wrapping my head around the concept of sleeper enchantments. It's funny how our reception of these concepts differ so much between persons. I always interpreted the enchantments as being the "presence of danger", but the monster needs a trigger to get lured out of hiding.

 

[Rusje]

I never had too much trouble with wrapping my head around the concept of sleeper enchantments. It's funny how our reception of these concepts differ so much between persons. I always interpreted the enchantments as being the "presence of danger", but the monster needs a trigger to get lured out of hiding.

I meant why they should be enchantments, that part seems a tad weird (given the old flavour of enchantments). My point of the post was that there have been exceptions to the old flavour of enchantments since a long time. The problem with (flavour) restrictions is that they restrict what cards your make, e.g, artifacts should not require coloured mana according to the rules before they were changed.

It is just inelegant to add a creature/permanent type to something without making the type either do something additional or make it a special race (or from another sphere) with according art style.

The presence of danger/trap cards is perfectly clear and quite fun. They can be quite strong (in those days) and do not present a clock but real danger.

@Sheltem thanks, my counting skills could use a brush up (or a good night of sleep).

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I meant why they should be enchantments, that part seems a tad weird (given the old flavour of enchantments).

What else should they be? Even in modern times, the Theros gods with their "I'm not a creature unless X" templating only work because they have two card types, enchantment and creature. The lurker creatures certainly aren't artifacts, and they aren't creatures unless some specific event happens. The only permanent type left is enchantment, and so they made them enchantments.

 

[Rusje]

What else should they be? Even in modern times, the Theros gods with their "I'm not a creature unless X" templating only work because they have two card types, enchantment and creature. The lurker creatures certainly aren't artifacts, and they aren't creatures unless some specific event happens. The only permanent type left is enchantment, and so they made them enchantments.

It could also be a land as permanent without a mana ability. Or a new permanent type, or allow a permanent without a type. What is wrong with a typeless permanent? Simply tacking on an enchantment seems tacky.
For the gods I get it, they were from another plane. The sleepers not so much.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

It could also be a land as permanent without a mana ability. Or a new permanent type, or allow a permanent without a type. What is wrong with a typeless permanent? Simply tacking on an enchantment seems tacky.
For the gods I get it, they were from another plane. The sleepers not so much.

You can only play one land per turn, and lands by definition don't have a casting cost. Though I agree it's a more flavorful solution, it plays much worse and is much harder to design for.
A new permanent type requires a bunch of additional rules, so it better be worth it when you introduce a new type. Since the lurker cards work perfectly fine as enchantments, and there isn't a reason to print one every set, I don't think it's worth the trouble.
No permanent type works, I guess. It feels weird to me, but that's personal opinion. A design like that would play differently, by the way. For example, you can use Remove Soul to counter a sleeper creature, but not a sleeper enchantment, and while in play but inactive, they can only be removed by spells that specifically target permanents (rather than enchantment removal as well), making them subject to a much smaller subset of removal options. It's not necessarily a bad solution though.

Note also that they didn't tack on the enchantment type, the sleeper enchantments are no longer enchantments when they turn into a creature. It's a temporary state representing the possibility of a creature appearing, a presence or aura of danger, if you will. Anyway, in the end it's just a matter of opinion, and we clearly feel differently about these

 

[Velrun]

What else should they be? Even in modern times, the Theros gods with their "I'm not a creature unless X" templating only work because they have two card types, enchantment and creature. The lurker creatures certainly aren't artifacts, and they aren't creatures unless some specific event happens. The only permanent type left is enchantment, and so they made them enchantments.

The original Theros enchantment Gods were such good design!

They felt special. They even made all the other enchantment creatures feel speudo special because the small ones were enchantment creatures BECAUSE the gods also were. The gods affected the plane in an enchantmenty way. (I'm butchering the language, I know) They were not creatures all the time. They were the center of the storyline. Their artwork were drastically different from all other cards. Everything about them felt special. And they were doing competitive stuff in Standard tournament play as well.

I see nothing of that in NEO.

 

[kryss]

I thought recently of including Munitions for having more synergies but I've found that even cubes that support artifact sacrifice prefer the Bombardment, does the extra cost make it really that less desirable as a card?

 

[safra]

I thought recently of including Munitions for having more synergies but I've found that even cubes that support artifact sacrifice prefer the Bombardment, does the extra cost make it really that less desirable as a card?

Yup. asked and answered

 

[Chris Taylor]

I thought recently of including Munitions for having more synergies but I've found that even cubes that support artifact sacrifice prefer the Bombardment, does the extra cost make it really that less desirable as a card?

I have before added both of these as a compromise between adding two copies of goblin bombardment

Goblin bombardment is really the best sac outlet for aristocrats, bar none, so you can get away with "We've got goblin bombardment at home"

It is worse though

 

[Modin]

One argument against Bombardment would be its powerlevel. My drafters have complained about that quite a bit. Bombardment + a Blood Artist effect just kills people really fast.
That being said, my drafters also complained about Munitions after a while

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Yeah, I cut Goblin Bombardment for Makeshift Munitions for the exact reason Modin mentioned. Bombardment is by far the superior card, but it can be punishingly good because it requires no activation cost (other than the sacrifice obv.). It just ended games too reliably for my taste. The Munitions is both a more reasonable card, and one that signals a bit of artifact synergy, I like it.

I actually run another similar enchantment, because I did want my drafters to have access to two of these effects. Have you considered...



It's been really solid for me. Turning every monster into a Shock for is pretty sweet

 

[Zoss]

Most of the time, Bombardment reads ": win the game when your opponent has fewer life than you do creatures," and that's just not fun for me. At least with the others you either are gated on mana or have to figure out which creatures to sac first, which is far more interesting IMHO as it tends to bias players towards accruing value rather than ending the game on the spot.

In other words, are you looking for a combo finisher or a value engine? The cards look similar but do not play out in similar ways.

 

[Velrun]

This is my favorite. A lot more value for a lot slower ability.

 

[Erik Twice]

Tthe reduced U cost and broader range of targets is more than enough for Aether Channeler to replace Barrin, right?

 

[Rusje]

Tthe reduced U cost and broader range of targets is more than enough for Aether Channeler to replace Barrin, right?

Nope, channeler replaces man o war. But Barrin is different it could be an engine. Eg.

apples and pears and so on

 

[shamizy]

I dropped Barrin a while back; it always read better and the idea of it was cooler than the actual gameplay. If I could Flash in to save a guy and the trigger was at next end step rather than just mine, then it would be pretty sweet. I've got Emry, Lurker of the Loch in that 3 drop slot for now but I'll likely swap her out for this new guy.

Aether Channeler has way too much going on for it to not include. Nice value creature that can provide a lot of glue for the dedicated UW Blink deck with some card advantage, ability to bounce more problem permanents, and can also build up a small evasive army with enough blinks. I really like the compact design, my first snap include from this set.

Also, you'll have to crawl over my dead body before replacing the Arena promo Man-O'-War in my cube.

 

[inscho]

I dropped Barrin a while back; it always read better and the idea of it was cooler than the actual gameplay.

100% my experience as well. I think it's more at home in slower environments with more hand flicker effects and bouncelands.

 

[Zoss]

Barrin has always felt gross to me. Frankly, the whole "do a thing, draw a card" paradigm of engine-building feels incredibly uninspired and on-rails. It's probably just a me thing, though.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I like Barrin because ninjutsu