Sets (LCI & REX) Lost Caverns of Ixalan and Jurassic Park spoilers

[ravnic]

For years I wanted wizards to print a 2/2 that rummages when it attacks. Nothing else. And they finally did.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

And it's a golem artifact creature to boot !

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Splicer Gang Roll Up

 

[Mown]

is there an explanation somewhere for what's a gnome and what's a golem

 

[Rusje]

is there an explanation somewhere for what's a gnome and what's a golem

No. But maybe someone can add a picture of a painting/something else no one can understand.
Maybe I should take a break since the low powered creatures are already high powered for me.
It is sad that an answer to the etb nonsense is an etb creature itself.

 

[Chris Taylor]

No. But maybe someone can add a picture of a painting/something else no one can understand.
Maybe I should take a break since the low powered creatures are already high powered for me.
It is sad that an answer to the etb nonsense is an etb creature itself.

No shade meant by this: What is your platonic ideal of a creature? Like what's a good example of what you want more of
I can see a link to your urza's block cube, but that's never getting new cards. I assume this would be for another project?

 

[Rusje]

No shade meant by this: What is your platonic ideal of a creature? Like what's a good example of what you want more of
I can see a link to your urza's block cube, but that's never getting new cards. I assume this would be for another project?

Yes, it was for a new project. I like many changes that were made since urza block. But the exponential strength of cards cmc wise is something I do not like.

To clarify: yes cards that cost more should be stronger, but if one makes it exponential then low cost cards are not worth it.

Often there are two extreme sides. Mtg went from one to the other, but a better solution would be in between. A lot is lost with the choices made.

 

[Mown]

I'm not really interested in this card, I just want to say that I find shield counters kind of interesting and I wish they put it on cards that I'd like to add to my cube.

 

[Seeker]

So maybe there's about to be some changes when it comes to common cards being spoiled earlier.

the GoodGamery preview of Quag Sickness lives rent free in my head (specifically "Vintage is the one where you can draw on cards to make them other cards, right?"

and I can only hope more common previews are just mercilessly roasting the card

(we never got another preview there after that one. we specifically asked for a common beause hey, competitive players, limited, etc and then this was what WotC woke up to one fine day)

 

[Erik Twice]

Perhaps a golem is big and a gnome is small?

 

[Rusje]

Perhaps a golem is big and a gnome is small?

You call me a gnome? I may look like one...

 

[LadyMapi]

This is a card that I missed when I first saw it... and it piques my interest as a reasonable buildaround that kinda-sorta feels like Amulet of Vigor if you squint a little. It really only costs 2 mana (1 with bouncelands), makes any ramp cards that slap tapped lands onto the battlefield way sweeter, and Root Maze.

 

[Velrun]

Yeah it's pretty low power but if you are low power then it's pretty damn interesting I would say.

It has ETB draw.
It can have ETB gain 4 life.

Your cube would have to run quite a lot of ETB tapped lands in order to feel rewarding though.

 

[Morphling]

I have 5 cards that use -1/-1 counters still, so no real downside to this from a logistics standpoint.

Card seems quite strong! Testing this one for sure.

 

[Nanonox]

I haven't parsed everything from the set yet, but a card I am surprised no one is interested in at lower power is



3 game pieces in a single card all of them are artifacts too. It can self-bin for Goblin Engineer shenanigans and the rate isn't half bad!

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I totes would have snapped it up if it costed .

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

Or maybe if it made flying tokens!

 

[TrainmasterGT]

This is a card that I missed when I first saw it... and it piques my interest as a reasonable buildaround that kinda-sorta feels like Amulet of Vigor if you squint a little. It really only costs 2 mana (1 with bouncelands), makes any ramp cards that slap tapped lands onto the battlefield way sweeter, and Root Maze.

 

[Velrun]

• some counters in the set: bore, chorus, dread, finality, landmark, lore, net, point, stun, and time; one of which is a new deciduous counter.

So finality is the deciduous counter?

 

[Seeker]

I like it. Got a lot of uses that they can fit on cards now that it uses fewer words (since they can omit reminder text on rares, which are more likely to be the source of finality counters)

...but it means they're encouraged to put more words on cards. So double edged sword I guess.

 

[Velrun]

I would like to see a card that puts finality counters on enemy creatures in the future.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Isn't there some alchemy burn spell that basically puts finality counters on your opponents team?

Edit: found it!

BEHOLD! A PAPER CARD! (Yes I know perpetually lasts if it gets bounced/flickered/whatever and finality counters don't, it's fine)

 

[Rusje]

So to summerize: they introduce a shitload of counters to ease memory issues. However, those counters are only used on a handful of cards. Do they ease or add to the burden that paper magic has? (And yes I prefer the paper version to connect to people.)

To be honest: what does it solve? In paper nada. Do you seriously remember all the counters on the card similarly to keyword soup? Online it is not needed since e.g., finality will resolve properly. As hard as it is to resolve "normal" triggers properly in paper, those counters are not gonna help that much. How often people did forget echo in my urza cube (me included) is embarrassing. An echo counter would be slightly better, but only slightly. Online one cannot forget since the computer will ask you what you want to do. Yes, this example is based on echo. But any recurring trigger is hard in paper and a counter will help slightly, but only that. Online it is not necessary, so what is their goal?

Edit : I am out but it would be so much better if they split the game instead of trying to do both online and regular at the same time. It simply does not work that way. Online you can do so many things that are not possible in paper. Doing it half but such that hairs will be pulled is not going to help.

 

[Velrun]

Edit : I am out but it would be so much better if they split the game instead of trying to do both online and regular at the same time. It simply does not work that way. Online you can do so many things that are not possible in paper. Doing it half but such that hairs will be pulled is not going to help.

Not a bad idea.

I believe they were going down this direction when they introduced Alchemy. Perhaps if Alchemy had been a huge succes it could slowly have evolved this way and eventually after 10 years we would have two different games with different ruled, formats and cards.

However Alchemy is not very popular. Maybe popular enough to yield a profit. But not popular enough (yet at least) to result in this 10 year thing.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Imo splitting the game is a really bad idea long term. I’m pretty sure Arena is part of the reason paper Magic is still popular and vice versa, plus there is value in being able to cross-reference data (e.g. deck lists). Neither would be as strong without the other.