Let's for a moment analyze what a Wall is, does, what its purpose and nature are.
What can we say about Walls, and how can we translate the results into Magic?
- Walls are built to stop attacks. What things are used to stop attacks in Magic? Creatures.
- Walls can be destroyed when they are damaged, both in combat and outside of it (through siege equipment). What things can be destroyed by damage, both inside and out of combat, in Magic? Creatures.
Sure, you could argue that Walls aren't technically alive (and you might be right in most cases), but the same goes for artifact creatures and the undead, and I don't see, and can't imagine, anyone calling them koo-koo, right?
(On a tangent, to see you ridicule being able to use Terror on a Wall in the same post as praising Equipment - well, let's not go there, the joke's too easy ;))
My conclusion? If you want to represent the idea of a wall in Magic, there's just no better way than making it a creature. But that's assuming you'd want to. Personally, I like the flavor of siege warfare to spice up combat, which is why I am in favor of Walls.
Not that it matters, though. Wizards has and is still printing Walls and cards that interact with them (as is clear from Coldsnap's Wall and the Evil Eye reprint), and will continue to do so in the future, despite, and maybe even because of, the introduction of Defender (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0406 , April 10). Sure, not everything with Defender needs to be a Wall, which is part of the reason why it's keyworded, but that doesn't mean we can just throw away the type. It's not like most Walls have an alternative type that fits...
Unfortunatly walls and fortifications have rairly been shown properly in the game,
Agreed. But some concepts are harder than others to translate to the game, and I'd rather have half-baked Walls than no Walls at all.
at the very least a "wall" wall should have the ability to block any number of creaturs.
Might cause a bit of a game inbalance, but flavorwise that's sound.
Thou shalt not have others of the same Legendary before me Thou shalt not frame images with the modern card face Thou shalt not change rules in vain Remember the Reserved List to keep it holy Honor thy Slivers and the symmetry of their abilities Thou shalt not kill mana burn Thou shalt not sacrifice depth for accessibility Thou shalt not steal combat damage from the stack Thou shalt tell a story through thy cards All must be one
Great post, as usual. Everyone should read your post, charlequin, if they're going to take this discussion any further. They should click all your examples and really think about what you said, because I believe you're right, and you put a lot of thought into making your post relevant.
The problem is that auras suck and no amount of patchy attempts to fix them have resulted in them not sucking.
I don't believe this part, completely. Auras only suck because they let them suck. Yeah, they've got "issues", and they're risky, but I believe that anything in Magic can be done, if costed and balanced properly. They just never made enough effort to do it right. Little slip-ups like Rancor ended up being quite playable, but even Maro said himself, if he were to go back in time, he would have made it uncommon and cost at least or :symg:. Guess what? Then it would have sucked like 98% of the rest of auras. Their "mistake" with Rancor (and a few other auras that are playable) actually wasn't a mistake - those are the ones they got right. The 4cc auras that barely do anything... those are the mistakes. Auras have flavour. They're magical spells enchanting a location, person, creature, or item. They have no physical substance, but they can affect the real world. And they're hard to remove without a good source of the right kind of Magic. By no means do I think auras should be taken out of the game, reduced, phased out, etc. They should just be done right. Kinda like Martyr of Sands. They finally realized (after 13 years) that lifegain is inherantly worse than direct damage 99% of the time in both limited and constructed. Finally, lifegain is adjusted to make sense. Now people actually consider it an option instead of "omg... another cycle where the white card is useless and irrelevant". I think equipment has a place in the game, I'm just saying auras don't need to be seen as a failed part of Magic. They didn't do them properly.
As a side note, I still hate what they did to auras recently by making them subtypes of enchantments and then adding "enchant creature" in the text box. So messy, so ugly, so unecessary. Big screw up.
As for this thread, I'm surprised how dead it got. From 500 posts a day to an entire 24-hour period without ANY posts, the day after the scans were posted. Kind of odd.
As for this thread, I'm surprised how dead it got. From 500 posts a day to an entire 24-hour period without ANY posts, the day after the scans were posted. Kind of odd.
with no more conspiracy theories to say the cards are fake a lot of people slipped away. Also any word on green cards in this set. I know auctioneer had some, but we've haven't seen them yet.
Also any word on green cards in this set. I know auctioneer had some, but we've haven't seen them yet.
I emailed the seller after he stopped sending pictures, thanking him and asking him to send some more scans if he had the time. No response since then.
I guess as a last last last final final nail in the coffin as to whether these are fake or not, this was in one of the feature articles on Wednesday:
It's our buddy Firemaw Kavu from the auction.
It's obvious that the auction guy hacked the WotC image server after getting a few real TS cards from someone, so that he could fake a new card and have it be real, then made fake fake cards. He THEN got into cartoon networks' commercial holding computer and pulled images of cards that would be shown in adult swim bumps, and used THOSE to create fake fake old cards as well as um... fake real old cards... wait, what??
As a side note, I still hate what they did to auras recently by making them subtypes of enchantments and then adding "enchant creature" in the text box. So messy, so ugly, so unecessary. Big screw up.
Bane's Reading Suggestions David Eddings: The Belgariad, Mallorean, Elenium and Tamuli Series. The Redemption of Althalus Jim Butcher: The Codex Alera Series
- Walls are built to stop attacks. What things are used to stop attacks in Magic? Creatures.
- Walls can be destroyed when they are damaged, both in combat and outside of it (through siege equipment). What things can be destroyed by damage, both inside and out of combat, in Magic? Creatures.
Sure, you could argue that Walls aren't technically alive (and you might be right in most cases), but the same goes for artifact creatures and the undead..
I agree. Walls are a great creature type IMO. But I think more walls should have been artifacts. Like this.
Sure, walls can be living, but they need to make sense. Wall of Stone, red? Why? Because rocks can be reddish-coloured? Because red's a defensive colour, with 0/8 creatures? Because red doesn't want to attack? This was in the wrong colour. Wall of Ice was wrong, too. Ice isn't alive, but it's also not an artifact (machine/structure/item). How about this?
Ice Wall -
Instant (C)
Target creature gets -6/-0 until end of turn.
"Our advance was suddenly halted by an unscalable frozen block extending two hours travel in either direction." - Disa the Restless, journal entry
As for "walls" that are truly alive... they're getting them right, finally. They're not walls, they're creatures that can't attack (for one reason or another, as charlequin listed).
Sure, walls can be living, but they need to make sense. Wall of Stone, red? Why? Because rocks can be reddish-coloured? Because red's a defensive colour, with 0/8 creatures? Because red doesn't want to attack? This was in the wrong colour. Wall of Ice was wrong, too. Ice isn't alive, but it's also not an artifact (machine/structure/item). How about this?
When did non-living things automatically become known as Artifacts? When I think of artifacts, I think of things that have been dug up from ancient civilizations and whatnot. If there's a 'red clan', and they have a castle, and surrounding that castle is a large wall, why wouldn't their large wall be on a red magic card? But on a serious note, yeah, when you have one wall that's a big pile of lava, and you have one wall that's a pile of neatly stacked, non-harmful looking stones, which is going to end up an obvious red card and which is a bit more ambiguous in color?
When did non-living things automatically become known as Artifacts? When I think of artifacts, I think of things that have been dug up from ancient civilizations and whatnot. If there's a 'red clan', and they have a castle, and surrounding that castle is a large wall, why wouldn't their large wall be on a red magic card? But on a serious note, yeah, when you have one wall that's a big pile of lava, and you have one wall that's a pile of neatly stacked, non-harmful looking stones, which is going to end up an obvious red card and which is a bit more ambiguous in color?
Souls of the Faultless was alive once and can move. A wall of rock never was and can't. I think thats the big difference.
Edit: And the one that requires an energy source, ie heat, to maintains stasis, it obviously red.
Edit Edit: Yeah, your questions were probably rhetorical in retrospect.
Bane's Reading Suggestions David Eddings: The Belgariad, Mallorean, Elenium and Tamuli Series. The Redemption of Althalus Jim Butcher: The Codex Alera Series
I don't believe this part, completely. Auras only suck because they let them suck. Yeah, they've got "issues", and they're risky, but I believe that anything in Magic can be done, if costed and balanced properly.
For the most part I agree. I think the concern is that what would be a "fair" benefit for the cost of a typical aura would be too "swingy." Right now, auras tend to be costed almost as if they were creatures, which makes them inefficient and bad. They should be more along the lines of C - +2/+2, CC - +3/+3 -- effects that are worth the risk of losing the card. However, this could lead to a situation where auras that can't be answered are just too dominating because of how efficient they are for damage/protecting your guys/whatever. I bet there's a better solution than what R&D use now, but I'm not sure we'll ever see it happen.
Ice Wall -
Instant (C)
Target creature gets -6/-0 until end of turn.
"Our advance was suddenly halted by an unscalable frozen block extending two hours travel in either direction." - Disa the Restless, journal entry
--
I think that a 'better' example of a viable wall card would be like...
Wall of Wind 1WU
Instant
Tap all attacking creatures, they get -4/-0 until end of turn and do not untap during their opponents next untap step.
Actually functioning as a 'wall' or barrier between you and your opponent's creatures. I never understood the functionality of having walls that could not block an army, the great wall of china, only able to stop a single creature from getting into the country? Don't think so.
Also don't really understand the philosophy of walls being combatants as opposed to simply being deterrants to combat. Like to me a wall is closer to castle than wall of swords
You could also have moats or parapets or other fortifications, as artifacts. -3/-0 to all attacking creatures, for example. For or so.
I think things like moats and other terrain-like fortifications or obstacles would work best as lands.
Thick Woods
Land - Terrain
If you control a forest: Creatures that attack you get -1/-0.
If you control 4 forests: Creatures that attack you lose Fear and Trample.
1, T: Add G to your mana pool.
When did non-living things automatically become known as Artifacts? When I think of artifacts, I think of things that have been dug up from ancient civilizations and whatnot. If there's a 'red clan', and they have a castle, and surrounding that castle is a large wall, why wouldn't their large wall be on a red magic card?
If i'm not mistaken, aren't both Shinka, the Bloodsoaked Keep and Hall of the Bandit Lord both castles that red legends live in? They're not walls, but I think the castles are more interesting with those abilities.
In the same vein, how cool would it be if they made lands into the new walls.
Castle Drawbridge
Land - wall
: add
: this becomes a 0/4 creature with defender until EOT. Still a land.
i like it.
peace
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If your liver winds up in a dish with a little ruler next to it, there's something wrong with your liver." -Dr. Mahl, GI specialist, UB Med
For the most part I agree. I think the concern is that what would be a "fair" benefit for the cost of a typical aura would be too "swingy." Right now, auras tend to be costed almost as if they were creatures, which makes them inefficient and bad. They should be more along the lines of C - +2/+2, CC - +3/+3 -- effects that are worth the risk of losing the card. However, this could lead to a situation where auras that can't be answered are just too dominating because of how efficient they are for damage/protecting your guys/whatever. I bet there's a better solution than what R&D use now, but I'm not sure we'll ever see it happen.
There are good auras around. They are the same as the good creatures.
If i'm not mistaken, aren't both Shinka, the Bloodsoaked Keep and Hall of the Bandit Lord both castles that red legends live in? They're not walls, but I think the castles are more interesting with those abilities.
In the same vein, how cool would it be if they made lands into the new walls.
Castle Drawbridge
Land - wall
: add
: this becomes a 0/4 creature with defender until EOT. Still a land.
i like it.
peace
but it cant block if its tapped already
edut: didnt mean to double post, i didnt check to see if someone had posted after me, also ive been skimming through, and i cant figure out why walls is such a hot topic, can someone tell me, its bothersome, seems like an odd topic
I only skimmed half of this forum so I might be repeating something here, but I feel inclined to point out that no foil card scans were provided (unless I missed them?),
And that fact alone goes far in supporting those who are still arguing that the cards are fakes; it would be very hard to make a fake foil, and it looks like these cards were popped from boosters, and with that many cards it is almost garunteed there will be at least one foil. Assuming the cards are fakes, we of course would see no foil cards. So I find that odd, don't you?
Now they look *very* believeable, but then again we haven't had any really great fake attempts for a while from misetings or whoever goes out of their way to trick us, so the time is indeed "ripe"...
i am more and more inclined to believe the set is foiless, this makes sence for there to be a forth rarety, since the game already has a forth rarety (foil) so if you cut that out, you have plenty of room to replace it with another rarety (purple)
back to the auction yopic has anyone gotten the guy to give up more info?
We are going to have to assume at this point that since he pulled the auction that WoTC got to him and told him to not give out scans or what-have-you.
I think we got all we are going to get.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I beg to differ.
Let's for a moment analyze what a Wall is, does, what its purpose and nature are.
What can we say about Walls, and how can we translate the results into Magic?
- Walls are built to stop attacks. What things are used to stop attacks in Magic? Creatures.
- Walls can be destroyed when they are damaged, both in combat and outside of it (through siege equipment). What things can be destroyed by damage, both inside and out of combat, in Magic? Creatures.
Sure, you could argue that Walls aren't technically alive (and you might be right in most cases), but the same goes for artifact creatures and the undead, and I don't see, and can't imagine, anyone calling them koo-koo, right?
(On a tangent, to see you ridicule being able to use Terror on a Wall in the same post as praising Equipment - well, let's not go there, the joke's too easy ;))
My conclusion? If you want to represent the idea of a wall in Magic, there's just no better way than making it a creature. But that's assuming you'd want to. Personally, I like the flavor of siege warfare to spice up combat, which is why I am in favor of Walls.
Not that it matters, though. Wizards has and is still printing Walls and cards that interact with them (as is clear from Coldsnap's Wall and the Evil Eye reprint), and will continue to do so in the future, despite, and maybe even because of, the introduction of Defender (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0406 , April 10). Sure, not everything with Defender needs to be a Wall, which is part of the reason why it's keyworded, but that doesn't mean we can just throw away the type. It's not like most Walls have an alternative type that fits...
Agreed. But some concepts are harder than others to translate to the game, and I'd rather have half-baked Walls than no Walls at all.
Might cause a bit of a game inbalance, but flavorwise that's sound.
Thou shalt not frame images with the modern card face
Thou shalt not change rules in vain
Remember the Reserved List to keep it holy
Honor thy Slivers and the symmetry of their abilities
Thou shalt not kill mana burn
Thou shalt not sacrifice depth for accessibility
Thou shalt not steal combat damage from the stack
Thou shalt tell a story through thy cards
All must be one
I don't believe this part, completely. Auras only suck because they let them suck. Yeah, they've got "issues", and they're risky, but I believe that anything in Magic can be done, if costed and balanced properly. They just never made enough effort to do it right. Little slip-ups like Rancor ended up being quite playable, but even Maro said himself, if he were to go back in time, he would have made it uncommon and cost at least or :symg:. Guess what? Then it would have sucked like 98% of the rest of auras. Their "mistake" with Rancor (and a few other auras that are playable) actually wasn't a mistake - those are the ones they got right. The 4cc auras that barely do anything... those are the mistakes. Auras have flavour. They're magical spells enchanting a location, person, creature, or item. They have no physical substance, but they can affect the real world. And they're hard to remove without a good source of the right kind of Magic. By no means do I think auras should be taken out of the game, reduced, phased out, etc. They should just be done right. Kinda like Martyr of Sands. They finally realized (after 13 years) that lifegain is inherantly worse than direct damage 99% of the time in both limited and constructed. Finally, lifegain is adjusted to make sense. Now people actually consider it an option instead of "omg... another cycle where the white card is useless and irrelevant". I think equipment has a place in the game, I'm just saying auras don't need to be seen as a failed part of Magic. They didn't do them properly.
As a side note, I still hate what they did to auras recently by making them subtypes of enchantments and then adding "enchant creature" in the text box. So messy, so ugly, so unecessary. Big screw up.
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature has..
As for this thread, I'm surprised how dead it got. From 500 posts a day to an entire 24-hour period without ANY posts, the day after the scans were posted. Kind of odd.
.
It's our buddy Firemaw Kavu from the auction.
with no more conspiracy theories to say the cards are fake a lot of people slipped away. Also any word on green cards in this set. I know auctioneer had some, but we've haven't seen them yet.
I emailed the seller after he stopped sending pictures, thanking him and asking him to send some more scans if he had the time. No response since then.
It's obvious that the auction guy hacked the WotC image server after getting a few real TS cards from someone, so that he could fake a new card and have it be real, then made fake fake cards. He THEN got into cartoon networks' commercial holding computer and pulled images of cards that would be shown in adult swim bumps, and used THOSE to create fake fake old cards as well as um... fake real old cards... wait, what??
I have to disagree on that, for two reasons.
1. Further seperates them flavor wise from equipment. Slagwurm Armor is actual forged armor, Blanchwood Armor is just an armoring aura.
2. I think "Search your library for three auras" sounds alot better than "search your library for three local enchantments"
Under Original Management!
Bane's Reading Suggestions
David Eddings: The Belgariad, Mallorean, Elenium and Tamuli Series. The Redemption of Althalus
Jim Butcher: The Codex Alera Series
Point 2 makes sense to me, Bane. I don't mind "aura", I just wish they didn't have to add what it enchants into the text box.
I agree. Walls are a great creature type IMO. But I think more walls should have been artifacts. Like this.
Wall of Stones -
Artifact Creature - Wall (U)
Defender
0/8
Sure, walls can be living, but they need to make sense. Wall of Stone, red? Why? Because rocks can be reddish-coloured? Because red's a defensive colour, with 0/8 creatures? Because red doesn't want to attack? This was in the wrong colour. Wall of Ice was wrong, too. Ice isn't alive, but it's also not an artifact (machine/structure/item). How about this?
Ice Wall -
Instant (C)
Target creature gets -6/-0 until end of turn.
"Our advance was suddenly halted by an unscalable frozen block extending two hours travel in either direction." - Disa the Restless, journal entry
As for "walls" that are truly alive... they're getting them right, finally. They're not walls, they're creatures that can't attack (for one reason or another, as charlequin listed).
Carnivorous Venus -
Creature - Plant (C)
Defender
4/5
.
Souls of the Faultless is a prime example of a non-living "wall."
When did non-living things automatically become known as Artifacts? When I think of artifacts, I think of things that have been dug up from ancient civilizations and whatnot. If there's a 'red clan', and they have a castle, and surrounding that castle is a large wall, why wouldn't their large wall be on a red magic card? But on a serious note, yeah, when you have one wall that's a big pile of lava, and you have one wall that's a pile of neatly stacked, non-harmful looking stones, which is going to end up an obvious red card and which is a bit more ambiguous in color?
Souls of the Faultless was alive once and can move. A wall of rock never was and can't. I think thats the big difference.
Edit: And the one that requires an energy source, ie heat, to maintains stasis, it obviously red.
Edit Edit: Yeah, your questions were probably rhetorical in retrospect.
Under Original Management!
Bane's Reading Suggestions
David Eddings: The Belgariad, Mallorean, Elenium and Tamuli Series. The Redemption of Althalus
Jim Butcher: The Codex Alera Series
For the most part I agree. I think the concern is that what would be a "fair" benefit for the cost of a typical aura would be too "swingy." Right now, auras tend to be costed almost as if they were creatures, which makes them inefficient and bad. They should be more along the lines of C - +2/+2, CC - +3/+3 -- effects that are worth the risk of losing the card. However, this could lead to a situation where auras that can't be answered are just too dominating because of how efficient they are for damage/protecting your guys/whatever. I bet there's a better solution than what R&D use now, but I'm not sure we'll ever see it happen.
Instant (C)
Target creature gets -6/-0 until end of turn.
"Our advance was suddenly halted by an unscalable frozen block extending two hours travel in either direction." - Disa the Restless, journal entry
--
I think that a 'better' example of a viable wall card would be like...
Wall of Wind 1WU
Instant
Tap all attacking creatures, they get -4/-0 until end of turn and do not untap during their opponents next untap step.
Actually functioning as a 'wall' or barrier between you and your opponent's creatures. I never understood the functionality of having walls that could not block an army, the great wall of china, only able to stop a single creature from getting into the country? Don't think so.
Also don't really understand the philosophy of walls being combatants as opposed to simply being deterrants to combat. Like to me a wall is closer to castle than wall of swords
Just my opinion.
I like it.. gives the distinct visual of creatures running up to the player and being knocked back on their asses suddenly.
Abatis -
Artifact (U)
Whenever a creature attacks you, it gets -1/-1 until end of turn.
Kinda like Caltrops, in fact. I think that was well designed.
You could also have moats or parapets or other fortifications, as artifacts. -3/-0 to all attacking creatures, for example. For or so.
.
I think things like moats and other terrain-like fortifications or obstacles would work best as lands.
Thick Woods
Land - Terrain
If you control a forest: Creatures that attack you get -1/-0.
If you control 4 forests: Creatures that attack you lose Fear and Trample.
1, T: Add G to your mana pool.
Something along those lines...
If i'm not mistaken, aren't both Shinka, the Bloodsoaked Keep and Hall of the Bandit Lord both castles that red legends live in? They're not walls, but I think the castles are more interesting with those abilities.
In the same vein, how cool would it be if they made lands into the new walls.
Castle Drawbridge
Land - wall
: add
: this becomes a 0/4 creature with defender until EOT. Still a land.
i like it.
peace
There are good auras around. They are the same as the good creatures.
They either grant you an additional effect upfront like Faith's Fetters (as would a creature like Flametongue Kavu); they give you a nice reward when they die, like Elephant Guide (as would a creature like Kokusho, the Evening Star); they are reusable like Moldervine Cloak or Rancor (or his dredge fella, Grave-Shell Scarab) or are just too swingy, like Armadillo Cloak (or a creature like Watchwolf).
All of these cards are usable in constructed formats, each of them sharing the characteristics that renders a card good in a format.
but it cant block if its tapped already
edut: didnt mean to double post, i didnt check to see if someone had posted after me, also ive been skimming through, and i cant figure out why walls is such a hot topic, can someone tell me, its bothersome, seems like an odd topic
i am more and more inclined to believe the set is foiless, this makes sence for there to be a forth rarety, since the game already has a forth rarety (foil) so if you cut that out, you have plenty of room to replace it with another rarety (purple)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpgjnU7C3Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7kkZixasc
We are going to have to assume at this point that since he pulled the auction that WoTC got to him and told him to not give out scans or what-have-you.
I think we got all we are going to get.
Twitter