Also, apaprently they WEREN'T suppsoed to be slivers. They WERE suppsoed to be a new creature type, but everyone that playtested it (So they say) were like "they play like slivers, why not just call them Slivers?"
That might explain the art.
Source?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
btw: with mutavault and this new door spoiled slivers really might be a thing for standard.
im not 100% sure if it can work out, especialy vs control but it might do.
...the Daily MTG article that introduced Slivers -->
While we knew we were bringing "Slivers" back in Magic 2014, we did not know whether or not they were going to be called Slivers. In fact, in the design file they weren't even called Slivers. Originally they were called "Heroes." Development then changed them to "Sleens" to make people understand they were a new creature type that was foreign and not Human ("Hero" implied "Human" to most playtesters).
Why did we eventually change them to Slivers? Because we kept having playtests where people would play them and then inform either Mark Globus or Dave Guskin, the lead developer of Magic 2014, that the mechanic felt too much like Slivers. When Dave informed them that they were the Sliver mechanic, they always asked, "Why don't you just call them Slivers, then?" We talked a lot about it and finally decided that we had created equity in the name and that it made sense to maintain the name.
It's an instant speed 5/5 trampler for 4. Wtf do you people want seriously? It has applications in populate/ above the curve beats decks, or in Bant control/ flash. I seriously think anyone mad at this card for any reason other than losing an attacker to instant speed wurm, should go home and make their own awesome card game and leave the rest of us alone.
btw: with mutavault and this new door spoiled slivers really might be a thing for standard.
im not 100% sure if it can work out, especialy vs control but it might do.
Needs a protection sliver of some type at 2CC to be playable. Maybe not straight up hexproof, but counter a spell that targets a sliver unless its caster pays 1. Boros charm can protect against board wipes.
I can understand where you are coming from on the standpoint of "Slivers should be evenly represented in all 5 colors," but that doesn't mean they have to be. I personally never understood why they had an even distribution in the first place other than "because that's what slivers do..." people said.
I am not saying that they "have to" make the five colors even in numbers of these new Slivers.
oh my god...o
"you know what? this cephalids... are just a blue humanoid tribe like the merfolk... why not just call them merfolk?"
apparently the guys who playtested the new "sliver" were blind.
Those two are nothing alike Structurally or Mechanically At least when they were called Sleens their mechanic work almost the same as slivers Your argument is invalid
...the Daily MTG article that introduced Slivers -->
Ahh. You mean this. Of course. My err. Sorry and thanks.
Quote from Mark Rosewater »
While we knew we were bringing "Slivers" back in Magic 2014, we did not know whether or not they were going to be called Slivers. In fact, in the design file they weren't even called Slivers. Originally they were called "Heroes." Development then changed them to "Sleens" to make people understand they were a new creature type that was foreign and not Human ("Hero" implied "Human" to most playtesters).
Why did we eventually change them to Slivers? Because we kept having playtests where people would play them and then inform either Mark Globus or Dave Guskin, the lead developer of Magic 2014, that the mechanic felt too much like Slivers. When Dave informed them that they were the Sliver mechanic, they always asked, "Why don't you just call them Slivers, then?" We talked a lot about it and finally decided that we had created equity in the name and that it made sense to maintain the name.
Two things:
First, "Heroes" as a creature type is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, especially given what this tribe is about.
Second, "Sleens" would actually make a lot of sense, especially if they were described in-story as an offshoot of the Sliver race. Ultimately, I can understand them caving to the pressure to make them Slivers, though. It's arguably a Brand decision at that point.
And if they didn't make them slivers people would go crazy because of having a new tribe which plays exactly like slivers but has a different type...
Not "exactly". That's one of the reasons people are debating the need to call them Slivers. The lack of interaction is a huge change. Plus, they look decidedly unlike the control art for Slivers.
oh my god...
"you know what? this cephalids... are just a blue humanoid tribe like the merfolk... why not just call them merfolk?"
Ironically, R&D historically has been inclined to flood the game/multiverse with suspiciously similar creature types. Moonfolk, Merfolk, Vedalken, etc.
Having so many different creature types that occupy the same of similar roles isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if you want to emphasize Branding and stylistic consistency/continuity from block to block.
Also, Slivers are essentially a niche type. They do something no other creature type does, and they do it very well. The idea of having a new, strictly better equivalent (Sleens) would probably hurt the existing one (Slivers). By making Sleens literally Slivers, WotC enhances the existing brand and makes keeps it relevant. (That's the argument, anyway.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
You mean the one change they've mentioned several times was making Slivers work like current Magic are supposed to work? It's like arguing that either Lord of the Pearl Trident or Lord of Atlantis isn't a lord...
I'm not complaining. I'm merely noting the difference.
Also, art has nothing to do with how cards play.
Did I say otherwise?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
It's an instant speed 5/5 trampler for 4. Wtf do you people want seriously? It has applications in populate/ above the curve beats decks, or in Bant control/ flash. I seriously think anyone mad at this card for any reason other than losing an attacker to instant speed wurm, should go home and make their own awesome card game and leave the rest of us alone.
Okay, I mostly withheld judgement and gave Slivers the benefit of the doubt until the full spoiler was revealed, and now that it is, I must say... I'm a bit disappointed.
Not because of the change in art direction (It's not quite as nice as the old Slivers, but it's growing on me), and not because of the new wording (necessary update was necessary), and not even really because there's a color imbalance. It's because there's ONLY ONE Sliver in Blue and Black. If they had one more Sliver in each of those colors at Uncommon, this would have been a pretty strong Return of the Slivers, but as it is, one of the most iconic things about the tribe, their 5-coloredness, is severely underplayed. If they didn't want to make one more Blue and one more Black Sliver, they could at least have made a 5-colored Sliver.
I don't think making one more Sliver for each of those colors should have that much impact on Limited (they would show up only occasionally as there'd be only one Uncommon for those colors, and there would still be no commons). Not an awful return for Slivers, but certainly not nearly as good as it could have been.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Someday, I will own all of the dragons. All of them. 43/111, approximately 39% complete. Over a third done.
(calling it now; there will be a cycle of Legendary dual lands with Basic Land types in Theros block)
... AAAAAAAAND I was wrong
WHY NO NEW SLIVER LEGEND?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Other than this, I'm pleasantly satisfied with these new slivers. They're the one good thing about M14 (To me, anyways).
That might explain the art.
Source?
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
im not 100% sure if it can work out, especialy vs control but it might do.
...the Daily MTG article that introduced Slivers -->
While we knew we were bringing "Slivers" back in Magic 2014, we did not know whether or not they were going to be called Slivers. In fact, in the design file they weren't even called Slivers. Originally they were called "Heroes." Development then changed them to "Sleens" to make people understand they were a new creature type that was foreign and not Human ("Hero" implied "Human" to most playtesters).
Why did we eventually change them to Slivers? Because we kept having playtests where people would play them and then inform either Mark Globus or Dave Guskin, the lead developer of Magic 2014, that the mechanic felt too much like Slivers. When Dave informed them that they were the Sliver mechanic, they always asked, "Why don't you just call them Slivers, then?" We talked a lot about it and finally decided that we had created equity in the name and that it made sense to maintain the name.
Needs a protection sliver of some type at 2CC to be playable. Maybe not straight up hexproof, but counter a spell that targets a sliver unless its caster pays 1. Boros charm can protect against board wipes.
I Stream MTGO on Twitch: broodwarjc
I also post recordings of those streams on Youtube: broodwarjcavidgamer
Standard Deck:
BUPirates
Modern Deck:
B8-Rack
"I just hate this kind of asymmetry, ..."
I never wrote that I don't like any asymmetry.
I am not saying that they "have to" make the five colors even in numbers of these new Slivers.
I simply dislike their choice not to do so.
Those two are nothing alike Structurally or Mechanically At least when they were called Sleens their mechanic work almost the same as slivers Your argument is invalid
Ahh. You mean this. Of course. My err. Sorry and thanks.
Two things:
First, "Heroes" as a creature type is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, especially given what this tribe is about.
Second, "Sleens" would actually make a lot of sense, especially if they were described in-story as an offshoot of the Sliver race. Ultimately, I can understand them caving to the pressure to make them Slivers, though. It's arguably a Brand decision at that point.
Not "exactly". That's one of the reasons people are debating the need to call them Slivers. The lack of interaction is a huge change. Plus, they look decidedly unlike the control art for Slivers.
Ironically, R&D historically has been inclined to flood the game/multiverse with suspiciously similar creature types. Moonfolk, Merfolk, Vedalken, etc.
Having so many different creature types that occupy the same of similar roles isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if you want to emphasize Branding and stylistic consistency/continuity from block to block.
Also, Slivers are essentially a niche type. They do something no other creature type does, and they do it very well. The idea of having a new, strictly better equivalent (Sleens) would probably hurt the existing one (Slivers). By making Sleens literally Slivers, WotC enhances the existing brand and makes keeps it relevant. (That's the argument, anyway.)
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
I'm not complaining. I'm merely noting the difference.
Did I say otherwise?
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
It ties back into the idea that these weren't meant to be Slivers. Similar, yes, but not "exactly the same".
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
Rare: Bonescythe Sliver
Uncommon: Steelform Sliver
Common: Sentinel Sliver, Hive Stirrings (Token Creation)
U Blue U
Rare: Galerider Sliver
B Black B
Rare: Syphon Sliver
R Red R
Rare: Thorncaster Sliver
Uncommon: Battle Sliver
Common: Blur Sliver, Striking Sliver
G Green G
Rare: Megantic Sliver
Uncommon: Manaweft Sliver
Common: Groundshaker Sliver, Predatory Sliver
Multicolor
None
Artifact
Common: Sliver Construct
(Magic 2014 Card Gallery)
I wish we would have gotten a little more.
BUT getting two awesome 1-drops and another Muscle Sliver is very strong.
Personally, I CAN NOT WAIT to pwn a ~20ppl FNM with probably Wolf-Run RUG Slivers. Just need a 1st then will move on :).
Cant see a Sliver deck as it is currently doing well in at a FNM like that
Not because of the change in art direction (It's not quite as nice as the old Slivers, but it's growing on me), and not because of the new wording (necessary update was necessary), and not even really because there's a color imbalance. It's because there's ONLY ONE Sliver in Blue and Black. If they had one more Sliver in each of those colors at Uncommon, this would have been a pretty strong Return of the Slivers, but as it is, one of the most iconic things about the tribe, their 5-coloredness, is severely underplayed. If they didn't want to make one more Blue and one more Black Sliver, they could at least have made a 5-colored Sliver.
I don't think making one more Sliver for each of those colors should have that much impact on Limited (they would show up only occasionally as there'd be only one Uncommon for those colors, and there would still be no commons). Not an awful return for Slivers, but certainly not nearly as good as it could have been.
43/111, approximately 39% complete. Over a third done.
(calling it now; there will be a cycle of Legendary dual lands with Basic Land types in Theros block)
... AAAAAAAAND I was wrong
The Attention Deficit Guy URGU
........................
Other than this, I'm pleasantly satisfied with these new slivers. They're the one good thing about M14 (To me, anyways).
Heroes and Villains Comics and Games
Watch "The Giant Sharkgate Chronicles"
Watch "Eating Made Easy"