I don't see how the bear is a bomb. Sure it might seem like a slow format..but having to pay 4 mana for it to fail on a land or non-creature on top seems like a bad deal.
If what you are looking for is creatures or planeswalkers, instant-speed, not-limited-to-once-per-turn digging for them seems quite great on a common 3-drop with a solid enough body.
The key part of the text is the last line. The card isn't a critter or walker? You don't reveal it, and it goes to the bottom of the deck. Increasing the odds you'll draw something you really want with the next card in your library.
Seems like the kind of card that might be considered a bomb in limited a lot of the time. It's the putting the non-walker, non-creature card on the bottom, combined with the instant speed, and no limit on uses per turn, that makes me think this common bear might be considerably better than many think, especially in limited.
Really dislike this idea. Im all for exploring new solutions to what is perceived as a problem with the current mulligan, but imo the answer is not to replace it with something that lends itself to abuse and a certain style of deck. The bigger the card pool, the more room for abuse.
Maybe Mulligan N = Scry N? Such as if its first Mulligan then Scry 1, second is Scry 2, etc.
it does not solve the "non-start" hands.
if you mull down to 5 and draw a 1 land/4 spell hand scrying 2 instead of 1 it will not help your game (more so if you see 2 non land cards that you put to bottom), the real problem with "non playable" hands is that the more you mulligan the less is the chance to have a starting hand.
this method lessen this problem by giving you the same land/spell ratio in each mulligan BUT then you have to sacrifice some cards that you can chose. at this point you can start playing but with the classic disadvantage of having less resources
Yep, the London Mulligan gives players far more agency to pick and choose the progressively smaller starting hand after each mulligan, while still strongly restricting their raw resources the more mulligans they take.
Terrible starting hands that cycle into worse and worse hands when mulliganing precisely when you are correctly mulliganing is a real problem. One of the major issues Magic has due to land cards taking up space within the library. That fundamental mechanic--protestations to the contrary by people like MaRo attempting to justify it notwithstanding--dramatically increases the luck-based effects of variance at quite the expense to skill.
Yes, good players can mitigate a bad starting hand with skillful use of the smaller number of resources they start with.
But there's not a whole lot anyone can do when you enter a mulligan death-spiral out of your control. If you draw a 1 land hand with insufficient low-cost cards to mitigate it, mulligan, then draw a 6-land hand, mulligan, then draw another 1-land hand, you are, in fact, mulliganing correctly, and the situation continues to get worse and worse in a manner out of your control.
The scry mulligan, and even a scry N mulligan does exactly nothing to mitigate this aspect of mulliganing. It still forces players to throw away hands that could have been reasonable had they seen the other N cards up-front. Often because of the lack of even a single additional land. You didn't get to make a properly informed decision. You had to take a luck-based chance that the scry would itself pay off enough. You had to make a choice at a decision point to commit to an opening hand before the "informed" part comes into play. That's not an informed decision; it's just a leap of faith with a little bit of control after the jump. By forcing a commitment before the "informed" aspect of the decision point comes into effect, you're barely mitigating the fundamental issue, to begin with.
Putting a scry-like effect up-front, on the other hand, keeps the same resource restriction (of your starting hand size), while strongly mitigating potential mulligan death-spirals out of your control due to variance. The kind of variance-based death spiral that can easily effectively cause an entirely luck-based auto-loss out of the control of the player at the very start of the game. You get to be informed before committing to a choice at that decision point. That is, imho, the correct order. Get informed first, then commit second. Not commit first, then get informed second.
Moreover, this mulligan is symmetrical in older formats. Yes, combo players get to dig more for combo pieces. Well, opposing players simultaneously get to dig more for answers to combos. So it reduces variance in favor of skill to mulligan to the best starting position on both sides of the table in that regard, as well.
Starting hand land screw or land flood due to variance is easily one of the worst, most frustrating gameplay experiences consistently seen in and complained about within Magic at effectively all levels of play. Yes, pros and plenty of others--especially when understanding the statistics--can just laugh it off most of the time. But many a player have rage or exhaustion quit the game over this very issue.
Some of the statistical breakdowns attempting to defend how healthy the resource distribution is, and how low variance's effects actually are, are simply astonishing to use as an actual defense. When your statistical breakdown to defend the health of the game shows that only 69% of games have a healthy resource distribution, while a whopping 31% have unhealthy resource distributions, that does not a defense make; that is, imho, a profound refutation of the healthy levels of variance in the game. More than one-in-four games played has an unhealthy distribution of resources that cost one player the game!? That is absurdly high. The London mulligan should mitigate such severe levels of variance-screw quite a bit, in healthy ways that push a significantly larger number of games to fall within the healthy resource distribution range.
Suffice it to say, I like this mulligan rule an awful lot. It strongly mitigates one of the worst aspects of Magic's fundamental mechanics. And does so in a way that favors skillful and informed choices made at a critical decision point in the game.
I understand why highly-engineered metagame tools like this exist, but they're still fugly and I don't like them.
Also, I mean, come on... cannibalizing Qasali Pridemage is the only way this could have been done? Seems lazy.
Is it really cannibalizing a creature, just because of the 1? Because otherwise, it's just an Aura of Silence or Seal of Cleansing variant (or, if you want to show the cross-pie design space of disenchantment effects, it's a Seal of Primordium variant). An effect that's been on enchantments for a years before creatures; since 1997. Not to mention, the 2 damage tacked onto it.
Moreover, the effects aren't forced. Mechanically speaking, they're quite synergistic. Better still, they're synergistic in a very Gruul manner.
The passive effect is so very red, passively punishing the opponent for playing the game in a certain way via a pinging enchantment. A red ability since Alpha, with rock and hard place of Manabarbs and Power Surge. And that certain way the card is punishing opponents, playing non-creature spells, is also very Gruul indeed. Who want everyone to brawl it out with creatures smashing the crap out of each other.
The sac effect, on the other hand, is also very green. Naturalize effects are very green indeed. And also very Gruul; they love to smash artifacts and enchantments to bits, and it smacks them in the face for 2 extra damage.
Like Aura of Silence, the passive effect first punishes some of the very same card types the sac effect does in a manner that affects the game in a playstyle-appropriate way. In the case of Aura of Silence, that's down a control-leaning route, slowing the opponent down long enough for your control deck to take over. In the case of Cindervines, it's speeding the game up in an aggressive manner by punishing the opponent for every non-creature spell they have the nerve to play.
Then, like Aura of Silence, if the need arises you can destroy a critical artifact or enchantment at the cost of no longer benefiting from the passive effect. Extra punishing an opponent for playing two of the three major non-creature permanent spell types. Not only punishing them by destroying a card, but also dealing damage to the opponent, just like the passive, which in turn speeds the game up a bit further, still.
In other words, this card punishes people for playing non-creature spells in two very Gruul ways that play well together. That's some sweet synergy in the design, not forcing things together.
As for repeating effects? That is going to happen many, many, many times in a game with well over 10,000 modular pieces designed over a two-and-a-half decade period of time. It's not laziness. It's a critical component of game design in modular systems like this, to mix and match effects in novel new ways that fill specific roles, deck and meta space, design space, thematic space, and more. And this sac effect has never even been used on a permanent before, so it's not even a repeated sac ability; it's an ability mimicking a single instant. It's far more divergent from Qasali Pridemage than Pridemage is from the seals of disenchanting/naturalizing, or from Aura of Silence.
I like it, but I really want to start seeing some stuff that moves around or removes counters now.
Well. We do have Shapers of Nature in Standard for a while for this. Plus, cards that simply add counters add fuel to the synergy-fire. Essence Capture not only counters a creature, it makes the sharktopus bigger, and it both taps and freezes another creature (or keeps an already tapped creature locked down an additional turn)? That seems sufficient to push through with this and other threats for lethal.
I do hope we see an in-block Shapers of Nature type card, such that the synergy remains after Ixalan rotates. Along with other counter moving/spending tricks. We do still have half the set yet to see. And a whole other Ravnica set after this to tie it all together, as well, in a few months.
You know what, the way that some people have put it into hypothetical decks and situations is making me change my mind on it. It might be better than it seems.
The draw is not relegated strictly to its adapt cost being paid. I think I like it better now.
'buster
This... is exactly what I've been saying about Adapt since it was previewed. Unlike Monstrosity, Adapt doesn't trigger off the Adapt cost itself. So far, not a single Adapt card we've been shown does. Benthic Biomancer? Growth-Chamber Guardian? Zegana, Utopian Speaker? Quite likely any other Adapt critter that has abilities that turn on or trigger when using Adapt? Also do so with +1/+1 counters from any source, not Adapting. That's a big deal. And so much better, and with so much more design space to explore/exploit than Monstrosity, it's stunning.
You can turn something as simple as an Essence Capture into a counterspell that both pumps a creature permanently and loots with this merfolk. You can turn it into a counterspell amd pump card that also tutors for another copy of a growing, self-tutoring bear with the Guardian. You can turn Zegana into a 5/5 trampler 4-drop with no negatives while countering a threat. You can turn on any and all +1/+1 counter-keyed passives on a single creature at once while countering a spell; could suddenly turn a fairly unthreatening creature into a flampler and who-knows-what-else. And that's just one card interacting with Adapt critters.
Adapt has a lot of subtle power going on with it. With the +1/+1 counter-keyed passives and triggers that synergize with Adapt on those cards, each Adapt creature is going to need to be looked at in any deck that will allow it to gain +1/+1 counters at all, because it might very well click and synergize in unexpected and varied ways. Not just this quite nice Benthic Biomancer. But look at something like Growth-Chamber Guardian with Rhythm of the Wild. Suddenly, haste might not be the best option for that creature. Could be, making a 3/3 that tutors for another copy could be better in various board states. If you have the mana to both cast and adapt it, it's instead a 5-drop 4/4 haste that self-tutors. That... can be quite overwhelming. Especially once the game has gone primarily into top-deck mode.
This biomancer, along with every other Adapt card with triggers and passives, is going to need to be carefully examined for synergy that allows you to even ignore the Adapt ability. The Adapt might end up being the mode that is rarely used, but still has value when needed.
This is a worse leak. Period. Just annoying to me. If Control is too good, fine print something else.
I mean, yeah. It's a worse Mana Leak. That's the entire point. Same reason they play around with cards like Lightning Strike vs Lightning Bolt. They're intentionally playing with the numbers until the find the iteration that has the best long term viability and health for the game. If Quench sees play, fills a good role without dominating, it might very well get rotated in to something approaching evergreen a card, like they're still trying to figure out with the lightning duo. It might be boring, but there is a reason for it. And mostly, it's so we'll eventually see Mana Leak like card that is both simple and balanced enough to stick around.
Do multiple instances of Riot stack? Do I choose twice? It is important that I get haste twice, sure, but I care more about the other two potential modes.
Yes. Not only do multiple instances of Riot stack, in the preview article/video, WotC explicitly said there would even be creatures with multiple instances of riot, then gave examples of it getting +2/+2, +1/+1 and haste, or, for the really silly, double haste.
It doesn't punish you for its "gimmick". It straight up rewards you for playing a tribal deck. There are even more extreme versions of this kind of reward, that do things like sweep the board of creatures not of a tribe. This is a similar effect. It's a tribal card that statistically rewards you for a certain board state and playing... a tribal deck. A very common type of deck to put cards in to gain rewards for being tribal. Cards that are, by and large, sufficiently inferior to not be worth consideration outside of a tribal deck. This is the nature of tribal cards. Always has been, always will be.
Read exactly what i said.
No matter what, you at best get a 50/50 coinflip to destroy a creature.
If that is your "reward" then its terrible, thats not a reward at all.
If this kills your creature and non of theirs, its downright terrible, and no matter what, thats going to happen, as you simply will not have 100% of the creature types it asks for in Limited.
Oh? Did the goalpost get moved to talking about limited? Who knew?
And yes, I understood what you meant and mistyped that it doesn't really punish you for not playing its gimmick, any more than any other tribal effect that punishes non-tribal cards are actually punishing you for not playing tribal. Any more than playing a card like Ritual of Soot is actually punishing you for having small creatures out, or Wrath of God is punishing you for having creatures out at all. When a card is made with an explicitly tribal effect, that is a strong signal that card is intended to go into a tribal deck. And will likely be subpar at best outside of a tribal deck, so play it in a tribal deck. A card having some sort of global effect that leaves out specific subsets of cards does not a punishing card make. It's intentionally designed to reward you for sticking with the correct subset of cards, therefore like Wrath of God, you really shouldn't be placing it in decks where it hurts you more than it hurts the opponent. *** is rewarding you for smart and streamlined, focused deck construction. Just like Rakdos.
As for "at best"? At best, this version of Rakdos is a 6-drop, 6/6 flying trampler that kills every single solitary creature you don't control on the board at once. At worst, this is a 6-drop, 6/6 flying trampler that kills every creature you control other than Rakdos. Those are the absolute best and worst possible outcomes of playing this version of Rakdos. If you are playing a Hell-tribal deck, the latter is nigh impossible. You've stacked the odds much more heavily in your favor. Now, at best, Rakdos is a 6/6 flying trampler that sweeps the opponent's creatures all board, and at worst it's merely a 6/6 flying trampler.
Same reason a card like Slinn Voda, the Rising Deep, that bounces every non-sea-creature (kraken, octopus, etc) to their controllers' hand, is at best going to bounce your opponent's board and leave yours alone, and at worst bounce your board (other than Slinn) and leave your opponent's alone. But if you're playing a sea-creature-tribal deck, or a deck with only a handful of large threats Slinn doesn't effect (so not "really" tribal by most standard), voila. You've just radically changed the odds in a way the designers quite likely wished to see as an interaction and deck construction choice, such that it can't bounce one of your creatures at all, so at best it "just" bounces your opponent's side of the board, and not yours, and at worst it "just" bounces however many non-sea-creatures your opponent has out. Skinn is not, however, truly punishing you for playing non-sea-creatures. Its very design is signaling to you what kind of deck can best maximize its potentially high reward effect, and which decks bring with it potentially high risk to as well.
Such is the nature of potential high reward effects, especially tribal-affiliated ones.
That each non-Hellish creature has a 50/50 chance of surviving is a random element, Indeed. Just like the five cards you draw with Fact or Fiction is a random element, and the best you can do is try to stack the odds of getting the outcome you want as heavily in your favor as possible with FoF. Doesn't in any way, shape, or form remove the extra random element FoF introduces into its effect. And yet, FoF is a stellar card that has seen a great deal of play, due to its ability to stack the random elements it introduces in your favor.
See, here is where lines are crossed. It might very well make you feel bad, and you can absolutely speak for yourself, regarding your own thoughts and feelings about such things. You cannot, however, simply assert that an effect like this blanket makes everyone miserable; that is projection, plain and simple. Clearly, there is a solid enough subset of an audience for random element cards that can potentially give higher than normal rewards with said random element in exchange for potentially less value, and that rewards you more the better you stack the odds in your favor, for WotC to consistently make cards like this, and for people to regularly express joy at their very existence.
Exactly, everyone has some cards they like. Thats exactly why they exist, and thats exactly why i claim it will divide the playerbase in either hating this card to the bones, or they enjoy the randomness of cards occasionally doing nothing simply because of randomness.
Except... you keep speaking for the entire community, or large swathes of it at a minimum, which was my point. Speak for yourself, not for the entire or much of the player base, and you'll be discussing something that isn't both hyperbole and inserting your thoughts into the thoughts of others. Or making huge blanket claims that a card with a coin flipping element will become split, with a false dichotomy of either hating it to their bones or enjoying the randomness. In the past, has this happened to the playerbase? Not speaking for yourself, or personal anecdotes of people you play with. Have previous coin flipping cards had the community either loathe or love said card? Or have some unknown number hated it, some unknown number love it, and the majority mostly just not express an opinion or seem to care in any way, with the many previous coin-flipping cards causing little to no waves either negatively or positively?
And there is also a challenge, and a skill level, associated with successfully using a card with fixed statistical odds like this as heavily into your favor as possible. For example, a Hell-tribal Commander deck that plays this might very well kill huge numbers of creatures over the course of a game, as the odds get stacked in your favor periodically, and I would wager very good money there are plenty of people who would get a kick out of timing this version of Rakdos to maximize the odds they destroy a large number of creatures on the board.
You cant change the fact its a coinflip (outside of very specific flip again cards obviously).
Its a random effect, if people like that, good, i just explained why people absolutely despite this kind of randomness.
Yes, you globally spoke for many people who aren't you, when all you can relevantly discuss without actual data is that you despise this effect. Literally all you needed to do was state that you despise this level of randomness, and leave it at that, without speaking for anyone else. Let others, then, join in expressing support for your opinion, or opposition.
And this, too, is more projecting than anything else. Just because you, personally (and clearly stated), cannot stand cards with this kind of random element, does not, in fact, always tilt the playerbase, nor make for a bad play experience. It makes for a bad play experience for you. And you are the only person you can in actuality speak for regarding this.
Its equally just you projecting, so neither can claim to have any better position.
I really really hate if people claim to talk "in fact" when they are just talking of their very own subjective opinion.
Your opinion is not a fact, its just your opinion.
And if our little dialog isnt the very best PROOF that this card is "in fact" tilt the playerbase, then what is ?
How am I projecting, exactly? There are people in this very thread who demonstrably expressed joy and excitement at this card, and its random element. I am not one of those people (such effects can be amusing, and interesting a challenge to build around casually, but not generally my personal cup of tea to play with--but playing against them doesn't bother me in the least, either). I am not speaking for those people. Pointing out nothing more than such people exist is not speaking for anyone else. Those very people existing is directly contrary to your assertion that this "tilts" the playerbase, and makes for a bad play experience for everyone.
And what opinion did I state as fact? Can you speak for the playerbase? Or really, ultimately, for anyone but yourself--at the very least without explicit data regarding the opinions of others, and/or consensual and approved representation of those people? On the other hand, WotC continuing to make these very cards, the occasional person expressing enjoyment of these cards each time they come out, the occasional person expressing loathing, most saying nothing either way, and these cards demonstrably having little to no negative or positive impact on Limited or Constructed play, does seem to point to the bulk of the playerbase most likely not particularly caring one way or the other. It's entirely possible I am wrong on this, and that's ok. But what evidence is there that this splits the playerbase, or pisses even a significant portion of them off? I would certainly love to see that data.
You are also insinuating, it seems, that one or both of us are tilted in this very dialogue?
Speak for yourself. Once again. If you are tilted, just say that.
I, however, am not the least bit tilted.
I am simply having a calm discussion with someone online about statistically maximizing random elements in a game in your favor in one manner, while I work from home on another computer. Maximizing the odds of random elements being a phenomenon common throughout the game Magic the Gathering; much of the skill of the game itself is maximizing the odds in your favor both when deck building and utilizing what you draw during any given game state. Nothing more. That's a fundamental aspect of games with elements of chance combined with skill. This is why there are entire fields of statistical study related to games and game theory and stacking the odds of any given decision as heavily in your favor as possible.
This version of Rakdos has elements of randomness that can be significantly pushed in your favor, leaving you open to no risk of backlash. A risk-free random chance of a potentially explosive negative outcome against an opponent can be a significant statistical toy to play with, imho. Even if one unlikely to be competitive, or played in most Limited decks.
Regardless, this dialogue is not proof of "the playerbase" being tilted at all. It might, if you state as much, be evidence of you getting tilted. At best. And that's... it.
Great limited removal... my own weak argument is that there are a lot of -2/-2 sorceries in black... why not up the cost to either 2BB or BBB and have it give -3/-3 w/ the rest of the wording as is?
Most likely because the other set in this Ravnica block has Ritual of Soot. Therefore, within this third Ravnica block, it's a better overall design to print a card that complements Ritual of Soot without competing for the same casting cost slots.
Just like good plays that help you try to manipulate statistics to get the cards you need from your deck, this card rewards you for stacking the odds in your favor.
The point is, the card doesnt really reward you, it actively PUNISHES you for not playing with its gimmick and even if you do everything you can, its still a 50/50 coinflip to either do NOTHING or destroy a creature.
It doesn't punish you for its "gimmick". It straight up rewards you for playing a tribal deck. There are even more extreme versions of this kind of reward, that do things like sweep the board of creatures not of a tribe. This is a similar effect. It's a tribal card that statistically rewards you for a certain board state and playing... a tribal deck. A very common type of deck to put cards in to gain rewards for being tribal. Cards that are, by and large, sufficiently inferior to not be worth consideration outside of a tribal deck. This is the nature of tribal cards. Always has been, always will be.
Its just every time a feel bad moment, for either you or the opponent, this card has no winner, it makes everything and everyone miserable (and if that was the goal to designing this card, congrats).
See, here is where lines are crossed. It might very well make you feel bad, and you can absolutely speak for yourself, regarding your own thoughts and feelings about such things. You cannot, however, simply assert that an effect like this blanket makes everyone miserable; that is projection, plain and simple. Clearly, there is a solid enough subset of an audience for random element cards that can potentially give higher than normal rewards with said random element in exchange for potentially less value, and that rewards you more the better you stack the odds in your favor, for WotC to consistently make cards like this, and for people to regularly express joy at their very existence.
And there is also a challenge, and a skill level, associated with successfully using a card with fixed statistical odds like this as heavily into your favor as possible. For example, a Hell-tribal Commander deck that plays this might very well kill huge numbers of creatures over the course of a game, as the odds get stacked in your favor periodically, and I would wager very good money there are plenty of people who would get a kick out of timing this version of Rakdos to maximize the odds they destroy a large number of creatures on the board.
Anyway, its the kind of card that will always tilt the playerbase either to absolutely HATE it, or just embrace the randomness of it.
And it will lead to the kind of frustrating moments that make players totally tilt at a table, thats simply not a good experience at all.
And this, too, is more projecting than anything else. Just because you, personally (and clearly stated), cannot stand cards with this kind of random element, does not, in fact, always tilt the playerbase, nor make for a bad play experience. It makes for a bad play experience for you. And you are the only person you can in actuality speak for regarding this.
...we play a game where we shuffle our decks. In any given game, win or lose at any given instant can be largely tied to the luck of the draw. It's not like we're playing chess here. Throughout every game, chance influences outcome.
Its a whole different kind of random.
If you make a sound decision what to play from your hand, you know what will happen, thats why you make the decision to play the card in the first place.
Drawing cards is random, but that doesnt change any decision you make, you make your decisions based on what you draw.
If a card has a random effect when played, its truely just random, it either wins or loses, you cant do anything to influence that outcome, its just literally a coinflip. Thats the absolute nightmare scenario for any SPIKE player , as it has absolutely nothing to do with Skill at all, its just the worst form of randomness you can add to a game that wants to mark itself as any form of skill-based.
----
This card will just randomly decide games in Limited, and for that alone i already hate it to the bones.
Going to disagree with this. Just like good plays that help you try to manipulate statistics to get the cards you need from your deck, this card rewards you for stacking the odds in your favor. If you do, in fact, have all demons, devils, and imps out, you know for sure your side of the board is safe. The other side of the board, each and every non-demon, non-devil, non-imp has a flat 50-50 chance of dropping dead on the spot. So maximize those odds. Opponent has one creature? Odds are even that they lose their only creature or lose nothing. They have two? Odds are, half their creatures die. And so on.
Flipping coins for X number of permanents to kill them can, in fact, reward play in precisely the same way card filtering and the like, or stacking your deck with certain numbers of cards, etc, do. It's all about stacking the statistical odds in your favor. Nothing more, nothing less. Might you gain nothing extra? Sure. Just like you can readily, and often do, gain nothing when you play a card that manipulates the odds of drawing what you need. The moment the opponent has more than one non-hell-tribal creatures out, odds are, you will get some value. If even ONE creature dies on the opposing side of the board, Rakdos just became at least a 2-for-1 big threat on the board.
Turn 2: biomancer's pet
Turn 3: play elf crab, grow elf crab, grab elf crab 2.
Turn 4: play elf crab 2, grow elf crab 2 and find elf crab 3, tap pet to grow elf crab a second time (and grab elf crab 4) before hitting with 6/6
Actually, that isn't the worst...
Almost, but probably closer to:
Turn 1: Land, Llanowar Elves
Turn 2: Land, Biomancer's Familiar and Pelt Collector.
Turn 3: Land, Growth-Chamber Guardian, +1/+1 counter on Pelt Collector, Adapt GCG for G and tutor for 2nd GCG, tap the Familiar, Adapt GCG for G and tutor for third GCG.
Turn 4: Land, Zegana, Utopian Speaker, +1/+1 counter on Pelt Collector, draw a card, Adapt GCG for G and tutor for 4th and final GCG, swing with 8/8 trampler and 3/3 trampler.
Turn 5: Land, Adapt Zegana to an 8/8 trampler for 2GU, adapt GCG for G again, pumping it to a 10/10 trampler, swing with 10/10, 8/8, and 3/3, all tramplers.
You've played ten cards, drawn four extra cards (so drawn eight cards if you've gone first, nine if you've gone second)--three of them solid creatures--and laid down three significant threats on the board. Even if they sweep your board, you still have an almost full hand thick with threats plus who knows what else.
Ah the Infest-variation that returns every set. Ma gawd communicate with the community if you run outa ideas wotc
It has little to nothing to do with a lack of creativity. It has far more to do with keeping these kinds of effects in Standard, but doing so in a manner that doesn't constantly reprint the exact same card, like Infest, over and over and over again.
Putting variations on effects like this--variations that are relevant to the environment the card is being slipped in, mind you, such as exiling cards in a set/block where going to the graveyard matters (Afterlife/Undergrowth)--is a key part of designs like this. It's not lazy. It is very, very intentional, and frankly, a critical component of a card game with the well over two decades and 10,000 unique cards that Magic has under its belt. An Infest variant that exiles might very well be a quite relevant variation on the basic effect of the former card.
ANY game with well over 10,000 different individual modular components such as Magic possesses will always have huge numbers of quite similar but slightly tweaked variant effects/components.
And having seen community designed cards and sets for... decades, now? Straight up for over twenty years? The community doesn't particularly innovate all that much. The vast, overwhelming majority of custom designed cards, sets, and abilities are extremely similar to or slight variations on existing Magic cards or abilities.
So I'm honestly not complaining because this isn't even my kind of card but why is this rare rather than uncommon?
When was the last time a Cancel with significant upside was printed at lower than Rare? Ionize and Disallow are the two recent Rares that come to mind, not sure of any other good examples.
Addendum spells should be like:
Azorius counter 1WU instsnt
Counter target spell with casting cost 3 or less
Addendum-if you cast this spell during your mainphase instead tap up to 3 creatures they do not untap during their controllers next untap phase.
This would mean the spell is effectively modal. But we have only seen riders (to borrow a political term) instead. This will be a hard ability to make successful, if the base spell us too good then it will be used as an instant, if the addendum rider/replacement is too good it will regale the spell to sorcery. There needs to be a really strong tension between wanting either the spell at instant speed or the addendum?
We don't know that there won't be spells like that. The rules clarifications in the preview article suggested there would be Addendum spells that use "instead", rather than adding to the previous text. So modular spells like this could be a few of the ~10 Addendum cards we're supposed to be seeing.
I definitely agree that seeing Addendum work like this, with alternative abilities, would be a great... addendum to the mechanic.
If what you are looking for is creatures or planeswalkers, instant-speed, not-limited-to-once-per-turn digging for them seems quite great on a common 3-drop with a solid enough body.
The key part of the text is the last line. The card isn't a critter or walker? You don't reveal it, and it goes to the bottom of the deck. Increasing the odds you'll draw something you really want with the next card in your library.
Seems like the kind of card that might be considered a bomb in limited a lot of the time. It's the putting the non-walker, non-creature card on the bottom, combined with the instant speed, and no limit on uses per turn, that makes me think this common bear might be considerably better than many think, especially in limited.
Yep, the London Mulligan gives players far more agency to pick and choose the progressively smaller starting hand after each mulligan, while still strongly restricting their raw resources the more mulligans they take.
Terrible starting hands that cycle into worse and worse hands when mulliganing precisely when you are correctly mulliganing is a real problem. One of the major issues Magic has due to land cards taking up space within the library. That fundamental mechanic--protestations to the contrary by people like MaRo attempting to justify it notwithstanding--dramatically increases the luck-based effects of variance at quite the expense to skill.
Yes, good players can mitigate a bad starting hand with skillful use of the smaller number of resources they start with.
But there's not a whole lot anyone can do when you enter a mulligan death-spiral out of your control. If you draw a 1 land hand with insufficient low-cost cards to mitigate it, mulligan, then draw a 6-land hand, mulligan, then draw another 1-land hand, you are, in fact, mulliganing correctly, and the situation continues to get worse and worse in a manner out of your control.
The scry mulligan, and even a scry N mulligan does exactly nothing to mitigate this aspect of mulliganing. It still forces players to throw away hands that could have been reasonable had they seen the other N cards up-front. Often because of the lack of even a single additional land. You didn't get to make a properly informed decision. You had to take a luck-based chance that the scry would itself pay off enough. You had to make a choice at a decision point to commit to an opening hand before the "informed" part comes into play. That's not an informed decision; it's just a leap of faith with a little bit of control after the jump. By forcing a commitment before the "informed" aspect of the decision point comes into effect, you're barely mitigating the fundamental issue, to begin with.
Putting a scry-like effect up-front, on the other hand, keeps the same resource restriction (of your starting hand size), while strongly mitigating potential mulligan death-spirals out of your control due to variance. The kind of variance-based death spiral that can easily effectively cause an entirely luck-based auto-loss out of the control of the player at the very start of the game. You get to be informed before committing to a choice at that decision point. That is, imho, the correct order. Get informed first, then commit second. Not commit first, then get informed second.
Moreover, this mulligan is symmetrical in older formats. Yes, combo players get to dig more for combo pieces. Well, opposing players simultaneously get to dig more for answers to combos. So it reduces variance in favor of skill to mulligan to the best starting position on both sides of the table in that regard, as well.
Starting hand land screw or land flood due to variance is easily one of the worst, most frustrating gameplay experiences consistently seen in and complained about within Magic at effectively all levels of play. Yes, pros and plenty of others--especially when understanding the statistics--can just laugh it off most of the time. But many a player have rage or exhaustion quit the game over this very issue.
Some of the statistical breakdowns attempting to defend how healthy the resource distribution is, and how low variance's effects actually are, are simply astonishing to use as an actual defense. When your statistical breakdown to defend the health of the game shows that only 69% of games have a healthy resource distribution, while a whopping 31% have unhealthy resource distributions, that does not a defense make; that is, imho, a profound refutation of the healthy levels of variance in the game. More than one-in-four games played has an unhealthy distribution of resources that cost one player the game!? That is absurdly high. The London mulligan should mitigate such severe levels of variance-screw quite a bit, in healthy ways that push a significantly larger number of games to fall within the healthy resource distribution range.
Suffice it to say, I like this mulligan rule an awful lot. It strongly mitigates one of the worst aspects of Magic's fundamental mechanics. And does so in a way that favors skillful and informed choices made at a critical decision point in the game.
Is it really cannibalizing a creature, just because of the 1? Because otherwise, it's just an Aura of Silence or Seal of Cleansing variant (or, if you want to show the cross-pie design space of disenchantment effects, it's a Seal of Primordium variant). An effect that's been on enchantments for a years before creatures; since 1997. Not to mention, the 2 damage tacked onto it.
Moreover, the effects aren't forced. Mechanically speaking, they're quite synergistic. Better still, they're synergistic in a very Gruul manner.
The passive effect is so very red, passively punishing the opponent for playing the game in a certain way via a pinging enchantment. A red ability since Alpha, with rock and hard place of Manabarbs and Power Surge. And that certain way the card is punishing opponents, playing non-creature spells, is also very Gruul indeed. Who want everyone to brawl it out with creatures smashing the crap out of each other.
The sac effect, on the other hand, is also very green. Naturalize effects are very green indeed. And also very Gruul; they love to smash artifacts and enchantments to bits, and it smacks them in the face for 2 extra damage.
Like Aura of Silence, the passive effect first punishes some of the very same card types the sac effect does in a manner that affects the game in a playstyle-appropriate way. In the case of Aura of Silence, that's down a control-leaning route, slowing the opponent down long enough for your control deck to take over. In the case of Cindervines, it's speeding the game up in an aggressive manner by punishing the opponent for every non-creature spell they have the nerve to play.
Then, like Aura of Silence, if the need arises you can destroy a critical artifact or enchantment at the cost of no longer benefiting from the passive effect. Extra punishing an opponent for playing two of the three major non-creature permanent spell types. Not only punishing them by destroying a card, but also dealing damage to the opponent, just like the passive, which in turn speeds the game up a bit further, still.
In other words, this card punishes people for playing non-creature spells in two very Gruul ways that play well together. That's some sweet synergy in the design, not forcing things together.
As for repeating effects? That is going to happen many, many, many times in a game with well over 10,000 modular pieces designed over a two-and-a-half decade period of time. It's not laziness. It's a critical component of game design in modular systems like this, to mix and match effects in novel new ways that fill specific roles, deck and meta space, design space, thematic space, and more. And this sac effect has never even been used on a permanent before, so it's not even a repeated sac ability; it's an ability mimicking a single instant. It's far more divergent from Qasali Pridemage than Pridemage is from the seals of disenchanting/naturalizing, or from Aura of Silence.
Well. We do have Shapers of Nature in Standard for a while for this. Plus, cards that simply add counters add fuel to the synergy-fire. Essence Capture not only counters a creature, it makes the sharktopus bigger, and it both taps and freezes another creature (or keeps an already tapped creature locked down an additional turn)? That seems sufficient to push through with this and other threats for lethal.
I do hope we see an in-block Shapers of Nature type card, such that the synergy remains after Ixalan rotates. Along with other counter moving/spending tricks. We do still have half the set yet to see. And a whole other Ravnica set after this to tie it all together, as well, in a few months.
This... is exactly what I've been saying about Adapt since it was previewed. Unlike Monstrosity, Adapt doesn't trigger off the Adapt cost itself. So far, not a single Adapt card we've been shown does. Benthic Biomancer? Growth-Chamber Guardian? Zegana, Utopian Speaker? Quite likely any other Adapt critter that has abilities that turn on or trigger when using Adapt? Also do so with +1/+1 counters from any source, not Adapting. That's a big deal. And so much better, and with so much more design space to explore/exploit than Monstrosity, it's stunning.
You can turn something as simple as an Essence Capture into a counterspell that both pumps a creature permanently and loots with this merfolk. You can turn it into a counterspell amd pump card that also tutors for another copy of a growing, self-tutoring bear with the Guardian. You can turn Zegana into a 5/5 trampler 4-drop with no negatives while countering a threat. You can turn on any and all +1/+1 counter-keyed passives on a single creature at once while countering a spell; could suddenly turn a fairly unthreatening creature into a flampler and who-knows-what-else. And that's just one card interacting with Adapt critters.
Adapt has a lot of subtle power going on with it. With the +1/+1 counter-keyed passives and triggers that synergize with Adapt on those cards, each Adapt creature is going to need to be looked at in any deck that will allow it to gain +1/+1 counters at all, because it might very well click and synergize in unexpected and varied ways. Not just this quite nice Benthic Biomancer. But look at something like Growth-Chamber Guardian with Rhythm of the Wild. Suddenly, haste might not be the best option for that creature. Could be, making a 3/3 that tutors for another copy could be better in various board states. If you have the mana to both cast and adapt it, it's instead a 5-drop 4/4 haste that self-tutors. That... can be quite overwhelming. Especially once the game has gone primarily into top-deck mode.
This biomancer, along with every other Adapt card with triggers and passives, is going to need to be carefully examined for synergy that allows you to even ignore the Adapt ability. The Adapt might end up being the mode that is rarely used, but still has value when needed.
I mean, yeah. It's a worse Mana Leak. That's the entire point. Same reason they play around with cards like Lightning Strike vs Lightning Bolt. They're intentionally playing with the numbers until the find the iteration that has the best long term viability and health for the game. If Quench sees play, fills a good role without dominating, it might very well get rotated in to something approaching evergreen a card, like they're still trying to figure out with the lightning duo. It might be boring, but there is a reason for it. And mostly, it's so we'll eventually see Mana Leak like card that is both simple and balanced enough to stick around.
Yes. Not only do multiple instances of Riot stack, in the preview article/video, WotC explicitly said there would even be creatures with multiple instances of riot, then gave examples of it getting +2/+2, +1/+1 and haste, or, for the really silly, double haste.
Oh? Did the goalpost get moved to talking about limited? Who knew?
And yes, I understood what you meant and mistyped that it doesn't really punish you for not playing its gimmick, any more than any other tribal effect that punishes non-tribal cards are actually punishing you for not playing tribal. Any more than playing a card like Ritual of Soot is actually punishing you for having small creatures out, or Wrath of God is punishing you for having creatures out at all. When a card is made with an explicitly tribal effect, that is a strong signal that card is intended to go into a tribal deck. And will likely be subpar at best outside of a tribal deck, so play it in a tribal deck. A card having some sort of global effect that leaves out specific subsets of cards does not a punishing card make. It's intentionally designed to reward you for sticking with the correct subset of cards, therefore like Wrath of God, you really shouldn't be placing it in decks where it hurts you more than it hurts the opponent. *** is rewarding you for smart and streamlined, focused deck construction. Just like Rakdos.
As for "at best"? At best, this version of Rakdos is a 6-drop, 6/6 flying trampler that kills every single solitary creature you don't control on the board at once. At worst, this is a 6-drop, 6/6 flying trampler that kills every creature you control other than Rakdos. Those are the absolute best and worst possible outcomes of playing this version of Rakdos. If you are playing a Hell-tribal deck, the latter is nigh impossible. You've stacked the odds much more heavily in your favor. Now, at best, Rakdos is a 6/6 flying trampler that sweeps the opponent's creatures all board, and at worst it's merely a 6/6 flying trampler.
Same reason a card like Slinn Voda, the Rising Deep, that bounces every non-sea-creature (kraken, octopus, etc) to their controllers' hand, is at best going to bounce your opponent's board and leave yours alone, and at worst bounce your board (other than Slinn) and leave your opponent's alone. But if you're playing a sea-creature-tribal deck, or a deck with only a handful of large threats Slinn doesn't effect (so not "really" tribal by most standard), voila. You've just radically changed the odds in a way the designers quite likely wished to see as an interaction and deck construction choice, such that it can't bounce one of your creatures at all, so at best it "just" bounces your opponent's side of the board, and not yours, and at worst it "just" bounces however many non-sea-creatures your opponent has out. Skinn is not, however, truly punishing you for playing non-sea-creatures. Its very design is signaling to you what kind of deck can best maximize its potentially high reward effect, and which decks bring with it potentially high risk to as well.
Such is the nature of potential high reward effects, especially tribal-affiliated ones.
That each non-Hellish creature has a 50/50 chance of surviving is a random element, Indeed. Just like the five cards you draw with Fact or Fiction is a random element, and the best you can do is try to stack the odds of getting the outcome you want as heavily in your favor as possible with FoF. Doesn't in any way, shape, or form remove the extra random element FoF introduces into its effect. And yet, FoF is a stellar card that has seen a great deal of play, due to its ability to stack the random elements it introduces in your favor.
Except... you keep speaking for the entire community, or large swathes of it at a minimum, which was my point. Speak for yourself, not for the entire or much of the player base, and you'll be discussing something that isn't both hyperbole and inserting your thoughts into the thoughts of others. Or making huge blanket claims that a card with a coin flipping element will become split, with a false dichotomy of either hating it to their bones or enjoying the randomness. In the past, has this happened to the playerbase? Not speaking for yourself, or personal anecdotes of people you play with. Have previous coin flipping cards had the community either loathe or love said card? Or have some unknown number hated it, some unknown number love it, and the majority mostly just not express an opinion or seem to care in any way, with the many previous coin-flipping cards causing little to no waves either negatively or positively?
Yes, you globally spoke for many people who aren't you, when all you can relevantly discuss without actual data is that you despise this effect. Literally all you needed to do was state that you despise this level of randomness, and leave it at that, without speaking for anyone else. Let others, then, join in expressing support for your opinion, or opposition.
How am I projecting, exactly? There are people in this very thread who demonstrably expressed joy and excitement at this card, and its random element. I am not one of those people (such effects can be amusing, and interesting a challenge to build around casually, but not generally my personal cup of tea to play with--but playing against them doesn't bother me in the least, either). I am not speaking for those people. Pointing out nothing more than such people exist is not speaking for anyone else. Those very people existing is directly contrary to your assertion that this "tilts" the playerbase, and makes for a bad play experience for everyone.
And what opinion did I state as fact? Can you speak for the playerbase? Or really, ultimately, for anyone but yourself--at the very least without explicit data regarding the opinions of others, and/or consensual and approved representation of those people? On the other hand, WotC continuing to make these very cards, the occasional person expressing enjoyment of these cards each time they come out, the occasional person expressing loathing, most saying nothing either way, and these cards demonstrably having little to no negative or positive impact on Limited or Constructed play, does seem to point to the bulk of the playerbase most likely not particularly caring one way or the other. It's entirely possible I am wrong on this, and that's ok. But what evidence is there that this splits the playerbase, or pisses even a significant portion of them off? I would certainly love to see that data.
You are also insinuating, it seems, that one or both of us are tilted in this very dialogue?
Speak for yourself. Once again. If you are tilted, just say that.
I, however, am not the least bit tilted.
I am simply having a calm discussion with someone online about statistically maximizing random elements in a game in your favor in one manner, while I work from home on another computer. Maximizing the odds of random elements being a phenomenon common throughout the game Magic the Gathering; much of the skill of the game itself is maximizing the odds in your favor both when deck building and utilizing what you draw during any given game state. Nothing more. That's a fundamental aspect of games with elements of chance combined with skill. This is why there are entire fields of statistical study related to games and game theory and stacking the odds of any given decision as heavily in your favor as possible.
This version of Rakdos has elements of randomness that can be significantly pushed in your favor, leaving you open to no risk of backlash. A risk-free random chance of a potentially explosive negative outcome against an opponent can be a significant statistical toy to play with, imho. Even if one unlikely to be competitive, or played in most Limited decks.
Regardless, this dialogue is not proof of "the playerbase" being tilted at all. It might, if you state as much, be evidence of you getting tilted. At best. And that's... it.
Most likely because the other set in this Ravnica block has Ritual of Soot. Therefore, within this third Ravnica block, it's a better overall design to print a card that complements Ritual of Soot without competing for the same casting cost slots.
It doesn't punish you for its "gimmick". It straight up rewards you for playing a tribal deck. There are even more extreme versions of this kind of reward, that do things like sweep the board of creatures not of a tribe. This is a similar effect. It's a tribal card that statistically rewards you for a certain board state and playing... a tribal deck. A very common type of deck to put cards in to gain rewards for being tribal. Cards that are, by and large, sufficiently inferior to not be worth consideration outside of a tribal deck. This is the nature of tribal cards. Always has been, always will be.
See, here is where lines are crossed. It might very well make you feel bad, and you can absolutely speak for yourself, regarding your own thoughts and feelings about such things. You cannot, however, simply assert that an effect like this blanket makes everyone miserable; that is projection, plain and simple. Clearly, there is a solid enough subset of an audience for random element cards that can potentially give higher than normal rewards with said random element in exchange for potentially less value, and that rewards you more the better you stack the odds in your favor, for WotC to consistently make cards like this, and for people to regularly express joy at their very existence.
And there is also a challenge, and a skill level, associated with successfully using a card with fixed statistical odds like this as heavily into your favor as possible. For example, a Hell-tribal Commander deck that plays this might very well kill huge numbers of creatures over the course of a game, as the odds get stacked in your favor periodically, and I would wager very good money there are plenty of people who would get a kick out of timing this version of Rakdos to maximize the odds they destroy a large number of creatures on the board.
And this, too, is more projecting than anything else. Just because you, personally (and clearly stated), cannot stand cards with this kind of random element, does not, in fact, always tilt the playerbase, nor make for a bad play experience. It makes for a bad play experience for you. And you are the only person you can in actuality speak for regarding this.
Going to disagree with this. Just like good plays that help you try to manipulate statistics to get the cards you need from your deck, this card rewards you for stacking the odds in your favor. If you do, in fact, have all demons, devils, and imps out, you know for sure your side of the board is safe. The other side of the board, each and every non-demon, non-devil, non-imp has a flat 50-50 chance of dropping dead on the spot. So maximize those odds. Opponent has one creature? Odds are even that they lose their only creature or lose nothing. They have two? Odds are, half their creatures die. And so on.
Flipping coins for X number of permanents to kill them can, in fact, reward play in precisely the same way card filtering and the like, or stacking your deck with certain numbers of cards, etc, do. It's all about stacking the statistical odds in your favor. Nothing more, nothing less. Might you gain nothing extra? Sure. Just like you can readily, and often do, gain nothing when you play a card that manipulates the odds of drawing what you need. The moment the opponent has more than one non-hell-tribal creatures out, odds are, you will get some value. If even ONE creature dies on the opposing side of the board, Rakdos just became at least a 2-for-1 big threat on the board.
Almost, but probably closer to:
Turn 1: Land, Llanowar Elves
Turn 2: Land, Biomancer's Familiar and Pelt Collector.
Turn 3: Land, Growth-Chamber Guardian, +1/+1 counter on Pelt Collector, Adapt GCG for G and tutor for 2nd GCG, tap the Familiar, Adapt GCG for G and tutor for third GCG.
Turn 4: Land, Zegana, Utopian Speaker, +1/+1 counter on Pelt Collector, draw a card, Adapt GCG for G and tutor for 4th and final GCG, swing with 8/8 trampler and 3/3 trampler.
Turn 5: Land, Adapt Zegana to an 8/8 trampler for 2GU, adapt GCG for G again, pumping it to a 10/10 trampler, swing with 10/10, 8/8, and 3/3, all tramplers.
You've played ten cards, drawn four extra cards (so drawn eight cards if you've gone first, nine if you've gone second)--three of them solid creatures--and laid down three significant threats on the board. Even if they sweep your board, you still have an almost full hand thick with threats plus who knows what else.
It has little to nothing to do with a lack of creativity. It has far more to do with keeping these kinds of effects in Standard, but doing so in a manner that doesn't constantly reprint the exact same card, like Infest, over and over and over again.
Putting variations on effects like this--variations that are relevant to the environment the card is being slipped in, mind you, such as exiling cards in a set/block where going to the graveyard matters (Afterlife/Undergrowth)--is a key part of designs like this. It's not lazy. It is very, very intentional, and frankly, a critical component of a card game with the well over two decades and 10,000 unique cards that Magic has under its belt. An Infest variant that exiles might very well be a quite relevant variation on the basic effect of the former card.
ANY game with well over 10,000 different individual modular components such as Magic possesses will always have huge numbers of quite similar but slightly tweaked variant effects/components.
And having seen community designed cards and sets for... decades, now? Straight up for over twenty years? The community doesn't particularly innovate all that much. The vast, overwhelming majority of custom designed cards, sets, and abilities are extremely similar to or slight variations on existing Magic cards or abilities.
And it's more recent, uncommon counterpart, Sinister Sabotage.
We don't know that there won't be spells like that. The rules clarifications in the preview article suggested there would be Addendum spells that use "instead", rather than adding to the previous text. So modular spells like this could be a few of the ~10 Addendum cards we're supposed to be seeing.
I definitely agree that seeing Addendum work like this, with alternative abilities, would be a great... addendum to the mechanic.