M14 Spoiler Dump is Up
General forum
Posted on July 8, 2013, 12:36 a.m. by NobodyPicksBulbasaur
Title says it all. Full M14 spoiler is up on MTGsalvation.
Or if you're looking for just the most recent spoilers, you can go to http://mythicspoiler.com/newspoilers.html.
July 8, 2013 12:46 a.m.
I was fairly happy with some of the things that made it in, I have been interested in a Sanguine Bond to finish my Exquisite Blood combo. It is also nice to see the Darksteel Ingot reappear. Judging by the artifacts that appeared, I am hoping that Theros will see more artifacts then the RTR block did.
July 8, 2013 2:18 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
I'm just going to point out how fantastic Yeong-Hao Han's new art for Millstone is. Christine Choi's art for Primeval Bounty is similarly spectacular.
July 8, 2013 3:09 a.m.
I think the new Millstone art would have worked well on Mind Grind as well.
July 8, 2013 3:12 a.m.
atreyujames says... #7
Darksteel Forge was probably reprinted to show the new indestructible rulings, same as Darksteel Ingot , or Phantom Warrior .
Although I say that I do kinda hope for an artifact theme because I'm really loving the reprint of Trading Post , and the new haunted plate mail. As well Fireshrieker should be a really strong reprint for limited.
July 8, 2013 6:05 a.m.
BW control may be quite strong.... Render Silent / Silence on "Elite Arcanist"... that's ontop of the current cards of Sphinx's Revelation , Detention Sphere , Supreme Verdict .
Using AEtherling and "Haunted Plate Mail" as win-cons.
Could go RUW and throw in Aurelia's Fury , Boros Charm , Quicken , Wild Guess , and some burn/removal.
July 8, 2013 7:53 a.m.
Come to think of it, with Silence , Quicken , Render Silent ... I can see the possibility of UW Delver of Secrets Flip decks popping up until rotation.
(noticing that I meant UW, and not BW in the previous post)
July 8, 2013 8:01 a.m.
'Dragon Egg' looks good flavour wise... not sure how playable it is.
Probably nice in limited... and if Theros brings Dragon decks together, it might be good.
Perhaps there's already something with Door of Destinies and the new Mythic Dragon... which this would work well with... but I think that deck is likely a little slow.
July 8, 2013 8:08 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #13
They "reprinted" Gemhide Sliver . That's all you need. They also basically printed "Hellrider Sliver"
July 8, 2013 9:06 a.m.
[http://www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/article.aspx?x=mtg/tcg/magic2014coreset/cig#
July 8, 2013 9:34 a.m.
Might just be me, but there doesn't seem to be anything that's worth buying a box over. I have a feeling that Mutavault and Scavenging Ooze will drop in price once their supplies hit the market, Archangel of Thune seems over-hyped, and even the new planeswalkers are a little "meh."
Of course, I've always been horrible at valuing cards, so I'm probably completely wrong.
July 8, 2013 9:40 a.m.
Phyrexia108 says... #16
I am very dissapointed with the Wizards and how they made M14. I was really looking forward to seeing more slivers. They have 4 white slivers, 4 red slivers, 4 green slivers, I would have loved to see 4 black and 4 blue slivers but of course we are only left with one and a 5 color sliver would have made slivers a thing in standard... they aren't really anything with what they have given us. And no dual lands??? Come on... :(
July 8, 2013 9:52 a.m.
Gulltralisk says... #17
I'm not terribly pleased that blue and red lost their third mythics to Darksteel Forge and "Ring of Three Wishes," since UR is what i always play. However, Quicken is nice (instant-speed Mizzium Mortars and a card draw yes) and Shock is always good to have.
July 8, 2013 9:56 a.m.
July 8, 2013 10:44 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #19
@ sylvannos sweet! Between Bloodthrone Vampire and this my Mark of Mutiny deck comes back to standard! Wouldn't Vampire Aristocrat worked just as well though?
I appreciate the creepiness factor though.
July 8, 2013 11:54 a.m.
GreatSword says... #20
Maybe they just wanted to use some leftover Innistrad art.
July 8, 2013 12:01 p.m.
jminute14 it would work better, you could sacrifice Vampire Aristocrat to himself for x reason (not to give a counter to another creature for destroying vamp aristo for example), where as blood bairn explicitly says 'another creature'. Which is the way they are going with these and not allowing a creature to sac to itself if the sac ability doesn't do anything.
July 8, 2013 12:07 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #22
I see now, after reading Rosewater's article it does make more sense too. Anything to make the game more accessible is fine with me, I do find the old way a little more valuable but this works.
July 8, 2013 12:49 p.m.
Personally, I do not know if I really like these changes towards more intuitive. The comprehension aspects were always a draw as I learned something new all the time and more importantly a new way to look at things. At the same time I get it, though I do question what they term as 'new players' and how long do they give them to get adjusted. I do think they are dumbing down the game and that sooner than later it's going to hurt more than help.
What I mean by that is the skills used in magic, the observation, the processing of the board state vs the rules, made me a better learner overall.
I do think games make using and mastering the skills fun and important to people and that the rules committee by changing things is hurting that.
I read MaRo say 'Blame the education system' about how new players couldn't grasp some fundamental (can't remember the fundamental at the moment) a few weeks ago and was sad that is the case. Sad that magic didn't want to help with teaching the same things they have for the past 20 years. They want the people to be prepared for them and not help the people prepare for life and using their brains all the time. Personally I just think as a community it's our duty to help everyone be smarter and teach all the time.
July 8, 2013 1:43 p.m.
I don't believe new players need to have the game 'dumbed down'... just because I have been playing for years doesn't mean that new players have no understanding of simple concepts, like a creature being able to be sacrificed to it's own ability.
Saying "Blame the education system" is a cop-out... if the education system didn't teach them something, we're supposed to tip-toe around them, and make things worse for everyone, instead of teaching them ourselves???
If that's the case, Magic needs to remove all instant speed spells and abilities, and make all creatures "vanilla" so that there is no need for a stack. That is the hardest thing to explain to a new player... not silly (and REALLY simple) things like this.
July 8, 2013 1:54 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #25
@ Rayenous I think that's a vast overstatement. I do believe we need to have responsibility for others and their learning, but at the same time setting the bar high is (read:can be) exclusionary. Magic is still a business and for them to hit the largest market they need to take into account that the average IQ is slowly decreasing. I don't want to launch into conversation about the validity of the value itself, but rather observe that the sorts of things it's testing (literacy, fluency, numeracy etc) are slowly declining in importance for the youth of the upcoming generations.
I like the challenge the Expert expansions bring to the game; let me figure out when I should force my opponent to draw cards or when I should sac my own creature and I'll be a better player for it.
Core Sets used to be differentiated as Intermediate expansions for just that reason. They're more straightforward. Don't take Blood Bairn as an indicator of the norm.
July 8, 2013 3:17 p.m.
KrazyCaley says... #26
Wild Ricochet ! I love that card. That might be my favorite red card.
July 8, 2013 3:18 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #27
I'm in Caley's boat. I was thinking of making a monoblack deck until I saw they reprinted Wild Ricochet . I might have to make monored now instead. Best card ever.
July 8, 2013 3:26 p.m.
But we aren't talking about teaching all players proper english or math, and making them literate... we're talking about teaching them the rules of the game. There's simply no need to dumb down the game by changing how most new cards being printed work.
My point is that if someone can't understand the basic rule that something can be sacrificed to it's own ability.... they certainly aren't going to be able to properly understand the stack, or redirecting damage to a PW, or the order of a combat phase... these are all things we have to teach them. Claiming that because they aren't learning what they should in the education system is the reason we shouldn't need to worry about teaching the rules of a game is ludicrous; we're going to need to teach them anyway!
I understand the concept of having core sets be "introductory" sets... but they will still need to know/learn the basic rules in order to play. And where are they going to learn and play...? casual games with their friends that introduced them to the game (thus likely to have cards from expansions), and FNM... where people will be playing with cards from various blocks... so you will still need to explain rules they don't understand when you play it against them.
You can differentiate the sets as far as likely interactions, and how common it will be to see a vanilla creature or ones with activated abilities. But you can't differentiate them in terms of the rules that have to be taught. They are going to be the same regardless if you are teaching them with just M14, or with a Block constructed deck, or a modern deck.
As well, by simply stating that the perceived importance of literacy, fluency, and numeracy are declining, is no reason to cater to the perception, and make the game need less of these things. The importance of games and competition in society is to stimulate and challenge, in order to help develop these assets... dumbing down the game does the opposite, by rewarding people for having less of these assets.
Sorry for the rant, but having an entire group take a step backwards to allow those behind catch up does not make those who were behind go forward faster, it makes everyone go slower.
July 8, 2013 3:57 p.m.
atreyujames says... #29
There is no way wizards would do that many slivers in a core set. since slivers were just the "returning mechanic" such as bloodthirst or exalted, they couldn't have it take to many spots in a set that provides no story or flavour. It wouldn't be logical. As well, wizards wont do another 5 color sliver any time soon, especially not in a core set. I mean really, we have 3 already do you really need more?
And for more reasons why they wouldn't do more slivers:
M14 has 14 Slivers and 1 Sliver token maker. If wizards had done 3 more slivers for blue and black as well as a 5 color one, then that would be 22 cards focused on slivers. By comparison legions only had 15 slivers, and tempest (the set to introduce slivers) only had 11. A core set, which by all standards should have less slivers, has more or equal than blocks that had slivers as one of their main flavor mechanics.
July 8, 2013 4:15 p.m.
The 5 color hive mind sliver has been a staple every time the slivers have shown up. Its a little odd that wizards didn't make one for this appearance.
Similarly, Slivers have traditionally been a 5 color tribe. I understand why Wizards tilted them towards Naya (it should allow more focus in drafting), but it still would have been nice if they had included one uncommon sliver for blue and black.
And the most recent block to include slivers, and the one with the most similarity, was Time Spiral, with 26 slivers +2 reprints in Time Spiral, 11 in Planar Chaos, and 6 in Future Sight.
July 8, 2013 4:33 p.m.
"We focused the slivers in three colors for drafting purposes but made one in each of the other colors for casual constructed."
Drafting a 5 color sliver and making it work would be hard, it would be better for casual constructed. I don't think a 5 color sliver is important and sliver's as a flavor in this core set is way overstated by the community. It's simply an addition to make the draft fun.
July 8, 2013 4:38 p.m.
My thoughts on this core set though, I'm buying a few uncommons I don't get from pre-release and the couple rares I want and only drafting it. It's not that great but has some fun stuff in limited and for commander. How much this stuff affects constructed will be defined by what theros brings.
July 8, 2013 4:40 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #33
I hear you man, the world suffers when the population stops learning. By keeping the barrier to entry low, it puts more demand on the playing populace to train the newcomers. If the newcomer can't understand APNAP, the stack and the myriad of other things much more complicated than "sacrifice a creature" then they are going to have a hard time playing at competitive tables. It speaks to the social nature of the game that were willing/able to do that and don't put up too much of a fuss.
I'm sure for many of us here we were stuck in classrooms were the world was paced for the people lagging behind, not the ones pushing the envelope. Setting the bar high gives people something to strive for, and that should be the goal. All I'm saying is that I don't think the intention was to dumb down the game too much. Rather, from what MaRo said, the more complex interactions will be left for the (limited) environments where they are more appropriate. The interactions still exist outside limited and there are thousands of cards to learn from.
I do think it alienates more experienced players and fills up your box of unplayable commons though. Not necessarily a good trend.
July 8, 2013 4:46 p.m.
After looking over the set I've got mixed feelings about the slivers. I'm happy that they're back, but they don't feel very "slivery" anymore.
Their art style pre-M14 was unique, their concept was unique, and they had their own separate identity. A 5-color tribe that cared about all other slivers, not just your own, with a unique backstory and art style. M14 has taken all of that away, putting slivers in primarily Naya colors, only affecting your slivers, and giving them a whole new art style.
To me, who was introduced to slivers in Time Spiral and fell in love with them, these slivers just don't feel the same anymore. Overall, M14 isn't the best it could be as the "mtg 20th anniversery" set.
July 8, 2013 5:17 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #35
Why the heck is not letting a creature sacrifice to itself "dumbing the game down"? There is no reason you should be able to sacrifice Blood Bairn to itself. It doesn't even make sense flavor-wise.
July 8, 2013 5:42 p.m.
landgrafb for me it's a lot of rule changes, including and going back to m10 with the removal of mana burn. For the most part the rules committee is trying to take out the complexity of the game (some I do agree with, some I don't). and the changes are attributed to 'new players can't grasp x, so we do y now to make it easier for them'. that is dumbing the game down. I really want to know how long they give to the term 'new players'. If it's a day or less than a month to get the game down, the teaching cycle is wrong. I haven't met anyone who didn't get most of the game right away and learn to take advantage of the more complex stuff in a month or two (with banding as a current rule!). To expect everyone to be experts at it in a few hours to a single session is how they make me feel at what they are aiming for with their explanations sometimes.
Per this particular ruling, I would sacrifice my self to help the team. The old ruling is perfectly fine and flavorful, just not intuitive to a lot of people apparently. This is dumbing down, taking away potential power plays for the sake of those who don't get it right away.
July 8, 2013 5:57 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #37
I don't have any problems with the rule changes they added in M14, and I don't have any gripes with the two changes from M10.
The Legendary rule change was for game balance. There used to be no reason to run a fun Legendary creature because they were inherently weak. Only the really broken ones got to see any play because of this. This was a good change. Sure, Geist is harder to deal with now, but if you can't beat a 2/2, then you should retool your deck.
The "land drop rule" is good for the game because it removes degenerate combos. Cards (Azusa, Lost but Seeking ) were being used in ways that weren't intended, leading to degenerate game states. This new rule will make the game better.
Keywording "indestructible" doesn't really change a whole lot for most people. The only reason people are griping about this one is because they hate change, even if that change won't ever affect them.
The new sideboard rule is a pretty big change, but competitive players aren't going to care. They will always have a proper 15-card sideboard, and will almost always swap cards on a 1-for-1 basis to keep their deck at 60 cards. Newer players will eventually learn how to sideboard "properly", giving them a better understanding of the game. This, in a way, increases the complexity of the game by forcing decisions on how to construct and use your sideboard.
I don't see any problem with the removal of mana burn. It broke that one card with the cumulative upkeep of "add R to your mana pool", but other than that hasn't dramatically affected the game in any way. Removing an unnecessary part of the game isn't exactly dumbing it down.
The only rule change that has really "dumbed" the game down is the removal of damage from the stack. Expert players could manipulate the damage on the stack in ways that favored them and hindered their opponent. Wait for combat damage to hit the stack, then sacrifice an attacking artifact creature to Atog , saving it from the creature that blocked it. By removing this part of the game and making combat damage its own step, they removed a bit of nuance from the gameplay. But they also succeeded in making combat more consistent. Nobody wants to have to keep track of which creatures live and die in a situation where there are 5 sacrifice-buffs on the stack above the combat damage. Also, it makes sense that if a creature is sacrificed before damage is dealt that it doesn't deal its combat damage. Dead things can't attack.
The rules changes have all happened for a reason, and those reasons aren't generally "to make the game easier for new players". Wizards changes the game when they see a problem that needs to be addressed, an unnecessary component that can be removed, or a clarification that will make the game more intuitive for all players, new and old alike. I guarantee they aren't making rules changes just for the hell of it or "just to piss you off".
July 8, 2013 6:43 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #38
Sorry for the text wall. Breaking my thoughts down in one chunk seemed better than writing all of that in pieces.
July 8, 2013 6:44 p.m.
atreyujames says... #39
I don't think Blood Bairn being able to sacrifice itself makes any sense flavour-wise. How does killing yourself make you stronger? It doesn't, you just die. The whole flavour of her ability is that she is growing stronger off of the blood of her victims, yet how can she grow stronger if she's dead.
July 8, 2013 6:46 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #41
@Krayhaft Slivers weren't the only tribe to affect all "slivers" even your opponents, all lords started out that way, then wizards changed their minds, now slivers are finally being brought back under the new way of doing things
July 8, 2013 6:55 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #42
I've got no problems with that change either. If I'm in a Sliver mirror, I don't want my opponent to be able to drop a single creature and get every effect ever on it because I had a faster start. Slivers lost a little bit of flavor, but became a lot less bullshitty.
July 8, 2013 7 p.m.
"I don't see any problem with the removal of mana burn. It broke that one card with the cumulative upkeep of "add R to your mana pool", but other than that hasn't dramatically affected the game in any way. Removing an unnecessary part of the game isn't exactly dumbing it down."
They print Zhur-Taa Druid and it's not dumbing down the game? Zhur-Taa Druid would have been a hellla of a lot more fun to use and make players THINK about how to use it, same with Zhur-Taa Ancient . mana-flare/barbs with mana burn was a fun deck to play and play against. They may not have dramatically changed the game, but needled it down to two win conditions essentially. As for as unnecessary, that's a point of view.
Apparently you underrate mana burn severely.
Now, for the two new rules you stated, I can live with them, indestructible is fine.
The new legend rules is okish, but I preferred the original rule, first down trumps. You had dead cards if you're playing with the same legends. No removal, made you play a bit better and stronger and get yours down first or remove theirs to get yours in.
" I guarantee they aren't making rules changes just for the hell of it or "just to piss you off"."
Agreed, and they aren't, doing that. But they are making the game easier and by extension dumber. Lowering the curve instead of helping people meet the curve through patient teaching and oking mistakes and letting them learn through them. again, I would like to know how long wotc research terms players as 'new'.
July 8, 2013 7:15 p.m.
Well, as MaRo says, you eventually have to change the game, and no matter what you change, there will be someone that dislikes that change.
Removing damage from the stack, taking away mana burn, those are things that I agree with. I don't think they necessarily dumb down the game, they just make it more intuitive and the rules less arcane, making it easier for newer players to learn the game (some would argue that that is dumbing down the game, but I think that there's a point where the game becomes unnecessarily complex, and those two mechanics were a part of it).
Slivers I'm sad to see in this state, what they were in time spiral and before was what made them 'slivery' to me. As Schuesseled has said, all old slivers were basically 'old lords', where they granted abilities to all creatures of their type, but that's what made them slivers, as wizards printed old-style slivers in legions and time spiral, at a time when other, more conventional tribal lords had been updated to "creatures you control". For me, that's what made slivers, slivers. That and the art style. One-armed, taloned snake creatures were really cool, but these new guys look like AVP knockoffs.
July 8, 2013 8:01 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #45
Well let's be fair, the old slivers, looked according to some, very "alieny" and now im sure we can all agree look very "predatory". The AVP trend was inevitable.
I don't mind the new look, but i agree, there old look was more unique.
July 8, 2013 8:43 p.m.
It's part of wizard's art style of humanoidifying their races (merfolk is a fairly recent example), so that players can connect better to them (sounds bs'y but it was a past wizards article).
It's one of the things that wizards has been doing that I disagree with, but I've tended to care more about the art style than most people. Wizards can warp the game mechanics all they like, but don't touch my slivers!
July 8, 2013 8:53 p.m.
I don't mind the concept that the game will change over time.
Adding Planeswalkers, in order to introduce a new appeal that fits with the story/flavour.... I'm all for that.
Editing some rules, like the Legendary rule so that it works they way it was intended (Clone shouldn't kill Progenitus )... all good.
Keyword Mechanics, like Storm or Flashback... that's really just a way of shortening a phrase, so it doesn't have to be printed/read on each card; just like reminder text is there to explain the Mechanic when it may not be intuitive.
What doesn't make sense is editing rules or new prints, not because they don't work as intended, nor to add to the enjoyment of the game, but rather to cater to those who find complexity where it dosen't exist. The removal of Mana Burn, and the firm decision to never again print/use Banding, are good examples of this. Neither were overly complex, but some people just couldn't get their minds around it, or understand why it worked the way it worked. The removal of these abilities completely destroyed a number of deck types. When they were around, I was more than willing to teach new players what these were, and how/why they worked the way they did.
July 8, 2013 10:24 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #48
Let's break down those two examples:
First we'll tackle Banding. Let's admit it, it was a bad mechanic. Allowing groups of creatures to attack as one was cool and all, but there was never a point where it felt intuitive. It really just made a mess out of combat math. Also, there are a lot of Magic keywords that will never be reprinted. Creating new and intuitive game mechanics sometimes means phasing out the ones that missed the mark.
Second: Mana burn. I'll concede my point that removing mana burn was a good thing if I hear a good explanation of why mana burn existed in the first place. What was it trying to punish, and why should we care? If my opponent wants to tap absurd amounts of mana and not spend it, doesn't that kind of help me?
July 8, 2013 10:47 p.m.
Mana burn did a number of things while it was around.
1 - It allowed cards like Mana Flare to be used as a way of destabilizing your opponent, causing them to take more care in their casting, and occasionally decide not to cast some spells. It was a very "Red" way of control, and entire decks were based around it.
2 - Some spells that added mana to your mana pool were partially kept in check. Mana Drain was a powerful counterspell, but was kept in check by the fact that you would take damage if you didn't have something to spend the excess mana on. This happened for smaller things as well, including Dark Ritual , Wild Growth .... even Black Lotus was known to cause damage. The rule change made many of these much more powerful than originally intended, because Mana Burn caused the cards to have a slight self-check system.
3 - "Floating Mana" was riskier. Tapping all your mana before the resolution of a massive land-wipe could have been a recipe for disaster. - I had seen someone tap all their mana, casting Armagedon, and expecting to play a sorcery right after... their opponent cast Abeyance , preventing the sorcery, and causing a lot of damage.
4 - It added flavour... to 'tap into' power, but be unable to properly wield it meant danger.
So, yes, Mana Burn was once a vital part of many peoples games, it ensured that people were more aware of what they were spending mana on, and made them think about what their mana was being used on, and how the spells interacted.
As for banding... the only thing confusing about it was that it was 2 mechanics in one. People confused what it did while attacking with what it did while blocking. They could easily reuse these separate abilities now, keeping the 2 parts separate, and not use the word "Banding", and people would not have a major issue with it.
GreatSword says... #2
Or you could go to the actual Magic site: http://www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/article.aspx?x=mtg/tcg/magic2014coreset/cig#
July 8, 2013 12:39 a.m.