Please login to comment
January 13, 2021 1:56 p.m.
Okay so I believe I mentioned this last time you brought up the format but I don’t recall the answer. How do you deal with non-land sources of mana or non-basic lands. Your rules say you CAN pay for mana with basics existing but is it possible to still tap a non basic for mana to pay a cost? For example if I have a swamp and a Volcanic Island on the battlefield. Can I play a Doom Blade by tapping my non basic for 1 and using my swamp for the other portion? Theoretical reasons for this could include ramping with artifacts or fetching for a dual land to get 2 off colors.
Also your van list includes things shuffling the grave into the library. Is my assumption correct that you also intend to ban cards like Conjurer's Bauble?
You mention “cards with the ability to mill” are banned and that all damage to self is mill. Is your ban inclusive of cards that deal damage to self/opponents since that will mill? I assume not and you intend that to be cards with the mill keyword. But there are also cards with this same style effect not key worded as mill such as Mulch. And cards that exile from library such as Salvage Drone. May be a good idea to be clear about what you plan on excluding.
You also exclude abilities that can “reanimate”. I took that to mean putting a creature onto the battlefield from grave. But this is not a keyword and you’ll have to be specific. There’s also cards like Living End which will likely get around any wording for Reanimation. I also didn’t take your wording to mean banning of cards that return cards to hand. I also saw nothing stopping someone from using Snapcaster Mage on non-creatures in grave which I’m unsure if that was intentional or not. You could make the rule a bit more all encompassing by changing the rule to something like Grafdigger's Cage.
I also built a deck to test this format assuming you can use fast mana. this deck 100% wins turn 1 if you get a mountain in the opening 7 and the opponent doesn’t have Force of Will. You can still win turn 1 if you have to mulligan to less than 7 I was just too lazy to check how the math works out with less than 7. All you need to do is cantrip through 24 cards, play and crack the lotus then grapeshot twice for lethal. The cantrips don’t need to be red I just did it because it matched the grape shots. The deck can also be built with more than 3 mountains that is more consistent and doesn’t lower its chance as much in a mulligan but it technically leaves open the chance of whiffing the combo on turn 1 and I thought it made a better point to demonstrate things this way. Also note this deck is not even remotely optimized. It could be made far more efficient and sleek with time and testing.
Deck Jok test
My list is just an example of how I believe the format will play out. Storm-like decks and decks mulling to make sure they open with a Force of Will. If you see a reason it won’t end up like this feel free to point out anything I missed. But I think you need to find a way to limit people in some way.
January 13, 2021 1:51 p.m.
I’m not sure I would appreciate it as a super type. That would be a really significant shift for magic as there are only 7 super types. 3 of which aren’t legal in any constructed formats (elite, ongoing and host) and 1 that has been phased out (world). The remaining three are “basic”, “legendary, and “snow”. Personally I wasn’t even a huge fan of snow being a super type and my guess is that since no other super type was introduced since (on constructed legal cards) wizards decided it wasn’t worth it to create a super type out of anything else. While technically yes they could do it, and it would open up the possibility to do various things with the cards I don’t think it would serve them any better than adding a creature type to all the previous cards and would be far less problematic.
I think MCatt was talking about going forward making them artifacts, with the lore justification being that they’ve advanced to the next stage of phyrexian evolution where they are truly one with machines enough so to justify an artifact typing. I agree that going back and adding this would be to big of a change. Creature types are one thing. Types are another.
January 12, 2021 2:28 p.m.
Creature types serve two main purposes. The first is mechanical, certain effects will apply only to certain types so the power of such cards is proportional to the number of cards with that type Elvish Clancaller. Notably there are also cards that don’t care about specific types so any creature type that is sufficiently large can get use out of them Coat of Arms. Because of this sparingly used creature types are generally not very good. Having a card like Uncle Istvan (pre-errata) would suffer due to not being part of a larger type. To be fair plenty of cards get by without any tribal support at all which is perfectly fine but by grouping some of these together you are opening up options for future tribal decks to be created. An example of this can be seen with cats and dogs. Cats are a unified creature type in magic. The leorin are cats, they aren’t catfolk, or Leonin creature type, they are cats. So cards like Regal Caracal work on all of them and you have plenty of cards to put together. Dogs on the other hand have jackals, as well as dogs. Dogs was a replacement for hound and all previous hounds were made into dogs so that wasn’t really a new creature type. Jackals will likely not fit into any dog deck and for that reason have less of a chance at being played. There is also the issue of creating cards that support a tribe in a creature type that have a lot of creatures such as elves or humans. Wizards could probably print a 1 mana 0/1 with the effect “other kraken’s you control get +2/+2 and flying” and this would be fine but replace that with elves and you have a card that would get banned harder than Oko. But if you want to create a card that benefits a creature type but it seems too powerful for the existing type it may be reasonable to create a new type to allow for this card and others in the future to thrive. Dinosaurs could have been kept as lizard if they really wanted to but the second goal of creature types is flavor. You want to get across a certain idea about a creature and it’s identity through its typing. And while dinosaurs are big lizards I think most people consider them drastically different enough to justify a new creature type. Warlock’s creation also fits into this second category by allowing the separation of people who get power from dark powers out of cleric which still could probably hold them but has a strong connotation of religion and demons (for dark clerics).
On the topic of creating the phyrexian creature type we can measure it against the criteria above. Does it serve a mechanical purpose? And is the difference in flavor large enough to justify it? Horrors, minions and constructs (a large part of old phyrexian cards) are not an overly supported tribes. Mechanically the main issue is that you wouldn’t be able to give cards across the spectrum buffs because of their variety especially when you consider that there are smaller pockets of other creature types that still could be phyrexian. Flavor wise are the phyrexians different enough as a group to justify a typing? almost all creatures have their type based on species and occupation (wizard, fighter, noble). From the species perspective, horrors and constructs still seem to fit the general theme of these cards quite well. Personally I don’t see their alterations to self as a new species separate from these categories or from other types that exist but this is where a lot of the discussion of the validity of this type will happen. Yes they are all United in purpose but the purpose is too specific for the general occupation creature types.
New creature types also always carry the baggage of should old types he errata’d into this new type? Hounds -> dogs was easy, all of things of 1 type are now other type. Phyrexian would involve a lot of changes that many people would not be able to guess by looking at the cards like they could probably do with dinosaurs. So I think the concern for retyping old cards is very valid.
Personally as much as I like Phyrexians I don’t see the need for the new type unless they are planning on adding specific support for it. And if they are adding support for it I don’t see it as worth the issues it causes as they probably would have to retype a lot of the old cards to make it make sense.
January 12, 2021 12:46 p.m.
69 VIEWS | IN 1 FOLDER
SCORE: 3 | 836 VIEWS | IN 3 FOLDERS
179 VIEWS | IN 1 FOLDER
SCORE: 1 | 1 COMMENT | 134 VIEWS | IN 1 FOLDER
SCORE: 3 | 5 COMMENTS | 808 VIEWS | IN 6 FOLDERS
SCORE: 98 | 162 COMMENTS | 11326 VIEWS | IN 67 FOLDERS
SCORE: 1 | 208 VIEWS
|Playing since||Magic 2013|
|Avg. deck rating||15.82|
|Favorite formats||Modern, Limited|
|Good Card Suggestions||43|
|Last activity||5 days|