Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics

CardName: Megamorph Cost: Type: Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Conversation None

Megamorph
 
 
Updated on 13 Mar 2015 by Jack V

History: [-]

2015-03-02 19:47:14: Jack V created and commented on the card Megamorph

Fascinated to see what megamorph turned out to be. (Like morph, but a +1/+1 counter when turned face up) Fan design speculation correctly picked up hints it would be a morph or manifest variant, and was on target with what sort of things would work, according to what Rosewater said wizards had tried.

But as with many reveals, wizards answer has interesting game play strategy, but is MUCH simpler rules wise than most things fan designers were considering.

Personally I would've been fine with keeping manifest or morph as is. What surprised me the most was actually the return of Rebound. three returning mechanics? now that was a surprise.

Also holy molly that Stratus Dancer is a good card! Blue Stormfront Pegasus with upsides? Geeze!

Oh wow, I hadn't read the other spoilers yet. I should have expected more returning mechanics -- it makes sense for mechanics which have enough design space for a guild, but maybe not more. But I totally did NOT see that coming!

I love the idea of formidable, especially the "grants trample" one, it makes so much sense for G/r.

Oh, and yes, I was too busy looking at Stratus Dancer's mechanics to evaluate it. But I don't know, a 2/1 that can be a counter, and can be a 3/2 flier is certainly good! But Stormfront Pegasus is good for a common, but not really for constructed. I'd like to see a constructed format where 2/1 fliers were relevant, for standard, small creatures probably need to be close to Stratus Dancer to see a lot of play.

Formidable is a very nice alternate tweak on Ferocious. Megamorph... in some ways it seems rather dull (the name is utterly naff, and the effect is about as small a tweak on morph as is possible), but it is a clever variation in that it gives you a reason to cast things face-down, while still potentially having reasons to cast them face up too; while also keeping consistency with morph so you can't tell whether something was a morph or a megamorph.

I am still surprised that spellmorph hasn't turned up this block. It seems so natural. Possibly it turns out to be too much of a cost, paying 3 up front and then having to give up your useful 2/2 later to get a spell effect. The spells would have to be pretty expensive / powerful for that to be worth it. Has anyone ever playtested with spellmorph to see if it works?

The name is pretty ridiculous, unless it's a purposeful references to Animorphs, in which case I approve.
I'm torn as to whether I find the tweak intriguing or frustrating. On the one hand, it's a simple, moderately interesting tweak to an existing mechanic. On the other hand, it's just "better" than morph, which annoys me a bit. It's also rather boring.

I wish we had seen spellmorph, but I don't think it fit the flavor of morph in this block.

Good point, morph doesn't have that much flavour so it usually can fit, but it would have fit less well. Megamorph makes sense.

Which makes me curious again, it did feel like the comp rules changes for fate reforged were enabling spellmorph, possibly deliberately. So, is it still actually impossible in the rules for some reason I can't see? Or is it too complex? (I don't see why.) Or are they saving it for a block (hypothetical or specific) where it fits well. Or is it actually less tactically interesting than morph?

I'm not sure. I find Lumithread Field and Zoetic Cavern interesting, but to be honest I've never played with them. I would have to play with spellmorph to know.

Aha. Sam Stoddard says over here "One of the original concepts for how the Tarkir block would work was to put morph on creatures in Khans, lands in Fate, and noncreatures in Dragons." He makes the good point that if the only morphs in a particular set are noncreatures, then you don't need to worry about blocking a morph on a 2/3 - at least, no more than you do about any other 2/2.

That's a very sensible point. It removes a bit of the strategic thought from morph. It would be less of a problem with a mix of card types under the morph, of course.
Obscuring Aether really tantalizes me with what could have been.

As long as at least... maybe 40% of the morphs in the set are creatures, and that remains true once you filter out bad or unplayable cards, then yes, I think the remaining 60% ought to be able to be Auramorphs or spellmorphs.

Yeah, this is sort of what I was thinking with "less tactically interesting", that if it stops being a creature, it removes some of the mystery of "is this a good blocking decision". Not all, but some. I realise, I spent so long thinking whether spellmorph would work in the rules, I hadn't considered if it would be fun...

OTOH, I'm still curious if they're exploring spellmorph. Sam says "non-creature morphs" and "aura morphs" but doesn't specify if they ever tried non-permanent morphs :)

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
How much damage does this card deal? Searing Wind
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)