Wilds of Muraganda: Recent Activity
| Wilds of Muraganda: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Wilds of Muraganda: (Generated at 2025-05-01 09:12:41)
| Wilds of Muraganda: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Wilds of Muraganda: (Generated at 2025-05-01 09:12:41)
pronouns
pronouns
pronouns
PW redirection templating change
PW redirection templating change
PW redirection templating change
PW redirection templating change
PW redirection templating change
PW redirection templating change
not clear what new templating will be, tentative
not clear what new templating will be, tentative
not clear what new templating will be, tentative
PW redirection templating change
PW redirection templating change
PW redirection templating change
For the moment, this cardset follows two templating/rules changes that have been discussed by WotC members but not currently implemented:
1)Removing rule 306.7 ("If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead.") and any direct damage will only be able to damage planeswalkers by targeting PWs or directly listing damage to them.
2) Modifying rule 608.2b by removing the line "The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal.".
We think that both changes are an overall cleanup and fairly likely to eventually occur in the real game. Cards will be playtested under those rules and development will be done with these changes in mind, though we expect it will meaningfully impact very few cards, if any.
This may be revisited later on, especially if further information about the plausibility of these changes comes out from WotC.
Update: PW redirection change has been confirmed, so glad we did those changes earlier and won't have to redo them all.
Bee-Less Sting is still a color pie violation, because one of its "modes" (in fact, the most efficient one) is direct damage in green. A shock for
would be completely in pie. As for the blogatog quotes, the point of the first ones, about using costing to convey color pie, is that a card like 
shock is still out of pie, even if it's grossly unplayable. The last quote is the only one to address twobrid, and it seems to pretty clearly line up with how we're trying to use twobrid in this set.
Perhaps this doesn't exactly fit your personal dreams for the color pie, but since twobrid is a real mechanic that is very likely to return one day and be used by WotC, I'm pretty comfy as long as we're using it in the way they say is fine.
Regarding Yokhombo Scuttler specifically, it's true that coloreless has gotten very little bounce -- pretty much just Erratic Portal. I think it's fine in pie, but it still might get changed to require at least one hard
in development.
--CF
I think I understand and agree with everything you're saying until you get to your second example card. The cost of
isn't okay, but 
would be, by Maro's logic of the color pie.
I know you touched this a bit with Gather the Thatchers ("
has haste now?"), but 
for a Man-o'-War with prowess just doesn't seem right, man. Even taxing with Cataract Veil is something artifacts have mingled with from time to time in higher rarities, but bounce? Really? Yeah, it sucks at 
but that's more of a development concern anyway and not something that can be dictated by color pie that well.
Ie. from blogatog:
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/132519159903/is-the-bad-precedent-regarding-the-color-pie-in
> Damnation is actually in color pie. Power level is a development issue.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/148401962158/whats-your-designer-opinion-on-birds-of-paradise
> Not my call as it’s a power level issue. Reprinting Birds of Paradise would be more done for nostalgia reasons than color pie ones. It’s a bend and not a break but it isn’t emblematic of what Green should be doing.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/128571494408/maro-we-bombard-you-with-delver-questions-because
> Was it a developmental mistake? Sure. Was it a color pie issue? No.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/101957532473/is-keeping-a-the-power-levels-of-the-colors-close
> Power level is more of development’s area. Messing with the color pie (responsibly, of course) is more of design’s area.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/92410198448/if-red-cant-get-enchantment-removal-just-because
> Whether something is in the color pie or not is not about power level. I judge Delver of Secrets on its ability regardless of what Development chooses to cost it at. Likewise, red random enchantment removal is out of color pie regardless of costing.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/90236491278/would-you-consider-hornet-sting-appropriately-in
> I do not like the practice of justifying color pie with costing. Many players do not have the ability to properly gauge power level so making overcosted color pie-breaking spells only undercuts the clarity of what each color does.
> How do you best communicate that a color can’t do something? By not having it do it. Ever.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/39482202580/does-the-color-pie-care-about-power-level-can-a
> bonsequitur asked: Does the color pie care about power level? Can a color have access to an effect at a low power level, that it wouldn't get on a higher-powered card?
> There is some argument about this. I believe strongly that doing something at a low power level doesn’t allow a color to do something that it should not do. I do believe though that some colors have abilities they have access to but at a lower power level than the best color at the ability.
etc...
So his opinion on that is quite clear. However, when we move onto the colorless territory:
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/126480250118/how-do-you-feel-about-cards-like-spine-of-ish-sah
> That’s something artifacts do. The trick is making sure they don’t do it too cheaply.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/24888533726/if-you-had-to-rank-the-shadowmoor
> There is a big difference for me between a color getting access to things through colorless means (artifacts, colorless spells, two-brids from Shadowmoor, etc.) than that color getting the ability in its own color.
> I don’t have issue with green, for example, going to colorless means to get creature removal. It’s going to be considerably worse than the spells in the color that are good at creature removal. What I don’t want is that spell in green. Separation of flavor is very, very important.
> Green having to go get a weapon to kill creatures feels so much better than green just having a spell that does it.
> One of the rules, for the Shadowmoor spells (all of which I like) is that they had to be costed such that they would make sense as artifacts costwise.
... and that's why I dislike colorless cards so much. They are the main culprits when it comes to undermining color pie. Two-brids especially combine these two lines of thought together, and shows exactly just how incompatible and contrary they are since two-brids are both "colorless and of color" in a sense.
So
> Bee Sting
> Sorcery
> ~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
isn't okay from color pie stand point, but
> Bee-less Sting
can be paid with any two mana or with 
. This card's converted mana cost is 5.)
> Sorcery
> (
> ~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
would be? I can't be the only one seeing the problem with this.
The first one, the one that's harder to cast, is the problematic one? Sure, yeah, okay, this is fine - whatever, bro.
There's been significant discussion about how to handle the "goldbrid" cards piewise, both within the team and with other commentators. Part of what makes it contentious/tricky is that not a lot of twobrid cards exist so far. But Flame Javelin gives monoW burn. Beseech the Queen gives monoW tutoring. All indications so far are that twobrid follows the "colorless can do almost anything, as long as it pays enough for it" philosophy behind swiftfoot boots and Scour from Existence -- twobrid gives you access to an in pie effect for cheap, and an effect from the "colorless pie" when you pay the colorless price for it. As such, goldbrid is closer to gold than to hybrid as far as access to colored effects goes.
It might be a bleed, or a bend, or neither, depending on how you decide to approach things -- but it's not a break. So while the discussion is ongoing I'm personally pretty comfortable with our current handling of these cards.
--CF
I like this, but it's technically a color bleed/break/bend, since it's giving monowhite access to haste.
I think this might be my favorite goldbrid design, since it has some additional value in RG (harmony) or UW (prowess/instant & sorceries). I suppose it actually synergizes with B reclaim as well, but I don't expect many B decks to be interested in paying 4 for this.
--CF
Possible to drop legendary
Now overlaps less with other effects in the set and has some revel synergy.
--CF
Last mode changed from +2/+0 and haste
Name is essentially a placeholder