Multiverse: New Mirrodin: Recent Activity

2012-11-25 06:18:02: jmgariepy edited Soil Management

2012-11-25 06:17:54: jmgariepy edited Soil Management

2012-11-25 05:26:20: jmgariepy commented on Leyline Infusion

I'm not sure. We haven't seen many lately. If you're asking "How much would Boil cost nowadays?" I'd have to say "Well, Boil was printed during a time when Armageddon was cool. Bust from Boom // Bust cost 6... which I'm still kind of surprised they got it so cheap... but I don't think they'd go any cheaper than that. So I'd guess Armageddon would cost {5} {w} , and so would Boil... or maybe more, since Boil practically says "win the game" against some decks.

That said, there's a reason why Armageddon and Boil effects are so rare nowadays. They really do win the game when you play them, in a way that a 7/7 trample, hexproof, haste creature does not. I think Wizards would rather you make the game get more and more swingy at higher and higher casting costs, not break the game. After all, if you could end the game at 6cc, why would you ever play a 9cc card? And if you could end the game at 9cc, why would you ever play a 12cc card?

2012-11-24 14:14:31: Vitenka commented on Leyline Infusion

Buh. How much does modern land hoser cost; then?

2012-11-24 13:38:45: Alex commented on Leyline Infusion

V: I think JMG is trying to design something within modern LD principles, which (you may be startled to learn) says Stone Rain is too good, and LD should be 4 mana (Demolish, Craterize) or higher (Survey the Wreckage, Destroy the Evidence).

Given which, I think I do like this.

2012-11-24 11:37:35: jmgariepy commented on Leyline Infusion

I don't think it can. It would be pretty close to Blight at that rate, and that card would be severely frowned upon today. I think it's best to look at this card from the other side of the table. Right now, if my opponent played it on my land, I'd grit my teeth, but say, "Well, fair enough." If my opponent played this on my round 2 and 3 lands without acceleration, though, I'd be wondering about the future of the game.

I don't know if Craterize as the new Stone Rain is really going to stick... but we should look forward to at least two more years of it being the standard.

2012-11-24 10:05:29: Vitenka commented on Leyline Infusion

? I love this.

As you say; I can use this when I'm playing for turbo, and I can play it to kill an opponents dual land.

It's a costly land destruction (costs as much as pure 'blow away that land there' while also giving them a one-shot better use of it) But the flexibility kinda makes up for it. Or would, if it weren't 3 mana to use it on your own stuff. I geuss it's still useful for "Pure red, splash everything else" If I've got 3 mana, I'm unlikely to be worried about turbo. Can it be downcosted?

2012-11-24 06:32:20: jmgariepy commented on Leyline Infusion

Hole-filling, I realized that I don't have anything in the Craterize slot yet. I came up with this little number, but I'm not sure if anyone will like it. I could point people to the fact that they could play it on their own land to force a turn 5 drop on turn 4, but I'm pretty sure I'd get nothing but scowls. I do like how this blanks out relevent man-lands, though. Maybe I should have just left it the first line of text? But wouldn't that be just as good as a Craterize 95% of the time, thus defeating the new casting cost of LD? Blergle.

2012-11-24 06:27:49: jmgariepy edited Leyline Infusion

2012-11-24 06:27:12: jmgariepy edited Leyline Infusion

2012-11-24 06:26:56: jmgariepy edited Leyline Infusion

2012-11-24 06:26:36: jmgariepy edited Leyline Infusion

2012-11-24 06:26:15: jmgariepy created the card Leyline Infusion

2012-11-24 05:46:22: jmgariepy edited Hillcrusher Wurm

2012-11-23 13:29:33: jmgariepy commented on Crick in the Brick

Not deliberate, just an accident of wording. I suppose the 'degenerate' way to do it would be "the number of spells", right?

Do we think we can squeeze the degenerate wording in here? Isochron Scepter is nice, but it's already broken with 100+ other cards, so I'm not concerned. I can't think of anything that could really abuse this... all I can come up with is "Works well with Fork (which copies the name. Though that might be a bomb-o.)"

Oh, also, Past in Flames. But that doesn't require copying. And I'm kind of cool with players who spend 10 mana and cast 4 spells to deal 25 damage.

2012-11-23 11:16:06: Alex commented on Crick in the Brick

Not so much, because copies aren't "cast". Reverberate / Twincast and friends just "put a copy onto the stack"; same with Izzet Guildmage etc.

There are some things that let you "cast" copies; most notably Isochron Scepter. Two of these on two Scepters gives you 4 damage a turn.

...Actually, huh, the way this is currently worded, no it doesn't. Because this says "the number of cards named ~ cast this turn". I don't know whether that's deliberate, but it does protect it a bit more from degenerate combos.

2012-11-23 09:27:34: Vitenka commented on Crick in the Brick

Potentially utterly terrifying with stuff that can copy spells.

2012-11-23 07:00:29: jmgariepy commented on Crick in the Brick

Thanks Link. Corrected.

Huh. I guess you're right Mystic. Well, I certainly don't want to make this a sorcery... and I guess the worst it would do in most match ups is turn into 3 Bolts. If someone gets four online at the same time, more power to them. I guess the card saved itself?

This is a minor barrier to entry problem. I don't think many new players would have come up with that... but I don't think playing this card 'the wrong way' is so bad. When someone points out to them they can play their CitBs in a better way, I assume that will make them happier.

2012-11-23 06:59:09: jmgariepy edited Crick in the Brick

2012-11-23 06:41:10: Link commented on Crick in the Brick

That comma after "player" is unnecessary.

2012-11-23 06:18:58: SadisticMystic commented on Crick in the Brick

You only have to cast 5 in the same turn to win, since you can respond to the previous ones and it doesn't look for the number until resolution.

2012-11-23 05:15:19: jmgariepy commented on Crick in the Brick

Hole filling, I found I needed to add a 1-cost direct damage spell. The set has a few 'collect me' style cards, so I figured this would be a fine addition. It compares favorably to Shock, but, man, does it suck when you realize that your third spell is only a Lightning Bolt. I think I'll have to be okay with this not being 'good'. Besides, could you imagine a draft where you snagged seven of these? Cast six in the same turn and win the game. ;)

2012-11-23 05:12:36: jmgariepy edited Crick in the Brick

2012-11-23 05:12:24: jmgariepy created the card Crick in the Brick

2012-11-21 13:51:06: jmgariepy commented on Exterminate

Honestly, I just forgot the artifact destruction was still on the card. I cut it out. I might set it back to red/black, I don't know...

2012-11-21 13:49:46: jmgariepy edited Exterminate

2012-11-21 11:03:10: Alex commented on Exterminate

Yeah, it's pretty dubious in monoblack.

2012-11-21 05:13:11: jmgariepy commented on Echoing Ruin

Reprint of Echoing Ruin. I was aiming to create a 2cc artifact destruction spell, but nothing I could come up with made more sense than reprinting an artifact destruction spell that hosed 'Resourceful', so, I went with that.

I kept retooling the flavor text... it started off with something about eggs and baskets... but I wasn't sure why Ibok was getting yet more flavor text time in red. I knew Kelios should be out there, but couldn't figure out why a berserker would care about what is obviously a Magic spell. Some how I ended up with a piece of story, which, you know... I should be throwing a few more pieces of story in the set. It's tricky... that flavor text started off about two and a half times that size and got pared down and pared down. Sometimes the direct quotes only need a couple of words removed. Still important to do...

2012-11-21 05:07:06: jmgariepy created the card Echoing Ruin

2012-11-21 04:32:46: Link commented on Exterminate

Black artifact destruction weirds me out.