Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2026-02-22 15:30:27)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2026-02-22 15:30:27)
Here are a few of the thoughts I had a first glance concerning different aspects of the set:
Dragons: I wasn't sure what to think of the "ALL THE DRAGONS" theme going in. Wizards really hammered it into us that this was the selling point of the set, especially at the PAX panel. I didn't know if I was going to like it or if they were going to pull it off well (which could possibly have been different things). I'm rather ambivalent toward dragons, and it bothers me that Wizards thinks they're such a popular creature type. I know that they probably have market research to back it up, but I just don't really understand it. I dislike seeing them cram dragons into every set, especially Innistrad and Theros, where they just felt off.
While I didn't know whether I was going to like it or not, I did expect a few things from the set. Dragons have become rather one-note over the years, so I expected them to mix that up a bit. They had the perfect opportunity to do so by spreading dragons into all five colors. I also expected the dragons to be highly impressive, and I imagined there would be several pushed to be constructed powerhouses, like Thundermaw Hellkite, since they're the face of the set and Wizards has hyped us up about them. I expected the dragons to appear at every rarity, since they're apparently all over Tarkir at this point.
Wizards defied many of my expectations, and not really in good ways. There's not even one dragon at common. Even though there are plenty at uncommon, and plenty of effects that reference dragons at common, I still find this disappointing. Even if none of the other dragons in the set caught my eye, I expected the dragonlords to "wow" me. After all, they're the most powerful beings in the set and they've survived over 1,200 years. I expected them to impress in the way that the Theros gods, or Avacyn and the Powerpuff Girls, or even the Eldrazi did. They failed to do this. Only Ojutai really caught my eye, to be honest. The others are all pricey but with smaller bodies than I would have expected (except for Atarka, who we all knew would be a big dumb fatty). They gave them the type Elder and yet they still seem like run-of-the-mill dragons to me. I understand that this is just a personal feeling, but I feel like I know Wizards has failed me somehow when the uncommon cycle of dragons has me more interested than the mythic rares. Maybe this feeling is off. After all, the uncommons will be easier to get a hold of. Oh, and we all know I'm not talking about that terrible cycle of megamorph dragons.
The Past Khans: While it might not make perfect logical sense, I was very glad to see that Wizards made reflections of the previous khans appear in this set. I'm very glad to see Narset Transcendent, and she's one of my favorite cards in the set. It makes me sad to see some of the others "weakened" so, but I do feel that it's very appropriate.
This isn't necessarily related to the khans, I do feel that Wizards has repeated a mistake they've made many times before. Like Gisa and Geralf before him, Taigam failed to get a card of his own. He actually got two cards referencing him in their names, and yet Wizards didn't think that people would expect to be seeing him on a card? Come on, guys.
Megamorph: Yes, the precedent has been set for cute little twists on previous mechanics, but this one has such a silly name, and it's literally just a "better" morph. Multikicker and typecycling at least have different applications.
Dash: As Alex said, the small twists on this mechanic are pleasant. Pitiless Horde is the most interesting design, I think. Ambuscade Shaman feels like a color pie break. To me, it should be green or red. I don't understand what makes it black.
Formidable: While not as boring as I thought when I first saw it, this mechanic just doesn't excite me very much. The things I like about it? It's adorable that it's "double ferocious," and that Dragonlord Atarka sets it off all by herself. I don't particularly care for how much you have to commit to turn on formidable, nor do I like that the high threshold means you're probably already ahead when you receive the bonus.
Rebound: It's a returning mechanic, so I thought I knew what to expect from it. I was pretty wrong. I'm disappointed by most of the cards they chose to represent it, and how hard they nerfed it. Distortion Strike versus Taigam's Strike made me say "really?" out loud, as did Center Soul versus Emerge Unscathed. I do love Profound Journey, though. I mean, I wish it cost less, but I understand that that makes no sense.
Exploit: It itself, the mechanic is not very exciting. They really had to give it some juicy cards in order to make it be interesting, which they did. The flavor of it fits the Sultai — um, the "Silumgar" perfectly.
Individual Cards:
• Is anyone else bothered by Descent of the Dragons and Hardened Berserker being red? Neither of seem like they fit in the slice of red's pie with which I'm familiar.
• Wow, the Monument cycle is... uninspiring.
• Swift Warkite could be lots of fun with Phantasmal Image.
• Now that Den Protector exists, I want even more to build a deck around Mastery of the Unseen and Temur Sabertooth.
• What did Fall of the Hammer do to deserve to be turned into Tail Slash? I assume it has something to do with all the big dragons in limited...
• Ire Shaman means my morph deck might need to include red.
• I hated Illness in the Ranks and now I hate Virulent Plague with the same irrational passion.
• Living Lore is a neat design.
Dragons: Man. If you count the monuments, this set has sixteen uncommon dragons, all at six mana. Six mana is going to be the hump to get over in this set.
Exploit: I was dubious about the mechanic at first. But the exploit rewards seem to be pretty powerful, and in particular, seem to avoid the Devour problem of all eggs in one basket: for the most part the exploit rewards restore card parity or better. Looks potent.
Speed: This set seems to have a weird relationship to speed. There's a lot of aggressive two-drops, reminiscent of Gatecrash. But there's also a bunch of effective defensive creatures and the aforementioned sixteen six-mana dragons. I can't tell how effective a fast deck is going to be.
Dash: I do like the twists on dash we see in Pitiless Horde, Warbringer, and Ambuscade Shaman (hello Primal Forcemage, almost didn't recognise you there).
Megamorph is obviously being discussed on its own thread.
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 :)
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.
Yay Dragons! It looks good. But I'm not having any time to play new sets!
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.
Thank you for linking, sir.
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.
For reference: Visual spoiler on dailymtg.com, visual spoiler on mythicspoiler.com.
Typo... oops.
I know that we haven't met with great success (as in finished) our past community sets, but I thought perhaps we might try again.
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.
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?
See Asking for Help from Other Users.
I'm considering opening up Anydria as a community set. While I love the concept of it and I frequently have ideas about it, I've realized that I don't have the proper drive and discipline to complete it by myself. I thought perhaps with community involvement I might break that barrier.
Would anyone be interested in participating? I realize that this might lead to significant changes to the set, which is fine. There are very few things that I'd be dead-set against changing.
I wish we had seen spellmorph, but I don't think it fit the flavor of morph in this block.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
Ah, off-colour activations or other off-colour mana symbols. Fair enough.
@Alex I've always referred to cards like Mardu Hateblade or Desperate Ravings as "monocolor gold". That is they are strictly speaking monocolored, but have multicolored color identity (technically I'd even put things like the Clan runemarks in that category too).
There are ways to make gold creatures more reliable. Morph, Suspend and Dash, for example, can operate with a gold frame and casting cost, but have a hybrid Morph, Suspend or Dash cost. I'm sure one could come up with quite a few more mechanics like that, if you put your noggin to it.
It's kind of cheating, though, and maybe that's good, or maybe not. If the point is to make a set using only straight gold creatures, then... hmm... I guess one option is to make your limited theme not revolve around creatures. Personally, I think that could be really neat. But I also think it's one of the easiest ways to create a complete disaster. Certainly possible, but I'm not sure how off the top of my head.
What do you mean by "gold monocolour"?
But anyway, yeah, it's an intriguing idea. Reminds me a little bit of the Community Set with its "gold versus monocoloured" theme, but this would want factions divided on different lines to that, I think.
Since creatures are the backbone of a Limited deck, I think it makes more sense to have all creatures mono and all spells gold than vice versa. It's still a pretty unusual idea - which is why it's so interesting, of course.
You'd need a compelling reason why the effects were divided that way. Both flavour and something mechanical. Perhaps Shadowmoor-style colour matters.
Thinking about a typical Limited deck of two colours plus splash... The creatures would be just as easy to cast as always. The removal and other spells would be a lot harder to cast... and unless the limited format was unusual, it'd be quite unlikely that all your spells will be in one colour-pair. Say you'd drafted a RBw deck, with lots of R creatures or B creatures, one white bomb... And the spells would be hopefully about half RB, with the rest a mixture of RW, WB, and artifact. (And RBW if there are triple-colour gold cards.)
I suspect the set will need pretty good common mana-fixing. Similar to Khans of Tarkir with its ten common dual lands and five Banners. But that's okay, that's doable.