Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2021-12-09 14:19:07)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2021-12-09 14:19:07)
I have been against the way Wizard have been designing their core sets since M11.
M11 was the perfect coreset they ever made in my opinion, simple yet elegant. Trying to fit in Bloodlust, Exalted and now Slivers is ruining the Limited enviroment for new players. And a simple enviroment where archetypes where scaled down to the core foundations of each color.
"They can always go back to the old way if public perception is negative... and I get the impression that Wizards will be tracking this point very carefully."
I strongly suspect that if the change doesn't work out (and the issue of having both types of slivers in Modern and Legacy should totally be considered IMO), there simply won't be any slivers of either type anymore owing to the "things should work the way people expect them" argument prevent the mixing of two types of lords.
My feeling is that if they return old-style slivers, that means no other lords at all in standard during that time, and that is unlikely.
Yeah. It was already on Blistercoil Weird and Wee Dragonauts
For yet one more take on it: Slivers effecting all creatures really puts a monkey-wrench in limited. I assume Jack didn't draft during Time Spiral, otherwise he would have seen this interaction come up all the time. A player with a really cool defensive sliver deck can be shut down by a bad player with a 14th pick Shadow Sliver.
I'm a bit of a grumbler, too. Sure, that's annoying, but that's what slivers do. Players like slivers because they're annoying. Changing slivers to just your creatures gets rid of half the reason that many players adore the card in the first place.
But, whatever. This is an experiment. They can always go back to the old way if public perception is negative... and I get the impression that Wizards will be tracking this point very carefully.
Heh. Okay, I see.
For those who care, this is Mark Rosewater's take on it:
> For the same reason that all our lords now only affect creatures you control. It has less downside, creates less board confusion, and, in general, makes the cards more enjoyable for a larger portion of the audience.
I'm looking at it from the point-of-fun of the non-sliver player. Old style; I could throw in a sliver and maybe sometimes get to giggle a lot. New style, I can't. But that's playing the metagame; not the game.
Well, no, it's mainly to avoid what Wizards call "feel-bad moments" where your cards help your opponent; also lining up with the modern design trend of vastly reduced amount of drawback mechanics.
Which is subtly different from catering to new players: the idea is that fun is something that affects all players, but grumbly old players tend to dislike changes Wizards make in the name of fun. In this case I find myself on the side of the grumblies. I like Slivers being the nostalgic old kind of uncontrolled tribal.
It's a direct attack on the metagame (as in, "Stop having one! BLAM!"); I feel like I should celebrate.
More slivers? Thumbs up. Art style shift? Broadly okay with it; as Doug points out, they are meant to be able to evolve.
Only affecting your own Slivers? Thumbs down. It was perhaps somewhat inevitable given Master of the Pearl Trident vs Lord of Atlantis, but I still really dislike it.
I've never played in a sliver mirror match. My instinct is that it doesn't give a lot of benefit over the slivers playing the same way as they do against most other decks, but is harder to remember, so wizards' change seems reasonable. But if that's actually important to the play of slivers, then it might be wrong.
I'm rather surprised by the humanoid art too, but it looks good, so I don't have a strong preference either way.
ETA: I forgot to say, I'm excited to see them. I played intermittently during time spiral, but entirely casually, and I never really played a sliver deck. I'm excited to see what they look like when they're in standard.
ETA2: Wow, I've always found it really hard not to say "silver creatures".
I doubt that making slivers only affect your stuff is catering to newbies. New players either wouldn't notice the difference, or prefer the game to get as explosive as possible. Really, that's a move courting experienced players... especially the Spikes (not tourney Spike... just regular old Spike) who hates to get blown out because of choices he has no control over (i.e. playing slivers, but my opponent happens to have a few slivers and he's feeding off of my abilities in a way that I had no control over when I built my deck.)
Is that a good idea? Maybe? I don't know. I assume Wizards sees that Slivers will probably still be a thing 20 years in the future. If that's the case, they should fix them now. I don't really feel they need fixing. Why not just make a different creature type? Let the players decide which they like better? Ah well.
Doug Beyer has explained the rationale on his blog: Slivers Evolved. I understand the reason for the changes; doesn't mean I fully agree. The mechanical change makes sense. A visual extension is also legitimate, but Magic doesn't need another humanoid race, especially not at the cost of a classic nonhumanoid.
its like giving snakes mammaries and legs. aka cop out to cater to the newbes.
What do you mean, they "are already complete?" I do find it bizarre that they are humanoid, but I suppose that must be he difference between Slivers from Rath and Slivers from Thune.
I can't say I like that they "dumbed down" Slivers by making them only affect your Slivers, but I do appreciate how much better it will feel to play them this way.
slivers are by definitions part of a whole. these slivers are already complete, and human?. i swear wotc is making dumber decisions by the set.
I'm excited to play with Slivers. I wasn't around for their original reign, but I expect it to be fun. The "you control" clause will probably make them play better, but it seems wrong somehow. The new art style is very weird. It's interesting, but Slivers already had a defined look: the sickle arm, the chitinous faceplate, the sinuous body tentacle. These new Slivers are more like biomech warriors or Phyrexians. Some still have the sickle or faceplate, but they no longer form a unified whole.
What are your thoughts on the return of Slivers in M14? Do you like or dislike that they now apply their abilities only to your slivers? What do you think of the visual redesign?
re: Aether Influence
I think it's narrow enough that +1/+1 would be fine.
Example commons
Ember Hound
Creature - Animal
Aether Influence, Trample
1/1
Elemental Bird
Creature Bird
Aether Influence, Flying
0/1
Aether Influence - Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery ~ gets your choice of +1/+0 or +0/+1 until end of turn.
Feel U/R and good for common.
Not a keyword and L2i0n0k7 already said it, but Frostburn Weird.
High flying, just like flying, except:
1. can only be blocked by other creatures with flying and high flying (not reach).
2. can't block creatures without flying or high flying.
3. spells that affect flying can also affect high flying (e.g. Hurricane also hurts high flying.)
4. mostly occurs in blue, white, and red
///////////////
Pathmaker:
1. creatures with different power than this creature can't block it.
///////////////
Powershift:
1. whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may switch its power and toughness until end of turn.
///////////////
Possibility:
Shift {N} ({N}: This creature gets your choice of +1/-1 or -1/+1 UEOT.)
Although really, I don't see the point of keywording this. It's just a suggestion.
My thoughts on this depends on whether you want a keyword mechanic, or a mechanical identity. For example, I think it would be cool to see blue/red have a lot of power and toughness switchers in one set. That's not really a keyword, but people would start to notice it if done in abundance.
Alternatively, p/t setting could be kind of neat. That's kind of every color's keyword ability, but blue is number one, and if you chose one static 'reddish' creature that the creatures kept turning into "Target creature becomes a 4/1 red and blue elemental until end of turn.// When this creature attacks, it becomes a 4/1 red and blue elemental until end of turn.// All creatures opponents control become 4/1 red and blue elementals until end of turn" it would start to feel blue/red.
Also, I think you could get some mileage on 'hurts to target and to block'. So something along these lines:
Creature - Illsusion
Whenever this creature is blocked or targeted by a spell or ability an opponent controls, you may draw a card.
2/2
Same deal on the red cards, but they deal damage, or maybe sacrifice permanents or something. Again, not really a keyword. More a mechanical identity. Though, I admit that that last ability borders on evasion.
not evergreen, but discount for each instant or sorcery you cast this turn. where black has delve and green/white has convoke.
Depreciate (This spell costs
less to cast for each instant or sorcery spell you cast this turn.)
it doesn't have to go on instants or sorceries. you can put it on creatures and enchantments, too.
We're looking for an evergreen keyword that could appear on a
creature? Well, if looting were keyworded, it would be a good fit. The Alluring Siren/Heckling Fiends ability fits in both colors, as does forced blocking, but I'm not sure how the first might be keyworded, and the second is too similar to provoke.
Perhaps something like "Evade (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, return it to your hand.)" Or the opposite, "Glare (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, return the blocking creature to its owner's hand.)" The second stretches the pie more because of the red bounce. The first can be justified in red by things like Archwing Dragon or possibly Norin the Wary. I think people would view it as a draw back, though.
Honestly, coming up with a new evergreen mechanic is very difficult, because what's been established works so well already.
Taunt (At the beginning of each opponent's combat, target creature that player controls attacks if able.)
I do appreciate Blood Scrivener, especially as a reference to both Dark Confidant and Hellbent.