Looks like cards are coming out in the wrong story order today.
Mark Rosewater had perfected a spoiler season, but he had no control over the mortal content creators who had to agree to implement it.
Looks like cards are coming out in the wrong story order today.
Orzhov is already used.
Oh, that was Orzhov? Thought it was Boros for whatever reason.
Can't finale just go into the miracle red deck to get back skewer and lightning for 5 mana, as well as get 3 cast triggers for steam kins or guttersnipes or whatever?
Autumn Burchett
@AutumnLilyMTG
My assumption at this point is that if the London Mulligan causes a deck to be oppressive in a format that is more an indication of what should be allowed to be legal within the format rather than what the mulligan rule should be
11:45 AM - 12 Apr 2019
Ben Stark
@BenS_MTG
Ben Stark Retweeted Autumn Burchett
Perfect take as usual Autumn. The London Mulligan is soooooooooooooooo much better for magic overall. Instead of Mulliganing feeling like a nightmare and the worst part of magic, it now feels like a healthy strategic part of the game. Ban problem cards, keep the great rule!!!!!
11:49 AM - 12 Apr 2019
The Legion would never work with the people who are willing pawns of Bolas. Domri Rade is the only one who doesn't resent what Bolas helped him do. Neither Aurelia nor Pierakor/Feather would accept joining with the destroyers.Don't know if it means anything, but both "Bond of x" cards have two guilds that form a shard, but are oddly in a color that's not the center of the shard. So others would be
Blue : Dimir / Izzet
Black: Rakdos / Golgari
Red: Gruul / Boros
Drive to Work podcast where Mark Rosewater interviews Greg Weisman
People testing out the London Mulligan seem to universally be praising it.
General impressions are that it doesn't boost dredge and such as much as you'd think, and it actually helps out Tier 2 decks much more. And like Autumn said, if anything breaks, that's more reason to ban those cards than to go back to the old mulligan rule.
Drive to Work podcast where Mark Rosewater interviews Greg Weisman
People testing out the London Mulligan seem to universally be praising it.
General impressions are that it doesn't boost dredge and such as much as you'd think, and it actually helps out Tier 2 decks much more. And like Autumn said, if anything breaks, that's more reason to ban those cards than to go back to the old mulligan rule.
The Legion would never work with the people who are willing pawns of Bolas. Domri Rade is the only one who doesn't resent what Bolas helped him do. Neither Aurelia nor Pierakor/Feather would accept joining with the destroyers.
While it would make sense from a mechanical perspective, it makes no sense from a lore one.Well, they did. The first color combinations are shards. For color balance, that means the other three are shards also. The card will be a red Boros/Gruul combination.
While it would make sense from a mechanical perspective, it makes no sense from a lore one.
It's for cleaner rotations, and longevity of deck design.Do I understand Standard rotation correctly? This summer another core set will come, and it and M19 will be Standard-legal at the same time. Then another set will come out in the fall. At that point the two Ixalan sets, Dominaria, and M19 all rotate out.
This seems a little crazy, that will dramatically reduce the number of playable cards and seems like it would really limit the diversity of competitive decks.
Why do they rotate so many sets out all at once? Replacing four sets with a single new one and then slowly building the number of playable cards back up seems so unnecessary, why not just rotate the oldest set out every time a new comes out? Or do it by blocks, like when Allegiance came out Ixalan and Rivals could have both rotated out (I think technically it would have been Amonkhet block by this method, but you get what I mean).
You can do Shards and Wedges simultaneously.They're giving themselves the option select to do Shards of Ravnica (but in a way different to Alara) if they want to for Rav4.
People dislike having to remove cards from their decks four times a year much more than they dislike having to remove a bunch of cards once a year. They experimented with bumping it up to twice a year a few years ago, and it led to a sharp drop in Standard play after the first mid-year rotation happened, so they quickly backtracked.Do I understand Standard rotation correctly? This summer another core set will come, and it and M19 will be Standard-legal at the same time. Then another set will come out in the fall. At that point the two Ixalan sets, Dominaria, and M19 all rotate out.
This seems a little crazy, that will dramatically reduce the number of playable cards and seems like it would really limit the diversity of competitive decks.
Why do they rotate so many sets out all at once? Replacing four sets with a single new one and then slowly building the number of playable cards back up seems so unnecessary, why not just rotate the oldest set out every time a new comes out? Or do it by blocks, like when Allegiance came out Ixalan and Rivals could have both rotated out (I think technically it would have been Amonkhet block by this method, but you get what I mean).
Do I understand Standard rotation correctly? This summer another core set will come, and it and M19 will be Standard-legal at the same time. Then another set will come out in the fall. At that point the two Ixalan sets, Dominaria, and M19 all rotate out.
This seems a little crazy, that will dramatically reduce the number of playable cards and seems like it would really limit the diversity of competitive decks.
Why do they rotate so many sets out all at once? Replacing four sets with a single new one and then slowly building the number of playable cards back up seems so unnecessary, why not just rotate the oldest set out every time a new comes out? Or do it by blocks, like when Allegiance came out Ixalan and Rivals could have both rotated out (I think technically it would have been Amonkhet block by this method, but you get what I mean).
"We agree there are times when force is the only answer, just not on when."While it would make sense from a mechanical perspective, it makes no sense from a lore one.
Why do they rotate so many sets out all at once? Replacing four sets with a single new one and then slowly building the number of playable cards back up seems so unnecessary, why not just rotate the oldest set out every time a new comes out? Or do it by blocks, like when Allegiance came out Ixalan and Rivals could have both rotated out (I think technically it would have been Amonkhet block by this method, but you get what I mean).
They tried having two rotations per year and it was very unpopular.
Only having to worry about rotation once per year instead of every 3 months is a lot cleaner from the players' perspective. If I build a deck, then can't play for 4 weeks for whatever reason, not having to worry about my deck being legal when I can play again is important.One of the things that seems really weird about the current method of rotation is that no everything has the same longevity. Cards from Ixalan are legal in Standard for seven months longer than cards from Dominaria, which seems significant. Only decks that are reliant on cards from the first set in a given rotation have more longevity.
Any maybe I haven't been playing long enough to get what you mean but cutting the game's playable cards by almost a half in one fell swoop does not seem very clean.
That reminds me, back when Wizards moved to two rotations a year, there were a ton of hot takes about how Wizards was exploiting players by forcing them to spend more to keep their decks up to date.Only having to worry about rotation once per year instead of every 3 months is a lot cleaner from the players' perspective. If I build a deck, then can't play for 4 weeks for whatever reason, not having to worry about my deck being legal when I can play again is important.
There's also the issue of pre-constructed decks. The more often you rotate the shorter their shelf life.
I mean it's weird for the Selesnya to go along with the Simic, since the latter is into bio engineering. And the Azorius with the Orzhov, since the former is law creation and enforcement and the latter is literally a syndicate.The Legion would never work with the people who are willing pawns of Bolas. Domri Rade is the only one who doesn't resent what Bolas helped him do. Neither Aurelia nor Pierakor/Feather would accept joining with the destroyers.
See my above post.I mean it's weird for the Selesnya to go along with the Simic, since the latter is into bio engineering. And the Azorius with the Orzhov, since the former is law creation and enforcement and the latter is literally a syndicate.
I'm still curious how they're going to spin Boros to be BFFs with Gruul though lol
I mean it's weird for the Selesnya to go along with the Simic, since the latter is into bio engineering. And the Azorius with the Orzhov, since the former is law creation and enforcement and the latter is literally a syndicate.
I'm still curious how they're going to spin Boros to be BFFs with Gruul though lol
What? The socio-political climate today is splintered and go more and more extreme on either side.I mean... we're currently living in a socio-political climate that's requiring a lot of different groups with similar goals (not getting killed by dictatorial leaders) having to set aside philosophical differences to ensure mutual survival.
Barbarians haven't been around in a while. Last one was back in Coldsnap, I think, and even she was errata'd to just be a Human in reprints.As someone who has been out of magic for years.
3 questions.
1. Are barbarian types back yet?
2. What happened to kamahl
3. Is Garrick still around?
It's a widening gulf between two sides, but people on each side of that gulf are allying with people on the same side that they would otherwise despise.What? The socio-political climate today is splintered and go more and more extreme on either side.
As someone who has been out of magic for years.
3 questions.
1. Are barbarian types back yet?
2. What happened to kamahl
3. Is Garrick still around?
First 2 make me sad.Barbarians haven't been around in a while. Last one was back in Coldsnap, I think, and even she was errata'd to just be a Human in reprints.
Kamahl is long dead.
Garruk is still around; he isn't in this set, but we're told there are plans for him soon.
He's a black green badguy now. I wouldn't count on it.First 2 make me sad.
Wonder if Garrick will be the end path of the krosa druids
because that would mean 4 rotations a year.why not just rotate the oldest set out every time a new comes out?
* Greg liked working with the characters, though I can't imagine he'd say otherwise when in the car with MaRo.
My point is there are guild combinations that seem they would fit more logically given their ideologies to form shards in case they want to do Alara Redux.It's a widening gulf between two sides, but people on each side of that gulf are allying with people on the same side that they would otherwise despise.