Magic the Gathering XIX: Heroic- Bump this thread.

[Tychris1]

I'm just pumped to see Sarkhan back. I'm hoping they'll keep him as a psychotic maniac because I want a good Rakdos Planeswalker dammit! Yolo fire parties across every dimension ever!

[ChaosOS]

so, i bought myself some M15 boosters, and i managed to open up basically the only card i want from the set, ob nixilis

gonna buy myself some fertilids soon, and run a modern BUG deck that forces opponents to search possibly splashing some white as well, so i can throw in some aven mindcensors


only problem is, fertilid is the only card i can think of that forces a search, all the others i can think of say may. anyone know of cards that force a search?

and modern legal cards that benefit from your opponent searching? (i've listed ob, archive trap, and a phyrexian enchantment that i can never remember the name of. and i have one copy of all three, so i need more of them, but i can buy them online, or trade for them)

edit: i also got a foil in garruk's wake, but i don't really like the card, so i'll just trade it (i like the effect, i just find it overcosted)

Maralen of the Mournsong

[Androgeus]

So I had a thought. I know that MaRo has said a number of times, including very recently on his blog, that Morph always had the issue of it being confusing. Mileage may vary on that front, but I can certainly see why that might be the case, it's a bit of an odd mechanic.

So I submit that they're going to do something about that, rather than just slap morph on the card, I think it might be possible that they'll do double sided cards again. All morph cards get a morph form on their back. Seem plausible? I think so.

Unlikely. Double-sided cards can't be face down and morph kinda needs cards to be face down.

[Anarion]

So I had a thought. I know that MaRo has said a number of times, including very recently on his blog, that Morph always had the issue of it being confusing. Mileage may vary on that front, but I can certainly see why that might be the case, it's a bit of an odd mechanic.

So I submit that they're going to do something about that, rather than just slap morph on the card, I think it might be possible that they'll do double sided cards again. All morph cards get a morph form on their back. Seem plausible? I think so.

I think this would never work because of practical difficulties with drafting.

Morph cards require secrecy, they only make sense if there's a way to play them where your opponent can't be sure of what they'll flip into. So doing it with double-sided cards would mean you'd need one side (the 2/2) that could have multiple different backs.

But double-sided cards were already a huge problem for drafting, as you had to make them visible to the other drafters while avoiding any rules violations from all parties involved. Adding another layer to that in which cards would have one identical side but different backs would open up a considerable risk of cheating and deception when drafting physical cards, and I just can't see Wizards taking that sort of risk.

[Bucky]

So I submit that they're going to do something about that, rather than just slap morph on the card, I think it might be possible that they'll do double sided cards again. All morph cards get a morph form on their back. Seem plausible? I think so.

They can't really do this unless they reprint ALL the existing Morph cards. Otherwise, the opponent can tell from the back whether a morph card is from the new set.

[Gullara]

Unlikely. Double-sided cards can't be face down and morph kinda needs cards to be face down.

Face down means that the front face is, well, down. Double sided cards still have a front and back, it's just that in this case the back of the card would look different. There's nothing about morph that says the back side has to be the regular back of a card.

I think this would never work because of practical difficulties with drafting.

Morph cards require secrecy, they only make sense if there's a way to play them where your opponent can't be sure of what they'll flip into. So doing it with double-sided cards would mean you'd need one side (the 2/2) that could have multiple different backs.

But double-sided cards were already a huge problem for drafting, as you had to make them visible to the other drafters while avoiding any rules violations from all parties involved. Adding another layer to that in which cards would have one identical side but different backs would open up a considerable risk of cheating and deception when drafting physical cards, and I just can't see Wizards taking that sort of risk.

I'm confused by your logic. Setting the fact that you can tell your opponent has drafted a morph card aside (transforming cards worked well enough in draft despite this hurdle) I was suggesting the back of the card is the morph side. Aka, the 2/2 side that is identical for every morph card. From just that you have no way of knowing what the individual card is, just that it has morph. It makes sense with how morph works because the back of the card represents the 2/2 in morph as it is now, so then in the hypothetical double faced cards they make that identical 2/2 form the back.

They can't really do this unless they reprint ALL the existing Morph cards. Otherwise, the opponent can tell from the back whether a morph card is from the new set.

I could kind of see this being a problem since I suppose sleeves aren't a required thing. It's still a related problem to transformers (except it's more and issue for transformers in the hand rather than battlefield). I don't think it strictly rules out the possibility, however.

In any case, it's all just speculation right now. I do look forward to seeing how they'll alleviate the confusion, though, because I don't expect they'll do nothing.

[Khay]

How are Morph cards confusing, exactly? If it's face down, it's a 2/2. That seems pretty simple to me.

[Bucky]

I could kind of see this being a problem since I suppose sleeves aren't a required thing. It's still a related problem to transformers (except it's more and issue for transformers in the hand rather than battlefield). I don't think it strictly rules out the possibility, however.

Why would the design of the back matter if I am using sleeves?

[Androgeus]

Face down means that the front face is, well, down. Double sided cards still have a front and back, it's just that in this case the back of the card would look different. There's nothing about morph that says the back side has to be the regular back of a card.

Well at the minute, double faced cards are always face up, the rules do not allow a double faced card be face down. Now yes this can change, but it it seems silly to make an exception to rule when there is already a very good system already in place.

[Seatbelt]

The actual reason why we won't see double sided morph cards is that printing double sided cards is expensive. This is the reason they only appeared in Innistrad. The cost of physically printing the cards turned out to be much higher than anticipated.


Also, IMO, it's dumb. "This face down card is a 2/2." Its not rocket surgery.

[Gullara]

How are Morph cards confusing, exactly? If it's face down, it's a 2/2. That seems pretty simple to me.

I don't know exactly what information they're going off when they say it's complicated, but presumably they've received some feedback that has given them that stance. Also, I think it was an issue for judges. I believe Maro mentioned on his blog there were some issues with people not being honest about if their card was a morph card or not, which is possible if they never flip it over. Again, I don't have all the information on that front.

Why would the design of the back matter if I am using sleeves?

The same way you use existing double face cards. You turn them around in the sleeve.

Well at the minute, double faced cards are always face up, the rules do not allow a double faced card be face down. Now yes this can change, but it it seems silly to make an exception to rule when there is already a very good system already in place.

Ah, I wasn't quite clear on that rule.

The actual reason why we won't see double sided morph cards is that printing double sided cards is expensive. This is the reason they only appeared in Innistrad. The cost of physically printing the cards turned out to be much higher than anticipated.


Also, IMO, it's dumb. "This face down card is a 2/2." Its not rocket surgery.

It's not incredibly complicated, no, but apparently it's a concern they've had. That's all I can say.

As for the price, It's expensive, yes, but they never said it's "never do this again" expensive. Just not something they want to do every set.

[Eldariel]

How are Morph cards confusing, exactly? If it's face down, it's a 2/2. That seems pretty simple to me.

The issue is that there's no way to verify if the card actually has Morph when it's played face-down. This causes rule issues (they are more or less single-handedly the reason why rules state you must reveal all face-down cards at the end of the game) and extra headache, random mistakes when players accidentally play wrong cards as morphs and notice only later, and so on. It would be convenient if there was a way to prove a card has Morph when they're played as Morph but two-sided cards are even more of a headache (forced use of opaque sleeves in limited -_-).

The other problem is, it's the only rule that's really not marked in any way for players when the card is played. Basically everything else is obvious to both players if you just RTFC but Morph is something where the player is reliant on outside information.

[Androgeus]

Just saw this on Matt Tabak's (Magic's Rule Manager) tumblr saying that they have taken steps to alleviate confusion, but haven't changed any of morph's rules.

[Mr._Blinky]

Also, IMO, it's dumb. "This face down card is a 2/2." Its not rocket surgery.

That part is simple, but that's far from the only thing that Morph does. For example, Morph doesn't use the stack, so you can actually use it to respond to Split Second cards. And as other people have said, there's no way to verify what it is except at the end of the game, which means that cheating with it is fairly simple if your opponent knows what s/he is doing.

[Androgeus]

And as other people have said, there's no way to verify what it is except at the end of the game, which means that cheating with it is fairly simple if your opponent knows what s/he is doing.

If a face down permanent leaves the battlefield it must be revealed to all players, not just when a player loses. There is no way to put any card down and pretend it has morph with out being found out.

edit: thought I should also post the relevant part of the rules

707.9. If a face-down permanent moves from the battlefield to any other zone, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. If a face-down spell moves from the stack to any zone other than the battlefield, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. If a player leaves the game, all face-down permanents and spells owned by that player must be revealed to all players. At the end of each game, all face-down permanents and spells must be revealed to all players.

[Mr._Blinky]

If a face down permanent leaves the battlefield it must be revealed to all players, not just when a player loses. There is no way to put any card down and pretend it has morph with out being found out.

edit: thought I should also post the relevant part of the rules

Yes, but that's assuming that all involved A) understand those rules, B) remember to check them at all times, and C) don't happen to do things like "accidentally" pick up cards before reveal and then pull up a different one to show. I know a lot of newbie players who would be pretty easily cheated just because they didn't know how the rules worked or else simply didn't have the experience to prevent it.

[unseenmage]

Yes, but that's assuming that all involved A) understand those rules, B) remember to check them at all times, and C) don't happen to do things like "accidentally" pick up cards before reveal and then pull up a different one to show. I know a lot of newbie players who would be pretty easily cheated just because they didn't know how the rules worked or else simply didn't have the experience to prevent it.

Very much this.

Honestly I can't believe they're bringing back such a rules-enforcement headache ability after they made such a big stink about reducing 'complexity creep' and about 'lowering the barrier complexity poses to new players entering the game'.

[ChaosOS]

To avoid those things, I expect two parts
1. An inundation of morph. Expect 2-3 cards with morph per pack. This means people can't play Khans really w/o knowing what's going on.
2. Aggressive marketing about wtf morph does. Rules tip cards, maybe something else on top of that.

Reasons why I'm excited for Khans
1. Return of morph, hopefully with some better morph cards that make splashes in constructed
2. WEDGES
3. Draft-centered set. Favorite format is draft, I was thrilled by conspiracy, I'm super excited to see what innovations Khans brings.

[Seatbelt]

I got a very nice comment about my Savra EDH the other day. I lost the match after terrorizing the table and the next day one of the players commented that my deck was "world class" and he scrapped his green/black because it wasn't nearly as good. Made me feel pretty baller.

[Boci]

Yes, but that's assuming that all involved A) understand those rules, B) remember to check them at all times, and C) don't happen to do things like "accidentally" pick up cards before reveal and then pull up a different one to show. I know a lot of newbie players who would be pretty easily cheated just because they didn't know how the rules worked or else simply didn't have the experience to prevent it.

I get the anti-complexity argument, but isn't the ""accidentally" pick up cards before reveal" as much a problem as a player accidentally drawing two cards at their draw step and putting one back?

This isn't miracle, where no one can prove it wasn't drawn this turn, the cheating is visible, and even if they cannot prove you cheated, they can prove you made a mistake.

[gooddragon1]

An ACTUAL budget sliver deck for modern (Anything above 2$ or 2 tickets is not something I consider budget, because you start with 2 tickets when you buy an mtgo account)

4x Gemhide Sliver .32
4x Homing Sliver .08
4x Mindlash Sliver .08
4x Predatory Sliver .20
4x Spinneret Sliver .32
2x Basal Sliver .04
4x Golgari Guildmage .12
4x Naturalize .08
4x Sliversmith .12
2x Vineweft .08
2x Bond of Agony .08
1x Elixir of Immortality .04

10x Swamp
12x Forest

1.56 tickets (for magic the gathering online purposes)

Another one just edging in

4x Draining Whelk .20
4x Deadeye Navigator .20
2x Riftwing Cloudskate .16
4x Archaeomancer .08
4x Aether Adept .08
4x Fog Bank .20

4x Followed Footsteps .52
4x Boomerang .08
4x Sleep .12
4x Aetherize .36

22x Island

2 tickets

Prices from here: http://www.mtgotraders.com/store/index.html

[Shadow of the Sun]

So there won't be any Modern Pro Tours in 2015.

That's a right kick in the teeth.

Wizards are cutting support for the single format I really enjoy. :C

[ChaosOS]

Still get GPs at least. I have to agree with the sentiment that it means Wizards wasn't able to slot any significant modern reprints (fetchland) within the next year, and so didn't want to push a format that was having major price explosions.

[Fable Wright]

So, for reasons unrelated to this conversation, I stopped playing Magic for the last three months, except for one Conspiracy draft. Anyone want to bring me up to speed on what I missed?

[Sith_Happens]

So, for reasons unrelated to this conversation, I stopped playing Magic for the last three months, except for one Conspiracy draft. Anyone want to bring me up to speed on what I missed?

M15 turned out pretty well (at least IMO), the next block is going to be wedge-themed and is bringing Morph back.

[Androgeus]

M15 turned out pretty well (at least IMO), the next block is going to be wedge-themed and is bringing Morph back.

slight correction, the next SET is going to be wedge based, not the entire block.

[gooddragon1]

Ran into an annoying deck from hell and watched as it beat down several other players without losing:

This is a guess...
4 Ornithopter
4 Ninja of the Deep Hours
4 Signal Pest
4 Spellstutter Sprite
4 Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
4 Faerie Impostor

4 Remand
4 Repeal
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Disrupting Shoal

20 lands (probably all Islands but I don't remember)

Played by cardkun on mtgo.

Rarely hardcasts ninja so his manacurve is low as hell. Just annoying to play against. Worst part? Plays in the "just for fun" section.

[Sith_Happens]

slight correction, the next SET is going to be wedge based, not the entire block.

Considering the shard set was the first in a shard block and both pair sets were the first in a pair block... I'm pretty sure this is going to be a wedge block.

[IthilanorStPete]

Considering the shard set was the first in a shard block and both pair sets were the first in a pair block... I'm pretty sure this is going to be a wedge block.

Maro said it's not a wedge block on his Tumblr, though I can't dig up the citation off the top of my head.

[Landis963]

Maro said it's not a wedge block on his Tumblr, though I can't dig up the citation off the top of my head.

He also says so in the SDCC panel (video is linked in several locations, including the mothership and Doug Beyer's tumblr). Khans is a wedge set, but it will also mysteriously vanish from drafting once the third set, "Louie" (a large) is released. Therefore, there needs to be something differentiating the two large sets a la Innistrad and Avacyn Restored, therefore the entire block will not necessarily conform to the needs and rules of the first (i.e. Khans). (In fact, this whole setup reminds me greatly of the Innistrad draft format evolution, but centered around a mechanical design rather than the flavor one we saw in Innistrad) Also, he made pains to stress that this is block's story is about "change" and that it will involve time-travel somehow. (My personal guess is that, assuming we remain on Tarkir, we go back to before the dragons died out and see the Clans during their inception, for a bit of Past-Me-Bothers-Me action)