SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Aug 28 2011 04:19 pm

I'm loving this gothic-horror motif, but apparently this set is going to have double-faced creature cards. I can only imagine how draft is going to be affected.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 28 2011 04:42 pm

No need to wonder, the answers are right there .

In summary, double-faced cards (and only double-faced cards) are considered open information at a draft - you don't have to reveal them, but you are not penalized if you do (regular cards are still not allowed to be revealed). In addition, you may now stack the cards you drafted in any order, and you can grab a basic land to begin your draft stack, in an attempt to keep any double-faced cards you drafted concealed.

As for the idea, I really don't know about it. It's a cool idea, but...well, it wouldn't have gotten this far if they felt it wasn't unworkable.

Posted: Aug 29 2011 04:00 am

Every pack will have 1 double faced card. This actually makes how they work in draft much less of a big deal.

Posted: Aug 29 2011 04:05 am

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Every pack will have 1 double faced card. This actually makes how they work in draft much less of a big deal.

I didn't realize every pack would have one; that does seem to help. What're your thoughts on what you've seen so far? Any chance of a set analysis for your blog in the future?

Posted: Aug 29 2011 09:48 am

Hey, question Mr. Jeebus, lord of Magic:

What happens to dual-face cards on the battlefield if I play Ixidron?

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=124313

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 29 2011 10:32 am

Knyte wrote:

Hey, question Mr. Jeebus, lord of Magic:

What happens to dual-face cards on the battlefield if I play Ixidron?

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=124313

Excuse me? I'm pretty good on the rules too.

And they explain it on the link I gave

The Link I Gave wrote:

Although the physical action is the same, transforming is not the same as being turned face down. This means that a double-faced card that transforms will not, for example, trigger Unblinking Bleb. Double-faced cards are always face up; they are never face down. If an effect (say, Ixidron) tries to turn a double-faced card face down, nothing happens.

Posted: Aug 29 2011 10:37 am

This also makes card sleeves mandatory for all formats in which Innistrad is legal, which is a fucking pain in the ass. I primarily play Limited, and I have neither the desire to keep buy sleeves nor the ambition to reuse the same sleeves over and over again. I might skip this block. That, or I guess I just won't use any double-sided cards. Ever. There better not be any double-sided mythics.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 29 2011 11:22 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

This also makes card sleeves mandatory for all formats in which Innistrad is legal, which is a fucking pain in the ass. I primarily play Limited, and I have neither the desire to keep buy sleeves nor the ambition to reuse the same sleeves over and over again. I might skip this block. That, or I guess I just won't use any double-sided cards. Ever. There better not be any double-sided mythics.

They have the checklist card workaround, which is...imperfect. But it works.

I'm guessing there's at least one double-sided Mythic - Garruk Relentless.

Posted: Aug 29 2011 12:58 pm

Yeah, the Checklist card is a great idea, and really makes the "transformers" workable. You use the checklist card in place of the transformer in all zones in which is "face down". Library, Hand, Exiled face down, phased, etc. Then when it enters a face up zone such as the battlefield or graveyard you replace the checklist card with the transformer.

Posted: Aug 29 2011 09:50 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

This also makes card sleeves mandatory for all formats in which Innistrad is legal, which is a fucking pain in the ass. I primarily play Limited, and I have neither the desire to keep buy sleeves nor the ambition to reuse the same sleeves over and over again. I might skip this block. That, or I guess I just won't use any double-sided cards. Ever. There better not be any double-sided mythics.

Yeah, because YOU don't have 40 unused sleeves lying around. Don't you sleeve your decks at draft anyways usually? Also, you skipping a Magic block? You lie sir.

Posted: Aug 29 2011 10:57 pm

I don't sleeve my decks unless I open foil money. Or I want my opponents to think I opened foil money.

I'll draft. As it's been stated, there are ways around needing sleeves.

I still see this set selling poorly though, and I hope it sells poorly, because double-sided cards is a dumb fucking idea. Plus, any time a set sells poorly, WOTC has to come up with new and desperate ways to win us back. TREASURE!

Posted: Aug 30 2011 11:17 am

What sold poorly that prompted treasure? And I agree it's a bit of a gimmick idea, but they've made like 900 expansions now, there's only so many keywords...

Posted: Aug 30 2011 11:59 am

Who the fuck says we need a new keyword/mechanic with every set? It should have just been Flashback Revisited, With A Sci-Fi Horror Twist. That would have been fine.

Posted: Aug 30 2011 12:48 pm

You're starting to sound like a crabby "Old days were better" player Syd.

Posted: Aug 30 2011 12:59 pm

All I'm saying is that double-sided cards is a stupid fucking idea, and whoever thought of it should lose their jobs, their dicks, and their lives, in that order.

I will say that MTG has been a roll lately. The last truly awful block was Kamigawa, with Lorwyn/Shadowmoor being meh.

Posted: Aug 30 2011 02:37 pm

No, Lorwyn/Morningtide sucked, Shadowmoor/Eventide was awesome.

Posted: Aug 30 2011 03:14 pm

Lorwyn was my favorite set of all time. So... to each their own I guess.

Also, I'm strangely excited for Inn, even though their are none of my favorite tribes in it. (Merfolk, Angels, and Elves.)

Posted: Aug 30 2011 03:39 pm

Knyte wrote:

Lorwyn was my favorite set of all time. So... to each their own I guess.

Also, I'm strangely excited for Inn, even though their are none of my favorite tribes in it. (Merfolk, Angels, and Elves.)

I'm really excited for this setting myself. Since it's a Gothic-Horror setting, the Ravenloft fan sites are actually paying some attention to this; some even claiming this is WotC trying to make it up for not doing a 4E Ravenloft world.

Hmm, I suppose:
Merfolk: You could have a single Legendary based on something like the Creature from the Black Lagoon, though obviously it'd wind up as a Merfolk Horror.
Angels: Maybe in the first or second expansion we'll get to see the manifestation of the balance between good and evil whose disappearance is what set up the events going on. Otherwise, I could maybe see an Artifact Creature; like animate cemetary sculpture.
Elves: I can't really think of any way they'd be showing up.

Posted: Aug 30 2011 03:50 pm

lordsathien wrote:

Elves: I can't really think of any way they'd be showing up.

Sure they can, just give us more of these:

Posted: Aug 30 2011 06:14 pm

New Phyrexia was admitted by the designers as going more Sci-Fi Horror, Innistrad is more traditional Gothic-Horror. I suppose the closest to a Gothic-Horror elf you could get was already pretty well handled back in Lorwyn block with its nasty faery folk style.

Posted: Aug 31 2011 06:39 am

lordsathien wrote:

I'm really excited for this setting myself. Since it's a Gothic-Horror setting, the Ravenloft fan sites are actually paying some attention to this; some even claiming this is WotC trying to make it up for not doing a 4E Ravenloft world.

What? Why would 4th Edition have had a Ravenloft theme? That doesn't make sense?

Posted: Aug 31 2011 07:09 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

lordsathien wrote:

I'm really excited for this setting myself. Since it's a Gothic-Horror setting, the Ravenloft fan sites are actually paying some attention to this; some even claiming this is WotC trying to make it up for not doing a 4E Ravenloft world.

What? Why would 4th Edition have had a Ravenloft theme? That doesn't make sense?

Sorry, I meant 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons.

Posted: Aug 31 2011 07:16 am

Ah, that makes a lot more sense.

You know, since WOTC owns boths IPs, why can't we just have a straight MTG/D&D crossover? D&D could probably use the exposure.

Posted: Aug 31 2011 07:22 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

Ah, that makes a lot more sense.

You know, since WOTC owns boths IPs, why can't we just have a straight MTG/D&D crossover? D&D could probably use the exposure.

I remember an issue of InQuest (back before they added "Gamer" to the name), which suggested how to translate cards into NPCs/Monsters for D&D. Even translating the 5 colors into the 9 alignments.

White being Lawful and/or Good
Red being Chaotic
Blue being Neutral
Black being Evil
Green being Neutral and/or Good

However, if you want the d20 system in CCG format I hear Warlord's the perfect blend.

Posted: Aug 31 2011 07:31 am

I was thinking more like they could just straight up use one of the D&D campaign settings and its characters/races as a plane in MTG.

Or maybe do a block that starts off as a prequel to Dark Sun, and then the last set is in the expansion actually takes place in the traditional Dark Sun setting. I'd say do a whole Dark Sun block, but it'd be hard to design blue cards for a whole block where the whole premise is that water is a massive rarity.