This card is crap and not going to see play in vintage, but I think it is important that they printed it because it shows that WOTC is willing to play around with single cards and deck limits with hard numbers (as opposed to unlimited.)

What this means is that in the future it is fully possible we see cards with a bit more of a jacked power level or abilities that become problematic when comboed with themselves, but with a deck building limit of 3,2 or 1.

Personally I would love to see some cards that are inherently legendary as they have a built in restriction of 1 per deck, as I think a card like Mox opal should have always been. It feels like something they always could have done and just did not, so maybe this shows some willingness.

Can you have more than 7 in a limited deck? Even if you can only play 7 it seems broken in that format at common.

I'm just so happy (from a flavor perspective) that Magic was willing to depart from Wotc-only Planes and come back to "Earth" for at least one set!

I normally care almost zero percent about the "world creation," but I've been hoping they would revisit Arabian Nights (or something like that) for decades, so I'm super excited for this set.

Would have been so cool to put the Collectors cards in old borders

@desolutionist said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

Can you have more than 7 in a limited deck? Even if you can only play 7 it seems broken in that format at common.

Rules manager says its a hard limit in limited "https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1171803853504729091"

Maro Disagreed in a tumbler post. Personally I think that is baggage they don't need in limited because it will almost never come up and honestly should you be punished for this because you were fortunate? Now we have to check decks to confirm legal drafts?

@joshuabrooks said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

Would have been so cool to put the Collectors cards in old borders

I don't think they ever will now that they have the security hologram on everything.

I personally love everything about this set so far except the power level. I'll enjoy the hell out of drafting it and I love that if feels like early 9os set design, not holding my breath for too many vintage playables.

@protoaddict said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

It feels like something they always could have done and just did not, so maybe this shows some willingness.

Seriously, I don't know when the first time I said "why don't they print cards that say you can only have x in your deck" was. Has to be >20 years ago by now.

@protoaddict said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

I personally love everything about this set so far except the power level.

I’m assuming that they had to do a power pull-back. They’ve really pushed cards pretty far the last few sets (years). I mean, we have entire vintage decks based around cards printed just a few sets ago..

But if they’re going to do pull back, I’m totally cool with them maximizing flavor.

The art direction, the style, and the flavor of the cards has me more excited than I’ve been in a long time! I could even see old-school make an exception for this set (joking!!....kind of

There was a mechanic in the Pokemon TCG called "Ace Trainer." There was about 20 cards with a special border and the text axe trainer on them. Any deck was only allowed to play a single Ace Trainer card. It's kinda like a super restricted list because you have to choose one over the other.

@tittliewinks22 said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

There was a mechanic in the Pokemon TCG called "Ace Trainer." There was about 20 cards with a special border and the text axe trainer on them. Any deck was only allowed to play a single Ace Trainer card. It's kinda like a super restricted list because you have to choose one over the other.

I've always liked mechanics like this. Decipher Star wars used to put marks next to the name to indicate how many copies of an individual card you could use in a deck and it was flavorful. The Pokemon special card class thing would have been great on something like the moxen, which would have forced a player to choose. It's similar to the point system in Canadian Highlander.

I'm not saying WOTC should just print "Better Lightning bolt" and make it a limit one per deck card that does 4 damage or anything (even though they honestly could), but as a mechanic to prevent a card that compounds with itself from being abused it makes total sense.

I mean some candidates from the restricted list that probably should have had something like this were Grave troll since dredge means you see more trolls and legendary does not affect it in the yard or deck and Mind's desire since it combos with itself.

The creator incorporated this into his second Deckmaster (tm) game Jyhad. They actually used a mechanic that said if the cards was "cast" already this game that it couldn't be cast again. This worked in Jyhad because you get to loot at end of turn. I'm surprised it didn't show up earlier.

@nedleeds said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

The creator incorporated this into his second Deckmaster (tm) game Jyhad. They actually used a mechanic that said if the cards was "cast" already this game that it couldn't be cast again. This worked in Jyhad because you get to loot at end of turn. I'm surprised it didn't show up earlier.

Wow, that's a cool idea! You could easily make it similarly less painful in Magic just by giving cards with that restriction cycling.

@craw_advantage said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

Wow, that's a cool idea! You could easily make it similarly less painful in Magic just by giving cards with that restriction cycling.

Yea, except that you are taking a card that is already intentionally overpowered by a degree that it needed a limit put on to it and then circumventing your own limit with a pure upside ability.

Like, I believe that wotc could make the following card

R - Instant
Do 4 damage to any target. Exile the top 30 cards from your deck.

The only reason they can print a card that is otherwise strictly better than bolt is because it has SOME downside that limits how many you can play. I don't think you could however print that card with a way to circumvent its own downside.

@protoaddict said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

@craw_advantage said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

Wow, that's a cool idea! You could easily make it similarly less painful in Magic just by giving cards with that restriction cycling.

Yea, except that you are taking a card that is already intentionally overpowered by a degree that it needed a limit put on to it and then circumventing your own limit with a pure upside ability.

Like, I believe that wotc could make the following card

R - Instant
Do 4 damage to any target. Exile the top 30 cards from your deck.

The only reason they can print a card that is otherwise strictly better than bolt is because it has SOME downside that limits how many you can play. I don't think you could however print that card with a way to circumvent its own downside.

I don't mean cycling for free though. If it was:

R - Instant
Do 4 damage to any target.
You can only play one spell named ~ each game.
Cycling 2R

that would be powerful but still have a substantial downside vs Bolt, after the first one.

@mike-noble said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

Based on the current Oracle text of Finale of Revelation, Stomping Slabs, and Supply // Demand, I imagine a spell that can only be cast once per game would templated thusly:

[Lightning Bolter] - R
Instant
[Lightning Bolter] deals 4 damage to any target.
You can't cast spells named [Lightning Bolter] for the rest of the game.

The only difference there is that that wording would let you hold priority and cast multiples of them at the same time. Not necessarily a deal-breaker though.

@craw_advantage said in [ELD] Seven Dwarves:

I don't mean cycling for free though. If it was:
R - Instant
Do 4 damage to any target.
You can only play one spell named ~ each game.
Cycling 2R
that would be powerful but still have a substantial downside vs Bolt, after the first one.

It is still pure upside where none existed before, and it is still in the light of a very specific downside they put on the card to balance it.