Given the way Design and Development have gone recently, there's one thing I'm sure of, and its that whatever the mythic Entomb card is, it will be very pushed. Is it going to be standard-pushed or eternal-pushed? Who knows. But if they go for a utility creature rather than a midrange value beater, we could have a sweet vintage card on our hands. Again, recent design trends tells us it will a midrange value beater, but they've made statements recently that suggest they have learned from recent mistakes and might swap things up. If we get something like a 1-2drop that exiles all graveyards when it ETBs (and when token ETBs), or has a tax effect, or stops non-drawstep draws, then we're in business, and that doesn't seem completely out of the realm of possibility to me.
edit: welp mobile definitely caused me some trouble there, sorry for the deleted duplicate below
Also, back in the day, way back when, a few streamers mentioned WotC contacting them about videos or broadcasts of MTGO, where they would ask for verbal confirmation that 'the plays made were based entirely on your own decision-making process" or something like that. I think Kenji/Numot talked about this at one point?
Would be interesting to learn if that stipulation is still buried in all those words, if anyone cares enough to scrub through it with a Ctrl-F.
Dynavolt Tower 3
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, you get EE (two energy counters).
T, Pay EEEEE: Dynavolt Tower deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
I was little surprised to not see this posted immediately, given how exciting Kaladesh seems to be for many of us
Posting from mobile and can't get the forum to link the image. Tips on how to do so are appreciated, but I think we can manage with a text version.
So, here is the energy generator we've been discussing and speculating on as we evalute other energy cards. How good is it? Eh, not bad... a little costly for so little effect, unless some of the unspoiled rares or uncommons have some kind of nasty trick. It scales as you storm out, so its at least worth a look as more energy cards are spoiled. Right now this thread might not see a ton of action, as this card is not super exciting on its own. As we continue to see spoilers, feel free to drop in and post cool interactions or possible combos that you discover.
Honestly, this is about the best we could expect from present-day WotC in terms of enablers. They didn't price it very high and the trigger is gonna happen a lot in vintage, so it seems possible that we can find some potential here.
Eldritch Evolution really feels like one of those cards that we aren't gonna figure out anytime soon. But we'll brew here and there, try stuff out, and either find some super-strong interaction with existing cards or with something in an upcoming set. I won't expect to see it overpowering Vintage, Legacy or Modern soon but its something lots of people will be keeping an eye on during future spoiler seasons.
Excellent read, as always. It was a nice summary of some of the EMN cards with Eternal potential without the overbearing "it sucks, get out and never mention this card again!" stuff that happens in the EMN card threads around here.
Minor note about Emrakul-ing someone and using their Griselbrand. Maybe I misread, but it sounds like you meant to take them beneath 0 with Greazy's activated ability, but one cannot pay a cost that one cannot afford. Unless your opponent happens to already be at a life total divisible by 7, you can't outright beat them with just that.
@McAra The "you" is unclear in your sentence. It could refer to the Oath's controller. Same thing with "opponent", it could refer to the controller's opponents.
? That is exactly what I meant. I was using English rather than Magic-ese, maybe thats what I failed to convey. I will try to be more clear but I don't understand your confusion, so apologies if this doesn'the help:
Why doesn't Oath say, "At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses one of his or her opponents who controls more creatures than him or her..." instead of the current wording. What technical issues are they avoiding with this wording?
Edit: I see the confusion now, I was only wording it from controller's perspective, not what I intended with my other post.
Yes, the intervening if was removed when Oath got put on MtGO, I think. Anyone know what shenanigans they were trying to circumvent with "and is his or her opponent"? Just avoiding casual multi-player interactions with teammates? Any reason not to just use "target opponent who controls more creatures than you"?