@vaughnbros I mean, thematically the ring feels like it would just give you hexproof and unblockable, so kinda a variant on lightning greaves. Maybe if you make it insanely cheap but have it give like a -1/-1 counter every turn it could balance out?
Maybe poison counters could represent Sauron's corruption. The palintir could be like "Get a poison counter: Scry 2".
They can just print a card like this:
Add one green mana
CARDNAME cannot be in the same deck as Mox Emerald
This is almost the exact same example that Maro gave some time ago when he was explaining ways they would never be able to get away with circumventing the reserve list. I think he also ruled out doing snow covered true duals.
Even with the extra copy on it that card is a functionally identical reprint because the exclusionary text would also apply to the original card, meaning it by definition also says "this card cannot be included in a deck with the other card". If you made it snow it would not be functionally identical, though it may actually be functionally superior if you did that, but again they said they would not "cheat" that way. It would also have a similar effect on the price tag of the original, which was the reason the reserve list exists.
No to get away with it I think they have to print functionally superior or parallel cards, which is very hard to conceive of. Like I guess you could make the one ring literally be a lotus that spent for 4 mana but you have to exclude other 0 mana artifacts from your deck or something. Or you could print a Space Marines Mox that tapped for rainbow mana but could only be used on Space Marines tagged cards or something.
Maybe this will leave the door open for functional reprints of power 9
I fail to see how they can ever do it. What exactly does a functional reprint of a real mox or dual land look like, and how does that not break vintage when you add+1 mox to the restricted list for shops and PO? The only way to fix the supply issue is actual reprints, either just straight up or as skins like they did with Godzilla, and with the Reserve list as is that can't happen.
Or lets just say they take the concept of the 1 ring and just make it a legendary colorless mox that deals you a point when tapped (To represent the bad part of it). That in no way fixes the problem, it only deepens it.
@thewhitedragon69 I have to believe the one ring would be equipment, and knowing WOTC it'll give "corruption counters" whenever it's used or something like that. But the Palantir could be something like this.
I also feel like they will lay off planeswalkers. Maybe Gandalf and Saruman because thats is what they sorta do if you know the stories, but it's too cannon breaking.
The real question is do they bring companion back for Sam?
So, Lord of the Rings and 40k coming to Magic, and legal in Vintage. How does the community feel about this?
Keep in mind these are not standard legal sets (maybe not modern or pioneer either, that was not clear to me) so it is entirely possible we see some cards that are of an outsized power level that could have relevance to vintage. It is almost impossible to believe that the one ring from LOTR would not be a powerful artifact for instance.
Is this an interesting turn of events that will bring properties to the game people love, or the erosion of the brand that will lead to it's eventually implosion?
All 4 modes of Quandrix are relevant.
The +1/+1 counters allow for combat tricks, which can matter in some matchups. They also allow for pushing the last points of damage to an opponent or a planeswalker.
The graveyard trick can slow down a dredge deck, or mess up a Snapcaster/Deathrite/Yawgmoth’s Will/Lurrus/Arcanist/Breach. Reordering the library can also thwart Mystical Tutor/Vampiric Tutor/Mystic Sanctuary.
I think the counters are not useless, but I see that as much more of a corner case in a lot of lists. You can very much use this card without even having targets for the counters in your deck.
There technically 5 of them but these 2 seemed like the most format relevant.
Quandrix is pitchable to force and vigor and has what I think of as 3 relevant modes. At 3 mana it is on the weaker side for the effects but you are paying for versatility. I think countering a Oath or key or something while also bounding somebodies Oko is going to be the most common play, and actually works pretty well with your Oko's -5 if you ever do that.
Witherblooms first mode is almost always on unless you are under a leyline and can power the yard, has some good targets for removal, and can snipe a 1 toughness dude here and there. 2 mana Sorcery is a tougher sell but again the versatility is there and it is almost always going to be a 2 for 1 when you do get the window to play it.
I used to work in publishing, and it always boiled down ensuring the typesetting and format of a page not only made sense, but looked "as clean as possible."
I also used to work in publishing, it is a different Paradigm in a game. There can be no interpretation of how a card works, otherwise you wind up having to issue addendums and clarifications. Better to be slightly redundant and clear than ambiguous and need to clear up something that is not explicit enough.
and every Lamborghini I own is neon green.
I understand that mathematically this technically works out, but the rules of language are different than this. I feel like if you made this statement on a legal document for instance and had to go to court over it, it would be deemed misleading if not fraudulent
Also, reread Obosh and Gyruda. They specifically call out lands as an exclusion on Obosh and not on Gyruda because we know that lands are both a card and has a CMC of 0. Now granted that CMC 0 is something that was codified in the rules some time ago for cards without casting costs like lands, but they were very explicit with these wording so you could not wind up with a null value. Likewise Keruga is also this explicit in that it includes lands so you cannot wind up with a null value, and Jegantha in such a way that it is looking for the lack of, not the presence of.
Honestly after rereading them I actually question the way a few of them are worded. Zirda, the Dawnwaker should probably say all instead of EACH because we know all includes 0, each is not as explicit. I realize we use them the way we use them because WOTC can just say by edict that it works this way, but the templating seems sloppy to me.
there aren't many that are really freely available in vintage aside from kaheera in truly creatureless decks
Just an aside I never understood. Why does Kaheera work with no creatures in the deck. The wording is "Companion — Each creature card in your starting deck is a Cat, Elemental, Nightmare, Dinosaur, or Beast card.".
If there are no creatures in your deck then none of them meet the prerequisite right? EACH in my mind is different than ALL. It is asking for a positive result with this wording. If the card had been worded differently like "Your deck does not contain creatures except for Cat, Elemental, Nightmare, Dinosaur, or Beast card." I would say it works, but it seems to me this prerequisite is requires a non null value. This is why so many of the templates have changed for cards that say "Your opponent discards X and then does Y" to Your opponent discards X, then if they discarded a card do Y".