MTGNexus

So... Are we supposed to be doing critiques?

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

But then... why does this card have cascade? I'm trying to think if there are some interactions I'm missing, which is definitely possible knowing my brain... But I can't see them.

I think the interaction you might have missed is that casting the spell with fuse changes the CMC of the spell. So Go can only cascade into a 3-drop, whereas Come&Go can cascade into a much larger spell. Now, if you're missing that interaction it definitely might mean the card is too confusing, but that's the reason for doing cascade on a fuse spell.

[mention]slimytrout[/mention] What's BBE? You never expand that acronym.

Oh sorry, Bloodbraid Elf (not sure why that link isn't working -- that's definitely the card's name). It was the banner for the challenge so I figured people would be familiar with it, but I shouldn't be making assumptions like that. But yeah, it was banned in modern for a while just because it was so efficient.

Can't help but quote

slimytrout wrote:Man, a lot of these were bustedly powerful cards. I feel like maybe people forgot just how good a free extra spell is.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 years ago

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

But then... why does this card have cascade? I'm trying to think if there are some interactions I'm missing, which is definitely possible knowing my brain... But I can't see them.

I think the interaction you might have missed is that casting the spell with fuse changes the CMC of the spell. So Go can only cascade into a 3-drop, whereas Come&Go can cascade into a much larger spell. Now, if you're missing that interaction it definitely might mean the card is too confusing, but that's the reason for doing cascade on a fuse spell.

Oh yeah, that was it. One of the most unintuitive rules in the whole of Magic to me. After SOI, the CMC of a split card or a DFC is the sum of the two parts... WHY?!? It was so clear before that there were two distinct values at the same time, because that's how all the rest of the card works, so it's only obvious that's also true for the CMC, isn't it? NO, of course not! Every query on the card returns two values EXCEPT for the CMC, that suddenly and differently from all the rest turned into the sum... That's one of the first and very few rules that I would immediately revert back to what it was if I had the power because it's still how my brain thinks today! And how many years have passed since SOI? And how many split cards have we seen since then? Yet, my brain naturally goes the other way... Yeah, it's sick, but my own personal issues don't justify this. Habit maybe could, but after so many years? Ok, rant's over. Anyway, thanks slimytrout. It was that. I'm not going to change my critiques now, but at least now I've got it. I think that actually it would be much more confusing to long-time enfranchised players like me, who remember and were used to the old rule, rather than to newer players that have started playing when that rule was already into place, so it has always been this way to them.

[mention]barbecube[/mention]: See above if you're curious about what the interaction was. Obviously it's too complicated, since virtually everyone who looked at it was confused by it in some manner or other, but there was something "clever"

[mention]void_nothing[/mention] "A card that reduces the cost of spells" Any spells or just instants/sorceries?

Spells the rules term. Use any qualifiers you want as long as "less to cast" or similar is on there.

[mention]void_nothing[/mention] Thanks. One more question. Does the first spell have to always draw 2 or more cards, or is the potential to draw 2 or more enough?

The potential is enough.

[mention]Subject16[/mention] [mention]Gateways7[/mention] crits?

December round 1 will be up sometime in the afternoon (Eastern).

December's round 1 is up.

[mention]void_nothing[/mention] What about November finals?

I was hoping to get critiques from Gateways7 in the November Top 4 round but it's been some time since the deadline; I can probably move on without them at this point.

How loosely are we talking regarding "decks" for the final round? Does it have to be something established in a Constructed format, or is it a bit looser than that?

Also as a friendly reminder to [mention]bravelion83[/mention], I would like to point out that Round 1 of the December CCL is asking for artifact cards.

Anything as long as you can somehow identify the archetype. Obviously most named decks are something that has been attempted in a Constructed format at some point, but you can just say something like "Nekusar EDH" without going deep into detail.

[mention]void_nothing[/mention] Was there a mistake with the November finals?
Ink-Treader: 2x Top1
Me: 1x Top1 + 1x Top2
Subject16: 2x Top2

I did make a mistake and I apologize profusely for that. Fortunately no one at all has posted an entry. I'm very sorry to both you and Subject16 for this mix-up.

Ink-Treader wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Also as a friendly reminder to bravelion83, I would like to point out that Round 1 of the December CCL is asking for artifact cards.

Thank you, I had read that part then my brain completely forgot it when going to design the actual card. I'll just turn it into a colored artifact creature then.

[mention]void_nothing[/mention] For the finals, may we provide the "How it helps the deck" section as I did?

Totally optional but you can do it.

[mention]void_nothing[/mention] Regarding December Round 1: Can the artifact have other card types, e.g. Artifact Creature?

Yes - if I had meant "noncreature artifact" that's what the card would have said. But it absolutely must be an artifact.