Conspiracies abound
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Feb. 16, 2014, 8:18 p.m. by raithe000
You've probably already seen this. Discuss.
Impossible to say, given that we know less than 1% of the cards appearing. I'm more curious about the 13 cards that won't be Legacy or Vintage legal.
February 16, 2014 8:35 p.m.
It'll have some EDH love for sure ;)
That said, I am concerned about some of the cards, this might be the kind of thing you buy a box, then leave it together as a cube of sort.
February 16, 2014 8:35 p.m.
The 13 cards that won't be legacy legal are probably similar to the first card they showed in the link the OP posted, cogwork librarian, and how it references the draft.
February 16, 2014 9:07 p.m.
But why would those be illegal? We already have things like Shadowborn Apostle and Relentless Rats which change deckbuilding rules even while outside the game. I don't see how cards that change drafting would not be legacy legal, as they don't even change how decks are built.
February 16, 2014 9:10 p.m.
ok so maybe that one specifically might not be one of the 13, but it says that it was a multiplayer designed format. So there are probably cards that are built solely for a multiplayer envioronment and maybe they won't be legal for that reason, like how there were cards that reference "ante" and are only acceptable in a game where your playing with an "ante" and are banned in other formats.
February 16, 2014 9:16 p.m.
I know it will be something like that, but I'm curious what that could possibly be. The only cards illegal in Vintage are the manual dexterity, ante/ownership cards, and Shahrazad . What could possibly be on that level that is in this set?
February 16, 2014 9:29 p.m.
I think the voting cards such as the prerelease card will end up being illegal and also a good indication of conspiracy (forming alliances, back stabbing, oh vote this way and ill not kill you but I do)
February 16, 2014 9:32 p.m.
Voting is just a mix of tempting offer (Tempt with Reflections ) from C13 and Archangel of Strife . I don't think they will ban those either.
February 16, 2014 9:37 p.m.
yeah but look at the card that is the promo and imagine using that with only 2 people. You could just always vote condemnation and either it'll win or tie so that every creature died but that Magister of Worth. It's a board wipe that leaves you a 4/4 flyer. Even if you were trying to break the card the other way and you were filling your graveyard to vote grace. Either your opponent votes grace (which is what you want) and you get all of your creatures you've been piling in your graveyard onto the battlefield or they vote condemnation and everything is destroyed but Magister of Worth. It's a very one sided card when it's not played in a multiplayer environment.
February 16, 2014 9:49 p.m.
True-Name Nemesis is a much more one-sided card in 2 player, and it wasn't banned. Remember, we aren't talking about Standard or Modern power level. We are talking about a format where Black Lotus is still legal, if restricted. A 6 mana, two color boardwipe that leaves behind a 4/4 flier isn't even a blip on the power radar.
February 16, 2014 10:32 p.m.
black lotus is banned in legacy plus nothing in legacy costs 6 mana, i just think itd be pretty sweet in those decks, but also other vote cards may lead to the mechanic just being a banned set of cards, we dont know since we havent seen them
February 16, 2014 10:37 p.m.
I was talking about Vintage, not Legacy for Black Lotus.
Again, True-Name Nemesis was not banned and is a respectable power-level concern. Magister of Worth is not a power level concern for Legacy or Vintage. Nothing is banned in Vintage for power level. If they are going to ban something, it will be because it introduces a mechanic they don't want to replicate, like the manual dexterity, ante or Shahrazad problems. I don't think either voting or weird draft cards count for that.
February 16, 2014 10:43 p.m.
Don't take this the wrong way but you just said that if something gets banned it'd be because of a mechanic they don't want to replicate, well, maybe they've decided that "Will of the Council" is something they wouldn't want to replicate. While it may be good in a multiplayer setting, especially with the concept of conspiracy and backstabbing involved, maybe it's something they don't want showing up in non multiplayer formats. If your designing cards specifically with a focus on a multiplayer setting and you don't want them showing up in 1 vs 1 formats then banning them seems like the most likely course of action, especially if they're planning for other cards to be reprints. That way those reprints would still be legal for use in their respective formats and any other new cards (ones not entirely focused on multiplayer) would be legal in their respective formats. I think it just makes more sense to say "hey we want to ban these 13 cards because their designed specifically for multiplayer" than it is to say "we want to ban this set, EXCEPT, these 13 cards that are reprints and legal in their respective formats".
February 16, 2014 11:17 p.m.
deathtouch_roadrunner says... #17
I think there are three things new cards might do that prevent them from being eternal format legal:
- Require 3 or more players to be in the game in order to resolve. (I think this is most likely, possibly a mana cost discount for letting a 3rd party making a decisions, like target opponent chooses a permanent another target opponent controls. Destroy that permanent.)
- Cards that switch around what's in your deck during play or make players switch decks for the rest of the game/match or similar.
- Make you restart the game with some sort of rule change or big game state change.
February 16, 2014 11:20 p.m.
Except that Tempting offer is multiplayer and its not banned. Join forces is multiplayer and its not banned. Wizards has been making multiplayer cards for a while and it hasn't banned them in single player. I mean, what about Will of the council is worse than those two abilities?
Again, this isn't about power concerns, otherwise they would be at most restricted in Vintage. This is about mechanics that are on the level of Ante, Manual Dexterity, and long subgames. Will of the council is not that. The draft stuff might be, but it would be weird if it was.
And the vast majority (145 cards) will already be reprints.
February 16, 2014 11:26 p.m.
I might see banning cards that require more than 1 opponent, if Wizards didn't support 2HG versions of formats. I doubt they'll make cards that switch around who owns them, nobody wants ante back. And I really hope there are no restart the game cards in this set. Those are barely tolerable in regular magic, they make people just quit in multiplayer.
February 16, 2014 11:32 p.m.
What is it about Will of the Council, that they can't decide the card was designed with more than 2 players in mind so they don't want it showing up in formats that only have 2 players? It's not about power level, whether the card is meta breaking, or anything of that nature. Look, obviously I don't know if this is one of the cards, I just think that if they decided 13 cards are made specifically for this format where you'll be drafting in groups of 6 or 8 and playing in 3 or 4 player free-for-falls and they don't want those cards to be legal in other formats, then that's their decision. Whether the card is playable or powerful or not is irrelevant. I would say the banning would have more to do with the fact that they were designed with 3 player (minimum) games in mind.
The point I was making is that It's easier to just ban a few specific cards from this new multiplayer set (regardless of the cards power) because their soul design is focused on multiplayer games, especially because there will be reprints, assuming these have a normal black border and not a silver or gold one. You can't ban the whole set just because you added specific cards for multiplayer games because with black boarders all of the reprints should technically be legal for use in whatever formats they're legal in. So in order to add these cards that are designed with a focus on multiplayer games they just banned them from non multiplayer formats before they became available. No mess, no, fuss, and they get to introduce new ideas into multiplayer games without interfering with their established sanctioned formats.
February 16, 2014 11:55 p.m.
I'm not denying that they are banning some cards or that they don't have a reason to, but I don't think Will of the council will get a ban. Again, it is no different from Tempting offer (Tempt with Reflections ) or Join Forces (Alliance of Arms ), mechanics that were also designed for multiplayer, but are not banned in singleplayer.
I know perfectly well that they are banning some cards, not all of the set. No one suggested they should or were going to ban the whole set, as that wouldn't even make sense.
February 17, 2014 12:09 a.m.
deathtouch_roadrunner says... #23
@raithe000: The thing is, the cards that you mention don't require more than two players to resolve.
February 17, 2014 12:55 a.m.
@deathtouch_roadrunner Neither does Will of the council, which was my point.
February 17, 2014 1:38 a.m.
with the cards you mentioned the way the card is played though isn't effected by the number of people in the game. While the amount of extra tokens you get from Tempt with Vengeance increases the more players are "tempted" by the offer and the more people spend mana towards X in Alliance of Arms the more tokens everyone gets, but those spells will still resolve in the same manor. Something like Magister or Worth on the other hand won't. In anything less than a 3 player game, the choice you are given becomes less of a choice and more of a pre-determined outcome. Because, like I pointed out before, in a two player game if you choose condemnation every time you played it then it's guaranteed to either win or tie the vote and it's a boardwipe that leaves you behind a 4/4 flyer. The fact that a 6 mana boardwipe that leaves behind a 4/4 flyer isn't really all that powerful in Legacy/Vintage is irrelevant because as you can see the mechanic doesn't function properly when there are less than 3 players in the game.
February 17, 2014 3:32 a.m.
True-Name Nemesis doesn't function properly outside of Multiplayer, but it wasn't banned. In a three person game, the chosen player can plead with the unchosen player to destroy it. In a two-person game, there is no way to deal with it short of boardwipes.
Or look at any of the main C13 commanders. None of those work properly outside of Commander, since they now have extra abilities that can never work the way they were intended, but those were not banned. Mystic Barrier is useless outside of Multiplayer. Illusionist's Gambit sets up weird restrictions in normal magic. Naya Soulbeast is much weaker than intended, Witch Hunt becomes predictable. None of these cards function the same in Multiplayer as they do in regular magic, but they are not banned. These all give me reason to doubt that Will of the council will be banned.
Vintage only has bans in cards that require manual dexterity (too uncertain), Ante (unsupported for good reason) and Shahrazad . These are mechanics which basically break the point of the game. Will of the council is not on the same level as these mechanics. I would like to know what is.
February 17, 2014 3:53 a.m.
Pretty sure that if they are pre-stating that some of the cards won't be legal in vintage/legacy, it's because the card rules text will include terms that can't be resolved and would therefore cause the game to get stuck mid-resolution. Also pretty sure that's going to be because they explicitly reference either mandatory actions during the draft portion of gameplay (I could absolutely see cards that required you to draft them or which swapped a drafted card of yours with one of theirs) or that references a mandatory number of players greater than 2.
I just don't get why anybody thinks it is a big deal if they do.
February 17, 2014 1:40 p.m.
MisterRoach says... #28
The only thing I can see them reprinting something already banned and not on the reserved list(obviously). It seems to me that this is a draft/commander good stuff set. Since it has both a multi-player centric card right off the bat and the self explanatory cogwork librarian. Hopefully it's nothing that drives the box price up like modern masters
8vomit says... #2
Not sure why they called it conspiracy, but I like the looks of it a lot. should make for some super fun drafting. Any idea of what kind of money cards might be in something like this?
February 16, 2014 8:30 p.m.