>complexity is tied to rarity
People lie. We all knew it's all about the money.
>>47848470
That card is pretty complex. Where you not around for the Grist combos? Ending the turn early can lead to shenanigans.
>>47848470
Clearly you've never played a sundial deck
Sundial of the Infinite can lead to some very confusing interactions. Ignoring "beginning of the next end step" triggers can cause some serious bullshit to ensue.
>>47848470
....is that text from a YGO card? No really, i dont know wtf the effect is
>>47852158
2 examples:
No end of turn effects
During the attack step, your opponent plays some form of spell that would fuck you up. End the turn to avoid your creature dying.
>>47852167
Thanks
>Isochron Scepter imprinted with Final Fortune
>Sundial of the Infinite
>(3): infinite free turns
>>47848470
Sundial is definitely one of my favourite Magic cards of all time. The sheer amount of silly things you can do with it is incredible.
>>47852130
Grist combos?
>>47852180
I have that deck. Fun and cheap for casual play. The wincon is Azor's Elecutors.
>>47852180
How does this work? I'd think that you'd still die when that turn ends, even if it ends due to you activating Sundial.
>>47854217
Sundial mentions only effects. Final Fortune isn't an effect that can end, it's a delayed trigger, but ending the turn with sundial leaves no time for it to trigger.
The thing is although sundial uses the words "end the turn", mechanically the end of turn doesn't come.
>>47854263
Gosh, that probably requires a judge every time it is pulled.
>>47854728
It makes more sense with the errata. "At the beginning of that turn's end step, you lose the game." Since the end step never begins and we skip to turn's end, the player does not lose the game.
>>47855431
I remember people being so hyped for that card, then when it came out the only use people had was to put it in some janky Pod deck
>>47855431
That's real neat, he's going in my dimir zombies demons and miscellaneous spooky things deck.
>>47848470
Use with Geist of Saint Traft to make a 4/4 Flying each turn
Use with Flickerwisp to permanently exile permanents
>>47855452
Considering lingering souls completely invalidated that card I can see why no one played it
>Unhinged isn't fun
>>47852167
It also exiles all triggers from the stack too, you can do some dumb things with this effect.
>>47852130 >>47852138
>not reading filenames
>>47856055
Does this card get rid of mythic rares?
>>47855431
Why would this ever be blue?
>>47856425
mythic RARES. Yes.
>>47856425
Because Blue is the color of self-milling and not having creatures.
>>47856447
Geralf stitched it, so it's a blue zombie
>>47856447
Skaabs are blue, as they are beef with drawbacks like Leviathans.
Real complex
>>47856844
>>47857578
>>47858689
Yeah but these are all total bullshit reasons, this creature could not possibly be more black, the only reason blue got it is because Wizards has a mancrush on blue so they give it all the best toys.
>>47858820
Black doesn't have a monopoly on drawbacks. Skaabs aren't even good, quit your whining.
I know people are mad at blue getting everything, but shitty French vanillas shouldn't be their concern.
>>47858820
>blue gets the best toys
While in general I agree, Skaab Ruinator was garbage.
>>47858887
>Black doesn't have a monopoly on drawbacks.
What the hell kind of retarded thing is this to say?
And I'm not talking about Skaabs, just this one creature that has several monoblack abilities but was somehow printed in blue.
>>47858820
>Wizards has a mancrush on blue so they give it all the best toys.
Then explain why I haven't seen a single fucking island in the past six months at FNM.
>>47858940
Flying? And exiling creatures in graveyards? Big whoop.
>>47858959
>island
Yeah that has nothing to do with all the duallands currently clogging the place up I'm sure.
>>47858969
Flying is found in black but obviously is not exclusive to it. Casting a creature from the yard and exiling creatures from the yard to pay for spells are effects only ever found in black before this creature.
>>47858974
They want blue to have creature cards. Sure, Delve's only creature was black back then. And Unearth isn't really casting the card again. And exiling cards in graveyard for a minor effect was almost exclusively black before Skaabs.
But I can not get mad at wizards for wanting to make blue creatures. Blue doesn't deserve crazy busted instants and sorceries that outdo everything the other colors have, but a few shitty fun creatures is a good direction.
>>47859090
I have no problem with blue creatures being a thing, just don't make black creatures and then cost them in blue because that's just bullshit. If the Ruinator exiled instants or sorceries it would be blue, since when has blue's spells cared about creatures?
>>47859124
Because Blue can't be defined by instant or sorceries if they are gonna make all instant or sorceries suck.
And loads of blue spells care about creatures. Because every color cares about creatures.
>>47859124
Since innistrad and skaabs
>>47859124
Remember defender red from zendikaar?
Alternate win methods are fine
>>47858820
>https://youtu.be/KPI5hhYyBQo
>>47848470
No. Complexity is low at common. NWO doesn't care about the other rarities. Stop scapegoating.
>>47861622
This is necessarily false. Complexity being low at the common slot means that complexity is higher at other rarity slots. There is a necessary link there.
>>47858934
I've had some success playing Ruinator in modernwith Collected Company
Only at common.
The most complex card in a set could be uncommon.
/Thread
>>47859246
R/W defenders in conspiracy was the funnest shit
>>47862629
NWO does not mean that 100% of the commons are not complex. I believe Maro said something like 80% should not be complex. The other 20% can be complex. This can vary depending on what the set needs in order to function and also how complex the set is overall. But no one ever said, "100% of the commons should not be complex."
NWO also does not mean that 100% of the simple cards should be at common. There can still be simple cards at uncommon. There can still be simple cards at rare. There can still be simple cards at mythic.
NWO also does not mean that, in general, complexity scales with rarity. A mythic is not more complex than a rare. A rare is not more complex than an uncommon. An uncommon is not *always* more complex than a common, it just is about 80% of the time.
>>47862629
No idiot. While all commons have to be low complexity cards not all simple cards have to be common. Griselbrand is a very simple card. As it's Avacyn.
>>47859124
Blocks can shift color identity. It has been repeatedly said by Mark that in Innistrad black bleeds into other colours, so that black effects can appear in non black cards.
>>47870655
Not *all* commons necessarily have to be simple. There can still be some complexity at common, they're just careful with it. Ghostly Flicker is a straightforward card to experienced players, but it's super complex to a newer player because they have to learn that
1. It re-enters without any counters it had, and any "until end of turn effects" are also gone
2. It re-enters untapped, even it was tapped before, but this doesn't count as actually untapping it
3. It re-gains summoning sickness, if applicable
4. It triggers ETB effects, both its own and others'
5. Any spell on the stack targeting it fizzles, saving your card from damage or "destroy" effects, although...
6. Wrath effects or "damage to all creatures" effects still hit it, since they don't target
And you're potentially having several of those cases come up at the same time. Twice. And yet people complain that NWO's reduction of complexity at common has dumbed down the game.
New World Order doesn't really care if something is mythic rare or rare when it comes to complexity.
