50:40 to add on to what Marshall is saying here, turn two vine gecko into turn three KICKED roost of drakes was such an insane play that I'm considering putting a kicker theme into my cube just for that.
Guys at 1:22:20 can't I play this for 2 and then on opponent turn foretell it for 0? it's a later turn, doesn't say it has to be mine? Or it's regular casting requirements nonetheless?
Zendikar Rising was a home run A+ to me. Never got sick of it. It succeeded in so many of it's archetypes and all of the new risks they took worked. Spell lands were an amazing addition and should be evergreen moving forward, so many games were decided by decisions because of this simple addition. The party mechanic is really just the first step in what is clearly a design choice to create synergies based on both creature type axees; the race and the class. I imagine this separation is going to be evergreen going forward and based on Kaldhiem spoilers, it looks like they are fulling embracing this as we have seen cards that synergize with either a race or a class; such as the angel/cleric lord. I feel like ZNR is going to not get the praise it deserves in the future, because it is the first stepping stone to a golden age of mtg limited.
I agree that ZNR draft is great. In my view MDFCs lands/spells are great as they mitigate flood and screw and present some interesting deck-building and game-playing times. Watching streamers draft other recent sets just shows how often flood and screw decide games when MDFCs lands/spells are not present.
I really don't know about this idea of "any spell in your hand can be played as mana" AKA "Rowing" is a bad idea and has failed as a mechanic on a game level thing. Mainly I'm looking at Duel Masters as I've played quite a bit of it actually. I played Duel Masters a lot back when it was here in the US the first time and I have a bunch of the digital games (the PS2 one and three of the GBA games...which might be all of them...) and I did not see any push back on having to turn your big awesome spell into a mana source. I played with a bunch of my friends and it came through pretty easily that it was just good strategy to put your 6 or 7 drop in your opening hand into mana, and cast what you can early...and then later on you turn your small spells into mana to reach your big finishers. Crafting a decent mana curve in that system is very cool and I still enjoy Duel Masters to this day, even though I don't exactly play very much anymore. I also never saw any of the issue that LSV brought up where you really need to sit there and think for a while before deciding what to put into mana. Games in Duel Masters are fast. You could go through so many games so fast, and of course, the combat system helped that a lot, but the mana system never seemed to slow things down. The choices usually went pretty fast as there are some, as LSV likes, heuristics on what you should be doing. Like I said earlier, big spells go to mana early and get cast late, and small spells get cast early and go to mana late...until you don't need any more mana. I very rarely saw people "tank" for long periods of time. Also, there weren't a _ton_ of ways for you to do things like get your mana back into your hand. Sometimes you could, so you might think a bit about what to put into mana, but I've seen this mana system work pretty well. Oh, and there still is quite a bit of tension to your draw step in this system. In Magic, it's more "all or nothing" much more of the time, which makes it more pronounced, but Duel Masters and Hearthstone still have tension in the draw step. It's not so good when you draw something small and not so impactful compared to something bigger. Magic has that sort of tension too, but you're over-focusing on the fact that Magic has more total dead draws instead of small impact draws. In the end, Magic's mana system, Duel Master's system, and Hearthstone's system all have their own pros and cons. None of them are definitively the best. Not to mention the fact that Duel Masters has been around a very long time and still is going, and popular, to this day over in Japan. I don't think this system is such a failure when you look at how strong this game has been going for so long. Sure, they tried over here in the US twice and it didn't work out both times, but I don't think the mana system was what killed it. I didn't like Kaijudo, the second version, but the gameplay wasn't the issue. Sorry for the long comment, but I have a lot of thoughts on this topic and I have a bunch of experience to support it. Love the podcast guys!
Could I throw in a rules/ettiquette question to the audience? I was at a prerelease before COVID happened, and my hand had 2 planeswalkers in it. One of them was an out for me, as the opponent had lethal on the board otherwise. I named the correct planeswalker, but dropped the incorrect one. Immediately me and my opponent called a judge over, and the judge ruled that the played card was the correct card. I have since heard that naming a card is quite an important aspect of "playing" a card. Whats the community's take on whether I should have been able to "correct" that play or not? What if I had accidentley dropped a card that I didn't have the manabase to cast? Are there official rulings on scenarios like these or are they all contextual/judge dependent?
Rules wise, you can't drop a card and then change your mind and reverse the mistake if it doesn't break any other rules. If it conflicted with other rules, they would probably just restore the board state to what it was before the issue happened. In my LGS, we were more casual and didn't have a judge, so we would just let the player correct the mistake. If it was the difference between a win or loss though, we would most likely enforce the rules. In official rules and in a competitive environment, the judge ruled correctly, provided I understand your situation correctly.
@@OkosHugPillow Hmm, I went on the MTG Rules Chat after posting this and got the exact opposite answer haha. Apparently theres a competitions clause that says that as long as I havent received information from my opponent, I can rewind decisions while a judge oversees. It sounds to me like its probably going to be entirely judge dependent though
Re: Surefooted Infiltrator - I had a deck with several of them and ended up getting there with it in that deck. Zulaport Duelists gave that deck wings. The odd thing with this set is that despite drafting some busted kicker decks, most of my success has been with aggro decks (and one clerics deck). This was also the set where I had the worst overall win %. I think I'm well below 50% for the first time.
I kinda got the feeling that the mdfc mechanic really raised this format to something great, and without it it'd be pretty boring. If mdfc lands become a recurring thing then zendikar rising will probably fall into complete obscurity. I already forgot what a decent portion of these cards did.
G/W is the best deck, still surprising you guys don't care for it at all. Zulaport was bad, arena pretty much told you it was in there hand, so it was really hard to get any value out of it.
Vehemently disagree with everything said defending Magic's easily biggest flaw, the current way lands and mana work. "Beginners don't want to put their 7-drops down as mana" is completely irrelevant when compared to the amount of Magic games that are completely or almost completely determined by blind chance. Magic needs far more skill-testing decisions in it. I, as an utterly mediocre player on the tournament level, shouldn't have a chance in hell against the top pros, but I actually do. It's not 50% and probably not too close to that number, but it's still a relevant portion. In chess, a mediocre club player can't take a single game off of a titled player if the titled player is playing seriously and without odds. That's the way it should be, or at least anything closer to that than the current situation, where world bests still can (and do) routinely lose to thoroughly mediocre players. Appealing to non-hardcore players is important, yes, but Magic and especially Hearthstone do it just goes slightly too far in trivializing a good chunk of the decision-making.
This set really taught me the difference between 3 mana and 4 mana.
"At the end of the day we're all just trying to figure out what comes next" truly a prophet ahead of his time
50:40 to add on to what Marshall is saying here, turn two vine gecko into turn three KICKED roost of drakes was such an insane play that I'm considering putting a kicker theme into my cube just for that.
New to the show but been playing magic for years.
You guys are awesome, keep it up :)
Watched some videos of Luis from 5 years ago. He looks so much happier and better now. And has a great beard!
The Gab Effect 😉
1:08:38 Technically, you can play additional lands with nahiris lithoforming.
Guys at 1:22:20 can't I play this for 2 and then on opponent turn foretell it for 0? it's a later turn, doesn't say it has to be mine? Or it's regular casting requirements nonetheless?
Yes, regular timing restrictions apply. But for instants or flash cards with foretell you can do exactly that.
My best draft deck this set gave me a p1p1 green inscription p2p1 roost of drakes. It was almost an autodraft after that for a clean x-0
Zendikar Rising was a home run A+ to me. Never got sick of it. It succeeded in so many of it's archetypes and all of the new risks they took worked. Spell lands were an amazing addition and should be evergreen moving forward, so many games were decided by decisions because of this simple addition. The party mechanic is really just the first step in what is clearly a design choice to create synergies based on both creature type axees; the race and the class. I imagine this separation is going to be evergreen going forward and based on Kaldhiem spoilers, it looks like they are fulling embracing this as we have seen cards that synergize with either a race or a class; such as the angel/cleric lord.
I feel like ZNR is going to not get the praise it deserves in the future, because it is the first stepping stone to a golden age of mtg limited.
this feels like an exceedingly optimistic view of the near future of MtG, but I absolutely hope you're correct!
I agree that ZNR draft is great. In my view MDFCs lands/spells are great as they mitigate flood and screw and present some interesting deck-building and game-playing times. Watching streamers draft other recent sets just shows how often flood and screw decide games when MDFCs lands/spells are not present.
Marshall's point at 36 minutes mirrors what Luis said in the first impressions episode.
This is the literary analysis I never knew U wanted.
Mono hagra constrictor plus the bone plant guy was my only 7-0
Moss Pit Skeleton
I gotchyu
I really don't know about this idea of "any spell in your hand can be played as mana" AKA "Rowing" is a bad idea and has failed as a mechanic on a game level thing. Mainly I'm looking at Duel Masters as I've played quite a bit of it actually. I played Duel Masters a lot back when it was here in the US the first time and I have a bunch of the digital games (the PS2 one and three of the GBA games...which might be all of them...) and I did not see any push back on having to turn your big awesome spell into a mana source. I played with a bunch of my friends and it came through pretty easily that it was just good strategy to put your 6 or 7 drop in your opening hand into mana, and cast what you can early...and then later on you turn your small spells into mana to reach your big finishers. Crafting a decent mana curve in that system is very cool and I still enjoy Duel Masters to this day, even though I don't exactly play very much anymore.
I also never saw any of the issue that LSV brought up where you really need to sit there and think for a while before deciding what to put into mana. Games in Duel Masters are fast. You could go through so many games so fast, and of course, the combat system helped that a lot, but the mana system never seemed to slow things down. The choices usually went pretty fast as there are some, as LSV likes, heuristics on what you should be doing. Like I said earlier, big spells go to mana early and get cast late, and small spells get cast early and go to mana late...until you don't need any more mana. I very rarely saw people "tank" for long periods of time. Also, there weren't a _ton_ of ways for you to do things like get your mana back into your hand. Sometimes you could, so you might think a bit about what to put into mana, but I've seen this mana system work pretty well.
Oh, and there still is quite a bit of tension to your draw step in this system. In Magic, it's more "all or nothing" much more of the time, which makes it more pronounced, but Duel Masters and Hearthstone still have tension in the draw step. It's not so good when you draw something small and not so impactful compared to something bigger. Magic has that sort of tension too, but you're over-focusing on the fact that Magic has more total dead draws instead of small impact draws. In the end, Magic's mana system, Duel Master's system, and Hearthstone's system all have their own pros and cons. None of them are definitively the best.
Not to mention the fact that Duel Masters has been around a very long time and still is going, and popular, to this day over in Japan. I don't think this system is such a failure when you look at how strong this game has been going for so long. Sure, they tried over here in the US twice and it didn't work out both times, but I don't think the mana system was what killed it. I didn't like Kaijudo, the second version, but the gameplay wasn't the issue.
Sorry for the long comment, but I have a lot of thoughts on this topic and I have a bunch of experience to support it. Love the podcast guys!
Turn 1 Ruin Crab is flip the table rage inducing. I really think they overshot on making mill viable in this set...
Could I throw in a rules/ettiquette question to the audience? I was at a prerelease before COVID happened, and my hand had 2 planeswalkers in it. One of them was an out for me, as the opponent had lethal on the board otherwise. I named the correct planeswalker, but dropped the incorrect one. Immediately me and my opponent called a judge over, and the judge ruled that the played card was the correct card. I have since heard that naming a card is quite an important aspect of "playing" a card. Whats the community's take on whether I should have been able to "correct" that play or not? What if I had accidentley dropped a card that I didn't have the manabase to cast? Are there official rulings on scenarios like these or are they all contextual/judge dependent?
Rules wise, you can't drop a card and then change your mind and reverse the mistake if it doesn't break any other rules. If it conflicted with other rules, they would probably just restore the board state to what it was before the issue happened. In my LGS, we were more casual and didn't have a judge, so we would just let the player correct the mistake. If it was the difference between a win or loss though, we would most likely enforce the rules. In official rules and in a competitive environment, the judge ruled correctly, provided I understand your situation correctly.
@@OkosHugPillow Hmm, I went on the MTG Rules Chat after posting this and got the exact opposite answer haha. Apparently theres a competitions clause that says that as long as I havent received information from my opponent, I can rewind decisions while a judge oversees. It sounds to me like its probably going to be entirely judge dependent though
Re: Surefooted Infiltrator - I had a deck with several of them and ended up getting there with it in that deck. Zulaport Duelists gave that deck wings.
The odd thing with this set is that despite drafting some busted kicker decks, most of my success has been with aggro decks (and one clerics deck). This was also the set where I had the worst overall win %. I think I'm well below 50% for the first time.
I also had the most success with aggro. I had more 3-0/7-x's with RW party.
What is the forbidden episode? I want to know now
loved the dog talk more pls
Yesss
"The best Zendikar". Not even a mention to Rise. Apostates!
SPINDRIFT! 👍
G/B kicker was my money maker this set.
I kinda got the feeling that the mdfc mechanic really raised this format to something great, and without it it'd be pretty boring. If mdfc lands become a recurring thing then zendikar rising will probably fall into complete obscurity. I already forgot what a decent portion of these cards did.
I think all the black cards in this set are trash
Has LSV been trolling this whole time with his pronunciation of Hearthstone?
kicker, wizards and clerics were so good that the other archetypes did not have a chance. I did not like the set.
G/W is the best deck, still surprising you guys don't care for it at all. Zulaport was bad, arena pretty much told you it was in there hand, so it was really hard to get any value out of it.
LSV loves the smell of his own farts
Vehemently disagree with everything said defending Magic's easily biggest flaw, the current way lands and mana work. "Beginners don't want to put their 7-drops down as mana" is completely irrelevant when compared to the amount of Magic games that are completely or almost completely determined by blind chance.
Magic needs far more skill-testing decisions in it. I, as an utterly mediocre player on the tournament level, shouldn't have a chance in hell against the top pros, but I actually do. It's not 50% and probably not too close to that number, but it's still a relevant portion.
In chess, a mediocre club player can't take a single game off of a titled player if the titled player is playing seriously and without odds. That's the way it should be, or at least anything closer to that than the current situation, where world bests still can (and do) routinely lose to thoroughly mediocre players.
Appealing to non-hardcore players is important, yes, but Magic and especially Hearthstone do it just goes slightly too far in trivializing a good chunk of the decision-making.
Go play chess then.
boring set tbh