Nature's Claim / Naturalize + Disenchant?
Well, I guess the distinction between White and Green on removing artifacts and enchantments has been eroding for some time. This is the next logical step.
Interestingly, though, doing this after War of the Spark was means that we now have a bunch of enchantment/artifact-like effects on Walkers. So, while this card makes disenchanting easier than ever, we also have a new card type to pay more attention to.
I was thinking about how the ping protects this creature, and I actually decided it doesn't really because Vintage has so many decks with big-butt creatures like Eldrazi and Shops. I feel like this girl (girls?) protects herself (themselves?) about as well as Dack Fayden, maybe a little better. It's conditional.
Ironically, I think the protection is better in Legacy where small creatures tend to more consistently rule the roost in the first few turns of the game.
But, since this card only costs 2 mana and probably at worst gives you a rampant growth if it dies immediately, it may be that being somewhat fragile is irrelevant. It's such a small investment that the removal probably was more expensive (in mana or time) than this card was.
Coming to post this, too. Two mana wasteland/strip mine lock seems pretty brutal. Even the ping is relevant as a way to wipe utility creatures away or grind out the opponent. The ultimate is also pretty insane in Vintage.
The one down side is that this walker doesn't protect itself. But, at 2 mana, does it really need to?
@desolutionist Yeah, thats what Wagner was pointing out.
I have to think this is downgrade to Gempalm. How often is getting a french vanilla 1/1 going to be better than drawing another card in Goblins? I'm sure there are corner cases, but I think I'd rather draw a better Goblin and still get the burn.
As far as targeting planeswalkers, again, that's situationally good, but it seems like Goblins would already be particulary well suited to crash through Walkers just because they are attacking with so many bodies anyway.
This card seems incredibly well designed for its purpose. It appears they were trying to incorporate the combo fighting Power of force of will into modern without allowing people to use it to protect combos. They did so in a very narrow way.
I'm not sure this card actually matters at all for vintage because with excess to four forces of will, how many decks actually need another four cards to protect themselves from broken combo? What decks in the current meta have a huge problem dealing with combo? Those decks might have some number of these in the sideboard
I think MTGO is protected from infinite loops by the fact that it keeps prompting players when they get priority, and there is a game clock. If you turned off the priority checks and game clock then absolutely you could soft-lock the game within the Rules of Magic alone. I mean, legitimately, not just because MTGO is poorly programmed.
This is, incidentally, why the shortcut rules don't work and certain decks with infinite combos are more difficult or impossible to run on MTGO.
@Smmenen Yeah, that's not the point of the article. @dshin summarizes it pretty well. What they prove is that rules of Magic and the card printed allow you to actually set up a general purpose Turing machine.
This means the result is not as trivial as showing that Magic includes variance, which is what I was curious about when I saw the article. Instead, it is a more fundamental result. it shows that Magic is just as powerful as arithmetic or a Turing machine, which in turn means that Godel's Incompleteness theorem and the halting problem (proved to be basically the same thing by Chaitin) apply to Magic.
That is to say, Magic is undecidable as a general principle. It's not just hard to perfectly predict a game of Magic; it is, in general, impossible.
I came across a really interesting article and i thought id share.
The author claims that deciding who will win a game of magic is at least as undecidable as the halting problem... which is pretty nutso. I need to delve deeper because I'm curious if the variance at play when cards are randomly shuffled or drawn is critical to the result or not.
Anyway, I guess this shows magic is harder than chess, huh?
@Smmenen this seems right up your ally brah
Explosion zone enters the battlefield with 1 counter
T: add colourless mana XX, tap: put X counter over explosion zone
3, T: sacrifice explosion zone: destroy all nonland permanents with converted cost equal to the number of counters on explosion zone
This card seems totally bonkers. Uses a land slot instead of spell slot, randomly hoses Moxen, and yet DOESNT have synergy with Workshop. Perhaps this leads to a resurgence in Eldrazi?
I like it; in fact, most of this set seems like it's asking for trouble. Tons of walkers like this with decent abilities.
However... I don't think this gal is going to see Vintage play. It's more expensive and harder to dig up than Key, and less powerful than Tezz. It reminds me most of those Merfolk decks around 2014 that would use Merrow Reejery to take Vault turns. Funny, fun even, but probably not powerful.
Yeah, but Electrodominance scores a few points over the Expertises:
- It's cheaper. RR for a Suspend spell.
- It's instant speed. (And it does overcoming timing restrictions; look at the Gatherer ruling on similar abilities, like from Etali, Primal Storm)
- The default ability (Blaze) is more generally useful than the expertises.
I think this all makes it a pretty safe bet that Electrodominace is BETTER than the Expertises were. So, the fact that the Expertises were not playable is not really relevant when considering this card.
On its own merits, is it worthwhile? Is it worth playing RR to instant-speed out Suspend spells in any Vintage deck?
@protoaddct This is where I always came down when I was running the card. Transmute Artifact is not as good as Tinker, so right away if we want to tutor an artifact we start with 1 Tinker. Next, we consider whether Transmute Artifact is better than Demonic Tutor. Almost certainly not, so we add DT to our artifact tutor package. Then we ask is Transmute Artifact better than Mystical Tutor? Well, given that we're running Tinker, probably not, so now we're up to 3 tutors.
Only at this point do I consider jamming a Transmute, and I'm skeptical even that is correct. How many more tutors can we realistically jam into the deck? I'm down with some build where we're just running counters and tutors and want to win with keyvault pronto - Turbo Vault? - but I've never seen that.
That's why I said that a deck who wants Transmute Artifact would need to be heavily leveraging what makes the card DIFFERENT from these other choices in a potentially positive way. Namely:
It costs UU. That's cheaper than Tinker and less Black than Demonic Tutor. So, maybe if you want a mono-blue artifact deck, this goes up in consideration. Traditionally the trade off of going mono color has not been seen as worth it by control players, though...
It's an Entomb for artifacts. In Vintage, the graveyard is halfway into play! This is the angle that seems to have the most promise to me, but it requires tons of (easily disrupted) things to go right in order to get an advantage. Plus, any deck who wants to use the graveyard has to ask whether they're better than Dredge, since they fall to the same hate.
I'd love to see some suggested builds using Transmute Artifact. Absent that, my suspicion is we're just not there yet. Here are the kind of cards that I think would push me to really want to use it:
Some kind of artifact fatty or with a powerful activation cost that comes out of the yard on its own power, like Metalwork Colossus, but with a more Vintage-friendly condition. Like, you can cast it from the yard by pitching other cards from the yard or based on storm count or I dunno.
Some other generally useful card that does something bah-roken if you have a significant artifact in the yard early in the game. Like, maybe a bolt where you can exile artifacts from the yard to do damage equal to their casting cost.
Something that rewards you heavily for being mono-blue and wants to be in an artifact deck. Like, Back to Basics that also makes your blue spells and artifacts cost 1 less.
I don't think any of these specific card ideas would be printed, but my point is that there are fissures between what Transmute does and what "better" tutors do that can be potentially leveraged by new printings.
@john-cox I think you need two moxen; one to Transmute away, and one to Weld away.
@MaximumCDawg I agree wholeheartedly, I was just saying that it may be worth adding to help Transmute out big boys without having to make huge amounts of mana. I think if you wanted to play Transmute it would be boring to only be tutoring out small things like Vault/Key, Top or whatever other useful artifact you can find.
Sure, but at that point I think I like Trinket Mage better for most uses. It misses Vault but gets everything else.
I admittedly have not played much Vintage lately, but when I was playing I tried out Transmute Artifact several times and I was never really happy with it. Tinker has a big edge on Transmute Artifact because it lets you cheat out expensive artifacts. It's like stapling Demonic Tutor to a Show and Tell.
Transmute, by contrast, always functioned like a worse version of Trinket Mage, in my experience. Sure, you can tutor for a cheap artifact at sorcery speed, but... how often is this the best card for that job? Assuming you really want to get something that costs 2 or 3 instead of 1, now we're talking about paying 3UU or whatever to tutor... and we're crossing into what Tezzert costs. On top of all that, Demonic Tutor does the same thing for X+1B instead of X+UU+sac so...
I think it's just a function of a card that is really legitimately broken just not being competitive with other broken cards.
Now, if there was a deck that really needed to pump artifacts into the graveyard or really wanted another useful sacrifice outlet, maybe we'd be talking. Transmute does put two artifacts into the yard, and if that angle is something you can exploit, maybe it has a place.