Onslaught card and mechanic revealed

[EricBess]

Too different than what? Has there never been face-down cards before? Um...yes, as a matter of fact there have been, haven't there.

But, they would never print anything that remotely resembled Illusionary Mask. After all, that would be almost as bad as printing cards that resembled Ring of Ma'Ruf and WotC would never dream of doing anything that crazy...

ps. Please, look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary before replying

 

[train]

I think we as magic players can handle this new mechanic...
We are the smartest people in the world... just go read our storyline - our spin on the world of magic.

 

[BigBlue]

Hmm, perhaps they'll reprint Morphling and give it Morph too.

Interesting mechanic, and will be interesting in limited, making cards you usually wouldn't play more playable (since you could play off-color creatures at least for their morph cost, or incolor splashes b4 you get their color.) Since no color is specified, are they colorless?

Assuming the ability is real, why would we be limited to morphing 2/2 creatures for 3? I could see more powerful morphs for more, or weaker ones for less.

One thing which seems hokey to me is the costs involved. I don't see why they'd lessen the red cost of the creature (1RR vs 2R) in a morph. Oh well, early hints are always fun to discuss nonetheless.

 

[Sammy Dead-O]

I think I remember, in the Ask Wizards section of magicthegathering.com, a reply that alluded to something in Onslaught that dealt with commitment to colors. (There was a question about color commitment yesterday, but this was a few weeks ago.) I'm guessing that will be played with a lot with morph--a lot of the cards will probably have multiple colored mana in the casting cost, with the morph cost less color-intensive. That could also be switched up, where the morph cost could be much cheaper for a player, but could include more colored mana. And, of course, the Gray Ogre cost isn't color intensive at all (in fact, maybe that's what the reply was referring to). I...dunno.

Something that's come up over at MTGnews that bears consideration is the rumor of Onslaught's expansions being all-creature and creatureless sets. Morph would certainly make a creatureless set more interesting, as it could have enchantments and artifacts that could be played as 2/2's (or other sizes, if we find out that morph includes others).

 

[Spiderman]

I think it's interesting, but needs some more clarification. I echo BigBlue about the color; it seems inconcievable (although possible) that no color is specified. I mean, if WOTC felt it had to be done for Kobolds, why not here?

Before Sammy Dead-O's post, I would have said it sounded like it this wouldn't be too prevalent; kind of like Spike Creatures in Tempest block. But he has more info than me, so I'll just sit tight and wait

 

[Notepad]

One thing which seems hokey to me is the costs involved. I don't see why they'd lessen the red cost of the creature (1RR vs 2R) in a morph. Oh well, early hints are always fun to discuss nonetheless.

I think they made the colored mana less because the total cost was way more. The casting cost is {1}{r}{r} while if you add up the morphing play and conversion cost, you get {5}{r}.

NOTE: This is all if this sucker is even real, of course. Seems way too fake.

 

[EricBess]

Everyone is assuming here (and I would assume rightly so) that when you play a morph creature face-down, you don't show it to your opponent before putting it into play.

BigBlue - There is potential for abuse if someone were to say, put a land intp play upside down as a 2/2 creature. However, this would be easily caught and penalized. On the other hand, if you were to make some 3/3 creatures and some 4/4 creatures and so forth, it would be more difficult to catch a perpetrator who puts a morph creature into play that should be a 2/2 and says that it is a 4/4. As long as I get a real 4/4 into play soon, I can confuse the cards and get away with it (for example). Plus, having all the same p/t simply makes keeping track of them easier.

Spiderman - Same problem with colors. If the purpose is to not let your opponent know anything about the true nature of the creature until you pay the morph cost, having to announce what color it is would give infomation away as well as increasing a potential for abuse.


The problem with morph cards is that the opponent doesn't know whether or not the card was played legally. By making them all played as the exact same type of creature for the exact same cost, they avoid this problem.

SeFRo - I don't think it seems "too fake". I actually think it could be a very interesting mechanic with a lot of bluffing and thought about potential combat tricks. This would really add to the game if it is real. I just hope that enough of these are tournament legal that it isn't obvious what your playing when you do play a morph card.

 

[Spiderman]

That's not exactly what I'm talking about. It wasn't said on the card and people are assuming, but I imagine the FAQ would say "all Morph creatures are colorless" or something to that effect. So you know what type of damage you're taking from a Morph creature and what CoP can be used to prevent it, etc.

 

[EricBess]

Oh, I see. To avoid issues with people asking "what color is that?" and the subsequent confusion...

 

[FoundationOfRancor]

Right. The question asked is, "Can I use Cop: Red against the morph of Skirk Commando?" If so, how do you know the morph is red.

It seems as if they would all be colorless, like you said Spiderman.

 

[Mikeymike]

Man, this new mechanic is going to be quite the headache (you won't see these in 9th edition) but does it have some serious potential.

I can't wait to see the Morph instants and sorceries, I have serious doubt that this is specifically a creature based mechanic.
Have your pre-morphed 2/2 in, and pay its 2UU Morph cost to counter target spell. Morph lands would be the best though, making late game land top-decks not nearly as bad.

What I don't like about Morph, an AEther Flash in play completely shuts down the mechanic.

Questions about Skirk Commando:
If it does deal damage to the player, does it deal damage to the player AND a creature? Hope so, they finally did away with that 'may instead'.

In the Skirk Commando example, you'd attack with your generic 2/2, and if it's unblocked, you can pay the cost to flip it before damage resolves. As long as it's face-up when damage resolves, its ability will trigger (assuming your opponent has a targetable creature).

Wouldn't he have to Morph before damage goes on the stack for the ability to be on there as well?

Also, if you do more him after damage goes on the stack, is the damage red or colorless?

I know you guys don't know for 100%, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[BigBlue]

EricB - That makes complete sense. I hadn't thought of the cheating prospect. It will still be difficult to police.

And this get's me to thinking about the likelihood we'll see it. Onslaught is an expert set, and therefore the complexity doesn't bother me, but the ease of abuse does. Sure, on MtGO it won't be an issue, but otherwise, unless you have to show the creature first, it will be tough. I'd bet we're looking at a cycle or two rather than a whole army of morphs if this holds true.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

If "morph" turns out to be a major mechanic (and it probably is) I'd expect there to be several commons of each color, with a few uncommons, and just one rare.

I don't at all expect to see non-creature morph cards, since the definition of morph would include a face-down 2/2 creature for 3.

If there are to be other permanents with morph, I'd imagine they would still be 2/2 creatures that become whatever they really are (enchantment, artifact, land) when you pay the morph cost. This could lead to some very weird situations, though, with non-creature cards involved in combat.

Morphing instants and sorceries would be even stranger. Playing spells face-down, saying, "guess what this does." You'd never know how to respond, and targetting would be nightmarish. The only solution would be non-targetted spells that come into play as 2/2 creatures. And that is just too weird.

 

[train]

White has been left out of the "cycle" before - This just doesn't seem like an ability white would have...

It's CC=3, Morph=3, Optional CC=3.

It could also be possible that since this "ability" relates to the cards' characteristics - that this applies to other types of permanents.

 

[Sammy Dead-O]

Okay, I found the Ask Wizards I was talking about. It's from July 25, and the question was about why cards like Worldgorger Dragon have three colored mana in their costs, as opposed to one or two. The answer, from Worth Wollpert of R&D (does anyone else think they just made that name up?), ended with this:

"We know some of our most popular cards have had lots of colored mana symbols in them, keep your eyes open for another addition to that group when Onslaught comes out in a couple months!"

So...that's what I was going on... It's very possible morph is in the picture on this.

As for cheating-related headaches, the biggest concern I have is when a little face-down 2/2 gets bounced. In that case, a player would seem to never have to reveal what the card is (assuming it isn't revealed upon casting). Imagine a player with just a Plains and an Unsummon in hand, who needs to chump-block for a turn. They play the Plains as a 2/2, block, and Unsummon it before it dies. There's never a trip to the graveyard or an end to the game with the 2/2 in play, which are what most folks are counting on for the card's revelation, I think.

I suppose this is a case where it might be important to call a judge(?). Also, is it possible that face-down cards could be treated as tokens, so that bouncing destroys them?

 

[Spiderman]

It seems to me that since this is very similiar to Illusionary Mask, most questions can probably be answered by looking at it. Like the cheating question (putting another card that isn't a "morph" card into play), attacking and blocking, etc. I looked at crystalkeep and it doesn't address the issue, but I'm sure it had to come up somewhere.

Worth Wollpert is either one of the "early" pros or original/early playtesters of Magic. He's not made-up.

 

[Apollo]

He wasn't that early, I don't think. I'm pretty sure he was a member of Team Deadguy back in the day. I used to read his tournament reports on the Dojo; they were pretty entertaining. At some point, he got hired by Wizards just like Buehler and the like, and now he's giving stupid answers to stupid questions on their website.

 

[Lotus Mox]

Blistering Firecat
RRR1
7/1
haste, tample, EOT sac
morph RR

AND

Smother
Instant
1B
Destroy target creature with converted mana cost 3 or less. It can't be regenerated.


I like how the new Ball Lightning can be used defensively to ambush an attacker. It should help red, the worst color in OBC, a bit.

And they finally printed cheap instant direct black creature destruction which is also able to destroy both Mongrel and Psychatog (coincidence?), but doesn't kill Timmy's huge Thorn Elementals and Silver Seraphs.


note: I'm not 100% sure that these cards are really previewed at Sideboard, cause I don't have a copy of it and there weren't any scans available. But they don't look very fake.

 

[train]

yea!!! ball lightning...

Now there will be moons(blood moon) and balls on the table during matches...

 

[Mikeymike]

Quite ironic that they've tried to 'fix' Ball Lightning so many times over the years they finally did it by virtually reprinting the same card. Yeah its great and all, but for some strange reason it leaves a little bit of a sour taste in my mouth. How many times does this card need to be fixed?

On a side note, if you want a Ball Lightning you can now pay 3RR for it making it much easily to run in a 2 color deck.

Smother is quite nice, if even only for the 2 reasons Lotus Mox mentioned.