Creature limit implications

2»

Comments

  • Skiglass6
    Skiglass6 Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    Yes, it would be a big change. But I assure you that players that run creatureless decks will not feel any pressure to put a defender in their deck. Also with the probable increase in defenders on the board, menace and afflict could become more important. I would bet that any deck currently built around afflict in mind would be running beserker because if not it would be worthless. 

    The idea that you would have to run a defender in this situation can’t be any worse than me having to run support removal to deal with the overpowered supports that we have.  Anyway it was just an idea.  I am sure that anything like this would be far away. I would hope it they start to think adding a forth slot, that they think of different ideas other than just opening up a forth slot.  I am all for a forth creature slot anyway they give it to us. 
  • khurram
    khurram Posts: 1,103 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2018
    wereotter said:
    Creature tokens created from non-loyalty abilities could then, in theory, be single-shield supports that give +x/+x to the first creature. Would have its own set of pros and cons, biggest I can think of being the massive defender in an otherwise token deck. (Also this would fix how broken Prized Amalgam is since the zombie tokens wouldn't enter as creatures)
    Prized amalgam can be dealt without much trouble and does not need fixing.

    Treating token creatures as buffs seems like a really bad idea. Doesnt make sense flavor-wise either. The non-token creature is wearing the token creatures? It will completely ruin supports like Zendiker's Roil and Oath of Liliana.
  • Firinmahlazer
    Firinmahlazer Posts: 417 Mover and Shaker
    I'd be in favor of expanding it to 4 total slots, no restrictions. I think it would make some of those cards that have tokens attached more useful (Pride Sovereign, Regal Caracal, Locust God, etc.)

Categories