Beyond Dominia: The Rumor Mill: Torment

By paladin_en_ass on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 08:33 pm:

a few days ago i was in my local card shop and there was a display of the one:

Faceless Butcher

from Torment
has anyone seen anything else?

By paladin_en_ass on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 08:34 pm:

oh and happy new year everyone :)

By Silver Dragon (Silverd) on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 09:25 pm:

I really hate saying stuff like this but . . . has a heckeva lot more rumours than this mill has seen recently. I would seriously reccomend going there for set related information.

But stay here for anything deck related!

By Greel, Mindraker on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 03:48 pm:

Hey everyone I just stumbled acrossed these pic's! I truly doubt that any are fake I mean come on, these are the FULL Pictures of the cards. Here are the links:

What do you think? Cool huh! and what is the deal with the Flashback symbol on Ichorid??? I wonder if they'll make a cycle of "Flashback Creatures"...

By BWM on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 04:04 pm:

Possessed Aven is really overpowered... come on 4 mana for a 3/3 flyer is already good...

Transcedence SUX, you can't win the game, there nothing on it that says that, the only way it's useful is when you are at 2 life, you just gain 9...

Radiate is just plain cool...

Ichorid, hmm, weird, pretty cool though...

By ses on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 05:20 pm:

Play Transcendence, Donate it to your opponent, then Life Burst them to death. How dumb is that?

By Greel, Mindraker on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 06:46 pm:

Hey I found another Awsome card!!!!!!

A flashback Diobolical Edict. Sweet! I'll post here if I find any others.

By Paranoid Android on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 10:16 pm:

Possessed Aven is just not right for a blue creature, green was supposed to be the efficient creature colour but blue gets the efreet, morphling and now this? Not fair.

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 02:30 am:

Here's my impressions . . .

Possesed Aven is awesome, it's a Phantom Monster (ever underrated), that becomes a Vampire blue-hater. I love it! In a way this is an "anti-morphling." I wonder if this will see use in any format besides Type2? All that being said, green better get something even better or I'll be angry.

Transcendence is just plain weird. It'll either be completely useless, or it'll be the next delusions. I guess if you're at one life, it'll be like gaining 19, but then it's still a fragile enchantment. I must hand it to them, a card that totally inverts your lifetotal is actually original. Probably useless and/or broken, but original.

Radiate . . . I really like it. I'd even try to use it in my casual Type1 deck. Imagine the chaos in a group game. Unfortunately, the art is precisely the type of "bad comic book crap" that I hate. I think I'd rather see a "Fork" with cookies stuck on the tines, than some random magic character blowing people up. How many times do we have to see that? If Radiate had been in legends, it'd have a picture of Enrico Fermi on it or something. Now THAT is high-class. :)

Ichorid . . . hmm, an Ashen Ghoul replacement. It's about damned time! I think I liked the ghoul better though . . . he was harder to bring back, but he didn't kill himself every turn.

The new edict is so-so, I actually don't think I'd use it. I find the instant speed of the original too much to give up just for another chance at playing the card for 7. I'm sure it's good in Type2, where the original no longer resides.

I love discussing new sets . . . this *is* a rumor mill, isn't it? :)


By yawgmoth, lord o phyrexians on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 03:35 am:

I understand ichorids flashback symbol. the removal is _like_ flashback


By wumpusman on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 08:58 am:

Am i the only one who sees potential in Transcendence? granted 6 mana is pritty expencive, BUT think of it with any lose life-ish cards in type 2 might necrologia become 50 life draw fifty cards next turn win. hey it could happen!

By GDarius on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 01:16 pm:

It would also kill you.

So, no.

If the card just said "You don't lose for having 0 life" that would be different. However, it adds "You lose if you have 20 or more life" and "Gain 2 life for each life you lose". Not too useful IMO.


By Liam (Liam) on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 01:45 pm:

Transcendance is Almost every other card now is practically a reprint or boring. This one is so much fun.

I'ld love to use this with disenchant and argivian find. Casual Parfait could find a fun slot or two for these if it upped the Seal count.

By Rico Jones, Elfman Extraordinaire (Rico) on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 08:05 pm:

Forsaken Wastes. Hahaha. I wondered if that card would ever be useful. I'm gonna make a Transcendance/Forsaken Wastes deck. Man am I gonna thump some serious ass. :)

At least it smacks of originality, which is more than I can say for most cards that have come out recently.


By Baka on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 10:32 pm:

Has it been confirmed that they are reprinted Sengir Vampire? If it is, it's the first time I've seen reprints of older cards in an expansion set. Big sets have reprints but never the small sets (at least I don't recall any...). Oh, and if that picture of the vampire is really Sengir, then i'm gonna get my old sengirs out from my t1 binder and put them into the t2 binder :o)

By Liam (Liam) on Saturday, January 05, 2002 - 12:52 am:

"for each life you loose"

that's gonna have to be errata'd, as points of life you pay aren't effected :)

By redshade on Saturday, January 05, 2002 - 12:53 am:

Anyone know the names of any Torment cards being rumored? I bet if you type the names of those cards instead of the names of the above cards, you could see just about any card from Torment. I can't find the names right now,

so if anyone knows any card names from Torment could you list any cards you know?

By Elrohir (Elrohir) on Saturday, January 05, 2002 - 01:48 am:

Points you pay are considered loss of life. What concerns me is, now what is the distinction between damage and loss of life? They have always been different, and now unless I misunderstand the "help text" of Transcendance entirely, damage is considered loss of life? Life loss has always been "unpreventable damage."

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Saturday, January 05, 2002 - 04:49 am:

Rico, you beat me to it! I've been thinking of Forsaken Wastes all day! Wow, two cards and you can't be killed. What a weird pair . . .

"I hung out in the forsaken wastes until I had a transcendental experience. Oops, and by the way you're dead if you can't kill enchantments."

Uh-oh, this set might be "full o combos!" Better burn it before-hand, lest they infect everyone with their synergistic madness!

I might just have to do a Black Lotus / Scrubland / Mana Vault / Mox Jet / Dark Ritual / Forsaken Waste combo. You won't laugh when you can't kill me except with a battle of wits or a coalition victory! :) :)

"Really not himself tonight."

By Bo on Saturday, January 05, 2002 - 01:25 pm:

Elrohir: I think there's a subtle difference in the card with respect to life loss and damage. It says whenever you "lose life". You can lose life through direct life loss (like mana burn or pox or whatever) which is unpreventable and you can lose life due to damage dealt to you which can be prevented as normal. I think the help text isnt saying that Damage is considered loss of life but rather that damage causes life to be lost as the end result and thats all the card checks for.

By Tawnos on Saturday, January 05, 2002 - 01:27 pm:

There is new cool website from WotC.
Look at

Some Torment cards are revealed and there is a great tool: the Orb of Insight.

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Saturday, January 05, 2002 - 01:47 pm:

There's an article by Randy Buehler called "The unbreaking of Transcendence" on I guess what he meant to say was "The unbreaking of Transcendence in Type2".

That is R&D's weakness, they never take enough cards into consideration. Mind Over Matter was in a different block than Academy, so it apparently never occured to them that there might be an adverse reaction. Given, Transcendence/Waste is no academy, but it is an auto-win against decks not packing enchantment killers. I'll be interested in seeing where this goes.

Oh, and in my earlier post, obviously Transcendence belongs in that combo. Everyone could see that, right? :)


By Elrohir (Elrohir) on Saturday, January 05, 2002 - 01:48 pm:

I know what its intent was, I just think it was worded poorly. :) I'd make it say "Whenever your life total decreases, gain two life for every point by which your life total decreased." Same meaning, without needing help text, and everyone knows that damage and loss of life will work in this context. It's not exactly "normal Magic syntax", but works. *just thinks WotC could take just a moment more to wonder how things get interpreted by the nitpicky*

By hellion, THE on Sunday, January 06, 2002 - 06:49 am:

muhahaha killer combo with forsaken wastes!

By 1 on Thursday, January 10, 2002 - 03:41 pm:

transcendence + neferious lich= EVIL

By RAZ0R on Thursday, January 10, 2002 - 11:20 pm:

I found a decklist online somewhere that had a good amount of the Torment cards listed. Yes, black has a lot more cards than any other color, but most of the power cards are non-black. The only black card I'm sold on so far is this one, and of course Sengir Vamp :)

By Andrew, the Sphinx Slayer (Andrew) on Thursday, January 10, 2002 - 11:29 pm:

two points - paying life will trigger this. In addition, you can't necrologic for 50 because you can only pay life you have - on 0 or less pay life effects fail.

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Friday, January 11, 2002 - 12:03 am:

Why does that Shade have to be rare? It's stuff like that, makes me not even want to try to get newer cards.

Having said that, I really like it. Best black creature since the pump knight, now if only they'd give green the same thing. I miss Killer Bees, sad as it is.


By RAZ0R on Friday, January 11, 2002 - 12:25 am:

Yeh I was a little pissed at the fact that the shade is a rare too. It's such a general type of card that it definetly shouldn't be. All the other pump knights, orders, black knights, ect. are either common or uncommon. Damn those people at WOTC... damn me too cause I know I'm gonna go out and get 4 of them anyway lol

By Rico Jones, Elfman Extraordinaire (Rico) on Friday, January 11, 2002 - 08:47 pm:

Just continuing the trend that Vindicate, Absorb, and Undermine started. I hate those cards. I mean, I'd love to play with them but c'mon. What a joke.

-Angry Rico

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 12:32 am:

I think it's official now, if it's not rare it's not good. Think I'm joking, just look around. What amazes me is that Vindicate was rare directly after they printed Terminate as a common.

On one side, I'm glad to see a few new cards that I'd actually like to play with. The flipside is that every single good card is rare. Particularly if you want the cards for extended or Type1. This is further compounded by the fact that good rares are the only rares even remotely in demand. In today's trading market it's hard to believe anyone bothers opening packs. Even three or four mediocre rares often won't be enough to trade for one rare that's relevent.

-Angry HengeWolf (Hey, I could be a magic card!) :)

By Rico Jones, Elfman Extraordinaire (Rico) on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 01:08 am:

Haha. I was sorta surprised about the Terminate thing too. I was also amazed that the 'comes into play tapped' lands from Invasion weren't rares. That completely blew me away. Those were prime candidates. Shadowmage Infiltrator shouldn't be a rare either: neither Ophidian nor Thieving Magpie was.

-Still Kinda Angry Rico

By Bo on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 01:38 am:

Trancendance + Nef. Lich doesnt work for damage since the Lich replaces the damage with removal of cards from the graveyard. You never actually lose life through damage when the Lich is out. However, using Nef. Lich + Trancendance and Mana Burning yourself should work since mana burn isnt damage but rather a loss of life, which would trigger trancendance and you'd gain 2 life. This gain would be replaced by the Lich's trigger and you'd draw 2 cards. So you could essentially "pay" 1 coloress mana to draw 2 cards at the end of the next phase. Still pretty good if you ask me

By Captain Underpants on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 09:40 am:

What do people think of cabal ritual? Not to mention the other nightmare cards, esp. Luquata's Champion "mmmmmm, you lose 6 Life for 6 to cast and I get a 6/3 regenerator". (probably not too great for T1 but nice for T2 at least!)

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 11:02 am:

I just don't know about Cabal Ritual. You get one extra mana for one card, or with threshold you get a black-only black lotus (kind of). In a threshold deck, it might be okay. Even if you only get one extra mana, you're working toward the threshold. All in all, I don't see this having even one third the popularity or range of use that the original ritual enjoyed. It'll probably pop up in some combo deck, and before you know it it's the next lotus petal! Maybe that's too pessimistic.

They need to make good fast mana sources with the caveat "this mana may not be used to fuel a combo". We'd all be better off. :)

Laquatus is interesting. If it was your sole big guy in a suicide black, it might even just kill a person by the time you can cast it. I think it'll depend upon what other cards can back it up. Will black be a good color again? At this point I'm not really sure. As someone else mentioned, I think all the best cards in the set are going to the other colors. Then again, no one has seen the entire spoiler yet.


By Tantiss on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 01:01 pm:

Anyone know where I can find the closest thing to a spoiler list?

By a on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 01:37 pm:

Here we go again: more complaining about the good rares.

First, it doesn't add up that someone thinks "if it's not good, it's not a rare," then points out that Terminate is a common, which leads one to think that he thinks Terminate is a crappy card. Not a good way to prove a thesis.

What's so wrong about making some good cards as rares? Would you rather get crappy rares? Anyways, whether you think WotC/Hasbro is greedy or not, the fact is there's gonna be chase rares and that is the selling point of CCGs. And regardless of whether you think that only rare cards are good, the fact is there are also a lot of good commons and uncommons.

By Levin334 on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 02:03 pm:

Tantiss: is probably your best bet. Check the rumors forum.

By Matt the Great (Matt) on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 04:25 pm:

a, there's a difference between good cards being rare and STAPLE cards being rare. It's fine to see Mystic Snake or Desolation Angel being rare, but Absorb? Nantuko Shade? These cards probably shoudl have been uncommon.

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 04:50 pm:

Okay, next time at least post a name if you want to comment.

What I was saying, and what I think was made perfectly clear, is that Terminate (a good card) was common, but then Vindicate (a similar card) was then rare. Both are good, but it's an obvious inconsistency. They have been slowly but surely making more good cards rare, that would've been uncommon or common in years past. Vindicate screams "uncommon", it's similar to Pillage, Creeping Mold, Desert Twister, etc. It's common knowledge that utility spells are common and uncommon, that's how it's always been. Just one vindicate will do you no good at all at any level, you must have multiples. I thought the original intent of the game was that rares were cards you might not want a lot of.

"If it's not rare, it's not good." was a jab at WotC, not any personal opinion of mine. I come from a time of common Lightning Bolts and Kird Apes, mind you. They can now use the excuse that they need good stuff to be rare "for draft", just proving my point that although draft can be fun, it is first and foremost a marketing scheme.

What I think ticks me off most of all is that they will gladly print a substandard common right next to it's better rare equivalent. If that's not skewing the game toward "more rares=better deck", I don't know what is.

I want good cards period, I'd be happy if every single card was playable. There are some cards that are appropriate as rares, but staple cards aren't it. By staple cards, I mean the cards that are almost a no-brainer if you're playing in that color. You know, basic utility spells, and cost effective creatures. You shouldn't need a 40 rare deck to get these kinds of cards.

Part of what made a set like Unlimited good all the way around, was that although it had it's crap rares, it had a profusion of good uncommons like Icy Manipulator, Jade Statue, Serra Angel, Sengir Vampire, etc. It also had plenty of good commons. I look at the new sets and the top tier of cards are easily 80% rare. The only reason I'm even onto this argument is that I've heard it expressed by so many people. They can't all be wrong.

Yes, there are good uncommons like Beast Attack. Unfortunately these are the exception and not the norm.

Anyway, what can we do . . .


By Matt the Great (Matt) on Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 05:39 pm:

If all the commons and uncommons were playable there woudl be no complaining about crap rares.

By paladin_en_ass on Sunday, January 13, 2002 - 06:20 pm:

btw guys. after some negotiations now i OWN a Faceless Butcher
bought it for 1 Euro

ugly m-f***cer for sure

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Sunday, January 13, 2002 - 06:49 pm:

Apparently you can win the game with three faceless butchers . . . well, you don't win but you do draw the game. They take turns removing each other and returning to play, apparently forever. Weird . . .


By Andrew, the Sphinx Slayer (Andrew) on Sunday, January 13, 2002 - 07:38 pm:

Henge: Only if they were the only creatures in play. As for rares: I'd rather have good rares than bad ones. I usually get sick of winning boosters for most sets; but not so apocalypse - it was always worth cracking. Sure, I'd like to have a slightly more even split, but I like having quality rares.

also, most of the 3 card sequences (such as the phyrexian rager/gargantuan/?other?) did not have their best card as the rare (for constructed purposes.) The rares in those sets of three are usually pointless, overcosted folder-bait.

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Sunday, January 13, 2002 - 09:06 pm:

I have nothing against good rares. Oh well, what's the use of continually arguing something like this. It just seems like every must-have card is rare nowadays, at the very least on a 3 to 1 basis. Am I totally wrong or am I on to something? I'm not in favor of powering down the rares so much as powering up the commons and uncommons, to make that clear. IMO there is nothing wrong with making every card at least a little bit playable.

Although I've never bought a single pack of Apocolypse, I must say I like the set. It made me go back to green/black, which I hadn't played since I first started the game. Mmm . . . Green/Black . . . Apoc even gave me a card called Life/Death, which was the name of my very first deck. It was around 200 cards . . . but back then that was normal. We had separate mana decks too.
But enough reminiscing.

Oh yeah, I had Lord of the Pits AND Forces of Nature in that deck. And everyone feared them!

[Time travels back to the present]

Did anyone see the article about Cabal Coffers? They're trying to tout this card as the next Dark Ritual-like must-have mana accel for black. If the games draw out it might be decent . . . pair it up with a Deserted Temple or something.
The card looks like a totally dead draw until turn 4 though, and you have to wait until turn 5 for it to work better than a basic swamp. "It's no Lake of the Dead." Well, I couldn't have said it better. But hey, at least it's not rare. :)

I love Lake of the Dead. It's a pity no one has them for trade any more.

You know what else interests me, these alleged new X/Black dual lands. I can't see any reason not to run 4x Tainted Forests (or whatever they're called) next to 4x Bayou. Quality!

As much as I rail against the Powers of Magic at every opportunity, I must say the last few sets have intrigued me. Even if I don't end up buying many packs or playing with many of the cards, they are still at least somewhat interesting. I'm actually liking the all-black set idea, it hasn't been done before and that is VERY GOOD. Now if only they'd make a Type2 deck that I'd actually want to play . . .


By a on Monday, January 14, 2002 - 11:31 am:

Unless you can prove that there are absolutely no good uncommons and commons, then WotC reserves the right to make chase rares. It's always been like that. Didn't you wish Savannah Lions were uncommon?

Who's to define what are considered staples or not? Does every blue deck need Counterspell? every green deck Birds or Llanowar? 9land Stompy doesn't play with them. Miracle-Gro didn't have Counterspell. Tier 1 Type 1 decks don't have Absorb and Vindicate. Why do you HAVE to have these?

By Doh on Monday, January 14, 2002 - 01:37 pm:

The tombestone-symbol on Ichoride is there because it interacts(can interact) with the game when it is in the isn't just a marker for flashback...

By SteveZ on Tuesday, January 15, 2002 - 03:24 pm:

Agreed, Doh.

And, incidentally, when damage is not prevented, it BECOMES loss of life. And to pay life is to lose life. It's all in the rules.


By Andrew, the Sphinx Slayer (Andrew) on Wednesday, January 16, 2002 - 09:07 pm:

Deep Analysis 3U (common)
Target player draws two cards.
Flashback - 1U, Pay 3 life.
"The specimen seems to be broken."
Illus Daren Bader [36/143]

This was posted on MTGNews's rumour area. They have nearly a full spoiler.

It's not an amazing card, but it is an amazingly cool quote. If you go to, one of the articles shows a bunch of pictures. This picture contains a masticore - it is 'the specimen' :)

By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Wednesday, January 16, 2002 - 09:40 pm:

I agree, the picture and the quote make the card. Even the name is decent . . . better than "Inspiration" anyway.

I'm off to look at the improved spoiler!


By Henge Wolf (Wolf) on Wednesday, January 16, 2002 - 10:16 pm:

I just saw the spoiler, and like many other recent sets it's quite interesting. I even see a couple cards I might want to play with. I'm sure there's also some good stuff in there that I'm overlooking. Thing is, for every good card I see, there appears to be 2 that are completely unplayable. 4B, Discard a card: give one creature -5 -5 until end of turn?!? Perhaps they're hoping it'll combo with madness, but it's way overcost when there are so many ways to just destroy a creature, for one card.
That white "firestorm"-like card (WW: discard x cards: remove x creatures from the game) makes me kind of ill. I have no wish to play against it, as it just hoses all over graveyard recursion. I have a feeling that a few of these cards are either slightly off, or just plain wrong. Of course, they don't have every card yet either. And then, unless they've got some kind of threshold/madness combo going on, all cards that make you discard x for x effects, are actually card disadvantage.

Faceless Butcher vs. Slithery Snake: what were they thinking?!?! One is so obviously better than the other, and how the hel is it good for a card to be a hose against white/green, AND have swampwalk?

I'm gettin' me some Tainted Woods! Perhaps I'll be able to make a monger/deed deck in Type2, since I own the key cards it's the only way I'd play the format at this point.

These are just some random opinions and first impressions of mine, so I don't feel like arguing over any of it. Discussion is fine, but I've got better things to do than argue something I wrote on the net for no other reason than boredom and/or amusement. Not that I'm blaming anyone . . . hel it's just been a very long day, is all.


By Liam (Liam) on Thursday, January 17, 2002 - 12:50 pm:

Chainer himself is kinda cool

Will be much wanted in Standard.

Add a Message

This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.