Some of the issues people have are things that you can control. Support reprints of the expensive cards. I know everyone supports reprints of the shock lands, but for some reason they don't support reprints of the Titans or Baneslayer Angel. Maybe its a timing issue?
If you reprint expensive cards, they cease being expensive. It might be the case that the first time they release a certain mythic, it might be $20-30. When they reprint it and double the supply, it might now be down to $10. When they reprint it again and increase the supply by 50%, it might now be $7. In terms of sets containing value that people hope to open when they crack packs, it's better to print new money than reprint old money. Also, I suppose another reason why some people might want shocklands reprinted is to increase the availability so that modern can be cheaper to play. Increased availability of Titans doesn't make any format really cheaper to play. Also, they might want shocklands reprinted just because they want good lands to be printed, and they might not be creative enough to realize that it is possible for R&D to make original lands that are just as good as shocklands.
The number one complaint I received after Innistrad previews: Why did we have to include double-faced cards?
The number one complaint I received after Avacyn Restored previews: Why didn't we include double-faced cards?
These aren't contradictory, Mark. Once you've introduced the complexity of double-faced cards, using them in a third set doesn't bring nearly so much baggage.
Yes, and more importantly, when certain cards are of high enough power that they will be used in eternal formats for years to come, having the mechanic in only the first two sets means that there aren't as many cards that have the mechanic. So you get a weird tension between it being significant because it changes the way you physically play the game, but not significant in terms of numbers / variety of cards. Its kind of the same problem with Miracle cards. it changes the way you draw cards off your library, hold your hand, etc. and because of a few very powerful ones, will do so essentially forever... but there are only a couple very powerful ones, so it doesn't seem "worth" changing the 'rules' for just a couple cards.
So the response after AVR was revealed could be phrased like this: "If you were going to do the DFC's, why didn't you go all in and include the mechanic in the whole block so that there would be more high quality DFC's?"
The problem with Snapcaster Mage is not the card in a vacuum. It's that it's blue, in a block with an efficient blue beater that also likes instants and sorceries; now you have a powerful-and-cheap card synergyzing with another powerful-and-cheap card in the same color. Maro has stated on at least one occasion that SM should be red (even 1R would be enough) for color-pie/metagame reasons.
Exactly! Snapcaster Mage alone isn't the issue. You have an efficient blue card that can stand in for any card in your graveyard (so it's only one card of card advantage, but X cards of selectivity). You have an incredibly efficient blue beater in Delver of Secrets . Both of these love instants and sorceries. And a good thing too, because you have a 1U counterspell in Mana Leak (which may as well just be Counterspell in the early game, where Delver does most of its winning. You also have ridiculously efficient selectivity gas in Ponder . They're all cheap, all very efficient at what they do, and worst of all, they're all blue. Just blue.
Delver has undeniably warped the format, Ponder is so good it's been banned in modern, Mana Leak is so good that they put in Cavern of Souls as a (poor) stopgap solution. WotC keeps tackling Delver (the deck) from different angles, but the issue here is that any one card is not good enough to ban, and any of them together is too good to leave alone. Blue has just claimed too much, too cheaply. And being all blue, it can easily be morphed into any of several degenerate forms. That includes things like U/W Geist of Saint Traft ), and all-blue plans like Invisible Stalker equipped with Runechanter's Pike .
I can appreciate that they're trying to make spells less important than creatures, and that part of that is finally easing blue towards better creatures as they ratchet down counters. But right now, in the awkward space where good blue creatures meet good blue spells, it's brutal.
If you're trying to say that a deck with both Snapcaster Mage and Delver of Secrets is too good, then... yeah, it's pretty good. But again, like in my original post, I said Delver of Secrets was the more degenerate card. 2 + 3 = 5, but that doesn't mean the number 2 is the biggest number in the equation. Delver of Secrets is a 3/2 flyer for U. That should cost 3 mana, or even when accounting for its minor drawback of briefly starting out as a 1/1, it should at least be 2 mana. For blue-based decks, it's the most efficient beater of all time.
Similarly, if Geist too good, then that's not because Snapcaster Mage is too good, it's because Geist is too good. Which, btw, no argument here from me. Hexproof is an inherently non-interactive ability, which is unhealthy for the game, I don't know why they keep making non-interactive mechanics like hexproof, shroud, protection, split second, unblockable, and uncounterable. Interaction = playing, noninteraction = you're helpless to influence the game. Geist attacks with 6 power and partial flying in addition to hexproof... that's way too good for 3 mana. If they were to print a 6/2 flyer with hexproof, it would cost probably 5 or 6 mana, so it's nuts that Geist doesn't even cost 4. If you want to do something about it, it's not like you can Doom Blade it. So, again, maybe Geist was too good, that's not Snapcaster's fault.
It's not Snapcaster's fault alone. It's not Ponder's fault alone. It's not Mana Leak's fault alone. And it's not Delver's fault alone. But each plays a part. There is an elite class of blue cards right now that you'd be a fool to ignore, and to play blue is to play all or most of them. The questions then become just "should I splash" and "what's good to splash?"
As far as hexproof, uncounterable and the like, they're trying to force decks to interact on different terms. For example, hexproof makes enchantments actually matter, without every enchantment resorting to returning tricks like Rancor or Angelic Destiny . Where else but on Traft would you see Spectral Flight ? Removal like Prey Upon is another step in that direction, where spells enhance/depend on your creatures more than directly answering your opponent's creatures.
Unfortunately, this is kind of undercut by other trends. While AVR hasn't had much in the way of removal, standard has had Doom Blade , Go For The Throat , and Victim Of Night . When you have access to all of them, and the only deckbuilding question is just "what is the correct Doom Blade/Go For The Throat ratio for this week's metagame," why wouldn't they just print Murder and be done with it? The deckbuilding questions were similar for counters when Mana Leak , Cancel , and Dissipate were all available, even as they insisted Counterspell was just too strong. This all happens at the same time that the return of TurboFog decks demonstrates that quantity is a quality unto itself.
Too little attention to what makes spells unique led to situations where you actually had an abundance of the "same" spell to use, with enough variety to cover a particular card's idiosyncrasies. By printing Murder, they essentially admitted for point removal "fine, this practically exists anyway." Whether or not they acknowledge the implication that too little variety pushes up the power of spells is still unknown.
The problem with double-faced cards was that they caused some minor mechanical inconvenience to the players; this was very largely addressed with the checklist cards.
However, since there is not a continuing supply of checklist cards, there will be a problem with the usability of these cards in formats such as Legacy and Modern.
Something I don't understand about double-faced cards: have people really found it to be more convenient to use the checklist cards in sleeved decks (like you would be required to use in a format like Legacy anyway) rather than just putting the actual card in instead? I do see people use the checklist cards so the answer must be yes, but for the life of me I can't figure out why.
Possible reasons:
1. I'm not happy taking my Huntmaster out of his sleeve all the time. I like my cards to stay near mint.
2. Talking of sleeves, I once bought this pack of 80 (meaning I had only 5 spares) and constantly taking a card in and out of a sleeve must wear the sleeve too.
3. Sleeves that aren't opaque.
In addition to these issues, consider this:
1) More moving parts. Decks already have 60 cards (Commander decks more) and now you have to add a card in order to get things to work right/keep track of/not lose. Screwing this up in a tournament could = illegal decklist. Screwing it up at home is just a pain in the butt.
2) Subpart to the 'sleeves that aren't opaque' point: Opaque sleeves are expensive. I use penny sleeves when not in tournaments because they protect the cards just fine and are cheap. There was an attitude; 'Hey, you'll just buy opaque sleeves' that came down from on high and it was very distasteful to me. I'm already buying packs: why are you trying to increase my expenses?
3) Comprehension issues: You now have to have both sides of a DFC card revealed in order to fully understand your gamestate. Adds a complexity that is unnecessary because as a player, you can't just look at the table and read everything. Now you have to stop and flip things over. A minor detail but one that adds to the wear and tear but also:
4) Dexterity issues. It may not seem like a thing for you or most people you know but: what if getting your cards sleeved was a physical struggle? One you could manage but took time. Now, if you want to play with the marquee mechanic of this set, you have to jump through this additional physical hoop. It's really unthinking and kind of mean, if you ponder it a bit.
5) The DFC taking the place of a land. I got two ads per pack for a game I was already buying. Innistrad lands are in lesser supply b/c instead of replacing that advertisement they just swapped the land out. Again, minor but not very cool.
6) The potential to mix up your checklist cards: you think it's a Garruk but it's actually something else. So you don't want to use DFC in the same deck to prevent mixups. (This one is minor.)
7) The execution of werewolves: G/R really got hit with the worst version of this mechanic. So not only is this a mechanic I'm disinclined to like, the cards it's on aren't helpful to my goals of trying to win.
So yeah, there were reasons that I didn't like DFC.
I don't believe that this block was awful: from a flavor perspective, it really did do quite a few things very, very well. Especially when it came to art and flavor text. Beyond that, I will say that it gave me less to be interested in and I think that it really didn't execute the kinds of tropes it was trying to in a Magic way. Prime example: why are blue zombies feeding on creatures? I know why black zombies would but shouldn't the blue ones have removed instants/sorceries from your graveyard?
The Blue zombies remove creature cards from your graveyard because they are literally dead bodies stitched together; just like in Frankenstein, you have to rob a few graves to make your monster.
That's a terrible reason, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong: I get it, I appreciate the explaination but it is in no way a blue thing, from everything I've been lead to understand about the color.
You sir, are painting with large brush strokes. You just lumped the entire category of "casual" into "not fun." If it's not fun, why does the category exist? Furthermore, your opinion destroys an entire argument? voila? ok....
Edit: I see your signature says you are not a nice person... well that explains why casual is no fun for you. Usually, casual is done with friends, see... and you laugh, make jokes, and sometimes laugh and joke about how your friend just kicked your butt. All in good fun. At least, that's how my casual rolls.
I'm not painting with any larger brush strokes than the guy who implied that competitive magic isn't fun. And anyone who plays casual magic is well aware of the fact that there are actually even bigger disparities in deck power in casual games than in competitive ones, and that people tend to complain a lot more in them. At least, anyone who has played in both competitive and casual games.
Also, there's the simple fact that casual games have a bajillion unspoken rules that are necessary to make them work. I find it hilarious when all of the EDH writers create their own metrics for what's "too powerful" for the format, and it differs dramatically from person to person. Keeping track of what's "fun" or "un-fun" for everyone in your own group, much less in some shop you're just visiting, is mostly a gigantic pain. It takes way too much work to make casual MTG be any fun.
That's not to say casual gaming doesn't have its place, but to say that casual magic is more fun than competitive magic (or, according to the people in this thread, the kind of magic where everyone is trying to win) is just hilarious.
My blog (everyone else is doing it...): http://ideas-abounding.blogspot.com/
"Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong. Paper, rock, and scissors, they all have their pros and cons." - Relient K
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a nice person.
MOTL Sale List: http://www.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/087367.html#0
At the end of the article when MARO was mentioning the ways in which he may be contacted (Twitter, Tumblr, and Google+), I really thought he was previewing the next block.
I don't believe that this block was awful: from a flavor perspective, it really did do quite a few things very, very well. Especially when it came to art and flavor text. Beyond that, I will say that it gave me less to be interested in and I think that it really didn't execute the kinds of tropes it was trying to in a Magic way. Prime example: why are blue zombies feeding on creatures? I know why black zombies would but shouldn't the blue ones have removed instants/sorceries from your graveyard?
The Blue zombies remove creature cards from your graveyard because they are literally dead bodies stitched together; just like in Frankenstein, you have to rob a few graves to make your monster.
That's a terrible reason, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong: I get it, I appreciate the explaination but it is in no way a blue thing, from everything I've been lead to understand about the color.
I agree, just because Frankenstein would be blue doesn't mean his monster is. I really disliked the flavor of the zombies in innistrad. They're supposed to be scary. Gisa and Geralf sound more like comical relief...
These ramp up the variance of the game far too much. Any time I hear about a deck winning a tournament because it top-decked a Miracle to close the game, I can't help but think that the victory wasn't truly earned, even if the deck and the player piloting it were both brilliant. I can't help but think that because of the nature of Miracles: if they hadn't top-decked that Miracle at that time, would they still have won?
Do you think a victory wasn't truly earned when a player luckily topdecks any other non-miracle card? Compare Miracles with any other high cost or conditional card, they are exactly the same. Topdecking the correct card has been part of Magic since its inception, and while Miracles are made to resonate with the scenario, they are nothing new.
Examples are endless: - Cruel Ultimatum sucks to appear in your opening hand, awesome to topdeck on late game. - Prowl: made expensive cards super efficient - sometimes. - Draco : both
Not to say that some miracle cards weren't pushed - but thats an entirely different aspect, nothing to do with the mechanic (except that they were picked to be pushed because Miracle was the highlight of the set, but so was Jace, Bloodbraid, etc...). If Bonfire costed RR more to trigger, you wouldn't feel that victories using it were 'undeserved'. Ergo, complain about the power level of 2-3 cards, not the Miracle mechanic.
In my opinion, its flavorful, creates awesome moments, and its fun.
I didn't say that what I thought was true. I know, logically, that it's not. Unfortunately, I still can't help but think that. It's a gut feeling. A moment of "Oh, lucky", rather than "What a skilled player". It doesn't matter much, but first impressions are important, and when my first impression of a tournament is "it was won by luck", that doesn't paint a good picture for Magic.
I don't think hexproof is a bad ability. Why should the player with creatures always be the one who is helpless to influence the game while the other person can cast murder at will?
] 
] Azorious Turbo Fog (Modern)
