It's hilarious to me how many of the previewed cards so far, especially this uncounterable cycle, have the subtext '@&%$ you Snapcaster'
Other than that, the creature looks really strong. I'll admit I'm a bit worried about board stalls but given all of the other amazing tools we've seen so far RtR is looking to be amazing. Here's to getting our first truly good Standard environment in years!
It's hilarious to me how many of the previewed cards so far, especially this uncounterable cycle, have the subtext '@&%$ you Snapcaster'Other than that, the creature looks really strong. I'll admit I'm a bit worried about board stalls but given all o
In the other direction, people want immediate, visceral reactions to their cards. When cards aren't making you feel, we've failed. When you never feel invincible behind your freshly-played Baneslayer Angel, when you're never desperately terrified of that Bonfire of the Damned lurking on top of your opponent's deck, when deck building is all math, when games are all chess, when Magic is all head and no heart, we've failed. So we take risks. Calculated risks where the dream is bigger than the math, where the passion outweighs the play.
Read: "We only consider ourselves successful if you, our customer base, allow us to willfully manipulate you."
Can there be a more compelling case that the red philosophy is not worth ascribing to?
Read: "We only consider ourselves successful if you, our customer base, allow us to willfully manipulate you."Can there be a more compelling case that the red philosophy is not worth ascribing to?
i can understand where the uncounter part is coming from, but even if it was vanilla isnt 4/4 for 3 really powerful?
Almost every other 4/4 for 3 requires you to sacrifice it at the end of turn.... or has other draw backs....
This is a 4/4 for 3 with not only without drawbacks, but protection of sorts....
Not really meta warping, but it seems like creatures are racing back to Urza power level....
i can understand where the uncounter part is coming from, but even if it was vanilla isnt 4/4 for 3 really powerful?Almost every other 4/4 for 3 requires you to sacrifice it at the end of turn.... or has other draw backs....This is a 4/4 for 3 with n
The power level in this set seems almost bipolar so far - the Hellsteed 5/4 seems very reasonable; I wouldn't be surprised to see a legendary version for 1 less mana in a Kamigawa redux.
...and then there's this guy. Along with the dryad soldier that ALSO flips the bird at Snapcaster. Heck, even the ORLY Owl is pretty crazy for its mana cost, even if its impact isn't very powerful. Lolwut?
The power level in this set seems almost bipolar so far - the Hellsteed 5/4 seems very reasonable; I wouldn't be surprised to see a legendary version for 1 less mana in a Kamigawa redux....and then there's this guy. Along with the dryad soldier that
This is an extreme Spike card. It is a bit disturbing that you all are so focused on these very narrow applications of cards aimed strickly at people that play Magic against opponents, and not with friends. This card is pointless enough to the 'fun crowd' to not matter, but man, you guys make those of us that want to play a game with people for fun work really, really hard to rewrite the rules to make that happen. I literally couldn't relate to anything you wrote here, and yet you'll rubber stamp things that make my life a living hell with no idea why that would be.
This is an extreme Spike card. It is a bit disturbing that you all are so focused on these very narrow applications of cards aimed strickly at people that play Magic against opponents, and not with friends. This card is pointless enough to the 'fun c
I'd be almost amused by the 'we make power cards for the feeling' part, if it wasn't so depressing. Having a card you can feel good about is important, but that should not be reason to print these kind of powerlevels. Power cards like this might be fun to play for some, but they are not fun to face from the other side of the table. Printing them does not make the game exciting, it makes the entire game irrelevant. Whatever you do, you know card X will smash up your game if it is drawn. The only thing that matters is wether your opponent draws it, and if (when) he does you lose.
Having a good card to feel confident behind is okay, but not when you are forced to play that card only to stand a chance of survival. At that point deckbuilding does revert to being all math: All you need to do is play card X and counter card Y, and the rest of the format is irrelevant to you. It almost 'reduces' games to chess, but with a small twist: Instead of a pure skill-based game with a balanced board, now there is a random guy standing to side with a hammer that randomly hits players, knocking them out instantly. Is there any satisfaction in losing on the board, but then winning just because hammerman knocked your opponent out for you?
Printing trump cards to stop certain strategies could be useful, if only you'd stop using raw power as the main method to counter something. Having tools to fight the Great Evil is important, but not when those tools are simply more powerful than the Great Evil, as they just become the Great Evil themselves. How is this card supposed to help against aggro, when aggro decks will be more than happy to run 4 themselves?
I'd be almost amused by the 'we make power cards for the feeling' part, if it wasn't so depressing. Having a card you can feel good about is important, but that should not be reason to print these kind of powerlevels. Power cards like this might be f
This is an extreme Spike card. It is a bit disturbing that you all are so focused on these very narrow applications of cards aimed strickly at people that play Magic against opponents, and not with friends. This card is pointless enough to the 'fun crowd' to not matter, but man, you guys make those of us that want to play a game with people for fun work really, really hard to rewrite the rules to make that happen. I literally couldn't relate to anything you wrote here, and yet you'll rubber stamp things that make my life a living hell with no idea why that would be.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. This is a spike card, yes. But every set has cards for timmy/johnny/spike so it shouldn't be a big deal. This card isn't going to ruin your casual games, because like you said, it's pointless enough. What exactly about this article makes you think that playing MtG for fun is somehow harder to do now than before? Are you saying that Magic nowadays is only aimed at tournament players, based on WotC strategy and cards being published, when in fact the opposite is true (unfun things like discard, ld, and non-interactive combos are being hosed, there are casual product like Duel Decks being released regularly, and the focus in magic has been shifted from non-creature cards to creature cards).
About the card itself: Its converted mana cost is more than two so it's not for the hyper-aggro decks, and it's impact is not big enough to fit in control decks. Like Mr. Moreno said, the card is effective against both of these strategies, so it's a perfect fit for midrange decks. Midrange has usually been the weakest deck archetype, and this cards gives a necessary power level boost for such decks. And a 3 mana 4/4 isn't overpowered by far. If you can have a four mana 3/4 flash flier with a good ability, a three mana ground dude can't be only a 3/3.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. This is a spike card, yes. But every set has cards for timmy/johnny/spike so it shouldn't be a big deal. This card isn't going to ruin your casual games, because like you said, it's pointless enough. What exac
As cool as this set seems, I'm really not a fan of the "cannot be countered"-suite. I think it's rather pointless to remove one of the more fun and challenging interactions in the game. Being able to play correctly around a counterspell is one of the big things that keeps this game interesting.
As cool as this set seems, I'm really not a fan of the "cannot be countered"-suite. I think it's rather pointless to remove one of the more fun and challenging interactions in the game. Being able to play correctly around a counterspell is one of the
In the other direction, people want immediate, visceral reactions to their cards. When cards aren't making you feel, we've failed. When you never feel invincible behind your freshly-played Baneslayer Angel, when you're never desperately terrified of that Bonfire of the Damned lurking on top of your opponent's deck, when deck building is all math, when games are all chess, when Magic is all head and no heart, we've failed. So we take risks. Calculated risks where the dream is bigger than the math, where the passion outweighs the play.
Read: "We only consider ourselves successful if you, our customer base, allow us to willfully manipulate you."
Can there be a more compelling case that the red philosophy is not worth ascribing to?
You never watch a movie or read a book out of principle too?
This is an extreme Spike card. It is a bit disturbing that you all are so focused on these very narrow applications of cards aimed strickly at people that play Magic against opponents, and not with friends. This card is pointless enough to the 'fun crowd' to not matter, but man, you guys make those of us that want to play a game with people for fun work really, really hard to rewrite the rules to make that happen. I literally couldn't relate to anything you wrote here, and yet you'll rubber stamp things that make my life a living hell with no idea why that would be.
They do have an idea, but it's impossible to please all. Or rather, to offend no one. As MaRo always says, it's better to make something that is beloved by some and hated by others, than something that is hated by no one and loved by no one.
As cool as this set seems, I'm really not a fan of the "cannot be countered"-suite. I think it's rather pointless to remove one of the more fun and challenging interactions in the game. Being able to play correctly around a counterspell is one of the big things that keeps this game interesting.
Problem is, for the vast majority of players, it's one of the least fun interactions in the game. So it has to be downplayed.
Also, isn't the game better if everything has answers? Now there are some answers for counterspells.
Read: "We only consider ourselves successful if you, our customer base, allow us to willfully manipulate you."Can there be a more compelling case that the red philosophy is not worth ascribing to?[/quote]You never watch a movie or read a book out of
I'd be almost amused by the 'we make power cards for the feeling' part, if it wasn't so depressing. Having a card you can feel good about is important, but that should not be reason to print these kind of powerlevels. Power cards like this might be fun to play for some, but they are not fun to face from the other side of the table. Printing them does not make the game exciting, it makes the entire game irrelevant. Whatever you do, you know card X will smash up your game if it is drawn. The only thing that matters is wether your opponent draws it, and if (when) he does you lose.
Having a good card to feel confident behind is okay, but not when you are forced to play that card only to stand a chance of survival. At that point deckbuilding does revert to being all math: All you need to do is play card X and counter card Y, and the rest of the format is irrelevant to you. It almost 'reduces' games to chess, but with a small twist: Instead of a pure skill-based game with a balanced board, now there is a random guy standing to side with a hammer that randomly hits players, knocking them out instantly. Is there any satisfaction in losing on the board, but then winning just because hammerman knocked your opponent out for you?
Yes. Because you were playing to your outs. Magic is not a pure skill-based game like chess, but more like poker, where the ability to understand and correctly play with or around the chance inherent to the game determines your skill. No wonder so many magic pros pick up poker.
Yes. Because you were playing to your outs. Magic is not a pure skill-based game like chess, but more like poker, where the ability to understand and correctly play with or around the chance inherent to the game determines your skill. No wonder so ma
I'd be almost amused by the 'we make power cards for the feeling' part, if it wasn't so depressing. Having a card you can feel good about is important, but that should not be reason to print these kind of powerlevels. Power cards like this might be fun to play for some, but they are not fun to face from the other side of the table. Printing them does not make the game exciting, it makes the entire game irrelevant. Whatever you do, you know card X will smash up your game if it is drawn. The only thing that matters is wether your opponent draws it, and if (when) he does you lose.
Having a good card to feel confident behind is okay, but not when you are forced to play that card only to stand a chance of survival. At that point deckbuilding does revert to being all math: All you need to do is play card X and counter card Y, and the rest of the format is irrelevant to you. It almost 'reduces' games to chess, but with a small twist: Instead of a pure skill-based game with a balanced board, now there is a random guy standing to side with a hammer that randomly hits players, knocking them out instantly. Is there any satisfaction in losing on the board, but then winning just because hammerman knocked your opponent out for you?
Printing trump cards to stop certain strategies could be useful, if only you'd stop using raw power as the main method to counter something. Having tools to fight the Great Evil is important, but not when those tools are simply more powerful than the Great Evil, as they just become the Great Evil themselves. How is this card supposed to help against aggro, when aggro decks will be more than happy to run 4 themselves?
How is this previewed card the powerhouse you describe? The card can be answered in many ways, including by the cards people are playing in their main decks anyway. And its presence on the table is not the same like Baneslayer, which usually won the game unless the opponent had an answer in their hand or on top of the deck.
How is this previewed card the powerhouse you describe? The card can be answered in many ways, including by the cards people are playing in their main decks anyway. And its presence on the table is not the same like Baneslayer, which usually won the
Wow, the power creep. A three-mana 4/4 whose only drawback is that it takes two colors. And then they pile on not one but two pretty powerful upsides.
...And I still doubt it'll be good enough to see that much play.
Wow, the power creep. A three-mana 4/4 whose only drawback is that it takes two colors. And then they pile on not one but two pretty powerful upsides....And I still doubt it'll be good enough to see that much play.
The draw back (hindrance) for that was the 3 different mana symbols....
I didnt play when that card was out so i dont know how much mana fixing was in standard at the time, but having access to all three colors is not the easiest thing to do by turn three....
Things that have more than two colors have almost always had better stats/effects than their 1 or 2 color counter parts because it was harder to pay the three colors....
And now with all the mana fixing that is available it makes it easier to get this out....
Thats not to say you couldn't bounce the thing, but then it only cost 3 mana so dropping it again isnt too back breaking....
Woolly Thoctar [/quote]The draw back (hindrance) for that was the 3 different mana symbols.... I didnt play when that card was out so i dont know how much mana fixing was in standard at the time, but having access to a
The draw back (hindrance) for that was the 3 different mana symbols....
I didnt play when that card was out so i dont know how much mana fixing was in standard at the time, but having access to all three colors is not the easiest thing to do by turn three....
Things that have more than two colors have almost always had better stats/effects than their 1 or 2 color counter parts because it was harder to pay the three colors....
Yes just like 2 color cards have better stats/effects than their monocolor counterparts because it's harder to pay the two colors, or rather, it restricts the range of decks it can go in.
If you count 3 colors as a drawback, which it is, do the same for 2.
Yes just like 2 color cards have better stats/effects than their monocolor counterparts because it's harder to pay the two colors, or rather, it restricts the range of decks it can go in.If you count 3 colors as a drawback, which it is, do the same f
Hey guys, you know how discard has been totally ruining everything, everywhere and is super relevant right now? Well this guy is a thing! *LAME*.
In all seriousness, I hate cards like this that just uncreatively hose stuff. Discard is horrible right now and this guy is the nail in the coffin as far as I can see. Oh well. Also, Liliana of the Dark Realms stock is about to go through the roof.
Hey guys, you know how discard has been totally ruining everything, everywhere and is super relevant right now? Well this guy is a thing! *LAME*.In all seriousness, I hate cards like this that just uncreatively hose stuff. Discard is horrible right n
Feel free to compound this point with the considerable Mana-fixing RtR will be bringing to the table, designed precisely to make two(and arguably even three) colours a completely trivial affair to play with.
Two colours is a relevant drawback ?Feel free to compound this point with the considerable Mana-fixing RtR will be bringing to the table, designed
That's... a remarkably good point. I did think "lolwut? 3-mana 4/4? powercreep!" in the same way chronego did. But I guess I didn't factor in the gold discount. Woolly Thoctar is an excellent response.
You never watch a movie or read a book out of principle too?Entertainment is all about willful manipulation.[/quote]I have to agree. I don't mind the people who make the best game ever deliberately adjusting parameters within that game to make it mor
Feel free to compound this point with the considerable Mana-fixing RtR will be bringing to the table, designed precisely to make two(and arguably even three) colours a completely trivial affair to play with.
It is only trivial if you play Magic on a surface level.
This cards puts you in 2 colors already. That means it will be harder to play other colors. What Wizards strives for, is not a flat powerlevel, but rather a balanced playing field. Meaning a bunch of color combinations will get powerful pushed cards. If you play this one, you can't play the others. Meaning all the decks will have a few pushed cards, balancing each other out.
There are 2 ways in which this can go wrong. 1. All the pushed cards appear in a few colors (see Jund) 2. 3+ colors is indeed trivial (see Vivids + Reflecting Pool)
As long as they make sure those things do not happen, this card has a drawback. Yes it will be trivial to cast it in a G/W deck. What will not be trivial is what you can't cast in that deck. As long as there are powerful aggro decks in the format, shocklands will not be trivial.
It is only trivial if you play Magic on a surface level. This cards puts you in 2 colors already. That means it will be harder to play other colors. What Wizards strives for, is not a flat powerlevel, but rather a balanced playing field. Meaning a bu
Good card, lousy name though. Loxodon Smiter just seems a bit, well, unimaginative.
I love the Zac Hill story, here's hoping for more from Billy in that vein.
Good card, lousy name though. Loxodon Smiter just seems a bit, well, unimaginative.I love the Zac Hill story, here's hoping for more from Billy in that vein.
This is an extreme Spike card. It is a bit disturbing that you all are so focused on these very narrow applications of cards aimed strickly at people that play Magic against opponents, and not with friends. This card is pointless enough to the 'fun crowd' to not matter, but man, you guys make those of us that want to play a game with people for fun work really, really hard to rewrite the rules to make that happen. I literally couldn't relate to anything you wrote here, and yet you'll rubber stamp things that make my life a living hell with no idea why that would be.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. This is a spike card, yes. But every set has cards for timmy/johnny/spike so it shouldn't be a big deal. This card isn't going to ruin your casual games, because like you said, it's pointless enough. What exactly about this article makes you think that playing MtG for fun is somehow harder to do now than before? Are you saying that Magic nowadays is only aimed at tournament players, based on WotC strategy and cards being published, when in fact the opposite is true (unfun things like discard, ld, and non-interactive combos are being hosed, there are casual product like Duel Decks being released regularly, and the focus in magic has been shifted from non-creature cards to creature cards).
About the card itself: Its converted mana cost is more than two so it's not for the hyper-aggro decks, and it's impact is not big enough to fit in control decks. Like Mr. Moreno said, the card is effective against both of these strategies, so it's a perfect fit for midrange decks. Midrange has usually been the weakest deck archetype, and this cards gives a necessary power level boost for such decks. And a 3 mana 4/4 isn't overpowered by far. If you can have a four mana 3/4 flash flier with a good ability, a three mana ground dude can't be only a 3/3.
What I am trying to say is that they seem to spend all their time testing cards so that 3 games can be played in 50 minutes. For people that play 1 game in 50 minutes, the cards aimed at us can sometimes be wildly overpowered, and just one playtest would prove it. Dead-eye navigator is a really good example. The card is super cool, but way overpowered. After playing it just once, it feels unfair to have that guy out. Its bounce activation should probably be 1UU. I'd like if they put in some, not a bunch, but some time-as in one game in a case of this card, to balancing it.
He worked really hard on this card. That's great, but this is a card that I don't care about. He was thinking about stuff I don't have to think about. That's perfectly alright. The bulk of his job is preventing the loss of interest in tournament Magic. But time and again, development seems to put in no thought or effort when it comes to the cards that I do think about and play. I could have told them scrambleverse does not do what they want it to do without even having to playtest it. And yet that thing saw the light of day.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. This is a spike card, yes. But every set has cards for timmy/johnny/spike so it shouldn't be a big deal. This card isn't going to ruin your casual games, because like you said, it's pointless enough. What exac
I can't exactly say the card is THAT unprecedented. Interpreted in terms of old cards, it's "just" an uncounterable Dodecapod , with the possible PT levels averaged out between the hardcast and discardcast. And the lower CMC is counterweighted by being pickier about color. Not sure what (if anything) counterweights the uncounterability on the Dodecapod side, though.
I can't exactly say the card is THAT unprecedented. Interpreted in terms of old cards, it's "just" an uncounterable Dodecapod , with the possible PT levels averaged out between the hardcast and discardcast. And the
I'd be almost amused by the 'we make power cards for the feeling' part, if it wasn't so depressing. Having a card you can feel good about is important, but that should not be reason to print these kind of powerlevels. Power cards like this might be fun to play for some, but they are not fun to face from the other side of the table. Printing them does not make the game exciting, it makes the entire game irrelevant. Whatever you do, you know card X will smash up your game if it is drawn. The only thing that matters is wether your opponent draws it, and if (when) he does you lose.
Having a good card to feel confident behind is okay, but not when you are forced to play that card only to stand a chance of survival. At that point deckbuilding does revert to being all math: All you need to do is play card X and counter card Y, and the rest of the format is irrelevant to you. It almost 'reduces' games to chess, but with a small twist: Instead of a pure skill-based game with a balanced board, now there is a random guy standing to side with a hammer that randomly hits players, knocking them out instantly. Is there any satisfaction in losing on the board, but then winning just because hammerman knocked your opponent out for you?
Printing trump cards to stop certain strategies could be useful, if only you'd stop using raw power as the main method to counter something. Having tools to fight the Great Evil is important, but not when those tools are simply more powerful than the Great Evil, as they just become the Great Evil themselves. How is this card supposed to help against aggro, when aggro decks will be more than happy to run 4 themselves?
Congratulations, you've successfully argued the point that no good cards should be printed, ever.
Congratulations, you've successfully argued the point that no good cards should be printed, ever.
As others have noted, they justify a card like this because forcing you to be G/W to cast it is a drawback in itself. The problem is that, with Avacyn's Pilgrim and shocklands in the environment now, that drawback is almost completely irrelevant. How much trouble is it to splash white into a green deck for a creature that can sometimes be cast for free anyway?
A casting cost of 1GW is just too cheap, plain and simple. It would still have been playable at 2GW: the main drawback of a CMC of 4 is that it leaves you vulnerable to countermagic and hand destruction, both of which are specifically hosed by Smiter's abilities. Heck, even changing the colorless mana to colored mana (GGW instead of 1GW) or dropping a toughness (to 4/3) would have been enough to keep the card more fair. As it is, people are just going to jam 4 of this into their aggro decks regardless of the metagame because a 3-mana 4/4 is just ridiculous.
As others have noted, they justify a card like this because forcing you to be G/W to cast it is a drawback in itself. The problem is that, with Avacyn's Pilgrim and shocklands in the environment now, that drawback is almost completely irrelevant. How
Over powered rares are not fun. I am disappointed that the makers of this game have forgotten what makes the game fun. If this was really intended to be a counter for the very common problems encountered in tournaments, it ought to be uncommon. Unless we argue that power and rarity should go hand in hand, this card doesn't do anything to deserve being rare.
Powercreep much?Over powered rares are not fun. I am disappointed that the makers of this game have forgotten what makes the game fun. If this was really intended to be a counter for the very common problems encountered in tournaments, it ought to
Just the fact that they even considered something as ridiculous as that terrifies me.
Also if I see "can't be countered" on another card I am gonna barf. They want to downplay Snapcaster and Delver and they keep nerfing mana leak /counters... they are killing control to nerf an aggro/tempo deck in the wrong colours, delver doesnt even use counters that much these days. fffff
WHATJust the fact that they even considered something as ridiculous as that terrifies me.Also if I see "can't be countered" on another card I am gonna barf. They want to downplay Snapcaster and Delver and they keep nerfing mana leak
Just the fact that they even considered something as ridiculous as that terrifies me.
Also if I see "can't be countered" on another card I am gonna barf. They want to downplay Snapcaster and Delver and they keep nerfing mana leak /counters... they are killing control to nerf an aggro/tempo deck in the wrong colours, delver doesnt even use counters that much these days. fffff
a few things people seem to not understand: 1) "Control" is not synonymous with "draw-go". Control decks are not exclusively blue, nor do they require counterspells. Mono-black control has been a thing in magic's history. So has mono-white. Each time, without counterspells. Counterspells for a true control deck are just another form of removal. If you're worried about control, don't be. You'll be getting a new Day of Judgement with blue in the casting cost for uncounterability soon. That ought to help you against tempo decks so they can't just, I don't know, Syncopate it when you cast it on turn four to stop the bleeding from, I don't know, a flipped delver + geist of saint traft. 2) if what you really want is a return to Draw-go, you should just go ahead and quit playing magic right now, because that ain't ever going to happen.
WHATJust the fact that they even considered something as ridiculous as that terrifies me.Also if I see "can't be countered" on another card I am gonna barf. They want to downplay Snapcaster and Delver and they keep nerfing mana leak
I could have told them scrambleverse does not do what they want it to do without even having to playtest it. And yet that thing saw the light of day.
As a Scrambleverse lover, I'd like you to tell me why you think that way exactly?
Or could it be, that just as you accuse Wizards of not thinking about you, you are not thinking about people not you?
As a Scrambleverse lover, I'd like you to tell me why you think that way exactly?Or could it be, that just as you accuse Wizards of not thinking about you, you are not thinking about people not you?
That was quite a long-winded way of saying 'we made a card that was good, then slyly undercosted it'. It seems like the art of development is to pick the cards one wants in the environment, then shave mana off them. Terra Stomper for GG. So uh, do I have to move to Renton, or can I just work from home?
That was quite a long-winded way of saying 'we made a card that was good, then slyly undercosted it'. It seems like the art of development is to pick the cards one wants in the environment, then shave mana off them. Terra Stomper
Your story was funny, but I think you may have done something a bit wrong, if I'm not mistaken.
Azorius Charm can only bounce attacking or blocking creatures. It's not an unconditional bounce. Since Planeswalker abilities can only be activated as Sorceries (again, only if I'm not mistaken), you couldn't have bounced his TMH to make him discard it, since it wasn't attacking or blocking.
If you had simply unsummoned it for giggles, that would still be hilarious. As it is, I don't think that game should have worked out the way it did.
Your story was funny, but I think you may have done something a bit wrong, if I'm not mistaken.Azorius Charm can only bounce attacking or blocking creatures. It's not an unconditional bounce. Since Planeswalker abilities can only be activated as Sorc
Your story was funny, but I think you may have done something a bit wrong, if I'm not mistaken.
Azorius Charm can only bounce attacking or blocking creatures. It's not an unconditional bounce. Since Planeswalker abilities can only be activated as Sorceries (again, only if I'm not mistaken), you couldn't have bounced his TMH to make him discard it, since it wasn't attacking or blocking.
If you had simply unsummoned it for giggles, that would still be hilarious. As it is, I don't think that game should have worked out the way it did.
He never said he used Azorius Charm. He just said he used "an Azorius instant that isn't obviously worth playing" to bounce the Hellkite. It probably wasn't Azorius Charm.
He never said he used Azorius Charm. He just said he used "an Azorius instant that isn't obviously worth playing" to bounce the Hellkite. It probably wasn't Azorius Charm.
The first problem is it takes way too long to resolve-basically as Tom noted. The person who casts it is at the mercy of the other players to actually put up with all the time it takes to resolve and having everything they've done up to that point invalidated. If opponents become bored or annoyed trying to resolve this card, they can just scoop. As the article states, these cards aren't cast in tournaments. They are cast when nothing but the enjoyment of the participants is on the line. These cards have to be engaging enough for the other players, who may strongly dislike these effects, to still be willing to go along with it and let the caster have his fun. Scrambleverse is too likely to induce scooping. It is more like casting Obliterate for no reason than it is Warp World. People just say 'screw it-call me when the next one starts.' I guess the caster of scrambleverse then technically wins, but the spell never actually resolved nor did any of the desired craziness take place. That's not really a win in my book.
Second, you can't game it. With warp world, you can play a bunch of tokens so you'll get tons of stuff compared to the other players once warp world resolves. By not being able to trick the card, scambleverse misses a decent chunk of the audience that likes wild red cards. Guild Fued is a far superior card on both fronts. So, while you may like it and perhaps you have very accomodating friends, it misses on keeping other players engaged enough to put up with your shenanigans, and it doesn't serve the population of playes that want to try and game the card. The first one being the biggest strike because if you can't find anyone to let you have your fun, what is the point of the card? Inducing wins by scooping to 'stupid' cards isn't a rewarding game night.
So, back to my original point. If WOTC is taking the time to test silver bullets to use against a mythic rare that might be very powerful in tournaments, it seems like they could take a few minutes to create scenarios where a deck has casual rares in strong positions. Again, using deadeye navigator as an example, play deadeye navigator with access to say, eternal witness, mystic snake and shriekmaw. Then see if 1U isn't a little too good. Based on grumbles on casual message boards about how good the navigator is, I think they'd have found 1U to be too low. I don't get the sense that development does anything like that. They work very hard on the tournament side, but seem to just give an 'OK I guess' to stuff where people do a lot of screwing around instead of reducing life totals to 0 as quickly as possible.
As a Scrambleverse lover, I'd like you to tell me why you think that way exactly?Or could it be, that just as you accuse Wizards of not thinking about you, you are not thinking about people not you? [/quote]Sure. For a lead in, here's a link to Tom L
I left the game a couple years ago when they started to decrease the % of playable common/uncommon and to create an environment where most of the playable cards are rare/mythic. I returned to see what new ravnica is all about but maybe I shouldn't bother because they continue to push all of the tournament worthy cards to the rare slots. First it's terminate and now it's leatherback baloth . They've really pushed the power level on these uncounterable rares. Why was it so important that these uncounterable spells specifically were suped up and pushed to the max?
I left the game a couple years ago when they started to decrease the % of playable common/uncommon and to create an environment where most of the playable cards are rare/mythic. I returned to see what new ravnica is all about but maybe I shouldn't bo
The first problem is it takes way too long to resolve-basically as Tom noted. The person who casts it is at the mercy of the other players to actually put up with all the time it takes to resolve and having everything they've done up to that point invalidated. If opponents become bored or annoyed trying to resolve this card, they can just scoop. As the article states, these cards aren't cast in tournaments. They are cast when nothing but the enjoyment of the participants is on the line. These cards have to be engaging enough for the other players, who may strongly dislike these effects, to still be willing to go along with it and let the caster have his fun. Scrambleverse is too likely to induce scooping. It is more like casting Obliterate for no reason than it is Warp World. People just say 'screw it-call me when the next one starts.' I guess the caster of scrambleverse then technically wins, but the spell never actually resolved nor did any of the desired craziness take place. That's not really a win in my book.
Second, you can't game it. With warp world, you can play a bunch of tokens so you'll get tons of stuff compared to the other players once warp world resolves. By not being able to trick the card, scambleverse misses a decent chunk of the audience that likes wild red cards. Guild Fued is a far superior card on both fronts. So, while you may like it and perhaps you have very accomodating friends, it misses on keeping other players engaged enough to put up with your shenanigans, and it doesn't serve the population of playes that want to try and game the card. The first one being the biggest strike because if you can't find anyone to let you have your fun, what is the point of the card? Inducing wins by scooping to 'stupid' cards isn't a rewarding game night.
I agree Scrambleverse is a very niche card. But as long as there are playgroups that like it, like mine, it fulfills its purpose. There are groups where I shouldn't cast it, because they don't find it fun, sure. But that's the same with you complaining about the preview card. Casual magic is all about moderation. All about NOT playing the most powerful/most random/most wacky cards, but all about playing the cards that give everyone in the group a good time. I have a very easy time finding people who all love resolving a Scrambleverse.
Warp World being abusable is making that card unfun. What happens with Warp World decks, is that they have Eternal Witness -like cards and Palinchron -like cards to chain multiple Warp Worlds in 1 turn. Now that is a pain to resolve. It's like how Mindslaver is almost never used in a fun way, only in a lockout way.
So, back to my original point. If WOTC is taking the time to test silver bullets to use against a mythic rare that might be very powerful in tournaments, it seems like they could take a few minutes to create scenarios where a deck has casual rares in strong positions. Again, using deadeye navigator as an example, play deadeye navigator with access to say, eternal witness, mystic snake and shriekmaw. Then see if 1U isn't a little too good. Based on grumbles on casual message boards about how good the navigator is, I think they'd have found 1U to be too low. I don't get the sense that development does anything like that. They work very hard on the tournament side, but seem to just give an 'OK I guess' to stuff where people do a lot of screwing around instead of reducing life totals to 0 as quickly as possible.
Casual power creep is very real, but there's nothing you can do about it. I remember a time when Akroma, Angel of Wrath was the scariest creature you could cheat into play, one that could kill you in 4 turns! Casual magic is simply way more degenerate these days than it used to be. Again, it all comes down to moderation. House rules. Gentlemen's agreements about what kind of cards not to play, and what kind of power level of decks to pursue.
Deadeye Navigator has been fringe playable in Bant Pod in standard, that makes it awesome. It's costed exactly how it should've been costed.
I agree Scrambleverse is a very niche card. But as long as there are playgroups that like it, like mine, it fulfills its purpose. There are groups where I shouldn't cast it, because they don't find it fun, sure. But that's the same with you complaini
For once, it is nice to see a developer discussing the intrincacies of competitive Standard play, even if I disagree with them. This is a good start and hope this is a regular feature instead of something that only happens only once. Unfortunatly, it's bad to see the "we intentionally stay away from balance because it is the opposite of fun" trope announced so early:
In the other direction, people want immediate, visceral reactions to their cards. When cards aren't making you feel, we've failed. When you never feel invincible behind your freshly-played Baneslayer Angel, when you're never desperately terrified of that Bonfire of the Damned lurking on top of your opponent's deck, when deck building is all math, when games are all chess, when Magic is all head and no heart, we've failed.
"When overpowered cards don't free the player from the terrible burden of having to be focused in the game (aka playing) in order to win, we've failed."
When the definition of success for Development is not even trying at all, failing isn't only hard, it is impossible.
Loxodon Smiter is a developer special. I don't mean that we made the card from scratch to fit our needs. (The card came to us as is from Ken Nagle's design team.)
As posted in the other thread. This shows some sad facts: first, that Ken Nagle and design company still believe GW is about swinging with Vanilla dudes and winning moar rather than winning at all; second, that they are still on their mindset that it is the natural order for Blue and Black to receive the versatile maindeckable spells while Green and White get the narrow SB cards that (sometimes) beat the former cards while losing the rest of the time to everything else. Some cards in the GW maverick deck like Aven Mindcensor , Scavenging Ooze and Knight of the Reliquary represent much better how can GW can be interactive and fun while still being good. A much better reference to design future cards than Terra Stomper .
But we did have needs—needs the Smiter fulfilled—and so we protected the card. Protected it from ourselves, in fact. And when it came down to it, Erik Lauer, who out of all the developers has the broadest grasp of what Standard needs at any given time, protected it from me.
If you missed the between-the-lines statement there, I just revealed that I think Loxodon Smiter is such an impactful card that I would have been more comfortable making it worse.
At this point it is clear that according to Erik Lauer what Standard needs is UW Tempo domination of the metagame all the time. With Delver and Snapcaster on the format did he even dared to tell you to nerf your card? Erik Lauer clearly have a problem with overpowered cards but only when the cards aren't blue.
The burly Loxodon's advantages against Snapcaster Mage decks are more oblique. I'm sure you've already noticed that this 4/4 can't be countered. Big deal, you might be thinking. Blue decks aren't traditionally concerned with midrange beaters, not when they have tempo tools like Unsummon at their disposal.The thing is, they only have so many tempo cards and they often rely on counterspells, like the rotating Mana Leak or its replacement Essence Scatter, to keep the board clean.
C'mon, not even you believe that part! Tempo isn't about attrition battles, is about keeping ahead on the table whether they keep more cards in their hand than the opponent or not. Worst come to worst, they simply use the counter on another non-Loxodon card you play and their card wasn't dead against you at all, especially because you probably have other 32 counterable cards in your deck. I would say there's Cavern of Souls, except that you have been boycotting it as much as you can by making each good green creature of a different creature type. Between spirit , human], [c=Predator Ooze]Ooze , Wolf , Beast and now Dryad and Elephant, Cavern is merely a one trick pony that will screw you as often as it helps.
But well, let's see how the meta shapes before drawing conclusions but I bet my evaluation of the card is far better than yours.
For once, it is nice to see a developer discussing the intrincacies of competitive Standard play, even if I disagree with them. This is a good start and hope this is a regular feature instead of something that only happens only once. Unfortunatly, it
At this point it is clear that according to Erik Lauer what Standard needs is UW Tempo domination of the metagame all the time. With Delver and Snapcaster on the format did he even dared to tell you to nerf your card? Erik Lauer clearly have a problem with overpowered cards but only when the cards aren't blue.
Umm, dude, Erik Lauer was telling him not to nerf it. So Erik Lauer was in favor of this card being strong. But hey, let's base our analysis on inaccurate readings.
Umm, dude, Erik Lauer was telling him not to nerf it. So Erik Lauer was in favor of this card being strong. But hey, let's base our analysis on inaccurate readings.
Umm, dude, Erik Lauer was telling him not to nerf it. So Erik Lauer was in favor of this card being strong. But hey, let's base our analysis on inaccurate readings.
Really? From what I get, if the card is worse, he is more confortable. I might be missing something in the full text (yep, English isn't my first language after all) but even then, my rant doesn't change that much: they didn't protect their card enough then because it's still bad.
Really? From what I get, if the card is worse, he is more confortable. I might be missing something in the full text (yep, English isn't my first language after all) but even then, my rant doesn't change that much: they didn't protect their card enou
Umm, dude, Erik Lauer was telling him not to nerf it. So Erik Lauer was in favor of this card being strong. But hey, let's base our analysis on inaccurate readings.
Really? From what I get, if the card is worse, he is more confortable. I might be missing something in the full text (yep, English isn't my first language after all) but even then, my rant doesn't change that much: they didn't protect their card enough then because it's still bad.
The article was written by Billy Moreno, not Erik Lauer. Billy's the one who said he would be more comfortable if Loxodon Smiter was weaker.
Really? From what I get, if the card is worse, he is more confortable. I might be missing something in the full text (yep, English isn't my first language after all) but even then, my rant doesn't change that much: they didn't protect their card enou
Magic is better when environments have answers, so an anti-discard, anti-counter card that's not otherwise terrible sits just fine with me. I did, however, double-check that you guys didn't also throw in Hexproof as you've been wont to do.
Magic is better when environments have answers, so an anti-discard, anti-counter card that's not otherwise terrible sits just fine with me. I did, however, double-check that you guys didn't also throw in Hexproof as you've been wont to do.
i can understand where the uncounter part is coming from, but even if it was vanilla isnt 4/4 for 3 really powerful?
Almost every other 4/4 for 3 requires you to sacrifice it at the end of turn.... or has other draw backs....
This is a 4/4 for 3 with not only without drawbacks, but protection of sorts....
Not really meta warping, but it seems like creatures are racing back to Urza power level....
It is a vanilla 4/4 for 3. It has no in play benefit to you, aside from size. That said, it is two colors, edging out the efficiency of Woolly Thoctar , while for one colorless mana more with an increase of rarity you get a Watchwolf with two abilities that impair two colors methods for keeping it from dropping. It's still killable. It's no Great Sable Stag as the Blue/Black killer. It just helps.
Magic is better when environments have answers, so an anti-discard, anti-counter card that's not otherwise terrible sits just fine with me. I did, however, double-check that you guys didn't also throw in Hexproof as you've been wont to do.
It's not blue, therefore cannot have hexproof. Note that blue is getting the lion's share of creatures with "hexproof" printed on them.
It is a vanilla 4/4 for 3. It has no in play benefit to you, aside from size. That said, it is two colors, edging out the efficiency of Woolly Thoctar , while for one colorless mana more with an increase of rarity y
The first problem is it takes way too long to resolve-basically as Tom noted. The person who casts it is at the mercy of the other players to actually put up with all the time it takes to resolve and having everything they've done up to that point invalidated. If opponents become bored or annoyed trying to resolve this card, they can just scoop. As the article states, these cards aren't cast in tournaments. They are cast when nothing but the enjoyment of the participants is on the line. These cards have to be engaging enough for the other players, who may strongly dislike these effects, to still be willing to go along with it and let the caster have his fun. Scrambleverse is too likely to induce scooping. It is more like casting Obliterate for no reason than it is Warp World. People just say 'screw it-call me when the next one starts.' I guess the caster of scrambleverse then technically wins, but the spell never actually resolved nor did any of the desired craziness take place. That's not really a win in my book.
Second, you can't game it. With warp world, you can play a bunch of tokens so you'll get tons of stuff compared to the other players once warp world resolves. By not being able to trick the card, scambleverse misses a decent chunk of the audience that likes wild red cards. Guild Fued is a far superior card on both fronts. So, while you may like it and perhaps you have very accomodating friends, it misses on keeping other players engaged enough to put up with your shenanigans, and it doesn't serve the population of playes that want to try and game the card. The first one being the biggest strike because if you can't find anyone to let you have your fun, what is the point of the card? Inducing wins by scooping to 'stupid' cards isn't a rewarding game night.
I agree Scrambleverse is a very niche card. But as long as there are playgroups that like it, like mine, it fulfills its purpose. There are groups where I shouldn't cast it, because they don't find it fun, sure. But that's the same with you complaining about the preview card. Casual magic is all about moderation. All about NOT playing the most powerful/most random/most wacky cards, but all about playing the cards that give everyone in the group a good time. I have a very easy time finding people who all love resolving a Scrambleverse.
Warp World being abusable is making that card unfun. What happens with Warp World decks, is that they have Eternal Witness -like cards and Palinchron -like cards to chain multiple Warp Worlds in 1 turn. Now that is a pain to resolve. It's like how Mindslaver is almost never used in a fun way, only in a lockout way.
So, back to my original point. If WOTC is taking the time to test silver bullets to use against a mythic rare that might be very powerful in tournaments, it seems like they could take a few minutes to create scenarios where a deck has casual rares in strong positions. Again, using deadeye navigator as an example, play deadeye navigator with access to say, eternal witness, mystic snake and shriekmaw. Then see if 1U isn't a little too good. Based on grumbles on casual message boards about how good the navigator is, I think they'd have found 1U to be too low. I don't get the sense that development does anything like that. They work very hard on the tournament side, but seem to just give an 'OK I guess' to stuff where people do a lot of screwing around instead of reducing life totals to 0 as quickly as possible.
Casual power creep is very real, but there's nothing you can do about it. I remember a time when Akroma, Angel of Wrath was the scariest creature you could cheat into play, one that could kill you in 4 turns! Casual magic is simply way more degenerate these days than it used to be. Again, it all comes down to moderation. House rules. Gentlemen's agreements about what kind of cards not to play, and what kind of power level of decks to pursue.
Deadeye Navigator has been fringe playable in Bant Pod in standard, that makes it awesome. It's costed exactly how it should've been costed.
First, I am not complaining about the preview card AT ALL. I have no real opinion on it because it isn't in my wheelhouse. I am lamenting that cards like the preview card get a ton of attention and cards I feel are aimed at me don't. It seems to me like deadeye navigator is aimed at me, and it is too good. It doesn't get the right level of attention. If it has other applications, I was unaware. But it seems aimed at me and should be fun, but it isn't. I really wish there was a step that controlled for that in their processes.
To your last point, I think it is fair to request that they try not to enable casual play to become blatantly degenerate. Supposedly we are a big market share from what I read. I am the only person I play Magic with that even reads these articles let alone tries to give feedback. Supposedly we are a silent majority, but when I talk, I just get run over.
I play with guys that like wild red cards like scrambleverse, and it doesn't work out the way they want because it is too tediuos for the rest of us in cases like scramblevese. I am willing to go through the motions for warp world, but not the more extreme waste of time ones-and scrambleverse, which is the worst of them all. I think it is fair to say that card missed the larger mark. You really must have one of the most laid-back-groups to put up with all that effort that blantantly undoes everything that happened before you could resolve that card.
Ultimately the power creep occuring here is eroding my fun because cards like scrambleverse paint me into a corner of feeling I need to play counterspells to protect the game from not being destroyed by stupid crap like this. I don't want to always play that way, and the neglect of development kind of paints me into that corner. That more than anything is my biggest gripe with development other than they never really tried to balance casual cards in the first place. I am really not trying to be rude. The process on the preview card is freaking sweek. I just wish it happened for stuff aimed at me.
I agree Scrambleverse is a very niche card. But as long as there are playgroups that like it, like mine, it fulfills its purpose. There are groups where I shouldn't cast it, because they don't find it fun, sure. But that's the same with you complaini
To your last point, I think it is fair to request that they try not to enable casual play to become blatantly degenerate. Supposedly we are a big market share from what I read. I am the only person I play Magic with that even reads these articles let alone tries to give feedback. Supposedly we are a silent majority, but when I talk, I just get run over.
I play with guys that like wild red cards like scrambleverse, and it doesn't work out the way they want because it is too tediuos for the rest of us in cases like scramblevese. I am willing to go through the motions for warp world, but not the more extreme waste of time ones-and scrambleverse, which is the worst of them all. I think it is fair to say that card missed the larger mark. You really must have one of the most laid-back-groups to put up with all that effort that blantantly undoes everything that happened before you could resolve that card.
Ultimately the power creep occuring here is eroding my fun because cards like scrambleverse paint me into a corner of feeling I need to play counterspells to protect the game from not being destroyed by stupid crap like this. I don't want to always play that way, and the neglect of development kind of paints me into that corner. That more than anything is my biggest gripe with development other than they never really tried to balance casual cards in the first place. I am really not trying to be rude. The process on the preview card is freaking sweek. I just wish it happened for stuff aimed at me.
For what is is worth, I agree with you completely. But here's the real problem you face: the majority of players like you (not you in particular) prefer degenerate casual play. They love overpowered (but overcosted for constructed) effects to death. I (and I suspect you) are not like that, but we're a minority within that majority.
For what is is worth, I agree with you completely. But here's the real problem you face: the majority of players like you (not you in particular) prefer degenerate casual play. They love overpowered (but overcosted for constructed) effects to death.
It's not blue, therefore cannot have hexproof. Note that blue is getting the lion's share of creatures with "hexproof" printed on them.
Green is perfectly capable of getting hexproof. There's one creature in all of M13 with hexproof, and it's a green common.
I did not single M13 out for my statement. I said "So far..." by which I referred to the totality of things.
Let's start with M11, when the keyword is invented. We will ignore previous printings (including Privileged Position and the like, whose wordings have been "corrected" to "hexproof" -- but for functional concerns, other cards have not) for the sake of dealing with the policy going forward; and as I said "creatures," we'll deal with that card type alone:
Tallying these up, I get eight monogreen creatures with hexproof, and one multicolor, nonblue creature with it; five monoblue creatures with hexproof, and two multicolor, nongreen creatures with it (making that 8-7). So on this standard, I am incorrect. The total number of Green cards printed in this frame does also indeed invalidate my claim, were I not to restrict myself to, as several noncreature cards have been printed in Green which, indeed, have hexproof while Blue does not. Extending the frame further shows that this ability occurs with regularity in Green, and almost never in Green. It was a feature in Lorwyn/Shadowmoor blocks, but we're not considering those for this "test."
However, I counted Sacred Wolf twice. This would bring the total unique cards to 7-7 (even). Further, one Green card lacks hexproof itself, but so does one of those Blue cards although it gains it with another creature, suggesting that a creature "with hexproof" weighs more heavily in Blue's favor than it does in Green's, in large part due to the heavy focus on Innistrad's Spirit tribe focus to hexproof. In M11, as in Scars, hexproof was in Green 100% of the time; in M12, it was in Green 75% of the time; in M13, this dropped to 66.67% of the time, while in Innistrad hexproof was in Green only 29% of the time.
I am fairly comfortable thinking that there is too much hexproof in Blue, not enough in Green. Where the developers may be thinking thet Green is balanced by caring about hexproof more, this only enforces the disparity over time as Blue has gained more and more creatures with the ability (static) than Green has, in a shorter range of time than since Green first appeared with the ability (Portal: Three Kingdoms). Moreover, they may feel hexproof is better in Blue, while Green's creature identity has largely benefitted from the ability historically. I do not know the reasoning, and they've not been wont to share their exact, precise reasoning about where abilities go.
Green is perfectly capable of getting hexproof. There's one creature in all of M13 with hexproof, and it's a green common.[/quote]I did not single M13 out for my statement. I said "So far..." by which I referred to the totality of things.Let's start
I am fairly comfortable thinking that there is too much hexproof in Blue, not enough in Green. Where the developers may be thinking thet Green is balanced by caring about hexproof more, this only enforces the disparity over time as Blue has gained more and more creatures with the ability (static) than Green has, in a shorter range of time than since Green first appeared with the ability (Portal: Three Kingdoms). Moreover, they may feel hexproof is better in Blue, while Green's creature identity has largely benefitted from the ability historically. I do not know the reasoning, and they've not been wont to share their exact, precise reasoning about where abilities go.
Not sure I agree that the reasoning is going unshared, do you read MaRo's Tumblr regularly? One example here of an answer about what colors get hexproof:
While blue has a lot of spell space designwise, it’s actually the color that has the most trouble with creature keywords. Hexproof (and shroud before it) exists in blue because we’re desperate for creature keyword abilities that make color pie sense in blue.
Not sure I agree that the reasoning is going unshared, do you read MaRo's Tumblr regularly? One example here of an answer about what colors get hexproof:
To your last point, I think it is fair to request that they try not to enable casual play to become blatantly degenerate. Supposedly we are a big market share from what I read. I am the only person I play Magic with that even reads these articles let alone tries to give feedback. Supposedly we are a silent majority, but when I talk, I just get run over.
I play with guys that like wild red cards like scrambleverse, and it doesn't work out the way they want because it is too tediuos for the rest of us in cases like scramblevese. I am willing to go through the motions for warp world, but not the more extreme waste of time ones-and scrambleverse, which is the worst of them all. I think it is fair to say that card missed the larger mark. You really must have one of the most laid-back-groups to put up with all that effort that blantantly undoes everything that happened before you could resolve that card.
Ultimately the power creep occuring here is eroding my fun because cards like scrambleverse paint me into a corner of feeling I need to play counterspells to protect the game from not being destroyed by stupid crap like this. I don't want to always play that way, and the neglect of development kind of paints me into that corner. That more than anything is my biggest gripe with development other than they never really tried to balance casual cards in the first place. I am really not trying to be rude. The process on the preview card is freaking sweek. I just wish it happened for stuff aimed at me.
For what is is worth, I agree with you completely. But here's the real problem you face: the majority of players like you (not you in particular) prefer degenerate casual play. They love overpowered (but overcosted for constructed) effects to death. I (and I suspect you) are not like that, but we're a minority within that majority.
I think you are right. From a business perspective though, that line of play ends in people not playing Magic anymore. This game is completely broken, but it is so much fun that it is worth working to make it fair. We have to work really, really hard to play Magic for fun though, and I don't feel like WOTC is helping us out. The first time I played EDH, I cast time stretch over and over again. Then I did it again the next game, and then the next. It's not hard to cast expensive cards repeatedly. My buddies and I could basically keep playing a game where that is a thing, or house-ban extra turns. So we banned them, and with cooperation, we continue to enjoy Magic a great deal. Other people never get over that hump, or have groups that like extra turns so much that they won't stop taking them. People quit over that. The ability to do that already exists so there is nothing development can do about it. However, there is no reason deadeye navigator needs to create discussions on the level of Time Stretch if WOTC'd just does a little work on navigator like they did on this elephant.
For what is is worth, I agree with you completely. But here's the real problem you face: the majority of players like you (not you in particular) prefer degenerate casual play. They love overpowered (but overcosted for constructed) effects to death.
Not sure I agree that the reasoning is going unshared, do you read MaRo's Tumblr regularly? One example here of an answer about what colors get hexproof:
While blue has a lot of spell space designwise, it’s actually the color that has the most trouble with creature keywords. Hexproof (and shroud before it) exists in blue because we’re desperate for creature keyword abilities that make color pie sense in blue.
What a terrible reason!
"Hey Mark, we've got this powerful blue card but it doesn't have any keywords." "Eh, just give it Flash and Hexproof."
I still think it was a terrible mistake that they completely eliminated Shroud for the sake of Hexproof, and I believe they'll see that too one day and turn around on it. Geist of Saint Traft is a cool idea: all offense but easy to block and kill. With Shroud. With Hexproof, it becomes "equip a sword and win the game."
[/quote]What a terrible reason!"Hey Mark, we've got this powerful blue card but it doesn't have any keywords.""Eh, just give it Flash and Hexproof."I still think it was a terrible mistake that they completely eliminated Shroud for the sake of Hexproo
First, I am not complaining about the preview card AT ALL. I have no real opinion on it because it isn't in my wheelhouse. I am lamenting that cards like the preview card get a ton of attention and cards I feel are aimed at me don't. It seems to me like deadeye navigator is aimed at me, and it is too good. It doesn't get the right level of attention. If it has other applications, I was unaware. But it seems aimed at me and should be fun, but it isn't. I really wish there was a step that controlled for that in their processes.
To your last point, I think it is fair to request that they try not to enable casual play to become blatantly degenerate. Supposedly we are a big market share from what I read. I am the only person I play Magic with that even reads these articles let alone tries to give feedback. Supposedly we are a silent majority, but when I talk, I just get run over.
I play with guys that like wild red cards like scrambleverse, and it doesn't work out the way they want because it is too tediuos for the rest of us in cases like scramblevese. I am willing to go through the motions for warp world, but not the more extreme waste of time ones-and scrambleverse, which is the worst of them all. I think it is fair to say that card missed the larger mark. You really must have one of the most laid-back-groups to put up with all that effort that blantantly undoes everything that happened before you could resolve that card.
Ultimately the power creep occuring here is eroding my fun because cards like scrambleverse paint me into a corner of feeling I need to play counterspells to protect the game from not being destroyed by stupid crap like this. I don't want to always play that way, and the neglect of development kind of paints me into that corner. That more than anything is my biggest gripe with development other than they never really tried to balance casual cards in the first place. I am really not trying to be rude. The process on the preview card is freaking sweek. I just wish it happened for stuff aimed at me.
Deadeye Navigator is aimed at casual players that do not mind its power level. Again, Wizards knows there are people like you that don't like it, but you are, as Spuuky says, in a minority and Wizards consciously doesn't change cards to accomodate you. The people that don't play magic because of that are more than made up for by the people who do because of it.
With Scrambleverse , there are people that like it and people that don't. This is not a flaw in its design. You can't please everyone. If you made it so that the haters don't hate it anymore, the likers likely don't like it anymore. If there are people in your group that don't like it, it simply shouldn't be played, depending on what the majority thinks.
Also, how can you name Scrambleverse and power creep in the same sentence? Actually, what would you like Development to have done to that card? What should they have done to satisfy you?
Deadeye Navigator is aimed at casual players that do not mind its power level. Again, Wizards knows there are people like you that don't like it, but you are, as Spuuky says, in a minority and Wizards consciously doesn
First, I am not complaining about the preview card AT ALL. I have no real opinion on it because it isn't in my wheelhouse. I am lamenting that cards like the preview card get a ton of attention and cards I feel are aimed at me don't. It seems to me like deadeye navigator is aimed at me, and it is too good. It doesn't get the right level of attention. If it has other applications, I was unaware. But it seems aimed at me and should be fun, but it isn't. I really wish there was a step that controlled for that in their processes.
To your last point, I think it is fair to request that they try not to enable casual play to become blatantly degenerate. Supposedly we are a big market share from what I read. I am the only person I play Magic with that even reads these articles let alone tries to give feedback. Supposedly we are a silent majority, but when I talk, I just get run over.
I play with guys that like wild red cards like scrambleverse, and it doesn't work out the way they want because it is too tediuos for the rest of us in cases like scramblevese. I am willing to go through the motions for warp world, but not the more extreme waste of time ones-and scrambleverse, which is the worst of them all. I think it is fair to say that card missed the larger mark. You really must have one of the most laid-back-groups to put up with all that effort that blantantly undoes everything that happened before you could resolve that card.
Ultimately the power creep occuring here is eroding my fun because cards like scrambleverse paint me into a corner of feeling I need to play counterspells to protect the game from not being destroyed by stupid crap like this. I don't want to always play that way, and the neglect of development kind of paints me into that corner. That more than anything is my biggest gripe with development other than they never really tried to balance casual cards in the first place. I am really not trying to be rude. The process on the preview card is freaking sweek. I just wish it happened for stuff aimed at me.
Deadeye Navigator is aimed at casual players that do not mind its power level. Again, Wizards knows there are people like you that don't like it, but you are, as Spuuky says, in a minority and Wizards consciously doesn't change cards to accomodate you. The people that don't play magic because of that are more than made up for by the people who do because of it.
With Scrambleverse , there are people that like it and people that don't. This is not a flaw in its design. You can't please everyone. If you made it so that the haters don't hate it anymore, the likers likely don't like it anymore. If there are people in your group that don't like it, it simply shouldn't be played, depending on what the majority thinks.
Also, how can you name Scrambleverse and power creep in the same sentence? Actually, what would you like Development to have done to that card? What should they have done to satisfy you?
Scrambleverse was specifically named in an article called when cards go bad, yet you are sticking to your guns on it as a success. What they should do is make cards like Guild Fued where it is very easy for other players to go along with it and let the caster have his fun. These kinds of cards basically tell a large set of other players 'screw your fun, I am going to have mine.' These cards need to allow the other players to accept that. Scrambeverse crosses the line. They appear to have a better grasp of these cards now, which is why we are seeing Guild Fued as opposed to something that takes a massive amount of time and effort to resolve like scrambleverse.
I am not sure where you saw anything about power creep. Deadeye navigator is better than it needs to be. That is just raw power and has nothing to do with power creep. It seems like I get no D from R&D on cards in my wheelhouse. Navigator can be fun for lots of people if powered down a little. It doesn't need to be that good and I doubt they did very little to determine how good it was in the casual setting. People that don't want things better than they need to be should do what? Just go f ourselves? You seem to have a witty reply to everything.
Deadeye Navigator is aimed at casual players that do not mind its power level. Again, Wizards knows there are people like you that don't like it, but you are, as Spuuky says, in a minority and Wizards consciously doesn
where on Navigator does it say it supposed to be a casual card not a competitively playable card ?
Where it costs 6 to screw around instead of reduce opponents' life totals quickly. Titans/wurmcoil engines are significantly better for the cost if you just have to do 20 damage to win.
Where it costs 6 to screw around instead of reduce opponents' life totals quickly. Titans/wurmcoil engines are significantly better for the cost if you just have to do 20 damage to win.
I am fairly comfortable thinking that there is too much hexproof in Blue, not enough in Green.
It's worth keeping in mind, too, that "just the right amount" of Hexproof might be different in different colours. (You seem to be coming to this conclusion too, but you don't quite come out and say so.) Say Standard had six blue guys and eight green ones with Hexproof - that would in no way count as evidence against your statement, because it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, any more than it would be a fair comparison to note that green had more creatures overall than blue.
It's worth keeping in mind, too, that "just the right amount" of Hexproof might be different in different colours. (You seem to be coming to this conclusion too, but you don't quite come out and say so.) Say Standard had six blue guys and eight green
I am fairly comfortable thinking that there is too much hexproof in Blue, not enough in Green. Where the developers may be thinking thet Green is balanced by caring about hexproof more, this only enforces the disparity over time as Blue has gained more and more creatures with the ability (static) than Green has, in a shorter range of time than since Green first appeared with the ability (Portal: Three Kingdoms). Moreover, they may feel hexproof is better in Blue, while Green's creature identity has largely benefitted from the ability historically. I do not know the reasoning, and they've not been wont to share their exact, precise reasoning about where abilities go.
Not sure I agree that the reasoning is going unshared, do you read MaRo's Tumblr regularly? One example here of an answer about what colors get hexproof:
While blue has a lot of spell space designwise, it’s actually the color that has the most trouble with creature keywords. Hexproof (and shroud before it) exists in blue because we’re desperate for creature keyword abilities that make color pie sense in blue.
I do not read what MaRo rights anymore, due largely to an unrelated experience of his egoism. That said, the advent of hexproof was met with mixed blessings:
1. Hexproof in Green is good: it benefits the group while protecting it from its enemies. 2. Hexproof in Blue is bad: it renders Shroud obsolete when that was one of the features that distinguished the two colors -- Green could target itself, but its enemies couldn't, and pays a cost for that; Blue can't target itself, but neither could it's enemies, and pays a smaller, if negligible cost for that, meaning Blue can get Shroud cheaper than it could get Hexproof.
What we find looking back is that Blue is getting Hexproof at Blue's discount for Shround, while Green has to pay a slightly higher cost for its Hexproof.
It's not a matter of whether Blue has limited design space for creature keywords, which is certainly true, but that's because Blue is not the color that delves into creature keywords. Where Blue's keywords have resided have been strongly arrayed in evasion from combat strategy --
Unblockability, Islandwalk + methods to make islands, Flying
-- leaving that little slice of self-protectiveness, where countermagic, taxing (now somewhat in White) and good ol' Shroud were originally sufficient. Apparently not.
Shroud and Hexproof have different tensions in the game, and this is recognized by both developers and players: some feel the ability should be better, others that it is enough. The developers started looking into the ability as though it were a drawback, not a tension-developing ability, and wanted to make "normal" creatures with the perfection of Green's "only I can target" ability, thus coopting Green's slice of the efficiency pie. Blue's Shroud may have been meant for cards on which you did not necessarily want to slap equipment or enchantments onto, or target for defense. Instead, it could have been used for allowing stronger abilities on weak cards, cards you wouldn't want to try playing combat math with. Defenders with static abilities, etc.
But instead, we got Blue touting some of the best swingers in the game right now (Geist, Stalker) leaving Green with one, and it's not even in Standard (Dungrove -- Thrun, maybe, but didn't show up as much as Dungrove did, as I recall).
Not sure I agree that the reasoning is going unshared, do you read MaRo's Tumblr regularly? One example here of an answer about what colors get hexproof:[/quote]I do not read what MaRo rights anymore, due largely to an unrelated experience of his ego
Not sure I agree that the reasoning is going unshared, do you read MaRo's Tumblr regularly? One example here of an answer about what colors get hexproof:
While blue has a lot of spell space designwise, it’s actually the color that has the most trouble with creature keywords. Hexproof (and shroud before it) exists in blue because we’re desperate for creature keyword abilities that make color pie sense in blue.
That is a terrible reason, and here's why:
Blue already had Shroud. By keywording Hexproof, Blue didn't gain a keyword, it just traded one for another. However, on the whole, they lost a keyword, because now they can't print Shroud anymore (by their own rules at least).
So "Blue now gets hexproof because it needed more creature keywords" is a complete non-argument. It's either foolishness on their part, or deliberate deception.
[/quote]That is a terrible reason, and here's why:Blue already had Shroud. By keywording Hexproof, Blue didn't gain a keyword, it just traded one for another. However, on the whole, they lost a keyword, because now they can't print Shroud anymore (by
Scrambleverse was specifically named in an article called when cards go bad, yet you are sticking to your guns on it as a success. What they should do is make cards like Guild Fued where it is very easy for other players to go along with it and let the caster have his fun. These kinds of cards basically tell a large set of other players 'screw your fun, I am going to have mine.' These cards need to allow the other players to accept that. Scrambeverse crosses the line. They appear to have a better grasp of these cards now, which is why we are seeing Guild Fued as opposed to something that takes a massive amount of time and effort to resolve like scrambleverse.
Not a Scrambleverse fan but you're really misinterpreting that LaPille article. He's not saying making Scrambleverse was a mistake, he's explaining why it's costed so that it will never be seen in a tournament and will thus considered to be a bad rare to open by most players.
Not a Scrambleverse fan but you're really misinterpreting that LaPille article. He's not saying making Scrambleverse was a mistake, he's explaining why it's costed so that it will never be seen in a tournament and will thus considered to be a bad rar
Not sure I agree that the reasoning is going unshared, do you read MaRo's Tumblr regularly? One example here of an answer about what colors get hexproof:
While blue has a lot of spell space designwise, it’s actually the color that has the most trouble with creature keywords. Hexproof (and shroud before it) exists in blue because we’re desperate for creature keyword abilities that make color pie sense in blue.
That is a terrible reason, and here's why:
Blue already had Shroud. By keywording Hexproof, Blue didn't gain a keyword, it just traded one for another. However, on the whole, they lost a keyword, because now they can't print Shroud anymore (by their own rules at least).
So "Blue now gets hexproof because it needed more creature keywords" is a complete non-argument. It's either foolishness on their part, or deliberate deception.
This seems to me to be conflating two different things, the decision to use hexproof over shroud (for now at least), and why blue gets those sorts of abilities in the first place.
[/quote]That is a terrible reason, and here's why:Blue already had Shroud. By keywording Hexproof, Blue didn't gain a keyword, it just traded one for another. However, on the whole, they lost a keyword, because now they can't print Shroud anymore (by
where on Navigator does it say it supposed to be a casual card not a competitively playable card ?
Where it costs 6 to screw around instead of reduce opponents' life totals quickly. Titans/wurmcoil engines are significantly better for the cost if you just have to do 20 damage to win.
there are also Johnnies playing tournament Magic... and they also need some toys to play with.
Where it costs 6 to screw around instead of reduce opponents' life totals quickly. Titans/wurmcoil engines are significantly better for the cost if you just have to do 20 damage to win. [/quote]there are also Johnnies playing tournament Magic... an
Not sure I agree that the reasoning is going unshared, do you read MaRo's Tumblr regularly? One example here of an answer about what colors get hexproof:
While blue has a lot of spell space designwise, it’s actually the color that has the most trouble with creature keywords. Hexproof (and shroud before it) exists in blue because we’re desperate for creature keyword abilities that make color pie sense in blue.
That is a terrible reason, and here's why:
Blue already had Shroud. By keywording Hexproof, Blue didn't gain a keyword, it just traded one for another. However, on the whole, they lost a keyword, because now they can't print Shroud anymore (by their own rules at least).
So "Blue now gets hexproof because it needed more creature keywords" is a complete non-argument. It's either foolishness on their part, or deliberate deception.
This seems to me to be conflating two different things, the decision to use hexproof over shroud (for now at least), and why blue gets those sorts of abilities in the first place.
Blue "gets" hexproof for one reason: Shroud is "downside". R&D set out to start overtaking keywords that were useful, and make them agree with new player expectations and remove "bad stuff," just as they re-did CDotS (by making the Conga Line of Doom), and removing mana burn entirely, which also coincides with not printing the pain lands.
Shroud is the Blue keyword of self-protection; Hexproof, as it continues to be defined, was the Green keyword going waaaay back, and to simplify things, they were merged. This meant, for the developers, Blue had to start getting Hexproof. It doesn't matter that the two keywords have distinct tension, or that they aren't the same keyword at all. It also didn't help that Green was also getting Shroud, but it was more in Blue than in Green.
1. Prohibit Shroud from appearing on new cards. 2. Define the "opponents can't touch this" ability for Green as Hexproof. Hexproof is now the "new" Shroud for Green, where applicable. 3. Splash Hexproof where Shround might go in Blue or Green, but keep Hexproof in Green where it would have gone anyway. 4. Increase Hexproof in Blue and Green. 5. Pretend that Blue is lacking in creature types it should have, ignoring arguments that Blue is the least-creature-focused color out there. 6. Make Blue the "aggro" color by printing new lords for R&D's new "baby," Merfolk, further justifying taking "Green" keywords from Green's "domain."
Part of this whole scheme, as some may note, is that there are now very, very few keywords that appear in only one color. For example, vigilance is appearance more often in Green, as is Haste, while Fear was lost so that Intimidate could be splashed into other colors. R&D is trying to homogenize creature keywords, rather than forcing players to use certain colors for abilities, in any diversity of a format. This is becoming "standardized" because it is happening in the Core Set, where setting-specific bleed is not easily explained.
[/quote]That is a terrible reason, and here's why:Blue already had Shroud. By keywording Hexproof, Blue didn't gain a keyword, it just traded one for another. However, on the whole, they lost a keyword, because now they can't print Shroud anymore (by
What they should do is make cards like Guild Fued where it is very easy for other players to go along with it and let the caster have his fun. These kinds of cards basically tell a large set of other players 'screw your fun, I am going to have mine.' These cards need to allow the other players to accept that. Scrambeverse crosses the line. They appear to have a better grasp of these cards now, which is why we are seeing Guild Fued as opposed to something that takes a massive amount of time and effort to resolve like scrambleverse.
Again, card should not be made with the intent of offending no one. They should please their target audience, first and foremost. At least that's Wizards' design policy. If they want to make sure it stays a niche card, they'll just up the mana cost to make sure only the diehard fans will play it (meaning you'll face it far less than were it an effecient card).
Ultimately the power creep occuring here is eroding my fun because cards like scrambleverse paint me into a corner of feeling I need to play counterspells to protect the game from not being destroyed by stupid crap like this.
Deadeye navigator is better than it needs to be. That is just raw power and has nothing to do with power creep. It seems like I get no D from R&D on cards in my wheelhouse. Navigator can be fun for lots of people if powered down a little. It doesn't need to be that good and I doubt they did very little to determine how good it was in the casual setting. People that don't want things better than they need to be should do what? Just go f ourselves? You seem to have a witty reply to everything.
Ok, here's one: people that don't want things better than they need to be should just stick to the Gatherer Terrible format.
For a more serious answer, yes it could've been printed in a less powerful form. Then group A would like it less and group B would like it more. My question to you is, why do you feel so entitled? Why do you feel things should be made to accomodate the group you're part of, without acknowledging that what makes things more enjoyable to you might make it less enjoyable to others?
As someone else said, they talked about how it was a bad card power level wise.Again, card should not be made with the intent of offending no one. They should please their target audience, first and foremost. At least that's Wizards' design policy. I
You know that argument could easily be turned around and aimed at pretty much anyone.
Why do, say, tournament players, believe that things should be made to accomodate them, regardless of how many, say, casual or low-power-level-enjoying groups they screw up? (And they do.)
Also, I wouldn't presume to speak for 12three45, but I imagine it might have something to do with being fed up that his type of play gets absolutely no consideration. Whether literally true or not, it's a more common sort of sentiment than you might think.
You know that argument could easily be turned around and aimed at pretty much anyone.Why do, say, tournament players, believe that things should be made to accomodate them, regardless of how many, say, casual or low-power-level-enjoying groups they s
As others have noted, they justify a card like this because forcing you to be G/W to cast it is a drawback in itself. The problem is that, with Avacyn's Pilgrim and shocklands in the environment now, that drawback is almost completely irrelevant. How much trouble is it to splash white into a green deck for a creature that can sometimes be cast for free anyway?
A casting cost of 1GW is just too cheap, plain and simple. It would still have been playable at 2GW: the main drawback of a CMC of 4 is that it leaves you vulnerable to countermagic and hand destruction, both of which are specifically hosed by Smiter's abilities. Heck, even changing the colorless mana to colored mana (GGW instead of 1GW) or dropping a toughness (to 4/3) would have been enough to keep the card more fair. As it is, people are just going to jam 4 of this into their aggro decks regardless of the metagame because a 3-mana 4/4 is just ridiculous.
Yea. It's weird that I now feel like some old fogey, because my reaction to this card was just "jeez, power creep."
Yea. It's weird that I now feel like some old fogey, because my reaction to this card was just "jeez, power creep."
You know that argument could easily be turned around and aimed at pretty much anyone.
Why do, say, tournament players, believe that things should be made to accomodate them, regardless of how many, say, casual or low-power-level-enjoying groups they screw up? (And they do.)
Also, I wouldn't presume to speak for 12three45, but I imagine it might have something to do with being fed up that his type of play gets absolutely no consideration. Whether literally true or not, it's a more common sort of sentiment than you might think.
Yes. In an ideal world that argument could be aimed at no one, People from all sides should understand and respect the wishes of others. There's no problem in wanting certain things for yourself. As long as you understand others might thing/want otherwise.
With tournament Magic, we've seen the decrease in things like counterspells and land destruction, to accomodate one group while angering another. These things happen. Everything offends someone. With each and every discision, it's up to Wizards to decide who to cater to and who to offend. Being fed up with the amount of consideration you get is means you just need to understand how your group relates to the larger Magic player base as a whole.
Yes. In an ideal world that argument could be aimed at no one, People from all sides should understand and respect the wishes of others.There's no problem in wanting certain things for yourself. As long as you understand others might thing/want other
Ok, here's one: people that don't want things better than they need to be should just stick to the Gatherer Terrible format.
For a more serious answer, yes it could've been printed in a less powerful form. Then group A would like it less and group B would like it more. My question to you is, why do you feel so entitled? Why do you feel things should be made to accomodate the group you're part of, without acknowledging that what makes things more enjoyable to you might make it less enjoyable to others?
Usually I agree with you, but this is just ridiculous. You're completely ignoring the problem that power creep presents.
It's not that it makes individual cards less enjoyable for those who dislike power creep; it's that it makes the game itself less enjoyable. Once an excessively powerful card is out there, it gets played, and you will see it, and you will lose to it. Basically your choices at that point are: deal with it, only play casually with the overpowered cards house-banned, or quit the game. None of those are ideal for the majority of people.
Power creep isn't about making cards that people don't like. It's about making the game into something people don't like. And you can't just ignore that.
Usually I agree with you, but this is just ridiculous. You're completely ignoring the problem that power creep presents.It's not that it makes individual cards less enjoyable for those who dislike power creep; it's that it makes the game itself less
Usually I agree with you, but this is just ridiculous. You're completely ignoring the problem that power creep presents.
It's not that it makes individual cards less enjoyable for those who dislike power creep; it's that it makes the game itself less enjoyable. Once an excessively powerful card is out there, it gets played, and you will see it, and you will lose to it. Basically your choices at that point are: deal with it, only play casually with the overpowered cards house-banned, or quit the game. None of those are ideal for the majority of people.
Power creep isn't about making cards that people don't like. It's about making the game into something people don't like. And you can't just ignore that.
Casual (eternal) play today is simply way more degenerate than 10 years ago. Every new card that isn't worse than an existing cards makes the game a little bit more degenerate. Fighting that is fighting the tide.
But as I said, this is something that simply will happen. Using big scare creatures as an example, there was Akroma, Angel of Wrath , then Darksteel Colossus , then Progenitus
Well, I guess you're proving the point to me that power creep is bad for the game and should be fought against - Emrakul is a card that should never have seen print. Obviously some subset of people like it, but the printing of that card was bad for the game. Also, if Emrakul cost UUURRRGGGBBBWWW or whatever I wouldn't care about him nearly as much. Colorless mana is much easier to acquire. I'd still loathe him, of course.
The real problem in my view is the (large) subset of players who feel compelled to play the "best cards" no matter what they are, but don't enjoy the best cards now being so much stronger than the best cards of the past. I mean, I used to think Mirari's Wake was a crazy overpowered spell and for a while it was the heart of the best (most obnoxious at the time) deck in Standard, but it wouldn't even be PLAYABLE now.
Well, I guess you're proving the point to me that power creep is bad for the game and should be fought against - Emrakul is a card that should never have seen print. Obviously some subset of people like it, but the printing of that card was bad for t
I doubt it, I see him Cloudposted out a lot more than I see Progenitus or anything else powered out otherwise, in the games I play.
Fine, just give Emrakul the Phage Clause that requires him to be cast from your hand!
I doubt it, I see him Cloudposted out a lot more than I see Progenitus or anything else powered out otherwise, in the games I play.Fine, just give Emrakul the Phage Clause that requires him to be cast from your hand!
Well, I guess you're proving the point to me that power creep is bad for the game and should be fought against - Emrakul is a card that should never have seen print. Obviously some subset of people like it, but the printing of that card was bad for the game. Also, if Emrakul cost UUURRRGGGBBBWWW or whatever I wouldn't care about him nearly as much. Colorless mana is much easier to acquire. I'd still loathe him, of course.
The real problem in my view is the (large) subset of players who feel compelled to play the "best cards" no matter what they are, but don't enjoy the best cards now being so much stronger than the best cards of the past. I mean, I used to think Mirari's Wake was a crazy overpowered spell and for a while it was the heart of the best (most obnoxious at the time) deck in Standard, but it wouldn't even be PLAYABLE now.
Oh yes, I've never said it was a good thing, I just think it's a necessary evil. The only way to keep people buying new cards is to get them exited about them, and the only ways to do that is make cards that do something unique that's never been done before or just make cards that are bigger/better than what we have. And in an eternal pool like casual, that leads to power creep, and what can you do about it?
Actually, if you think about it, Wizards spending more time thinking about the casual players might be a BAD move. I mean, that's how we've got the Praetors, and who actually likes those? We've got all these crazy 'broken' overcosted game-winning creatures and spells the last few years because they were specifically designed to be played in casual.
Oh yes, I've never said it was a good thing, I just think it's a necessary evil. The only way to keep people buying new cards is to get them exited about them, and the only ways to do that is make cards that do something unique that's never been done
Maybe I've waded into a very different power creep discussion than I thought, but the power creep I'm talking about is getting more for the same mana. Making creatures bigger and bigger and also costing them more isn't the problem I meant. I meant things like the new for 2/1 with upside, or getting a 4/4 with double upside and not a downside in sight.
We've only seen a small fraction of Return to Ravnica, but even if every other card in it is Bountiful Harvest , there's no denying that they've really pushed the power level on these creatures. I'm getting sick of seeing it, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
It's not clever or skilled design (or development) to make a card overpowered. Using raw power to appeal to players is lazy and incredibly bad for the game.
Maybe I've waded into a very different power creep discussion than I thought, but the power creep I'm talking about is getting more for the same mana. Making creatures bigger and bigger and also costing them more isn't the problem I meant. I meant th
Maybe I've waded into a very different power creep discussion than I thought, but the power creep I'm talking about is getting more for the same mana. Making creatures bigger and bigger and also costing them more isn't the problem I meant. I meant things like the new for 2/1 with upside, or getting a 4/4 with double upside and not a downside in sight.
We've only seen a small fraction of Return to Ravnica, but even if every other card in it is Bountiful Harvest , there's no denying that they've really pushed the power level on these creatures. I'm getting sick of seeing it, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
It's not clever or skilled design (or development) to make a card overpowered. Using raw power to appeal to players is lazy and incredibly bad for the game.
See also: Demon, Desecration. That's their definition of a downside for a 4 CMC 6/6 flier?
Maybe I've waded into a very different power creep discussion than I thought, but the power creep I'm talking about is getting more for the same mana. Making creatures bigger and bigger and also costing them more isn't the problem I meant. I meant th
Maybe I've waded into a very different power creep discussion than I thought, but the power creep I'm talking about is getting more for the same mana. Making creatures bigger and bigger and also costing them more isn't the problem I meant. I meant things like the new for 2/1 with upside, or getting a 4/4 with double upside and not a downside in sight.
We've only seen a small fraction of Return to Ravnica, but even if every other card in it is Bountiful Harvest , there's no denying that they've really pushed the power level on these creatures. I'm getting sick of seeing it, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
It's not clever or skilled design (or development) to make a card overpowered. Using raw power to appeal to players is lazy and incredibly bad for the game.
I don't think they're overpowered at all. Pushed, certainly, but as they are answer cards to 'problems' in the format, they have to be pushed. Both cards are 100% vanilla against most decks, with abilities that are only relevant against certain decks. A 4/4 vanilla for 3 is perfectly reasonable, we've had 3/4 for 3 with upside for years (Anurid Brushhopper , Burning-Tree Shaman , Wilt-Leaf Cavaliers ).
So I don't feel these cards are power creep at all because they're vanilla most of the time.
Maybe I've waded into a very different power creep discussion than I thought, but the power creep I'm talking about is getting more for the same mana. Making creatures bigger and bigger and also costing them more isn't the problem I meant. I meant th
I don't think they're overpowered at all. Pushed, certainly, but as they are answer cards to 'problems' in the format, they have to be pushed. Both cards are 100% vanilla against most decks, with abilities that are only relevant against certain decks. A 4/4 vanilla for 3 is perfectly reasonable, we've had 3/4 for 3 with upside for years (Anurid Brushhopper , Burning-Tree Shaman , Wilt-Leaf Cavaliers ).
So I don't feel these cards are power creep at all because they're vanilla most of the time.
You're saying two different things. One is that you don't think they're overpowered, and the other is that you don't think they're power creep. The first is an opinion, so I can't dispute it. The second is a statement, and I believe it's wrong.
Even if it's a vanilla most of the time, a 2/1 is still power creep. White used to get a 2/1 vanilla; the new one is more flexible on the cost, even without the extra ability. That's power creep.
The 4/4 is also still power creep. Your examples don't come close: Anurid's extra ability has a very hefty cost attached; Burning-Tree is a two-way ability, meaning you have to build around it to not get hurt by it; Wilt-Leaf is more mana intensive, and just a french vanilla.
You can think that the power creep isn't a problem, isn't pushed too far, all you want. But you can't honestly deny that it's happening.
You're saying two different things. One is that you don't think they're overpowered, and the other is that you don't think they're power creep. The first is an opinion, so I can't dispute it. The second is a statement, and I believe it's wrong.Even i
You're saying two different things. One is that you don't think they're overpowered, and the other is that you don't think they're power creep. The first is an opinion, so I can't dispute it. The second is a statement, and I believe it's wrong.
Even if it's a vanilla most of the time, a 2/1 is still power creep. White used to get a 2/1 vanilla; the new one is more flexible on the cost, even without the extra ability. That's power creep.
The 4/4 is also still power creep. Your examples don't come close: Anurid's extra ability has a very hefty cost attached; Burning-Tree is a two-way ability, meaning you have to build around it to not get hurt by it; Wilt-Leaf is more mana intensive, and just a french vanilla.
You can think that the power creep isn't a problem, isn't pushed too far, all you want. But you can't honestly deny that it's happening.
Insectile Aberration is also just a french vanilla. That says nothing. And having to build around something to make it work also says nothing according to the same Delver of Secrets . Also, it's an interesting question whether or is more mana intensive. Discard in Odyssey block wasn't all that 'hefty'.
While I can agree to the Dryad being power creep, I can't see how the Elephant is. Between the cards I named on one hand and more mana intensive cards on the other (Woolly Thoctar , Rhox War Monk , Leatherback Baloth ), it just seems to fit with what we already have.
It seems part of the reason multicolor blocks are so beloved is that people are fooled by how powerful cards are, not weighting multicolor for the drawback it really is.
Insectile Aberration is also just a french vanilla. That says nothing. And having to build around something to make it work also says nothing according to the same Delver of Secrets .
While I can agree to the Dryad being power creep, I can't see how the Elephant is. Between the cards I named on one hand and more mana intensive cards on the other (Woolly Thoctar , Rhox War Monk , Leatherback Baloth ), it just seems to fit with what we already have.
It seems part of the reason multicolor blocks are so beloved is that people are fooled by how powerful cards are, not weighting multicolor for the drawback it really is.
In the current state of Magic, two-color really isn't a drawback. Especially not ally two-color.
We've seen a lot of cards in this set so far that are undercosted or otherwise pushed in power level. A lot. And it worries me.
In the current state of Magic, two-color really isn't a drawback. Especially not ally two-color.But anyway, maybe the elephant isn't power creep. How about the 5/5 with Scavenge? The Mana Tithe / Force Spike
While I can agree to the Dryad being power creep, I can't see how the Elephant is. Between the cards I named on one hand and more mana intensive cards on the other (Woolly Thoctar , Rhox War Monk , Leatherback Baloth ), it just seems to fit with what we already have.
It seems part of the reason multicolor blocks are so beloved is that people are fooled by how powerful cards are, not weighting multicolor for the drawback it really is.
In the current state of Magic, two-color really isn't a drawback. Especially not ally two-color.
We've seen a lot of cards in this set so far that are undercosted or otherwise pushed in power level. A lot. And it worries me.
The owl is not strictly better than Spiketail Hatchling , it only counters instants/sorceries. I rate it below Cursecatcher , same ability, same CMC, trades a very relevant creature type for flying. That white has it now too is nice, but 1 power makes it pretty tame. White has Thalia already.
Desecration Demon is like Vexing Devil . It looks way better than it is. I could be wrong on this one, but don't underestimate the drawback of giving your opponent choices.
The scavenge guy is indeed power creep, in the sense that it doesn't have precedent yet, but it isn't out of left field. We've had 4 mana 4/4's with very relevant upsides for years, and Rumbling Slum , Spellbreaker Behemoth , Mycoid Shepherd , Phyrexian Obliterator show what can be done with colored drawbacks. A 5/5 for 4 in monogreen with a lesser upside is not that big a leap. But this is me not valueing the Scavenge on this card highly. Could be wrong on this too.
For the 2-color debate, I like to quote one of my first posts in this thread:
Feel free to compound this point with the considerable Mana-fixing RtR will be bringing to the table, designed precisely to make two(and arguably even three) colours a completely trivial affair to play with.
It is only trivial if you play Magic on a surface level.
This cards puts you in 2 colors already. That means it will be harder to play other colors. What Wizards strives for, is not a flat powerlevel, but rather a balanced playing field. Meaning a bunch of color combinations will get powerful pushed cards. If you play this one, you can't play the others. Meaning all the decks will have a few pushed cards, balancing each other out.
There are 2 ways in which this can go wrong. 1. All the pushed cards appear in a few colors (see Jund) 2. 3+ colors is indeed trivial (see Vivids + Reflecting Pool)
As long as they make sure those things do not happen, this card has a drawback. Yes it will be trivial to cast it in a G/W deck. What will not be trivial is what you can't cast in that deck. As long as there are powerful aggro decks in the format, shocklands will not be trivial.
In the current state of Magic, two-color really isn't a drawback. Especially not ally two-color.But anyway, maybe the elephant isn't power creep. How about the 5/5 with Scavenge? The Mana Tithe / Force Spike
Desecration Demon is like Vexing Devil . It looks way better than it is. I could be wrong on this one, but don't underestimate the drawback of giving your opponent choices.
I'm going to disagree with this. I never thought much of Vexing Devil, mainly because it was a one time choice. Desecration Demon is a constant choice that grows each time you sac to tap it in a format where black has a board sweeper that might not kill it as well. The choice also has to be made at combat instead of at upkeep, meaning you can clear out any creatures an opponent can sacrifice before the ability is relevant.
I'm going to disagree with this. I never thought much of Vexing Devil, mainly because it was a one time choice. Desecration Demon is a constant choice that grows each time you sac to tap it in a format where black has a board sweeper that might not
While I can agree to the Dryad being power creep, I can't see how the Elephant is. Between the cards I named on one hand and more mana intensive cards on the other (Woolly Thoctar , Rhox War Monk , Leatherback Baloth ), it just seems to fit with what we already have.
It seems part of the reason multicolor blocks are so beloved is that people are fooled by how powerful cards are, not weighting multicolor for the drawback it really is.
In the current state of Magic, two-color really isn't a drawback. Especially not ally two-color.
We've seen a lot of cards in this set so far that are undercosted or otherwise pushed in power level. A lot. And it worries me.
The owl is not strictly better than Spiketail Hatchling , it only counters instants/sorceries. I rate it below Cursecatcher , same ability, same CMC, trades a very relevant creature type for flying. That white has it now too is nice, but 1 power makes it pretty tame. White has Thalia already.
Desecration Demon is like Vexing Devil . It looks way better than it is. I could be wrong on this one, but don't underestimate the drawback of giving your opponent choices.
The scavenge guy is indeed power creep, in the sense that it doesn't have precedent yet, but it isn't out of left field. We've had 4 mana 4/4's with very relevant upsides for years, and Rumbling Slum , Spellbreaker Behemoth , Mycoid Shepherd , Phyrexian Obliterator show what can be done with colored drawbacks. A 5/5 for 4 in monogreen with a lesser upside is not that big a leap. But this is me not valueing the Scavenge on this card highly. Could be wrong on this too.
For the 2-color debate, I like to quote one of my first posts in this thread:
Feel free to compound this point with the considerable Mana-fixing RtR will be bringing to the table, designed precisely to make two(and arguably even three) colours a completely trivial affair to play with.
It is only trivial if you play Magic on a surface level.
This cards puts you in 2 colors already. That means it will be harder to play other colors. What Wizards strives for, is not a flat powerlevel, but rather a balanced playing field. Meaning a bunch of color combinations will get powerful pushed cards. If you play this one, you can't play the others. Meaning all the decks will have a few pushed cards, balancing each other out.
There are 2 ways in which this can go wrong. 1. All the pushed cards appear in a few colors (see Jund) 2. 3+ colors is indeed trivial (see Vivids + Reflecting Pool)
As long as they make sure those things do not happen, this card has a drawback. Yes it will be trivial to cast it in a G/W deck. What will not be trivial is what you can't cast in that deck. As long as there are powerful aggro decks in the format, shocklands will not be trivial.
Well, by his definition any card that isn't strictly worse than another card could be considered power creep.
In the current state of Magic, two-color really isn't a drawback. Especially not ally two-color.But anyway, maybe the elephant isn't power creep. How about the 5/5 with Scavenge? The Mana Tithe / Force Spike
Just to remember: Wizards has said that there IS power creep. In creatures anyway. They are conciously upping the power level of creatures.
It's impossible not to power creep in eternal formats when printing new cards, unless you want all of your new stuff to be worse than your old stuff, which sounds worse than the alternative. The issue about long-term health of the game is way more complicated than power creep yes/no.
It's impossible not to power creep in eternal formats when printing new cards, unless you want all of your new stuff to be worse than your old stuff, which sounds worse than the alternative. The issue about long-term health of the game is way more co
Yes, the format as a whole in eternal format is "power creeped" by printing any cards at all. But that power creep can be limited to increased diversity in the available options to play rather than by obsoleting existing cards with stronger versions. The latter is the problem to me.
For instance, the very first Planeswalkers ever printed were power creep in Eternal formats, but they weren't just upgraded versions of existing things, they were new things that added new options, and thus are an acceptable form of power creep. If they printed a card that was Counterspell for just U, for instance, that would be the bad kind of power creep.
And yes, they have pushed creatures and weakened counterspells/draw spells/combo cards/etc because they felt that historically creatures were too weak and spells too strong. I personally don't agree with them at all but at least that's a subjective choice they've made, so I can't fault them for it really.
Yes, the format as a whole in eternal format is "power creeped" by printing any cards at all. But that power creep can be limited to increased diversity in the available options to play rather than by obsoleting existing cards with stronger versions.
for 2/1 with upside, or getting a 
