As I have been Stalking the forms this month I have notesd something, Every form has a complant about the power and speed of standerd and its current card pool, I belive that Even with the way we have been that 2 things need to happen.
1: We need the complet removal of the Reserved List. I say about 80% of cards on it are not holding value and stop the number of good reprints for cards. Dont get me wrong I dont think we need reprints of the power Nine + cards but Redickulas cards Exist on the list and we see better uncommons with more relivent types (Examples: Braingeyser is no better than Blue sun Zeneth, Roc of Kher Ridges is a 3/3 flyer for 4?????)
Not to mention over half of the cards on it are not even $1 anymore.
2: We need another Kamigawa/homelands.
Now hear me out While the sets are notorus for BAD cards they are alot of what has kept magic fun, Why? Because if they never ramped down the power of the cards in the game we would have it go the way of other cardgames, Like yugioh(old cards are not playable) yuyu hakucho (Dead and gone) and many others, So i belive another Severly under powerd block WILL BE GOOD FOR THE GAME.
Thats my rant Thank you for reading and talk over the pros and cons of these and others you point out.
Everything here has likely been said before.As I have been Stalking the forms this month I have notesd something, Every form has a complant about the power and speed of standerd and its current card pool, I belive that Even with the way we have been
Somewhere, deep down in my "heart of hearts", I believe that you have a point. I also think that said point that you may (or may not) have might have been an interesting one, especially in light of the fact that the Magic General forum evokes emotions of having to say something that everyone knows Has Been Said Before.
Secretly, the point of Magic General may be just to be a place to say things that have been said before, in some way, shape, fashion, or What Have You. I don't know. I'm just saying with a bit more organization of your post, and a little more spell checking (I don't comment on grammar, because I never know what a user's native language is) may have made this an interesting topic.
What is it that we Magic players talk about all the time that hasn't already been talked about? What complaints are new? What is the new Mana Burn, Reserved List, Card Type, Damage ON/OFF the stack? Could a zero mana one-one exist if it's anything more than vanilla?
Et Cetera.
Do we care enough about the game to talk about the game itelf, or is the game just uninteresting enough such that we talk about the many varied aspects of it (like Hasbro's commercial greed and it's influence on the game we play, the "powercreep" of creatures, and the neutering of blue)?
Who knows.
Somewhere, deep down in my "heart of hearts", I believe that you have a point. I also think that said point that you may (or may not) have might have been an interesting one, especially in light of the fact that the Magic General forum evokes emotion
The reserve lists contains more than powerful cards because they're a series of sets that collectors don't want reprinted. It's not the value or the power as much as the collectibility. They cover the whole sets to protect a few cards, right, but nothing keeps them from doing similar cards.
A severely underpowered block just means Standard stays stale with the same decks for a whole year. The fun is when new cards, as powerful as the last block, come in and change the meta. Printing a severely underpowered block doesn't dial down the power anyway, you can just print a reasonably-powered set. If there's something worse than power-creeping to oblivion, it's doing it in cycles (more and more powerful, then crap and rise up again slowly). It tells your players "come back in two years, when we'll have reached an acceptable level again", and then they don't come back.
The only thing good about Kamigawa was the flavor.
The reserve lists contains more than powerful cards because they're a series of sets that collectors don't want reprinted. It's not the value or the power as much as the collectibility. They cover the whole sets to protect a few cards, right, but not
Was the power level of Kamigawa really that low? Some of the most powerful cards across several formats come from that block (Umezawa's Jitte and Sensei's Divining Top to name a few.)
Was the power level of Kamigawa really that low? Some of the most powerful cards across several formats come from that block ( Umezawa's Jitte and Sensei's Divining Top to name a
As I have been Stalking the forms this month I have notesd something, Every form has a complant about the power and speed of standerd and its current card pool, I belive that Even with the way we have been that 2 things need to happen.
1: We need the complet removal of the Reserved List.
Welcome to Magic General. We have this argument about once a week. In fact, we're still having it right now.
2: We need another Kamigawa/homelands.
Yeah, except weak sets don't sell as well. And current standard isn't really that over or underpowered. It's about where it's been forever. Sure, standard is creeping very slowly up, but ultimately the standard of today isn't that much more powerful than the standard of five years ago.
Welcome to Magic General. We have this argument about once a week. In fact, we're still having it right now.Yeah, except weak sets don't sell as well. And current standard isn't really that over or underpowered. It's about where it's been forever. Su
No, we need 6/6's for 3 mana with upsides and all of the trimmings. This will make it a better game.
We beed tri-coloured lands that come into play untapped without drawbacks.
We need a simic tusk that is a 8/8 trample, haste, hexproof creature that gains 20 life when it enters the battlefield and makes two 6/6's when it leaves the battlefield, all for 3GU.
We need a 0-casting cost artifact that let us draw a card and play an additional land for each point of damage we deal.
We need a land that counters a target spell just 1 mana (doesn't tap).
We need cards that let us play any number of spells in our opponent's hand without paying the mana cost.
This is where magic needs to head for it be a better game! This is what is unsaid!
No, we need 6/6's for 3 mana with upsides and all of the trimmings. This will make it a better game.We beed tri-coloured lands that come into play untapped without drawbacks.We need a simic tusk that is a 8/8 trample, haste, hexproof creature that ga
Congratulations! You know how to design totally overpowered cards! GOOD JOB! Do you want a prize?
Have you played Standard? As in, played it at a high level? For a long period of time? Try running Jund today. Try running Time Spiral era storm. It'll hold up pretty well, I think.
There's a reason Legacy and Vintage aren't just CardsPrintedInTheLastYear.dec. If power creep was as absurd as you seem to be implying, we'd see nothing but brand new cards used in eternal formats. We don't. Only one to two cards per set (If any) are Vintage or Legacy quality. This is because the Standard rotation allows wizards to keep a mostly constant power level without needing each year's cards to be better than the last.
Sure, Terra Stomper is a 6 mana 8/8, clearly a violation of the normal curve. You know how much play it saw? None. Phyrexian Obliterator is a 4 mana 5/5 with trample and one of the most awesome upsides ever seen. You know how much play it saw? Almost none.
There are a lot of powerful cards, but Development has years of practice costing cards so that they appear amazing without being overwhelming, and they've gotten very good at it.
Congratulations! You know how to design totally overpowered cards! GOOD JOB! Do you want a prize?Have you played Standard? As in, played it at a high level? For a long period of time? Try running Jund today. Try running Time Spiral era storm. It'll h
I thought you were serious simply because I've seen people claim such things in full seriousness with some regularity. Remember: Poe's Law: There is no satirical stance so extreme it cannot be mistaken for the real thing.
I thought you were serious simply because I've seen people claim such things in full seriousness with some regularity. Remember:Poe's Law: There is no satirical stance so extreme it cannot be mistaken for the real thing.
I think there's a lot of power creep when it comes to spells/creatures in the game. I wish it wasn't so obvious what were the limited cards vs. edh vs. constructed, but there's a very clear line Wizard is drawing - especially in Gatecrash.
My post was just to poke fun of what might actually happen 15 years down the road if they keep it up.
Some things I'd like to see in magic's future.
1) Staple cards should be relatively inexpensive, such as dual lands (shocks, fetches, etc.). A good mana base is critical to good deck design, and I think more availability of these kinds of lands would make more games interesting, because casuals would at least be able to keep up in tempo with everyone else. They won't lose games purely because of colour-screw and land tempo issues.
As an aside, I want to commend Wizards for printing more shocks in Dragon's Maze and not taking up a rare slot. I hope they do this in the future for all rare/uncommon lands. It would help keep the prices down, and would let more newer players into Modern.
2) Mythics shouldn't really be 4-of staples - leave that to the rares (Boros Reckoner is a great example of what Wizards should be doing all of the time). I have no problem with things like Angel of Serenity being a mythic because of the high casting cost (and you don't necessarily want 4 of them in a deck anyways), but I don't like it when they print stuff like Geist of Saint Traft or Huntermaster of the Fells that we see in half of the standard decks over the last year+. These cards should never have been printed as it is (Geist for sure - he doesn't even make sense for those colours), but by having him as a mythic, you price out a lot of people from acquiring and playing with him.
3) The power level curve of cards should squashed. Bad cards should be a bit better (and still have some really bad cards like life gain - it's fine), but good cards should only be a little better than the average cards. I want to see cards that give very small incremental advantages over others - not huge disparities. This will also max each booster box more valuable as a whole, because there won't be so many price swings where a few cards are worth $30-40, and most others are $0.25. It'll also make the game more skill-based and will encourage more rouge-decks and innovation.
Just my thoughts.
I think there's a lot of power creep when it comes to spells/creatures in the game. I wish it wasn't so obvious what were the limited cards vs. edh vs. constructed, but there's a very clear line Wizard is drawing - especially in Gatecrash.My post was
Now hear me out While the sets are notorus for BAD cards they are alot of what has kept magic fun, Why? Because if they never ramped down the power of the cards in the game we would have it go the way of other cardgames, Like yugioh(old cards are not playable) yuyu hakucho (Dead and gone) and many others, So i belive another Severly under powerd block WILL BE GOOD FOR THE GAME.
Well, Wizards will be fortunate that a few self-sacrificing individuals like yourself will actually go out and buy booster packs of that block. Because most people won't bother.
Somebody has to go and buy booster packs if Mark Rosewater and everyone else who works on Magic at Wizards is going to be able to feed, clothe, and house their families...
This is why Wizards has gone to some lengths to avoid power inflation without abruptly ramping down the power level; it knows what that does to sales by seeing what happened to the Core Set in going from Unlimited to Revised and then from Revised to Fourth Edition.
Just as the five colors complement each other in a nontransitive (scissors - paper - stone or rock - paper - scissors) fashion, and the deck archetypes do the same thing (the "metagame clock", do search this term if you haven't heard it before), so too are block types designed to complement each other.
The sequence of block types is generally believed to have gone something like this:
Antiquities - Artifact Legends - Multicolor The Dark - Tribal Fallen Empires - ?
Alara - Multicolor Zendikar - ? Scars of Mirrodin - Artifact Innistrad - Gimmick Return to Ravnica - Multicolor
I suppose Tribal is coming soon...
I'm not sure where to class Zendikar, but some have classed it as weak. It's true they used hidden treasures and full-art lands to sell it, but the economy tanked just before that year.
Moving Gimmick to the most challenging position, after Artifact, may eliminate the need for Weak, so Multicolor - Tribal - Artifact - Gimmick may turn out to be the new repeating cycle, although I suspect Wizards will want to have unpredictable variety for the future.
With a new Core Set each year instead of each two years, Wizards has additional tools with which to favor the current block temporarily without it having to be more powerful in an absolute sense than the block which immediately preceded it.
Still, if everything fails, and Wizards does have to bring out another Zendikar or another Mercadian Masques (but hopefully not a disaster like Homelands or Kamigawa) maybe they could use my idea of full-art lands with pictures of overpowered old cards as the art - usable as "official" proxies - to sell the set.
Of course, the fact that Standard only uses the last two blocks makes it easier for Wizards.
I thought you were serious simply because I've seen people claim such things in full seriousness with some regularity. Remember: Poe's Law: There is no satirical stance so extreme it cannot be mistaken for the real thing.
True enough, but it was obvious he was joking as a way of criticizing the original post.
If there's something worse than power-creeping to oblivion, it's doing it in cycles (more and more powerful, then crap and rise up again slowly). It tells your players "come back in two years, when we'll have reached an acceptable level again", and then they don't come back.
Now you're almost getting me to agree with the original poster!
Because you're right that Homelands and Kamigawa were disasters. But while Wizards tries, through rotating block types, to let nontransitivity remove the need for power creep, they can't do it perfectly.
So, given that Magic survived Homelands and Kamigawa, it is better to accept a dip in sales for one year than to power creep the game into permanent oblivion. After all, Magic started with the Power Nine, which meant that it had to very painfully ramp down the power level to the disgust and frustration of many players, with echoes of that pain continuing to the present.
Well, Wizards will be fortunate that a few self-sacrificing individuals like yourself will actually go out and buy booster packs of that block. Because most people won't bother.Somebody has to go and buy booster packs if Mark Rosewater and everyone e
If there's something worse than power-creeping to oblivion, it's doing it in cycles (more and more powerful, then crap and rise up again slowly). It tells your players "come back in two years, when we'll have reached an acceptable level again", and then they don't come back.
Now you're almost getting me to agree with the original poster!
Because you're right that Homelands and Kamigawa were disasters. But while Wizards tries, through rotating block types, to let nontransitivity remove the need for power creep, they can't do it perfectly.
So, given that Magic survived Homelands and Kamigawa, it is better to accept a dip in sales for one year than to power creep the game into permanent oblivion. After all, Magic started with the Power Nine, which meant that it had to very painfully ramp down the power level to the disgust and frustration of many players, with echoes of that pain continuing to the present.
Intentionnally dropping the power-level to have room for more power-creep serves no one, except when the game is already broken beyond recognition (like Black Lotus and friends). If you dial back the pwoer and go up again, each format will be affected negatively. Modern and Legacy will just wait two or three years getting stale as hell and Standard will have a full year being dominated by last block's decks. Nobody will buy the new set, and when they start buying again, that'll be because the power is returned to normal, in which case you've done nothing but hurt the game, since you're back to square one.
Now you're almost getting me to agree with the original poster!Because you're right that Homelands and Kamigawa were disasters. But while Wizards tries, through rotating block types, to let nontransitivity remove the need for power creep, they can't
Intentionnally dropping the power-level to have room for more power-creep serves no one, except when the game is already broken beyond recognition (like Black Lotus and friends). If you dial back the pwoer and go up again, each format will be affected negatively. Modern and Legacy will just wait two or three years getting stale as hell and Standard will have a full year being dominated by last block's decks. Nobody will buy the new set, and when they start buying again, that'll be because the power is returned to normal, in which case you've done nothing but hurt the game, since you're back to square one.
Generally speaking, I agree with that too. But there does come a point when the game is broken enough to have problems, and presumably it is somewhere short of Black Lotus and friends, even if it is somewhere past Urza block. (Or is it? The game was having problems then that might well lead to the conclusion that it was visibly broken.)
It's only prudent to bite the bullet prevent that from happening ahead of time, painful though it may be.
But it shouldn't happen often. Instead of one weak set every five years, doing this every ten, or every twenty would be better - this would show that nontransitivity is being successfully employed to keep power creep to a tolerable level.
Doing it early can also mean that the "weak" set doesn't have to be so weak that it has a traumatic effect on sales. Some people called Zendikar a weak set like Kamigawa, but it didn't receive the same kind of bad reception that Kamigawa did.
Oh, thanks. That tells me what category to put Fallen Empires in. I'll update my file, although I won't go back and edit my post.Generally speaking, I agree with that too. But there does come a point when the game is broken enough to have problems, a
Kamigowa and Homelands had NOTHING on Fallen Empires
REPRINT Fallen Empires!!!
Oh, thanks. That tells me what category to put Fallen Empires in. I'll update my file, although I won't go back and edit my post.
LOL!!! Hymn to Tourach is the only card out of Fallen Empires that still see's play and its a common....lol
At least Homelands had Mother of Rune
Oh, thanks. That tells me what category to put Fallen Empires in. I'll update my file, although I won't go back and edit my post.[/quote]LOL!!! Hymn to Tourach is the only card out of Fallen Empires that still see's play and its a common....lolAt lea
Intentionnally dropping the power-level to have room for more power-creep serves no one, except when the game is already broken beyond recognition (like Black Lotus and friends). If you dial back the pwoer and go up again, each format will be affected negatively. Modern and Legacy will just wait two or three years getting stale as hell and Standard will have a full year being dominated by last block's decks. Nobody will buy the new set, and when they start buying again, that'll be because the power is returned to normal, in which case you've done nothing but hurt the game, since you're back to square one.
Generally speaking, I agree with that too. But there does come a point when the game is broken enough to have problems, and presumably it is somewhere short of Black Lotus and friends, even if it is somewhere past Urza block. (Or is it? The game was having problems then that might well lead to the conclusion that it was visibly broken.)
It's only prudent to bite the bullet prevent that from happening ahead of time, painful though it may be.
But it shouldn't happen often. Instead of one weak set every five years, doing this every ten, or every twenty would be better - this would show that nontransitivity is being successfully employed to keep power creep to a tolerable level.
Doing it early can also mean that the "weak" set doesn't have to be so weak that it has a traumatic effect on sales. Some people called Zendikar a weak set like Kamigawa, but it didn't receive the same kind of bad reception that Kamigawa did.
What I mean is that when you have gone too far in the power creep, the solution is not to print an underpowered set; it's to print a set with the correct power-level, that happens to be worse than the ones preceding it. Kamigawa and Homelands were seriously deficient. There were a couple of mistakes (Jitte, for example), but generally speaking, it was boring as hell because the cards not only went back to the correct power-level, but visibly went way under that.
It's one thing to decide that you'll dial back the power, it's another to make a crappy set to creep again. Printing Ravnica just after Mirrodin is what they should have done, power-level speaking. Dial back, but not make something so horrible players will still have bad memories eight (eight! ) years later.
Generally speaking, I agree with that too. But there does come a point when the game is broken enough to have problems, and presumably it is somewhere short of Black Lotus and friends, even if it is somewhere past
The reserved list has about 0.00001% affect on the Standard metagame. Maybe less.
Homelands almost caused the end of Magic. It does not serve as a good example of the wax and wane of power level.
Kamigawa wasn't bad for Magic; Mirrodin was. Kamigawa only stood unfavorably in the light of Affinity. Once they nixed that, the set had plenty to offer, especially when paired with Ravnica. Yes, it tests as one of their worst blocks, and there are inherent things about the block that don't work as they wished, but I hardly think it's fair to judge it without context. That said, if my "repeating" Kamigawa you mean "create more insular mechanics", then I have to diagree entirely. Since Ravnica, they've basically constructed Standard to avoid that problem, and it's been better for it.
The reserved list has about 0.00001% affect on the Standard metagame. Maybe less.Homelands almost caused the end of Magic. It does not serve as a good example of the wax and wane of power level.Kamigawa wasn't bad for Magic; Mirrodin was. Kamigawa on
The reserved list has about 0.00001% affect on the Standard metagame. Maybe less.
Homelands almost caused the end of Magic. It does not serve as a good example of the wax and wane of power level.
Kamigawa wasn't bad for Magic; Mirrodin was. Kamigawa only stood unfavorably in the light of Affinity. Once they nixed that, the set had plenty to offer, especially when paired with Ravnica. Yes, it tests as one of their worst blocks, and there are inherent things about the block that don't work as they wished, but I hardly think it's fair to judge it without context. That said, if my "repeating" Kamigawa you mean "create more insular mechanics", then I have to diagree entirely. Since Ravnica, they've basically constructed Standard to avoid that problem, and it's been better for it.
The Kamigawa block was severely underpowered. There were a couple of good card, like Meloku, Kitte and such, but most of them really were crap. Go through Gatherer. You'll see what I mean. Sure, Mirrodin didn't help, but if Ravnica has followed instead of Kamigawa, you wouldn't have seen the same reactions.
The Kamigawa block was severely underpowered. There were a couple of good card, like Meloku, Kitte and such, but most of them really were crap. Go through Gatherer. You'll see what I mean. Sure, Mirrodin didn't help, but if Ravnica has followed inste
What I mean is that when you have gone too far in the power creep, the solution is not to print an underpowered set; it's to print a set with the correct power-level, that happens to be worse than the ones preceding it.
Oh, I agree with that. But a set worse than the ones preceding it is an underpowered set as far as sales figures are concerned, so I didn't deal with that distinction; I assumed Wizards would know better than to produce a set that was underpowered in an absolute sense.
Oh, I agree with that. But a set worse than the ones preceding it is an underpowered set as far as sales figures are concerned, so I didn't deal with that distinction; I assumed Wizards would know better than to produce a set that was underpowered in
What I mean is that when you have gone too far in the power creep, the solution is not to print an underpowered set; it's to print a set with the correct power-level, that happens to be worse than the ones preceding it.
Oh, I agree with that. But a set worse than the ones preceding it is an underpowered set as far as sales figures are concerned, so I didn't deal with that distinction; I assumed Wizards would know better than to produce a set that was underpowered in an absolute sense.
We were agreeing, then
Oh, I agree with that. But a set worse than the ones preceding it is an underpowered set as far as sales figures are concerned, so I didn't deal with that distinction; I assumed Wizards would know better than to produce a set that was underpowered in
As I understand it, the Reserved List contains cards from Alpha to Urza's Destiny that weren't reprinted in a Core Set since, I'm assuming Fourth. Possibly Revised? Also, they have to have only been printed at rare.
As I understand it, the Reserved List contains cards from Alpha to Urza's Destiny that weren't reprinted in a Core Set since, I'm assuming Fourth. Possibly Revised? Also, they have to have only been printed at rare.
The original duals, like Tundra , were in Revised, and are on the Reserved List; Channel , which was in Fourth Edition, is not.
So, basically, rare cards from before Mercadian Masques not reprinted in Fourth Edition or anything later prior to the creation of the list went on the list.
The original duals, like Tundra , were in Revised, and are on the Reserved List; Channel , which was in Fourth Edition, is not.So, basically, rare cards from before Mercadian Masqu
I looked through Gatherer. I didn't see what you meant, but I did see:
-Jitte -Top -Glimpse -Steve -Heartbeat of Spring -Pithing Needle -Cranial Extraction -Kataki -Kokusho -Kami of the Crescent Moon -Gifts Ungiven -Desperate Ritual -Through the Breach -Kodama's Reach -Hinder -Enduring Ideal -Azusa -Boseiju -Ghostly Prison -Isamaru -Forbidden Orchard -Kiki-Jiki -Blazing Shoal -Lava Spike -Kira, Great Glass Spinner -Erayo -Footsteps of the Goryo -Several standardly-costed Knights
I think that people confuse "contains few if any playable cards" with "was a decent block, but was followed by some broken ****". Just because Mirrodin block was omgwtfbbq does not mean that the block preceding it was unplayable.
I looked through Gatherer. I didn't see what you meant, but I did see:-Jitte-Top-Glimpse-Steve-Heartbeat of Spring-Pithing Needle-Cranial Extraction-Kataki-Kokusho-Kami of the Crescent Moon-Gifts Ungiven-Desperate Ritual-Through the Breach-Kodama's R
Just because Mirrodin block was omgwtfbbq does not mean that the block preceding it was unplayable.
I may somewhat agree with your defense of the Kamigawa block, but you've made a mistake yourself here. Champions of Kamigawa (October 1, 2004) came after Mirrodin (October 2, 2003).
Which, of course, was exactly why its sales were so poor.
The set following Kamigawa was Ravnica (October 7, 2005), and so one could indeed say that Kamigawa was good for the game by clearing the way for such an excellent block.
I may somewhat agree with your defense of the Kamigawa block, but you've made a mistake yourself here. Champions of Kamigawa (October 1, 2004) came after Mirrodin (October 2, 2003).Which, of course, was exactly why its sales were so poor.The set foll
Just because Mirrodin block was omgwtfbbq does not mean that the block preceding it was unplayable.
I may somewhat agree with your defense of the Kamigawa block, but you've made a mistake yourself here. Champions of Kamigawa (October 1, 2004) came after Mirrodin (October 2, 2003).
Which, of course, was exactly why its sales were so poor.
The set following Kamigawa was Ravnica (October 7, 2005), and so one could indeed say that Kamigawa was good for the game by clearing the way for such an excellent block.
My bad. I have time dyslexia =P
I may somewhat agree with your defense of the Kamigawa block, but you've made a mistake yourself here. Champions of Kamigawa (October 1, 2004) came after Mirrodin (October 2, 2003).Which, of course, was exactly why its sales were so poor.The set foll
-Heartbeat of Spring [very, very situationnal, not a good card] -Pithing Needle [never really played] -Hinder [only because Commander legitimated it post-print] -Azusa [was it played anywhere else than Commander?] -Footsteps of the Goryo [no, that's not a good card]
For the rest, I agree, but remember that Kamigawa block had 637 cards. I'm sure you can go through most other blocks and find more than twenty-ish cards that are playable. The fact that both Ravnica and Mirrodin were really better speaks for a lot. Look through the common and uncommon and you have more than the average share of "what is that crap?" going on.
For the rest, I agree, but remember that Kamigawa block had 637 cards. I'm sure you can go through most other blocks and find more than twenty-ish cards that are playable. The fact that both Ravnica and Mirrodin were really better speaks for a lot. L
Azusa and Heartbeat spawned a combo deck in Standard that kept pace with Affinity.
Pithing Needle is played EVERYWHERE.
Hinder is generally a Cancel that prevents GY shenanigans and possibly pseudo-Walks.
Footsteps is a solid reanimator card and an important piece of an entire archetype in Modern.
Also:
The fact that both Urza's Sagaand Mirrodin were really better [than Scars block] in terms of power level speaks for a lot. Look through the common and uncommon and you have more than the average share of "what is that crap?" going on.
Do you see the problem now? I put Urza's Saga in there to exemplify what you're doing a little more stongly. You're comparing Kamigawa to one of the blocks that defines an explosion in power creep, and claiming that because it's better, Kamigawa is bad. Kamigawa's commons and uncommons are fine. There are some overcosted pieces of junk, just like every other block. There are some correctly costed cards that are boring or just not good. But you cannot compare Scars block to Urza's Saga and call Scars hideously underpowered. That's not how it works.
You can look through the commons and uncommons of Kamigawa and see a perfectly reasonable number of fringe-playable or correctly/aggressively costed cards. Are they played in today's formats? No. Is that because Kamigawa is garbage? No, it's because commons and uncommons don't impact formats unless they're the best of the best, i.e. Delver of Secrets, or have a niche use in a strong deck, i.e. Viscera Seer.
Azusa and Heartbeat spawned a combo deck in Standard that kept pace with Affinity. Pithing Needle is played EVERYWHERE.Hinder is generally a Cancel that prevents GY shenanigans and possibly pseudo-Walks.Footsteps is a solid reanimator card and an imp
Do you see the problem now? I put Urza's Saga in there to exemplify what you're doing a little more stongly. You're comparing Kamigawa to one of the blocks that defines an explosion in power creep, and claiming that because it's better, Kamigawa is bad. Kamigawa's commons and uncommons are fine. There are some overcosted pieces of junk, just like every other block. There are some correctly costed cards that are boring or just not good. But you cannot compare Scars block to Urza's Saga and call Scars hideously underpowered. That's not how it works.
You can look through the commons and uncommons of Kamigawa and see a perfectly reasonable number of fringe-playable or correctly/aggressively costed cards. Are they played in today's formats? No. Is that because Kamigawa is garbage? No, it's because commons and uncommons don't impact formats unless they're the best of the best, i.e. Delver of Secrets, or have a niche use in a strong deck, i.e. Viscera Seer.
I spent a lot of time playing Kamigawa, being as it was my first set and all, an I can definitely understand why people are talking it down. Quite simply, not a one of the block mechanics was any good. (Okay, maybe Ninjutsu, but we only got like 10 ninjas) We had Bushido , Splice , Soulshift , Whenever you cast... , Ninjutsu and flip cards .
Almost none of the cards with those mechanics are terribly good and three of them (Splice, Soulshift, and WheneverYouCast) are all incredibly parasitic. You can defend it all you want and couch it in whatever words you want, but it's still a significantly weaker power level than Ravnica, which I think most would agree was a very well balanced block.
I spent a lot of time playing Kamigawa, being as it was my first set and all, an I can definitely understand why people are talking it down. Quite simply, not a one of the block mechanics was any good. (Okay, maybe Ninjutsu, but we only got like 10 n
You're forgetting something important about power level here: mechanics can't be overpowered or underpowered. The cards they are printed on can be, but that's it. Storm isn't overpowered, some of the cards with Storm are. Is Reaping the Graves tearing up any formats? What about Sprouting Vines ? Bushido isn't underpowered; some of the creatures with Bushido are (although a lot of them are aggressively costed).
You also forgot Channel, Sweep, and Epic, all of which are printed on some decent cards.
I'm not trying to couch anything. I'm simply stating the fact that Kamigawa has a fair number of playable cards. The argument that it's underpowered seems to stem from the idea that such a huge majority of the cards in it are unplayable junk. That isn't true, so from that line of thought, it isn't underpowered.
Also, if it was your first set, your thoughts are probably more colored than most by the Kamigawa/Mirrodin Standard.
You're forgetting something important about power level here: mechanics can't be overpowered or underpowered. The cards they are printed on can be, but that's it. Storm isn't overpowered, some of the cards with Storm are. Is Reaping the Graves
The problem with this discussion is that we can't have a clear comparison, because there are way too much cards to illustrate it and no one here as close to enough free time to do a full comparison between two blocks at all rarities.
My opinion is that Kamigawa had a couple of powerful cards like every other block, but the average power-level was incredibly low. There were no good bushido cards, no good splice cards, and I don't remember any good spirit-matter cards. The commons and uncommons were just crap, and most of the rares were the same. Can either of us bring arguments on the table that will be more than anecdotal data or a couple of cards that won't prove anything for the whole block? I doubt it, unfortunately. Even if I quoted forty really bad commons, you'd quote as much from the next block. I do believe, however, that the Ravnica block was a lot more powerful than Kamigawa's and that it should have been the same.
For what it's worth, when I started playing, I bought Kamigawa (Betrayers just got out, IIRC) and very few Mirrodin. Even then, with all my newness in the game, I could recognize that Ravnica's block was way more powerful. [/anecdotalevidence] What it does say is that I didn't live the "power-creep stopping" effect you're talking about. I didn't play through Mirrodin block. Hell, my first tournament was in Scars/Zendikar Standard.
The problem with this discussion is that we can't have a clear comparison, because there are way too much cards to illustrate it and no one here as close to enough free time to do a full comparison between two blocks at all rarities.My opinion is tha
Just because Mirrodin block was omgwtfbbq does not mean that the block preceding it was unplayable.
I may somewhat agree with your defense of the Kamigawa block, but you've made a mistake yourself here. Champions of Kamigawa (October 1, 2004) came after Mirrodin (October 2, 2003).
Which, of course, was exactly why its sales were so poor.
The set following Kamigawa was Ravnica (October 7, 2005), and so one could indeed say that Kamigawa was good for the game by clearing the way for such an excellent block.
My bad. I have time dyslexia =P
It depends on your definition of unplayable. Call it Masques Syndrome, but when you're used to a trainwreck of one broken deck after another, what happens next seems underpowered.
I may somewhat agree with your defense of the Kamigawa block, but you've made a mistake yourself here. Champions of Kamigawa (October 1, 2004) came after Mirrodin (October 2, 2003).Which, of course, was exactly why its sales were so poor.The set foll
It depends on your definition of unplayable. Call it Masques Syndrome, but when you're used to a trainwreck of one broken deck after another, what happens next seems underpowered.
I am now in the middle of a debate in which I agree with bay_falconer and disagree with Dilleux. Words cannot express my confusion.
I am now in the middle of a debate in which I agree with bay_falconer and disagree with Dilleux. Words cannot express my confusion.
It depends on your definition of unplayable. Call it Masques Syndrome, but when you're used to a trainwreck of one broken deck after another, what happens next seems underpowered.
I am now in the middle of a debate in which I agree with bay_falconer and disagree with Dilleux. Words cannot express my confusion.
A broken clock is right twice a day?
I am now in the middle of a debate in which I agree with bay_falconer and disagree with Dilleux. Words cannot express my confusion.[/quote]A broken clock is right twice a day? :-p
A clock is always right, because clocks measure themselves. Time is a dimensional analogue of space that simply exists at all points and we move through it, as of yet incapable of measuring it except for our own subjective sense of chronology.
A clock is always right, because clocks measure themselves. Time is a dimensional analogue of space that simply exists at all points and we move through it, as of yet incapable of measuring it except for our own subjective sense of chronology.
A clock is always right, because clocks measure themselves. Time is a dimensional analogue of space that simply exists at all points and we move through it, as of yet incapable of measuring it except for our own subjective sense of chronology.
A clock is always right, because clocks measure themselves. Time is a dimensional analogue of space that simply exists at all points and we move through it, as of yet incapable of measuring it except for our own subjective sense of chronology.
Nice try, but no. A clock is supposed to accurately indicate the time used by your local community as a whole. It is not a tool of measurement, so the exact nature of time is irrelevant. The important thing is whether or not your clock correctly conveys the time considered to be occuring at that moment in your area of the world.
Nice try, but no. A clock is supposed to accurately indicate the time used by your local community as a whole. It is not a tool of measurement, so the exact nature of time is irrelevant. The important thing is whether or not your clock correctly conv
Nice try, but no. A clock is supposed to accurately indicate the time used by your local community as a whole. It is not a tool of measurement, so the exact nature of time is irrelevant. The important thing is whether or not your clock correctly conveys the time considered to be occuring at that moment in your area of the world.
No. A clock is supposed to measure itself as a reference to the passing of time. For instance, the simplest possible clock is a single photon between two perfectly reflective surfaces. It bounces between them (in a perfectly straight line, so as to avoid complications) at the speed of light, without losing momentum, and so it completes the round trip at the same rate each time. We can control the length of a round trip by controlling the distance of the surfaces, and we can record the length of the trip.
What it does NOT do, however, is measure any meaningful increment of time. "Meaningful" in this sense, does not reference arbitrary human increments such as seconds, but rather naturally occuring constants of time, such as a unit of Planck time (unless you set the two surfaces one Planck length apart...but this leads to other questions not relevant here). This theoretical clock would only measure one thing: the length of the round trip of the photon, i.e. it's own mechanism.
This can be demonstrated more clearly by bringing relativity into the picture. Suppose now that this photon clock is moving. The photon itself is hitting the surfaces at such an angle so that it moves forward with the clock, but now its path from one surface to the other is longer, because it is happening at an angle. From an outside perspective, this means that the entire clock itself is moving more slowly through time. But from the clock's perspective, it means nothing at all. Gravity and acceleration affect movement through time, as per Relativity, but they do not affect the clock's mechanism, and so the clock continues to measure itself, while not measuring the passage of time outside of itself at all. This is why, at sufficient speeds (or a sufficient difference in gravity), normal clocks lose time.
Every clock has the same function. It uses a mechanism that takes time to perform some action, and then it measures that mechanism. It does not measure the physical passage of time, but it's own passage of time, and without a way to measure the physical passage of time, there is no way to turn that reference into a meaningful meaasurement.
No. A clock is supposed to measure itself as a reference to the passing of time. For instance, the simplest possible clock is a single photon between two perfectly reflective surfaces. It bounces between them (in a perfectly straight line, so as to a
Time doesn't exist on its own. It's just a concept invented by human minds.
Close; time exists, but the compartmentalization of it is a human construction. Time is a single, contiguous dimension like the 3 spatial dimensions, and every point of time exists simultaneously just as every point in space exists simultaneously. We move through time in much the same way that we move through space, but with much less control and much more difficulty in comprehending the nature of our motion.
Close; time exists, but the compartmentalization of it is a human construction. Time is a single, contiguous dimension like the 3 spatial dimensions, and every point of time exists simultaneously just as every point in space exists simultaneously. We
CONGRATULATIONS! You missed the entire point. Did you see the bit where I mentioned that a clock is not a measuring device?
Going into deep physics is all well and good, but really when somebody looks at a clock they aren't wondering about relativity, they're wondering whether or not they're going to be late to work. If the clock says '8:00' and the clock at their office a mile away says '4:50', then one of those clocks is wrong. It doesn't matter whether either or those numbers has any real meaning outside of Earth. What is important is that the guy's about to be fired because he forgot to replace the batteries in his clock and was too busy playing Minecraft to notice the clock wasn't actually moving. (And apparently too clueless to check the clock on his computer)
Sure, you can say that a clock isn't a 'meaningful measurement' but that's somewhat similar to saying that since a hundred dollar bill doesn't have any intrinsic value that it is worthless. When discussing human constructs in the context of the human experience, you should probably start by measuring the meaning of a clock to humanity.
It's okay to not pull out relativity every time it's even tangentially relevant. Einstein won't mind. He's dead.
CONGRATULATIONS! You missed the entire point. Did you see the bit where I mentioned that a clock is not a measuring device?Going into deep physics is all well and good, but really when somebody looks at a clock they aren't wondering about relativity,
CONGRATULATIONS! You missed the entire point. Did you see the bit where I mentioned that a clock is not a measuring device?
Going into deep physics is all well and good, but really when somebody looks at a clock they aren't wondering about relativity, they're wondering whether or not they're going to be late to work. If the clock says '8:00' and the clock at their office a mile away says '4:50', then one of those clocks is wrong. It doesn't matter whether either or those numbers has any real meaning outside of Earth. What is important is that the guy's about to be fired because he forgot to replace the batteries in his clock and was too busy playing Minecraft to notice the clock wasn't actually moving. (And apparently too clueless to check the clock on his computer)
Sure, you can say that a clock isn't a 'meaningful measurement' but that's somewhat similar to saying that since a hundred dollar bill doesn't have any intrinsic value that it is worthless. When discussing human constructs in the context of the human experience, you should probably start by measuring the meaning of a clock to humanity.
It's okay to not pull out relativity every time it's even tangentially relevant. Einstein won't mind. He's dead.
We weren't discussing the human experience though, except in the sense of it's relationship to actual reality. If that's what you thought, then you missed the point, because nobody said anything about the practical use of clocks before you did.
CONGRATULATIONS! You missed the entire point. Did you see the bit where I mentioned that a clock is not a measuring device?Going into deep physics is all well and good, but really when somebody looks at a clock they aren't wondering about relativity,
Time doesn't exist on its own. It's just a concept invented by human minds.
Close; time exists, but the compartmentalization of it is a human construction. Time is a single, contiguous dimension like the 3 spatial dimensions, and every point of time exists simultaneously just as every point in space exists simultaneously. We move through time in much the same way that we move through space, but with much less control and much more difficulty in comprehending the nature of our motion.
Time doens't exist more than litres exists independantly of volume : it's a unit of measurement.
Close; time exists, but the compartmentalization of it is a human construction. Time is a single, contiguous dimension like the 3 spatial dimensions, and every point of time exists simultaneously just as every point in space exists simultaneously. We
Guys, time doesn't exist. A clock doesn't prove the existence of time and having a unit of measure to measure it doesn't prove it exists either. Based on current modes of logic, something cannot exist before it is proven to exist. We use relative measurements to construct an understanding of time but because of only having relative context it does not give it concrete meaning. We rely on time because we've decided that we as a society needed to at some point.
Guys, time doesn't exist. A clock doesn't prove the existence of time and having a unit of measure to measure it doesn't prove it exists either. Based on current modes of logic, something cannot exist before it is proven to exist. We use relative mea
A clock is always right, because clocks measure themselves. Time is a dimensional analogue of space that simply exists at all points and we move through it, as of yet incapable of measuring it except for our own subjective sense of chronology.
It is true that clocks don't measure time "directly". However, they are still affected by time; as they prove that time is real - if there were no such thing as time, only past, future, and the succession of events, there would be no reason for clocks not directly connected together to keep time with each other, even approximately.
The coincidence that you can place one clock based on a pendulum in a closed room, and another clock based on a tuning fork in another room, blocks away, and a third one using a quartz crystal in yet another room - and the relative rates of their repeated cycles will stay the same as they were when they were originally calibrated against a common standard - means that there is a uniform rate at which duration passes in all locations. It doesn't vary randomly in fits and starts (although special relativity shows us it can be varied in one specific and predictable way).
The phenomenon of uniformity in the rate of passage of events needs a name, and "time" is as good a name for it as any other.
Guys, time doesn't exist. A clock doesn't prove the existence of time and having a unit of measure to measure it doesn't prove it exists either. Based on current modes of logic, something cannot exist before it is proven to exist. We use relative measurements to construct an understanding of time but because of only having relative context it does not give it concrete meaning. We rely on time because we've decided that we as a society needed to at some point.
Actually, things exist, or not, regardless of what we have proven, or what we think we have proven.
A valid proof that something exists can't be constructed unless it has that thing's actual prior existence to stand on.
Now, while I think clocks do prove the existence of time, what I'm calling time is that which causes the apparent coincidence of clocks behaving in a consistent manner in measuring durations - instead of going faster or slower once they're isolated from each other. Time isn't an object you can pick up and carry, and as far as we know, it's not a direction you can move in either.
So, while I do think an abstraction exists that corresponds to the name 'time', it's valid to say that it doesn't have all the attributes of certain more concrete things that we may sometimes invest it with.
It is true that clocks don't measure time "directly". However, they are still affected by time; as they prove that time is real - if there were no such thing as time, only past, future, and the succession of events, there would be no reason for clock
We weren't discussing the human experience though, except in the sense of it's relationship to actual reality. If that's what you thought, then you missed the point, because nobody said anything about the practical use of clocks before you did.
It is obvious you have a great deal of knowledge about the dynamics of time with regards to relativity, but apparently a dismal lack of wisdom. This tangent was brought about by the English idiom 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day.' This statement is meant to indicate that even somebody who is misinformed will be correct occasionally. It is based on the fact that a clock which does not move will occasionally reflect the time, based on the system of time subdivision as used by humans.
You then took it to be a deep an intellectual statement connected to relativity and the fundamental nature of time in the universe, proving that you can posses a large amount of knowledge and still have absolutely no idea how to apply it to the subject at hand.
But by all means, continue to inform me about how I missed the point that Dilleux_Lepaire meant 'A broken clock is right twice a day' to indicate a belief that Bay_Falconer was correct out of happenstance rather than actual knowledge.
It is obvious you have a great deal of knowledge about the dynamics of time with regards to relativity, but apparently a dismal lack of wisdom. This tangent was brought about by the English idiom 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day.' This state
You then took it to be a deep an intellectual statement connected to relativity and the fundamental nature of time in the universe, proving that you can posses a large amount of knowledge and still have absolutely no idea how to apply it to the subject at hand.
This is incorrect; I knew exactly what Dilleux meant. Dilleux made a joke about my comment; Enigma made a joke about Dilleux's joke. I brought out the "deep philosophical/metaphycsical nature-of-time" bit to poke fun at their jokes. When it kept going, I kept talking about it because I enjoy this sort of thing. Then you came in and told me I had missed the point (which apparently just changed from "we're talking about practical uses of clocks, not metaphysics" to "it was an idiom, we weren't really talking about clocks at all"; backpedal much? ). I understood the original tangent; I responded in kind; and the conversation moved forward along the new tangent, as conversations do. If anyone is lacking wisdom here, it's the one who doesn't understand how conversations progress.
This is incorrect; I knew exactly what Dilleux meant. Dilleux made a joke about my comment; Enigma made a joke about Dilleux's joke. I brought out the "deep philosophical/metaphycsical nature-of-time" bit to poke fun at their jokes. When it kept goin
Kamigawa was not a weak set. Kamigawa standard and particularly block was a weaker meta. Do not confuse the meta with the set.
Kamigawa was full of cards that made the transition to legacy, vintage, and modern, and that is the proper measure of a sets power level. Hell some of them are even banned(counter/top).
Gatecrash is a weak set all around, there are really less then 5 or so cards that will make that transition and they are all niche instead of main.
Kamigawa has plenty of flavor and at least a couple of decks built just around the resources it started (ninjitsu and rats in general).
Mirrodin was only off a little, affinity was not broken in block, it is only broken when you consider the low cost artifacts available around it. They really only blew it a very tiny bit disciple of the vault and the artifact lands are the only really questionable problems.
Kamigawa was not a weak set. Kamigawa standard and particularly block was a weaker meta. Do not confuse the meta with the set.Kamigawa was full of cards that made the transition to legacy, vintage, and modern, and that is the proper measure of a sets
Yes, that is puzzling, since "the low cost artifacts available around it" were part of the same block. I'm thinking he meant that affinity wasn't inherently broken, in principle; maybe he was loan-translating and trying to say that affinity wasn't broken en bloc.
What[/quote]Yes, that is puzzling, since "the low cost artifacts available around it" were part of the same block.I'm thinking he meant that affinity wasn't inherently broken, in principle; maybe he was loan-translating and trying to say that affinit
Alara - Multicolor Zendikar - ? Scars of Mirrodin - Artifact Innistrad - Gimmick Return to Ravnica - Multicolor
I suppose Tribal is coming soon...
I'm not sure where to class Zendikar, but some have classed it as weak. It's true they used hidden treasures and full-art lands to sell it, but the economy tanked just before that year.
Moving Gimmick to the most challenging position, after Artifact, may eliminate the need for Weak, so Multicolor - Tribal - Artifact - Gimmick may turn out to be the new repeating cycle, although I suspect Wizards will want to have unpredictable variety for the future.
There is no such cycle.
People have been predicting future blocks based on perceived "cycles" since I started playing. They have been wrong. Again. And again. And again. But no matter what they keep tweaking the data until they can find some sort of pattern and thinking "Oh, this time it'll be different!" But it never is. It's just apophenia.
Remember when folks predicted that Time Spiral would be a graveyard-based set? After all, the three years prior to it were Artifact-Weak-Multicolor, just like Odyssey! (Ignore the fact that Saga block was enchantment-based.) Welp, that didn't work, so it must be because the pattern wasn't actually 'graveyard', it was 'weird', yeah! And hey, the pattern correctly predicted Lorwyn, so it must be correct! (Ignore the fact that Shadowmoor exists and doesn't match the 'pattern'.) Oh, hey, wait, but now Alara block's out, and that doesn't match the pattern at all...must be because they're changing the pattern, yeah! That must be it!
No, it isn't. The simple fact is that there is no such pattern. Popular themes recur, but there is no predetermined pattern to that recursion. (And 'weak' or 'gimmick' isn't a theme, so stop pretending it is one.)
Just wanted to address this particular point; I'm surprised nobody else did:There is no such cycle.People have been predicting future blocks based on perceived "cycles" since I started playing. They have been wrong. Again. And again. And again. But n
Yes, that is puzzling, since "the low cost artifacts available around it" were part of the same block. I'm thinking he meant that affinity wasn't inherently broken, in principle; maybe he was loan-translating and trying to say that affinity wasn't broken en bloc.
Affinity in a vacuum isn't broken, and you don't see Ghoultree ripping up Standard right now. Nor did Khalni Hydra . Both have affinity, but neither is broken. Come to think of it, convoke is a variant on affinity where you have to tap creatures to get the discount, and while it did see play, I wouldn't call it broken.
But I don't think anyone would say "Let's make things cheaper by encouraging people to play things that have this same cheap mechanic, have a half-dozen lands that support this, have an additional couple free artifacts that support this, and include sac outlets, and include a death trigger that can win you the game!" isn't broken.
What[/quote]Yes, that is puzzling, since "the low cost artifacts available around it" were part of the same block.I'm thinking he meant that affinity wasn't inherently broken, in principle; maybe he was loan-translating and trying to say that affinit
What I am really trying to say about afinity is that it is not broken :p Both mox goblins and red/green pumper infect can goldfish on the second turn, neither is really broken (even though they just banned invigorate). So speed is not really the problem as long as it is not also assured and can be countered.
Ravager affinity was not to fast. Frogmite affinity was not to fast. Even with disciple of the vault the deck was not to fast. The problem was that nothing else in the meta could match it. It was not that it was so good, it was that they did not print any good counter strategies. Disciple is the real culprit anyway since it does not let mid-range or control stabilize.
The same problem we have with jace the mind sculptor, when he was dominating it was because there was no good strategy against him. This is also why legacy is a better format then modern or standard. Legacy has a big enough card pool that even your cant fail strategy can be hated out. Why legacy has a real meta instead of just one deck, the problem modern cannot seem to handle.
This is oddly enough my main problem with modern. Control is not viable in modern and single deck archetypes tend to dominate until they ban a piece and then the next one developes. There is no real meta.
What I am really trying to say about afinity is that it is not broken :p Both mox goblins and red/green pumper infect can goldfish on the second turn, neither is really broken (even though they just banned invigorate). So speed is not really the prob
Skullclamp was banned at the time, I think, but the ban on the artifact lands happened later, I thought.
Oh, no: you're right, they were banned from Standard in June, 2004!
Skullclamp was banned at the time, I think, but the ban on the artifact lands happened later, I thought.Oh, no: you're right, they were banned from Standard in June, 2004!
Skullclamp was banned at the time, I think, but the ban on the artifact lands happened later, I thought.
Oh, no: you're right, they were banned from Standard in June, 2004!
Yeah, but how many non-degenerate things can you do with artifact lands? Not nearly as many as degenerate things you can do with them.
Skullclamp was banned at the time, I think, but the ban on the artifact lands happened later, I thought.Oh, no: you're right, they were banned from Standard in June, 2004![/quote]Yeah, but how many non-degenerate thing
). I understood the original tangent; I responded in kind; and the conversation moved forward along the new tangent, as conversations do. If anyone is lacking wisdom here, it's the one who doesn't understand how conversations progress.
