"I'm going to build a deck based around letting noone do anything constructive for 2 hours until I draw my infinite combo/tutor it up! That seems fun!"
I can get why someone would do this in something like a legacy GP, but people that build CASUAL commander deck like this are just beyond me. Mind you that I don't hate losing to inf combos, it's just the way some do it.
"I'm going to build a deck based around letting noone do anything constructive for 2 hours until I draw my infinite combo/tutor it up! That seems fun!"
I can get why someone would do this in something like a legacy GP, but people that build CASUAL commander deck like this are just beyond me. Mind you that I don't hate losing to inf combos, it's just the way some do it.
Hey man, my one shock elixir commander deck is awesome. I usually only have to draw my whole deck 10 times before I win! Maybe one day I'll even upgrade to running bolt!
You know you bring up a good point. What if a bunch of fans wanted a Mickey Mantle rookie card and that card had to retain all traits of the original. Would it be fair to give in to the fans and completely ignore those that made the card valuable? A good portion of people who have the sought after mtg cards are people who pulled the cards themselves. People just like you who invested their money in a rag tag goofy yet novel game 22 plus years ago? If you wanna play with cool cards and can't afford them, proxy them. The game isn't suffering in any facet really. In fact its probably do for a bit of a reduction. That's how the game goes. Personally I look at it like, hey I can play modern and have a good time with competitive decks. I can play a bit of Legacy. I don't out right need stuff that's reserved. Let it be someone's pot at the end of the rainbow for somebody. Makes no never mind to me.
Your comparison is bad. Mickey Mantle rookie card = AlphaUnderground Sea. Reprints of cards are simply the non rookie version, not a perfect replica of the alpha card. People aren't asking for rookie Mickey Mantle cards, they are merely asking for Mickey Mantle cards.
But there not. That's the thing. When you ask for these cards you are asking to pluck the most powerful mana sources in mtg from a time that should have great meaning to anyone who has a strong value of the game. I know it seems nonsensical. ABUR is essential mtg's rookie season, in baseball terms. It could only happen once. Those mistakes could only happen once...lol. If you want the non rookie version, be happy with watery grave. Stats aren't quite there but it still gets the job done 9 out of 10 times. And if thats all the value you place on mtg heritage I see no reason what so ever why you couldn't be satisfied proxying the cards you want. I mean newer players act like the older players who have the more powerful cards are being greedy by not wanting reprints but they fail to see that they are being just as greedy wanting a part of the game that wasn't available to them based purely on chance. One of the reasons I like the reserved list is it locks cards into the games lore. It holds up a few moments in time and says see this, I was there. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
No, ABUR is not mtg’s rookie season. Alpha/Beta are the rookie season. Here’s how you know: if you reprinted alpha/beta cards, absolutely nothing would happen to the price of the original alpha/beta, but the price of unlimited and revised would drop. This is how you differentiate the rookie Mickey Mantle card from any old Mickey Mantle card; it is how you can tell which card is an actual collector’s item. For an actual collector’s item, the collector wouldn’t even care about a reprint.
I think you’re coming from a more casual perspective if you’re suggesting things like watery grave, and offering proxying as an answer (which is not allowed in actual sanctioned tournaments). There isn’t anything wrong with a less competitive perspective, but for people who like the competitive aspect of the game, it just isn’t a solution.
You’re also referring to reserved list cards as if they’re a thing of yesterday, part of the game’s “lore.” To Legacy players, they are a thing of today. They still matter and we’d rather not have our format to actually turn into a thing of the past. Ask a bunch of legacy PLAYERS (they hold the majority of duals) about whether or not they want duals reprinted, and you might be surprised by how most of them answer.
I don’t know if you are using “you” to refer to me. You seem to think I am a new player who missed the boat on reserved list cards, but I already have my 40 duals and the other important reserved list cards. Having the revised version of my duals, I also have the most to “lose” from a reprint, but playing the game matters to me. I, and anyone else who bought revised cards, know that I didn’t buy the rookie version. If I were a real collector, I would have bought the alpha/beta versions.
"Pile shuffling [sic] is more random." It's not random. It's actually what magicians do to have a non-random 'shuffling' method. Every time I see someone do this, I feel the urge to grab the top card of his deck, hold it millimeters from his face, and say "Is this your card?"
"_CARD_ is good in limited." There are actual cards I would never play in Constructed that are awesome in limited. Lava Axe is a good example. But usually, this is...for C commons, really niche green cards (For some reason, green gets the lion's share of crippling overspecialization.), and cards that make ***** like Sorrow's Path and Carnival of Souls look playable by comparison.
"EDH is a format where any jank costing six mana or more is good." Can someone point me to this EDH tournament where Craw Wurm and Obsianus Golem have been game-winning plays? What about Aladdin's Ring?
Regarding powercreep and creatures vis-a-vis spells, I would suggest you remember Alpha'sbest-knownspells before you go down that train of thought. Alpha creatures were a necessary evil if you weren't playing red. I mean, the first banned creature was Kird Ape, for God's sake.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I can't fathom why anyone enjoys EDH. Takes an hour to play, no one knows what any card does, and every 4 turns the field gets wiped. Just seems like it gives people an excuse to jam legacy cards when they can't afford to play legacy.
"I'm going to build a deck based around letting noone do anything constructive for 2 hours until I draw my infinite combo/tutor it up! That seems fun!"
I can get why someone would do this in something like a legacy GP, but people that build CASUAL commander deck like this are just beyond me. Mind you that I don't hate losing to inf combos, it's just the way some do it.
If I played Commander I would totally do this. Then again I play eggs so I already know I'm a bad person.
Saying a format would be "better" is largely subjective. Legacy isn't Modern where things are banned based on some arbitrary rules Wizards has set for themselves. The cardpool allows the format to police itself.
Oh yeah, this I understand perfectly. Cards come in, they seem oppressive, and then the format adapts. When TNN came out many people said as much, and it makes sense to me. It even makes sense to me to initially think that TNN is just too format-warping, and should be banned, and then later change your mind because time has passed and the Doomsday scenarios did not come to pass. Before you thought things would get worse, so you wanted it banned. Now you no longer think things will get worse, so you want to keep it in.
The thing that weirds me out is the phenomenon where a person actually feels that a card is bad for the format, and yet wants to keep it in. I understand being against bannings when the person believes they will make the format worse. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, being against something that you honestly believe will worsen the format you play makes sense to me. I cannot understand being against something that you honestly believe will make the format better.
Imagine some dude being simultaneously against illegal immigration and deportation. He'll fight like hell to keep 'em out, but once they're in he'll fight just as hard to keep 'em in. Isn't that just weird? Just what is he thinking?
The one thing I hate about Magic that everyone seems to fall into the trap of doing is holding certain cards as "sacred cows" in a format and then being violently opposed to you when you so much as suggest a dissenting opinion about that card.
For the longest time in Legacy, it was Standstill. I thought the card was mediocre as a draw spell once Vial decks started proliferating, but nearly everyone I talked to about Legacy (the Legacy experts online and offline) would verbally assault me for even daring to question Standstill as a viable control tool.
Nowadays, I seem to find myself in these arguments about Remand in Modern. Everyone considers it a paragon of the format and wants to shoehorn it into nearly every blue deck. I think it's worse than Mana Leak in most decks and absolutely bad in Control decks like Mono Blue Tron, but everyone wants to fight me over this opinion because Remand is a "sacred cow" in Modern.
Wizards print good rares, players complain about cash grab. They print underwhelming rares, players complain that the cards suck. They spoil the best cards first, players complain about the insane prices of preorders. They spoil the meh cards first, players complain that this is the worst set ever.
So. I think I understand now.
As far as these forums are concerned, WotC can never do anything good because:
Card that is new and probably good = "pushed"
Card that is new and probably bad = "EDH/casual fodder"
Card that is a reprint = "lazy"
Card that is a better version of an older card = "power creep"
Card that is a weaker version of an older card = "worthless"
The one thing I can't understand is people who think that there is only one way to play, and everything else is just wrong.
Highly competitive players insist that netdecking is not only viable, but nearly essential for building a deck. Insisting that a deck must be capable of winning, standing against Tier 1 decks, and relevant to the meta, before it even gets built.
On the other side, there are players who believe that any sort of competitive decks should be banned as not being fun, or not creative, or just because they win in a linear fashion. They think that decks should ba all about creativity and inspiration, and any deck that tries to win efficiently is too powerful.
I have issues with both of these because I play with different people, for different reasons, and I play both styles of decks: casual jank for playing with my family, who aren't at all competitive, and serious competitive decks against my friends or local tournaments in a more competitive atmosphere. Both styles seem valid to me, and I can't imagine playing one exclusively.
RL: Don't understand why people can't see that reprints are absolutely necessary to a healthy format, and that a large financial barrier to entry is a bad thing if you're trying to grow your player base. The RL is strangling the formats it affects. When those formats die off completely, and the prices crash because nobody plays them anymore, the RL apologists will have only themselves and WotC's stubbornness to blame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
The one thing I hate about Magic that everyone seems to fall into the trap of doing is holding certain cards as "sacred cows" in a format and then being violently opposed to you when you so much as suggest a dissenting opinion about that card.
For the longest time in Legacy, it was Standstill. I thought the card was mediocre as a draw spell once Vial decks started proliferating, but nearly everyone I talked to about Legacy (the Legacy experts online and offline) would verbally assault me for even daring to question Standstill as a viable control tool.
Nowadays, I seem to find myself in these arguments about Remand in Modern. Everyone considers it a paragon of the format and wants to shoehorn it into nearly every blue deck. I think it's worse than Mana Leak in most decks and absolutely bad in Control decks like Mono Blue Tron, but everyone wants to fight me over this opinion because Remand is a "sacred cow" in Modern.
I agree that it has a little bit of that sacred cow element, and that it's bad in control, but it's way better than Mana Leak in decks like Twin and Merfolk. In the right deck, it's essentially a Time Walk that cantrips.
I can understand both sides of the Sliver thing, though I wonder if people against the new Slivers would just rather they never print any new Slivers ever, and just focused on a new race. I imagine if they had done a new race, the complaints would have been "but that's what Slivers do, where are Slivers". Which seems kind of unfair either way, since it seems like a loss for Wizards no matter what route they take.
The one thing I hate about Magic that everyone seems to fall into the trap of doing is holding certain cards as "sacred cows" in a format and then being violently opposed to you when you so much as suggest a dissenting opinion about that card.
For the longest time in Legacy, it was Standstill. I thought the card was mediocre as a draw spell once Vial decks started proliferating, but nearly everyone I talked to about Legacy (the Legacy experts online and offline) would verbally assault me for even daring to question Standstill as a viable control tool.
Nowadays, I seem to find myself in these arguments about Remand in Modern. Everyone considers it a paragon of the format and wants to shoehorn it into nearly every blue deck. I think it's worse than Mana Leak in most decks and absolutely bad in Control decks like Mono Blue Tron, but everyone wants to fight me over this opinion because Remand is a "sacred cow" in Modern.
I agree that it has a little bit of that sacred cow element, and that it's bad in control, but it's way better than Mana Leak in decks like Twin and Merfolk. In the right deck, it's essentially a Time Walk that cantrips.
I came in here to say the same thing. Remand is better in a deck like Twin because between turn 1 Serum Visions and turn 2 Remand, you should find it easier to find your pieces. In something like Control when you need the threat gone for good, Mana Leak IS indeed probably better. Why not run both?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Let's drop the Reserved List stuff. That goes here.
~vague statement~ I guess the thing I don't understand is somewhat related to the "sacred cow" thing. I have some (primarily casual or EDH) decks where I have deliberately cut cards that are strong but that I find unfun. I respect that others will have a different opinion, but stating "you have to run this because it is the best" doesn't necessarily apply outside of a tournament-geared deck (and sometimes doesn't apply in a tournament-geared deck).
Well, yeah, that happens a lot in EDH, which, while your deck should at least be competitive on the level necessary for your playgroup, is supposed to be a fun format above all else. It does happen to some extent in tournaments, especially lower-level ones, as well. Many pro players or strategy writers will go "Affinity/Melira Pod/Twin/Jund/Merfolk/my UR Vial Fae deck is the best and you should be playing it" and if their argument is compelling enough, their opinion and their reasoning will become widely accepted.
The one thing I hate about Magic that everyone seems to fall into the trap of doing is holding certain cards as "sacred cows" in a format and then being violently opposed to you when you so much as suggest a dissenting opinion about that card.
Well, to be fair, some people have really stupid opinions.
For example, vintage. Someone was playing with counterspell in a mono blue control deck. I suggested mana drain instead. Someone else comes in and berates me on suggesting a card that's worse than counterspell. I had to check twice if I had mistakenly put "mana leak", but no, it's mana *drain*.
Or when I said that Force of Will is the glue that holds vintage together (a quote from Smennen, and a phrase repeated in various vintage articles). Then someone accuses me of being "ignorant".
And, or course, the "no one plays wasteland in legacy" comment I've seen.
I can't fathom why anyone enjoys EDH. Takes an hour to play, no one knows what any card does, and every 4 turns the field gets wiped. Just seems like it gives people an excuse to jam legacy cards when they can't afford to play legacy.
We have a turn 2 wincon, but it's a bit of a Kaizo trap if it's possible for the rest of the board to cast two removal spells.
I don't get why players blame certain policies (e.g., NWO) for aspects of the game they don't like, when they don't even know what NWO is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I'm going to actually post about an opinion I don't understand.
Last standard season, one guy I knew who was primarily an EDH player build a boros standard deck. Most of the creatures in it just happened to be humans. I suggested that he run champion of the perish in that deck(because it was better than any other 1 drop he had, but he didn't want to because champion of the parish was "too tribal", and it wasn't a "tribal" deck.
I can't fathom why anyone enjoys EDH. Takes an hour to play, no one knows what any card does, and every 4 turns the field gets wiped. Just seems like it gives people an excuse to jam legacy cards when they can't afford to play legacy.
Sounds like you've never seen Duel Commander or a high powered multi-player EDH game.
I have seen high powered EDH, I've been at that table, hardcore EDH players complete ignore that it is suppose to be a casual format. And I have no idea why people on these forums think you can just tell other people what they're allowed to play in EDH? Like when has anyone let another player tell them what they're allowed to play?
Spark notes version: People thinking that Magic the Gathering has gone down the crapper because their design flaws are not the ones they get to win with these days. The truth is Magic has been and always will be kinda flawed. I guess.
I can't fathom why anyone enjoys EDH. Takes an hour to play, no one knows what any card does, and every 4 turns the field gets wiped. Just seems like it gives people an excuse to jam legacy cards when they can't afford to play legacy.
It depends on the group you are playing with (assuming we're talking multiplayer). Sometimes you get a group that is much more casual and you'll get more weird token decks or things that are more random like Norin, the Wary. Sometimes you play with a guy that essentially just bought a pre-made commander deck and added a couple of junk rares to make it slightly better.
And then there are the times where you have a really competitive group. In that case you can build multiple decks and sort of metagame. If everyone is playing removal spells and board wipes, you can counter that with a deck that doesn't rely on creatures to win the game. Or have a deck with graveyard interaction so you could in theory get the same creatures into play multiple times. One group I play with tends to play utility lands like Cabal Coffers and Maze of Ith, so I know that I probably would be best served having some ability to destroy lands in my commander decks.
I can't understand the mentality that a deck with only basic lands is automatically a "non-competitive janky home brew". I play UR Delver in Modern and I can definitely beat Pod and Jund and friends, not every game of course, but my point is its still a decent cohesive deck even without fetches/shocks.
Hi. I'm not entirely sure I should be posting in this thread, because I generally understand very well why people think some of the things that bother me. Knowing bothers me even more. Props to pierrebai for pointing all this madness out. Props to Georg51 for bringing a real problem down, though sadly it is very easy to see why people do what they do. And yes, the reserved list is the kind of thing Nicol Bolas would do, yet also the kind of thing spawned by the crazies who thought a lot of things in Limited were such good ideas (which clash because Nicol Bolas understands the concept of greed quite well). Also, preemptive strike: all those JTMS cultists need to have their minds wiped already.
Quote from MaxTheVool »
For me, it's people who are upset about the loss of... mana burn.
First off, there is a far bigger bandwagon against it than for it (solely because there was a statement on it, and not because of anything to do with the actual mechanic), so the reverse would be a better pick for this thread.
Getting rid of mana burn was one of the most idiotic changes to the game, though it's also one of the fairly few really idiotic changes to the game. The real purpose of mana burn--damn that silly "memory" garbage from Garfield--is to punish the player for making boneheaded mistakes or for simple excess. The reason why so many people swear it's irrelevant is because 1. the fact that Wizards put a statement out for it and 2. they never made those boneheaded mistakes. Per silly memory garbage, Wizards always tried to hide it over the years with the claims that it is a highly technical part of the game. This is definitely more boneheaded than falling for the actual mechanic, that's for sure.
It is far more likely the removal was done solely because whoever responsible probably kept losing to it. Mana burn makes sense for flavor, would probably be seen more often courtesy of the mana pool ruling it was paired with, and a few cards had been developed with it in mind (and this isn't something like ante, so). It is a net positive with no negatives, and a very easy to understand rule (the opposite being the only rationale Wizards would dare to put down). There's no "decision" to be made about it, because the entire rationale for removing it must be on a whim. If anything, getting rid of it and the rationale for so is what's actually irrelevant.
Here's a cool idea: some kind of Donate-like card that gives your opponent mana (I'm sure there's "target player" mana ramp), used against decks that like to burn through cards and either are built with or currently have poor activated mana-costing abilities to use.
Quote from Yeef »
It seems like this thread has become less "opinions you can't wrap your head around" and more "opinions you disagree with."
Quote from Sam I am »
I find it funny that there are so many posts here citing a particular action that the poster "doesn't understand", and then turn around and try to diagnose the "problem"
Well, Yeef, they're the same thing. That's where a lot of disagreement comes from; many opinions aren't actually opinions at all, but lies clashing with other lies or the occasional truth. Sam I am's post outlines all this splendidly.
Quote from hippohugger »
People who get butthurt about power creep always make me laugh.
Please don't try to sweep the very real issue of wildly shifting poles of power under the rug simply because you claim to personally enjoy it.
Quote from damagecase »
One that has gotten a little annoying over the years is people complaining about the reserved list. Why should every card ever printed be available to everyone? I mean I don't have power. In fact I have very few Vintage/Legacy cards and I'm not that entirely put off by it. I missed it. Oh well. I also missed the '70s and the '60s. I barely missed a-tracks. I missed disco, thankfully. So what. Things come and go. There are very few second chances in life, why should mtg be any different. Point of fact, I wish they would expand the reserve list. People have been saying the reserve list will eventually kill Legacy, yeah sure whatever. If anything its keeping Legacy and Vintage a live. What people often fail to recognize is Magic costs money. To make and play. By guaranteeing certain cards retain their value, you guarantee the life of the game moving forward. Ever heard the argument of defend your past is protecting your future? Identical principal.
It's sad that I can't even perceive this as trolling anymore due to how pervalent it is as legitimate thought. This monstrous paragraph is so far removed from reality that I don't even know how to respond to it.
Oh, and... please don't force stylistic things to disappear and reappear whenever you like.
Quote from hyalapterouslemur »
"Pile shuffling [sic] is more random." It's not random.
It's more random if you're not memorizing how to cheat your way through tournaments in the guise of a magic trick.
I dislike: a) getting rid of interrupts, b) getting rid of deactivating an artifact by tapping it, c) a creature dealing no damage as a blocker if it becomes tapped, d) getting rid of the one legend per deck rule, and e) removing "bury target x". I understand it was to simplify things, but, come on, was it really that hard?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can get why someone would do this in something like a legacy GP, but people that build CASUAL commander deck like this are just beyond me. Mind you that I don't hate losing to inf combos, it's just the way some do it.
Hey man, my one shock elixir commander deck is awesome. I usually only have to draw my whole deck 10 times before I win! Maybe one day I'll even upgrade to running bolt!
I think you’re coming from a more casual perspective if you’re suggesting things like watery grave, and offering proxying as an answer (which is not allowed in actual sanctioned tournaments). There isn’t anything wrong with a less competitive perspective, but for people who like the competitive aspect of the game, it just isn’t a solution.
You’re also referring to reserved list cards as if they’re a thing of yesterday, part of the game’s “lore.” To Legacy players, they are a thing of today. They still matter and we’d rather not have our format to actually turn into a thing of the past. Ask a bunch of legacy PLAYERS (they hold the majority of duals) about whether or not they want duals reprinted, and you might be surprised by how most of them answer.
I don’t know if you are using “you” to refer to me. You seem to think I am a new player who missed the boat on reserved list cards, but I already have my 40 duals and the other important reserved list cards. Having the revised version of my duals, I also have the most to “lose” from a reprint, but playing the game matters to me. I, and anyone else who bought revised cards, know that I didn’t buy the rookie version. If I were a real collector, I would have bought the alpha/beta versions.
"_CARD_ is good in limited." There are actual cards I would never play in Constructed that are awesome in limited. Lava Axe is a good example. But usually, this is...for C commons, really niche green cards (For some reason, green gets the lion's share of crippling overspecialization.), and cards that make ***** like Sorrow's Path and Carnival of Souls look playable by comparison.
"EDH is a format where any jank costing six mana or more is good." Can someone point me to this EDH tournament where Craw Wurm and Obsianus Golem have been game-winning plays? What about Aladdin's Ring?
Regarding powercreep and creatures vis-a-vis spells, I would suggest you remember Alpha's best-known spells before you go down that train of thought. Alpha creatures were a necessary evil if you weren't playing red. I mean, the first banned creature was Kird Ape, for God's sake.
On phasing:
If I played Commander I would totally do this. Then again I play eggs so I already know I'm a bad person.
Oh yeah, this I understand perfectly. Cards come in, they seem oppressive, and then the format adapts. When TNN came out many people said as much, and it makes sense to me. It even makes sense to me to initially think that TNN is just too format-warping, and should be banned, and then later change your mind because time has passed and the Doomsday scenarios did not come to pass. Before you thought things would get worse, so you wanted it banned. Now you no longer think things will get worse, so you want to keep it in.
The thing that weirds me out is the phenomenon where a person actually feels that a card is bad for the format, and yet wants to keep it in. I understand being against bannings when the person believes they will make the format worse. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, being against something that you honestly believe will worsen the format you play makes sense to me. I cannot understand being against something that you honestly believe will make the format better.
Imagine some dude being simultaneously against illegal immigration and deportation. He'll fight like hell to keep 'em out, but once they're in he'll fight just as hard to keep 'em in. Isn't that just weird? Just what is he thinking?
For the longest time in Legacy, it was Standstill. I thought the card was mediocre as a draw spell once Vial decks started proliferating, but nearly everyone I talked to about Legacy (the Legacy experts online and offline) would verbally assault me for even daring to question Standstill as a viable control tool.
Nowadays, I seem to find myself in these arguments about Remand in Modern. Everyone considers it a paragon of the format and wants to shoehorn it into nearly every blue deck. I think it's worse than Mana Leak in most decks and absolutely bad in Control decks like Mono Blue Tron, but everyone wants to fight me over this opinion because Remand is a "sacred cow" in Modern.
nothing to see here, please move on.
Highly competitive players insist that netdecking is not only viable, but nearly essential for building a deck. Insisting that a deck must be capable of winning, standing against Tier 1 decks, and relevant to the meta, before it even gets built.
On the other side, there are players who believe that any sort of competitive decks should be banned as not being fun, or not creative, or just because they win in a linear fashion. They think that decks should ba all about creativity and inspiration, and any deck that tries to win efficiently is too powerful.
I have issues with both of these because I play with different people, for different reasons, and I play both styles of decks: casual jank for playing with my family, who aren't at all competitive, and serious competitive decks against my friends or local tournaments in a more competitive atmosphere. Both styles seem valid to me, and I can't imagine playing one exclusively.
RL: Don't understand why people can't see that reprints are absolutely necessary to a healthy format, and that a large financial barrier to entry is a bad thing if you're trying to grow your player base. The RL is strangling the formats it affects. When those formats die off completely, and the prices crash because nobody plays them anymore, the RL apologists will have only themselves and WotC's stubbornness to blame.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
I agree that it has a little bit of that sacred cow element, and that it's bad in control, but it's way better than Mana Leak in decks like Twin and Merfolk. In the right deck, it's essentially a Time Walk that cantrips.
I came in here to say the same thing. Remand is better in a deck like Twin because between turn 1 Serum Visions and turn 2 Remand, you should find it easier to find your pieces. In something like Control when you need the threat gone for good, Mana Leak IS indeed probably better. Why not run both?
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)~vague statement~ I guess the thing I don't understand is somewhat related to the "sacred cow" thing. I have some (primarily casual or EDH) decks where I have deliberately cut cards that are strong but that I find unfun. I respect that others will have a different opinion, but stating "you have to run this because it is the best" doesn't necessarily apply outside of a tournament-geared deck (and sometimes doesn't apply in a tournament-geared deck).
Draft my cube! (630 cards)
Hope that helps.
Well, to be fair, some people have really stupid opinions.
For example, vintage. Someone was playing with counterspell in a mono blue control deck. I suggested mana drain instead. Someone else comes in and berates me on suggesting a card that's worse than counterspell. I had to check twice if I had mistakenly put "mana leak", but no, it's mana *drain*.
Or when I said that Force of Will is the glue that holds vintage together (a quote from Smennen, and a phrase repeated in various vintage articles). Then someone accuses me of being "ignorant".
And, or course, the "no one plays wasteland in legacy" comment I've seen.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
We have a turn 2 wincon, but it's a bit of a Kaizo trap if it's possible for the rest of the board to cast two removal spells.
I don't get why players blame certain policies (e.g., NWO) for aspects of the game they don't like, when they don't even know what NWO is.
On phasing:
Last standard season, one guy I knew who was primarily an EDH player build a boros standard deck. Most of the creatures in it just happened to be humans. I suggested that he run champion of the perish in that deck(because it was better than any other 1 drop he had, but he didn't want to because champion of the parish was "too tribal", and it wasn't a "tribal" deck.
Sounds like you've never seen Duel Commander or a high powered multi-player EDH game.
Spark notes version: People thinking that Magic the Gathering has gone down the crapper because their design flaws are not the ones they get to win with these days. The truth is Magic has been and always will be kinda flawed. I guess.
It depends on the group you are playing with (assuming we're talking multiplayer). Sometimes you get a group that is much more casual and you'll get more weird token decks or things that are more random like Norin, the Wary. Sometimes you play with a guy that essentially just bought a pre-made commander deck and added a couple of junk rares to make it slightly better.
And then there are the times where you have a really competitive group. In that case you can build multiple decks and sort of metagame. If everyone is playing removal spells and board wipes, you can counter that with a deck that doesn't rely on creatures to win the game. Or have a deck with graveyard interaction so you could in theory get the same creatures into play multiple times. One group I play with tends to play utility lands like Cabal Coffers and Maze of Ith, so I know that I probably would be best served having some ability to destroy lands in my commander decks.
First off, there is a far bigger bandwagon against it than for it (solely because there was a statement on it, and not because of anything to do with the actual mechanic), so the reverse would be a better pick for this thread.
Getting rid of mana burn was one of the most idiotic changes to the game, though it's also one of the fairly few really idiotic changes to the game. The real purpose of mana burn--damn that silly "memory" garbage from Garfield--is to punish the player for making boneheaded mistakes or for simple excess. The reason why so many people swear it's irrelevant is because 1. the fact that Wizards put a statement out for it and 2. they never made those boneheaded mistakes. Per silly memory garbage, Wizards always tried to hide it over the years with the claims that it is a highly technical part of the game. This is definitely more boneheaded than falling for the actual mechanic, that's for sure.
It is far more likely the removal was done solely because whoever responsible probably kept losing to it. Mana burn makes sense for flavor, would probably be seen more often courtesy of the mana pool ruling it was paired with, and a few cards had been developed with it in mind (and this isn't something like ante, so). It is a net positive with no negatives, and a very easy to understand rule (the opposite being the only rationale Wizards would dare to put down). There's no "decision" to be made about it, because the entire rationale for removing it must be on a whim. If anything, getting rid of it and the rationale for so is what's actually irrelevant.
Here's a cool idea: some kind of Donate-like card that gives your opponent mana (I'm sure there's "target player" mana ramp), used against decks that like to burn through cards and either are built with or currently have poor activated mana-costing abilities to use.
Well, Yeef, they're the same thing. That's where a lot of disagreement comes from; many opinions aren't actually opinions at all, but lies clashing with other lies or the occasional truth. Sam I am's post outlines all this splendidly.
Please don't try to sweep the very real issue of wildly shifting poles of power under the rug simply because you claim to personally enjoy it.
It's sad that I can't even perceive this as trolling anymore due to how pervalent it is as legitimate thought. This monstrous paragraph is so far removed from reality that I don't even know how to respond to it.
Oh, and... please don't force stylistic things to disappear and reappear whenever you like.
It's more random if you're not memorizing how to cheat your way through tournaments in the guise of a magic trick.