It's hilarious to see the complaints about ALL the new removal being useless to take down Hangarback Walker, precisely when like 80% of that new removal seemed to be tailor made to deal with it at a reasonable price, every Eldrazi removal (And Stasis Snare) exiles the Walker, at 3 mana in average, when the Walker player has already spent at minimum 4 mana or more, so you're getting the "removal cheaper than creature" premise done, but nooo, sire, they all want the most broken removal like Swords to Plowshares and Path to Exile, because (It's fair that removal costs 1 and MUST be unconditional, ALWAYS, or worse, they want every removal to be Vindicate)...
Actually, if Vindicate were in this set there would probably be people saying that it sucks because it's sorcery speed, costs 3 mana, and doesn't completely take care of Hangarback Walker...
You laugh about it, but the instant spell that costs 3, only takes 1 color of mana, and DOES take care of most hangerback walkers people ARE complaining about.
Right because the fact that it only hits creatures with power three or less isn't relevant at all. It's a poor removal spell.
It's a poor removal spell IN WHAT CONTEXT? In the context of Legacy or Modern? Sure. In the context of standard? What else deals with Hangerback Walker as efficiently - as well as a significant number of other creature. The days of one stop shopping for removal are pretty much gone.
Non-BFZ cards, post rotation that can adequately deal with a Hangarback Walker
Abzan Charm - Conditional - 3 mana instant in 3 colors Suspension Field - Conditional - 2 mana - sorcery speed (Silkwrap is better vs. Walker) Blessed Reincarnation - unconditional, 4 mana instant, in blue, risky Burn Away - This will probably always get rid of it, 5 mana instant Silkwrap - Good answer in white, 2 mana - sorcery speed Fate Forgotten - Unconditional, 3 mana instant, in white
That's all of them. Which would you rather run? Notice that you need 3 colors if you want to deal with it in black?
Which card do you think is best to deal with that card. It's a powerhouse in Standard and will need an answer. If you're not in white, then you are probably going to be looking here for an answer. In the context of standard it is NOT a poor removal spell.
I get that people don't like this set very much for whatever reasons. But its dumb to just dismiss cards out of hand without actually taking a few minutes to think about the environment these cards are going to exist in. Yes, Complete Disregard doesn't deal with Rhinos (well outside of a Dampening Pulse - though I'm not suggesting running that) and other big creatures. But other things do. You'll (gasp) need different cards to deal with these different cards.
That in itself is kind of an issue. If removal cards are dead except against specific threats from specific decks, Control as an archetype loses viability. And with the nerfed burn in this set, the push toward endless midrange mirrors continues.
Don't forget that you can deal with both Rhino and Hangarback by countering it, be it with Spell Shrivel (Most of the time, they won't have the 4 to pay for it), if the Abzan player waits until having 4 more mana to cast their Rhino, then you've delayed their plan by 4 turns, or you can use Horribly Awry, which can hit both of them too (Unless they spend 10 to make a 5-power Hangarback, which is kinda absurd). Or you can use Clash of Wills or Calculated Dismissal to make them poof. Horribly Awry and Clash of Wills can both be played on turn 2, shutting down effectively ANY creature that dares to try to get played there (Don't know if there's a 5-power creature for 2 mana that can escape Horribly Awry).
I reiterate my point, there shouldn't be an unconditional, allmighty card that would trump EVERYTHING by one or two mana, you should have played during Urza-Masques season, where Mono U permission decks basically plowed through anything that took a seat in front of them.
It's hilarious to see the complaints about ALL the new removal being useless to take down Hangarback Walker, precisely when like 80% of that new removal seemed to be tailor made to deal with it at a reasonable price, every Eldrazi removal (And Stasis Snare) exiles the Walker, at 3 mana in average, when the Walker player has already spent at minimum 4 mana or more, so you're getting the "removal cheaper than creature" premise done, but nooo, sire, they all want the most broken removal like Swords to Plowshares and Path to Exile, because (It's fair that removal costs 1 and MUST be unconditional, ALWAYS, or worse, they want every removal to be Vindicate)...
Actually, if Vindicate were in this set there would probably be people saying that it sucks because it's sorcery speed, costs 3 mana, and doesn't completely take care of Hangarback Walker...
You laugh about it, but the instant spell that costs 3, only takes 1 color of mana, and DOES take care of most hangerback walkers people ARE complaining about.
Right because the fact that it only hits creatures with power three or less isn't relevant at all. It's a poor removal spell.
It's a poor removal spell IN WHAT CONTEXT? In the context of Legacy or Modern? Sure. In the context of standard? What else deals with Hangerback Walker as efficiently - as well as a significant number of other creature. The days of one stop shopping for removal are pretty much gone.
Non-BFZ cards, post rotation that can adequately deal with a Hangarback Walker
Abzan Charm - Conditional - 3 mana instant in 3 colors Suspension Field - Conditional - 2 mana - sorcery speed (Silkwrap is better vs. Walker) Blessed Reincarnation - unconditional, 4 mana instant, in blue, risky Burn Away - This will probably always get rid of it, 5 mana instant Silkwrap - Good answer in white, 2 mana - sorcery speed Fate Forgotten - Unconditional, 3 mana instant, in white
That's all of them. Which would you rather run? Notice that you need 3 colors if you want to deal with it in black?
Which card do you think is best to deal with that card. It's a powerhouse in Standard and will need an answer. If you're not in white, then you are probably going to be looking here for an answer. In the context of standard it is NOT a poor removal spell.
I get that people don't like this set very much for whatever reasons. But its dumb to just dismiss cards out of hand without actually taking a few minutes to think about the environment these cards are going to exist in. Yes, Complete Disregard doesn't deal with Rhinos (well outside of a Dampening Pulse - though I'm not suggesting running that) and other big creatures. But other things do. You'll (gasp) need different cards to deal with these different cards.
It's fine to have conditional removal - it's not fine to have every removal spell be conditional and extremely restrictive (less broad applications). If every removal spell is heinously restrictive and hits on parts or quarters of decks, then you're just much better off playing things that you know, actually kill your opponent and gain you CA, like the dumb mid-range creatures that WoTC loves so damn much. That's why a lot of us hate Standard and haven't played since ISD. If we wanted to play limited, we'd play limited (and I do like draft). If any halfway sane player who isn't a mid-range junky wants to play Constructed my advice is to definitely NOT play Standard, unless that's absolutely the only constructed events in your area. Standard sucks big gorilla nuts.
Actually, if Vindicate were in this set there would probably be people saying that it sucks because it's sorcery speed, costs 3 mana, and doesn't completely take care of Hangarback Walker...
You laugh about it, but the instant spell that costs 3, only takes 1 color of mana, and DOES take care of most hangerback walkers people ARE complaining about.
Right because the fact that it only hits creatures with power three or less isn't relevant at all. It's a poor removal spell.
It's a poor removal spell IN WHAT CONTEXT? In the context of Legacy or Modern? Sure. In the context of standard? What else deals with Hangerback Walker as efficiently - as well as a significant number of other creature. The days of one stop shopping for removal are pretty much gone.
Non-BFZ cards, post rotation that can adequately deal with a Hangarback Walker
Abzan Charm - Conditional - 3 mana instant in 3 colors Suspension Field - Conditional - 2 mana - sorcery speed (Silkwrap is better vs. Walker) Blessed Reincarnation - unconditional, 4 mana instant, in blue, risky Burn Away - This will probably always get rid of it, 5 mana instant Silkwrap - Good answer in white, 2 mana - sorcery speed Fate Forgotten - Unconditional, 3 mana instant, in white
That's all of them. Which would you rather run? Notice that you need 3 colors if you want to deal with it in black?
Which card do you think is best to deal with that card. It's a powerhouse in Standard and will need an answer. If you're not in white, then you are probably going to be looking here for an answer. In the context of standard it is NOT a poor removal spell.
I get that people don't like this set very much for whatever reasons. But its dumb to just dismiss cards out of hand without actually taking a few minutes to think about the environment these cards are going to exist in. Yes, Complete Disregard doesn't deal with Rhinos (well outside of a Dampening Pulse - though I'm not suggesting running that) and other big creatures. But other things do. You'll (gasp) need different cards to deal with these different cards.
It's fine to have conditional removal - it's not fine to have every removal spell be conditional and extremely restrictive (less broad applications). If every removal spell is heinously restrictive and hits on parts or quarters of decks, then you're just much better off playing things that you know, actually kill your opponent and gain you CA, like the dumb mid-range creatures that WoTC loves so damn much. That's why a lot of us hate Standard and haven't played since ISD. If we wanted to play limited, we'd play limited (and I do like draft). If any halfway sane player who isn't a mid-range junky wants to play Constructed my advice is to definitely NOT play Standard, unless that's absolutely the only constructed events in your area. Standard sucks big gorilla nuts.
And that's a totally fair assessment from one player's perspective. The problem is taking that view of standard, and then deciding that since you don't like that environment, and this set doesn't change that environment, that this set is bad - when it isn't. It just isn't changing the status quo in a direction that you'd like (not saying that you're implying this, just its the general consensus).
Personally, I think one size fits all solutions to problems in these environments is damaging - because efficient, unconditional removal invalidates a large portion of potential playable cards. The whole "neat, but dies to removal" jab against everything goes AWAY when removal is conditional and you have to run multiple types in order to deal with different kinds of decks.
The limited for this set seems fun as hell. And, for standard, what I love about it - is that it doesn't browbeat you will deck concepts like some other sets do. There are decks to be made here, and they will require some exploration. That exploration is what I find engaging, not the competitive scene as much, so for us rogue deck builders, the set looks great.
You laugh about it, but the instant spell that costs 3, only takes 1 color of mana, and DOES take care of most hangerback walkers people ARE complaining about.
Right because the fact that it only hits creatures with power three or less isn't relevant at all. It's a poor removal spell.
It's a poor removal spell IN WHAT CONTEXT? In the context of Legacy or Modern? Sure. In the context of standard? What else deals with Hangerback Walker as efficiently - as well as a significant number of other creature. The days of one stop shopping for removal are pretty much gone.
Non-BFZ cards, post rotation that can adequately deal with a Hangarback Walker
Abzan Charm - Conditional - 3 mana instant in 3 colors Suspension Field - Conditional - 2 mana - sorcery speed (Silkwrap is better vs. Walker) Blessed Reincarnation - unconditional, 4 mana instant, in blue, risky Burn Away - This will probably always get rid of it, 5 mana instant Silkwrap - Good answer in white, 2 mana - sorcery speed Fate Forgotten - Unconditional, 3 mana instant, in white
That's all of them. Which would you rather run? Notice that you need 3 colors if you want to deal with it in black?
Which card do you think is best to deal with that card. It's a powerhouse in Standard and will need an answer. If you're not in white, then you are probably going to be looking here for an answer. In the context of standard it is NOT a poor removal spell.
I get that people don't like this set very much for whatever reasons. But its dumb to just dismiss cards out of hand without actually taking a few minutes to think about the environment these cards are going to exist in. Yes, Complete Disregard doesn't deal with Rhinos (well outside of a Dampening Pulse - though I'm not suggesting running that) and other big creatures. But other things do. You'll (gasp) need different cards to deal with these different cards.
It's fine to have conditional removal - it's not fine to have every removal spell be conditional and extremely restrictive (less broad applications). If every removal spell is heinously restrictive and hits on parts or quarters of decks, then you're just much better off playing things that you know, actually kill your opponent and gain you CA, like the dumb mid-range creatures that WoTC loves so damn much. That's why a lot of us hate Standard and haven't played since ISD. If we wanted to play limited, we'd play limited (and I do like draft). If any halfway sane player who isn't a mid-range junky wants to play Constructed my advice is to definitely NOT play Standard, unless that's absolutely the only constructed events in your area. Standard sucks big gorilla nuts.
And that's a totally fair assessment from one player's perspective. The problem is taking that view of standard, and then deciding that since you don't like that environment, and this set doesn't change that environment, that this set is bad - when it isn't. It just isn't changing the status quo in a direction that you'd like (not saying that you're implying this, just its the general consensus).
Personally, I think one size fits all solutions to problems in these environments is damaging - because efficient, unconditional removal invalidates a large portion of potential playable cards. The whole "neat, but dies to removal" jab against everything goes AWAY when removal is conditional and you have to run multiple types in order to deal with different kinds of decks.
The limited for this set seems fun as hell. And, for standard, what I love about it - is that it doesn't browbeat you will deck concepts like some other sets do. There are decks to be made here, and they will require some exploration. That exploration is what I find engaging, not the competitive scene as much, so for us rogue deck builders, the set looks great.
Yes, I can say the set is bad when cards are overcosted, overly restrictive, and unnecessarily slow (e.g. made to be a sorcery). That's BFZ in its essence - a painfully slow, overcosted, underpowered monstrosity. They could have lopped off 1 and 2 CMC from a lot of cards and not have had a problem. You simply don't understand that removal is playable because it provides you a tempo boost and prevents you from dying (they're almost one and the same). If removal becomes more expensive and more restrictive you'd be a DOOFUS to play them when you could just be jamming CA-Mid-range idiots and actually win the game. Removal are 1 for 1 interactions that don't win the game. Creatures now-a-days are CA engines and also win you the game. It's dumb. If I wanted an environment where removal sucked, and you're better off jamming slightly bigger creatures than your opponents, I'd play draft and sealed. That's not something I want from Constructed. A lot of people agree with me considering how popular Modern has become where you actually get to play with good removal like Path, Bolt, Terminate, Pulse, etc.
Right because the fact that it only hits creatures with power three or less isn't relevant at all. It's a poor removal spell.
It's a poor removal spell IN WHAT CONTEXT? In the context of Legacy or Modern? Sure. In the context of standard? What else deals with Hangerback Walker as efficiently - as well as a significant number of other creature. The days of one stop shopping for removal are pretty much gone.
Non-BFZ cards, post rotation that can adequately deal with a Hangarback Walker
Abzan Charm - Conditional - 3 mana instant in 3 colors Suspension Field - Conditional - 2 mana - sorcery speed (Silkwrap is better vs. Walker) Blessed Reincarnation - unconditional, 4 mana instant, in blue, risky Burn Away - This will probably always get rid of it, 5 mana instant Silkwrap - Good answer in white, 2 mana - sorcery speed Fate Forgotten - Unconditional, 3 mana instant, in white
That's all of them. Which would you rather run? Notice that you need 3 colors if you want to deal with it in black?
Which card do you think is best to deal with that card. It's a powerhouse in Standard and will need an answer. If you're not in white, then you are probably going to be looking here for an answer. In the context of standard it is NOT a poor removal spell.
I get that people don't like this set very much for whatever reasons. But its dumb to just dismiss cards out of hand without actually taking a few minutes to think about the environment these cards are going to exist in. Yes, Complete Disregard doesn't deal with Rhinos (well outside of a Dampening Pulse - though I'm not suggesting running that) and other big creatures. But other things do. You'll (gasp) need different cards to deal with these different cards.
It's fine to have conditional removal - it's not fine to have every removal spell be conditional and extremely restrictive (less broad applications). If every removal spell is heinously restrictive and hits on parts or quarters of decks, then you're just much better off playing things that you know, actually kill your opponent and gain you CA, like the dumb mid-range creatures that WoTC loves so damn much. That's why a lot of us hate Standard and haven't played since ISD. If we wanted to play limited, we'd play limited (and I do like draft). If any halfway sane player who isn't a mid-range junky wants to play Constructed my advice is to definitely NOT play Standard, unless that's absolutely the only constructed events in your area. Standard sucks big gorilla nuts.
And that's a totally fair assessment from one player's perspective. The problem is taking that view of standard, and then deciding that since you don't like that environment, and this set doesn't change that environment, that this set is bad - when it isn't. It just isn't changing the status quo in a direction that you'd like (not saying that you're implying this, just its the general consensus).
Personally, I think one size fits all solutions to problems in these environments is damaging - because efficient, unconditional removal invalidates a large portion of potential playable cards. The whole "neat, but dies to removal" jab against everything goes AWAY when removal is conditional and you have to run multiple types in order to deal with different kinds of decks.
The limited for this set seems fun as hell. And, for standard, what I love about it - is that it doesn't browbeat you will deck concepts like some other sets do. There are decks to be made here, and they will require some exploration. That exploration is what I find engaging, not the competitive scene as much, so for us rogue deck builders, the set looks great.
Yes, I can say the set is bad when cards are overcosted, overly restrictive, and unnecessarily slow (e.g. made to be a sorcery). That's BFZ in its essence - a painfully slow, overcosted, underpowered monstrosity. They could have lopped off 1 and 2 CMC from a lot of cards and not have had a problem. You simply don't understand that removal is playable because it provides you a tempo boost and prevents you from dying (they're almost one and the same). If removal becomes more expensive and more restrictive you'd be a DOOFUS to play them when you could just be jamming CA-Mid-range idiots and actually win the game. Removal are 1 for 1 interactions that don't win the game. Creatures now-a-days are CA engines and also win you the game. It's dumb. If I wanted an environment where removal sucked, and you're better off jamming slightly bigger creatures than your opponents, I'd play draft and sealed. That's not something I want from Constructed. A lot of people agree with me considering how popular Modern has become where you actually get to play with good removal like Path, Bolt, Terminate, Pulse, etc.
I'd like to see you back up your claim with examples. What specific cards are over-costed and overly restricted in your estimation? How would you change them, in your expert opinion? What is their role in the format as a whole, and how do your changes improve their role? What cards are unnecessarily slow? What would be the effect on changing their timing be on the format? How do you adequately evaluate processing cards and devoid, in your extensive experience in the format?
You're complaining that creature are too good so if you want to play standard - its an arms race. And that you would rather play modern because you don't like this environment. Then your suggested solution, based on your criticism of this set, is to print BETTER creatures, and BETTER removal.
You realize that the ACTUAL way to fix that is to print weaker removal and weaker creatures right? The other way causes power creep. If they just print the same removal (or similar enough that it makes no different) as exists in modern there will be basically NO DIFFERENCE between the formats right? Maybe Wizards is happy for you to enjoy modern, but allow other people to also have a constructed format they can enjoy that doesn't feel the same with just a few different cards?
I understand how removal works, I've been playing this game for over 20 years. Do you know how they dealt with unconditional removal in the past? Lots of protection, and removal dodging creatures. When you have unconditional removal (and counters) at a low casting cost then all but the most efficient creatures become irrelevant. When you compensate for strong removal by printing bonkers creatures, then you have the standard environment which you just said that you don't like - people playing the most efficiently large creatures they can jam in their decks.
So you can have cheap, unconditional removal, and reasonable creatures - but then combo and control basically dominate the format. Or else you can have cheap, unconditional removal, but all playable creatures dodge removal (making the removal irrelevant). Or you can have cheap, unconditional removal, and hyper efficient creatures that need to be answered immediately or you lose (like today). Or you can have cheap, conditional removal and reasonable creatures (with higher cost unconditional removal).
BFZ appears to be trying to fix the environment that you say you don't like - but you are still complaining about it. Explain it better, if you can, because you don't sound rational in your evaluation - and I would really like to understand where you're coming from.
I swear I first read it as Wingbonger...something tells me that "As Long as Wingbonger is paired with another creature, both creatures have weed." wouldn't be as good. Seems solid for limited.
So I believe this comment went unnoticed on Maro's tumblr (it was a little before the other posts about creatures vs spells):
Quote from Mark Rosewater »
Spells *are* as powerful as creatures. If you played an equal number of each, that would mean spells are more powerful than creatures. The continued board presence of creatures along with their ability to repeatedly do damage means when they are at equal power levels, you play more creatures.
So, spells are as powerful as creatures because creatures are more powerful than spells? Great logic there, Maro.
* * *
For the record, I'm okay with the reduction in power levels and BFZ looks okay to me, I don't plan on drafting any because I generally dislike drafting but I think the set will make for an interesting Standard after Khans rotates. But it would be nice to see some more interesting (and better) spells.
Im relatively new to the site but played Magic for a bit (Since Onslaught but stopped at Mirrodin till RTR). After reading through the spoilers and seeing all the cards, I dont see why this set gets all the hate. They cannot applease everyone within a set.
Yeah that logic makes no sense to me. If creatures were equally powerful with spells, you'd want to have more spells, which are disposable and often cantrip or 2-for-1 and otherwise require less continued investment due to their once-off nature, and less permanents which can serve as mana dumps and get swept by sweepers if you board too many.
Well, the logic is bad because if creatures and spells are equally powerful then that means they are equal taking into consideration all aspects including how they are played (e.g. persistence, instant speed, vulnerability).
By acknowledging any additional attribute of either type and saying it's better or worse because of that is also acknowledging that they're not equal.
Well given those cards are largely intended for limited, maybe they decided red needed a limited buff and green a nerf. It could be a direct result of playtesting.
Lots of reasons to hate this bad set, but I don't think removal being unequal between colors is a biggy
Well given those cards are largely intended for limited, maybe they decided red needed a limited buff and green a nerf. It could be a direct result of playtesting.
a buff with a sorcery? And black (black, not white) can exile all the creatures the red spell can kill?
I'm starting to notice something. We all feel those 3 removal spells arent evenly powered, yet we disagree on which one of those is the strongest and which one is the weakest. Could it be that we have no empirical evidence of our afirmations so we are ending up speculating and wild guessing? Wouldn't that account for all the disparity present in our evaluations?
I hope I'm not coming as a radical dude, but I suggest we should probably play the set before judging it.
I don't know, maybe?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Breathe in.
Breathe out.
Let your passion give you strength for the task at hand... And let the bashing begin!
That in itself is kind of an issue. If removal cards are dead except against specific threats from specific decks, Control as an archetype loses viability. And with the nerfed burn in this set, the push toward endless midrange mirrors continues.
Control as an archtype is the definition of endless matches. Midrange is less so. Furthermore the fact that a long match is more interesting, because there are more decisions to make, is a big plus.
But as I see it, Atarka Red will be a nightmare to beat for most decks. The mass removal comes to late, your early creatures deal to much damage to handle, if you are not red yourself. I played against some friends with the new standard, and my Atarka red was just crushing. I mean: Hordeling outburst + Atarka's Command + Monastery swiftspear is 12 damage! And that play came up alot.
Poor reading comprehension. His sentence indicates that the mid-range archetype will be omnipresent, not the duration of matches...
Im relatively new to the site but played Magic for a bit (Since Onslaught but stopped at Mirrodin till RTR). After reading through the spoilers and seeing all the cards, I dont see why this set gets all the hate. They cannot applease everyone within a set.
When I read your post, i was immediately shocked it wasn't posted by me. (same trajectory and line of thinking)
How is mono red aggro going to survive? Depend on wild slash and exquisite firecraft? And I guess collateral damage...
Dracnoic Roar needs a guy on the field and a dragon in your hand/field which isn't typical in a low curve mono red deck.
Does RDW NEED to survive? By my reckoning, it's been the single longest-enduring top-tier deck in the history of Magic.
It's not like the entire Aggro archetype is unplayable now. RDW will just have to adapt if the monocolored deck isn't there. Fixing is amazing right now, so I suspect it won't be too difficult.
If you don't have RDW as a playable deck, control decks will rise up from the ground and dominate matches. This will lead to increase in tournament time and bored players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy. Check out the Shop Thread
Well given those cards are largely intended for limited, maybe they decided red needed a limited buff and green a nerf. It could be a direct result of playtesting.
a buff with a sorcery? And black (black, not white) can exile all the creatures the red spell can kill?
I'm starting to notice something. We all feel those 3 removal spells arent evenly powered, yet we disagree on which one of those is the strongest and which one is the weakest. Could it be that we have no empirical evidence of our afirmations so we are ending up speculating and wild guessing? Wouldn't that account for all the disparity present in our evaluations?
I hope I'm not coming as a radical dude, but I suggest we should probably play the set before judging it.
If I wanted an environment where removal sucked, and you're better off jamming slightly bigger creatures than your opponents, I'd play draft and sealed.
Wait, what? Removal is king in limited. I play limited exclusively and most matches and tournaments come down to who has more/better answers, and "answers" in Limited are 90% removal and 10% counterspells.
How is mono red aggro going to survive? Depend on wild slash and exquisite firecraft? And I guess collateral damage...
Dracnoic Roar needs a guy on the field and a dragon in your hand/field which isn't typical in a low curve mono red deck.
Does RDW NEED to survive? By my reckoning, it's been the single longest-enduring top-tier deck in the history of Magic.
It's not like the entire Aggro archetype is unplayable now. RDW will just have to adapt if the monocolored deck isn't there. Fixing is amazing right now, so I suspect it won't be too difficult.
If you don't have RDW as a playable deck, control decks will rise up from the ground and dominate matches. This will lead to increase in tournament time and bored players.
Isn't that just true for a hyper-aggressive deck that's competitive in the format, but not necessarily RDW? If "RDW" runs, say, ten green spells and is roughly as strong as it was pre-rotation, the tournament scene balance shouldn't be threatened...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
I agree here, it is impossible to think red won't do well in this environment, with Swiftspears, Abbots, Outbursts, and the ability to still go Atarka.
Yeah that logic makes no sense to me. If creatures were equally powerful with spells, you'd want to have more spells, which are disposable and often cantrip or 2-for-1 and otherwise require less continued investment due to their once-off nature, and less permanents which can serve as mana dumps and get swept by sweepers if you board too many.
No wonder you consider that logic to make no sense
You clearly don't understand the value of repeatable damage off a single investment of mana
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's a poor removal spell IN WHAT CONTEXT? In the context of Legacy or Modern? Sure. In the context of standard? What else deals with Hangerback Walker as efficiently - as well as a significant number of other creature. The days of one stop shopping for removal are pretty much gone.
Non-BFZ cards, post rotation that can adequately deal with a Hangarback Walker
Abzan Charm - Conditional - 3 mana instant in 3 colors
Suspension Field - Conditional - 2 mana - sorcery speed (Silkwrap is better vs. Walker)
Blessed Reincarnation - unconditional, 4 mana instant, in blue, risky
Burn Away - This will probably always get rid of it, 5 mana instant
Silkwrap - Good answer in white, 2 mana - sorcery speed
Fate Forgotten - Unconditional, 3 mana instant, in white
That's all of them. Which would you rather run? Notice that you need 3 colors if you want to deal with it in black?
Cards in BFZ that can deal with it
Titan's Presence - Conditional, 3 mana instant, colorless
Scour from Existence - Unconditional, 7 mana instant, colorless
Complete Disregard - Conditional, 3 mana instant, black [devoid]
Grip of Desolation - Unconditional, 6 mana instant, black [devoid]
Serpentine Spike - Conditional, 7 mana sorcery, red [devoid]
Touch of the Void - Conditional, 3 mana sorcery, red [devoid]
Unnatural Aggression - Conditional, 3 mana instant, green [devoid]
Brutal Expulsion - Conditional, 4 mana instant, Red/Blue [devoid]
Which card do you think is best to deal with that card. It's a powerhouse in Standard and will need an answer. If you're not in white, then you are probably going to be looking here for an answer. In the context of standard it is NOT a poor removal spell.
I get that people don't like this set very much for whatever reasons. But its dumb to just dismiss cards out of hand without actually taking a few minutes to think about the environment these cards are going to exist in. Yes, Complete Disregard doesn't deal with Rhinos (well outside of a Dampening Pulse - though I'm not suggesting running that) and other big creatures. But other things do. You'll (gasp) need different cards to deal with these different cards.
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
Unfortunately, Burn Away doesn't exile Hangarback. It only causes it to "die", then exiles its owner's graveyard. The thopter trigger still happens.
I reiterate my point, there shouldn't be an unconditional, allmighty card that would trump EVERYTHING by one or two mana, you should have played during Urza-Masques season, where Mono U permission decks basically plowed through anything that took a seat in front of them.
Fan of Both old and new Slivers (But the new ones are still better anyway)
C Call of Emrakul - G vs R DD: Elves vs. Goblins - W vs B DD: Divine vs. Demonic - WUB Esper Artifice - RGW Aura Dancers
WUBRG Wrath of the Reaper King - WB Men of Faith - B Mercenaries - UB Phyrexian Assault 2.0 - WU Artifacts of Empires
BR Skeleton Warriors - RG Night of The Howlpack - B Bog Murderers - BR Eldrazi Assault - BGU Ulamog's Swarm
It's fine to have conditional removal - it's not fine to have every removal spell be conditional and extremely restrictive (less broad applications). If every removal spell is heinously restrictive and hits on parts or quarters of decks, then you're just much better off playing things that you know, actually kill your opponent and gain you CA, like the dumb mid-range creatures that WoTC loves so damn much. That's why a lot of us hate Standard and haven't played since ISD. If we wanted to play limited, we'd play limited (and I do like draft). If any halfway sane player who isn't a mid-range junky wants to play Constructed my advice is to definitely NOT play Standard, unless that's absolutely the only constructed events in your area. Standard sucks big gorilla nuts.
And that's a totally fair assessment from one player's perspective. The problem is taking that view of standard, and then deciding that since you don't like that environment, and this set doesn't change that environment, that this set is bad - when it isn't. It just isn't changing the status quo in a direction that you'd like (not saying that you're implying this, just its the general consensus).
Personally, I think one size fits all solutions to problems in these environments is damaging - because efficient, unconditional removal invalidates a large portion of potential playable cards. The whole "neat, but dies to removal" jab against everything goes AWAY when removal is conditional and you have to run multiple types in order to deal with different kinds of decks.
The limited for this set seems fun as hell. And, for standard, what I love about it - is that it doesn't browbeat you will deck concepts like some other sets do. There are decks to be made here, and they will require some exploration. That exploration is what I find engaging, not the competitive scene as much, so for us rogue deck builders, the set looks great.
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
Yes, I can say the set is bad when cards are overcosted, overly restrictive, and unnecessarily slow (e.g. made to be a sorcery). That's BFZ in its essence - a painfully slow, overcosted, underpowered monstrosity. They could have lopped off 1 and 2 CMC from a lot of cards and not have had a problem. You simply don't understand that removal is playable because it provides you a tempo boost and prevents you from dying (they're almost one and the same). If removal becomes more expensive and more restrictive you'd be a DOOFUS to play them when you could just be jamming CA-Mid-range idiots and actually win the game. Removal are 1 for 1 interactions that don't win the game. Creatures now-a-days are CA engines and also win you the game. It's dumb. If I wanted an environment where removal sucked, and you're better off jamming slightly bigger creatures than your opponents, I'd play draft and sealed. That's not something I want from Constructed. A lot of people agree with me considering how popular Modern has become where you actually get to play with good removal like Path, Bolt, Terminate, Pulse, etc.
I'd like to see you back up your claim with examples. What specific cards are over-costed and overly restricted in your estimation? How would you change them, in your expert opinion? What is their role in the format as a whole, and how do your changes improve their role? What cards are unnecessarily slow? What would be the effect on changing their timing be on the format? How do you adequately evaluate processing cards and devoid, in your extensive experience in the format?
You're complaining that creature are too good so if you want to play standard - its an arms race. And that you would rather play modern because you don't like this environment. Then your suggested solution, based on your criticism of this set, is to print BETTER creatures, and BETTER removal.
You realize that the ACTUAL way to fix that is to print weaker removal and weaker creatures right? The other way causes power creep. If they just print the same removal (or similar enough that it makes no different) as exists in modern there will be basically NO DIFFERENCE between the formats right? Maybe Wizards is happy for you to enjoy modern, but allow other people to also have a constructed format they can enjoy that doesn't feel the same with just a few different cards?
I understand how removal works, I've been playing this game for over 20 years. Do you know how they dealt with unconditional removal in the past? Lots of protection, and removal dodging creatures. When you have unconditional removal (and counters) at a low casting cost then all but the most efficient creatures become irrelevant. When you compensate for strong removal by printing bonkers creatures, then you have the standard environment which you just said that you don't like - people playing the most efficiently large creatures they can jam in their decks.
So you can have cheap, unconditional removal, and reasonable creatures - but then combo and control basically dominate the format. Or else you can have cheap, unconditional removal, but all playable creatures dodge removal (making the removal irrelevant). Or you can have cheap, unconditional removal, and hyper efficient creatures that need to be answered immediately or you lose (like today). Or you can have cheap, conditional removal and reasonable creatures (with higher cost unconditional removal).
BFZ appears to be trying to fix the environment that you say you don't like - but you are still complaining about it. Explain it better, if you can, because you don't sound rational in your evaluation - and I would really like to understand where you're coming from.
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
You mean some cards in the set are better than others? WOW
RIP Mike McArtor. The Mothership won't be the same.
Legacy
GG Aggro Elves GG
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/129398709553/mark-im-not-asking-for-a-return-to-early-magics
I think this reply sums it up nicely:
* * *
For the record, I'm okay with the reduction in power levels and BFZ looks okay to me, I don't plan on drafting any because I generally dislike drafting but I think the set will make for an interesting Standard after Khans rotates. But it would be nice to see some more interesting (and better) spells.
By acknowledging any additional attribute of either type and saying it's better or worse because of that is also acknowledging that they're not equal.
Lots of reasons to hate this bad set, but I don't think removal being unequal between colors is a biggy
I'm starting to notice something. We all feel those 3 removal spells arent evenly powered, yet we disagree on which one of those is the strongest and which one is the weakest. Could it be that we have no empirical evidence of our afirmations so we are ending up speculating and wild guessing? Wouldn't that account for all the disparity present in our evaluations?
I hope I'm not coming as a radical dude, but I suggest we should probably play the set before judging it.
I don't know, maybe?
Breathe out.
Let your passion give you strength for the task at hand... And let the bashing begin!
Poor reading comprehension. His sentence indicates that the mid-range archetype will be omnipresent, not the duration of matches...
If you don't have RDW as a playable deck, control decks will rise up from the ground and dominate matches. This will lead to increase in tournament time and bored players.
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
Nope, no disagreement actually, I just misread the card and thought the red one was an instant, happens a lot with fresh spoilers. He's right, the black one is an instant smother
In fairness, the red removal can't hit hero of goma fada windrider patrol skitterskin smothering abomination, barrage titan, slithering whiptail, ondu champion, broodhunter wurm angelic captain, dust stalker and burns to the dome
Isn't that just true for a hyper-aggressive deck that's competitive in the format, but not necessarily RDW? If "RDW" runs, say, ten green spells and is roughly as strong as it was pre-rotation, the tournament scene balance shouldn't be threatened...
No wonder you consider that logic to make no sense
You clearly don't understand the value of repeatable damage off a single investment of mana