I'll assume you're WOTC since you seem a little bit salty over the fact someone quit a format and didn't like the cards that have been seeing print in Standard for a while.
LOL. Did the lizard people tell you this, or was it the underpants gnomes?
Normally, just an overcosted shock wouldn't prove anything. However:
So we have several strictly worse cards in Standard? Alpha has cards that are strictly worse than cards in Alpha. I don't see how this is new, shocking, or relevant.
Notice the trend?
That using a seven card sample size from a block with over 300 cards can frame a narrative that you want without actually needing any hard facts?
The only thing keeping Standard interesting right now is the variety of decks, which in turn is caused by Khans, a multicolored cards with the greatest power level since Innistrad / RTR.
So Standard is interesting, but only because of the sets that have been out longer, and therefore are solved? So you are quitting Standard because of it being interesting? Is your problem that BFZ block didn't give us more of the same things that are already in Standard? You really haven't made it clear other than whining about seven obvious limited plants.
Last but not least, on your "wasting paychecks" part which is only intended to cause grief over someone quitting your favourite format
You're quitting Commander, the only format I even play? Huh, that is weird, since this block is stuffed to the gills with good Commander stuff.
beacuse your lack of argumentsstrawmen, take a moment to check how much a Dark Jeskai deck costs and compare it to a Modern deck. I think that wasting 30$ on a Gideon only for it to be worth 4$ come rotation (which, by the way, comes faster) is the bigger waste than to buy a less expensive deck and be done with it. But hey, sure WOTC diehard fanboys already know this, don't they?
So some decks cost more than others you say? I highly doubt that Dark Jeskai costs as much to build as, say, Splinter Twin.
If you had a point to make, make it. You've been given enough posts. When your whole point is "This set sucks because there are some cards in it that are strictly worse than other cards that have been printed before" you end up sounding like a whiner. Every set has strictly worse cards. If you want to have an actual discussion about this, try posting things conductive to that.
So you're saying that Mythics should be bad in Limited, or that every uncommon should be as a good a pick as a Mythic?
I'm saying that every single Common should be designed to be a playable card in constructed - not underpowered, not overpowered, average. And every Uncommon, Rare or Mythic Rare should either be a playable card in constructed or serve some other useful purpose. It's okay for rare cards to be weaker in Limited because it's okay for deck-defining cards to be printed, and those cards will naturally be weaker when you don't have the freedom to build the deck around them.
Every card cannot be the same power level without making every card the same card. I really don't think you've thought this out very hard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
LOL. Did the lizard people tell you this, or was it the underpants gnomes?
It's just that I can't wrap my head over someone quickly rushing to WOTC's defense and caring if someone quits or not in their free time or without being paid for it. Since I'm giving the benefit of the doubt of no one being this fanboy or stupid, I'm assuming you work for WOTC in any manner or form.
So we have several strictly worse cards in Standard? Alpha has cards that are strictly worse than cards in Alpha. I don't see how this is new, shocking, or relevant.
I don't think "strictly worse" means what you think it means. Please point me to those Alpha cards that are strictly worse than others in the same set.
That using a seven card sample size from a block with over 300 cards can frame a narrative that you want without actually needing any hard facts?
I could provide you with a lot more example from recent Standard sets, but you will just dismiss it using the same phrase just switching "seven" for the appropiate number. If numbers, examples and statistics are not hard facts, I don't know what are.
So Standard is interesting, but only because of the sets that have been out longer, and therefore are solved? So you are quitting Standard because of it being interesting? Is your problem that BFZ block didn't give us more of the same things that are already in Standard? You really haven't made it clear other than whining about seven obvious limited plants.
You're either severely lacking in reading comprehension or just plain trolling, but I'll make an exception and explain to you again what everybody already understood the first time: Standard is only interesting because the Khans block, aside from good mana fixing, packs both a high power level that has impacted Eternal formats, and interesting build-around tri color cards. BFZ has contributed absolutely nothing to Standard: other than Eldrazi most decks remain the same with some Gideon or new lands here and there.
So some decks cost more than others you say? I highly doubt that Dark Jeskai costs as much to build as, say, Splinter Twin.
If you had a point to make, make it. You've been given enough posts. When your whole point is "This set sucks because there are some cards in it that are strictly worse than other cards that have been printed before" you end up sounding like a whiner. Every set has strictly worse cards. If you want to have an actual discussion about this, try posting things conductive to that.
Now this is what I call a strawman. You are picking at the most expensive deck to make a comparison. You don't have to build Splinter Twin, which by the way has both the most played fetchland and most played blue creature in Legacy you can build Affinity, Burn or Amulet Bloom and still be tier 1 for cheaper than a Dark Jeskai deck whose cards will be dirt cheap come next year.
For someone who won't miss people who quit you sure are quite persistent. However, you've done nothing but ad hominem, strawmen and say that "my arguments are wrong" and "I have been given enough time to prove them" while posting nothing no arguments whatsoever. Either you back up your claims with hard facts and data and stop with the logical fallacies or I will simply ignore you, but I'm sure you'll simply reply with more straw men while still claiming to not care for me.
So, yeah, "Reality Hemorrhage is worse than Wild Slash" is technically true in Standard for the next 3 months, but as you wouldn't inlcude Reality Hemorrhage in a Standard deck the statement is just noise. In Modern it's better for metagame reasons; in Limited it's tautologically better by virtue of being the one that exists.
The problem is that if you've no better options, then you're forced to either play the new, inferior card, or abandon the archetype for another. It may be a necessary part of keeping standard fresh, and mixing things up, but it still feels bad when your favorite deck falls apart.
As you and I know, it's too early to tell if WotC is intentionally nerfing burn, or if they're waiting for certain things to rotate before printing the new hotness of burn spells, or if there's something else going on. But we are on the internet, where people start assuming the worst case scenario in record time, every time.
Unfortunately, my favorite archetype will probably be dissolved in draft I don't think you can reasonably build an ingest/processor deck any more with only one pack of BFZ. Not enough support in OGW.
And a single pack of BFZ means not much landfall, or rally.
LOL. Did the lizard people tell you this, or was it the underpants gnomes?
It's just that I can't wrap my head over someone quickly rushing to WOTC's defense and caring if someone quits or not in their free time or without being paid for it. Since I'm giving the benefit of the doubt of no one being this fanboy or stupid, I'm assuming you work for WOTC in any manner or form.
So you cannot understand why someone would quickly defend a set... but you so quickly jump in to tear it apart over a few uncommons? Do you design Yu-Gi-Oh? It is THE ONLY explanation. I am going to reply to the rest of your posts based on this assumption.
So we have several strictly worse cards in Standard? Alpha has cards that are strictly worse than cards in Alpha. I don't see how this is new, shocking, or relevant.
I don't think "strictly worse" means what you think it means. Please point me to those Alpha cards that are strictly worse than others in the same set.
That using a seven card sample size from a block with over 300 cards can frame a narrative that you want without actually needing any hard facts?
I could provide you with a lot more example from recent Standard sets, but you will just dismiss it using the same phrase just switching "seven" for the appropiate number. If numbers, examples and statistics are not hard facts, I don't know what are.
Then please do so. Where are the numbers and hard facts? You've used random comparison examples (Standard doesn't have these random things that it once had! It must suck! This uncommon is kinda bad, especially compared to this Mythic in a different set!) but you haven't really one much more than prove that rotating formats, by their nature, don't always have the same moving parts going at the same time. Why would you even say that you can do something that I am criticizing you for not doing? Is the foundation of your point "I'm going to cry and moan" or "I have a logical point and am going to make it" or "I designed Exodia"? I really cannot tell, but I know which one I will assume it is.
So Standard is interesting, but only because of the sets that have been out longer, and therefore are solved? So you are quitting Standard because of it being interesting? Is your problem that BFZ block didn't give us more of the same things that are already in Standard? You really haven't made it clear other than whining about seven obvious limited plants.
You're either severely lacking in reading comprehension or just plain trolling, but I'll make an exception and explain to you again what everybody already understood the first time: Standard is only interesting because the Khans block, aside from good mana fixing, packs both a high power level that has impacted Eternal formats, and interesting build-around tri color cards. BFZ has contributed absolutely nothing to Standard: other than Eldrazi most decks remain the same with some Gideon or new lands here and there.
Tarkir block cards saw very little play until *gasp* it had been out a while, got solved, and sets before it rotated out. This is how Standard operates. The early sets see more play than the newer ones.
So some decks cost more than others you say? I highly doubt that Dark Jeskai costs as much to build as, say, Splinter Twin.
If you had a point to make, make it. You've been given enough posts. When your whole point is "This set sucks because there are some cards in it that are strictly worse than other cards that have been printed before" you end up sounding like a whiner. Every set has strictly worse cards. If you want to have an actual discussion about this, try posting things conductive to that.
Now this is what I call a strawman. You are picking at the most expensive deck to make a comparison. You don't have to build Splinter Twin, which by the way has both the most played fetchland and most played blue creature in Legacy you can build Affinity, Burn or Amulet Bloom and still be tier 1 for cheaper than a Dark Jeskai deck whose cards will be dirt cheap come next year.
So it isn't a strawman for you to bring up only the most expensive Standard deck, but it is when I counter with the most expensive modern deck? Is this kind of logic why Blue Eyes White Dragon is better than Dark Magician? I always thought those were terrible precon faces. Guess it is why I never bothered getting into your crappy card game.
For someone who won't miss people who quit you sure are quite persistent. However, you've done nothing but ad hominem, strawmen and say that "my arguments are wrong" and "I have been given enough time to prove them" while posting nothing no arguments whatsoever. Either you back up your claims with hard facts and data and stop with the logical fallacies or I will simply ignore you, but I'm sure you'll simply reply with more straw men while still claiming to not care for me.
I won't miss you; nobody will. When bitcwhiny players quit, people sigh in relief. You are just as persistent that the set is bad as I am that it is good. You began the ad hominems right off the bat. Literally the first thing you said to me was that I must be an employee of Wizards because it would be stupid otherwise. You bring up the strawmen when you compare uncommons to Mythic planeswalkers. When you say modern is cheaper because Dark Jeskai is more expensive than some modern deck. I have posted logical, thought out posts. You've screamed about falling skies and ruin.
The problem with burn is that this is the biggest case where they actually do care about other formats as burn is at a "critical mass" of cards. New burn has to be conditional or niche (or just too expensive for Modern / Legacy).
Now, as to why they can't reprint existing burn more often...that is the real question.
Why does it have that third clause on there? There is no cost that requires C on a non-colorless card. I can't think of any situation with current cards where that third clause would matter, and this is ostensibly the last time the colorless symbol will come up (and even if it does come up later if we revisit zendikar or whatever, who gives a crap, it's not like a limited-only common from this set is going to matter for some far future set unless they want to reprint it, and that seems like a ludicrous reason to add that additional clause just in case that happens).
Am I missing something? Is there some crazy card that would care about it? I'm going to sleep, my head hurts.
Anyway the set looks fine. As usual, lol at the whiners who only care about a new set for the 2 modern playables or whatever. Limited rules!
@DirkGently: cultivator drone + Painter's Servant
now your colorless spells and permanents are colored, but if the cost does have you can still pay it with the drone.
@DirkGently: cultivator drone + Painter's Servant
now your colorless spells and permanents are colored, but if the cost does have you can still pay it with the drone.
And there are plenty of other niche situations where said cards could become colored, as well, since there are multiple cards throughout magic's history that can change a creatures color. Plus, it helps to cover their arse if they make colored cards with a colorless activation in the future (I imagine they will, just not terribly often).
LOL. Did the lizard people tell you this, or was it the underpants gnomes?
It's just that I can't wrap my head over someone quickly rushing to WOTC's defense and caring if someone quits or not in their free time or without being paid for it. Since I'm giving the benefit of the doubt of no one being this fanboy or stupid, I'm assuming you work for WOTC in any manner or form.
So you cannot understand why someone would quickly defend a set... but you so quickly jump in to tear it apart over a few uncommons? Do you design Yu-Gi-Oh? It is THE ONLY explanation. I am going to reply to the rest of your posts based on this assumption.
So we have several strictly worse cards in Standard? Alpha has cards that are strictly worse than cards in Alpha. I don't see how this is new, shocking, or relevant.
I don't think "strictly worse" means what you think it means. Please point me to those Alpha cards that are strictly worse than others in the same set.
That using a seven card sample size from a block with over 300 cards can frame a narrative that you want without actually needing any hard facts?
I could provide you with a lot more example from recent Standard sets, but you will just dismiss it using the same phrase just switching "seven" for the appropiate number. If numbers, examples and statistics are not hard facts, I don't know what are.
Then please do so. Where are the numbers and hard facts? You've used random comparison examples (Standard doesn't have these random things that it once had! It must suck! This uncommon is kinda bad, especially compared to this Mythic in a different set!) but you haven't really one much more than prove that rotating formats, by their nature, don't always have the same moving parts going at the same time. Why would you even say that you can do something that I am criticizing you for not doing? Is the foundation of your point "I'm going to cry and moan" or "I have a logical point and am going to make it" or "I designed Exodia"? I really cannot tell, but I know which one I will assume it is.
So Standard is interesting, but only because of the sets that have been out longer, and therefore are solved? So you are quitting Standard because of it being interesting? Is your problem that BFZ block didn't give us more of the same things that are already in Standard? You really haven't made it clear other than whining about seven obvious limited plants.
You're either severely lacking in reading comprehension or just plain trolling, but I'll make an exception and explain to you again what everybody already understood the first time: Standard is only interesting because the Khans block, aside from good mana fixing, packs both a high power level that has impacted Eternal formats, and interesting build-around tri color cards. BFZ has contributed absolutely nothing to Standard: other than Eldrazi most decks remain the same with some Gideon or new lands here and there.
Tarkir block cards saw very little play until *gasp* it had been out a while, got solved, and sets before it rotated out. This is how Standard operates. The early sets see more play than the newer ones.
So some decks cost more than others you say? I highly doubt that Dark Jeskai costs as much to build as, say, Splinter Twin.
If you had a point to make, make it. You've been given enough posts. When your whole point is "This set sucks because there are some cards in it that are strictly worse than other cards that have been printed before" you end up sounding like a whiner. Every set has strictly worse cards. If you want to have an actual discussion about this, try posting things conductive to that.
Now this is what I call a strawman. You are picking at the most expensive deck to make a comparison. You don't have to build Splinter Twin, which by the way has both the most played fetchland and most played blue creature in Legacy you can build Affinity, Burn or Amulet Bloom and still be tier 1 for cheaper than a Dark Jeskai deck whose cards will be dirt cheap come next year.
So it isn't a strawman for you to bring up only the most expensive Standard deck, but it is when I counter with the most expensive modern deck? Is this kind of logic why Blue Eyes White Dragon is better than Dark Magician? I always thought those were terrible precon faces. Guess it is why I never bothered getting into your crappy card game.
For someone who won't miss people who quit you sure are quite persistent. However, you've done nothing but ad hominem, strawmen and say that "my arguments are wrong" and "I have been given enough time to prove them" while posting nothing no arguments whatsoever. Either you back up your claims with hard facts and data and stop with the logical fallacies or I will simply ignore you, but I'm sure you'll simply reply with more straw men while still claiming to not care for me.
I won't miss you; nobody will. When bitcwhiny players quit, people sigh in relief. You are just as persistent that the set is bad as I am that it is good. You began the ad hominems right off the bat. Literally the first thing you said to me was that I must be an employee of Wizards because it would be stupid otherwise. You bring up the strawmen when you compare uncommons to Mythic planeswalkers. When you say modern is cheaper because Dark Jeskai is more expensive than some modern deck. I have posted logical, thought out posts. You've screamed about falling skies and ruin.
Ah, the good 'ole "No you!" coupled with ridiculous hyperbole (like the bit where I compared uncommons to Planeswalkers, which, by the way, never happened. Also 5 color is more expensive than Dark Jeskai), a lack of arguments, and some more name calling. Just like I said, you would respond no matter what even you claim that you don't care for me and you won't miss me. Your kind just goes around pestering people with the namecalling and the nonsensical arguments (The Yu-Gi-Oh! wannabe analogue one cracked me up a lot because of how forced and tryhard it was) in order to get more replies, so consider yourself in the wrong and ignored from now on. Have a good day.
I am on a MtG website discussing cards that haven't been released yet. You also have an account on this site. I'd check your reality lol. Besides, bitcwhining is the worst.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
So we have several strictly worse cards in Standard? Alpha has cards that are strictly worse than cards in Alpha. I don't see how this is new, shocking, or relevant.
Notice the trend?
That using a seven card sample size from a block with over 300 cards can frame a narrative that you want without actually needing any hard facts?
But those are not arbitrary cards. They're the cards anyone who started with an introduction set got basically first in touch with. A red 1-mana burn spell, a 1-mana elf, these weird blue 2-mana cards that say 'counter', Rampant Growth... These are the cards that define Magic the most right after basic lands!
...But those are not arbitrary cards. They're the cards anyone who started with an introduction set got basically first in touch with. A red 1-mana burn spell, a 1-mana elf, these weird blue 2-mana cards that say 'counter', Rampant Growth... These are the cards that define Magic the most right after basic lands!
There's a one mana burn spell, Wild Slash, Lightning Bolt basically made every creature with thoughness 3 or lower worthless; okay, there's no one mana accelerator in green right now (Except Honored Hierarch, but that one's not good to drop 3 mana stuff on turn 2, but there are three 2 mana dorks in green, and one more accessible for all colors), Counterspell is a card that hasn't been printed in like more than ten effin' years (It's not even legal in Modern, come on), so you claiming it is THE measuring bar to "counter target spell" is just your opinion, get over the fact that there won't be another card as absurdly powerful as that (Which is like claiming that EVERY draw spell in blue should be strictly better or equal than Ancestral Recall). And about Rampant growth, well, that's a card that hasn't been legal in Standard since 2012, and about that one, well, I'll be honest and say I miss it specifically because Ruin in their wake doesn't guarantee that Shrine of the Forsaken Gods will be online a turn earlier.
@DirkGently: cultivator drone + Painter's Servant
now your colorless spells and permanents are colored, but if the cost does have you can still pay it with the drone.
Ha, fair point. Although I suspect the number of games where that will actually matter to be very close to zero.
So we have several strictly worse cards in Standard? Alpha has cards that are strictly worse than cards in Alpha. I don't see how this is new, shocking, or relevant.
Notice the trend?
That using a seven card sample size from a block with over 300 cards can frame a narrative that you want without actually needing any hard facts?
But those are not arbitrary cards. They're the cards anyone who started with an introduction set got basically first in touch with. A red 1-mana burn spell, a 1-mana elf, these weird blue 2-mana cards that say 'counter', Rampant Growth... These are the cards that define Magic the most right after basic lands!
How is Standard supposed to be different each season if it also has to always have the same best pieces? If you want to play a format based off of cards you started the game with, play Vintage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
@DirkGently: cultivator drone + Painter's Servant
now your colorless spells and permanents are colored, but if the cost does have you can still pay it with the drone.
Ha, fair point. Although I suspect the number of games where that will actually matter to be very close to zero.
Maybe the "this can be spent only on colorless stuff" clause it's a bit clunky, the card could've made simpler and would still work if it dropped said clause. The only cases where you won't be able to use its mana would be if you wanted to pay colored cards or costs that didn't include C
As for the card itself, it's good, it's a mana dork in blue for a reasonable cost to P/T, like most Eldrazi mana dorks, it can attack once it's fulfilled its ramping purpose.
But those are not arbitrary cards. They're the cards anyone who started with an introduction set got basically first in touch with. A red 1-mana burn spell, a 1-mana elf, these weird blue 2-mana cards that say 'counter', Rampant Growth... These are the cards that define Magic the most right after basic lands!
That largely depends on when you started playing. When I got introduced to the game Untamed Wilds was the go-to go-get-a-land spell and Rampant Growth didn't exist. Llanowar Elves and Lightning Bolt have been in and out of Standard, and could come again. These things constantly change. The only thing you could say with confidence is they've decided two mana is too cheap for an unconditional counterspell... which makes a lot of sense in both Modern and Standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's too good.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
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
LOL. Did the lizard people tell you this, or was it the underpants gnomes?
So we have several strictly worse cards in Standard? Alpha has cards that are strictly worse than cards in Alpha. I don't see how this is new, shocking, or relevant.
That using a seven card sample size from a block with over 300 cards can frame a narrative that you want without actually needing any hard facts?
So Standard is interesting, but only because of the sets that have been out longer, and therefore are solved? So you are quitting Standard because of it being interesting? Is your problem that BFZ block didn't give us more of the same things that are already in Standard? You really haven't made it clear other than whining about seven obvious limited plants.
You're quitting Commander, the only format I even play? Huh, that is weird, since this block is stuffed to the gills with good Commander stuff.
So some decks cost more than others you say? I highly doubt that Dark Jeskai costs as much to build as, say, Splinter Twin.
If you had a point to make, make it. You've been given enough posts. When your whole point is "This set sucks because there are some cards in it that are strictly worse than other cards that have been printed before" you end up sounding like a whiner. Every set has strictly worse cards. If you want to have an actual discussion about this, try posting things conductive to that.
Every card cannot be the same power level without making every card the same card. I really don't think you've thought this out very hard.
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U Taking Turns combo
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
It's just that I can't wrap my head over someone quickly rushing to WOTC's defense and caring if someone quits or not in their free time or without being paid for it. Since I'm giving the benefit of the doubt of no one being this fanboy or stupid, I'm assuming you work for WOTC in any manner or form.
I don't think "strictly worse" means what you think it means. Please point me to those Alpha cards that are strictly worse than others in the same set.
I could provide you with a lot more example from recent Standard sets, but you will just dismiss it using the same phrase just switching "seven" for the appropiate number. If numbers, examples and statistics are not hard facts, I don't know what are.
You're either severely lacking in reading comprehension or just plain trolling, but I'll make an exception and explain to you again what everybody already understood the first time: Standard is only interesting because the Khans block, aside from good mana fixing, packs both a high power level that has impacted Eternal formats, and interesting build-around tri color cards. BFZ has contributed absolutely nothing to Standard: other than Eldrazi most decks remain the same with some Gideon or new lands here and there.
Now this is what I call a strawman. You are picking at the most expensive deck to make a comparison. You don't have to build Splinter Twin, which by the way has both the most played fetchland and most played blue creature in Legacy you can build Affinity, Burn or Amulet Bloom and still be tier 1 for cheaper than a Dark Jeskai deck whose cards will be dirt cheap come next year.
For someone who won't miss people who quit you sure are quite persistent. However, you've done nothing but ad hominem, strawmen and say that "my arguments are wrong" and "I have been given enough time to prove them" while posting nothing no arguments whatsoever. Either you back up your claims with hard facts and data and stop with the logical fallacies or I will simply ignore you, but I'm sure you'll simply reply with more straw men while still claiming to not care for me.
Thanks to DNC from Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sig
Check my Pauper Cube!
The problem is that if you've no better options, then you're forced to either play the new, inferior card, or abandon the archetype for another. It may be a necessary part of keeping standard fresh, and mixing things up, but it still feels bad when your favorite deck falls apart.
As you and I know, it's too early to tell if WotC is intentionally nerfing burn, or if they're waiting for certain things to rotate before printing the new hotness of burn spells, or if there's something else going on. But we are on the internet, where people start assuming the worst case scenario in record time, every time.
So you cannot understand why someone would quickly defend a set... but you so quickly jump in to tear it apart over a few uncommons? Do you design Yu-Gi-Oh? It is THE ONLY explanation. I am going to reply to the rest of your posts based on this assumption.
Mons's Goblin Raiders is strictly worse than Goblin Balloon Brigade
Then please do so. Where are the numbers and hard facts? You've used random comparison examples (Standard doesn't have these random things that it once had! It must suck! This uncommon is kinda bad, especially compared to this Mythic in a different set!) but you haven't really one much more than prove that rotating formats, by their nature, don't always have the same moving parts going at the same time. Why would you even say that you can do something that I am criticizing you for not doing? Is the foundation of your point "I'm going to cry and moan" or "I have a logical point and am going to make it" or "I designed Exodia"? I really cannot tell, but I know which one I will assume it is.
Tarkir block cards saw very little play until *gasp* it had been out a while, got solved, and sets before it rotated out. This is how Standard operates. The early sets see more play than the newer ones.
So it isn't a strawman for you to bring up only the most expensive Standard deck, but it is when I counter with the most expensive modern deck? Is this kind of logic why Blue Eyes White Dragon is better than Dark Magician? I always thought those were terrible precon faces. Guess it is why I never bothered getting into your crappy card game.
I won't miss you; nobody will. When
bitcwhiny players quit, people sigh in relief. You are just as persistent that the set is bad as I am that it is good. You began the ad hominems right off the bat. Literally the first thing you said to me was that I must be an employee of Wizards because it would be stupid otherwise. You bring up the strawmen when you compare uncommons to Mythic planeswalkers. When you say modern is cheaper because Dark Jeskai is more expensive than some modern deck. I have posted logical, thought out posts. You've screamed about falling skies and ruin.Now, as to why they can't reprint existing burn more often...that is the real question.
Why does it have that third clause on there? There is no cost that requires C on a non-colorless card. I can't think of any situation with current cards where that third clause would matter, and this is ostensibly the last time the colorless symbol will come up (and even if it does come up later if we revisit zendikar or whatever, who gives a crap, it's not like a limited-only common from this set is going to matter for some far future set unless they want to reprint it, and that seems like a ludicrous reason to add that additional clause just in case that happens).
Am I missing something? Is there some crazy card that would care about it? I'm going to sleep, my head hurts.
Anyway the set looks fine. As usual, lol at the whiners who only care about a new set for the 2 modern playables or whatever. Limited rules!
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
now your colorless spells and permanents are colored, but if the cost does have you can still pay it with the drone.
And there are plenty of other niche situations where said cards could become colored, as well, since there are multiple cards throughout magic's history that can change a creatures color. Plus, it helps to cover their arse if they make colored cards with a colorless activation in the future (I imagine they will, just not terribly often).
Ah, the good 'ole "No you!" coupled with ridiculous hyperbole (like the bit where I compared uncommons to Planeswalkers, which, by the way, never happened. Also 5 color is more expensive than Dark Jeskai), a lack of arguments, and some more name calling. Just like I said, you would respond no matter what even you claim that you don't care for me and you won't miss me. Your kind just goes around pestering people with the namecalling and the nonsensical arguments (The Yu-Gi-Oh! wannabe analogue one cracked me up a lot because of how forced and tryhard it was) in order to get more replies, so consider yourself in the wrong and ignored from now on. Have a good day.
Thanks to DNC from Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sig
Check my Pauper Cube!
I am on a MtG website discussing cards that haven't been released yet. You also have an account on this site. I'd check your reality lol. Besides,
bitcwhining is the worst.There's a one mana burn spell, Wild Slash, Lightning Bolt basically made every creature with thoughness 3 or lower worthless; okay, there's no one mana accelerator in green right now (Except Honored Hierarch, but that one's not good to drop 3 mana stuff on turn 2, but there are three 2 mana dorks in green, and one more accessible for all colors), Counterspell is a card that hasn't been printed in like more than ten effin' years (It's not even legal in Modern, come on), so you claiming it is THE measuring bar to "counter target spell" is just your opinion, get over the fact that there won't be another card as absurdly powerful as that (Which is like claiming that EVERY draw spell in blue should be strictly better or equal than Ancestral Recall). And about Rampant growth, well, that's a card that hasn't been legal in Standard since 2012, and about that one, well, I'll be honest and say I miss it specifically because Ruin in their wake doesn't guarantee that Shrine of the Forsaken Gods will be online a turn earlier.
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
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
How is Standard supposed to be different each season if it also has to always have the same best pieces? If you want to play a format based off of cards you started the game with, play Vintage.
Maybe the "this can be spent only on colorless stuff" clause it's a bit clunky, the card could've made simpler and would still work if it dropped said clause. The only cases where you won't be able to use its mana would be if you wanted to pay colored cards or costs that didn't include C
As for the card itself, it's good, it's a mana dork in blue for a reasonable cost to P/T, like most Eldrazi mana dorks, it can attack once it's fulfilled its ramping purpose.
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
That largely depends on when you started playing. When I got introduced to the game Untamed Wilds was the go-to go-get-a-land spell and Rampant Growth didn't exist. Llanowar Elves and Lightning Bolt have been in and out of Standard, and could come again. These things constantly change. The only thing you could say with confidence is they've decided two mana is too cheap for an unconditional counterspell... which makes a lot of sense in both Modern and Standard.