"Crew" makes little sense to me. The big Flagship needs "crew 3", which you'd think means it needs 3 crew members.... but nah, it just needs a creature with 3 power in order to fly it. Yeesh.
And oh goodie, we get counters with associated symbols now, that's really useful and won't make the game gimmicky or anything :|
Oh yeah, and we're "creating" creature tokens now. Might as well have made it "birthing" or "popping out". What a mess.
As OathboundOne pointed out, making crew care about the number of creatures makes vehicles only playable in go wide decks. "Gimmicky" is basically shorthand for "it's new and I'm afraid of change", double-faced cards and split cards were also called "gimmicky" when released and now are among the most popular mechanics. I will admit that "create" sounds awkward when talking about living things, but it isn't worst than undying creatures dying.
I disagree with that ideal; to me, color is irrelevant in determining whether a certain card is "strictly better" or "strictly worse" than another card; I pay attention only to the total mana cost and the actual effect of the card. For that reason, I believe that terminate is strictly better than doom blade, go for the throat, murder, and terror, and that Aurelia's fury is strictly better than rolling thunder, for example.
Colors CAN'T be ignored when evaluating cards, because differently colored cards go in different decks. Look at Savannah Lions and Jackal Pup, following your criteria, the lions are strictly better than the pup. But in reality, lions saw almost no play, while the pup was an all-star in the Slight deck, simply because it was better for the deck to keep it mono-red and add an inferior card than splashing white just for a few creatures. So no, you have to take colors into account, because some cards are better for a color than for another.
Why is WotC acting as if standard is the most important format?
Because, well, it is? Standard and limited are the most played formats, meaning the formats that let Wizards make more money. Of course they will make most of their cards with those formats in mind.
What about modern, legacy, and vintage? I play only those formats, never standard, so what about players such as myself who wish for great cards for those formats?
Do you realize fetchlands have just been reprinted, don't you? Return to Ravnica had lots of eternal playable cards, and we also got Modern Masters, Vintage Masters, and Legacy playable cards such as True-Name Nemesis in suplemental products. Wizards does support older formats, it's just not their main priority.
The stack = backwards order, 99.99997 percent of the player population knew this already in 1993 when mtg started, and that percentage has only risen since that time =).
Given that the stack was introduced in 6th Edition, I find somehow difficult to believe that people understood it six years before its invention
Fallacies are BS, and if I've made any please point them out. Back up your accusations, you know?
I told you why you should stop with your fallacies talk, you answered "boo hoo you're insulting me". That's the good old fallacy of victim playing, "you're being mean to me, therefore you're wrong". It answers nothing.
I usually defend Wizards decitions but yes, lately, with the "it's for limited balance" excuse they are making every card that has a little chance of being played one rarity higher than what it should be.
About the "mythic that doesn't feel mythic" thing, every set has some of those. I think it's simply too hard to make fifteen "wooow this card is soooo cool" cards by set.
Instead of pointing other people fallacies you could start by avoiding them yourself, you know?
Now to try to get this on topic, I agree with mondu_the_fat on that the whole spell casting procedure is quite unintuitive, fortunately, the cases were the exact order matters are too few. Another awkward rule is the planeswalker damage redirection thing, if (a lot) more cards like Fated Conflagration are printed, I think Wizards should drop that rule and make every card that can damage a planeswalker specifically said so.
When your oppoents are employing fallacious logic, the only cway to proceed with the argument is to point to the fact that that logicv is not valid. Otherwise you have to accept the erronious conclusions of that faulty logic.
The point is that you can simply say "attacking me doesn't make my reasoning invalid" instead of copy-pasting your notes from Logic classes at high-school. Like someone said in the first page, you sound like someone who has just studied logic and wants to show-off his knowledge. As my professor of Legal Argumentation said, "you have to know the fallacies in order to avoid falling into them but for the love of God don't mention them by name in your plea, it makes you sound like an idiot".
What do you mean by "not enough design space?" I do not see how that can be the case, if the designers of this game are sufficiently clever and creative.
Look at Sage of the Inward Eye, for example. What's exactly the red part about it? A few odd cards are not a terrible thing, but if you make an entire block about wedges, it will be full of questionable cards like it.
People will continue to bash you, call you spoiled, etc., but you're absolutely right. Power levels continue to circle the drain. We're in the Masques / Kamigawa stage of the cycle.
I congratulate your ability to judge the power level of an entire block by loooking at less than the 10% of its cards.
As OathboundOne pointed out, making crew care about the number of creatures makes vehicles only playable in go wide decks. "Gimmicky" is basically shorthand for "it's new and I'm afraid of change", double-faced cards and split cards were also called "gimmicky" when released and now are among the most popular mechanics. I will admit that "create" sounds awkward when talking about living things, but it isn't worst than undying creatures dying.
Colors CAN'T be ignored when evaluating cards, because differently colored cards go in different decks. Look at Savannah Lions and Jackal Pup, following your criteria, the lions are strictly better than the pup. But in reality, lions saw almost no play, while the pup was an all-star in the Slight deck, simply because it was better for the deck to keep it mono-red and add an inferior card than splashing white just for a few creatures. So no, you have to take colors into account, because some cards are better for a color than for another.
Because, well, it is? Standard and limited are the most played formats, meaning the formats that let Wizards make more money. Of course they will make most of their cards with those formats in mind.
Do you realize fetchlands have just been reprinted, don't you? Return to Ravnica had lots of eternal playable cards, and we also got Modern Masters, Vintage Masters, and Legacy playable cards such as True-Name Nemesis in suplemental products. Wizards does support older formats, it's just not their main priority.
Why? I'm also a native Spanish speaker and an "amuleto" being a spell and not an artifact always sounded wrong. They are tangible objects after all.
Counter Morph U
Creature - Human Wizard
Morph UU
When [CARDNAME] is turned face up, counter target spell.
0/0
which would be an instant with morph in practice, excluding anthem effects. I don't think it's NWO viable though.
Given that the stack was introduced in 6th Edition, I find somehow difficult to believe that people understood it six years before its invention
I told you why you should stop with your fallacies talk, you answered "boo hoo you're insulting me". That's the good old fallacy of victim playing, "you're being mean to me, therefore you're wrong". It answers nothing.
About the "mythic that doesn't feel mythic" thing, every set has some of those. I think it's simply too hard to make fifteen "wooow this card is soooo cool" cards by set.
Instead of pointing other people fallacies you could start by avoiding them yourself, you know?
Now to try to get this on topic, I agree with mondu_the_fat on that the whole spell casting procedure is quite unintuitive, fortunately, the cases were the exact order matters are too few. Another awkward rule is the planeswalker damage redirection thing, if (a lot) more cards like Fated Conflagration are printed, I think Wizards should drop that rule and make every card that can damage a planeswalker specifically said so.
The point is that you can simply say "attacking me doesn't make my reasoning invalid" instead of copy-pasting your notes from Logic classes at high-school. Like someone said in the first page, you sound like someone who has just studied logic and wants to show-off his knowledge. As my professor of Legal Argumentation said, "you have to know the fallacies in order to avoid falling into them but for the love of God don't mention them by name in your plea, it makes you sound like an idiot".
You reasoning makes sense! Now that I think about it, I guess mana burn is also going to stay forever, because they would have to errata Mindslaver.
I also think the stack is going nowhere, but "they would have to errata some cards" is not the reason.
Making a three-color card that feels that it belongs to three colors it's difficult: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/ld/developing-wedges-2014-08-29
Look at Sage of the Inward Eye, for example. What's exactly the red part about it? A few odd cards are not a terrible thing, but if you make an entire block about wedges, it will be full of questionable cards like it.
I congratulate your ability to judge the power level of an entire block by loooking at less than the 10% of its cards.