I think I'm going to echo the sentiment that they need to have staple cards reprinted into standard every set and maybe define a cycle of cards that will always be in rotation at all times. Doom blade, Mana Leak, Lightning Strike, Giant Growth, and I have no idea what would be good for white. I think Giant Growth is fine in standard even though it is a one mana instant.
Green should have a decent Rampant Growth, not Giant Growth.
White is probably fine at the moment. Though for argument's sake, their signature effect would seem to be Oblivion Ring and they have plenty of those currently.
I think I'm going to echo the sentiment that they need to have staple cards reprinted into standard every set and maybe define a cycle of cards that will always be in rotation at all times. Doom blade, Mana Leak, Lightning Strike, Giant Growth, and I have no idea what would be good for white. I think Giant Growth is fine in standard even though it is a one mana instant.
Green should have a decent Rampant Growth, not Giant Growth.
White is probably fine at the moment. Though for argument's sake, their signature effect would seem to be Oblivion Ring and they have plenty of those currently.
White's signature effect is obviously Wrath of God.
I don't really get this infatuation with colour staple cards. The way I see it, standard is all about reinventing the game. Every year there is a paradigm shift and players have to wrap their heads around the new context in which cards are evaluated. I certainly would not dislike having Rampant Growth or Lightning Strike in standard, but I don't see any value in having them legal either. If we wanted these cards to be strong enough to be playable in every rotation, things would get super boring super fast. If not, then these cards would be totally obsolete as they don't fit in any particular deck building niche.
As a friend of mine puts it, nobody ever wins the game with removal. The notion that removal and other interaction pieces create worse formats is utterly bizarre to me, and I have no idea where this sort of theory-crafting came from. I remember when Stoddard was talking about hate in the format, and was explaining that Affinity standard was made worse because of all of the Artifact removal, because cool combo-esque artifact decks couldn't compete through the hate everyone was running. That's when I honestly realized Development was out of its damn mind. When you say that the problem with Affinity standard was there was too much Artifact removal, I pretty much lose all respect as you are utterly missing the woods for the trees on that one. Their entire philosophy is built around what they think is true, regardless of the fact that some of the healthiest formats and best formats existed with these tools.
I think I'm going to echo the sentiment that they need to have staple cards reprinted into standard every set and maybe define a cycle of cards that will always be in rotation at all times. Doom blade, Mana Leak, Lightning Strike, Giant Growth, and I have no idea what would be good for white. I think Giant Growth is fine in standard even though it is a one mana instant.
Green should have a decent Rampant Growth, not Giant Growth.
White is probably fine at the moment. Though for argument's sake, their signature effect would seem to be Oblivion Ring and they have plenty of those currently.
White's signature effect is obviously Wrath of God.
[[walks calmly away from impending firestorm]]
Well, Day of Judgment now. I actually do like their movement away from putting "can't be regenerated" on every single removal spell.
In truth, I actually liked the idea of moving the "full" sweepers up to 5 mana; 4-mana sweepers did, as was stated in the announcement of them moving away from 4-mana sweepers, have a tendency to create annoying games that were sort of a "do you have it?" The problem is that if you're going to add an extra mana, you need to have the upside be worth it, which they haven't. Planar Outburst's "upside" was so pointless that it basically was a Day of Judgment that cost 5 mana. End Hostilities was a little better, but its upside was still generally meaningless. Crux of Fate and Fumigate were the best, but still feel like they don't do enough for the extra mana cost.
It doesn't seem that hard. Heck, just having the upside be a cantrip would actually make it into a pretty decent card rather than Days of Judgment that happen to cost 5 mana. The weirdest thing is that there were some perfectly good 5-mana sweepers in the past, like Rout or Hallowed Burial. They could have easily reprinted those, or a version of Rout that didn't have the "can't be regenerated" clause.
I think I'm going to echo the sentiment that they need to have staple cards reprinted into standard every set and maybe define a cycle of cards that will always be in rotation at all times. Doom blade, Mana Leak, Lightning Strike, Giant Growth, and I have no idea what would be good for white. I think Giant Growth is fine in standard even though it is a one mana instant.
Green should have a decent Rampant Growth, not Giant Growth.
White is probably fine at the moment. Though for argument's sake, their signature effect would seem to be Oblivion Ring and they have plenty of those currently.
White's signature effect is obviously Wrath of God.
[[walks calmly away from impending firestorm]]
Well, Day of Judgment now. I actually do like their movement away from putting "can't be regenerated" on every single removal spell.
In truth, I actually liked the idea of moving the "full" sweepers up to 5 mana; 4-mana sweepers did, as was stated in the announcement of them moving away from 4-mana sweepers, have a tendency to create annoying games that were sort of a "do you have it?" The problem is that if you're going to add an extra mana, you need to have the upside be worth it, which they haven't. Planar Outburst's "upside" was so pointless that it basically was a Day of Judgment that cost 5 mana. End Hostilities was a little better, but its upside was still generally meaningless. Crux of Fate and Fumigate were the best, but still feel like they don't do enough for the extra mana cost.
It doesn't seem that hard. Heck, just having the upside be a cantrip would actually make it into a pretty decent card rather than Days of Judgment that happen to cost 5 mana. The weirdest thing is that there were some perfectly good 5-mana sweepers in the past, like Rout or Hallowed Burial. They could have easily reprinted those, or a version of Rout that didn't have the "can't be regenerated" clause.
Fumigate's biggest problem is that it exists in a format where aggro is defined by creatures that aren't actually creatures on the opponent's turn. Vehicles and animated Planeswalkers simply dodge Fumigate, and because the vehicles punch above their curve the aggro player doesn't have to over extend to try to close out the game. The result is that Fumigate does not actually sweep the opponents board, and on top of that it does not generate enough life to be worth the extra mana. Had aggro in this format centered around dropping several fast creatures, so the typical turn 4 would see 3-5 creatures on the board, then casting Fumigate at 5 would actually deal with the threat and net enough life to make up for being a turn slower.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I think I'm going to echo the sentiment that they need to have staple cards reprinted into standard every set and maybe define a cycle of cards that will always be in rotation at all times. Doom blade, Mana Leak, Lightning Strike, Giant Growth, and I have no idea what would be good for white. I think Giant Growth is fine in standard even though it is a one mana instant.
Green should have a decent Rampant Growth, not Giant Growth.
White is probably fine at the moment. Though for argument's sake, their signature effect would seem to be Oblivion Ring and they have plenty of those currently.
White's signature effect is obviously Wrath of God.
[[walks calmly away from impending firestorm]]
Well, Day of Judgment now. I actually do like their movement away from putting "can't be regenerated" on every single removal spell.
In truth, I actually liked the idea of moving the "full" sweepers up to 5 mana; 4-mana sweepers did, as was stated in the announcement of them moving away from 4-mana sweepers, have a tendency to create annoying games that were sort of a "do you have it?" The problem is that if you're going to add an extra mana, you need to have the upside be worth it, which they haven't. Planar Outburst's "upside" was so pointless that it basically was a Day of Judgment that cost 5 mana. End Hostilities was a little better, but its upside was still generally meaningless. Crux of Fate and Fumigate were the best, but still feel like they don't do enough for the extra mana cost.
It doesn't seem that hard. Heck, just having the upside be a cantrip would actually make it into a pretty decent card rather than Days of Judgment that happen to cost 5 mana. The weirdest thing is that there were some perfectly good 5-mana sweepers in the past, like Rout or Hallowed Burial. They could have easily reprinted those, or a version of Rout that didn't have the "can't be regenerated" clause.
In general I think 5 cmc is too weak for sweepers as it gives aggro and go wide strategies too much time to build up. The entire point of Wrath of God and Day of Judgement is to clear the board and punish overextending, which aggro is famous for. They have the ideal card to force someone to overextend already in standard with Gideon of the Trials, but basically no good sweeps outside of Sweltering Suns. What makes whites sweepers so good is the unconditional removal aspect. For control decks, they are at worst an overly expensive doom blade that hits anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
As a friend of mine puts it, nobody ever wins the game with removal. The notion that removal and other interaction pieces create worse formats is utterly bizarre to me, and I have no idea where this sort of theory-crafting came from. I remember when Stoddard was talking about hate in the format, and was explaining that Affinity standard was made worse because of all of the Artifact removal, because cool combo-esque artifact decks couldn't compete through the hate everyone was running. That's when I honestly realized Development was out of its damn mind. When you say that the problem with Affinity standard was there was too much Artifact removal, I pretty much lose all respect as you are utterly missing the woods for the trees on that one. Their entire philosophy is built around what they think is true, regardless of the fact that some of the healthiest formats and best formats existed with these tools.
The goal of Kaladesh was not to get people to toss out their Declaration in Stones for Disenchants. Our hope in creating an artifact set with our modern design sensibilities was not to make something where people either run artifact removal or die. I remember (not so fondly) the sideboards of decks during original Mirrodin that would run something like twelve anti-artifact cards just to deal with Affinity. And sometimes, that was in an Affinity deck. Having games all come down to sideboard answers to threats does not create very fun gameplay. It is an easy way of telling a narrative and of showing off the new set, but not one that we wanted to do. The goal was to create a set where artifacts mattered, but we had a more varied way of dealing with them than just cards that say "Destroy target artifact." It meant dealing with the strategies they present, rather than getting rid of the type as a whole. It is a different setup than Mirrodin, for sure, but one that I think is more enjoyable.
When coming to Kaladesh, we were largely replacing the density of Equipment in Mirrodin (which we did not find very fun) with Vehicles (which we found much more fun). Vehicles, when turned on, can be dealt with by instant-speed creature removal. Artifact creatures exist in both sets, but those can be destroyed by the usual means as well. Then we had some number of hard-to-deal-with artifacts like Aetherflux Reservoir that were generally doing something combo-y. Getting those to work in a world where people were packing their decks full of artifact removal was hard. To give a comparison with the original Mirrodin block, it was hard for decks utilizing combo-y artifact that needed to remain in play to exist when people were filling their decks full of ways to deal with all of the creatures and Equipment, both of which happened to be artifacts. Sure, you got the occasional Krark-Clan Ironworks deck, but that was a one-turn-kill kind of thing. You might have gotten away with using Crystal Shard to bounce Eternal Witness in a deck with no other artifacts, but there were not a lot of decks using small artifacts that combined together in small ways. In fact, there weren't a lot of decks running half a dozen artifacts. You were either all-in, or dabbling.
While one may assume he is talking about Limited, his talk on sideboards and Dec in Stone indicate that no, he is talking about standard constructed. In his mind, the reason that these decks didn't see play is because people were playing too much removal to deal with Affinity that these decks were hated out. This, in turn, was when I realized that we have a Developer who actually believes that the problem with Mirrodin standard was that there was too much artifact hate in the format, and does not realize that the reason people played so much artifact removal was to stand a chance against affinity. In other words, we have a Developer who has no idea what he is talking about at all. He actively has no idea what the problem was during that era, and blamed the inability to run cool decks on the amount of hate in the format, and not on the reason all that hate was being played in the first place.
Stoddard functions under the mistaken notion that people will play bad removal if good removal doesn't exist. He even talks about in the article I linked right after he said this; they didn't want to print Smelt or Naturalize as they were too efficient at hating everything out, and instead printed worse artifact hate in Kaladesh as a safety valve if artifacts became too strong. The problem is that if the removal is terrible, people won't bother with it. Bad removal and hate is bad, and he (And the rest of R&D) needs to get it through their skull that this philosophy is flat-out wrong. Not just misguided, not just poor, but the exact opposite of correct. People will not play bad removal. They will instead play a deck that tries to snowball harder than the other deck.
As a friend of mine puts it, nobody ever wins the game with removal. The notion that removal and other interaction pieces create worse formats is utterly bizarre to me, and I have no idea where this sort of theory-crafting came from. I remember when Stoddard was talking about hate in the format, and was explaining that Affinity standard was made worse because of all of the Artifact removal, because cool combo-esque artifact decks couldn't compete through the hate everyone was running. That's when I honestly realized Development was out of its damn mind. When you say that the problem with Affinity standard was there was too much Artifact removal, I pretty much lose all respect as you are utterly missing the woods for the trees on that one. Their entire philosophy is built around what they think is true, regardless of the fact that some of the healthiest formats and best formats existed with these tools.
The goal of Kaladesh was not to get people to toss out their Declaration in Stones for Disenchants. Our hope in creating an artifact set with our modern design sensibilities was not to make something where people either run artifact removal or die. I remember (not so fondly) the sideboards of decks during original Mirrodin that would run something like twelve anti-artifact cards just to deal with Affinity. And sometimes, that was in an Affinity deck. Having games all come down to sideboard answers to threats does not create very fun gameplay. It is an easy way of telling a narrative and of showing off the new set, but not one that we wanted to do. The goal was to create a set where artifacts mattered, but we had a more varied way of dealing with them than just cards that say "Destroy target artifact." It meant dealing with the strategies they present, rather than getting rid of the type as a whole. It is a different setup than Mirrodin, for sure, but one that I think is more enjoyable.
When coming to Kaladesh, we were largely replacing the density of Equipment in Mirrodin (which we did not find very fun) with Vehicles (which we found much more fun). Vehicles, when turned on, can be dealt with by instant-speed creature removal. Artifact creatures exist in both sets, but those can be destroyed by the usual means as well. Then we had some number of hard-to-deal-with artifacts like Aetherflux Reservoir that were generally doing something combo-y. Getting those to work in a world where people were packing their decks full of artifact removal was hard. To give a comparison with the original Mirrodin block, it was hard for decks utilizing combo-y artifact that needed to remain in play to exist when people were filling their decks full of ways to deal with all of the creatures and Equipment, both of which happened to be artifacts. Sure, you got the occasional Krark-Clan Ironworks deck, but that was a one-turn-kill kind of thing. You might have gotten away with using Crystal Shard to bounce Eternal Witness in a deck with no other artifacts, but there were not a lot of decks using small artifacts that combined together in small ways. In fact, there weren't a lot of decks running half a dozen artifacts. You were either all-in, or dabbling.
While one may assume he is talking about Limited, his talk on sideboards and Dec in Stone indicate that no, he is talking about standard constructed. In his mind, the reason that these decks didn't see play is because people were playing too much removal to deal with Affinity that these decks were hated out. This, in turn, was when I realized that we have a Developer who actually believes that the problem with Mirrodin standard was that there was too much artifact hate in the format, and does not realize that the reason people played so much artifact removal was to stand a chance against affinity. In other words, we have a Developer who has no idea what he is talking about at all. He actively has no idea what the problem was during that era, and blamed the inability to run cool decks on the amount of hate in the format, and not on the reason all that hate was being played in the first place.
Stoddard functions under the mistaken notion that people will play bad removal if good removal doesn't exist. He even talks about in the article I linked right after he said this; they didn't want to print Smelt or Naturalize as they were too efficient at hating everything out, and instead printed worse artifact hate in Kaladesh as a safety valve if artifacts became too strong. The problem is that if the removal is terrible, people won't bother with it. Bad removal and hate is bad, and he (And the rest of R&D) needs to get it through their skull that this philosophy is flat-out wrong. Not just misguided, not just poor, but the exact opposite of correct. People will not play bad removal. They will instead play a deck that tries to snowball harder than the other deck.
It seems like he thought that aggro artifact strategies could be answered by creature removal rather than artifact hate, which would take pressure off more combo style artifact cards like Aetherflux since they wouldn't suffer from splash damage, people would actually have to board against them specifically.
On the surface, he's actually right (well, at least about the abundance of hate chilling out decks, he's still wrong about not blaming the affinity crisis), but every decision made afterwards led to the problems we're seeing now. He's right that pushing vehicles rather than equipment would make instant speed creature removal enough to handle the threat, and that artifact creatures can basically be answered by the same removal spells as non artifact creatures. Choosing creature removal over artifact removal to deal with the threat would be correct, as creature removal could kill not just the vehicles but the critters that crew them. Meanwhile, non creature artifact decks would have breathing room until they developed enough meta position that people started running artifact hate to deal with them.
The problem in execution is twofold. First, they made the artifact hate generally too weak to run, as many have pointed out. More importantly I believe, they nerfed instant speed creature removal to an extreme extent, so the very outlet that Stoddard thought would deal with vehicles was simply absent. Too many removal spells that should have been instants were sorceries, and this made them useless against vehicles. Too few removal spells could reliably deal with cheap creatures, which vehicles stats necessitated.
This was a failed experiment. When testing out a design theory, you need to take smaller steps. They could have cut back on the volume of artifact hate and then observed whether creature removal handled the meta or whether players still ran naturalize to fight of artifact creatures and vehicles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The goal of Kaladesh was not to get people to toss out their Declaration in Stones for Disenchants. Our hope in creating an artifact set with our modern design sensibilities was not to make something where people either run artifact removal or die. I remember (not so fondly) the sideboards of decks during original Mirrodin that would run something like twelve anti-artifact cards just to deal with Affinity. And sometimes, that was in an Affinity deck. Having games all come down to sideboard answers to threats does not create very fun gameplay. It is an easy way of telling a narrative and of showing off the new set, but not one that we wanted to do. The goal was to create a set where artifacts mattered, but we had a more varied way of dealing with them than just cards that say "Destroy target artifact." It meant dealing with the strategies they present, rather than getting rid of the type as a whole. It is a different setup than Mirrodin, for sure, but one that I think is more enjoyable.
When coming to Kaladesh, we were largely replacing the density of Equipment in Mirrodin (which we did not find very fun) with Vehicles (which we found much more fun). Vehicles, when turned on, can be dealt with by instant-speed creature removal. Artifact creatures exist in both sets, but those can be destroyed by the usual means as well. Then we had some number of hard-to-deal-with artifacts like Aetherflux Reservoir that were generally doing something combo-y. Getting those to work in a world where people were packing their decks full of artifact removal was hard. To give a comparison with the original Mirrodin block, it was hard for decks utilizing combo-y artifact that needed to remain in play to exist when people were filling their decks full of ways to deal with all of the creatures and Equipment, both of which happened to be artifacts. Sure, you got the occasional Krark-Clan Ironworks deck, but that was a one-turn-kill kind of thing. You might have gotten away with using Crystal Shard to bounce Eternal Witness in a deck with no other artifacts, but there were not a lot of decks using small artifacts that combined together in small ways. In fact, there weren't a lot of decks running half a dozen artifacts. You were either all-in, or dabbling.
While one may assume he is talking about Limited, his talk on sideboards and Dec in Stone indicate that no, he is talking about standard constructed. In his mind, the reason that these decks didn't see play is because people were playing too much removal to deal with Affinity that these decks were hated out. This, in turn, was when I realized that we have a Developer who actually believes that the problem with Mirrodin standard was that there was too much artifact hate in the format, and does not realize that the reason people played so much artifact removal was to stand a chance against affinity. In other words, we have a Developer who has no idea what he is talking about at all. He actively has no idea what the problem was during that era, and blamed the inability to run cool decks on the amount of hate in the format, and not on the reason all that hate was being played in the first place.
Well, he does say that the reason people were running so much hate was Affinity... then apparently forgets about it in the next paragraph afterwards when he's discussing the issues that comes from everyone running that artifact removal, forgetting that he just said the reason for that was Affinity.
Though in fairness, he does later mention:
"As we move on through the next year, we will offer some hate to apply pressure to these decks just in case we were wrong, much like we did for enchantments in Theros."
This does tie in with their usual idea of putting the hate cards in the next block, and in fairness they did (the problem here was making the hate cards in the block itself especially subpar). What's really weird is they didn't bother to do this with graveyard hate in Kaladesh.
What I did find interesting was his statement that "vehicles, when turned on, can be dealt with by instant-speed creature removal." True! Here's a question, then: Why didn't you make better instant speed creature removal? That was the complaint everyone had, that they had major problems killing vehicles using Declaration in Stone or Ruinous Path. Unlicensed Disintegration could do the trick but was only playable if you were in both Black and Red, limiting its use.
I agree with the need for better answers, but I don't think we need to go as far as guaranteeing that Mana Leak or Lightning Strike is in every Standard. As an alternative, I have been advocating for a change in how sets are designed. I think that, prior to printing the finalized version of the set, they should leave 8-10 slots as open to change. That way they can print emergency answers in the next set to be released. For example, Pithing Needle could have taken one of those slots in Hour of Devastation and that would have meant Aetherworks Marvel wouldn't have to have been banned. In the same line of thought, they need to stop planning out sets so far in advance. For example, it should have been impossible to leak the foil rare sheet of Ixalan, because it shouldn't have existed yet, because they should have still been finalizing the design of the set.
Has the format been restored to Midrange vs. Midrange yet?
I am planning on play in a PPTQ or 2 this weekend: my weapon of choice - RUG Energy (Midrange). Does this sound like a solid choice? Is it a prospect for bannings?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
It's a top tier deck and, I think, a fine choice. I can't imagine what would be banned from it and there are no bans scheduled for over a month. You can always check the current meta at mtggoldfish->decks->metagame. Last I looked, it had a diverse selection of successful decks.
I think that, prior to printing the finalized version of the set, they should leave 8-10 slots as open to change. That way they can print emergency answers in the next set to be released.
Due to the timings, this actually doesn't work. They are already printing Ixalan, and Rivals is probably already finalized. If something is broken in HOU the soonest they'd be able to address it is Dominaria MAYBE and the new Core Set after DOM for certain - by which point HOU is already about to rotate out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rose tint my world, keep me safe from my trouble and pain.
I think that, prior to printing the finalized version of the set, they should leave 8-10 slots as open to change. That way they can print emergency answers in the next set to be released.
Due to the timings, this actually doesn't work. They are already printing Ixalan, and Rivals is probably already finalized. If something is broken in HOU the soonest they'd be able to address it is Dominaria MAYBE and the new Core Set after DOM for certain - by which point HOU is already about to rotate out.
That's why I said that they need to stop doing that. They should not be committing themselves to a final version of the set so far in advance. Ixalan should still be in development so that they have time to react to the format.
That's why I said that they need to stop doing that. They should not be committing themselves to a final version of the set so far in advance. Ixalan should still be in development so that they have time to react to the format.
But they can't. In order to get this stuff out all over the world on time they need to have these deadlines. When one set hits the shelves the next is being printed so as to be ready for the next release. The one before that HAS to be finalized and ready to ship to the printer.
What you are saying is simply not possible for logistics reasons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rose tint my world, keep me safe from my trouble and pain.
I believe that Mark Rosewater said on his tumblr that when Return to Ravnica was released, they were just about done with Dragon's Maze. Frustratingly, I can't find that post again, but if my memory is correct it would indicate that they have about a two-set delay in responding to any problems.
Of course, remember that's in the very late stages of set development, and last-minute changes can easily backfire (many problematic cards got that way because of a last-minute change that as a result wasn't properly playtested--for example, Jace the Mind Sculptor got a huge boost in power when his +2 changed from milling two cards to its current fateseal ability), so you want to be careful about how you do those.
I believe that Mark Rosewater said on his tumblr that when Return to Ravnica was released, they were just about done with Dragon's Maze. Frustratingly, I can't find that post again, but if my memory is correct it would indicate that they have about a two-set delay in responding to any problems.
Of course, remember that's in the very late stages of set development, and last-minute changes can easily backfire (many problematic cards got that way because of a last-minute change that as a result wasn't properly playtested--for example, Jace the Mind Sculptor got a huge boost in power when his +2 changed from milling two cards to its current fateseal ability), so you want to be careful about how you do those.
I believe that Mark Rosewater said on his tumblr that when Return to Ravnica was released, they were just about done with Dragon's Maze. Frustratingly, I can't find that post again, but if my memory is correct it would indicate that they have about a two-set delay in responding to any problems.
Of course, remember that's in the very late stages of set development, and last-minute changes can easily backfire (many problematic cards got that way because of a last-minute change that as a result wasn't properly playtested--for example, Jace the Mind Sculptor got a huge boost in power when his +2 changed from milling two cards to its current fateseal ability), so you want to be careful about how you do those.
That's a good find. Though it's vague on how long that "finalizing" lasts, which is important to determining at what point it's legitimately not possible to effect any changes.
It is unfortunate timing that Standard finally seems healthy and diverse again now, since PPTQs are all Modern or Sealed at this point, and there are no other events from TCG/SCG that are Standard within 200 miles of me. In fact the only thing I have to look forward to before Ixalan is Game Day for Hour of Devastation.
Ramunap ruins needs the ban hammer. It allows lands to interact with planeswalkers which is bs. If I spend $100 on a playset of walkers the only way to interact with them should be another $25 card. My interpretation of this post is that it is a clever commentary on "overpriced mythics," and neither serious nor an attempt to troll. Unless that interpretation is corrected by the poster, I recommend not taking it literally. Thanks! -hoser2
While one may assume he is talking about Limited, his talk on sideboards and Dec in Stone indicate that no, he is talking about standard constructed. In his mind, the reason that these decks didn't see play is because people were playing too much removal to deal with Affinity that these decks were hated out. This, in turn, was when I realized that we have a Developer who actually believes that the problem with Mirrodin standard was that there was too much artifact hate in the format, and does not realize that the reason people played so much artifact removal was to stand a chance against affinity. In other words, we have a Developer who has no idea what he is talking about at all. He actively has no idea what the problem was during that era, and blamed the inability to run cool decks on the amount of hate in the format, and not on the reason all that hate was being played in the first place.
Stoddard functions under the mistaken notion that people will play bad removal if good removal doesn't exist. He even talks about in the article I linked right after he said this; they didn't want to print Smelt or Naturalize as they were too efficient at hating everything out, and instead printed worse artifact hate in Kaladesh as a safety valve if artifacts became too strong. The problem is that if the removal is terrible, people won't bother with it. Bad removal and hate is bad, and he (And the rest of R&D) needs to get it through their skull that this philosophy is flat-out wrong. Not just misguided, not just poor, but the exact opposite of correct. People will not play bad removal. They will instead play a deck that tries to snowball harder than the other deck.
Right on the head! The other thing people will do is NOT PLAY. Thus standards severe decline of the past 2 years. Not the right hate, over pushed cards, and one deck formats combined with bad timing shortening card life has crushed non-pro players out of the game.
Ramunap ruins needs the ban hammer. It allows lands to interact with planeswalkers which is bs. If I spend $100 on a playset of walkers the only way to interact with them should be another $25 card.
Redacted for use of inappropriate language. Card prices should mean nothing when it comes to interaction. While I agree that it's much too easy for lands to interact with walkers, redacted for flaming. Bolt can deal with JTMS and that's how it should be. Dreadbore can deal with LotV. My 50-cent common creature can kill a foil Karn if he has no blockers. The issue with Ruins is that lands aren't supposed to have repeatable damage; hell, even Barbarian Ring (which is way too good for standard) sacrifices itself. It'd be like my friend's custom legendary land with double Sphere of Resistance for rules text: The effect is fine, but not on a land, especially when lands are notoriously hard to interact with.
Green should have a decent Rampant Growth, not Giant Growth.
White is probably fine at the moment. Though for argument's sake, their signature effect would seem to be Oblivion Ring and they have plenty of those currently.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
White's signature effect is obviously Wrath of God.
[[walks calmly away from impending firestorm]]
GW ~ Angels ~ WG
Modern:
RBW ~ Shadowmancer ~ WBR
Legacy:
BUG ~ Shadow Delver ~ GUB
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Youtube Channel
In truth, I actually liked the idea of moving the "full" sweepers up to 5 mana; 4-mana sweepers did, as was stated in the announcement of them moving away from 4-mana sweepers, have a tendency to create annoying games that were sort of a "do you have it?" The problem is that if you're going to add an extra mana, you need to have the upside be worth it, which they haven't. Planar Outburst's "upside" was so pointless that it basically was a Day of Judgment that cost 5 mana. End Hostilities was a little better, but its upside was still generally meaningless. Crux of Fate and Fumigate were the best, but still feel like they don't do enough for the extra mana cost.
It doesn't seem that hard. Heck, just having the upside be a cantrip would actually make it into a pretty decent card rather than Days of Judgment that happen to cost 5 mana. The weirdest thing is that there were some perfectly good 5-mana sweepers in the past, like Rout or Hallowed Burial. They could have easily reprinted those, or a version of Rout that didn't have the "can't be regenerated" clause.
Fumigate's biggest problem is that it exists in a format where aggro is defined by creatures that aren't actually creatures on the opponent's turn. Vehicles and animated Planeswalkers simply dodge Fumigate, and because the vehicles punch above their curve the aggro player doesn't have to over extend to try to close out the game. The result is that Fumigate does not actually sweep the opponents board, and on top of that it does not generate enough life to be worth the extra mana. Had aggro in this format centered around dropping several fast creatures, so the typical turn 4 would see 3-5 creatures on the board, then casting Fumigate at 5 would actually deal with the threat and net enough life to make up for being a turn slower.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
In general I think 5 cmc is too weak for sweepers as it gives aggro and go wide strategies too much time to build up. The entire point of Wrath of God and Day of Judgement is to clear the board and punish overextending, which aggro is famous for. They have the ideal card to force someone to overextend already in standard with Gideon of the Trials, but basically no good sweeps outside of Sweltering Suns. What makes whites sweepers so good is the unconditional removal aspect. For control decks, they are at worst an overly expensive doom blade that hits anything.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/artifact-destruction-2016-10-07
While one may assume he is talking about Limited, his talk on sideboards and Dec in Stone indicate that no, he is talking about standard constructed. In his mind, the reason that these decks didn't see play is because people were playing too much removal to deal with Affinity that these decks were hated out. This, in turn, was when I realized that we have a Developer who actually believes that the problem with Mirrodin standard was that there was too much artifact hate in the format, and does not realize that the reason people played so much artifact removal was to stand a chance against affinity. In other words, we have a Developer who has no idea what he is talking about at all. He actively has no idea what the problem was during that era, and blamed the inability to run cool decks on the amount of hate in the format, and not on the reason all that hate was being played in the first place.
Stoddard functions under the mistaken notion that people will play bad removal if good removal doesn't exist. He even talks about in the article I linked right after he said this; they didn't want to print Smelt or Naturalize as they were too efficient at hating everything out, and instead printed worse artifact hate in Kaladesh as a safety valve if artifacts became too strong. The problem is that if the removal is terrible, people won't bother with it. Bad removal and hate is bad, and he (And the rest of R&D) needs to get it through their skull that this philosophy is flat-out wrong. Not just misguided, not just poor, but the exact opposite of correct. People will not play bad removal. They will instead play a deck that tries to snowball harder than the other deck.
It seems like he thought that aggro artifact strategies could be answered by creature removal rather than artifact hate, which would take pressure off more combo style artifact cards like Aetherflux since they wouldn't suffer from splash damage, people would actually have to board against them specifically.
On the surface, he's actually right (well, at least about the abundance of hate chilling out decks, he's still wrong about not blaming the affinity crisis), but every decision made afterwards led to the problems we're seeing now. He's right that pushing vehicles rather than equipment would make instant speed creature removal enough to handle the threat, and that artifact creatures can basically be answered by the same removal spells as non artifact creatures. Choosing creature removal over artifact removal to deal with the threat would be correct, as creature removal could kill not just the vehicles but the critters that crew them. Meanwhile, non creature artifact decks would have breathing room until they developed enough meta position that people started running artifact hate to deal with them.
The problem in execution is twofold. First, they made the artifact hate generally too weak to run, as many have pointed out. More importantly I believe, they nerfed instant speed creature removal to an extreme extent, so the very outlet that Stoddard thought would deal with vehicles was simply absent. Too many removal spells that should have been instants were sorceries, and this made them useless against vehicles. Too few removal spells could reliably deal with cheap creatures, which vehicles stats necessitated.
This was a failed experiment. When testing out a design theory, you need to take smaller steps. They could have cut back on the volume of artifact hate and then observed whether creature removal handled the meta or whether players still ran naturalize to fight of artifact creatures and vehicles.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Though in fairness, he does later mention:
"As we move on through the next year, we will offer some hate to apply pressure to these decks just in case we were wrong, much like we did for enchantments in Theros."
This does tie in with their usual idea of putting the hate cards in the next block, and in fairness they did (the problem here was making the hate cards in the block itself especially subpar). What's really weird is they didn't bother to do this with graveyard hate in Kaladesh.
What I did find interesting was his statement that "vehicles, when turned on, can be dealt with by instant-speed creature removal." True! Here's a question, then: Why didn't you make better instant speed creature removal? That was the complaint everyone had, that they had major problems killing vehicles using Declaration in Stone or Ruinous Path. Unlicensed Disintegration could do the trick but was only playable if you were in both Black and Red, limiting its use.
Oh how far Red has fallen.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
I am planning on play in a PPTQ or 2 this weekend: my weapon of choice - RUG Energy (Midrange). Does this sound like a solid choice? Is it a prospect for bannings?
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)RNA Standard: Grixis Midrange, Jund Deathwhirler, Sultai Vannifar
GRN Standard: Red Midrange, Mono-Blue Tempo, Wr Aggro, Gruul Experimental Dinosaurs, Sultai Midrange, Jeskai Midrange
Modern: Bant Spirits
Forcing a single archetype in all formats: too many colors, bad mana.
Due to the timings, this actually doesn't work. They are already printing Ixalan, and Rivals is probably already finalized. If something is broken in HOU the soonest they'd be able to address it is Dominaria MAYBE and the new Core Set after DOM for certain - by which point HOU is already about to rotate out.
That's why I said that they need to stop doing that. They should not be committing themselves to a final version of the set so far in advance. Ixalan should still be in development so that they have time to react to the format.
But they can't. In order to get this stuff out all over the world on time they need to have these deadlines. When one set hits the shelves the next is being printed so as to be ready for the next release. The one before that HAS to be finalized and ready to ship to the printer.
What you are saying is simply not possible for logistics reasons.
Of course, remember that's in the very late stages of set development, and last-minute changes can easily backfire (many problematic cards got that way because of a last-minute change that as a result wasn't properly playtested--for example, Jace the Mind Sculptor got a huge boost in power when his +2 changed from milling two cards to its current fateseal ability), so you want to be careful about how you do those.
"Sets tend to be in the Future Future League for about six months total. Much like how we release four sets a year, we also have similar FFL periods relating to those sets. The idea is that whenever a set is released, we are finalizing the next year's set in the same time frame. For instance, when Khans of Tarkir came out, we were looking at the real-world results of the first few weeks of Standard and the Pro Tour to see if there was anything major that we missed as we were finalizing Battle for Zendikar."
My interpretation of this post is that it is a clever commentary on "overpriced mythics," and neither serious nor an attempt to troll. Unless that interpretation is corrected by the poster, I recommend not taking it literally. Thanks! -hoser2
Right on the head! The other thing people will do is NOT PLAY. Thus standards severe decline of the past 2 years. Not the right hate, over pushed cards, and one deck formats combined with bad timing shortening card life has crushed non-pro players out of the game.
Redacted for use of inappropriate language. Card prices should mean nothing when it comes to interaction. While I agree that it's much too easy for lands to interact with walkers, redacted for flaming. Bolt can deal with JTMS and that's how it should be. Dreadbore can deal with LotV. My 50-cent common creature can kill a foil Karn if he has no blockers. The issue with Ruins is that lands aren't supposed to have repeatable damage; hell, even Barbarian Ring (which is way too good for standard) sacrifices itself. It'd be like my friend's custom legendary land with double Sphere of Resistance for rules text: The effect is fine, but not on a land, especially when lands are notoriously hard to interact with.