But it just seems silly to change an entire creature mechanically because of one card in standard. Because there are longtime sliver owners who have bought cards that had certain abilities, and now they are obselete. It impacts how people play games. They will have to buy new slivers, which don't even look like slivers, and have an ability which is a power creep and go against the flavor of the creature.
Take Serra Angel for instance. A great card for many years. It was a rare at one point (not that rarities matter that much, but it was somewhat an indication of the caliber of the card). And then Baneslayer Angel came along. Now Serra Angel is uncommon, and for competitive purposes, obselete, and worth nothing.
So, yeah, I'm really concerned about MTG in five/ten years time. They probably will introduce a rarity higher than mythic rarity. Who knows, maybe Baneslayer Angel might be obselete for something else.
I apologise if I've been a bit late on the bandwagon, but I've just noticed after a small hiatus there are some new slivers from M14.
Why? Please tell me why? Why change the token sliver ability to only "slivers you control"? The fact that the old slivers applied its abilities to all slivers (even ones outside your control) actually made the creature somewhat balanced. One can argue that the change is too make them more competitive, but we wouldn't have to do that if there hasn't been such a power creep in recent years (*cough* *cough* Zendikar).
Don't even get me started on the new artwork for the slivers.
Although I wouldn't advocate it as a main strategy for winning, Extort seems good in that it can be an outlet for lands that would remain untapped otherwise. Moreover, when playing against creature aggro decks, extort allows to get past the creature barriers to take unpreventable life loss against an opponent.
But is Extort, even as a side strategy, too slow against current Standard aggro?
Not angry at all, merely frustrated. It passes your opinion as if it were facts, takes concepts at face value without confirming them, it has all of the errors that a journalistic piece can have... It's wrong. It's a disaster. Nothing short of it.
If you interpret the OP as passing opinion as if they were facts, that's you fault. I cannot control how you think. I never made a claim directly in writing saying the OP was fact in any way. If you still interpret the OP as passing opinions as facts, I'd be curious as to how you came up with that conclusion. If anything, that's taking face value without confirmation, exactly what you are arguing against in my post. Which you can, its your right. But I will exercise my right to point that out how it contradicts with what you support.
Self-evident. When trying to come up with an analysis, you should try to maintain a high degree of impartiality and remove bias, sticking to the facts.
Note how you use the word "should". Why should I maintain a high degree of impartiality? This is just a forum, not a scientific convention. I will write in a way that I want to write. If I want to be informative, I will. Otherwise, no. This is not arrogance, this is exercising my rights as a human being.
My benefit? Why would it be my benefit? Why am I more important than anyone else? And conversely, why are you? Frankly, unless you like talking to yourself, writing a post in a public discussion forum that is focused on your own subjective view of the issue is something that seems a bit irrational. When creating a message that others will read, it is important to ensure that that message is aimed and targeted at the readers, not at you.
The reason why I questioned why I should cater to your criteria is because you were telling me what I should do, when I clearly do not have to do anything.
Which brings me back to my original post. You were absolutely wrong to assume that I was passing my opinions as facts. Maybe (note that I'm saying maybe) I wrote in a way that was synonymous to someone who would write in an informative manner (but the content was in fact opinions). And maybe from their you interpreted this as me passing off my opinions as fact. Maybe when I write something subjectively, maybe I should not write with complete sentences, and use internet slang instead, so people will not assume that I am writing a factual piece. Other than that, I have no idea how you assumed my piece to pass opinions as fact, considering I did not state it in writing, and I only used normal sentences. If this is your reason to think the way you did, I don't believe that counts. And this is considering that I had many clues in my OP to show that I wasn't posing as merely an "informative" piece at all, such as calling Legacy the "Paris" of formats (which people shouldn't take seriously) and saying how it was going to be "fun" to make "Con" points about Standard.
On the other hand, it was clear for me to assume that you were acting in an inappropriate manner as you used punctuation and grammer synonymous to someone who in fact is. I'm not going to go through what you did, because you already posted it.
To get a reaction from you in the way that you did in your first post appears anti-social, and definitely not the reason why I came on to this forum in the first place. You can still say the points thats you are trying to make without acting in the way you did. You can learn from others on this forum. It wasn't only what you said. It was how you said it. Note that there were many people on this forum that did point out the flaws of my OP, but were much less aggressive in the way they did it.
And what do you think people do at new card discussions. They display a card, and give their own subjective opinion. Is this irrational? Maybe, but consider there is a human need for self-expression, regardless of how rational or irrational it may be. Human beings are not robots. And I can target my audience in any way I want.
Then what is your goal? What do you intend to gain? From your own introduction and original post, you seem to want something informative. Care to explain yourself?.
My goal is to have a discussion, not an argument. It still can be achieved through a subjective piece. And what you "seem" from my post is not entirely right, if at all.
But why would you justify anything specifically to me? You should justify EVERYTHING to EVERYONE that reads your post. And this is only my opinion due to the way you presented your original post.
You are using the word "should" again. I don't need to justify anything to anyone why I write the way I write. I can if I want to, but someone else shouldn't be in a position to tell me this. And you speaking on the behalf of everyone what I should do? This is precisely the reason why I responded to your first post.
If you consider the number of alternatives for a regular standard or modern deck, you'll notice that those 100 different cards actually adds an extra challenge to the deck construction process, and if you calculated statystically the number of choices and alternatives, you might realize that there's more variation and finetuning in average in a EDH deck than in a standard or modern deck. You will also soon realize that this is directly tied to your "seeing a small percentage of cards" seen in legacy, modern, standard. allowing people to play 4 copies of the strongest/most synergistic cards in a deck will result in LESS variation and LESS freedom. Calculate it. Really. You might be surprised.
Read my response to LandBoySteve. I explain my thoughts on Commander. I just said there was a lack of freedom in one aspect of deck building. I also said it was made up for in other ways.
How funny that you know my opinion without me telling you... I agreed with some things you said, and yet I called them to attention as you have not justified, substantiated or otherwise provided anything to back them up. This is not a question about opinions. It's a question of writing a good post or a mediocre post. Yours was the latter. You could improve it.
The opinion that I was referring to was when you said "Also, 100% disagree with your entire commander analysis, particularly in the less skill intensive and the less freedom of deck construction. Those are your OPINIONS, not a fact." If it wasn't a question about opinions, then why did you mention opinion in the first place. And I have explained why I don't have to back anything I've said up. It is a subjective piece mostly, not a scientific report. I can write whatever I want with or without your advice. And there are less anti-social ways of highlighting why I should improve the post. If I appeared in any way anti-social to how I responded to your post, then I believe I have grounds to do so as I was not the one to initiate the argument in the first place.
I believe it is very interesting that you believe criticism aimed at you must come from disagreeing instead of criticizing the way you wrote the post funny, in fact...
OP you should copy and paste this, it's by far the best one
my only take away from the original was every form of magic except commander is expensive
It wasn't really so much that Commander isn't expensive, because it really can be. It was more of the idea that it can be as expensive as you want it to be.
But yes, I will take the list into consideration and update soon.
To know surprise, a lot of biased and misinformed stuff in this thread. A lot of opinions are being stated as facts and that's dangerous.
The problem is, if you were to truly stick to the "facts" of each format, the information provided would be close to useless. In fact, you can't even group things into pros and cons because that's a subjective thing.
For example:
Vintage
Largest card pool of all the formats
Can possibly be the most expensive initial buy in depending on deck chosen
Least supported format by WotC
Legacy
Second largest card pool of all the formats
Possibly second most expensive initial buy in depending on deck chosen
Arguably second least supported format by WotC though 3rd Party supported
Modern
Newest format
Least expensive of the older formats for initial buy in depending on deck
2nd most supported format by WotC currently
2nd smallest card pool
Standard
Smallest card pool with the exception of limited and block
Initial buy in can be relatively small depending on deck
Over time becomes more expensive than other formats because of rotation
Everything else as far as skill level, fun level, number of turns is just opinion. I've seen Vintage games go on forever after FoW attrition wars. I've seen Standard games end on turn 3.
There is very little that you can qualify and quantify as far as these formats go. So the rest of this is just opinion. And opinions are fine. But please can we stop giving opinions as facts and as pro versus con?
I never thought about that way. You are absolutely right in that a Pro/Con thread cannot be truly objective because what one considers to be a Pro/Con is a subjective thing. The intention of the post was to be both objective and subjective (although probably a lot more subjective).
I did respond to a previous post by someone else which pointed out me saying that slightly less freedom in EDH due to having to conform to 100 cards and one of each card is as my "opinion". To be honest, the only way it can be classed as an opinion is my classification of this as a "Con", or a negative aspect of the format. Otherwise, it is a fact. In other constructed formats, even though people conform to around 60 cards, people have the ability to choose more, with the ability of also having multiple cards up to four. This creates many different possibilities. This cannot be done in EDH.
This is not to say that EDH has no freedom at all, because the small restriction of having 100 cards is made up for in many other ways to the point in which it does not matter.
It is up to the person reading the post to make up their own mind of what they agree with or disagree. I don't see people fussing over whether card discussions should be objective or not, so I don't know why it must apply here.
But to conclude, I appreciate the post. Hopefully people will take this on board.
I don't know what to make of it....Only the second mode is relevant in most decks (it should have been exile though to resemble swords to plowshares) but it comes at a potentially steep price (take five from thundermaw or take five from killing him?). First mode is useful if you play that bant aura deck (just add black) or in conjunction with Soul Ransom. Did you discard two cards? Get your stupid creature back and I'll get my aura back or something. Third mode...you have to be pretty desperate if you need to waste a card to reanimate a 1 CMC creature (unless your hand is spectral flight, ethereal armor, rancor but no creatures :)).
The second ability would have an relevant application early game and late game.
Early game, when you destroy a creature, you probably will only lose 1 or 2 life, so it doesn't become a huge issue. In the case of mid-late game of Thundermaw Hellkite, the second ability is still has an application to destroy even if you lose 5 life. This is where Extort comes into the picture, in which you can Extort your life back the moment you play Orzhov Charm, or when it is your turn.
Easily one of the best charms. It allows your creatures to avoid removal, while at the same time being a removal spell as well. The lose life drawback of the spell doesn't matter as you will gain it back anyway.
It may have a few issues working in a Standard format, as it has a high cost, but I still think it could see play in an eternal format. For instance, if you are up against an artifact/artifact-creature deck, the card has a legitimate answer for it. Although not as efficient as Terminus, the card does have a use in reducing Dredge and ignores the Indestructible keyword.
Exiling also prevents the ability for decks to tutor their creatures again, but that is more relevant in eternal format play.
As far as exiling enchantments, yes, it can get rid of Detention Sphere and O-ring.
As far as exiling planeswalkers, depends on whether it is a planewalker dependant deck with several of them on the field. If so, this can be devastating.
I think the high cost is somewhat justified in that you have a choice of what permanents you want to exile. And the cost isn't too much of an issue if you are playing control, as control is generally a slow-to-act deck type. As long as you have answers for aggro, then it should be fine. With Terminus, you may not always have the opportunity to cast its Miracle cost, so Merciless Eviction may still be somewhat viable in Standard. But as I said, it would have more application in a eternal format.
A note to the OP: If you're going to write pros and cons, don't write _YOUR_ pros and cons, as other people might disagree with you. You should focus on facts which are not in any way subjective. For example, a game ending in one turn is only bad for you. There have been 52 minute turn ones in vintage with an immense amount of spells played by both players. Is that bad? Why?
Also, why do you think that some cards not being competitive is a bad thing? I mean, really? How is that even a THING? It's neither good nor bad, it's just a characteristic of the game. It's present in every single format.
Then you seem to draw some conclusions from mid air with the legacy over on turn 5 and your overall modern analysis.
Also, 100% disagree with your entire commander analysis, particularly in the less skill intensive and the less freedom of deck construction. Those are your OPINIONS, not a fact.
As to standard, what exactly does "constructed is too rigid" mean?
Finally, your analysis of limited seems to ignore the fact that there IS such a thing as limited archetypes and forcing a deck type in draft, passing signals to the guy on your left/right, reading the table, etc, greatly diminishing what REALLY is a pro in this format.
Your post is a disaster -_- ...
Congratulations. You have worked out that the post is in fact very biased. As long as you recognise that, you are entitled to make up your own mind, which you have. Moreover, I seem to sense that you are rather angry about my opinions, which you are entitled to be, but is against my recommendation.
Also, why should I not be biased. Why should the post have to be written in one particular style for your benefit. When you read a journalist article or a film review, are you going to say "Oh noes, its extremely biased!". But people can still make up their own mind. The fact that I should only write a purely informative piece is your opinion. This is a forum. I'm exercising a righ of free speech. If people were unable to recognise the subjective side to the article, well, I can't control how they think.
To justify specifically to you why playing only competitive cards is a bad thing, think about it this way. Have you ever played constructed formats? If so, you would know that there is a tendency for only a select group of cards being viable, while the rest will simply never see play. Most people simply find it frustrating that they see the same cards in play all the time, particularly in Standard. This is less so in Legacy though, but Legacy still leaves out a large chuck of cards. So that means many people won't play exactly what they want.
As far as the Commander analysis is concerned, I think you have misunderstood my point entirely. My first point was "Less Skill Intensive?" with a question mark. Note the question mark. It is not their because it is a question. It's there (and its a legitimate punctuation tool) because I'm not sure whether that point counts as being valid. It means that I think it could be valid, but there is a chance it may not be.
Also, I also said that "Freedom of deck construction is slightly limited" due to having to have a specific number of cards in Commander. You cannot be serious that you honestly think that this just an opinion. If one were to have any card number in Commander, the freedom of deck construction would increase, wouldn't it? Unless your definition of "freedom of deck construction" means something else entirely. This is not to say that "Commander" has not much freedom in deck construction.
I actually feel bad for you that you responded in the way you did. I don't think you have read the original post properly at all. You even asked what does "Constructed often too rigid" mean in the context of the post when I explained it fairly clearly in the OP. It is amazing how you expect an informative piece and then get visibly annoyed when one does not agree with your opinion. As I said, you are entitled to be angry, but it is against my recommendation.
I like it, but I don't think it is the best keyrune. Other keyrunes from the Azorius and the Dimir seem better. But still, the Orzhov Keyrune is still legitimately useful as a defensive option.
But it just seems silly to change an entire creature mechanically because of one card in standard. Because there are longtime sliver owners who have bought cards that had certain abilities, and now they are obselete. It impacts how people play games. They will have to buy new slivers, which don't even look like slivers, and have an ability which is a power creep and go against the flavor of the creature.
Take Serra Angel for instance. A great card for many years. It was a rare at one point (not that rarities matter that much, but it was somewhat an indication of the caliber of the card). And then Baneslayer Angel came along. Now Serra Angel is uncommon, and for competitive purposes, obselete, and worth nothing.
So, yeah, I'm really concerned about MTG in five/ten years time. They probably will introduce a rarity higher than mythic rarity. Who knows, maybe Baneslayer Angel might be obselete for something else.
Why? Please tell me why? Why change the token sliver ability to only "slivers you control"? The fact that the old slivers applied its abilities to all slivers (even ones outside your control) actually made the creature somewhat balanced. One can argue that the change is too make them more competitive, but we wouldn't have to do that if there hasn't been such a power creep in recent years (*cough* *cough* Zendikar).
Don't even get me started on the new artwork for the slivers.
They are not slivers. They are elementals.
But is Extort, even as a side strategy, too slow against current Standard aggro?
If you interpret the OP as passing opinion as if they were facts, that's you fault. I cannot control how you think. I never made a claim directly in writing saying the OP was fact in any way. If you still interpret the OP as passing opinions as facts, I'd be curious as to how you came up with that conclusion. If anything, that's taking face value without confirmation, exactly what you are arguing against in my post. Which you can, its your right. But I will exercise my right to point that out how it contradicts with what you support.
Note how you use the word "should". Why should I maintain a high degree of impartiality? This is just a forum, not a scientific convention. I will write in a way that I want to write. If I want to be informative, I will. Otherwise, no. This is not arrogance, this is exercising my rights as a human being.
The reason why I questioned why I should cater to your criteria is because you were telling me what I should do, when I clearly do not have to do anything.
Which brings me back to my original post. You were absolutely wrong to assume that I was passing my opinions as facts. Maybe (note that I'm saying maybe) I wrote in a way that was synonymous to someone who would write in an informative manner (but the content was in fact opinions). And maybe from their you interpreted this as me passing off my opinions as fact. Maybe when I write something subjectively, maybe I should not write with complete sentences, and use internet slang instead, so people will not assume that I am writing a factual piece. Other than that, I have no idea how you assumed my piece to pass opinions as fact, considering I did not state it in writing, and I only used normal sentences. If this is your reason to think the way you did, I don't believe that counts. And this is considering that I had many clues in my OP to show that I wasn't posing as merely an "informative" piece at all, such as calling Legacy the "Paris" of formats (which people shouldn't take seriously) and saying how it was going to be "fun" to make "Con" points about Standard.
On the other hand, it was clear for me to assume that you were acting in an inappropriate manner as you used punctuation and grammer synonymous to someone who in fact is. I'm not going to go through what you did, because you already posted it.
To get a reaction from you in the way that you did in your first post appears anti-social, and definitely not the reason why I came on to this forum in the first place. You can still say the points thats you are trying to make without acting in the way you did. You can learn from others on this forum. It wasn't only what you said. It was how you said it. Note that there were many people on this forum that did point out the flaws of my OP, but were much less aggressive in the way they did it.
And what do you think people do at new card discussions. They display a card, and give their own subjective opinion. Is this irrational? Maybe, but consider there is a human need for self-expression, regardless of how rational or irrational it may be. Human beings are not robots. And I can target my audience in any way I want.
My goal is to have a discussion, not an argument. It still can be achieved through a subjective piece. And what you "seem" from my post is not entirely right, if at all.
Once again, it is your fault for interpreting that way. When you have Pros/Cons, it would be highly subjective in nature.
You are using the word "should" again. I don't need to justify anything to anyone why I write the way I write. I can if I want to, but someone else shouldn't be in a position to tell me this. And you speaking on the behalf of everyone what I should do? This is precisely the reason why I responded to your first post.
Once again, my piece is subjective.
Read my response to LandBoySteve. I explain my thoughts on Commander. I just said there was a lack of freedom in one aspect of deck building. I also said it was made up for in other ways.
Assuming the "Saying one thing and then doing another" is the passing of opinions as fact, it is your fault that you interpret it that way.
The opinion that I was referring to was when you said "Also, 100% disagree with your entire commander analysis, particularly in the less skill intensive and the less freedom of deck construction. Those are your OPINIONS, not a fact." If it wasn't a question about opinions, then why did you mention opinion in the first place. And I have explained why I don't have to back anything I've said up. It is a subjective piece mostly, not a scientific report. I can write whatever I want with or without your advice. And there are less anti-social ways of highlighting why I should improve the post. If I appeared in any way anti-social to how I responded to your post, then I believe I have grounds to do so as I was not the one to initiate the argument in the first place.
Hope I've made you laugh.
I doubt it would happen though, but it would be awesome.
It wasn't really so much that Commander isn't expensive, because it really can be. It was more of the idea that it can be as expensive as you want it to be.
But yes, I will take the list into consideration and update soon.
I never thought about that way. You are absolutely right in that a Pro/Con thread cannot be truly objective because what one considers to be a Pro/Con is a subjective thing. The intention of the post was to be both objective and subjective (although probably a lot more subjective).
I did respond to a previous post by someone else which pointed out me saying that slightly less freedom in EDH due to having to conform to 100 cards and one of each card is as my "opinion". To be honest, the only way it can be classed as an opinion is my classification of this as a "Con", or a negative aspect of the format. Otherwise, it is a fact. In other constructed formats, even though people conform to around 60 cards, people have the ability to choose more, with the ability of also having multiple cards up to four. This creates many different possibilities. This cannot be done in EDH.
This is not to say that EDH has no freedom at all, because the small restriction of having 100 cards is made up for in many other ways to the point in which it does not matter.
It is up to the person reading the post to make up their own mind of what they agree with or disagree. I don't see people fussing over whether card discussions should be objective or not, so I don't know why it must apply here.
But to conclude, I appreciate the post. Hopefully people will take this on board.
The second ability would have an relevant application early game and late game.
Early game, when you destroy a creature, you probably will only lose 1 or 2 life, so it doesn't become a huge issue. In the case of mid-late game of Thundermaw Hellkite, the second ability is still has an application to destroy even if you lose 5 life. This is where Extort comes into the picture, in which you can Extort your life back the moment you play Orzhov Charm, or when it is your turn.
Easily one of the best charms. It allows your creatures to avoid removal, while at the same time being a removal spell as well. The lose life drawback of the spell doesn't matter as you will gain it back anyway.
On top of that, you can dredge a weenie.
Long live the Orzhov!
Mycosynth Lattice + Merciless Eviction
That is all.
Exiling also prevents the ability for decks to tutor their creatures again, but that is more relevant in eternal format play.
As far as exiling enchantments, yes, it can get rid of Detention Sphere and O-ring.
As far as exiling planeswalkers, depends on whether it is a planewalker dependant deck with several of them on the field. If so, this can be devastating.
I think the high cost is somewhat justified in that you have a choice of what permanents you want to exile. And the cost isn't too much of an issue if you are playing control, as control is generally a slow-to-act deck type. As long as you have answers for aggro, then it should be fine. With Terminus, you may not always have the opportunity to cast its Miracle cost, so Merciless Eviction may still be somewhat viable in Standard. But as I said, it would have more application in a eternal format.
Congratulations. You have worked out that the post is in fact very biased. As long as you recognise that, you are entitled to make up your own mind, which you have. Moreover, I seem to sense that you are rather angry about my opinions, which you are entitled to be, but is against my recommendation.
Also, why should I not be biased. Why should the post have to be written in one particular style for your benefit. When you read a journalist article or a film review, are you going to say "Oh noes, its extremely biased!". But people can still make up their own mind. The fact that I should only write a purely informative piece is your opinion. This is a forum. I'm exercising a righ of free speech. If people were unable to recognise the subjective side to the article, well, I can't control how they think.
To justify specifically to you why playing only competitive cards is a bad thing, think about it this way. Have you ever played constructed formats? If so, you would know that there is a tendency for only a select group of cards being viable, while the rest will simply never see play. Most people simply find it frustrating that they see the same cards in play all the time, particularly in Standard. This is less so in Legacy though, but Legacy still leaves out a large chuck of cards. So that means many people won't play exactly what they want.
As far as the Commander analysis is concerned, I think you have misunderstood my point entirely. My first point was "Less Skill Intensive?" with a question mark. Note the question mark. It is not their because it is a question. It's there (and its a legitimate punctuation tool) because I'm not sure whether that point counts as being valid. It means that I think it could be valid, but there is a chance it may not be.
Also, I also said that "Freedom of deck construction is slightly limited" due to having to have a specific number of cards in Commander. You cannot be serious that you honestly think that this just an opinion. If one were to have any card number in Commander, the freedom of deck construction would increase, wouldn't it? Unless your definition of "freedom of deck construction" means something else entirely. This is not to say that "Commander" has not much freedom in deck construction.
I actually feel bad for you that you responded in the way you did. I don't think you have read the original post properly at all. You even asked what does "Constructed often too rigid" mean in the context of the post when I explained it fairly clearly in the OP. It is amazing how you expect an informative piece and then get visibly annoyed when one does not agree with your opinion. As I said, you are entitled to be angry, but it is against my recommendation.
I like it, but I don't think it is the best keyrune. Other keyrunes from the Azorius and the Dimir seem better. But still, the Orzhov Keyrune is still legitimately useful as a defensive option.