They haven't given me any reason to suspect that they are intentionally misleading us with their announcements, so I don't actually think MTGO had anything to do with it.
Sorry I meant the part about tuck being in consideration when Banned as a Commander was being considered.
Still want to know why having a banned and banned as commander list was too complicated for us imbeciles to comprehend... or if it was really just the desire to make the paper and MTGO lists the same without hassling MTGO developers to fix it.
The MTGO thing does make sense, but so does streamlining and doing away with extra stuff. I am sort of curious whether they had already started to discuss the tuck change when the abolished the BaaC though, especially when it now seems that the BaaC would be a perfect way to keep the Narsets of the world in check should they prove problematic.
It wasn't, assuming that the RC was being forthright about their plans.
This should be a game loss. It won't be a game loss more than 2 or 3 times in anyone's "career". Being mellow about this just encourages sloppy play in your play group.
I like this set. It is unfortunate that there's only one pack of this in draft. The enchantment matters theme actually has a huge bearing on a lot of otherwise unplayables. They did a good job bringing some life back to the block.
It's pretty clear the whole theme is moving toward a deeper traditional enchantment theme as we get closer to Nyx. A lot of the complaining in this thread seems like impatient whining.
Even if Wizards didn't capitalize on the potential of enchantment matters, I'm glad they are pacing themselves. Having cards that care about enchantments just to care about them as a full block theme seems like box-checking. I have a feeling the whole block will make more "sense" when it is complete.
Reminds me of when Scryb & Force was a very fun deck. This guy doesn't even need the "Scryb" part. And the guild colors he'd want to be in for that deck do care an awful lot about +1/+1 counters...
I will be very interested in this card post-rotation.
With the new rules change, will Legends/PWs look at each team as one player or will each player be able to have a copy of a legend in play regardless of which team they're on? I've searched high and low for a ruling on this but I can't find anything specific.
You are ignoring the fact that the card has been called the product of a typo by the man who designed it. It fell through the cracks and then they left it there. What don't you get about that?
You people act like Mark Rosewater's mana costs are set in stone. It's development's job to take the mana cost of every card into consideration within the context of both the set (for constructed and limited) and the game (for considerations of power creep). Making a worse card than a baseline card does nothing but set the tone for the limited environment of that set. Making a better card than a baseline card raises player expectations concerning what needs to happen in every future set (you can see the fruits of this happening when people cite Warpath Ghoul.
It's Mark Rosewater's job to generate ideas that are consistent with the philosophy of each color and each set and the game as a whole. That's it. He (and others) make suggestions, they get tweaked by development. Quoting what Mark Rosewater costed a card at shows a complete ignorance of the process of the way Magic R&D works. It's neither a single-person job, nor something that happens through blind ignorance. And you can see the fruits of Rosewater's single-person development experience in the broken-to-hell set Urza's Destiny, which he cites himself as a mistake constantly.
(And before someone brings up mistakes like Skullclamp, let's assume this was a mistake - I'd rather them make mistakes downward than upward - that is, I'd rather they make "accidentally" crappy cards than "accidentally" phenomenal, format-breaking cards.)
Aye, but I like thinking up (and occasionally even making!) Johnny decks that are so out of this world that nobody could even begin to comprehend their awesomeness.
E.g: Casting a Lure-style effect on your opponents creature. Normally not that good of an idea, but a deck with stuff like Goldenglow Moth and similiar abilities might work out somewhat well. Death Baron and Wall of Bone both worked out amazingly for my past Zombie deck (burn ftl, aye!). If you want your opponent to attack, this card is something of a safe haven from if they pump up their attacking creatures more than you can handle.
That's just one example (recap: decks that punish your opponent for attacking- Contaminated Bond, Nettling Curse). I'm sure people other than me could think of way better ways!
Edit: I just read your post Atobe, that's another good reason too
It could also show up in Legacy decks packing Donate.
No, I mean to get cards that show that they have been looked at with 20 years of experience in their designs, not something that looked like it was made in a rush and wasn't thought of. 20 years of experience should be bringing in constant high quality stuff.
Could it be possible that there's a reason they'd want a zombie that interacts with vampires in the set for Worldwake?
It's that feeling of not being satisfied with a product that you bought with your hard earned cash. This is to relieve that stress a bit.
Are you really saying "I buy packs to get cards that are marginally BETTER than Scathe Zombies and if they're not then my hard-earned cash is thereby wasted"? I think you really mean to be coming off less, uh, silly.
why would you attack him personally for stating his opinion on a card? i think it's fair to disagree with him, but you're not even doing that.
What he hopes to achieve - i would imagine that OP doesn't *actually* want employees to be fired. firing them would be unreasonable, a point that has already been made. we want there to be sufficient oversight in the design process of MTG. i don't think that is an unreasonable expectation for a large company that has been in business for over a decade.
is he overreacting? maybe, but it's part of drawing attention to the issue. maybe his presentation could be better, but to be quite honest the thread is full of garbage like "go disappear," "get over it", "you have nothing better to do in your life?", "it's just one card!," all of which adds nothing to the discussion.
it's unfortunate, because the topic is actually quite interesting imo. is there a minimum power level we should expect for commons? is it even worth the resources used to print the card, which will likely just be tossed out or sit in a box in a closet for years? would the set be better or worse without the card? how can wizards make bad cards without making them unplayable in any serious format?
there is the possibility for a good discussion here, but it seems most people are content to ***** at the OP and call names. it's like a micro representation of the internet at large, actually.
Don't you think the OP's histrionic reaction to the card framed the debate in such a way that the question of what an acceptable level of power at common for 2B should be became impossible? The OP is acting irrationally and is not discussing the issue and I doubt he really knew or knows how to frame the issue in the way you are describing.
(On a purely theoretical level I think the point you raise is interesting and I don't think I ever thought that Scathe Zombies was the "floor" for a 2B 2/2.)
My inner Vorthos giggles at this card. I have a trillion Scathe Zombies (in fact, I've bought tons of 8th, 9th and 10th edition and I didn't even realize it was in those sets until someone mentioned it while whining about this card), and they do nothing for me. I think this card is cute and useless, whereas Scathe Zombies are just useless.
My inner Spike doesn't take a second look at this card, which is how you should handle it. "Oh, they printed a really horrific card. Let me go ahead and pass that along to the idiot drafting black to my left." That's it. Lighten up, Francis.
On a side note, I also have a bone to pick with the OP for making me think that the art had boobies in it or something. *glare*
Seriously: do you think that one word, marriage, could realistically be applied both to a "traditional" family and to a troupe of seven lesbians in an economic/romantic cooperative?
We would never be able to find a word to encompass such a wide range of relationships without causing the word to lose all meaning, surely.
Sorry I meant the part about tuck being in consideration when Banned as a Commander was being considered.
It wasn't, assuming that the RC was being forthright about their plans.
Even if Wizards didn't capitalize on the potential of enchantment matters, I'm glad they are pacing themselves. Having cards that care about enchantments just to care about them as a full block theme seems like box-checking. I have a feeling the whole block will make more "sense" when it is complete.
I will be very interested in this card post-rotation.
You people act like Mark Rosewater's mana costs are set in stone. It's development's job to take the mana cost of every card into consideration within the context of both the set (for constructed and limited) and the game (for considerations of power creep). Making a worse card than a baseline card does nothing but set the tone for the limited environment of that set. Making a better card than a baseline card raises player expectations concerning what needs to happen in every future set (you can see the fruits of this happening when people cite Warpath Ghoul.
It's Mark Rosewater's job to generate ideas that are consistent with the philosophy of each color and each set and the game as a whole. That's it. He (and others) make suggestions, they get tweaked by development. Quoting what Mark Rosewater costed a card at shows a complete ignorance of the process of the way Magic R&D works. It's neither a single-person job, nor something that happens through blind ignorance. And you can see the fruits of Rosewater's single-person development experience in the broken-to-hell set Urza's Destiny, which he cites himself as a mistake constantly.
(And before someone brings up mistakes like Skullclamp, let's assume this was a mistake - I'd rather them make mistakes downward than upward - that is, I'd rather they make "accidentally" crappy cards than "accidentally" phenomenal, format-breaking cards.)
-E
It could also show up in Legacy decks packing Donate.
-E
Listen, let's not bring that up. People on this forum are so fond of the word "strictly" that they don't like to think about random scenarios.
-E
Could it be possible that there's a reason they'd want a zombie that interacts with vampires in the set for Worldwake?
-E
Are you really saying "I buy packs to get cards that are marginally BETTER than Scathe Zombies and if they're not then my hard-earned cash is thereby wasted"? I think you really mean to be coming off less, uh, silly.
-E
Don't you think the OP's histrionic reaction to the card framed the debate in such a way that the question of what an acceptable level of power at common for 2B should be became impossible? The OP is acting irrationally and is not discussing the issue and I doubt he really knew or knows how to frame the issue in the way you are describing.
(On a purely theoretical level I think the point you raise is interesting and I don't think I ever thought that Scathe Zombies was the "floor" for a 2B 2/2.)
-E
My inner Spike doesn't take a second look at this card, which is how you should handle it. "Oh, they printed a really horrific card. Let me go ahead and pass that along to the idiot drafting black to my left." That's it. Lighten up, Francis.
On a side note, I also have a bone to pick with the OP for making me think that the art had boobies in it or something. *glare*
-E
We would never be able to find a word to encompass such a wide range of relationships without causing the word to lose all meaning, surely.
-E