This iteration has keyword salad, enabled by good creatures you can drop before. Hexproof? Haste? Indestructible? Long as another creature you control has it, so does this.
And there is the problem.
Cairn Wanderer takes advantage of the template better, but is still pretty poor.
3 mana 2-1 that loots is fine but not great. Eternalize will be busted in limited which I assume is the justification for the cost. I don't think it will beat out rouge refiner for value 3 drop but of you want digging power attached to a blocker in a blue deck without refiner this seems fine. Not something I would jam 4 of but it is pretty flexible and that is sometimes a very important trait on a card.
Champion is the type of creature that every control deck wants. I don't know that it shines in this current Standard, but I can look at standard formats of the past and see that this would just shine. Not a 1:1, but it reminds me of Mulldrifter in many ways. On turn 3 you get a blocker to protect your life total while getting to see two cards and make a couple of choices.
If the rest of your deck can get you to the late game, you can effectively chain a couple of these together for some real card advantage. It snowballs in a way that can be backbreaking for decks that aren't prepared for a long game.
Unfortunately there are some real answers to the Eternalize mechanic now, so I doubt it will be tier 1.
Am I missing something? Why has no one mentioned this with Anointed Procession and Hidden Stockpile in the tokens deck that is fringe tier in Standard at the moment?
I'm curious to know from all of you who attend FNM... what was the attitude of players yesterday? Were there more people playing?
Now that we have had a few days to reflect and temper our knee jerk reactions, how do people feel about the future of standard?
I haven't played standard since a little before the Emrakul ban. Part of the reason is that I don't have a ton of time to follow MTG news. I always considered standard to be the "Safe" constructed format. I thought as long as I knew what the rotation schedules were, I should be able to put together 75 cards using the current product and play at FNM or other events. This has increasingly become not true.
For those of you who follow standard closely, what are the chances that another current card will need to be banned to keep the format healthy? Is there a card(s) right now that we should be looking out for?
As I explained- because restrictions increase variance of play in a bad way. To elaborate, because it's not reliable to draw one specific card, unless you use tutors which are fairly restricted in power and quantity in modern magic and therefore not very good at doing so. And if you are restricting a card- that implies it is a key card that is quite powerful for top decks, and therefore whether or not you happen to draw your one copy of that card becomes a large factor in games and not a fun one. And in a number of cases, restrictions would just kill the decks using the card anyway.
I don't see any reasons why Felidar Guardian should be an exception.
We know this. The deterioration of play with restricted cards as a negative assumes that the play was kosher/fair/healthy to begin with. Wizards and the community believe it wasn't any of these things pre-ban. A Degenerate Format < Restricted Card Format. The original suggestion to restrict the card was predicated on the idea that people should be able to play with their cards. It isn't an ideal solution, it's just undeniably better than the status quo. Restricted Cat is more fun than the current standard, and to your point, if it would kill the deck all the same then it serves the same purpose as a late ban while allowing that kid who opened the pack play with the card.
And for lead time- because that lead is a result of the processes of releasing the set. It's not a decision to do it that long- it's more of a necessity. While they probably could reduce the lead time- it would probably cost them a lot of money to do it to any significant amount so it's just not going to be worth it. Lead time is only going to go down if they figure out a faster, but similarly efficient way to do it- not for the sake of it. There's simply not enough benefit to outweigh the costs.
I'm glad you concede that they PROBABLY could reduce the lead time. I also hope you would agree that they've done so over the last decade. Great... let's take it a little further. Saying that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs is pure conjecture on your part. What are the costs associated? How do we measure them? Is it money? How much? Is it customer satisfaction? How much money are they losing now because of the decline of standard? All good questions which neither you or I have the answer to. Don't answer it for us definitively as if you know. I doubt Wizard's knows, but they should explore it themselves for the betterment of their product.
I'm not giving them a free pass- I'm acknowledging human fallibility. We all make mistakes. It's easy to sit there and complain about them, it's usually much much harder to fix them.
How many cards have they banned in Standard the last year? How does that compare to the year before that? And then the previous 5 years?
Mistakes are fine. The same mistake with increasing frequency is problematic.
WotC doesn't need to do anything nefarious to make a good profit, even if it's never perfectly ideal for the players.
I don't think the company is evil. I just think their decisions are more suspect than in the past.
But do criticise WotC without experiencing the workload and processes for yourself?
No, I don't accept that I shouldn't criticise other people's criticisms. It is not viable to do a number of the things you suggested. Take that as you will, but I am going to say it.
The reason you rejected some of the things I proposed was, as you say, because it was easy to do so. Example: you questioned my suggestion to ban the planeswalker over the cat. Banning the Planeswalker would be the better choice, and is backed by Wizard's own precedent. They banned Splinter Twin. They Banned Jace TMS. I contend that players would be less averse to the banning of the walker. It would accomplish the same goal for Organized Play, and make less players upset (due to expectation). But they didn't do that.
Easy to say. Why should we think this? Why do you think this? Because you can think of alternatives that you think are better?
Well, that's the significance of your alternatives not being viable.
Who has to propose a solution for you to believe that it's better than what Wizards did? Clearly I'm not going to convince you, which is fine.
To say Wizards couldn't have done anything TODAY but what they chose to do comes of as disingenuous.
This has been a failure- but everybody seems to think they could have done better even though most people would probably do worse. Instead of people giving the development team credit and thinking the fault might have been carried over from design, was due to a lack of resources or something like that- the default seems to be that the individual developers must be incompetent. And this is something I see all the time on these forums. It's pretty unfair. Especially when the people saying it have no experience doing the job.
Don't punish some of us for what you see all the time on the forums. It's pretty unfair. Myself and many others have concisely expressed why Today was piss poor and what could have been done, and would can still be done about it. I don't have to work for Wizards to know business. I run one. Also, you're essentially saying that the only people qualified to way in with a meaningful and accurate viewpoint on the subject is Wizards employees themselves. That's a bit ironic don't you think?
There's a line between constructive criticism and malice. Let's keep well away from the wrong side and not risk crossing it.
I don't see any malice in my posts. It wasn't my intention when I started typing. Point out anything that seems below the belt here.
Confidence in the problem being corrected sooner rather than later should be separate from confidence in the developers generally.
And for all we know, with this banning and the release of Amonkhet, standard could get much better.
You don't sound too confident about what you wrote in that last sentence. At least from my perspective it sounds more of a hope you have, than something you can point to with anything substantive.
It will surely get better eventually. I think this is a demonstration that development probably needs a little more resources to help prevent future incidents than a demonstration that standard balance is somehow doomed.
The resources you speak of, will they be made available for development to use in the future... or do the costs outweigh the benefits?
So, how would a flex slot work? You'd have to decide on rarity and color before you even knew what the problem was and then you'd have to cram a really powerful card into the set without as much testing as normal. You'd also have to be able to get art for it and either make the card blue/white or risk the color not being able to answer the problem at all. The other option is to just bump a card out at the last minute which might wreck limited strategies/balance or axe a neat card that might not fit into any other sets.
Good question.
Uncommon... they've done it with Rakdos Charm, Volcanic Fallout, and Raking Canopy in the past
Print specific removal as answers. Creatures have been the target of the majority of bans we've seen in Standard. Risk printing more removal vs printing strong creatures/permanents.
They have all they art they need. They've paid for more art than they actually use. Much of the final product isn't the greatest, and it doesn't have to be.
Standard > Limited for Wizards, but i doubt uncommon removal will be format warping the way creatures have been.
May not fit vs. Format Warping Emergency Ban. Take your pick.
The onus really isn't on me to explain it/figure it out. I don't get paid to do it. It's not my job, but it's very possible. To say it's not is just defeatist. There has been a recurring problem with standard and Wizards printing problematic cards. They should expect it. Don't be surprised when it happens. Plan for it, and come up with contingencies.
If this specific suggestion isn't viable for them, fine. It's just an idea among many.
I appreciate you point of view and your responses to specifically the points I've brought up. However, I'd like for you to check out when you've said "they don't" or "they can't" with regard to Wizards. This is much of the free pass that I am referring to. They don't restrict cards in standard. They can't reduce lead time etc.. Why not? They can do whatever they want apparently. And with the exception of changes to their reserved list policy, they've pretty much displayed that.
Frankly, Wizards doesn't do something, until is convenient or necessary for them to do so. Changing they way they print sets is something that is both POSSIBLE and NECESSARY. Wizards has had to deal with a myriad of issues over the last decade from forgeries to leaks to increased tournament costs. In each instance they made CHANGES to further their best interests.
In this case both Wizards and player interests align, if only indirectly. And they weren't up to the task of changing to protect that interest. If this incident has told us anything is that Wizards will make changes if the volume is high enough on the criticism and they can feel it in their bottom line. I'm saying don't let this slide. Don't make excuses for them. Don't knock other people's suggestions as if they aren't viable. In most cases there's more than one solution to solve a problem, and in this case, it's as if Wizards didn't even really try.
I have no confidence in them because I don't see any reason to believe that we will have a better Standard environment once the next set comes out. What are the chances that another card will have to be banned in Standard months from now?
All these alternatives and in the end THIS is how the chose to handle it.
*with one alternative
And even three alternatives hardly seems like 'all these alternatives'.
But yes, they could have done this better- by simply banning the card on the announcement day. This decision is basically an admission of that.
I could list *more* alternatives. The problem is that suggestions that I may make will come under more scrutiny than what Wizards chooses to do. And rightly so? I'm an individual and they are the company. But, the problem I have is when we give them a free pass too many times and dismiss the critics of their actions as simply people whining.
There are a TON of alternatives.
Restrict the Cat
Ban the Planeswalker
Reduce your lead time for sets (so you can print things you need)
Anticipate possible problems and give your set a flex slot in the event something needs to be printed to solve a problem.
Make an Announcement that the Cat will be banned IN THE FUTURE (look guys, we messed up, but we honor your purchases and plans. Play with the combo for a month, but after that it's gone)
Wait for more than two days worth of data (if it's truly oppressive, let us see a week or two of data, instead of JUST two days. Even if they make the same decision, it would sound more "scientific")
The reason they needed to get rid of this combo in standard, is the same reason they need to be more consistent with their decision making. It costs them players.
They succeeded in banning the card, but they also made a poor decision in how they did it, as well as the explanation for it. They are still losing players.
And there is the problem.
Cairn Wanderer takes advantage of the template better, but is still pretty poor.
This template has appeared on cards before. It hasn't been good in the past, and it certainly isn't good with this iteration.
5 mana for a 2/2?
Champion is the type of creature that every control deck wants. I don't know that it shines in this current Standard, but I can look at standard formats of the past and see that this would just shine. Not a 1:1, but it reminds me of Mulldrifter in many ways. On turn 3 you get a blocker to protect your life total while getting to see two cards and make a couple of choices.
If the rest of your deck can get you to the late game, you can effectively chain a couple of these together for some real card advantage. It snowballs in a way that can be backbreaking for decks that aren't prepared for a long game.
Unfortunately there are some real answers to the Eternalize mechanic now, so I doubt it will be tier 1.
explain to me what that does.
They should admit that the Cat wasn't what was ruining standard, it was Wizards all along.
Now that we have had a few days to reflect and temper our knee jerk reactions, how do people feel about the future of standard?
I haven't played standard since a little before the Emrakul ban. Part of the reason is that I don't have a ton of time to follow MTG news. I always considered standard to be the "Safe" constructed format. I thought as long as I knew what the rotation schedules were, I should be able to put together 75 cards using the current product and play at FNM or other events. This has increasingly become not true.
For those of you who follow standard closely, what are the chances that another current card will need to be banned to keep the format healthy? Is there a card(s) right now that we should be looking out for?
We know this. The deterioration of play with restricted cards as a negative assumes that the play was kosher/fair/healthy to begin with. Wizards and the community believe it wasn't any of these things pre-ban. A Degenerate Format < Restricted Card Format. The original suggestion to restrict the card was predicated on the idea that people should be able to play with their cards. It isn't an ideal solution, it's just undeniably better than the status quo. Restricted Cat is more fun than the current standard, and to your point, if it would kill the deck all the same then it serves the same purpose as a late ban while allowing that kid who opened the pack play with the card.
I'm glad you concede that they PROBABLY could reduce the lead time. I also hope you would agree that they've done so over the last decade. Great... let's take it a little further. Saying that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs is pure conjecture on your part. What are the costs associated? How do we measure them? Is it money? How much? Is it customer satisfaction? How much money are they losing now because of the decline of standard? All good questions which neither you or I have the answer to. Don't answer it for us definitively as if you know. I doubt Wizard's knows, but they should explore it themselves for the betterment of their product.
How many cards have they banned in Standard the last year? How does that compare to the year before that? And then the previous 5 years?
Mistakes are fine. The same mistake with increasing frequency is problematic.
I don't think the company is evil. I just think their decisions are more suspect than in the past.
The reason you rejected some of the things I proposed was, as you say, because it was easy to do so. Example: you questioned my suggestion to ban the planeswalker over the cat. Banning the Planeswalker would be the better choice, and is backed by Wizard's own precedent. They banned Splinter Twin. They Banned Jace TMS. I contend that players would be less averse to the banning of the walker. It would accomplish the same goal for Organized Play, and make less players upset (due to expectation). But they didn't do that.
Who has to propose a solution for you to believe that it's better than what Wizards did? Clearly I'm not going to convince you, which is fine.
To say Wizards couldn't have done anything TODAY but what they chose to do comes of as disingenuous.
Don't punish some of us for what you see all the time on the forums. It's pretty unfair. Myself and many others have concisely expressed why Today was piss poor and what could have been done, and would can still be done about it. I don't have to work for Wizards to know business. I run one. Also, you're essentially saying that the only people qualified to way in with a meaningful and accurate viewpoint on the subject is Wizards employees themselves. That's a bit ironic don't you think?
I don't see any malice in my posts. It wasn't my intention when I started typing. Point out anything that seems below the belt here.
You don't sound too confident about what you wrote in that last sentence. At least from my perspective it sounds more of a hope you have, than something you can point to with anything substantive.
The resources you speak of, will they be made available for development to use in the future... or do the costs outweigh the benefits?
Good question.
Uncommon... they've done it with Rakdos Charm, Volcanic Fallout, and Raking Canopy in the past
Print specific removal as answers. Creatures have been the target of the majority of bans we've seen in Standard. Risk printing more removal vs printing strong creatures/permanents.
They have all they art they need. They've paid for more art than they actually use. Much of the final product isn't the greatest, and it doesn't have to be.
Standard > Limited for Wizards, but i doubt uncommon removal will be format warping the way creatures have been.
May not fit vs. Format Warping Emergency Ban. Take your pick.
The onus really isn't on me to explain it/figure it out. I don't get paid to do it. It's not my job, but it's very possible. To say it's not is just defeatist. There has been a recurring problem with standard and Wizards printing problematic cards. They should expect it. Don't be surprised when it happens. Plan for it, and come up with contingencies.
If this specific suggestion isn't viable for them, fine. It's just an idea among many.
I appreciate you point of view and your responses to specifically the points I've brought up. However, I'd like for you to check out when you've said "they don't" or "they can't" with regard to Wizards. This is much of the free pass that I am referring to. They don't restrict cards in standard. They can't reduce lead time etc.. Why not? They can do whatever they want apparently. And with the exception of changes to their reserved list policy, they've pretty much displayed that.
Frankly, Wizards doesn't do something, until is convenient or necessary for them to do so. Changing they way they print sets is something that is both POSSIBLE and NECESSARY. Wizards has had to deal with a myriad of issues over the last decade from forgeries to leaks to increased tournament costs. In each instance they made CHANGES to further their best interests.
In this case both Wizards and player interests align, if only indirectly. And they weren't up to the task of changing to protect that interest. If this incident has told us anything is that Wizards will make changes if the volume is high enough on the criticism and they can feel it in their bottom line. I'm saying don't let this slide. Don't make excuses for them. Don't knock other people's suggestions as if they aren't viable. In most cases there's more than one solution to solve a problem, and in this case, it's as if Wizards didn't even really try.
I have no confidence in them because I don't see any reason to believe that we will have a better Standard environment once the next set comes out. What are the chances that another card will have to be banned in Standard months from now?
I could list *more* alternatives. The problem is that suggestions that I may make will come under more scrutiny than what Wizards chooses to do. And rightly so? I'm an individual and they are the company. But, the problem I have is when we give them a free pass too many times and dismiss the critics of their actions as simply people whining.
There are a TON of alternatives.
Restrict the Cat
Ban the Planeswalker
Reduce your lead time for sets (so you can print things you need)
Anticipate possible problems and give your set a flex slot in the event something needs to be printed to solve a problem.
Make an Announcement that the Cat will be banned IN THE FUTURE (look guys, we messed up, but we honor your purchases and plans. Play with the combo for a month, but after that it's gone)
Wait for more than two days worth of data (if it's truly oppressive, let us see a week or two of data, instead of JUST two days. Even if they make the same decision, it would sound more "scientific")
The reason they needed to get rid of this combo in standard, is the same reason they need to be more consistent with their decision making. It costs them players.
They succeeded in banning the card, but they also made a poor decision in how they did it, as well as the explanation for it. They are still losing players.