Well, the logic is bad because if creatures and spells are equally powerful then that means they are equal taking into consideration all aspects including how they are played (e.g. persistence, instant speed, vulnerability).
By acknowledging any additional attribute of either type and saying it's better or worse because of that is also acknowledging that they're not equal.
So I believe this comment went unnoticed on Maro's tumblr (it was a little before the other posts about creatures vs spells):
Quote from Mark Rosewater »
Spells *are* as powerful as creatures. If you played an equal number of each, that would mean spells are more powerful than creatures. The continued board presence of creatures along with their ability to repeatedly do damage means when they are at equal power levels, you play more creatures.
So, spells are as powerful as creatures because creatures are more powerful than spells? Great logic there, Maro.
* * *
For the record, I'm okay with the reduction in power levels and BFZ looks okay to me, I don't plan on drafting any because I generally dislike drafting but I think the set will make for an interesting Standard after Khans rotates. But it would be nice to see some more interesting (and better) spells.
That's a downside you shouldn't care about when making a deck with this card. It will be mostly sacrificing your own stuff, killing your opponents creatures should be worth it on its own. Honestly together with the sac-cards from Khans block I fully expect a decent 'aristocrat' deck.
Indeed, that will be pretty cool if an aristocrats style deck was constructed playable.
I'm not sure whether the black vampire mechanic (trigger on life gain) is supposed to be constructed playable or not, it'll be neat if it is.
I was actually going to post about that card, not really improved because it doesn't trigger when opponents creatures die like Blood Artist does, but still seems like it has potential.
Haven't actually played in over a year, but watching the Modern Super League last night there was a noticeable lag, so noticeable that I found myself thinking "how can they stand playing like that!?".
I'm pretty sure they intend on getting limited leagues up and running eventually, that's a lot of cash they're leaving on the table if they don't. It seems like they're trying to deliver a "minimal marketable feature" to validate the interface and other changes that needed to be implemented to accommodate leagues. It is still pretty hilarious that they've only gotten this far since the November 2014 announcement, and who knows how long before that!
And with that being said, given how bad they appear to be at this, I don't expect to see limited leagues for at least another year or so.
Delver of Secrets itself has never been a problem, though. Sure, your deck will be bad against it if your opponent plays it on turn one and if you don't have removal and if the Delver flips on turn 2. But that's already 3 "if"s in a row and your deck should probably have removal, a fast combo or an agressive strategy anyways, which all work to keep Delver in check.
The existence of cards like Delver of Secrets, Goblin Guide, Monastery Swiftspear, Champion of the Parish, Wild Nactl, etc. basically 3 power for 1 mana are very much the problem. This was identified 20 years ago when Kird Ape* and Black Vise were restricted (*have to check up the specifics of Kird Ape exactly, can't remember whether it was banned or restricted).
Your argument that your deck should probably have removal is generally correct, but these creatures put pressure to have not just removal in your deck but removal in your opening hand every game. This affects deck construction in such a way that encourages linear strategies to leverage the power of the exceptional cards (whether you're playing the creatures or the removal).
Personally, I think the linear strategies that turn the game into a die roll or a match up are killing the game, and every time I see a deck like burn I lose a little interest in Magic.
"Blue-Red Delver decks, playing efficient creatures, card drawers, burn, and some permission spells have been the most successful."
Ban the card draw it is totally the issue......... I mean delver is the namesake of the deck for a goddamn reason. Like mental misstep treasure cruise is only super powerful because you can pair it with hyper-efficient creatures. Cards like these may be good in control or combo decks, but they are no where near broken in such decks. WOTC is so afraid to ban creatures to weaken decks that they go way out of their way to ban cards that are no where near overpowered. And here I was going to get back into MtG after a nearly two year hiatus......Same BS another year it seems.
Totally agree with this, Delver of Secrets is basically a Black Vise that you can't escape from and Black Vise is still banned! Not sure why so many people point the finger at everything else (previously Snapcaster Mage and Ponder, now Treasue Cruise and DTT) when it's the overpowered critter that's killing you.
A Basic land with no subtype has no effect on either Domain or Coalition victor which count land subtypes not card names.
If this is correct then I would agree that a basic land without subtype would work.
Reading further, it appears 305.8 only requires the supertype "basic" to be considered a basic land, so it seems like this approach works without altering the rules or other mechanics or cards.
Sorry if I missed this, but why can't it be a basic land without a subtype? Isn't that the most elegant solution?
Colorless Land
Basic Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool
Because it would have implications for the Domain mechanic and the card Coalition victory. I think it also would require a revision to the rules because the basic land types are specified. By my understanding of the reference material I believe this is section CR:305.
A card with a basic land type can tap for mana of the appropriate color. This is what Muspellsheimr is referring to with "a significant revision of the rules." You can't tack a basic land type onto a card and expect it to only be tapped for colorless without changing the rules, and that change would likely have significant impact on the existing 10 basic lands (snow and nonsnow), the 10 shocklands, the 10 original duals, the 5 "enhanced basics" from Shadowmoor, Dryad Arbor, and Murmuring Bosk. 37 distinct cards may not sound like a lot, but consider: that's more than some entire mechanics have, and the 5 nonsnow basics have more printings than any other card in the game.
There is no reason to change the rules because an individual card can always override the rules for itself. All that needs to be added to the card (or Oracle text) is a line to the effect of "unlike regular basic lands, Colorless Swamp can only be tapped for colorless".
Simple and doesn't change existing card rules, or modify existing mechanics like Domain or Coalition Victory.
This does not work without a significant revision of the rules, one that would be problematic for the printed textbox of basic lands from the last decade or so.
I think the same kind of rulings that apply to snow covered basics could be applied to colorless basics. The colorless land would have a type like "Basic Colorless Land - Swamp" and only tap for colorless, with further Oracle guidance if necessary that effects that target nonbasics can't target colorless basics, same as snow covered lands.
Agree with everyone else who says you should be able to get the for free just by asking a store or someone who's played Magic for a while. Note that most people don't bring boxes of land around with them so you'll probably have to ask them ahead of time.
If you'd rather not then I think the Deckbuilder's Toolkit is a better deal than the fat pack for a new player. It comes with 4 boosters, some staple commons, and 100 basic lands, and it's around $20 which should be manageable.
Hilarious, MaRo gives himself a 2.5 / 3 thumbs up for Theros block, only losing half a thumb for not printing any enchantments until Journey. Everything else was roses apparently.
My god. It's like he's living in a bubble. I know that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, but it's hard to reconcile the rosy report on Theros with the fact that my local FNM in Yokohama went from 20+ regulars to about 6 regulars and my friend's local FNM in Nagoya went from 30+ regulars to 4 regulars over the course of Theros block.
It's a shame really because his inability to admit failure means we'll be getting more of the same "designs" as long as he's in charge. I mean even look at this recent tumblr post. Maybe I'm reading too much into the phrasing but it sounds like he's saying we the players are the ones at fault for failing to acknowledge that enchantment creatures are what makes an enchantment block.
Even the idea that everything would have been better if Constellation had been spread throughout the block is wrong. Constellation is a boring lazy mechanic, I'm actually not even convinced that it was designed into the block at the beginning, it has the feel of a mechanic that was quickly added after Born was released and people started to get upset about the no enchantments in the enchantment block.
Aside: They say they develop sets two years in advance etc. but a lot of the things they say don't add up e.g. printing Cavern of Souls in AVR to fight mana leak because of Snapcaster Mage in Innistrad. Which wouldn't have actually been that bad if it wasn't for the Delver tempo strategy, which they might have caught in the FFL except they didn't because the change to Delver's power was late in the development process.
Based on his other correspondence throughout the block, you can tell he thought enchantment creatures were a really cool and smart idea and that he's disappointed with their reception. What MaRo doesn't get is that people wanted enchantments to matter in a way unique to enchantments, nobody was asking for affinity for enchantments like he continually brings up, and nobody was asking for enchantment creatures. Anyone who's played Magic back in the days when enchantments did actually matter could of told them that so there's obviously a disconnect somewhere.
By acknowledging any additional attribute of either type and saying it's better or worse because of that is also acknowledging that they're not equal.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/129398709553/mark-im-not-asking-for-a-return-to-early-magics
I think this reply sums it up nicely:
* * *
For the record, I'm okay with the reduction in power levels and BFZ looks okay to me, I don't plan on drafting any because I generally dislike drafting but I think the set will make for an interesting Standard after Khans rotates. But it would be nice to see some more interesting (and better) spells.
Indeed, that will be pretty cool if an aristocrats style deck was constructed playable.
I'm not sure whether the black vampire mechanic (trigger on life gain) is supposed to be constructed playable or not, it'll be neat if it is.
I was actually going to post about that card, not really improved because it doesn't trigger when opponents creatures die like Blood Artist does, but still seems like it has potential.
And with that being said, given how bad they appear to be at this, I don't expect to see limited leagues for at least another year or so.
The existence of cards like Delver of Secrets, Goblin Guide, Monastery Swiftspear, Champion of the Parish, Wild Nactl, etc. basically 3 power for 1 mana are very much the problem. This was identified 20 years ago when Kird Ape* and Black Vise were restricted (*have to check up the specifics of Kird Ape exactly, can't remember whether it was banned or restricted).
Your argument that your deck should probably have removal is generally correct, but these creatures put pressure to have not just removal in your deck but removal in your opening hand every game. This affects deck construction in such a way that encourages linear strategies to leverage the power of the exceptional cards (whether you're playing the creatures or the removal).
Personally, I think the linear strategies that turn the game into a die roll or a match up are killing the game, and every time I see a deck like burn I lose a little interest in Magic.
Totally agree with this, Delver of Secrets is basically a Black Vise that you can't escape from and Black Vise is still banned! Not sure why so many people point the finger at everything else (previously Snapcaster Mage and Ponder, now Treasue Cruise and DTT) when it's the overpowered critter that's killing you.
If this is correct then I would agree that a basic land without subtype would work.
Reading further, it appears 305.8 only requires the supertype "basic" to be considered a basic land, so it seems like this approach works without altering the rules or other mechanics or cards.
Because it would have implications for the Domain mechanic and the card Coalition victory. I think it also would require a revision to the rules because the basic land types are specified. By my understanding of the reference material I believe this is section CR:305.
There is no reason to change the rules because an individual card can always override the rules for itself. All that needs to be added to the card (or Oracle text) is a line to the effect of "unlike regular basic lands, Colorless Swamp can only be tapped for colorless".
Simple and doesn't change existing card rules, or modify existing mechanics like Domain or Coalition Victory.
I think the same kind of rulings that apply to snow covered basics could be applied to colorless basics. The colorless land would have a type like "Basic Colorless Land - Swamp" and only tap for colorless, with further Oracle guidance if necessary that effects that target nonbasics can't target colorless basics, same as snow covered lands.
If you'd rather not then I think the Deckbuilder's Toolkit is a better deal than the fat pack for a new player. It comes with 4 boosters, some staple commons, and 100 basic lands, and it's around $20 which should be manageable.
It's a shame really because his inability to admit failure means we'll be getting more of the same "designs" as long as he's in charge. I mean even look at this recent tumblr post. Maybe I'm reading too much into the phrasing but it sounds like he's saying we the players are the ones at fault for failing to acknowledge that enchantment creatures are what makes an enchantment block.
Even the idea that everything would have been better if Constellation had been spread throughout the block is wrong. Constellation is a boring lazy mechanic, I'm actually not even convinced that it was designed into the block at the beginning, it has the feel of a mechanic that was quickly added after Born was released and people started to get upset about the no enchantments in the enchantment block.
Aside: They say they develop sets two years in advance etc. but a lot of the things they say don't add up e.g. printing Cavern of Souls in AVR to fight mana leak because of Snapcaster Mage in Innistrad. Which wouldn't have actually been that bad if it wasn't for the Delver tempo strategy, which they might have caught in the FFL except they didn't because the change to Delver's power was late in the development process.
Based on his other correspondence throughout the block, you can tell he thought enchantment creatures were a really cool and smart idea and that he's disappointed with their reception. What MaRo doesn't get is that people wanted enchantments to matter in a way unique to enchantments, nobody was asking for affinity for enchantments like he continually brings up, and nobody was asking for enchantment creatures. Anyone who's played Magic back in the days when enchantments did actually matter could of told them that so there's obviously a disconnect somewhere.