Well, this explains why everything else Rakdos has seemed so weak, because every BR deck will play this and boost the rest of the deck considerably
I disagree. This comment was on the first page and I feel like the rest of the pages will be with people saying similar things so I'll put it out there that this card is garbage. It won't even come close to seeing constructed play.
It has a very real drawback and a very irrelevant ability.
Wait a minute... are you serious?
So the original counterspell is slow? Hard counter anything at 2 mana? A card that is considered overpowered?
So what's a playable counter for you? Fow?
And one of the best and cheapest boardweepers is slow? So you want a "destroy all creatures" for 2 mana?
Can't believe how people can complain about everything...
On topic, I think the card is good, but doubt it will see play in constructed.
That doesn't make any sense. If a card is good, why is it not seeing play in constructed? As far as I understand, we usually evaluate quality from a results point of view (goyf is good specificall beause it wins games, Jace is good and banned because it wins games). What you mean to say is that you personally like the card but it is bad?
When was the last time counterspell was played in legacy as a 4 of, or even a 3 of? If you put it into standard obviously it would be insane but spell pierce, daze, fow are all better cards in formats where they are all legal.
As with a regular split card, you would have to provide a small rules updates on split cards that say that you choose the side when it enters the battlefield. The only issue might be a logistics one because people would need to keep track of which land is which especially if there are multiple copies of the same split land out where different splits have been chosen but that shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.
They would be significantly worse than the original duals but arguably similar to power level to the ravnica duals.
You can do something about my hand size before or after i discard.
Except in very specific circumstances (discarding down to 7 causing a trigger) you do not have the option to do anything about hand size after your opponent discards.
Similarly, most of your other examples are poorly structured and it seems to me that you are just using them to try to prove your point because you do not want to admit that you are wrong.
No it didn't, fish decks often used fanatic to "double block". or faced the decision should hold off their attacker by threatening a 2 for 1 or just shot down their birds right now.
Sledder was often used not to 2 for 1 but to get extra damage through.
General goblin tricks with sharpshooter before combat, to save creature.
interactions with goyf, graveyard, threshold, hand to get through extra damage, activate combat related abilities, have more options to react to your opponents combat plays.
Your also ignoring the situation where the play had to chose between killing an x/2 or and x/1 with their fanatic, do you kill their goyf, lord, sower, ect... or their confidant, birds, lackey, ect... now your only choice would be to kill the x/1.
Just saying something is more skill intensive doesn't make it so, and neither side has offered proof either way.
Many people think Dots is more intuitive because just about everything else uses the stack.
Ya it makes the game easier for newbs I don't anyone is debating that.
That's why they see no or little play now?
It's your opinion that they are more skill intensive, but now they see no play so it wouldn't matter if there where more skill intensive under the new rules.
Unless you have some kind of large scale survey data we don't know about you are just making things up here.
Seeing as it got banned, it deserved to be whined about. If you tolerate things that are clearly broken why should anyone listen to you about Dots?
Most of your arguments are ignorant and devoid of proper logic. But then again, what can be expected from someone "campaigning" for the removal of mythic rarity in their sig. In order of appearance:
Yes damage off the stack is infinitely more skill intensive. Anyone can come up with theoretical situations where it is not the case, but limited has become MUCH more interesting and the general pro consensus is that even constructed benefited from damage no longer using the stack.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? creatures are at an all time high. There were times when you would play ONE meloku and maybe TWO keigas. creatures have been dominating most constructed formats in recent years.
As said before, WOTC has mass scale survey results.
That is a really contorted argument which is not based in any currently used logic system. If someone didn't whine about Jace how does that invalidate his opinion. If anything, in this specific case I would listen to him even more because SFM and Jace got banned since they were so dominating and unfun, but caw-blade mirrors WERE skill intensive and unlike bloodbraid elf mirrors, the better player won almost all the
They are a business that wants to sell packs. Not having a capability of a fun deck for < $100 is a big problem. Can you honestly convince a person to play this "really fun game", when it has such a monetary entry barrier?
You have the capability to build a fun deck < $100. The issue is that if you want to be able to have at least a 50% win rate (so be able to break even approximately playing MTGO 1v1 ques or make tickets if you are playing daily events) then you will be unable to do this for <$100 with a few choice exceptions.
Furthermore, these decks are built on MTGO where, as someone has already pointed out, the prices are much cheaper than in real life. The deck he posted today is actually fairly inexpensive. Again I am using the term inexpensive under a specific context and obviously what is cheap/expensive to some may not be so to others.
The word reasonable is subjective. It is hypocritical to suggest that context does not matter in his case when you use the context of a reasonable person as a defense. In fact, your use of the term "menacing" to describe situations for which such disciplinary action is correct is subjective as well. It is incorrect to say that his actions deserve a ban regardless of circumstance because they are menacing when the term menacing implies a particular circumstance. I do agree with their decision for not allowing him to play in Worlds. They need to protect themselves against liability as a company because they had knowledge of the threat and if he acted upon it, in the States, they could probably be sued for negligence at least. However a life time ban was a joke without having talked to him. Having said all of this, if his replies are going to be along the lines of the link above, then he is obviously not going to get unbanned. As intelligent as he thinks he is, he doesn't realize that social tact, and not intelligence, is what will get him where he wants to be and unfortunately it doesn't appear as though he has very much social tact.
I agree with you that damage not using the stack is better in the sense that it rewards better players. The one thing I don't like with this new system is that you have to assign lethal damage to a creature before assigning any damage to all other creatures. I think setting up pyroclasm effects like that was pretty sweet. Also, if my opponent has 2 merfolk lords in play and a curse catcher, I should be able to kill them all with a 6/6 knight if he gets triple blocked, as it is, I have to choose between 2.
EDIT: ALSO: don't fall for the Olivia Hype this is accurate.
PRO TIP: Consumer protection groups (groups that care about the well being of people who buy different products and the way these products are advertised) pay a lot less money to their members than top marketing executives make. So essentially you have some really smart people trying to market something to some really stupid people and some really average people are trying to step in and say "no! These advertisements are biased and flawed and play on human emotions and perception weaknesses"
If you are actually intelligent, then do something useful that will generate money and then become a philanthropist if you care about the well being of others. Actively trying to help people for your entire life will always yield weaker results than first becoming financially secure and then trying to help. The fact of the matter is that having money is the same as having the ability to influence decisions and the way things are done.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have spent a very small portion of their lives trying to help others, but their current efforts in getting billionaires to donate half of their wealth to charitable organization will have significantly more positive effects than Greenpeace, Red Cross, UNICEF and all of those other charities combined over their entire existence.
I'm pretty sure the ripple deck can't possible lose with correct play. As was mentined previously, you can stack ripple triggers to beat mindbreak trap. It always beats the slug deck because you can just not risk going off to fizzle and just shoot the slugs so they their triggre kills the opponent. Against leyline, just board in something that says destroy all enchantments.
Slipknot not to bash you or anything, and the points you made about versatility are true, but...
I think you are undervaluing snapcaster when you discount card advantage. While in vintage it is arguable whether or not bob is better, in all of the other formats, I think snapcaster wins handily. In modern specifically, he can trade with frogmite, pridemage, confidant, another snapcaster, a goyf (you remove your path to shrike it and bam).
Furthermore, he gives end game inevitability. For instance, your opponent is attacking you with KotR. You can flash him in, block the knight and then repeal your SCM. In this situation, you fogged and drew a card FOR FREE. You still have SCM in hand. I've yet to lose a game where I SCM a cryptic to counter their spell and bounce the mage. Yes it takes effort to get there but you construct your deck to take advantage of that. You have a low curve with remand, path to exile, spellsnare etc... You are able to deal with their early drops or use your life as a buffer for a turn or 2 and then you end up taking over the game.
From what I read it seems to me that you are basing your opinion purely off of theory and what you believe to be correct. I think this is the case because I had similar sentiments towards SCM when I initially saw it spoiled. I thought it was very good but not on the same power level as bob, goyf, etc... But from playing with him, I can safely say that he is the nut high.
You could have a cool UG list. You would run any of the following cards
Sakura Tribe Elder
Llanowar Elves
Birds of Paradise
Wall of Roots
Eternal Witness
Snapcaster Mage
Chord of Calling
Primal Command
Plow Under
Cryptic Command
Remand
Teferi
Repeal
Garruks (1,2 or 3) (mainly 1 and 3 though, 2 costs a lot)
Little jace
Time Walk (the 5 mana one, sick combo with snapcaster mage)
I disagree. This comment was on the first page and I feel like the rest of the pages will be with people saying similar things so I'll put it out there that this card is garbage. It won't even come close to seeing constructed play.
It has a very real drawback and a very irrelevant ability.
That doesn't make any sense. If a card is good, why is it not seeing play in constructed? As far as I understand, we usually evaluate quality from a results point of view (goyf is good specificall beause it wins games, Jace is good and banned because it wins games). What you mean to say is that you personally like the card but it is bad?
When was the last time counterspell was played in legacy as a 4 of, or even a 3 of? If you put it into standard obviously it would be insane but spell pierce, daze, fow are all better cards in formats where they are all legal.
Split Card:
Island//Swamp
As with a regular split card, you would have to provide a small rules updates on split cards that say that you choose the side when it enters the battlefield. The only issue might be a logistics one because people would need to keep track of which land is which especially if there are multiple copies of the same split land out where different splits have been chosen but that shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.
They would be significantly worse than the original duals but arguably similar to power level to the ravnica duals.
Except in very specific circumstances (discarding down to 7 causing a trigger) you do not have the option to do anything about hand size after your opponent discards.
Similarly, most of your other examples are poorly structured and it seems to me that you are just using them to try to prove your point because you do not want to admit that you are wrong.
Most of your arguments are ignorant and devoid of proper logic. But then again, what can be expected from someone "campaigning" for the removal of mythic rarity in their sig. In order of appearance:
Yes damage off the stack is infinitely more skill intensive. Anyone can come up with theoretical situations where it is not the case, but limited has become MUCH more interesting and the general pro consensus is that even constructed benefited from damage no longer using the stack.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? creatures are at an all time high. There were times when you would play ONE meloku and maybe TWO keigas. creatures have been dominating most constructed formats in recent years.
As said before, WOTC has mass scale survey results.
That is a really contorted argument which is not based in any currently used logic system. If someone didn't whine about Jace how does that invalidate his opinion. If anything, in this specific case I would listen to him even more because SFM and Jace got banned since they were so dominating and unfun, but caw-blade mirrors WERE skill intensive and unlike bloodbraid elf mirrors, the better player won almost all the
You have the capability to build a fun deck < $100. The issue is that if you want to be able to have at least a 50% win rate (so be able to break even approximately playing MTGO 1v1 ques or make tickets if you are playing daily events) then you will be unable to do this for <$100 with a few choice exceptions.
Furthermore, these decks are built on MTGO where, as someone has already pointed out, the prices are much cheaper than in real life. The deck he posted today is actually fairly inexpensive. Again I am using the term inexpensive under a specific context and obviously what is cheap/expensive to some may not be so to others.
PRO TIP: Consumer protection groups (groups that care about the well being of people who buy different products and the way these products are advertised) pay a lot less money to their members than top marketing executives make. So essentially you have some really smart people trying to market something to some really stupid people and some really average people are trying to step in and say "no! These advertisements are biased and flawed and play on human emotions and perception weaknesses"
If you are actually intelligent, then do something useful that will generate money and then become a philanthropist if you care about the well being of others. Actively trying to help people for your entire life will always yield weaker results than first becoming financially secure and then trying to help. The fact of the matter is that having money is the same as having the ability to influence decisions and the way things are done.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have spent a very small portion of their lives trying to help others, but their current efforts in getting billionaires to donate half of their wealth to charitable organization will have significantly more positive effects than Greenpeace, Red Cross, UNICEF and all of those other charities combined over their entire existence.
I can't agree more, that post is the 1 percent of the posts on MTGS that makes it worthwhile to sift through the threads.
It's funny how 1% control all of the humor.
I think you are undervaluing snapcaster when you discount card advantage. While in vintage it is arguable whether or not bob is better, in all of the other formats, I think snapcaster wins handily. In modern specifically, he can trade with frogmite, pridemage, confidant, another snapcaster, a goyf (you remove your path to shrike it and bam).
Furthermore, he gives end game inevitability. For instance, your opponent is attacking you with KotR. You can flash him in, block the knight and then repeal your SCM. In this situation, you fogged and drew a card FOR FREE. You still have SCM in hand. I've yet to lose a game where I SCM a cryptic to counter their spell and bounce the mage. Yes it takes effort to get there but you construct your deck to take advantage of that. You have a low curve with remand, path to exile, spellsnare etc... You are able to deal with their early drops or use your life as a buffer for a turn or 2 and then you end up taking over the game.
From what I read it seems to me that you are basing your opinion purely off of theory and what you believe to be correct. I think this is the case because I had similar sentiments towards SCM when I initially saw it spoiled. I thought it was very good but not on the same power level as bob, goyf, etc... But from playing with him, I can safely say that he is the nut high.
Sakura Tribe Elder
Llanowar Elves
Birds of Paradise
Wall of Roots
Eternal Witness
Snapcaster Mage
Chord of Calling
Primal Command
Plow Under
Cryptic Command
Remand
Teferi
Repeal
Garruks (1,2 or 3) (mainly 1 and 3 though, 2 costs a lot)
Little jace
Time Walk (the 5 mana one, sick combo with snapcaster mage)
Seems cool