The more cards you have in a card pool vastly increases the number of interactions and complexity of a format. There is no question that Modern is a more complex format than any given Standard. Even though it is largely made up of cards that were once in standard. Similarly, Legacy is more complex than Modern is, the potential interactions are huge. If WotC is supporting Modern as their (lower case l) legacy format they undoubtedly feel they can increase the complexity in Modern because players who gravitate toward Modern over Standard are going to be more acclimated to a larger number of complex situations.
I don't think the complaint was that modern doesn't get complex interactions, it was that modern doesn't get complex cards. Where is a format that derives over 98% of its content from standard sets getting its complex cards from, if not standard?
It's funny because I predicted old-bordered enemy fetches in MH2 like half a year ago, back before TSR was released. I didn't think they'd actually do it, though!
To all the people who think that Diamond Lion's ability isn't a mana ability and can be countered, or that it doesn't need the "activate as an instant" line, or that Urza's Saga's last ability can fetch things like Lotus Bloom or Engineered Explosives, even after having it explained to you: You don't understand the game. This is why we don't have higher-complexity cards in Standard sets.
So only modern, a format characterized by the inclusion of former standard sets, gets "higher-complexity cards"? I guess I'm not smart enough to understand how that premise works.
I believe he was saying that the complexity of today's standard sets is nowhere as high as the standard complexity of Magic past (complexity that modern, like every eternal format, inherited). Future Sight is a great example of a past standard set that would never see the light of day in today's standards, and yet, Modern Horizon fully embrace the complexity and design audacity of a Future Sight with these kind of experiments. I think WotC even stated explicitly that the original Modern Horizon was a "love letter" to all those nostalgic and experienced players that miss sets like the whole Time Spiral block, and Modern Horizon 2 seems no different. I kinda understand his point even if I don't agree with the behavior he use to say it.
Why we need both the peasant and the citizen creature types?
I'm wondering why Halfling is needed. I get it's a D&D race and it's a D&D set, but why not just make it Kithkin? This is going to be the same problem with the LOTR cards with most likely created Hobbit creature type.
Hobbits are Halflings in the text of LotR, so that's what their type line would say.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Conuly »
Heck, every day I wake up, I don't go out and kill people - and I'm rewarded by not having legions of enemies! Amazing how that works.
Although ninjas are experts of camouflage and concealment, they are actually horrible liars. This means that no matter where you are, you can shout out, “Are there any ninjas here?” and if there’s a ninja within earshot, he’ll be compelled to respond.
Well sure, Modern Horizons bucks the trend just a bit... but MH1 was only 230 cards, less than 200 of which were actually brand new, out of almost 15,000 in the entire modern card pool. And while that card pool does go back a ways (2003?), Lion's Eye Diamond goes back considerably further to 1996. If the premise is "they just don't make cards for standard/modern like they used to," I don't understand why someone would make the point of reference for a shift in card complexity a full 7 years before the format(s) in question, instead of something more contemporary. If standard isn't complex enough to live up to modern's level of complexity, then it was never all that complex in the first place. Modern Horizons and Time Spiral are the exception, not the norm.
I get that people come here to complain a lot, and one of the most common through lines is the rapidly increasing pace of banned cards in standard over just the past several years. I'm having trouble squaring that with the idea that there's also no complexity in standard, because why, they don't have arguably one of the most unique or esoteric lines of text in the entirety of Magic? There's plenty of complexity and experimentation in standard on a card-for-card basis, and if it's the breadth of interactivity within the entire format that makes modern so complex, then surely commander - arguably the most popular format at the moment - must be too much for us dumb-dumbs to handle.
My personal take: shifting meta choices are what make modern generally unnavigable for players from other formats, not complexity.
I don't think complexity keeps folk out of Modern, the price for building a deck does.
Modern is my favourite format, but I'm sad it costs so much to even get into one deck let alone if you want to have two-three cool ones.
Speaking of prices, another announcement that got buried is that WotC will allow sanctioned events from may 28, so prices of cards are going to spike in the next weeks.
Well sure, Modern Horizons bucks the trend just a bit... but MH1 was only 230 cards, less than 200 of which were actually brand new, out of almost 15,000 in the entire modern card pool. And while that card pool does go back a ways (2003?), Lion's Eye Diamond goes back considerably further to 1996. If the premise is "they just don't make cards for standard/modern like they used to," I don't understand why someone would make the point of reference for a shift in card complexity a full 7 years before the format(s) in question, instead of something more contemporary. If standard isn't complex enough to live up to modern's level of complexity, then it was never all that complex in the first place. Modern Horizons and Time Spiral are the exception, not the norm.
I get that people come here to complain a lot, and one of the most common through lines is the rapidly increasing pace of banned cards in standard over just the past several years. I'm having trouble squaring that with the idea that there's also no complexity in standard, because why, they don't have arguably one of the most unique or esoteric lines of text in the entirety of Magic? There's plenty of complexity and experimentation in standard on a card-for-card basis, and if it's the breadth of interactivity within the entire format that makes modern so complex, then surely commander - arguably the most popular format at the moment - must be too much for us dumb-dumbs to handle.
My personal take: shifting meta choices are what make modern generally unnavigable for players from other formats, not complexity.
I have mixed feelings about the topic in general that would take too long to write up, but there is one element of your post that bugs me. Modern is a competitive format. Even at FNM level, if you are playing Modern, the point is to win. There are no politics, no deals, no 'oh i did this other thing, which is more important than a win'. If you go play Modern FNM, it's fair game to see any number of the top decks in the format. It doesn't always happen, but just like Standard, people playing Modern are trying to play a deck that can hang at a major event.
EDH is primarily casual. You make lots of mana, swing with big dumb stuff, put together silly boards and strategies. The goal is generally having fun more than winning. cEDH, where the goal is to win and the decks often have some of the highest complexity in the format, Shivam has said that if they split the formats, cEDH would no longer exist. in Modern, people play about as far as the card pool will allow in complexity and power. But you don't see much of the Lantern equivalent complex decks in EDH, the complexity level available to those who want it in EDH IS more than most players can handle
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I feel it's a bit of a disingenuous take to say that EDH has limited complexity because it's mostly casual, or that players aren't concerned about winning outside of cEDH. You even admit that people jump through some seriously complicated hoops to achieve their goals, but count it as a mark against someone's competitive nature that they want something more challenging than Thassa's Oracle. How are those silly, contrived boards and strategies not just a more complex way of achieving the same win conditions? Anyone who thinks EDH is that simple has probably never seen Warp World come down.
You're right that there is no Lantern equivalent deck in EDH, because the characteristics that define the format have cultivated a completely different meta (to the extent that such a thing exists), and don't generally allow for that sort of thing as a viable win condition. Complexity and target audience were intended to be an apples to apples comparison between the two formats; complexity and 'competitiveness' don't really intersect here in any meaningful way. But if you'd like to apply my metric to standard (since that was the original point of reference), we can do that. Lantern doesn't exist in standard either, of course, and the last time anything came close to perma-fatesealing your opponent it warped the format hard, and that was back when WotC were supremely hesitant to invoke a ban of any kind. How can we say that Wizards is wrong to be careful about experimenting in standard given that a) they do, repeatedly and recently, b) more often than not it backfires, and c) there's always backlash in communities like this one about Wizards being too reckless with their releases?
Can't wait to see what Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar Does in modern horizons 2
(There’s a leak that mentions 2 of the cards revealed in MH2 and the same guy who leaked the M21 stuff clarified the leak from a good source involves the cook being in modern horizons 2 with a madness cost with no cmc as the solution for the name length)
I’m sure Diffusion Sliver will eventually see the errata (like the Phyrexians still waiting on theirs), but I’m hoping for a Sliver that grants Ward and seeing what that cost will be (if they give us a small cycle of Slivers in MH2). If MH2 has Slivers, I’ll lose my mind.
It's funny because I predicted old-bordered enemy fetches in MH2 like half a year ago, back before TSR was released. I didn't think they'd actually do it, though!
To all the people who think that Diamond Lion's ability isn't a mana ability and can be countered, or that it doesn't need the "activate as an instant" line, or that Urza's Saga's last ability can fetch things like Lotus Bloom or Engineered Explosives, even after having it explained to you: You don't understand the game. This is why we don't have higher-complexity cards in Standard sets.
So only modern, a format characterized by the inclusion of former standard sets, gets "higher-complexity cards"? I guess I'm not smart enough to understand how that premise works.
Supplemental sets that are primarily targeted toward more enfranchised and experienced players get more high-complexity cards. Wizards has explicitly stated that they avoid Time Spiral block levels of complexity in contemporary Standard sets, and reserve those more complex card designs for supplemental products that are more likely to be played by long-term players who actually know how Diamond Lion works. They don't want to overly confuse the newer, more casual players who don't know the difference between a mana cost and a converted mana cost mana value.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
I've never understood this line of thinking, neither from wizards nor fans, at least generally speaking. Mistakes are made regardless of complexity.
In this specific case, it says 0, 1, not 0, 1. It's pretty clear. The fact LED has instant speed clause is also similar. "Oh, only at instant speed? well, sorcery is like an action, instant is like a reaction... that must be how it works." Neither of these cards is too complex for the average new buyer, even if the current paradigm is to coddle standard players with draft chaff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Latest proof this forum is a trashfire:
Your authoritarianism will be the reason the company suffers another 60M in losses.
I've never understood this line of thinking, neither from wizards nor fans, at least generally speaking. Mistakes are made regardless of complexity.
In this specific case, it says 0, 1, not 0, 1. It's pretty clear. The fact LED has instant speed clause is also similar. "Oh, only at instant speed? well, sorcery is like an action, instant is like a reaction... that must be how it works." Neither of these cards is too complex for the average new buyer, even if the current paradigm is to coddle standard players with draft chaff.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But as this thread clearly shows, Magic players still get confused by these things.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
I just noticed that the box for MH2 has Dakkon Blackblade on it. This excites me more than it should.
ptompotentially excite you more
this is probably dakkon as a planeswalker card in this set
and one the pack images from the draft booster box is probably Geyadrone Dihada the women who caused his spark to ignite
I would actually love this! I owned the Dakkon Comics as a kid and was OBSESSED with him. Probably why Land Matters is my favorite mechanic theme to this day.
Grinning Ignus was literally just reprinted in Strixhaven. Timing restricted mana abilities are rare, but not something they won't do in standard. There are now exactly three cards ever printed with them as far as I can tell - Diamond Lion, Grinning Ignus and Charmed Pendant. Lion's Eye Diamond and Rhystic Cave had the text added later. They also do mana adding abilities that aren't mana abilities in standard.
Urza's Saga looks more and more like uncounterable Trinket Mage on a land - possibly with an extra body, and definitely with some versatility if you cannot pay for the creature - the more I look at it. It'll probably be deceptively good.
I don't think it's deceptively good, I think it's great. It's a land, it can create two bodies on it's own without untapping it some other way like Seedborn Muse, in my EDH decks it gets Sol Ring at the very least, as an enchantress player of a few formats it triggers constellation and temporarily pumps Ethereal Armor and All that Glitters, it's a land, it's effectively a turn 1 Lotus Bloom in Vintage if you don't have your Black Lotus in your hand, it's loaded with flavor and history, and it's a land. I'll take all of them. It will only get better for this card.
I'm only disappointed that it took this long to get an Enchantment Land.
Grinning Ignus was literally just reprinted in Strixhaven. Timing restricted mana abilities are rare, but not something they won't do in standard. There are now exactly three cards ever printed with them as far as I can tell - Diamond Lion, Grinning Ignus and Charmed Pendant. Lion's Eye Diamond and Rhystic Cave had the text added later. They also do mana adding abilities that aren't mana abilities in standard.
Grinning Ignus is not an appropriate example and the issue is not at all about the timing on mana abilities per se. "Do it only at sorcery speed" is a pretty common restriction that WotC do all the time with all sort of cards, and it's pretty intuitive since basically means "do it only in your turn and only in your main phases".
On the other hand "Do it only at instant speed" is an extremely rare occurance that ever saw printed in all Magic history in just a buncb of isolated cases, and, how this thread clearly shows, unlike the "do it only at sorcery speed" clause, the sense, differences and consequences gameplaywise of this one isn't intuitive for most players, like, at all.
Turn one: Swamp, Memnite, Vorpal Sword.
Opponent plays land but otherwise passes.
Turn two: Swamp, Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, equip, activate, attack, win.
Also, when you do this, you must say "Snicker-Snack." It's the law.
Grinning Ignus was literally just reprinted in Strixhaven. Timing restricted mana abilities are rare, but not something they won't do in standard. There are now exactly three cards ever printed with them as far as I can tell - Diamond Lion, Grinning Ignus and Charmed Pendant. Lion's Eye Diamond and Rhystic Cave had the text added later. They also do mana adding abilities that aren't mana abilities in standard.
Grinning Ignus is not an appropriate example and the issue is not at all about the timing on mana abilities per se. "Do it only at sorcery speed" is a pretty common restriction that WotC do all the time with all sort of cards, and it's pretty intuitive since basically means "do it only in your turn and only in your main phases".
On the other hand "Do it only at instant speed" is an extremely rare occurance that ever saw printed in all Magic history in just a buncb of isolated cases, and, how this thread clearly shows, unlike the "do it only at sorcery speed" clause, the sense, differences and consequences gameplaywise of this one isn't intuitive for most players, like, at all.
But the only point of confusion that would noticeably change gameplay (whether or not it can be countered) is still there on Grinning Ignus. Anyone playing Diamond Lion without understanding the nitty-gritty details of mana ability activation would play it correctly as long as they understood that. Yes, it's more immediately clear that the timing is different, but it's less confusing than, say, understanding that Priest of Forgotten Gods' ability can be countered, but The Great Henge's can't or trying to figure out how to cast The Magic Mirror with Titan's Nest. There are already situations in Standard Magic that require fairly detailed understanding of how mana abilities work.
I've never understood this line of thinking, neither from wizards nor fans, at least generally speaking. Mistakes are made regardless of complexity.
In this specific case, it says 0, 1, not 0, 1. It's pretty clear. The fact LED has instant speed clause is also similar. "Oh, only at instant speed? well, sorcery is like an action, instant is like a reaction... that must be how it works." Neither of these cards is too complex for the average new buyer, even if the current paradigm is to coddle standard players with draft chaff.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But as this thread clearly shows, Magic players still get confused by these things.
Confusion is oftentimes easily resolved by even the simplest explanation, as this thread clearly shows. If there's a person out there who's never been confused by an interaction in Magic, I'd like to meet them.
Neither of the cards in question are actually complex, and there are things going on in standard that are patently more confusing.
Supplemental sets that are primarily targeted toward more enfranchised and experienced players get more high-complexity cards. Wizards has explicitly stated that they avoid Time Spiral block levels of complexity in contemporary Standard sets, and reserve those more complex card designs for supplemental products that are more likely to be played by long-term players who actually know how Diamond Lion works. They don't want to overly confuse the newer, more casual players who don't know the difference between a mana cost and a converted mana cost mana value.
It's a wonder, then, that modern ever managed to become so complex with so few cards being designed for it in the first place. Remind me again, how many new cards were printed in supplemental sets before MH1?
Consider me tickled by the implication that standard players are not competitive.
on further inspect how can such a nightmare to beat in D&D be a common
(the forgot to remove the C from the rarity area)
none the less it should be a stax card based on the lore of beholder's especially since discarding is involved
Could be there are multiple beholders and the baleful one happens to be common. Related: they did just bring back the eye creature type in Strixhaven after 15 years.
I don't think the complaint was that modern doesn't get complex interactions, it was that modern doesn't get complex cards. Where is a format that derives over 98% of its content from standard sets getting its complex cards from, if not standard?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
I believe he was saying that the complexity of today's standard sets is nowhere as high as the standard complexity of Magic past (complexity that modern, like every eternal format, inherited). Future Sight is a great example of a past standard set that would never see the light of day in today's standards, and yet, Modern Horizon fully embrace the complexity and design audacity of a Future Sight with these kind of experiments. I think WotC even stated explicitly that the original Modern Horizon was a "love letter" to all those nostalgic and experienced players that miss sets like the whole Time Spiral block, and Modern Horizon 2 seems no different. I kinda understand his point even if I don't agree with the behavior he use to say it.
Hobbits are Halflings in the text of LotR, so that's what their type line would say.
Although ninjas are experts of camouflage and concealment, they are actually horrible liars. This means that no matter where you are, you can shout out, “Are there any ninjas here?” and if there’s a ninja within earshot, he’ll be compelled to respond.
I get that people come here to complain a lot, and one of the most common through lines is the rapidly increasing pace of banned cards in standard over just the past several years. I'm having trouble squaring that with the idea that there's also no complexity in standard, because why, they don't have arguably one of the most unique or esoteric lines of text in the entirety of Magic? There's plenty of complexity and experimentation in standard on a card-for-card basis, and if it's the breadth of interactivity within the entire format that makes modern so complex, then surely commander - arguably the most popular format at the moment - must be too much for us dumb-dumbs to handle.
My personal take: shifting meta choices are what make modern generally unnavigable for players from other formats, not complexity.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Modern is my favourite format, but I'm sad it costs so much to even get into one deck let alone if you want to have two-three cool ones.
I have mixed feelings about the topic in general that would take too long to write up, but there is one element of your post that bugs me. Modern is a competitive format. Even at FNM level, if you are playing Modern, the point is to win. There are no politics, no deals, no 'oh i did this other thing, which is more important than a win'. If you go play Modern FNM, it's fair game to see any number of the top decks in the format. It doesn't always happen, but just like Standard, people playing Modern are trying to play a deck that can hang at a major event.
EDH is primarily casual. You make lots of mana, swing with big dumb stuff, put together silly boards and strategies. The goal is generally having fun more than winning. cEDH, where the goal is to win and the decks often have some of the highest complexity in the format, Shivam has said that if they split the formats, cEDH would no longer exist. in Modern, people play about as far as the card pool will allow in complexity and power. But you don't see much of the Lantern equivalent complex decks in EDH, the complexity level available to those who want it in EDH IS more than most players can handle
You're right that there is no Lantern equivalent deck in EDH, because the characteristics that define the format have cultivated a completely different meta (to the extent that such a thing exists), and don't generally allow for that sort of thing as a viable win condition. Complexity and target audience were intended to be an apples to apples comparison between the two formats; complexity and 'competitiveness' don't really intersect here in any meaningful way. But if you'd like to apply my metric to standard (since that was the original point of reference), we can do that. Lantern doesn't exist in standard either, of course, and the last time anything came close to perma-fatesealing your opponent it warped the format hard, and that was back when WotC were supremely hesitant to invoke a ban of any kind. How can we say that Wizards is wrong to be careful about experimenting in standard given that a) they do, repeatedly and recently, b) more often than not it backfires, and c) there's always backlash in communities like this one about Wizards being too reckless with their releases?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Can't wait to see what Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar Does in modern horizons 2
(There’s a leak that mentions 2 of the cards revealed in MH2 and the same guy who leaked the M21 stuff clarified the leak from a good source involves the cook being in modern horizons 2 with a madness cost with no cmc as the solution for the name length)
I’m also interested in seeing how Ward gets used in MH2.
Supplemental sets that are primarily targeted toward more enfranchised and experienced players get more high-complexity cards. Wizards has explicitly stated that they avoid Time Spiral block levels of complexity in contemporary Standard sets, and reserve those more complex card designs for supplemental products that are more likely to be played by long-term players who actually know how Diamond Lion works. They don't want to overly confuse the newer, more casual players who don't know the difference between a mana cost and a
converted mana costmana value.In this specific case, it says 0, 1, not 0, 1. It's pretty clear. The fact LED has instant speed clause is also similar. "Oh, only at instant speed? well, sorcery is like an action, instant is like a reaction... that must be how it works." Neither of these cards is too complex for the average new buyer, even if the current paradigm is to coddle standard players with draft chaff.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But as this thread clearly shows, Magic players still get confused by these things.
I would actually love this! I owned the Dakkon Comics as a kid and was OBSESSED with him. Probably why Land Matters is my favorite mechanic theme to this day.
I don't think it's deceptively good, I think it's great. It's a land, it can create two bodies on it's own without untapping it some other way like Seedborn Muse, in my EDH decks it gets Sol Ring at the very least, as an enchantress player of a few formats it triggers constellation and temporarily pumps Ethereal Armor and All that Glitters, it's a land, it's effectively a turn 1 Lotus Bloom in Vintage if you don't have your Black Lotus in your hand, it's loaded with flavor and history, and it's a land. I'll take all of them. It will only get better for this card.
I'm only disappointed that it took this long to get an Enchantment Land.
Also, was it just a coincidence the lion was done by Howard Lyon?
I used to be a demigod, but now I'm an omnimage
Grinning Ignus is not an appropriate example and the issue is not at all about the timing on mana abilities per se. "Do it only at sorcery speed" is a pretty common restriction that WotC do all the time with all sort of cards, and it's pretty intuitive since basically means "do it only in your turn and only in your main phases".
On the other hand "Do it only at instant speed" is an extremely rare occurance that ever saw printed in all Magic history in just a buncb of isolated cases, and, how this thread clearly shows, unlike the "do it only at sorcery speed" clause, the sense, differences and consequences gameplaywise of this one isn't intuitive for most players, like, at all.
Turn one: Swamp, Memnite, Vorpal Sword.
Opponent plays land but otherwise passes.
Turn two: Swamp, Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, equip, activate, attack, win.
Also, when you do this, you must say "Snicker-Snack." It's the law.
But the only point of confusion that would noticeably change gameplay (whether or not it can be countered) is still there on Grinning Ignus. Anyone playing Diamond Lion without understanding the nitty-gritty details of mana ability activation would play it correctly as long as they understood that. Yes, it's more immediately clear that the timing is different, but it's less confusing than, say, understanding that Priest of Forgotten Gods' ability can be countered, but The Great Henge's can't or trying to figure out how to cast The Magic Mirror with Titan's Nest. There are already situations in Standard Magic that require fairly detailed understanding of how mana abilities work.
on further inspect how can such a nightmare to beat in D&D be a common
(the forgot to remove the C from the rarity area)
none the less it should be a stax card based on the lore of beholder's especially since discarding is involved
Confusion is oftentimes easily resolved by even the simplest explanation, as this thread clearly shows. If there's a person out there who's never been confused by an interaction in Magic, I'd like to meet them.
Neither of the cards in question are actually complex, and there are things going on in standard that are patently more confusing.
It's a wonder, then, that modern ever managed to become so complex with so few cards being designed for it in the first place. Remind me again, how many new cards were printed in supplemental sets before MH1?
Consider me tickled by the implication that standard players are not competitive.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Could be there are multiple beholders and the baleful one happens to be common. Related: they did just bring back the eye creature type in Strixhaven after 15 years.