I'm the opposite of most in the thread, I actually prefer hexproof to shroud. Shroud to me seems the more boring of the two, since it's just impossible to interact with. Invisible Stalker is obviously a mistake in design. GoST isn't in my opinion. It can still be blocked, and it doesn't regenerate or anything.
I think Hexproof is a neat strategy. For instance I have a pauper deck that relies on hexproof, and it's just interesting that no matter what their removal blanks against me.
It's also interesting that they came out with such a blatant anti-hexproof card. I don't think it'll make too much of a splash though.
Anyway, I find hexproof and shroud to be fine inclusions in any set. The more keywords in Standard the better I say.
IMO Hexproof is a dumb bad design. Hell to deal with a single Invisible Stalker enchanted to the teeth i need to wipe my board?
There is many better evasion designs that aren't just plain "you can't. period".
Persist, Imortal, color protection.
I think that Hexproof should never had existed as a Keyword. They should have split it into two:
- can't be target of spells controled by your opponents
- can't be target of abilities controled by your opponents
then we could have 3 abilities:
- Shroud, the most protective, but also restrictive.
- The other 2 variant.
Also some cards with protection against sorceries and instantes would be cool. So they're only partially immune to removal.
Can't be the target of abilities controlled by the opponent is way too narrow for more than a card or two. It's really just a tack on.
As far as shroud, if a card really needs it, they'll just write out "can't be the target of spells or abilities." Since the end of Innistrad block, (conveniently following the equipment heavy block) hexproof has been on a grand total of 3 creatures and an emblem where it mattered. Shroud or hexproof on an instant or a card like Innkeeper from RTR plays the same unless you misplay and equipping the Keyrune is going to be a ton of mana since you'd have to do it every turn. There isn't really any reason to keep shroud and hexproof when it's, apparently, going to be on maybe one or two creatures a set normally. It's way less common than planeswalkers, now, and judging from M13, RTR and GTC, we might get one creature a block that's playable anywhere but limited.
I'm saying that instead of having a house of cards built from reliance on creature keywords, the auras should be attractive enough to be relevant on their own.
They've been trying that for the last 15 years and even dedicated a keyword called Totem Armor to it. It's every other year or so we get a new thing to try and make auras useable, but even with all the attempts, Rancor is the only aura to see much tournament play without hexproof or cheating it into play like Soverigns of Lost Alara. It's kind of sad when you have a permanent part of the game that's universally so janky you'll never see it outside of limited or new players' decks.
They've been trying that for the last 15 years and even dedicated a keyword called Totem Armor to it. It's every other year or so we get a new thing to try and make auras useable, but even with all the attempts, Rancor is the only aura to see much tournament play without hexproof or cheating it into play like Soverigns of Lost Alara. It's kind of sad when you have a permanent part of the game that's universally so janky you'll never see it outside of limited or new players' decks.
Wizards already knows what makes auras good on their own. Sometimes they make cards that have the right stuff, but not enough of it to break into the top decks. Rancor, Eleplant/Griffin Guide, Shielding Plax, Spreading Seas, Eldrazi Constription, Spectral Flight, and of course Totem Armor are a few that have seen play or are just a few ticks from a good example.
I just don't agree with the viewpoint that "auras need hexproof, and that's one of the reasons that hexproof is good for magic". Good auras should stand alone without fear that getting strapped to a guy who doesn't instantly blank targeted removal will be giving their opponent a divination's worth of card advantage. I know I'm repeating myself a bit, sorry.
There is a big reason many decks last standard season had Phyrexian Metamorph in their sideboards, and any deck using blue had Phantasmal Image usually, and it was to kill things like Geist/Thrun, both creatures that warp the game by their presence on the battlefield. By your reasoning, if Geist was so simply dealt with, it wouldn't have been used as much as it was, and it'd be a low-cost mythic. There's a reason that card is used in both modern and standard to great effect, it is absurdly powerful and is my definition of a 'too powerful hexproof creature'.
Delver.dec was oppressive to play against, but you can't blame Geist of st. traft about that. The reason was that UW had enough good cards to work with in a limited cardpool. Cheap cantrips, good countermagic and Restoration Angel were good at nullifying the opponent's efforts to deal with Geists.
Today we have Supreme Verdict - a card that would have absolutely wrecked delver-players attemps to protect their Geist.
Geist isn't amazing in a vacuum, because all it takes is a 2/3 dude to block him favourably. However, when UW gets too many good tools and other strategies don't have efficient ways to attack the UW deck's strategy, THEN a creature like Geist of st. Traft becomes powerful.
I agree though that Delver.dec was pretty damn annoying deck and I would have probably been glad to take Geist of st. Traft away from delver-players.
Hmmm...creature based gameplay CAN be interactive and fun and I'm all for that, but hexproof is not interactive. Having creatures your opponents can do little about is not interactive.
Invisible Stalker or Thrun Are possibly the least interactive creatures of all time, but neither are overpowered and both have at least some common ways to interact with (sweepers and counterspells for the stalker and combat and to a lesser degree sweepers for thrun)
The reason why I think hexproof is okay is because wizards has yet to use it to much or put it on truly overpowered creatures.
It allows them to push creatures a bit further while making individual creatures stronger and by making the main way to combat them other creatures.
The beautiful thing about making creatures the best way to battle creatures is that every color gets them in spades and always has a few playable ones.
Opposed to say overpowered sorceries/artifacts/instants/enchantments the simplest and least narrow way to battle them is counterspells which only blue truly gets (I know there are exceptions but lets be honest)
Hexproof can be powerful and I'm not saying that Thrun and Geist aren't good, but every color has inherent ways to deal with them.
Atleast in modern the only decks I can think of that can't interact at all with hexproof creatures are Eggs and Storm. But those decks at there very nature don't want to interact with anybody.
Eh for flavour's sake I'd rather see Hexproof only show up on humanoids that are reasonably small (i.e. they can hold equipment and need to to stand a chance against bigger beasts) and Shroud show up on big beast like creatures that can't feasibly equip armour or swords due to lack of intelligence or due to just being too big (Sphinxes, Treefolk, Dinosaurs...).
This is pretty much the only post in the thread that doesn't sound like whining.
Shroud's drawback, in general, stinks. It doesn't make sense that a Deft Duelist cannot pick up Adventuring Gear.
For cards like Helix Pinnacle, which are few and far between, you may as well be explicit and say 'CARDNAME cannot be the target of any spells or abilities.'
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Eh for flavour's sake I'd rather see Hexproof only show up on humanoids that are reasonably small (i.e. they can hold equipment and need to to stand a chance against bigger beasts) and Shroud show up on big beast like creatures that can't feasibly equip armour or swords due to lack of intelligence or due to just being too big (Sphinxes, Treefolk, Dinosaurs...).
But then the question arrises why can't you cast spells on the giant creatures you control?
I love the flavor of magic, but trying to make sense of it can lead to some pretty ridiculous scenarios. I love when Oozes hold swords or when flying carpets can be smelt
hex proof and shroud is actually sometimes stronger then even protection, on certain creatures like Thrun which almost basically make him unkillable. Shroud at least made the creature unable for the user to abuse it with pump spells or aura's , but hexproof changes all that, not only is the creature one sided it can easily be pumped up. Thats my only gripe with Hexproof and as someone mentioned as long as they dont put unblockable on it it seems fine.
This thread is full of idiots... Lightning Bolt is NOT being reprinted.
Many times has a writer in Wizards said so, because of the plain and simple fact that it's too powerful for what it costs. x/3 creatures shouldn't be able to die at instant speed for one mana without a signifigant drawback. (like PTE giving you a land)
I absolutely guarantee that LB will not be printed in M10, and you can quote me on that.
This thread has lead me to reevaluate my position on shroud vs hexproof.
Hexproof is definitely the better one for interaction purposes and MtG is all about interaction. The real problem I think people have are that some of the creatures that have hexproof can be pretty punishing but the issue is the creature, not hexproof.
This thread has lead me to reevaluate my position on shroud vs hexproof.
Hexproof is definitely the better one for interaction purposes and MtG is all about interaction. The real problem I think people have are that some of the creatures that have hexproof can be pretty punishing but the issue is the creature, not hexproof.
Well it has been said but basically this.
Hexproof is fine, the real problem lies with the creatures it gets put on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Brilliant ideas are stupid ideas that worked - Patrick Chapin
I made an account just to argue with these guys. Make of that what you will.
Anyway. Hexproof isn't the problem. Removal is. Removal is BIG. I don't think that can be argued at this point. Almost every deck (the main exception are combo decks) has removal, or else it can't function. How many types of things can you say that about in magic? Enchantments of any kind? Creatures? Equipment? Non basic lands? Basic lands? Yeah...None of those are necessary for all decks. but removal is. Removal. is. Big. Hexproof is one of the few things that can deal with it while still allowing things like equipment, enchantment and pump spells to function.
So until hexproof came around, we only had one way around removal, and that was based on limiting ALL interaction with it, on both players sides. All interactions with the creature were obvious. If I block this shroud creature, do I have to worry about it being pumped? Nope! He can't target it either!
Shroud removed all risk/reward from that creature. Hexproof brings those back in. I don't see the problem with that.
Anyway. Hexproof isn't the problem. Removal is. Removal is BIG. I don't think that can be argued at this point. Almost every deck (the main exception are combo decks) has removal, or else it can't function. How many types of things can you say that about in magic? Enchantments of any kind? Creatures? Equipment? Non basic lands? Basic lands? Yeah...None of those are necessary for all decks. but removal is. Removal. is. Big. Hexproof is one of the few things that can deal with it while still allowing things like equipment, enchantment and pump spells to function.
For a long time wizards has known that removal was too powerful compared to creatures. They've done many things over the past few years to combat it. Introducing indestructible as evergreen, persist, undying, ETB triggers, flash, and hexproof of course. While also increasing the efficiency of creatures just look at delver
I don't think it's a problem and they could even print slightly more powerful spot removal right now because creatures are so good.
It's easy to tell where wizards is trying to move the game if you simply look at the modern ban list. The only creature on there for not having some degenarate alternate effect is wild nacatl, but also there is no removal deemed too powerful. MTG is a balancing act and wizards has done a pretty great job for standard since JTMS and Stoneforge. But, those came at the end of several years of deliberate power down and the previous sets always preyed on the new ones a bit too much.
IMHO I think Hexproof is the single most powerful ability. If you can't target my creature and I can then you either have to edict it away or mass remove it; which really cuts down on your chances of killing it. I love it, but can easily see why others hate it as it's too easy to put 'all eggs in one basket' on a hexproof creature and just smash. Even though Autumn Willow in essence had it first, remember how often you groaned at seeing Rancor attached to Ascetic Troll... and all you had was targeted removal?
I made an account just to argue with these guys. Make of that what you will.
Anyway. Hexproof isn't the problem. Removal is. Removal is BIG. I don't think that can be argued at this point. Almost every deck (the main exception are combo decks) has removal, or else it can't function. How many types of things can you say that about in magic? Enchantments of any kind? Creatures? Equipment? Non basic lands? Basic lands? Yeah...None of those are necessary for all decks. but removal is. Removal. is. Big. Hexproof is one of the few things that can deal with it while still allowing things like equipment, enchantment and pump spells to function.
So until hexproof came around, we only had one way around removal, and that was based on limiting ALL interaction with it, on both players sides. All interactions with the creature were obvious. If I block this shroud creature, do I have to worry about it being pumped? Nope! He can't target it either!
Shroud removed all risk/reward from that creature. Hexproof brings those back in. I don't see the problem with that.
I also made an account like you to argue on this one.. i agree with your post, shroud makes your opponent not worried at the creature if they blocksince you cant do anything to it while hexproof allows combat tricks.. but i also agree with the posts here that it shouldnt be put in creatures like gost and invisible stalker.. imo it should be limited to green since it is supposed to be creature dependent color and has limited removal.. putting it in a control color really hurt since it is very difficult to deal with like gost.. so hexproof is not the problem, its the creature and color whre they put it..
hex proof is way OP in my opinion...How can a jund deck really effectively/consistently take down a sigarda? they can't...Sigarda as an example should be a powerful card that swings the game in my favor but it shouldn't completely shut down the other deck:p
Of course every deck won't have an answer for everything...I just find it silly when a card can completely shut down a whole entire deck...where's the fun in that?
Of course every deck won't have an answer for everything...I just find it silly when a card can completely shut down a whole entire deck...where's the fun in that?
It's about problems and risk reward.
If Sigarda got out of hand you'd play another deck, or you'd find a way to get mutilate or bonfire (or whatever) working for you.
Maybe the Sigarda players were complaining about Liliana. The game is cyclic and that's what makes it great.
More importantly I think it's the fact that there are very few decks/cards that have any answers to hexproof creatures besides combat which with hexproof if you're smart about it usually isn't a problem....the only other effective way is sweepers....right now only control is really running sweepers (besides bonfire).....I don't know....I just think it's over powered. I am not saying it should be taken out or it's terrible but I think it's hard to argue that for some of the creatures its put on that it isn't just op
EDIT:I am so tired... I don't even know why I am arguing truth be told hahah I don't have a problem with the current meta or anything...I REBUKE WHAT I HAVE SAID;D
More importantly I think it's the fact that there are very few decks/cards that have any answers to hexproof creatures besides combat which with hexproof if you're smart about it usually isn't a problem....the only other effective way is sweepers....right now only control is really running sweepers (besides bonfire).....I don't know....I just think it's over powered. I am not saying it should be taken out or it's terrible but I think it's hard to argue that for some of the creatures its put on that it isn't just op
Just to clarify, I'm not a fan either, I think it goes against what they're trying to do with more interactions. However, it's popular with a lot of people as well, so why not I guess.
Let me put it this way as an example; I'm playing a deck with some ground bears as my creatures, you are playing some Vampire Nighthawks. Is there ever a situation where I will be able to 'interact' favourably in combat? No, so I need removal. This is perfectly reasonable. Removal SHOULD be cheap and powerful, if it weren't the best decks would allways be aggro, every time, with a very select group of creatures standing head and shoulders above the rest.
This seems like hyperbole. Yes, a deck filled with runeclaw bear will be crushed by a deck filled with vampire nighthawks, but who actually goes to FNM or a PTQ with a bunch of bears?
It's like someone complaining that my mono-black deck can't destroy those pesky artifacts, and that black needs more powerful creatures/stretch the color pie so that the deck so that MONO B can beat artifacts.
Reminds me of the days when the white deck got Karma out against the black deck, and if he didn't have a Nevy's disk ...it was game over pretty quickly for the black deck. Deck hosing cards force a solid color deck to splash or change just to deal with whatever is popular and powerful they can't handle currently. If you can't handle hexproof ....splash so you then can. Nothing new there.
On the matter of why shroud is being utterly displaced, I think Rosewater mentioned somewhere--I don't know if it was specifically about hexproof, but the point is still going to be salient--that R&D wants to make sure the gameplay is intuitive. Shroud isn't as intuitive as hexproof, arguably. A boon that PREVENTS further boons (equipment et al.)? I can see how hexproof wins in the intuitive department.
I still think Mwonvuli Beast-Tracker should have been able to find shroud along with hexproof, though.
Auras, meanwhile, have an interesting conundrum. Way back with Beta, the game wasn't anticipated to be as big a hit as it proved to be. Certainly not something with the kind of competition severity it currently has. So card advantage wasn't really that big a thing when Garfield charted the set. Auras, like many other things, were designed with Vorthos in mind. Thing is, most commentary these days seems to be from Spike. And Spike and Vorthos usually don't overlap all that much...Especially when you consider that equipment can be argued to BE fixed auras, just treated as artifacts rather than enchantments. (Well, outside of auras like Pillory of the Sleepless.)
A better idea than emanating hexproof everywhere, I think, is to instead see if some sort of protection (color, instants, sorceries, creature/tribal type, etc.) would be merited instead. Maybe it also has a bit of intuition problem (you can't target it with the protected-from thing, either. Qualifying auras, equipment, activated abilities, etc.), but I always liked that ability from when I got into the game from The Dark onwards. I honestly think it needs a bit of a resurgence.
Anyway. Hexproof isn't the problem. Removal is. Removal is BIG. I don't think that can be argued at this point. Almost every deck (the main exception are combo decks) has removal, or else it can't function. How many types of things can you say that about in magic? Enchantments of any kind? Creatures? Equipment? Non basic lands? Basic lands? Yeah...None of those are necessary for all decks. but removal is. Removal. is. Big. Hexproof is one of the few things that can deal with it while still allowing things like equipment, enchantment and pump spells to function.
However, removal won't kill your opponent.
Hexproof is a terrible mechanic as is Shroud for that matter. Everything in this game should be able to be interacted with by either player. Sure, an ability like Hexproof or Shroud on a single creature every few sets wouldn't be so bad and help would shake things up if removal and control magic become too prevalent. But currently the proliferation of Geist, Stalker, Sigarda, and undying creatures has made playing spot removal a serious liability in deck construction - you've either got a dead card or you're 2 for 1ing yourself.
Also, someone mentioned MaRo earlier, and I've said this before... Just because MaRo said so doesn't mean it's true, spells ARE NOT and WERE NOT more powerful than creatures, with relatively few exceptions spells DO NOT kill the opponent and win the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think Hexproof is a neat strategy. For instance I have a pauper deck that relies on hexproof, and it's just interesting that no matter what their removal blanks against me.
It's also interesting that they came out with such a blatant anti-hexproof card. I don't think it'll make too much of a splash though.
Anyway, I find hexproof and shroud to be fine inclusions in any set. The more keywords in Standard the better I say.
Can't be the target of abilities controlled by the opponent is way too narrow for more than a card or two. It's really just a tack on.
As far as shroud, if a card really needs it, they'll just write out "can't be the target of spells or abilities." Since the end of Innistrad block, (conveniently following the equipment heavy block) hexproof has been on a grand total of 3 creatures and an emblem where it mattered. Shroud or hexproof on an instant or a card like Innkeeper from RTR plays the same unless you misplay and equipping the Keyrune is going to be a ton of mana since you'd have to do it every turn. There isn't really any reason to keep shroud and hexproof when it's, apparently, going to be on maybe one or two creatures a set normally. It's way less common than planeswalkers, now, and judging from M13, RTR and GTC, we might get one creature a block that's playable anywhere but limited.
They've been trying that for the last 15 years and even dedicated a keyword called Totem Armor to it. It's every other year or so we get a new thing to try and make auras useable, but even with all the attempts, Rancor is the only aura to see much tournament play without hexproof or cheating it into play like Soverigns of Lost Alara. It's kind of sad when you have a permanent part of the game that's universally so janky you'll never see it outside of limited or new players' decks.
Wizards already knows what makes auras good on their own. Sometimes they make cards that have the right stuff, but not enough of it to break into the top decks. Rancor, Eleplant/Griffin Guide, Shielding Plax, Spreading Seas, Eldrazi Constription, Spectral Flight, and of course Totem Armor are a few that have seen play or are just a few ticks from a good example.
I just don't agree with the viewpoint that "auras need hexproof, and that's one of the reasons that hexproof is good for magic". Good auras should stand alone without fear that getting strapped to a guy who doesn't instantly blank targeted removal will be giving their opponent a divination's worth of card advantage. I know I'm repeating myself a bit, sorry.
Delver.dec was oppressive to play against, but you can't blame Geist of st. traft about that. The reason was that UW had enough good cards to work with in a limited cardpool. Cheap cantrips, good countermagic and Restoration Angel were good at nullifying the opponent's efforts to deal with Geists.
Today we have Supreme Verdict - a card that would have absolutely wrecked delver-players attemps to protect their Geist.
Geist isn't amazing in a vacuum, because all it takes is a 2/3 dude to block him favourably. However, when UW gets too many good tools and other strategies don't have efficient ways to attack the UW deck's strategy, THEN a creature like Geist of st. Traft becomes powerful.
I agree though that Delver.dec was pretty damn annoying deck and I would have probably been glad to take Geist of st. Traft away from delver-players.
Youtube Channel
Invisible Stalker or Thrun Are possibly the least interactive creatures of all time, but neither are overpowered and both have at least some common ways to interact with (sweepers and counterspells for the stalker and combat and to a lesser degree sweepers for thrun)
The reason why I think hexproof is okay is because wizards has yet to use it to much or put it on truly overpowered creatures.
It allows them to push creatures a bit further while making individual creatures stronger and by making the main way to combat them other creatures.
The beautiful thing about making creatures the best way to battle creatures is that every color gets them in spades and always has a few playable ones.
Opposed to say overpowered sorceries/artifacts/instants/enchantments the simplest and least narrow way to battle them is counterspells which only blue truly gets (I know there are exceptions but lets be honest)
Hexproof can be powerful and I'm not saying that Thrun and Geist aren't good, but every color has inherent ways to deal with them.
Atleast in modern the only decks I can think of that can't interact at all with hexproof creatures are Eggs and Storm. But those decks at there very nature don't want to interact with anybody.
This is pretty much the only post in the thread that doesn't sound like whining.
Shroud's drawback, in general, stinks. It doesn't make sense that a Deft Duelist cannot pick up Adventuring Gear.
For cards like Helix Pinnacle, which are few and far between, you may as well be explicit and say 'CARDNAME cannot be the target of any spells or abilities.'
"OH GOD MY BRAIN IS EXPLOADING AT HOW BAD THE ART IS ON MY OWN CARD"
-A friend's first impression of Ancestral Recall
10/10, I tapped.
But then the question arrises why can't you cast spells on the giant creatures you control?
I love the flavor of magic, but trying to make sense of it can lead to some pretty ridiculous scenarios. I love when Oozes hold swords or when flying carpets can be smelt
“Homo homini lupus est.”
Hexproof is definitely the better one for interaction purposes and MtG is all about interaction. The real problem I think people have are that some of the creatures that have hexproof can be pretty punishing but the issue is the creature, not hexproof.
Well it has been said but basically this.
Hexproof is fine, the real problem lies with the creatures it gets put on.
Anyway. Hexproof isn't the problem. Removal is. Removal is BIG. I don't think that can be argued at this point. Almost every deck (the main exception are combo decks) has removal, or else it can't function. How many types of things can you say that about in magic? Enchantments of any kind? Creatures? Equipment? Non basic lands? Basic lands? Yeah...None of those are necessary for all decks. but removal is. Removal. is. Big. Hexproof is one of the few things that can deal with it while still allowing things like equipment, enchantment and pump spells to function.
So until hexproof came around, we only had one way around removal, and that was based on limiting ALL interaction with it, on both players sides. All interactions with the creature were obvious. If I block this shroud creature, do I have to worry about it being pumped? Nope! He can't target it either!
Shroud removed all risk/reward from that creature. Hexproof brings those back in. I don't see the problem with that.
For a long time wizards has known that removal was too powerful compared to creatures. They've done many things over the past few years to combat it. Introducing indestructible as evergreen, persist, undying, ETB triggers, flash, and hexproof of course. While also increasing the efficiency of creatures just look at delver
I don't think it's a problem and they could even print slightly more powerful spot removal right now because creatures are so good.
It's easy to tell where wizards is trying to move the game if you simply look at the modern ban list. The only creature on there for not having some degenarate alternate effect is wild nacatl, but also there is no removal deemed too powerful. MTG is a balancing act and wizards has done a pretty great job for standard since JTMS and Stoneforge. But, those came at the end of several years of deliberate power down and the previous sets always preyed on the new ones a bit too much.
I also made an account like you to argue on this one.. i agree with your post, shroud makes your opponent not worried at the creature if they blocksince you cant do anything to it while hexproof allows combat tricks.. but i also agree with the posts here that it shouldnt be put in creatures like gost and invisible stalker.. imo it should be limited to green since it is supposed to be creature dependent color and has limited removal.. putting it in a control color really hurt since it is very difficult to deal with like gost.. so hexproof is not the problem, its the creature and color whre they put it..
And is there a reason they should be able to?
Not every deck should have access to an answer to every problem they will face.
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
It's about problems and risk reward.
If Sigarda got out of hand you'd play another deck, or you'd find a way to get mutilate or bonfire (or whatever) working for you.
Maybe the Sigarda players were complaining about Liliana. The game is cyclic and that's what makes it great.
EDIT:I am so tired... I don't even know why I am arguing truth be told hahah I don't have a problem with the current meta or anything...I REBUKE WHAT I HAVE SAID;D
Just to clarify, I'm not a fan either, I think it goes against what they're trying to do with more interactions. However, it's popular with a lot of people as well, so why not I guess.
This seems like hyperbole. Yes, a deck filled with runeclaw bear will be crushed by a deck filled with vampire nighthawks, but who actually goes to FNM or a PTQ with a bunch of bears?
It's like someone complaining that my mono-black deck can't destroy those pesky artifacts, and that black needs more powerful creatures/stretch the color pie so that the deck so that MONO B can beat artifacts.
I still think Mwonvuli Beast-Tracker should have been able to find shroud along with hexproof, though.
Auras, meanwhile, have an interesting conundrum. Way back with Beta, the game wasn't anticipated to be as big a hit as it proved to be. Certainly not something with the kind of competition severity it currently has. So card advantage wasn't really that big a thing when Garfield charted the set. Auras, like many other things, were designed with Vorthos in mind. Thing is, most commentary these days seems to be from Spike. And Spike and Vorthos usually don't overlap all that much...Especially when you consider that equipment can be argued to BE fixed auras, just treated as artifacts rather than enchantments. (Well, outside of auras like Pillory of the Sleepless.)
A better idea than emanating hexproof everywhere, I think, is to instead see if some sort of protection (color, instants, sorceries, creature/tribal type, etc.) would be merited instead. Maybe it also has a bit of intuition problem (you can't target it with the protected-from thing, either. Qualifying auras, equipment, activated abilities, etc.), but I always liked that ability from when I got into the game from The Dark onwards. I honestly think it needs a bit of a resurgence.
However, removal won't kill your opponent.
Hexproof is a terrible mechanic as is Shroud for that matter. Everything in this game should be able to be interacted with by either player. Sure, an ability like Hexproof or Shroud on a single creature every few sets wouldn't be so bad and help would shake things up if removal and control magic become too prevalent. But currently the proliferation of Geist, Stalker, Sigarda, and undying creatures has made playing spot removal a serious liability in deck construction - you've either got a dead card or you're 2 for 1ing yourself.
Also, someone mentioned MaRo earlier, and I've said this before... Just because MaRo said so doesn't mean it's true, spells ARE NOT and WERE NOT more powerful than creatures, with relatively few exceptions spells DO NOT kill the opponent and win the game.