As a note, Black LD tends to suck. The best LD Black has in Standard right now is Helldozer, which is slow and color intensive, as well as vulnerable to creature destruction. And every color seems to be getting new toys in this set- from what little we've seen, they've given Blue some cheap discard and weenie-creature kill, and White at least one very powerful mid-game fattie where before they've had almost no good mid-range creatures.
Basically, yeah. Balance (at least in theory) makes the weaker player equal to the stronger. Pox and Death Cloud, on the other hand, are best for whoever's ahead. Note how Death Cloud decks tried to get as many land on the board as possible, where Balance decks sacced all theirs to Zuran Orb. The means of forcing sacrifice is the same, but the end result is completely different.
Yes. It's very difficult to calculate your deck's strengths toplayaround mutual board sweepers. That's why currently existing decks that play Wrath of God don't do that at all. This makes it very different from other mutual board sweepers like Barter in Blood and Mutilate, where you can build your deck to take advantage of the drawback. I mean, it's not like you'd just be running kill conditions higher up on the curve that would follow a board-clearing sweeper instead of getting caught up in it. This is all very real, and makes your argument not transparent and nonsensical, if not flat-out contradictory.
So your saying god is evil eh? I'm sorry doing something that is deemed evil does not make you evil. If that was the case if the Devil did one thing good he would be good!
Also the ends sometimes justify the means and thats what wrath of god is all about.
Fill in the blank time!
"The road to _____ is paved with good intentions."
This is asinine. God does not exist in any relevant way in the Magic universe, part of the reason they'll probably be glad to get rid of *** from the coreset. As pointed out, White is not supposed to be the "good" color, and Black is not supposed to be the "evil" color. Things such as justice are associated with both God and White. On the other hand, free will is also associated with God (even Calvinism attributes it to God, if not to us), and that's pretty Black.
Your argument is also irrelevant because the flavor of a card's name can't rearrange the color pie. You can't call Ball Lightning, "Brief Surge of Genius Elemental" and move it to Blue. The question becomes,
What color should be able to tear up all the creatures in play?
Three colors get creature removal; White, Black, and Red. Red can traditionally only kill creatures of escalating strength- flavorwise, Red has a harder time killing progressively bigger creatures. Black and White make this distinction far less. What good reasons exist to say, "No, Black shouldn't have Wrath" (ignoring that this opinion has clearly already been overridden by Wizards)?
If you want to get your knickers into a twist over something, ask them why they gave Blue Funeral charm, which is 2/3 not Blue.
Mutilate. Patriarch's Bidding. Barter in Blood. Seizan, Perverter of Truth. Delirium Skeins. Black has had a lot of cards that are supposedly "fair". There's no actual decent reason why Black can't have a Wrath besides "They haven't had one yet". Black can kill via sacrifice, -x/-x, direct damage, and "destroy" (and sometimes "remove from game). They can move any of these from target to sweeping. This is perfectly reasonable. Sudden Spoiling was more worthy of controversy than this, for God's sake.
If you want to be arguing anything, you should be questioning, "Since when have demons/evil overlords been bad at backstabbing each other and randomly killing their minions?" and from thence, "So why can't Black destroy other Black creatures just as well as it can other creatures?"
Yes. It's very difficult to calculate your deck's strengths to play around mutual board sweepers. That's why currently existing decks that play Wrath of God don't do that at all. This makes it very different from other mutual board sweepers like Barter in Blood and Mutilate, where you can build your deck to take advantage of the drawback. I mean, it's not like you'd just be running kill conditions higher up on the curve that would follow a board-clearing sweeper instead of getting caught up in it. This is all very real, and makes your argument not transparent and nonsensical, if not flat-out contradictory.
[/sarcasm]
Fill in the blank time!
"The road to _____ is paved with good intentions."
This is asinine. God does not exist in any relevant way in the Magic universe, part of the reason they'll probably be glad to get rid of *** from the coreset. As pointed out, White is not supposed to be the "good" color, and Black is not supposed to be the "evil" color. Things such as justice are associated with both God and White. On the other hand, free will is also associated with God (even Calvinism attributes it to God, if not to us), and that's pretty Black.
Your argument is also irrelevant because the flavor of a card's name can't rearrange the color pie. You can't call Ball Lightning, "Brief Surge of Genius Elemental" and move it to Blue. The question becomes,
What color should be able to tear up all the creatures in play?
Three colors get creature removal; White, Black, and Red. Red can traditionally only kill creatures of escalating strength- flavorwise, Red has a harder time killing progressively bigger creatures. Black and White make this distinction far less. What good reasons exist to say, "No, Black shouldn't have Wrath" (ignoring that this opinion has clearly already been overridden by Wizards)?
If you want to get your knickers into a twist over something, ask them why they gave Blue Funeral charm, which is 2/3 not Blue.
If you want to be arguing anything, you should be questioning, "Since when have demons/evil overlords been bad at backstabbing each other and randomly killing their minions?" and from thence, "So why can't Black destroy other Black creatures just as well as it can other creatures?"