I have played against Trade Secrets when it was legal. It's 1UU draw 4 cards target opponent draws 2 cards. It's hardly the fault of Trade Secrets if players make poor decisions, anymore than it is the fault of Tempt with Discovery if you allow the caster to search up Dark Depths+Thespian's Stage, or the fault of Fact or Fiction if someone gives the 5-0 split, or Rhystic Study if you simply refuse to pay.
In my experience, Trade Secrets was "let's see who can draw their game-winning combo first".
In my experience, Trade Secrets was "let's see who can draw their game-winning combo first".
And I stand by my initial assessment. Can't fault the card for players making poor decisions.
If the opponent chosen has a game winning combo in their deck and they choose to continue digging for it, how is that a bad decision? If both players have one, then yeah, maybe that opponent shouldn't continue or maybe they are taking a calculated risk in trying to find it? Or maybe the opponent is concerned that the person casting it found their combo so they keep on digging for an answer? Maybe both players know the other doesn't have an infinite combo in their deck and they just want to keep drawing cards.
This isn't the same as the "tempt" spells. This allows both players to draw their deck. And just those players. The person casting it can stop drawing at any time while the opponent keeps going to "catch up" to them. If desired, this is "1UU - You and target player both draw your deck". I am not sure how drawing all the cards in my library is automatically a bad decision just because another player does the same. Now the game is just about 1 player trying to stop the other. In any case, the game goes from multiplayer to two players.
There are clearly scenarios where it is not a bad decision to do so so this isn't just "bad players making bad decisions". And that, of course, is part of the problem. It is potentially all upside for both players involved while simultaneously excluding the rest of the table.
There are obviously enough players who had a negative experience with the card and you obviously had, at least, a neutral one. Unfortunately for you, the RC heard the negative experiences, felt they were great enough to be a problem, and banned the card.
Since the card is banned, there needs to be something from the unban side that is better than "well, it didn't cause *us* problems". It is a pure political card, it existed in the format, and it showed what it could do to make games less enjoyable. I think the discussion about the card, like many other cards (except a few major offenders), is worth having. But it seems that enough players' experiences align with the RC's view on the card that it will take a lot to show it won't cause those same problems again.
Why would you feel like you need Power to compete in EDH if you've literally never seen Power cast in an EDH game?
Does anyone really need to have seen Power played to know they're horribly broken cards that 100% make your deck better? Is there really any legitimate debate whether your deck is strictly better with a Mox rather than a basic land, or an Ancestral Recall instead of a Brainstorm? Is there actually any blue deck that WOULDN'T run Time Walk even if in it's worst mode it was an Explore that untapped all your lands in the process?
I know people who proxy certain cards to try them or because getting one feels stupid (ala Timetwister or Imperial Seal) but it isn't a big deal because it is one card here or there, unbanning all that would create a weird proxy arms race and you would be throwing any table that already plays with any measure of power to the wolves.
I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not, but for the record I don't support unbanning any of the cards currently banned under the perceived barrier to entry criteria with the possible exception of Library.
Sorry there seems to be a miscommunication here. I understand why Trade Secrets is currently banned. I am not arguing for it's unbanning (at least in this reality). This conversation was an extension of a hypothetical scenario presented by arrogantAxolotl regarding an alternative method for deciding bans that I took to a logical extreme:
Ban list real estate is important, and the RC shouldn't ban cards that aren't serious problems lest the ban list become untenable. If card A, when played, is always as harmful as card B, but card A is also played at one one-thousandth the frequency of card B, banning card A, while well intentioned, isn't producing any kind of significant change since the the volume of harm card A is producing is minuscule.
Using this (Total Harm)/(Number of All EDH Games) = (Ban Value) formula I listed a bunch of cards I thought could be removed given such a criteria. Trade Secrets happened to be one of them. Assuming Trade Secrets was literally always 1UU "Draw 4 cards target opponent draws 2 cards" would you play that in your EDH decks? It's unclear to me. Is it ruining games at such a rate that when viewed over the scope of all EDH games it would cause a significant problem? Seems doubtful to me.
And yes, I continue to stand by my statement that it is never correct for an opponent to draw again off of Trade Secrets. Never take the Tempting Offer. Just don't do it.
Does anyone really need to have seen Power played to know they're horribly broken cards that 100% make your deck better? Is there really any legitimate debate whether your deck is strictly better with a Mox rather than a basic land, or an Ancestral Recall instead of a Brainstorm? Is there actually any blue deck that WOULDN'T run Time Walk even if in it's worst mode it was an Explore that untapped all your lands in the process?
You're missing the point. It's not a matter of "is Power good?". It's a matter of players feeling like they need Power to adequately play the format. Let's assume that Power is legal and that every EDH player that actually owns Power is willing to play it in their decks. If 4 random EDH players (actually random, from the entire pool of EDH players worldwide) were to sit down at a table what are the chances anyone at that table has Power? Even if there is Power present, what are the chances it is played that game? Even if Power gets played that game, what are the chances it creates such a noticeable difference in the game that a player at that table feels like they cannot compete because they don't own Power? Given all of that, I would say the chances are pretty low. And that's a pretty generous assumption that everyone with Power would play it, because we both know a large number of players wouldn't bother risking damage to their Power by playing it in an EDH game.
Again, this is all based on the assumption that for a card to be banned in this hypothetical world it needs to be sufficiently problematic when viewed over the scope of all EDH games played. There simply aren't enough physical copies of Power in existence to even show up in more than a minuscule fraction of total EDH games played, much less prove sufficiently problematic in them. Therefore under these rules Power would be legal.
I feel like I have to apologize because I think I've caused some confusion here. At the tail-end of the Natural Order discussion arrogantAxolotl said something interesting about ban list real-estate and I seized upon it as a hypothetical new way to determine which cards belong on the list. I realize now that might not have been clear in the subsequent posts about it and I believe that lead to some confusion. That's on me. I should have been more clear. So basically everything since I originally mentioned Power in response to arrogantAxolotl has been me working through a scenario in which the primary deciding factor for ban list decisions is total harm caused over all EDH games played. I'm not actually arguing for these cards to be unbanned given the current, real-life rules regarding the ban list. Again, I apologize if that was unclear. Sorry.
You're missing the point. It's not a matter of "is Power good?". It's a matter of players feeling like they need Power to adequately play the format. Let's assume that Power is legal and that every EDH player that actually owns Power is willing to play it in their decks. If 4 random EDH players (actually random, from the entire pool of EDH players worldwide) were to sit down at a table what are the chances anyone at that table has Power? Even if there is Power present, what are the chances it is played that game? Even if Power gets played that game, what are the chances it creates such a noticeable difference in the game that a player at that table feels like they cannot compete because they don't own Power? Given all of that, I would say the chances are pretty low. And that's a pretty generous assumption that everyone with Power would play it, because we both know a large number of players wouldn't bother risking damage to their Power by playing it in an EDH game.
Again, this is all based on the assumption that for a card to be banned in this hypothetical world it needs to be sufficiently problematic when viewed over the scope of all EDH games played. There simply aren't enough physical copies of Power in existence to even show up in more than a minuscule fraction of total EDH games played, much less prove sufficiently problematic in them. Therefore under these rules Power would be legal.
You're under the assumption that no one would proxy cards or that someone wouldn't proxy an expensive card they owned (I for one would proxy my Power, but I play in a trusting group that wouldn't question whether I actually owned the card).
But if I understand you correctly, you're essentially arguing against PBtE then? I can get behind that, although I don't think you could safely remove anything but Library and Ancestral; everything else is warping in their own regards.
You're under the assumption that no one would proxy cards or that someone wouldn't proxy an expensive card they owned (I for one would proxy my Power, but I play in a trusting group that wouldn't question whether I actually owned the card).
I think I answered the proxy question fairly well earlier so I'm just going to quote myself here:
Why would allowing proxies also mean being able to house rule the ban list? Just because people can agree to play with fake cards doesn't mean they can also agree on what the ban list should or shouldn't look like. There's no correlation there.
Because those players are stepping outside of the official rules to begin with. If the Ban List is predicated on the idea that cards are only banned when they see a requisite amount of harmful play, and certain cards are physically incapable of meeting that criteria simply because there are not enough of them in existence, why should the RC be concerned if some players go out of their way to introduce those harmful elements into their playgroup? Those players are intentionally skewing the data to make the card appear more problematic than it actually is. Those players have self-introduced the problem, ergo they can also self-correct it.
Again, I am still working from the hypothetical scenario that the only deciding factor for cards on the ban list is total harm done.
But if I understand you correctly, you're essentially arguing against PBtE then? I can get behind that, although I don't think you could safely remove anything but Library and Ancestral; everything else is warping in their own regards.
Assuming they hypothetical scenario again, then yes. If the only thing that matters is total harm, I simply don't think there is enough availability of those older, rarer cards for them to affect even a small fraction of all EDH games played at any given time. Therefore, there would be no reason to ban them.
As for whether I'm against PBtE according to the current rules of this reality... I feel I should remind you I was the one that started a discussion in this very thread about the skyrocketing price of cards, especially those on the RL. I was so young and naive a mere 3 months ago, sadly complaining that Serra's Sanctum had already risen up to $85. If only foolish past me could see the price of Sanctum now.
I think in theory LoA could have been unbanned. The problem is that the RC missed a good chance to unban it when it was much cheaper. Now it's way too expensive for it to be unbanned without creating the precived barrier to entry problem that it was banned for originally.
What are peoples thoughts on Expropriate? My last two nights of playing EDH had atleast one game where a player resolved this and then basically immediately won on their extra turn.
What are peoples thoughts on Expropriate? My last two nights of playing EDH had atleast one game where a player resolved this and then basically immediately won on their extra turn.
Most cards that cost 9+* should either give you the win, or get you very close. Expropriate is a little scary, but seems okay to me.
*not necessarily including those that have cost-reduction abilities; I highly doubt Feral Incarnation by itself is much of a wincon
Respectfully, I disagree. I would prefer this format not have any instant win cards. Sometimes you get into an amazing game and after 2 hours someone topdecks a 9-mana spell and wins that turn.... and I hate it.
Most cards that cost 9+* should either give you the win, or get you very close. Expropriate is a little scary, but seems okay to me.
*not necessarily including those that have cost-reduction abilities; I highly doubt Feral Incarnation by itself is much of a wincon
Respectfully, I disagree. I would prefer this format not have any instant win cards. Sometimes you get into an amazing game and after 2 hours someone topdecks a 9-mana spell and wins that turn.... and I hate it.
After two hours,i'd hope that someone would win....the only instawin card that should remain banned is Coalition Victory for a number of good reasons
Most cards that cost 9+* should either give you the win, or get you very close. Expropriate is a little scary, but seems okay to me.
*not necessarily including those that have cost-reduction abilities; I highly doubt Feral Incarnation by itself is much of a wincon
Respectfully, I disagree. I would prefer this format not have any instant win cards. Sometimes you get into an amazing game and after 2 hours someone topdecks a 9-mana spell and wins that turn.... and I hate it.
2 hours? Playing one game?? And you’d be upset with a 9 mana win-con???? I’m all for long games, but I’d never be upset with a game ending like that after that amount of time. Personally, if everybody at the the table is still alive after an hour, somebody is doing something very, very wrong...
Most cards that cost 9+* should either give you the win, or get you very close. Expropriate is a little scary, but seems okay to me.
*not necessarily including those that have cost-reduction abilities; I highly doubt Feral Incarnation by itself is much of a wincon
Respectfully, I disagree. I would prefer this format not have any instant win cards. Sometimes you get into an amazing game and after 2 hours someone topdecks a 9-mana spell and wins that turn.... and I hate it.
2 hours? Playing one game?? And you’d be upset with a 9 mana win-con???? I’m all for long games, but I’d never be upset with a game ending like that after that amount of time. Personally, if everybody at the the table is still alive after an hour, somebody is doing something very, very wrong...
I may have exaggerated on the 2 hours. It could be 45 minutes. All I mean is that long games can be a lot of fun, and require a lot of focus and creativity turn after turn to deal with the threats. It can have lots of politics, a lot of swings... and then someone draws a 1-card win condition and it's over.
I am not calling for the banning of these cards, I just really hate it and personally do not like them in the format. I do not agree with the idea that there is a mana cost at which people should be able to win the game by default.
Most cards that cost 9+* should either give you the win, or get you very close. Expropriate is a little scary, but seems okay to me.
*not necessarily including those that have cost-reduction abilities; I highly doubt Feral Incarnation by itself is much of a wincon
Respectfully, I disagree. I would prefer this format not have any instant win cards. Sometimes you get into an amazing game and after 2 hours someone topdecks a 9-mana spell and wins that turn.... and I hate it.
2 hours? Playing one game?? And you’d be upset with a 9 mana win-con???? I’m all for long games, but I’d never be upset with a game ending like that after that amount of time. Personally, if everybody at the the table is still alive after an hour, somebody is doing something very, very wrong...
I may have exaggerated on the 2 hours. It could be 45 minutes. All I mean is that long games can be a lot of fun, and require a lot of focus and creativity turn after turn to deal with the threats. It can have lots of politics, a lot of swings... and then someone draws a 1-card win condition and it's over.
I am not calling for the banning of these cards, I just really hate it and personally do not like them in the format. I do not agree with the idea that there is a mana cost at which people should be able to win the game by default.
And there isn't. There's a mana cost at which people are justifiably able to THREATEN winning the game. There's a tipping point at which a certain amount of investment SHOULD represent a big enough threat that it could clinch a win, whether it's through raw CMC or number of cards cobbled together or whatever.
In my experience, the length of the game and the manner in which they ended aren't related. I've had great games that lasted over four hours, as well as those which ended in twenty minutes. For me, two things define bad games, the players and the cards played.
In my experience, the length of the game and the manner in which they ended aren't related. I've had great games that lasted over four hours, as well as those which ended in twenty minutes. For me, two things define bad games, the players and the cards played.
This. I'd refine "the cards played" to "the way cards were played," but yeah. My experience confers with this 100%.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Just play with less tutors. You're more likely to accept a top decked game winning card.
This is more akin to what I was implying. If you drawTooth and Nail and have the mana to entwine it and a way to go off uninterrupted, kudos to you, well played and you got lucky.
But... if your gameplan is “create a board state that allows me to tutor/dog for, and win with X”, then I’m probably giving you the hairy eyeball and direct all my resources at you next game.
In my experience, the length of the game and the manner in which they ended aren't related. I've had great games that lasted over four hours, as well as those which ended in twenty minutes. For me, two things define bad games, the players and the cards played.
I would change this to just the people. Good people can make even the most detestable situation of cards enjoyable in a multiplayer game I have found, the wrong people will throw nearly any board of situation out of wack.
Expropriate will usually win the game, but that's because you're usually going to end up in a position where the player who casts it is going to have the resources available to leverage it to a win. The thing about spells like this, or Hoof, is that there are plenty of situations where resolving it won't win you the game, and so you simply get around that by only casting it when it will win you the game. In a 4 player game, it'll get you an extra turn or two and a permanent or two depending on votes, making it a better time stretch that might not work out in your favor. You aren't going to cast that after a board wipe, because you'll have spent 9 mana to get a couple lands and a sol ring, which is decently strong but a waste of a card that could have been used to win the game under better conditions. T&N will win more consistently when cast, though also requires more deckbuilding considerations (including the combo) while Expropriate is just good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This isn't the same as the "tempt" spells. This allows both players to draw their deck. And just those players. The person casting it can stop drawing at any time while the opponent keeps going to "catch up" to them. If desired, this is "1UU - You and target player both draw your deck". I am not sure how drawing all the cards in my library is automatically a bad decision just because another player does the same. Now the game is just about 1 player trying to stop the other. In any case, the game goes from multiplayer to two players.
There are clearly scenarios where it is not a bad decision to do so so this isn't just "bad players making bad decisions". And that, of course, is part of the problem. It is potentially all upside for both players involved while simultaneously excluding the rest of the table.
There are obviously enough players who had a negative experience with the card and you obviously had, at least, a neutral one. Unfortunately for you, the RC heard the negative experiences, felt they were great enough to be a problem, and banned the card.
Since the card is banned, there needs to be something from the unban side that is better than "well, it didn't cause *us* problems". It is a pure political card, it existed in the format, and it showed what it could do to make games less enjoyable. I think the discussion about the card, like many other cards (except a few major offenders), is worth having. But it seems that enough players' experiences align with the RC's view on the card that it will take a lot to show it won't cause those same problems again.
Does anyone really need to have seen Power played to know they're horribly broken cards that 100% make your deck better? Is there really any legitimate debate whether your deck is strictly better with a Mox rather than a basic land, or an Ancestral Recall instead of a Brainstorm? Is there actually any blue deck that WOULDN'T run Time Walk even if in it's worst mode it was an Explore that untapped all your lands in the process?
+1, although sometimes one player was simply digging for their removal of the expected combo.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Not in the slightest just a general statement.
And yes, I continue to stand by my statement that it is never correct for an opponent to draw again off of Trade Secrets. Never take the Tempting Offer. Just don't do it.You're missing the point. It's not a matter of "is Power good?". It's a matter of players feeling like they need Power to adequately play the format. Let's assume that Power is legal and that every EDH player that actually owns Power is willing to play it in their decks. If 4 random EDH players (actually random, from the entire pool of EDH players worldwide) were to sit down at a table what are the chances anyone at that table has Power? Even if there is Power present, what are the chances it is played that game? Even if Power gets played that game, what are the chances it creates such a noticeable difference in the game that a player at that table feels like they cannot compete because they don't own Power? Given all of that, I would say the chances are pretty low. And that's a pretty generous assumption that everyone with Power would play it, because we both know a large number of players wouldn't bother risking damage to their Power by playing it in an EDH game.
Again, this is all based on the assumption that for a card to be banned in this hypothetical world it needs to be sufficiently problematic when viewed over the scope of all EDH games played. There simply aren't enough physical copies of Power in existence to even show up in more than a minuscule fraction of total EDH games played, much less prove sufficiently problematic in them. Therefore under these rules Power would be legal.
I feel like I have to apologize because I think I've caused some confusion here. At the tail-end of the Natural Order discussion arrogantAxolotl said something interesting about ban list real-estate and I seized upon it as a hypothetical new way to determine which cards belong on the list. I realize now that might not have been clear in the subsequent posts about it and I believe that lead to some confusion. That's on me. I should have been more clear. So basically everything since I originally mentioned Power in response to arrogantAxolotl has been me working through a scenario in which the primary deciding factor for ban list decisions is total harm caused over all EDH games played. I'm not actually arguing for these cards to be unbanned given the current, real-life rules regarding the ban list. Again, I apologize if that was unclear. Sorry.
You're under the assumption that no one would proxy cards or that someone wouldn't proxy an expensive card they owned (I for one would proxy my Power, but I play in a trusting group that wouldn't question whether I actually owned the card).
But if I understand you correctly, you're essentially arguing against PBtE then? I can get behind that, although I don't think you could safely remove anything but Library and Ancestral; everything else is warping in their own regards.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
As for whether I'm against PBtE according to the current rules of this reality... I feel I should remind you I was the one that started a discussion in this very thread about the skyrocketing price of cards, especially those on the RL. I was so young and naive a mere 3 months ago, sadly complaining that Serra's Sanctum had already risen up to $85. If only foolish past me could see the price of Sanctum now.
In commander, in the right deck, it's at the same relative power level as Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, or The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale.
(I like old cards.)
Thread | Draft
/sighs, opens wallet
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
As someone with extensive experience playing with said cards, no, it's not.
Library of Alexandria very much needs to remain banned.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
What are peoples thoughts on Expropriate? My last two nights of playing EDH had atleast one game where a player resolved this and then basically immediately won on their extra turn.
*not necessarily including those that have cost-reduction abilities; I highly doubt Feral Incarnation by itself is much of a wincon
Respectfully, I disagree. I would prefer this format not have any instant win cards. Sometimes you get into an amazing game and after 2 hours someone topdecks a 9-mana spell and wins that turn.... and I hate it.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
After two hours,i'd hope that someone would win....the only instawin card that should remain banned is Coalition Victory for a number of good reasons
2 hours? Playing one game?? And you’d be upset with a 9 mana win-con???? I’m all for long games, but I’d never be upset with a game ending like that after that amount of time. Personally, if everybody at the the table is still alive after an hour, somebody is doing something very, very wrong...
I may have exaggerated on the 2 hours. It could be 45 minutes. All I mean is that long games can be a lot of fun, and require a lot of focus and creativity turn after turn to deal with the threats. It can have lots of politics, a lot of swings... and then someone draws a 1-card win condition and it's over.
I am not calling for the banning of these cards, I just really hate it and personally do not like them in the format. I do not agree with the idea that there is a mana cost at which people should be able to win the game by default.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
And there isn't. There's a mana cost at which people are justifiably able to THREATEN winning the game. There's a tipping point at which a certain amount of investment SHOULD represent a big enough threat that it could clinch a win, whether it's through raw CMC or number of cards cobbled together or whatever.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
This is more akin to what I was implying. If you draw Tooth and Nail and have the mana to entwine it and a way to go off uninterrupted, kudos to you, well played and you got lucky.
But... if your gameplan is “create a board state that allows me to tutor/dog for, and win with X”, then I’m probably giving you the hairy eyeball and direct all my resources at you next game.
I would change this to just the people. Good people can make even the most detestable situation of cards enjoyable in a multiplayer game I have found, the wrong people will throw nearly any board of situation out of wack.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!