Isn't changing oracle text similar to a patch? I know they can't do everything with an oracle text change, like changing mana costs or something, but they do change things like adding a creature type or adding x can't equal zero and such. There was even a card recently that only said swap 2 creature p/t, but it was only supposed to last until end of turn so they just updated the Oracle text.
Isn't changing oracle text similar to a patch? I know they can't do everything with an oracle text change, like changing mana costs or something, but they do change things like adding a creature type or adding x can't equal zero and such. There was even a card recently that only said swap 2 creature p/t, but it was only supposed to last until end of turn so they just updated the Oracle text.
They do it, but often these are so that the card plays similar to how most players are already playing the card (like teferi, hero of dominaria untapping two lands).
You're right though, this is a form of patching. I think the thought is something that changes the card numerically (power, toughness, cmc, etc.) is harder to track and remember than a rules clarification that doesn't always matter.
Like with pridemate, the cases where a player wouldn't elect to put counters on it are so far and few between, the change didn't impact the majority of gameplay. This kind of stuff you can change and let it coast under the radar.
My concern is they take it too liberally in conjunction with arena.
Maybe we give digital a longer lead time than paper so they can preemptively move in correcting paper. For example send each LGS say 150 copies of corrected versions of a card that players can freely trade in up to four copies of a card that was "patched." LGS gets incentivized to return outdated copies to wizards (future discounts, store perks, etc.). That way there aren't feel bads when you open one AND LGS is compensated for the hassle. You can play with a patched original, but you go by the oracle text, players are incentivized to trade them in though.
Pack of replacements may cost them a $1-2 in material and shipping per LGS? Just make sure all GPS are stocked and you're gtg.
trade in programs can be very good solutions for these types of things.
Isn't changing oracle text similar to a patch? I know they can't do everything with an oracle text change, like changing mana costs or something, but they do change things like adding a creature type or adding x can't equal zero and such. There was even a card recently that only said swap 2 creature p/t, but it was only supposed to last until end of turn so they just updated the Oracle text.
Right, but that stuff is only done for a few reasons:
1. Correcting printing errors. Invert // Invent is one example, as it the famous Orcish Oriflamme misprint. This has happened a number of times over the years, in which the way that a card is originally printed diverges from its intended function. This type of errata is strictly designed to correct mistakes.
2. Creature type changes. There was the Great Creature Type Update, which sought to impose order upon a chaotic system, but there are also cases where the creation of an entirely new type encourages older cards to receive it, such as with Dinosaurs in Ixalan (though there was one previously existing dino). These changes are rooted largely in bookkeeping and flavor, and they certainly don't happen apropos of nothing.
3. Rules changes. Changes in the rules sometimes necessitate errata, the planeswalker changes being the most recent example, and many rules changes cause indirect functional errata. For example, the Magic 2010 changes indirectly weakened a lot of creatures that took advantage of damage on the stack without changing their card text. In this case, errata'd cards are swept up in a much greater reorganization with lofty goals.
4. Individual functional errata. This last category is the rarest, yet gets the most attention. The most common usage of this category is to figure out old cards with decidedly nonstandard wording. Time Vault has infamously flip-flopped in between skipping turns only when untapped with its own ability and skipping turns whenever it untaps regardless of how. Ajani's Pridemate's arena-targeted change is a new, if small, direction to this category.
ktkenshinx's suggestion revolves around adding metagame balance to the fourth category as well as expanding it to regular usage. This goal is much more targeted than any of the other categories, and it could entail significant changes that might turn cards into totally different ones. While the first three categories do cause changes, they at least attempt to preserve as much of changed cards' functions as possible. Balancing errata is a radical suggestion that's also rolled up into the similarly controversial topic of Magic gradually abandoning its paper elements.
Back on Modern-relevant topics, I'm looking forward to running 2 main deck and 4-6 sideboard GY hate pieces to fight the inevitable influx of Hogaak decks that will take over the store this FNM.
Back on Modern-relevant topics, I'm looking forward to running 2 main deck and 4-6 sideboard GY hate pieces to fight the inevitable influx of Hogaak decks that will take over the store this FNM.
Relic of Progenitus main and either Ravenous Trap or Leyline of the Void for the SB. These would be the strongest in my opinion, although I haven't tested SBed games with Hogaak Vine enough to know which are the worst in each situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Back on Modern-relevant topics, I'm looking forward to running 2 main deck and 4-6 sideboard GY hate pieces to fight the inevitable influx of Hogaak decks that will take over the store this FNM.
Relic of Progenitus main and either Ravenous Trap or Leyline of the Void for the SB. These would be the strongest in my opinion, although I haven't tested SBed games with Hogaak Vine enough to know which are the worst in each situation.
I'm on Jeskai Phoenix with transformational sb. Looking at 2 Surgical main and some split of Trap and Surgical side. I don't like the inconsistency (and inability to cast) of Leyline until London mull goes into effect.
Or just don't play until the 8th cos this format is not worth our time with such a broken deck warping the whole format.
"Don't play until the next B&R announcement" seems to have been the go-to line for anyone complaining about Modern for nearly the past year. How long do we "wait for the next announcement" before giving up entirely? Or are we so financially and emotionally invested, that we just keep on playing, even though games are awful and the format is full of degenerate garbage?
Ah, you underestimate how many of us enjoy degenerate garbage. I get to go to SCG Pittsburgh in a couple weeks, imagine what that'll look like? Glorious, glorious garbage.
Or just don't play until the 8th cos this format is not worth our time with such a broken deck warping the whole format.
Personally, I think its beatable, and the 'cost' of leaning your deck against GY decks, is minimal. I've got a few months to burn, and this is as good as anything else to spend time on.
Anyway.
Next Modern GP: 28–30 June, Dallas.
Next Modern SCG: 29-30 June, Pitt. (Team NON UNIFIED Modern)
Next Set: Core 2020, July 2 (Online)
Next Spoilers: Monday, June 17
Next Ban Date: July 8, 2019
Ah, you underestimate how many of us enjoy degenerate garbage. I get to go to SCG Pittsburgh in a couple weeks, imagine what that'll look like? Glorious, glorious garbage.
I mean, if you can't beat em, join em. I'm Looting Birds into play and flipping Things, then blanking all incoming sideboard cards games 2 and 3. GOTCHA. Doesn't mean the games are necessarily intriguing, interesting, engaging, or fun.
As much as many people here hate Hoogland, he has a great take from a recent video: "If you aren't playing some busted Looting or Stirrings deck, then play whatever you like; it doesn't really matter. Who am I to tell you your pet deck isn't pretty? Magic has enough variance in it that literally anything can win."
Ah, you underestimate how many of us enjoy degenerate garbage. I get to go to SCG Pittsburgh in a couple weeks, imagine what that'll look like? Glorious, glorious garbage.
I mean, if you can't beat em, join em. I'm Looting Birds into play and flipping Things, then blanking all incoming sideboard cards games 2 and 3. GOTCHA. Doesn't mean the games are necessarily intriguing, interesting, engaging, or fun.
As much as many people here hate Hoogland, he has a great take from a recent video: "If you aren't playing some busted Looting or Stirrings deck, then play whatever you like; it doesn't really matter. Who am I to tell you your pet deck isn't pretty? Magic has enough variance in it that literally anything can win."
You know what I've come to? Just as Jund -> GDS, Twin -> Phoenix. Its the same thing, just faster on both ends.
Just in from the Q and A by wotc play design team:
There are many factors to consider when it comes to banning cards, such as:
Power level: Does the deck have a high win percentage? Is the card/deck significantly more powerful than anything else in the surrounding format?
Does it have a high metagame share?
Sometimes the power level of a deck is reasonable, but the deck still is played more than anything else. This was true of energy decks during Kaladesh Standard where we found the win percentage at a reasonable level, but it was played much more than anything else.
Is the deck fun to play against?
Are there enough answers to it? This was true of the last Modern banning of Krark-Clan Ironworks. This card met many of the other criteria as well, but it was also very unfun to play against and hard to interact with.
What is the community feedback?
Do players actively dislike the card/deck? Are players no longer playing the format?
I'm personally not okay with the last two points. KCI had plenty of answers to it for interaction but understanding the timings and sequencing was difficult. That should not translate to whether opponents have fun because everyone's version of fun is individualised. I personally don't enjoy too much fair magic and love to see crazy interactions go off. The last point worries me simply because wotc may cater to ban mania cries, which they fortunately haven't in the face of gds, phoenix, humans, tron, etc. So perhaps multiple check boxes have to be met, most importantly the points on meta share and win rate conversions. Overall I think I'm happy with wotc current ban stances.
On another note, I much rather if these discussion threads focus on correlating wotc justifications with known data and seeing if said stances were indeed justified. There is meaningful discussion to be had in that area so that we may better analyse future trends.
It's quite tedious wading through so much crap to find meaningful insight on mtgs that isn't about people's pet interests. Reddit is a good source with the upvote systems but terrible for long term retention of information.
Let's try and be a better community driven by evidence based discussions, worthy of such a high caliber game as mtg.
Power level: Does the deck have a high win percentage? Is the card/deck significantly more powerful than anything else in the surrounding format?
Does it have a high metagame share?
Sometimes the power level of a deck is reasonable, but the deck still is played more than anything else. This was true of energy decks during Kaladesh Standard where we found the win percentage at a reasonable level, but it was played much more than anything else.
Is the deck fun to play against?
Are there enough answers to it? This was true of the last Modern banning of Krark-Clan Ironworks. This card met many of the other criteria as well, but it was also very unfun to play against and hard to interact with.
What is the community feedback?
Do players actively dislike the card/deck? Are players no longer playing the format?[/i]
I feel like I would just be banned again if I gave my honest opinions about these statements. So let's just say that I hope one day they choose to apply these views retroactively. Specifically with regards to fun to play against and are there abundant and broad answers, in addition to several pieces of targeted hate with other multiple applications.
Power level: Does the deck have a high win percentage? Is the card/deck significantly more powerful than anything else in the surrounding format?
Does it have a high metagame share?
Sometimes the power level of a deck is reasonable, but the deck still is played more than anything else. This was true of energy decks during Kaladesh Standard where we found the win percentage at a reasonable level, but it was played much more than anything else.
Is the deck fun to play against?
Are there enough answers to it? This was true of the last Modern banning of Krark-Clan Ironworks. This card met many of the other criteria as well, but it was also very unfun to play against and hard to interact with.
What is the community feedback?
Do players actively dislike the card/deck? Are players no longer playing the format?[/i]
I feel like I would just be banned again if I gave my honest opinions about these statements. So let's just say that I hope one day they choose to apply these views retroactively. Specifically with regards to fun to play against and are there abundant and broad answers, in addition to several pieces of targeted hate with other multiple applications.
2 weeks ago, you *****ed about MrTouzlis reducing all of your comments to thinly veiled attacks on the banning of Twin. Perhaps you had a right to be upset about that but this comment suggests they had a point. While I appreciate that your comment here is explicit about being about Twin, not every thing needs to include Twin.
I mean, you complain about people viewing you as the "unban Twin" player and people reading your comments within the context of Twin, but then you post something like this. Whether Twin was a bad ban or not is irrelevant at this point. You have made your case (as have others) but this article doesn't need to be about Twin. Our responses to it can be a legitimate discussion over what these answers mean or what we can (or can't) expect based on them for the format as a whole. Interjecting Twin has no relevance to that article, nor to any discussion that should result from it, and there is no reason to bring it up except to remind people you are still upset.
Back on topic:
I agree that isei has a point about the last two criteria being troubling as they are subjective. However, I somehow doubt they will do any knee-jerk bannings, which suggests that their point about community feedback just gives them something to focus on. And the unfun aspect is likely on top of anything else that could lead to a ban. If it is already on the line, that might be a tipping point but I doubt it would ever be the entire reason for a ban. I don't think we have seen anything banned on the basis of either of those criteria alone so, until we do, there isn't likely a huge cause for concern.
While I'm not demanding a ban for this new deck, I think it's extremely problematic that the format feels it needs to run 4x Leylines and 2x other pieces of grave hate in the main or side to beat Bridgevine. Like, even if this is what it takes to hate the deck out, that says a lot. It kinda seems like a systemic issue with the format, too.
Could and will this deck be hated out? Sure. Does this mean the moment you switch off Leyline/RIP and just down to 3 to 4 gy hate that you'll lose a tournament to a Vine deck? This isn't healthy.
WOTC needs to think of a creative way to deal with grave decks.
[2 weeks ago, you *****ed about MrTouzlis reducing all of your comments to thinly veiled attacks on the banning of Twin. Perhaps you had a right to be upset about that but this comment suggests they had a point. While I appreciate that your comment here is explicit about being about Twin, not every thing needs to include Twin.
I mean, you complain about people viewing you as the "unban Twin" player and people reading your comments within the context of Twin, but then you post something like this. Whether Twin was a bad ban or not is irrelevant at this point. You have made your case (as have others) but this article doesn't need to be about Twin. Our responses to it can be a legitimate discussion over what these answers mean or what we can (or can't) expect based on them for the format as a whole. Interjecting Twin has no relevance to that article, nor to any discussion that should result from it, and there is no reason to bring it up except to remind people you are still upset.
It'd just be nice to see some consistency. Twin isn't the only bad ban, in fact Stoneforge is laughably worse. It's made extra silly when some new graveyard abuse breaks the format every few months.
I think they printed all the tools necessary to finally forget the T4 rule.
Between Negation, Despair, and Vigor nearly every color combination has access to free instant speed safety valves on the format. Like I said in a post awhile back, their printing just allows more nonsense to be printed. Better removal is just a spiral toward better threats is just a spiral towards better removal is just...
This is why I support bannings. And ya, I know, "that's unpopular", "that's ban-mania", that's great. Have fun with Hogaak.
I mean, the bridge ban is so obvious to me, I can't understand why it isn't super obvious for the rest of you lol.
Seeing we have 2 big paper touirnaments before the 8th, I'll be enthusiastically waiting for those results.
Ah, you underestimate how many of us enjoy degenerate garbage. I get to go to SCG Pittsburgh in a couple weeks, imagine what that'll look like? Glorious, glorious garbage.
I mean, the bridge ban is so obvious to me, I can't understand why it isn't super obvious for the rest of you lol.
Seeing we have 2 big paper touirnaments before the 8th, I'll be enthusiastically waiting for those results.
You have a notorious history of hyping ban talk and have made it quite abundantly clear that you are out to sensationalise at every given opportunity. Until the metashare and win ratio of hogaakvine decks at the upcoming gp and mc4 are revealed, there is very little concrete data that wotc will go off to warrant a ban. Saying how something is an 'obvious ban' based off mtgo challenge data after the first week of a new set release is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
Modern has shown time and time again that it is a resilient format despite the clamouring cries of self gratuitous hucksters. Let the meta game adjust and gp/mc data speak for itself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They do it, but often these are so that the card plays similar to how most players are already playing the card (like teferi, hero of dominaria untapping two lands).
You're right though, this is a form of patching. I think the thought is something that changes the card numerically (power, toughness, cmc, etc.) is harder to track and remember than a rules clarification that doesn't always matter.
Like with pridemate, the cases where a player wouldn't elect to put counters on it are so far and few between, the change didn't impact the majority of gameplay. This kind of stuff you can change and let it coast under the radar.
My concern is they take it too liberally in conjunction with arena.
Maybe we give digital a longer lead time than paper so they can preemptively move in correcting paper. For example send each LGS say 150 copies of corrected versions of a card that players can freely trade in up to four copies of a card that was "patched." LGS gets incentivized to return outdated copies to wizards (future discounts, store perks, etc.). That way there aren't feel bads when you open one AND LGS is compensated for the hassle. You can play with a patched original, but you go by the oracle text, players are incentivized to trade them in though.
Pack of replacements may cost them a $1-2 in material and shipping per LGS? Just make sure all GPS are stocked and you're gtg.
trade in programs can be very good solutions for these types of things.
Right, but that stuff is only done for a few reasons:
1. Correcting printing errors. Invert // Invent is one example, as it the famous Orcish Oriflamme misprint. This has happened a number of times over the years, in which the way that a card is originally printed diverges from its intended function. This type of errata is strictly designed to correct mistakes.
2. Creature type changes. There was the Great Creature Type Update, which sought to impose order upon a chaotic system, but there are also cases where the creation of an entirely new type encourages older cards to receive it, such as with Dinosaurs in Ixalan (though there was one previously existing dino). These changes are rooted largely in bookkeeping and flavor, and they certainly don't happen apropos of nothing.
3. Rules changes. Changes in the rules sometimes necessitate errata, the planeswalker changes being the most recent example, and many rules changes cause indirect functional errata. For example, the Magic 2010 changes indirectly weakened a lot of creatures that took advantage of damage on the stack without changing their card text. In this case, errata'd cards are swept up in a much greater reorganization with lofty goals.
4. Individual functional errata. This last category is the rarest, yet gets the most attention. The most common usage of this category is to figure out old cards with decidedly nonstandard wording. Time Vault has infamously flip-flopped in between skipping turns only when untapped with its own ability and skipping turns whenever it untaps regardless of how. Ajani's Pridemate's arena-targeted change is a new, if small, direction to this category.
ktkenshinx's suggestion revolves around adding metagame balance to the fourth category as well as expanding it to regular usage. This goal is much more targeted than any of the other categories, and it could entail significant changes that might turn cards into totally different ones. While the first three categories do cause changes, they at least attempt to preserve as much of changed cards' functions as possible. Balancing errata is a radical suggestion that's also rolled up into the similarly controversial topic of Magic gradually abandoning its paper elements.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Relic of Progenitus main and either Ravenous Trap or Leyline of the Void for the SB. These would be the strongest in my opinion, although I haven't tested SBed games with Hogaak Vine enough to know which are the worst in each situation.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Spirits
"Don't play until the next B&R announcement" seems to have been the go-to line for anyone complaining about Modern for nearly the past year. How long do we "wait for the next announcement" before giving up entirely? Or are we so financially and emotionally invested, that we just keep on playing, even though games are awful and the format is full of degenerate garbage?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Personally, I think its beatable, and the 'cost' of leaning your deck against GY decks, is minimal. I've got a few months to burn, and this is as good as anything else to spend time on.
Anyway.
Next Modern GP: 28–30 June, Dallas.
Next Modern SCG: 29-30 June, Pitt. (Team NON UNIFIED Modern)
Next Set: Core 2020, July 2 (Online)
Next Spoilers: Monday, June 17
Next Ban Date: July 8, 2019
The 'shake up' is here.
Spirits
As much as many people here hate Hoogland, he has a great take from a recent video: "If you aren't playing some busted Looting or Stirrings deck, then play whatever you like; it doesn't really matter. Who am I to tell you your pet deck isn't pretty? Magic has enough variance in it that literally anything can win."
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
You know what I've come to? Just as Jund -> GDS, Twin -> Phoenix. Its the same thing, just faster on both ends.
Spirits
There are many factors to consider when it comes to banning cards, such as:
Power level: Does the deck have a high win percentage? Is the card/deck significantly more powerful than anything else in the surrounding format?
Does it have a high metagame share?
Sometimes the power level of a deck is reasonable, but the deck still is played more than anything else. This was true of energy decks during Kaladesh Standard where we found the win percentage at a reasonable level, but it was played much more than anything else.
Is the deck fun to play against?
Are there enough answers to it? This was true of the last Modern banning of Krark-Clan Ironworks. This card met many of the other criteria as well, but it was also very unfun to play against and hard to interact with.
What is the community feedback?
Do players actively dislike the card/deck? Are players no longer playing the format?
I'm personally not okay with the last two points. KCI had plenty of answers to it for interaction but understanding the timings and sequencing was difficult. That should not translate to whether opponents have fun because everyone's version of fun is individualised. I personally don't enjoy too much fair magic and love to see crazy interactions go off. The last point worries me simply because wotc may cater to ban mania cries, which they fortunately haven't in the face of gds, phoenix, humans, tron, etc. So perhaps multiple check boxes have to be met, most importantly the points on meta share and win rate conversions. Overall I think I'm happy with wotc current ban stances.
On another note, I much rather if these discussion threads focus on correlating wotc justifications with known data and seeing if said stances were indeed justified. There is meaningful discussion to be had in that area so that we may better analyse future trends.
It's quite tedious wading through so much crap to find meaningful insight on mtgs that isn't about people's pet interests. Reddit is a good source with the upvote systems but terrible for long term retention of information.
Let's try and be a better community driven by evidence based discussions, worthy of such a high caliber game as mtg.
Edit: source - https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/play-design/play-design-qa-2019-06-14
I feel like I would just be banned again if I gave my honest opinions about these statements. So let's just say that I hope one day they choose to apply these views retroactively. Specifically with regards to fun to play against and are there abundant and broad answers, in addition to several pieces of targeted hate with other multiple applications.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I mean, you complain about people viewing you as the "unban Twin" player and people reading your comments within the context of Twin, but then you post something like this. Whether Twin was a bad ban or not is irrelevant at this point. You have made your case (as have others) but this article doesn't need to be about Twin. Our responses to it can be a legitimate discussion over what these answers mean or what we can (or can't) expect based on them for the format as a whole. Interjecting Twin has no relevance to that article, nor to any discussion that should result from it, and there is no reason to bring it up except to remind people you are still upset.
Back on topic:
I agree that isei has a point about the last two criteria being troubling as they are subjective. However, I somehow doubt they will do any knee-jerk bannings, which suggests that their point about community feedback just gives them something to focus on. And the unfun aspect is likely on top of anything else that could lead to a ban. If it is already on the line, that might be a tipping point but I doubt it would ever be the entire reason for a ban. I don't think we have seen anything banned on the basis of either of those criteria alone so, until we do, there isn't likely a huge cause for concern.
Could and will this deck be hated out? Sure. Does this mean the moment you switch off Leyline/RIP and just down to 3 to 4 gy hate that you'll lose a tournament to a Vine deck? This isn't healthy.
WOTC needs to think of a creative way to deal with grave decks.
It'd just be nice to see some consistency. Twin isn't the only bad ban, in fact Stoneforge is laughably worse. It's made extra silly when some new graveyard abuse breaks the format every few months.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
'Jace is too good, being fatesealed is terrible, it would ruin Modern.'
Pros, grinders, 'thinkers' and writers all said that.
Some of us knew otherwise.
The only metrics that should matter, are.
1. Win Percentage.
2. Time impact on Tournament Play.
Spirits
You forgot the 'Turn 4 rule'. A deck can be theoretically fine on win percentage and time impact, but violate the 'Turn 4 rule', and still eat bans.
Spirits
Between Negation, Despair, and Vigor nearly every color combination has access to free instant speed safety valves on the format. Like I said in a post awhile back, their printing just allows more nonsense to be printed. Better removal is just a spiral toward better threats is just a spiral towards better removal is just...
This is why I support bannings. And ya, I know, "that's unpopular", "that's ban-mania", that's great. Have fun with Hogaak.
"Reveal a Dragon"
Seeing we have 2 big paper touirnaments before the 8th, I'll be enthusiastically waiting for those results.
I love degenerate garbage too
Reality is but a perception of your being --
Visit my blog!!! - http://huffalump-magic.blogspot.com/
"The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside."
—Emily Dickinson
For sales or trade, visit my blog or visit my ebay blog for my listings :http://myworld.ebay.com/arcane7828
881
Oooh Dicey:
[dice=1]100[/dice]
You have a notorious history of hyping ban talk and have made it quite abundantly clear that you are out to sensationalise at every given opportunity. Until the metashare and win ratio of hogaakvine decks at the upcoming gp and mc4 are revealed, there is very little concrete data that wotc will go off to warrant a ban. Saying how something is an 'obvious ban' based off mtgo challenge data after the first week of a new set release is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
Modern has shown time and time again that it is a resilient format despite the clamouring cries of self gratuitous hucksters. Let the meta game adjust and gp/mc data speak for itself.