The thing I like about it from looking at it is that it just stops unfair decks and puts them at an absolute halt. It doesn't answer all the 2-for-1s in the format though. I would almost always advocate running Toxic Deluge over Massacre, but I can't argue the results either.
Triton, Merfolk King's power and toughness are each equal to the number of Merfolk on the battlefield.
Islandwalk
Other Merfolk creatures get +1/+1 and gain islandwalk.
Whenever Triton, Merfolk King deals combat damage to a player, draw a card for each other Merfolk on the battlefield. UUU,T: Gain control of target Merfolk.
*/*
I have been playing for about 5 years now. There are people I know that have been playing for far longer and are aware of rules nuances that I've never seen come up because I just have never had to deal with them. It's entirely possible for me to be wrong on a ruling for something I've never encountered before. Asking for RA/Judge affirmation on a ruling in the subforum is not a guarantee the answer would be right, nor does it increase the probability that the first answer was right. What affirms the correctness of the poster's statement is the lack of contradiction from other posers in the forum, and the person's ability to adequately explain what rule applies in a given situation.
Logically, there's no way a single post from a random person who I've never even met is sufficient for me to be sure of anything either way, so get rid of that rule and tone won't be an issue. I've asked for second opinions more than once and I intend to do it again, I don't want to get a warning every single time I do.
Your reasoning is not based on logic. Logic would lead you to conclude that someone responding to your help thread would be pretty sure to make sure they know the answer to your question, and back it up with reason.
Which is what happened.
So your reaction is based on this preconceived notion that a person is arbitrarily "more likely to be wrong" than a judge or a rules advisor, which just is not reasonably sound.
Preconceptions are not logical.
Also, by continuing to do something you know is against the rules, you should probably expect the warnings/infractions, even though you don't want them. The rules shouldn't need to be rewritten for someone who doesn't like conforming to them for no adequate reason.
Comparing paying 1 life to fetch a land vs paying 8 life to kill a 6/6 KoTR (because he can use the knight to search a fetch) is asinine.
This is the primary problem with the nature of your analysis.
Do you use Wrath of God or do you use Swords to Plowshares to deal with a Knight of the Reliquary?
Toxic Deluge is not, and will never be, spot removal. It doesn't make sense to try and analyze the card based on what it will do to one solitary creature.
The "Well paying life is bad when it might be countered" argument is like arguing "Well fetchlands are bad because you pay life and the resulting card might be hit by Wasteland or the ability might be Stifled" or "Force of Will is bad because you are paying life AND losing a card and the Force of Will might get countered"
I'm pretty sure it's been established that in Legacy, trading life for advantage or a good shot for advantage is a reasonable play.
Deluge is clearly not for every deck but it's the most flexible, versatile Wrath effect in the game and it's easibly splashable. The up-front cost of life is usually mitigated by the potential card advantage and/or the fact that you won't be losing more life to things on the board.
The ultimate problem isn't in the definitions of "casual" and "competitive" that people are trying to find.
The problem isn't that people have different ideas of fun.
The problem lies in people not being able to accept other peoples' ideas of fun. When you sit down for a game of Magic, is it reasonable to expect your opponent(s) to let you do whatever you want with your cards? Or is it reasonable to expect your opponent(s) to try and do whatever they want with their cards?
Your opponent(s) aren't in it for you. They may be in it for the collective "you" of the playgroup, but they aren't in it for any one individual other than themselves.
The typical thing I've seen people say in new playgroups is "You didn't let me do X!" and when you respond with "Well, if I let you do X then I'd've been in a really tight spot, so I responded." or "If I didn't combo sooner you'd've had the answer and I'd've been stuck"
Depending on the response, you can determine if people just want to play solitaire with their decks or are genuinely trying to become better players. At that point, you can probably figure out who is worth playing with and who isn't. Someone who asks "Well, wait, how do I stop what you did or work around it?" is someone trying to learn the game and adapt and continue to have fun and someone whose answer is "But it's not fair!" is someone who just wants to do whatever they feel like and don't really want to play an interactive game.
Magic is an interactive game at its very core, and trying to pretend like it isn't is a mistake. I think that's the ultimate problem here. People who are convinced that the correct way to play is their own way and refuse to admit that other styles of play exist are people who don't want to interact, learn, and adapt are seriously detrimental to the game.
The problem is exactly as you described, it can be hard to adequately plan for S&T without dedicating slots to beating S&T. Beating S&T requires you to be prepared specifically for that deck (Unless you run blue in which case you have FoW but FoW is such a catchall anyways I think it might not be worth mentioning beyond this).
Every other combo deck out there have ways to be dealt with that also happen to be good ways to deal with other decks. Graveyard hate, for instance, works on multiple deck archetypes. But there's very little that works on S&T that will work on other stuff. The reason I'm seeing most people disliking S&T is that they can't answer it because they've tuned their decks and boards to deal with such a variety of issues, and S&T completely negates that.
The answers to S&T are narrow and that is the issue at hand. S&T is not the problem. The lack of adequate, broad answers to it is.
If they ban Griselbrand, Reanimator will go back to Jin-Gitaxias and S&T will just use Emrakul and maybe another titan or Progenitus.
The big thing to keep in mind here is that S&T is powerful, but not oppressive, and planning for it just requires some dedication in the sideboard for it.
So what do you guys think about Toxic Deluge? Seems right up our alley. We get a versatile Wrath and we can just regain life off a new Deathrite Shaman. Low on the curve and color requirements, to boot.
Whenever a card instructs you to draw multiple cards, you draw each card one at a time. When you've drawn a card, it is no longer the top card of your library, and you must reveal the "new" top card of your library before drawing it.
Still, it's possible that they are just being really careful and don't want to take any risks as magic is selling very well regardless of the reserved list.
You hit the nail on the head.
There is no reason for them to break the reserve list. They are in a very good business position right now with its presence. What reason do they have to risk hurting that position by potentially alienating customers with reprints from the list?
If you cast it after the trigger of the Nacatl has resolved, then they will get +5/+0. If you cast it in response to the trigger, the original and only the original will get +5/+0.
Legendary Creature - Merfolk Warrior (Mythic Rare)
Triton, Merfolk King's power and toughness are each equal to the number of Merfolk on the battlefield.
Islandwalk
Other Merfolk creatures get +1/+1 and gain islandwalk.
Whenever Triton, Merfolk King deals combat damage to a player, draw a card for each other Merfolk on the battlefield.
UUU,T: Gain control of target Merfolk.
*/*
Next:
Ancient, powerful druid
I have been playing for about 5 years now. There are people I know that have been playing for far longer and are aware of rules nuances that I've never seen come up because I just have never had to deal with them. It's entirely possible for me to be wrong on a ruling for something I've never encountered before. Asking for RA/Judge affirmation on a ruling in the subforum is not a guarantee the answer would be right, nor does it increase the probability that the first answer was right. What affirms the correctness of the poster's statement is the lack of contradiction from other posers in the forum, and the person's ability to adequately explain what rule applies in a given situation.
Your reasoning is not based on logic. Logic would lead you to conclude that someone responding to your help thread would be pretty sure to make sure they know the answer to your question, and back it up with reason.
Which is what happened.
So your reaction is based on this preconceived notion that a person is arbitrarily "more likely to be wrong" than a judge or a rules advisor, which just is not reasonably sound.
Preconceptions are not logical.
Also, by continuing to do something you know is against the rules, you should probably expect the warnings/infractions, even though you don't want them. The rules shouldn't need to be rewritten for someone who doesn't like conforming to them for no adequate reason.
Blue-based control/tempo/aggro decks wouldn't run them because they just wouldn't play well with Force of Will.
This is the primary problem with the nature of your analysis.
Do you use Wrath of God or do you use Swords to Plowshares to deal with a Knight of the Reliquary?
Toxic Deluge is not, and will never be, spot removal. It doesn't make sense to try and analyze the card based on what it will do to one solitary creature.
I'm pretty sure it's been established that in Legacy, trading life for advantage or a good shot for advantage is a reasonable play.
Deluge is clearly not for every deck but it's the most flexible, versatile Wrath effect in the game and it's easibly splashable. The up-front cost of life is usually mitigated by the potential card advantage and/or the fact that you won't be losing more life to things on the board.
The problem isn't that people have different ideas of fun.
The problem lies in people not being able to accept other peoples' ideas of fun. When you sit down for a game of Magic, is it reasonable to expect your opponent(s) to let you do whatever you want with your cards? Or is it reasonable to expect your opponent(s) to try and do whatever they want with their cards?
Your opponent(s) aren't in it for you. They may be in it for the collective "you" of the playgroup, but they aren't in it for any one individual other than themselves.
The typical thing I've seen people say in new playgroups is "You didn't let me do X!" and when you respond with "Well, if I let you do X then I'd've been in a really tight spot, so I responded." or "If I didn't combo sooner you'd've had the answer and I'd've been stuck"
Depending on the response, you can determine if people just want to play solitaire with their decks or are genuinely trying to become better players. At that point, you can probably figure out who is worth playing with and who isn't. Someone who asks "Well, wait, how do I stop what you did or work around it?" is someone trying to learn the game and adapt and continue to have fun and someone whose answer is "But it's not fair!" is someone who just wants to do whatever they feel like and don't really want to play an interactive game.
Magic is an interactive game at its very core, and trying to pretend like it isn't is a mistake. I think that's the ultimate problem here. People who are convinced that the correct way to play is their own way and refuse to admit that other styles of play exist are people who don't want to interact, learn, and adapt are seriously detrimental to the game.
Every other combo deck out there have ways to be dealt with that also happen to be good ways to deal with other decks. Graveyard hate, for instance, works on multiple deck archetypes. But there's very little that works on S&T that will work on other stuff. The reason I'm seeing most people disliking S&T is that they can't answer it because they've tuned their decks and boards to deal with such a variety of issues, and S&T completely negates that.
The answers to S&T are narrow and that is the issue at hand. S&T is not the problem. The lack of adequate, broad answers to it is.
The big thing to keep in mind here is that S&T is powerful, but not oppressive, and planning for it just requires some dedication in the sideboard for it.
You hit the nail on the head.
There is no reason for them to break the reserve list. They are in a very good business position right now with its presence. What reason do they have to risk hurting that position by potentially alienating customers with reprints from the list?
If you cast it after the trigger of the Nacatl has resolved, then they will get +5/+0. If you cast it in response to the trigger, the original and only the original will get +5/+0.