Limited. It is likely stronger in Limited than almost every rare.
I mean this is just clearly not true. This is a conditional 2 for 1 at best and it is fairly expensive to boot. It's a good card to be sure but better "than almost every rare"? Come on.
This is one of the few Limited cards that is amazing regardless of whether you are trying to close out the game, are at parity, or are trying to stabilize your board. The only thing that it isn't amazing at is being used in the early game, but you still can use the Prepare side in the early game and just use the Fight side later.
I don't think so.... lol.
mostly of the time I'd rather include Distress than this on my deck, I mean, being able to hit legendary cards is bigger than having to pay B instead of 1...
except if you're playing with a really bad mana base or a 5 color deck.
the set keeps being really underwhelming so far.
didn't like any of the cards save for the dual lands.
Unless you were intentionally trying to be dismissive and insulting, that lol was completely unnecessary. And how often are you going to need to make your opponent discard a legendary card? Maybe there will be more playable legendary cards in Amonkhet, but right now the only 2 playable legendaries are Heart of Kiran and Rishkar. I'd say being unable to hit 2 cards is worth the tradeoff for it being easier to cast.
I'm not a fan of the new color scheme. Btw, is maximum signature length going to be changed in this update? I miss being able to have longer signatures than a few lines.
I hope not. Kind of absurd if a user's signature is longer than their average posts.
At the very least we should be allowed to put longer signatures inside a spoiler box so that they won't take up too much space but will still be there if anyone wants to look at them.
I'm not a fan of the new color scheme. Btw, is maximum signature length going to be changed in this update? I miss being able to have longer signatures than a few lines.
Yeah, this definitely screams for powerful countermagic orientation. So far there are many cards that for no reason can't be countered(except for Disallow and the graveyard interaction).
Like wpgstevo said. It is now or never. Expecting powerful non-creature spells that are reactive is reasonable from this set.
It definitely is possible that they will reprint Miscalculation.
Why would the will of the gods be so ... imbalanced? Seems like the White god gets its way a lot (6 monowhite cards), as does blue (10 monoblue cards!) and black (5), but then red only has 2 and green doesn't have ANY?
Or did they just line up all the reprints in WUBRG order and put the first 25 in this set (including the BG and WB ones), and the reprints next set will be the rest of the reds and all the greens?
It's because green doesn't have that many oppressive (or, as Maro called them, "mean") cards.
I just went back and looked at every Jund deck that top-8ed a GP in 2013 (through mtgtop8, not sure if there was a better way). Every single one ran 4 DRS. Also, every deck ran 4 Tarmogoyf, Dark Confidant, Lightning Bolt, and Liliana Of The Veil. All but one ran 3-4 copies of Thoughtseize, where the one outlier ran 2. Jund was powerful at the time, yes, but I think banning DRS was the wrong way to nerf it. DRS slots into many different types of decks (though with slightly less efficiency) that run either green or black. I think that banning it effectively hurt a lot of strategies, whereas (if you have to ban because there isn't a good answer) banning something like Dark Confidant would not have harmed nearly as many decks (looking through 2013, I believe there were only 4 archtypes that ran Bob, two of them being BG strategies). Sure, DRS showed up in any deck that could use him, but so do other cards on the list such as Bolt, Goyf, or LotV. He was a great card that allowed for a more interactive and thought-provoking format and giving him the axe was a mistake in my eyes. Why is Goyf allowed when DRS isn't? They get hosed by the same things, have the same prevalence, make the same deck good, and both are great at literally any normal point in a game.
One of the problems with Deathrite Shaman is that it also is a massive problem for any graveyard-based strategies. As long as it is in play, Snapcaster Mage is essentially a dead card. If we want interactive blue decks to be good in Modern, DRS definitely shouldn't be unbanned.
Wotc got it right. Blue mages are pissed. But Wotc sees attendance numbers form mid level events like SCG, and also sees numbers for local LGS events and sees the the number of decks being played and feel why mess with something a good number of players are enjoying. Let the format evolve form new cards through Standard. If I was Wotc I wouldnt even look at the ban list thinking unban something.
We will have to see what happens the next 6 weeks or so for the next B&R announcement, but if it continues this way, I see no changes then too.
If you were WotC, we never would have seen any unbans. IIRC, you were against each and every unban and predicted that cards like Valakut, Wild Nacatl, and Ancestral Vision would doom the format.
I have answered your comment before.
But you are right, I wouldnt have unbanned anything until the format got to where Wotc liked it, not the player base.
Your doom saying about unbannings is the same as the doom saying about bans. To some, they want bans, others want unbans. If I was Wotc, I wouldnt listen to the player base at all and just look at numbers. Attencance numbers and sales numbers. How many events are LGS firing a week? a month? Those numbers would be a lot easier to understand then the different sides of the player base bickering over the same thing.
So, as far as I understand it, your position is basically this. As long as the amount of people playing Modern stays constant or increases, there can't possibly be anything wrong with the format so nothing should be unbanned, regardless of whether an unbanning would make the format better, bring more people into the format, or make the format more diverse, even if the banned card wouldn't warp the format. That seems like an absurd position to have. Almost no cards would ever be unbanned in any format under those rules. People don't stop playing in tournaments because their card of choice hasn't been unbanned yet.
The thing is, there is no guaranteeing change will make the format better or bring in more players then it loses. People stopped playing during the Dig/Tcruise era, you have to be foolish to think people would step away if something any where near that comes back into the format, and I dont care what color combo either.
Better is subjective. As subjective as the different opinions of what Wotc should do to change the format to appease those certain people.
So, again, you think that if a card is banned in a format, it should never be unbanned in any circumstance.
People don't stop playing in tournaments because their card of choice hasn't been unbanned yet.
Exactly!! Then why worry about the ban list?
But there are people that will step away from the format if certain cards come off. we have no way of knowing the +/- in player change from those changes.
In the end its not about you or me or anyone else on this site, which I am glad of, its up to Wotc.
If you think that we shouldn't discuss any of this because this is Wizards' sandbox (which you have said in those exact words before), then why are you so vehemently against unbans when Wizards is willing to unban cards?
It does sound absurd but I actually think he is on to something and this is exactly how WotC feels.
Possibly, but the difference is that Wizards unbanned Valakut, Bitterblossom, Wild Nacatl, Golgari Grave-Troll, Ancestral Vision, and Sword of the Meek. Bocephus was against all of those unbans.
Wotc got it right. Blue mages are pissed. But Wotc sees attendance numbers form mid level events like SCG, and also sees numbers for local LGS events and sees the the number of decks being played and feel why mess with something a good number of players are enjoying. Let the format evolve form new cards through Standard. If I was Wotc I wouldnt even look at the ban list thinking unban something.
We will have to see what happens the next 6 weeks or so for the next B&R announcement, but if it continues this way, I see no changes then too.
If you were WotC, we never would have seen any unbans. IIRC, you were against each and every unban and predicted that cards like Valakut, Wild Nacatl, and Ancestral Vision would doom the format.
I have answered your comment before.
But you are right, I wouldnt have unbanned anything until the format got to where Wotc liked it, not the player base.
Your doom saying about unbannings is the same as the doom saying about bans. To some, they want bans, others want unbans. If I was Wotc, I wouldnt listen to the player base at all and just look at numbers. Attencance numbers and sales numbers. How many events are LGS firing a week? a month? Those numbers would be a lot easier to understand then the different sides of the player base bickering over the same thing.
So, as far as I understand it, your position is basically this. As long as the amount of people playing Modern stays constant or increases, there can't possibly be anything wrong with the format so nothing should be unbanned, regardless of whether an unbanning would make the format better, bring more people into the format, or make the format more diverse, even if the banned card wouldn't warp the format. That seems like an absurd position to have. Almost no cards would ever be unbanned in any format under those rules. People don't stop playing in tournaments because their card of choice hasn't been unbanned yet.
Wotc got it right. Blue mages are pissed. But Wotc sees attendance numbers form mid level events like SCG, and also sees numbers for local LGS events and sees the the number of decks being played and feel why mess with something a good number of players are enjoying. Let the format evolve form new cards through Standard. If I was Wotc I wouldnt even look at the ban list thinking unban something.
We will have to see what happens the next 6 weeks or so for the next B&R announcement, but if it continues this way, I see no changes then too.
If you were WotC, we never would have seen any unbans. IIRC, you were against each and every unban and predicted that cards like Valakut, Wild Nacatl, and Ancestral Vision would doom the format.
This is one of the few Limited cards that is amazing regardless of whether you are trying to close out the game, are at parity, or are trying to stabilize your board. The only thing that it isn't amazing at is being used in the early game, but you still can use the Prepare side in the early game and just use the Fight side later.
Unless you were intentionally trying to be dismissive and insulting, that lol was completely unnecessary. And how often are you going to need to make your opponent discard a legendary card? Maybe there will be more playable legendary cards in Amonkhet, but right now the only 2 playable legendaries are Heart of Kiran and Rishkar. I'd say being unable to hit 2 cards is worth the tradeoff for it being easier to cast.
Limited. It is likely stronger in Limited than almost every rare.
At the very least we should be allowed to put longer signatures inside a spoiler box so that they won't take up too much space but will still be there if anyone wants to look at them.
Flameblade Adept will definitely be good in standard if there is enough support for it.
Crocodile of the Crossing will be sweet in Limited.
Limits of Solidarity seems like it might be the first sorcery-speed Threaten in a while to be good in Draft.
It definitely is possible that they will reprint Miscalculation.
Plow Under and Choke are pretty "mean."
One of the problems with Deathrite Shaman is that it also is a massive problem for any graveyard-based strategies. As long as it is in play, Snapcaster Mage is essentially a dead card. If we want interactive blue decks to be good in Modern, DRS definitely shouldn't be unbanned.
So, again, you think that if a card is banned in a format, it should never be unbanned in any circumstance.
If you think that we shouldn't discuss any of this because this is Wizards' sandbox (which you have said in those exact words before), then why are you so vehemently against unbans when Wizards is willing to unban cards?
Possibly, but the difference is that Wizards unbanned Valakut, Bitterblossom, Wild Nacatl, Golgari Grave-Troll, Ancestral Vision, and Sword of the Meek. Bocephus was against all of those unbans.
So, as far as I understand it, your position is basically this. As long as the amount of people playing Modern stays constant or increases, there can't possibly be anything wrong with the format so nothing should be unbanned, regardless of whether an unbanning would make the format better, bring more people into the format, or make the format more diverse, even if the banned card wouldn't warp the format. That seems like an absurd position to have. Almost no cards would ever be unbanned in any format under those rules. People don't stop playing in tournaments because their card of choice hasn't been unbanned yet.
If you were WotC, we never would have seen any unbans. IIRC, you were against each and every unban and predicted that cards like Valakut, Wild Nacatl, and Ancestral Vision would doom the format.