Yea but likelyhood to get more powerful is especially relevant when it's already an abusable card like dread return.
Nope. No more than any other reanimating or semi-uncommon effect.
As a side note; what your demanding is a full explanation with every single post.
Yes, I'm demanding that people back their arguments, not simply assert them. I didn't think that would be such an issue.
Seriously, the fact that I'm demanding people give an explanation for their beliefs is not perfectly justified? Are you serious?
That shouldn't really be necessary with the frequency these sort of arguments since they come up so frequently. When someone says it hampers future design, they OBVIOUSLY mean with the direction wizards is going in.
Except we get posts such as Avalon's, which completely disprove the point you're making here. Care to revise?
Let's not unban a card that will restrict or hamper future card design space.
But that's actually every card and strategy. Yes, having a powerful deck restricts WOTC from printing cards which make it more powerful. That's universal, not an argument, and irrelevant.
I mean that for cards that are already known to be easily broken or oppressive, eg: Dread Return, Deathrite, Blazing Shoal, Punishing Fire, etc
But that's still true of every card, take the single most inoffensive card, and there is some way to break it, thus it hampers future design space.
The point is how it hampers such, and given that DR and Punishing Fire do not hamper it in a way which WoTC cares about even slightly (They don't particularly care about tokens other than as a token strategy* or about cards which gain opponent's life).
The statement only works with a qualifier, as it did for Birthing Pod, as that clashed directly with the direction in which WoTC desired to go. DRS less so, Blazing Shoal again absolutely.
Something like this however does not meet such characteristics
Eh... I'd be wary of unbanning Dread Return, because it limits what they can do with creature tokens in the future. For instance, I'd love a card that, say, creates a relatively high number of creature tokens... but they have defender, except such a card could potentially break Dread Return if it were legal. Maybe if they printed a variant that had sacrifice non-token creatures?
For such a direction is not one WoTC desires. Dig?
Eh... I'd be wary of unbanning Dread Return, because it limits what they can do with creature tokens in the future. For instance, I'd love a card that, say, creates a relatively high number of creature tokens... but they have defender, except such a card could potentially break Dread Return if it were legal. Maybe if they printed a variant that had sacrifice non-token creatures?
There are literally hundreds of cards that could become broken if the right cards were printed that no one has even thought of. I really hope WOTC isn't taking this cautious of an approach to the ban list, other wise nothing will ever be unbanned again.
Dread return gets stronger every time they print a stronger creature. Currently that is very likely given their direction. Also dread return cheats costs which is historically very powerful. I really think return is far more likely to get broken than bridge, people just want return over bridge BECAUSE return is easier to break than bridge.
This is bothersome for a different reason, namely that it's inconsistent, for the same argument can be made for every single reanimation spell in Modern. Are those to also be banned?
Let's not unban a card that will restrict or hamper future card design space.
But that's actually every card and strategy. Yes, having a powerful deck restricts WOTC from printing cards which make it more powerful. That's universal, not an argument, and irrelevant.
You literally just described democracy. Which we have. The lawmaker must convince a majority of the reviewers (Other representatives) to agree that the law is beneficial. This is peer review. This is hellishly corrupt.
As well, there is no way to to reach a definitive conclusion in politics, because positions are based on axioms which are able to be accepted or denied by choice.
rather like what you'll see on a healthy internet debate forum.
It's seriously that simple. To expect to have a government representing anything but the most extreme views (Which are held by the most politically active in the nation) while having a voting turnout near 35% is simply silly. It isn't partisanship. It isn't the two sides not listening to each other. Those are merely symptoms, the problem is that the American people are lazy and do not vote.
The politicians don't really hold many views, they'll say what keeps them in power, which is dependent upon the constituents, who respond, seemingly always with "Do whatever you want and we'll vote you back in" as we have an incumbency rate in the 90's.
"Natural Born" is not some subjective term. It has a legal definition, please don't do this, it's destined to be garbage.
The term does not, as of yet, have a legal definition in US constitutional jurisprudence. This is explained very clearly in my OP.
Nope. Defined in law.
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
8 U.S. Code § 1401
Those qualifications are what determine whether a person is a natural-born citizen. The first two directly, the others often as qualifications. There is precedent, while there may be a slight fuzziness, it is not near so unclear as you seem to desire it to be.
That's a terrible idea. She made no meaningful contribution to society and in fact didn't contribute anything on her own. Anne Sullivan would be better, but she's also not even near the level required.
Since you've gotten advice about a majority of things, I'll be simple about a single point which has caused me grief, and in fact motivated me to change stores.
Keep up with your website.
If you have an event listed as happening every week on a certain day, at a certain time, and you discontinue it, delete it from the website. The amount of times I've gone to a store advertising Legacy or EDH this way only to find that it no longer happens is far too great.
I like how this plan will effectively do the same thing to reserve list cards as a reprint would, that is cause a price decrease.
The idea has nothing to do with protecting the price of those cards. It's a way to allow WOTC to honor their commitment to the Reserved List, while also preventing it from holding back the format.
I sincerely do not understand this argument, how is it better to destroy the format than to merely hold it back a bit?
I went with Cosi's Trickster in my wife's modern merfolk as a budget choice, and it has been solid.
Not sure if legacy has the same kind of shuffle density, but it's gotten pretty big in the games she's played it.
Legacy has greater shuffle density, and I too love Cosi's.
I've played captain sisay for years and she never gets boring. She can handle anything that comes her way and wins in different ways - she's combo, aggro, and control rolled into one. And extremely competitive.
I second this, toolbox Sisay is incredibly fun, not over competitive, and viable.
1) "Not getting turn 1 wins without SSGs" isn't an insult the way you think it is. Free mana is free mana.
2) Talking down to me because I haven't presented a decklist is unnecessary. You could ask for a decklist, or request that I expand upon my statements with card choices, statistics, testing, or more specific theories. Being obnoxious or confrontational just makes the thread that much worse.
From goldfishing, meaning absolutely no disruption, it is no where near as consistent as you believe it to be.[/quote]
It's certainly not Legacy Cheeri0s, which has about a 75% turn 1 rate,
No it doesn't. Though we've fought over that before, and this isn't legacy, so we shouldn't do that again here, but it doesn't have a 75% turn 1 win rate.
and it's not a final draft. But I've been playing this deck in every format in dozens of variations for years. This list, or more lilely some evolution of it, would cause Glimpse to be re-banned.
I don't think so, it's missing a huge amount of the tools which make it even somewhat of a thing in Legacy, and it has less of the free mana, as Izzetmage points out. To work in modern it requires SSG, which means you are now requiring multiple specific cards drawn in a single turn, with the ability to be played that turn, without any consistency tools.
I appreciate your goldfishing data and input, but I goldfished this as well, and it works much better than a Turn 1 deck should work in Modern.
I didn't give you any data really, nor any helpful input, merely an assertion which you should disregard. Izzetmage however provided a catalog of his using the deck, which you should contest, either by discrediting his or by providing your own. I don't believe you can.
This format has become legacy lite. I would like to play spells that cost more than 3 thanks.
Modern is nothing like Legacy, the formats have very little in common, one is midrange and combo focused the other tempo, control and combo focused. Even so, legacy lite would not look like the absence of the ability to play spells costing more than 3, that's just silly and inaccurate.
I have to disagree with you that Modern is not Legacy Lite. Take a look at some of the tier one decks in Legacy and then in Modern and you see that a lot of the cards being play in both formats overlap quite a bit.
No, they don't. That's just not true, especially when one looks at the tiers as well.
About 20 pages back I compared some of the lists and there are lists that are like 65-70% direct ports from competitive Legacy decks into Modern.
No, I'll take the most famous being Delver. In Legacy it's a tempo deck, in Modern it isn't. FoW, Daze, Wasteland, and Duals really changes that.
The problem is that saying Modern is Legacy Lite is true, but only for some decks/archetypes.
Then it is incredibly incorrect to say that Modern itself is Legacy Lite. That is, if you know it to be true for only a minority of decks, a lie.
Some decks share a majority of their cards with their Legacy archetype while others share very little to nothing with their Legacy archetype and this is due to the unbalanced banning approach by WotC.
No, it isn't. FoW wasn't banned in modern. Daze wasn't banned in modern. Duals weren't banned in modern. Until recently, Fetches weren't absent from Modern due to banning. Wasteland isn't banned in modern. Karakas isn't banned in modern. LED isn't banned in modern.
They are simply not in the card pool, you are misrepresenting the facts.
Nope. No more than any other reanimating or semi-uncommon effect.
Yes, I'm demanding that people back their arguments, not simply assert them. I didn't think that would be such an issue.
Seriously, the fact that I'm demanding people give an explanation for their beliefs is not perfectly justified? Are you serious?
Except we get posts such as Avalon's, which completely disprove the point you're making here. Care to revise?
But that's still true of every card, take the single most inoffensive card, and there is some way to break it, thus it hampers future design space.
The point is how it hampers such, and given that DR and Punishing Fire do not hamper it in a way which WoTC cares about even slightly (They don't particularly care about tokens other than as a token strategy* or about cards which gain opponent's life).
The statement only works with a qualifier, as it did for Birthing Pod, as that clashed directly with the direction in which WoTC desired to go. DRS less so, Blazing Shoal again absolutely.
Something like this however does not meet such characteristics
For such a direction is not one WoTC desires. Dig?
This is bothersome for a different reason, namely that it's inconsistent, for the same argument can be made for every single reanimation spell in Modern. Are those to also be banned?
But that's actually every card and strategy. Yes, having a powerful deck restricts WOTC from printing cards which make it more powerful. That's universal, not an argument, and irrelevant.
As well, there is no way to to reach a definitive conclusion in politics, because positions are based on axioms which are able to be accepted or denied by choice.
Those don't exist.
It's seriously that simple. To expect to have a government representing anything but the most extreme views (Which are held by the most politically active in the nation) while having a voting turnout near 35% is simply silly. It isn't partisanship. It isn't the two sides not listening to each other. Those are merely symptoms, the problem is that the American people are lazy and do not vote.
The politicians don't really hold many views, they'll say what keeps them in power, which is dependent upon the constituents, who respond, seemingly always with "Do whatever you want and we'll vote you back in" as we have an incumbency rate in the 90's.
Nope. Defined in law.
8 U.S. Code § 1401
Those qualifications are what determine whether a person is a natural-born citizen. The first two directly, the others often as qualifications. There is precedent, while there may be a slight fuzziness, it is not near so unclear as you seem to desire it to be.
That's a terrible idea. She made no meaningful contribution to society and in fact didn't contribute anything on her own. Anne Sullivan would be better, but she's also not even near the level required.
Keep up with your website.
If you have an event listed as happening every week on a certain day, at a certain time, and you discontinue it, delete it from the website. The amount of times I've gone to a store advertising Legacy or EDH this way only to find that it no longer happens is far too great.
I sincerely do not understand this argument, how is it better to destroy the format than to merely hold it back a bit?
It does not even sort of function sufficiently to be competitive without Candels. Solidarity can, but that's very different.
Legacy has greater shuffle density, and I too love Cosi's.
I second this, toolbox Sisay is incredibly fun, not over competitive, and viable.
From goldfishing, meaning absolutely no disruption, it is no where near as consistent as you believe it to be.[/quote]
No it doesn't. Though we've fought over that before, and this isn't legacy, so we shouldn't do that again here, but it doesn't have a 75% turn 1 win rate.
I don't think so, it's missing a huge amount of the tools which make it even somewhat of a thing in Legacy, and it has less of the free mana, as Izzetmage points out. To work in modern it requires SSG, which means you are now requiring multiple specific cards drawn in a single turn, with the ability to be played that turn, without any consistency tools.
I didn't give you any data really, nor any helpful input, merely an assertion which you should disregard. Izzetmage however provided a catalog of his using the deck, which you should contest, either by discrediting his or by providing your own. I don't believe you can.
No, they don't. That's just not true, especially when one looks at the tiers as well.
No, I'll take the most famous being Delver. In Legacy it's a tempo deck, in Modern it isn't. FoW, Daze, Wasteland, and Duals really changes that.
Then it is incredibly incorrect to say that Modern itself is Legacy Lite. That is, if you know it to be true for only a minority of decks, a lie.
No, it isn't. FoW wasn't banned in modern. Daze wasn't banned in modern. Duals weren't banned in modern. Until recently, Fetches weren't absent from Modern due to banning. Wasteland isn't banned in modern. Karakas isn't banned in modern. LED isn't banned in modern.
They are simply not in the card pool, you are misrepresenting the facts.