Quote from Dontrike »Quote from DJK3654 »
This does not mean statements from MaRo about the colour pie are not important.
But they can be more easily dismissed when the one saying them has been highly contradictory. The same man that touted "our playtest team will allow a more balanced Standard" and then we get Eldraine, Ikoria, companions, Oko, Uro, and a year of sets with constant overpowered cards that warped near every format.
Sorry, but if a person I don't trust tells me that it's "raining outside" and even if I can hear the rain hit the house I'm still looking outside out of sheer distrust.
There is no MtG colour pie outside of WotC. If people from WotC's statements on the colour pie aren't meaningful, nothing is. They control the game; the colour pie exists in the game. They aren't just interpreting the colour pie, they decide it.
We can question their reasoning, their consistency, and how well the game plays with it, but we can't just say they are plainly wrong or ignore them. If you don't like baseball and think they should change the rules you wouldn't argue the MLB is wrong about the rules of baseball. The rules of baseball will always be whatever rules people follow when playing baseball.
White can get effects that draw cards for doing white things if they only draw one card per turn.
Life gain and small creatures were the "white things" it was doing, the once per turn thing was slapped on needlessly.
It was slapped on to limit white card draw, fitting with the *need* to preserve White's weaknesses.
White wasn't even getting draw all that commonly for a restriction to be necessary.
Why do you think white wasn't getting draw all that commonly?
Don't you find it weird they slapped on that clause while they print stuff like The Great Henge? Where's the "green can get effects that draw cards for doing green things if they only draw one card per turn?" What's so special about white that it needs to be handicapped? That's the issue. No other color gets that strange stipulation tacked on.
No other colour has the same weaknesses as white. Because, get this, the different colours are supposed to be different.
Green's draw, as well as green's creature removal effects, are tied to its creatures, because that's green's weakness. Green isn't supposed to be weak at card draw, it's supposed to be weak at building decks with lower creature counts. White is supposed to be weak at card draw. Green's weakness does affect its card draw abilities, but not as much as white's. Naturally then, white has harsher restrictions on its card draw effects to stop it drawing too many cards too efficiently.
White is supposed to be behind on card draw,
Neither was green or red, but we've seen how the first is insane at it now and the later has its own version of draw that's great in its own ways while white.....sometimes gets to do it once a turn, but only if Daddy says yes.
Green is second best at card draw tied with Black. It is not supposed to be weak a card draw. It is supposed to be not as good as blue, which is a line that has become rather blurred with some recent cards pushing things, but it was never supposed to be bad. Red is supposed to be significantly worse, but it's still only second worst, card draw is not supposed to be red's primary weakness, unlike white.
That's why they've been pushing a bunch of different unique card draw effects for white to try new things that could fit into white without just letting it draw cards whenever.
Letting it draw cards whenever? It's not like white was getting "at the beginning of your draw step draw an extra card" it was "if you gain life/small creature ETB pay mana to draw a card." Practically all of white's constant draw you had to pay to do it. Mentor was 1 mana, Bishop and Dawn of Hope was 2 mana,
Yes, because even before the recent decision on once per turn and such, WotC was trying to limit white card draw. It was decided, however, that those limitations were not good enough.
The problem with cards like Mentor of the Meek was that they are easy enough for white to just slot right in that they run a dangerous line between being good enough to actually see play and be fun, and making white too good at card draw.
Also, "unique effects"? Artifact/enchantment ETB once a turn is not unique. Wait, sorry it is unique because it they slapped on a unique restriction.
Also 'each player draws'. MaRo has also said more is to come.
White can care about small creatures. That's not the issue.
Clearly it is if something like Mentor of the Meek or Bygone Bishop is now "wrong". Mentor was just seen in Standard up until two years ago and somehow in that brief a time it went from acceptable to "color pie break", doesn't that sound a little absurd? It's not even that good of a card and now it's "wrong." It's baffling.
Weenie decks are a staple of white. Effects that allow you to draw cards but only if you play a bunch of weenies is not much of a restriction for white. Just as if green were supposed to be bad at card draw it wouldn't be much of a restriction for green to play a bunch of creatures for cards like the Great Henge. As you said, green is quite good at card draw despite such restrictions, and if anything, the restrictions on green card draw have been a tad weak of late. WotC does not want white to be anything like that. Because, yeah, duh.
There doesn't necessarily need to be assigned single colours for every possible effect.
Assigning colors to certain actions is literally what the color pie is about.
'Destroy target permanent' is restricted to green-black or black-white. No single colour gets that effect. There is no reason 'whenever you gain life, draw a card' or what have you needs to be in a single colour either. White can get such effects with the once per turn limitation. If you want it unrestrcited, add another colour. That's literally what the colour pie is about— limitations that you can mitigate by adding colours.
Blue being broken in the early magic and green being too pushed in recent sets are both *terrible* reasons why it's okay to put effects into white.
Draw effects in the things that white is good at? Yes. Why is that such an issue?
Taking other things being broken as a justification for how to balance something is a highway straight to making even more broken things.
'My window and my chair are already broken, so I might as well smash a big hole in my wall' is not logical.
Blue draws card because it can, green draws cards if you play Magic, black draws at the cost of life, and red gets impulse draw, but white.....can't have draw for doing some of the stuff its good at because that would be bad if all five colors got consistent rules with its draw? No, only one gets a "once a turn" clause just because it was a naughty child this year and gets coal for Christmas.
Only black is required to sacrifice things (not just life btw) to draw cards, only green is required to link all its card draw to creatures, only red is required to play the cards it draws straight away.
What's your point?
White doesn't have to sacrifice things, or link it to creatures, or play its cards straight away when it draws cards.
It has some of the harshest restrictions, yes, but it's supposed to.
Power balance is also not on the only consideration with the colour pie. There's always a question of feel. The colours don't exist purely for balance reasons, after all, they are supposed to have a certain style. You could just put a bunch of overcosted divinations and harmonizes into white and it still be the worst colour in card draw, but would that be fun? Would it feel like white can't draw cards in the same way as other colours, or would it just feel like white card draw is just *****ty? Would people want to play those cards in the first place, even if maybe it made sense to include some because they were better than nothing, would people enjoy it?
I'm not even really sure what you're saying here. People wouldn't play a white Harmonize (which by the way was a color shift and wasn't supposed to be normalized, but now green it's so common in green you expect it) because they may not enjoy it? I'm just gonna take a shot in the dark and say because they play it in green they might like it in a color that doesn't have decent draw where the best draw spell also gives your opponents cards.
I specifically said *overcosted*. And I meant, like, significantly.
The point was white is supposed to be worst at card draw and these restrictions WotC has been trying out are designed to give it playable fun card draw cards that also don't allow it to draw cards too easily.
Now look at the card draw effects WotC has been giving to white. The only once per turn version, for instance, requires you to put time and effort into triggering the ability each turn over several turns to really load up on cards, so the card draw has limitations, but those limitations also feel very white, planning and patience and such, the cards don't have to be bad, especially if the cards have other utility, and it's fun to play because you can work with its weakness.
That's why those effects are being tried out, and it's why I think those are good ideas.
And drawing cards from life gain and small creatures were the time/effort, the limitations were life gain isn't the greatest and small creatures are easy to get rid of, but I guess we need to nerf white because....something something "new color pie" something something dark side.
Because gaining life and playing small creatures are things white does really well and does all the time and so aren't very big restrictions. They would be appropriate restrictions if, like black and green, white was supposed to be good at card draw but just not the best, but white is supposed to be worst.