i saw the video you choose which side you play with before the game begins i have no idea how this is gonna work in commmander if you can use 2 of the same on but each opposite sides
If you can't have the option of one side or the other during play, that seems to kinda defeat the purpose of double sided cards. Why would you ever choose that land side?
I'm pretty sure it's always front facing. You choose what mode you want in your hand. That's what I got from the video at least
So it would make a lot of sense to print a card just 1 time and stretch the "reprint" time to a long time, otherwise your own product invalidates itself (basically the exact problem they had with Chronicles, printing all the cards to the ground).
How does it invalidate it by reprinting it? They've been reprinting for years and it hasn't hurt the game, in fact has made the game accessible to many players.
If you just want cards to play casually, nothing is stopping you from just using Proxy cards, value wise nothing can ever beat that.
The only reason to buy the actual cards is to have the value associated with them, namely a collectable item and being able to play in sanctioned tournaments (which for almost any EDH/Commander is basically not a thing at all).
Making cards cheaper by reprinting everything to the ground just makes the product worth less.
This definitely doesn't even make sense. First you're conflating collectable with investing which are two different concepts. Second, if people are forced to use proxies, wouldn't that mean that wizards has opportunities to meet the demand of certain cards? Third, if a card loses "all value" after being reprinted then you have to ask yourself was the card valuable because it was rare or because it was good? Example is sol ring has been printed to the ground yet still holds value because of how good it is. That's what gives it "value".
In general, if you want specific cards, you buy them as singles.
Or you buy product and trade for it ; which can only work if the new product is remotely of interest to the people that have the old cards ; but if you just reprint the old cards, the entire trading aspect gets undermined (especially if the card has the same artwork and is in no way different at all).
----
If at the very least (and we get there with the alternate art) cards would always have different artwork, then you could value specific artworks as a collectable item (and thats the case for super premium ones, which become the only option for any collectable value at all, as anything else is just worthless).
It's almost like this gripe is with wizards and how they treat reprints and not actually reprinting. If they spent the effort to commission new arts for reprints, it would give uniqueness to the cards as you say. I'm liking the approach they're doing with showcase cards since it adds uniqueness without compromising on the actual card value. They should have been doing this for years. Pokemon has been doing it for 8, it's actually rather depressing that it's taken MTG this long to get there.
I mean to be fair, in the last thread someone literally said that racism has never existed and still doesn't exist. So there's a good reason that thread needed to be locked. Censorship or not.
No. You don’t impede, stymie, or outright censor a necessary conversation just because there are bad faith actors. There will always be bad faith actors, and locking or deleting threads only perpetuates the status quo.
I adamantly disagree. If your player base is actively hurting marginalized communities in the game then they absolutely should be shut down. There's no productive conversation from it. Period.
I mean to be fair, in the last thread someone literally said that racism has never existed and still doesn't exist. So there's a good reason that thread needed to be locked. Censorship or not.
This post has been removed. Racism has no place on MTGSalvation.
This is one of the crappiest takes I've seen on this board. You've taken the cake on this. To say that racism isn't real is completely disingenious. You should be ashamed of yourself and honestly probably shunned out of any community as a whole. While I do agree with your argument that most everything is economically driven, the fact that you only focus on that and not the atrocities that are caused on races because of that is sickening. Slavery was an economic decision that resulted in racism against African Americans. To say that we aren't still seeing the negative impacts of racism from economic decisions is tone-deaf at best. You focus on a dollar aspect, while a valid interpretation of policy, still doesn't include a human aspect to it. To marginalize people is economically beneficial to people, is also racially harmful to other people.
Seriously...
Slippery slope here - army of Allah, jihad, invoke prejudice - involve real world religious names or obvious illusions to real world groups. Anything beyond that is just pandering to the BLM movement in a way that seems condescending and laughable. There are 100s of cards that could fall into this ill conceived Pr stunt.
Og urborg- remove first strike? Obviously first strike is a white privilege.
Terror - black(i thought we were supposed to use African American, seems political correctness lost that fight when BLM came into being) people can't be afraid?
Hellfire- why stop with the white creatures?
The list goes on...well I guess we should also ban all faeries and queens because those are sexual derogatory. Thank god we still have bears, fish, cats and dogs and hazoret the pervert.
This is a thought provoking and intelligent way of looking at this. I'm just glad there aren't any faults in logic here or anything that may be perceived as insensitive
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If anything this can be better for companions in the long run. Sure it hoses the initial companions but if they bring the mechanic back, it can open up to some design space that can actually make them playable as a companion. They could have added benefits of playing it as your companion.
You get the benefit of an extra card.
No matter what thats just plain old +1 card advantage.
If the card itself actually matters in a metagame and within a working strong deck is an entirely different story.
I was talking about in respect to the errata. If you have to jump through hoops and have to pay an additional cost, it seems much easier to balance than just how it was before. Sure it's pure card advantage but at what cost?
I believe it makes companion an easier mechanic to balance out in the future is all I'm saying.
This seems a huge mistake to me. Why they didn't just ban the problem companions is beyond me. Not only is this a huge headache in adding text to the card that does not exist it renders most the companions completely unplayable so is completely pointless. Decks aren't going to pay 7 mana for Umori or 8 mana for Obosh even over 2 turns. And ironically what you're left with is the companion this least effects is Yorion which they may still dominate as a result, so what's the point? They'd have been way better off just banning Yorion and the other problem companions.
This "fix" just ends up annoying casual players/decks everywhere that they can't play the cards as intended, nerfing the flagship mechanic of the last set to the point it's virtually unplayable even in casual. Stuff like this causes a huge hit in consumer confidence, how can you get excited about the new flashy mechanic if they can just nerf it to oblivion a month later?
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If anything this can be better for companions in the long run. Sure it hoses the initial companions but if they bring the mechanic back, it can open up to some design space that can actually make them playable as a companion. They could have added benefits of playing it as your companion.
Personally, I feel that booster packs can only exist as they do because of limited formats. Seriously, the excuse that booster pack randomness powers limited is arguably a major part of what makes booster packs “not gambling”.
The fact that they are not gambling is a major part of what makes them not gambling.
A randomized product is still a product. In order for it to be gambling there would have to be a lose state. Not getting the specific item you want from a group of randomized items is not losing.
Source: I am licensed by the DoJ and literally work in the gambling industry.
I suppose the law can be black and white sometimes... right up until the point that it changes. The whole advent of loot boxes has been blurring the lines as to what constitutes gambling for nigh on a decade, and the only reason they’re not (at the moment) is because virtual items don’t have any tradable value. Magic cards do, which begs the question: if you pay $4 for a lottery pack with the expectation that your ROI might be upwards of 700%, and you get less than $0.50 in value instead, how is that not a lose state? It’s effectively the same risk/reward model as a scratch card, which is most definitely gambling.
Except hat when you but a lottery ticket the expectation/hope is to win from a prize pool. It can be argued, legally, that MTG is a game, and the value on the secondary market is arbitrary to the intended purpose of the product.
In other words, if your buying unregulated assets such as collectables for investment purposes, you are not protected under the law.
Randomness alone is not the definition of gambling.
Right, and that was kind of Rosy’s point in the first place: it isn’t because it doesn’t meet the form, practice, or legal definition of gambling that it’s not gambling, it’s because it’s ostensibly also a card game - though whether that’s a primary or secondary consideration may be rather moot. Just because you can convince me that’s it’s a paperweight doesn’t mean it’s not also a set of brass knuckles.
To further add onto this, they outlawed loot box items in many countries because of the gambling implications. And if buying a booster pack isn't essentially a loot box for a card game, then I dunno what to say.
By whose definition? Don't fall for what is being sold to the public right now. Who gets to make these decisions and WHY?
There's nothing objective about a game store being essential. There's no goods/ services there that your or anyone's lives depend on it being opened. If someone's life does unfortunately end because the store is closed, then that person had many underlying issues that weren't being addressed and the game store was just a band aid.
It does impact the owner but we should be bailing out stores like this instead of wall street.
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Ah, but historically, strictly better is an academic exercise, more than anything else. Is this better? Absolutely, and I'll play it in EDH, maybe even standard and I do agree with your logic, but strictly better is all about splitting hairs.
It is an academic exercise, yes. But to include statistically insignificant instances makes what would have been an academic exercise into "what if" for unlikely situations. Coming from an engineering background, even statistically insignificant events are disregarded because they're that, insignificant. They exist but shouldn't be regarded.
Now if there was say many cycling hosers and some were super pushed beyond being a balanced card, sure I'd agree with the idea of it not being strictly better, but as stands, even printing a handful of hosers with some upside just wouldn't push the needle
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Edit: this is also just assuming cards have equal weight in terms of playability. Depending on how good a hoser is affects the statistics of this. I'd only assume that a 99.99% being better would only increase because the non hoser cards are probably going to get played before hosers
I've already heard many an idiot making Karona jokes because of the pandemic, so I'm alright with this change.
Black sarcastic dark humor is often exactly what people need to get over very dire real life circumstances.
So i am all board for this kind of word plays, its amusing.
So we detected the edgelord at the table. You'd make a joke about COVID considering there's a good chance that someone at the table has been impacted by it in some way.
This is another good reason why changing the name and stopping this run is a good thing.
I'm pretty sure it's always front facing. You choose what mode you want in your hand. That's what I got from the video at least
I can emphasize different words in this sentence and make the meaning different. It's a trading card GAME.
How does it invalidate it by reprinting it? They've been reprinting for years and it hasn't hurt the game, in fact has made the game accessible to many players.
This definitely doesn't even make sense. First you're conflating collectable with investing which are two different concepts. Second, if people are forced to use proxies, wouldn't that mean that wizards has opportunities to meet the demand of certain cards? Third, if a card loses "all value" after being reprinted then you have to ask yourself was the card valuable because it was rare or because it was good? Example is sol ring has been printed to the ground yet still holds value because of how good it is. That's what gives it "value".
It's almost like this gripe is with wizards and how they treat reprints and not actually reprinting. If they spent the effort to commission new arts for reprints, it would give uniqueness to the cards as you say. I'm liking the approach they're doing with showcase cards since it adds uniqueness without compromising on the actual card value. They should have been doing this for years. Pokemon has been doing it for 8, it's actually rather depressing that it's taken MTG this long to get there.
Now if I open it, I'll be even more upset than if it wasn't a box topper.
I adamantly disagree. If your player base is actively hurting marginalized communities in the game then they absolutely should be shut down. There's no productive conversation from it. Period.
This is one of the crappiest takes I've seen on this board. You've taken the cake on this. To say that racism isn't real is completely disingenious. You should be ashamed of yourself and honestly probably shunned out of any community as a whole. While I do agree with your argument that most everything is economically driven, the fact that you only focus on that and not the atrocities that are caused on races because of that is sickening. Slavery was an economic decision that resulted in racism against African Americans. To say that we aren't still seeing the negative impacts of racism from economic decisions is tone-deaf at best. You focus on a dollar aspect, while a valid interpretation of policy, still doesn't include a human aspect to it. To marginalize people is economically beneficial to people, is also racially harmful to other people.
This is a thought provoking and intelligent way of looking at this. I'm just glad there aren't any faults in logic here or anything that may be perceived as insensitive
I was talking about in respect to the errata. If you have to jump through hoops and have to pay an additional cost, it seems much easier to balance than just how it was before. Sure it's pure card advantage but at what cost?
I believe it makes companion an easier mechanic to balance out in the future is all I'm saying.
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If anything this can be better for companions in the long run. Sure it hoses the initial companions but if they bring the mechanic back, it can open up to some design space that can actually make them playable as a companion. They could have added benefits of playing it as your companion.
To further add onto this, they outlawed loot box items in many countries because of the gambling implications. And if buying a booster pack isn't essentially a loot box for a card game, then I dunno what to say.
There's nothing objective about a game store being essential. There's no goods/ services there that your or anyone's lives depend on it being opened. If someone's life does unfortunately end because the store is closed, then that person had many underlying issues that weren't being addressed and the game store was just a band aid.
It does impact the owner but we should be bailing out stores like this instead of wall street.
It is an academic exercise, yes. But to include statistically insignificant instances makes what would have been an academic exercise into "what if" for unlikely situations. Coming from an engineering background, even statistically insignificant events are disregarded because they're that, insignificant. They exist but shouldn't be regarded.
Now if there was say many cycling hosers and some were super pushed beyond being a balanced card, sure I'd agree with the idea of it not being strictly better, but as stands, even printing a handful of hosers with some upside just wouldn't push the needle
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Edit: this is also just assuming cards have equal weight in terms of playability. Depending on how good a hoser is affects the statistics of this. I'd only assume that a 99.99% being better would only increase because the non hoser cards are probably going to get played before hosers
So we detected the edgelord at the table. You'd make a joke about COVID considering there's a good chance that someone at the table has been impacted by it in some way.
This is another good reason why changing the name and stopping this run is a good thing.