I love these forums, though I don't comment as often as I did initially, and I have gotten a few warnings in my time (all have been justified as I have a love hate relationship with the game a mile wide). Perhaps some people have a different view of the mods then I do, or are less honest with themselves about what is "reasonable speech". That all being said, I feel like the Mods have generally done a good job. You can't make everyone happy, and honestly, you probably should not try.
Well they do have power in the sense that Wizards trusts them to manage the format. So they basically have the backing of WotC, which is only helped by Wizards admitting that they don't really have the time or resources to properly manage it. All in all, I don't think that this change will have as big an impact as everyone is making it sound. Much like removing the BaaC list, the legendary rule change, etc., there will be an uproar at first, and then after a while and seeing how the change actually affects games, people will settle in with the new rule or simply houserule to the old rules. I will miss having the option to tuck a general, but I'm sure I'll manage.
I suppose, but the idea that this may not be a big deal does not change the fact that this change makes no sense. Nor does it change that fact that their explanations are actually legitimately questionable. I admit, I was not a fan of the banned list rules change, but that was more of a cosmetic disagreement. This time my disagreement is more fundamental.
As a blue mage I have often relied on using those cards as general killers. I've utterly crushed opponents by removing their generals, I've slowed them down, and I've even had to let Terminus get collateral damage. I get that it isn't fun when your general gets tucked. I get that when you build a deck around your general, you want it to be around your general. But this is a game which is about checks and balances. If you over-extend, I should be able to wrath you. Tuck was just another check against the slew of uninteractive generals. If Wizards is going to keep printing indestructible generals, hexproof generals, ones that are often just enchantments, and various cards that grant those abilities, then we need a way to interact. The RC says that tucking wasn't good because it made you play blue and white, but if you use a god as your general, my black/red deck is going to have no way to interact with it so long as you keep your deovotion low enough. This change takes away another set of checks against strong generals which are otherwise hard to slow down.
This! I really just don't get this change. Changes like this are making it clear to me that there are some meta's that would shock the RC to see the strength of certain decks. Checks and balances are an important part of a properly balanced format. This attempt to make the game more "fun" for more table top style meta's really just makes no sense when balanced against what this format has become. Their explanations make even less sense. I think they are out of their depth and over thought a rather simple problem.
Well, anyway, my playgroup has decided to test the change out, but there is a good chance we will ignore this rule change for the simple fact it unbalances the local meta. After all, the RC themselves has in fact admitted on more than one occasion they have no real power...only the power people and playgroups choose to invest in them. The only shame is that I fear what the effects of rules stratification will do to the format as a whole.
Heck, at this point I would probably less outraged if they took one of the Elders and make a shocking revelation that Ugin is his/her new identity, than saying that Ugin is a Elder who was unknown to us till now, despite being "Nicol Bolas's eons-old nemesis".
I am not sure I understand the outrage here? Sure, it goes against what has been known about the Elder Dragons till now, but I never saw anywhere, except for some "prerevisionist lore" according to the Wiki article, that it was 100% set in stone that the survivors we knew were the only ones. The term "prerevisionist" suggests to me that the cannon would then follow whatever came directly from Wizards and not this other party.
As for the Ugin being a counter to Bolas. I guess that could be the case, but part of me feels like that is a little too cheesy. Also, Bolas did kill him once so I would still say Bolas is the more powerful of the two.
Just to be clear, I'm not going anywhere just yet, I'm just pointing out a disconcerting trend. I can deal with insults being hurled my way (not that I like it, but I understand the price one pays for being a public figure), but a high noise-to-signal ratio isn't worth my time. I appreciate the effort of the moderators who fight the ever-more-difficult battle keep things reasonable here and the folks, even those with dissenting opinions, who have engaged in civil discourse.
It is good to see members of the rules committee being interested in the community discourse on this. I echo the disappointment that this had to get nasty/testy. At the end of the day it is still just a card game. You can dislike a rules change, but there is never a need to be uncivil when discussing it.
Admittedly, I have not been a part of this discussion, and am far too lazy to go back however many pages of angst-ridden comments to find out if it has been mentioned. Did the RC take into account the difference in power levels between when a card is in the command zone vs. when a card is in the 99? I mean, I understand the banned list simplification idea in principle and it is a nice thought, but it really does not address the fundamental issue that most (including myself) have with these cards being banned; that these cards (Braids & Rofellos) as part of the 99 can be/are strong, but are not immediately ban-worthy. There needs to be more reasoning to it than just the simplification of a banned list for me to comprehend why a card is banned.
At the end of the day I will work within the rules as presented, but this is my problem with these latest bannings.
I'm not feeling it. It's not Kamigawa done right, it's not Japan/Japanese, and it feels pretty cliche and dull to me at the moment.
I feel the need to point out that it is not supposed to be Japanese flavored...though maybe it was not your intention for it to read that way. It is Central Asian/Mongolian flavored with a bit of dragon lore tossed in to help the story.
But I really hope they are not trying to make "a good Bolas". Bolas is the bad guy who is supposed to be unstoppable; thereby making him a challenge for the "good guys", whoever they end up being, to overcome in the overall story between the blocks. Making a character to counterbalance that would make the whole story super pointless to me. Granted Bolas did defeat Ugin once per the story, but I'd also never put it past wizards to dumb down a good thing.
JOU has been included (look in the thoughts on sets section for details)
PS: Let's also discuss: Primeval Bounty
Your comment: "This card is good if you have Sigarda on the field, but this doesn’t synergize with flickerform as Sigarda will lose her counters, still worth considering though, as it powers Sigarda really fast."
I understand some people will see this as a win-more card, but it also allows us to 'rebuild.'
I personally don't like it because on its own it is a dead draw and it costs quite a bit to cast... Their are just better things you can do at that cost and card slot IMO. A card that I have been running to great effect in this deck (due in large part to the tiny enchantress creatures) has been Sublime Archangel. Strongly recommend that guy!
I get your point, but Bribery plays an important role. It keeps people honest with their creature selection. I personally love to try an punish people who play Eldrazi (don't run any myself) almost as much as I enjoy punishing people for playing Karoo lands. If an early Eldrazi gets answered...oh well, I lost a card for a shot at essentially taking a person out of the game with his own card. The value from making a person use up a board wipe or targeted removal is more than worth the trade-off. Also, you forgot Elesh Norn for a little late game love/value with white there can't even count the times that has happened...
Dear lord. Not sure why nobody has said anything yet, but Master of the Feast looks like a pretty solid addition to my Nekusar deck I dare say!! Sure I will take an under-costed fatty with no drawback. Deal Wizards!
Well, now that Primordial is banned Karametra, God of Harvests looks a little more interesting in that spot... or Woodfall Primus. I guess I have to decide whether I liked the ramp or the non-creature permanent destruction in that slot.
As always I like popping in to see your postings on the new set. I personally was underwhelmed with this set in regards to this deck. The new gods have potential to be sure, but I really think they are limited in what they provide this deck. Admittedly I am slightly interested in Ephara, but you still need to cast a creature to gain any useful draw effect and even then it is just a cantrip. I just don't see her effect as being big enough to justify the place. For Karametra you can only grab Forest and Plains cards...sure duals count, but how many duals are we all running here? I get the same effect from playing my Primordial. In fact there have been quite a few games where I have actually managed to run out of lands to get. Sure the acceleration is nice, but I still prefer sad robot as he gets basic islands, gets them a whole turn faster, draws you a card when he dies, is Reveillark-able, and can actually block the turn he drops. You are a bolder man than I. I just can't make that change.
The new Underworld Dreams just made me so much happier with this set. So far god cards=meh; however, some bat crazy old hag that hates all the youngsters on her front lawn drawing cards=TWO THUMBS UP!! Nekusar will love this little addition!
I have to admit... Bane of Progress certainly earns it's name. Gotta give Wizards that much credit.
Honestly, my problem with the card is that it is so gratuitous in its hatred of certain archetypes that it is almost painful. I mean... My Kemba Equipment deck is pretty much hosed by this one card. The only things that survive are the Kaldra pieces (assuming I have the indestructible Sheild out) and Darksteel Plate. Yes, I can find ways of dealing with it, but all I wanted to do was play with equipment cards and make cat tokens in my mono-white deck. Now I have to deal with some jerk blowing me out. Lol, my friends Saffi deck will be sure to do so repeatedly. I guess I should just lube up now...cause man that will be painful. I will not even delve into how much this hurts my G/W Enchantress deck...or the fact that we just got to a set with a ton of cool enchantments that outside of the God cards all die to this monster, Sigh.
But the fact is it will never be banned or ban worthy in this format. Wizards had just enough sense to make sure it hit every artifact and enchantment on the board. While some decks, like my friends Saffi deck, that almost exclusively rely on spell and creature based ramp will be unaffected and thus be able to use the card to it's fullest...others will have to weigh whether it is worth potentially hurting their board position to run this guy. I know I have a ETB Jenara deck that this will not see play in simply because I run too many enchantments and artifacts that this guy will pop. The saving grace of this design is that it has perhaps too much hate.
Still, I really hate inelegant cards like this. Cards that attempt to stifle creativity. Which is a lot of what draws me to EDH.
I don't like it. If they just have it flash it would have been a unique general, or even making it a sorcery speed activation, but the way it's written it completely ignores the general tax and I see it being yet another UB combo general.
I am not sure if you realize it does not need flash... I do note you said that part about it not being sorcery speed activation though. Maybe I am just missing the point.
Anyway, I have a Bant Blink deck that currently runs Jenara and I am personally not all that excited about this card. The effect just seems too small to me to be of any use. Yay, I get to tap down an opponents dude or untap some random card in my deck? I guess If I had a Cradle in my deck I would be much more excited then I currently am. the most useful part of the card is that second ability, and I would like to have seen that on a more imposing creature. Besides, I prefer Jenara's ability to turn into a beat stick if I need her too. Just underwhelmed...
Woah, been here since '07 myself and this is out of nowhere! I certainly hope we can continue in some form... I have come to rely on this site as my main MTG website. Also I am still curious about why? Magic was still doing pretty well by all measures. Suggesting they could not justify the expense implies that the site itself was not doing well despite the popularity of the game writ large. That is something considering this website is one of the bigger sites for non-retailer related magic content.
I suppose, but the idea that this may not be a big deal does not change the fact that this change makes no sense. Nor does it change that fact that their explanations are actually legitimately questionable. I admit, I was not a fan of the banned list rules change, but that was more of a cosmetic disagreement. This time my disagreement is more fundamental.
This! I really just don't get this change. Changes like this are making it clear to me that there are some meta's that would shock the RC to see the strength of certain decks. Checks and balances are an important part of a properly balanced format. This attempt to make the game more "fun" for more table top style meta's really just makes no sense when balanced against what this format has become. Their explanations make even less sense. I think they are out of their depth and over thought a rather simple problem.
Well, anyway, my playgroup has decided to test the change out, but there is a good chance we will ignore this rule change for the simple fact it unbalances the local meta. After all, the RC themselves has in fact admitted on more than one occasion they have no real power...only the power people and playgroups choose to invest in them. The only shame is that I fear what the effects of rules stratification will do to the format as a whole.
I am not sure I understand the outrage here? Sure, it goes against what has been known about the Elder Dragons till now, but I never saw anywhere, except for some "prerevisionist lore" according to the Wiki article, that it was 100% set in stone that the survivors we knew were the only ones. The term "prerevisionist" suggests to me that the cannon would then follow whatever came directly from Wizards and not this other party.
As for the Ugin being a counter to Bolas. I guess that could be the case, but part of me feels like that is a little too cheesy. Also, Bolas did kill him once so I would still say Bolas is the more powerful of the two.
It is good to see members of the rules committee being interested in the community discourse on this. I echo the disappointment that this had to get nasty/testy. At the end of the day it is still just a card game. You can dislike a rules change, but there is never a need to be uncivil when discussing it.
Admittedly, I have not been a part of this discussion, and am far too lazy to go back however many pages of angst-ridden comments to find out if it has been mentioned. Did the RC take into account the difference in power levels between when a card is in the command zone vs. when a card is in the 99? I mean, I understand the banned list simplification idea in principle and it is a nice thought, but it really does not address the fundamental issue that most (including myself) have with these cards being banned; that these cards (Braids & Rofellos) as part of the 99 can be/are strong, but are not immediately ban-worthy. There needs to be more reasoning to it than just the simplification of a banned list for me to comprehend why a card is banned.
At the end of the day I will work within the rules as presented, but this is my problem with these latest bannings.
I feel the need to point out that it is not supposed to be Japanese flavored...though maybe it was not your intention for it to read that way. It is Central Asian/Mongolian flavored with a bit of dragon lore tossed in to help the story.
But I really hope they are not trying to make "a good Bolas". Bolas is the bad guy who is supposed to be unstoppable; thereby making him a challenge for the "good guys", whoever they end up being, to overcome in the overall story between the blocks. Making a character to counterbalance that would make the whole story super pointless to me. Granted Bolas did defeat Ugin once per the story, but I'd also never put it past wizards to dumb down a good thing.
I personally don't like it because on its own it is a dead draw and it costs quite a bit to cast... Their are just better things you can do at that cost and card slot IMO. A card that I have been running to great effect in this deck (due in large part to the tiny enchantress creatures) has been Sublime Archangel. Strongly recommend that guy!
Honestly, my problem with the card is that it is so gratuitous in its hatred of certain archetypes that it is almost painful. I mean... My Kemba Equipment deck is pretty much hosed by this one card. The only things that survive are the Kaldra pieces (assuming I have the indestructible Sheild out) and Darksteel Plate. Yes, I can find ways of dealing with it, but all I wanted to do was play with equipment cards and make cat tokens in my mono-white deck. Now I have to deal with some jerk blowing me out. Lol, my friends Saffi deck will be sure to do so repeatedly. I guess I should just lube up now...cause man that will be painful. I will not even delve into how much this hurts my G/W Enchantress deck...or the fact that we just got to a set with a ton of cool enchantments that outside of the God cards all die to this monster, Sigh.
But the fact is it will never be banned or ban worthy in this format. Wizards had just enough sense to make sure it hit every artifact and enchantment on the board. While some decks, like my friends Saffi deck, that almost exclusively rely on spell and creature based ramp will be unaffected and thus be able to use the card to it's fullest...others will have to weigh whether it is worth potentially hurting their board position to run this guy. I know I have a ETB Jenara deck that this will not see play in simply because I run too many enchantments and artifacts that this guy will pop. The saving grace of this design is that it has perhaps too much hate.
Still, I really hate inelegant cards like this. Cards that attempt to stifle creativity. Which is a lot of what draws me to EDH.
I am not sure if you realize it does not need flash... I do note you said that part about it not being sorcery speed activation though. Maybe I am just missing the point.
Anyway, I have a Bant Blink deck that currently runs Jenara and I am personally not all that excited about this card. The effect just seems too small to me to be of any use. Yay, I get to tap down an opponents dude or untap some random card in my deck? I guess If I had a Cradle in my deck I would be much more excited then I currently am. the most useful part of the card is that second ability, and I would like to have seen that on a more imposing creature. Besides, I prefer Jenara's ability to turn into a beat stick if I need her too. Just underwhelmed...