Quote from BloodyRabbit_01 »If they summarily dismiss a card without testing or acknowledging results, yes. My issue was that there is a continuous use of "This will not work." "This is a bad card." "This is ..." Without rationale for it, primarily play testing.
If you watch Shock or, especially, Pie, something you note in your own post, they may indicate a card is something they wouldn't try or don't think will be good and provide their experience in trying it or analysis of the card based on their experience/playstyle as to why they aren't going to include it, rather than just saying "No, this will not work./end" (I don't know that I've seen an instance of them not doing this, but I haven't watched every second of footage).
I wrote it not just one, but twice. It’s fine if you missed it, you don’t have to read my words all the time, but I provided enough reasons why I think the card is no good.
@I don’t play (nor I intend to play) Talismans in the deck - we already discussed a lot about this - and Karn without Talismans isn’t that appealing for obvious reasons.
@I’m already low on artifacts (the main reason to play 3 a Thirst instead of the full set) and if we consider Karn as a CA Spell, then, I do think it’s the worse of all them, because of him being a 4cc sorcery that dies to everything.
@I jam more O-Stone effects than most of you guys, so running several planeswalkers sometimes is a nuisance.
@It improves very few matchups.
I definitely provided enough rationale, given that I always referred to my list and not to the one of someone else.
Problem is, I did read your words. As you note, your rationale was specific to the decklist you run, yet the opinion of whether to run the card in the deck was given as a universal negative for all UTron decklists. So, you need to expand your rationale for all decklists then or confine your negative response to the card to your specific decklist.