I really dislike SP's for a variety of reasons, and while I don't think it needs to be banned, I wouldn't shed any tears if it was gone.
Let's just look at everything it does. For 5GG you get a 6/8 with reach and a nature's lore plus a bramble crush for each opponent. In the case of having 1 opponent, the nature's lore and bramblecrush cost alone would be 3GGG so a single mana more and you get a 6/8 with reach, all for just one card.
Let's look at it from another perspective. Mold Shambler costs 4GG for a 3/3 body and the bramblecrush effect. For 1 more SP more than doubles the size of the body and adds an additional nature's lore effect. Keep in mind this is only in the case of one opponent.
Granted, SP is a rare so it is allowed to do more with the same amount of mana. But at the same time, it is already extremely mana efficient for what it does with only 1 opponent. Any more opponents and it's obscenely undercosted. Not to mention that creatures are often cheated out for even less mana, turning what was obscene to grotesque. I haven't even touched on the card efficiency of having all of those things packaged into one card.
This is more or less an issue with all the primordials, but it's not really an isolated case. This cycle is just another step in the all upside all the time creature push. Let's ask ourselves, would wizards print this card:
Sylvan Primordial Spell 5GG
Sorcery
Put a 6/8 avatar creature token onto the battlefield with reach.
For each opponent, destroy target noncreature permanent that player controls. For each permanent destroyed this way, search your library for a forest card and put it onto the battlefield tapped. Then shuffle your library.
I like a lot of what you have to say on here Cryo, but I've never liked this argument regarding any card. If something's cool people will play it. If something's good, it will be popular. Some people are really competitive and will shove it into every deck they own, but if it wasn't SP it would be the next bomb.
I dislike long ban lists as much as anyone, but not every bomb is created equal. SP does so much for it's cost and only 1 card. It is an answer, a threat, and ramp all at the same time. How many other cards can easily step into that role and aren't already being played?
We need cards like these in commander. We need cards that people are afraid to see drop or find annoying. The other day I used a SP to clear the board of a Sword of War and Peace that an Aurelia player that was on a rampage with, and a Venser, the Sojourner that people had forgotten about because of said sword. And you know what, I amassed a pretty crazy board state, but I didn't win that game.
But, while SP helped a lot, I could have done the same thing better with Boundless Realms, Collective Voyage, or New Frontiers. (I can't play Deadeye in RG.) The thing about these cards is that with the exception of maybe Collective Voyage, they are far less interactive or interesting.
This doesn't make any sense. None of the other three cards you mentioned can do anything close to what sylvan primordial did in the first part. Collective voyage and new frontiers both have huge drawbacks of being symmetrical and while you might be able to use the extra mana better than your opponents, there are significant risks involved in those two. Boundless realms does allow you to double your mana, which is probably more that SP ramped you at first, but that's all that it does, ramp. None of these 3 cards do anything to the board states of your opponents and none of them present a 6/8 with reach that you can attack or block with.
I think Primeval Titan kind of set a precedent, whether good or bad, that if something was annoying enough it is bannable. However, I don't think SP disrupts board state anywhere near to what Primeval Titan was capable of. When people start holding on to Counter Spells all game for SP and not Deadeye, Omniscience, Tooth and Nail, or the dozens of other more threatening bombs/combo cards in magic then maybe it will be time to ban it.
PT didn't disrupt board states at all. It advanced them, greatly, over and over again. Also, I don't know about the group that you play with, but SP is a 7 for 1 in a 4 player game and that's definitely something worthy of a counterspell to me and my friends. Even better if the countersell was dissipate so we don't have to worry about it coming back.
Would you also be ok with someone threatening to take back a borrowed deck, also completely legal, if the borrower was about to attack them?
I reiterate, conceding is covered by the comprehensive rules of magic. I can quote it for you, I can provide you a link to it online, I can even email you a copy if you want. Yes it is partially there because there is no way to prevent someone that wants to leave the game from doing; however that has absolutely no relevance to the fact that it is there in black and white. Choosing to ignore those rules is no better than choosing to ignore any other rules. If you don't like these rules, then make some effort to get it changed. Wizards could very well rewrite the rules and the new ones could easily give you whatever triggers you want. But until that happens, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask everyone to play by the rules as they are written.
Now onto your ludicrous situation. Yes, it is fully legal for you to ask for your property back; however this has nothing to do with the rules of magic. Ownership in magic is solely determined by the player that brought the cards into the game. Legal ownership of those cards is irrelevant as far as the comprehensive rules are concerned. Unlike conceding, which is covered within the rules, what you're proposing is not covered in the rules.
To put it simply:
Conceding is covered in the rules and a part of the game.
Asking for your cards back is not covered in the rules and thus not a part of the game.
Your rational here is faulty though. Retaliation scooping won't make me less likely to attack you in the future. It only guarantees that since you've proven that you'll attempt to use this as a "tactic", I need to kill you first from now on before you're in a position to screw over a potential winning game state.
Because you were outplayed and you lost. Nothing you can do will allow you to win so there is no reason to do anything. When I was a kid, one of our friends would always call his mom to take him home when he was losing at a game, and he'd always flip over the board on the way out. "If you can alter the flow of the game before leaving, why not do it?" These are the same thing. You can either accept the loss and start up again, or leave and spitefully ruin someone's game-plan because they did a better job than you did. If we punish people who play well and succeed, why would anyone ever strive to be better if they will be punished for it? You have effectively made your meta stale and deprived it of improvement.
If a player loses a game because their opponent leaves, then, at the very least, it's misleading to say that player did a better job or outplayed the others. Good players are able to analyze what their opponents can do into their own game plan and win despite those actions, not because of them. Counting on opponents to win the game for you is a fragile strategy and hopefully not something that is often employed.
They prefer exploiting a weakness in the rules set then? I would love to play with these people.
Calling this a weakness in the rules is disingenuous. Wizards could very well change the rules on how to handle a player leaving the game due to concession to fit a less "douche" vision that many people here would like, but they haven't. It is odd that people will choose to fault others for playing by the rules while not faulting those that don't play by the rules.
At the end of the day this is just a game. It makes no sense that something as simple as conceding to prevent beneficial triggers or some rare cases negative triggers would cause other social ramifications. I suspect that there are other factors in play that would cause people to use the "douche" label and that conceding is merely a convenient excuse for them to apply it.
Of course if you are conceding you are no longer in the game, so you no longer have any say in the matter. If we choose to allow the game to play out as thought you did not concede what's it to you?
It's fine, just as you don't want to players that concede to prevent the attacker from gaining an advantage, I don't want to play with players that don't follow the rules. Luckily for me, the people that I play with want to win within the rules of the game and not by breaking the rules and cheating.
Conceding is covered in the rules because it inevitably comes up. People have to leave early sometimes. That doesn't justify it as a tactic.
Again, that doesn't change the fact that it's there. Until it is changed, it is what it is. Wizards could change how to handle it and to use things such as last known information, or to treat the player as if they were there and decided to take no actions, but the truth in the matter is that they didn't. So until they do, I expect anyone that I play with to follow the rules.
The bottom line is that conceding is covered within the rules. If a player concedes, then I will respect them and play the game according to those rules. I'm not going to ignore rules that I don't like simply because it would be beneficial to me. Why conceding is in the rules doesn't actually matter. Wizards could very well change how concessions are handled in the future; if and/or when that happens, then it'll be appropriate to play by the new rules.
That's because the game's mechanic way of interpreting a creature movement speed is via haste / non-haste.
Equipamenet as just 'links' between creatures and artifacts makes no sense at all. Artifacts are literally objects, what you're describing are closer to a enchantment.
The game rules prioritize gameplay over lore and other stuff. It's just natural that card's rules text are just a interpretation of the characters, spells and objects inside the game context. For example, Rakdos, Lord of Riots will certainly win a fight vs. Emmara Tedris although the cards says none kill the other. Also, it's obvious that every legend covered in a legendary card have dozen of different abilities other then the ones shown in their cards.
In other words, card's rules text are just a interpretation of the specified spell. For example, Thalia have a low cmc and p/t not to make her weaker then a village bell-ringer. It's to show that she's a women of action, she shows up as often as possible and as fast as possible whenever she's necessary, bringing awesome swordplay (2/1 first strike bear) and making the life of villains miserable.
Exactly, flavor is made to fit the game, not the other way around. So to me, for any interpretation to make sense, it must agree with how the mechanics of the game work and not the other way around. I believe that my interpretation does fit mechanically. As far as I can tell, it is the interpretation with the least amount of conflict.
I don't see "magical link", but this is on the right track, to me anyway. After all, when Grafted Wargear is removed, it rips the creature apart. I see the equip cost in general, even 0, as being the act of refitting a chunk of equipment to fit a creature. The equipment itself just rests on the ground or in a battlefield armory in its standard state (...most of the time...), shifts to fit the creature in question when an equip cost is paid, and reappears in its standard state on your side should the creature disappear. Though I will admit, the "link" theory is likely with immaterial creatures, but I have imagination enough to imagine spectral inanimate material.
I still prefer an interpretation that doesn't involve fitting the equipment to the creature if possible. To elaborate on my interpretation, I envision that paying the equip cost spends the mana to create a link between the creature and the equipment to grant whatever properties that equipment has onto the creature. With some pieces of equipment, creating that link doesn't necessarily require any mana. In the case of grafted wargear, destroying the creature comes as a result of the link being broken.
Basically I really dislike the idea of physically moving things around the battlefield since time is pretty much immaterial. A colossal whale can move across the battlefield and hit your opponent at the same time as plant.
Ah this thread again. Luckily I've reduced my stance on this to fairly short amount of text after all the previous discussions.
In the vast majority of game states, conceding mid-combat has no impact whatsoever. But in the times that it does, say perhaps Player B is attacking me for lethal and getting a sword trigger, then expect me to concede before damage happens. Barring some mitigating circumstances, since Player B is killing me, I would much rather have Player C win.
I understand that this is the minority opinion here, but I certainly don't expect my opponents to let me win the game, and if I'm killing them, then I definitely don't expect them to help me.
To me, removing tutors would make the decks fall more in line with the theory of a singleton format. You're only supposed to have one copy of a card after all, not one + however many tutors that can find that one card. Since players would have to add new cards to their decks it should noticeably increase diversity. Players would have to make a choice on what to include instead of the tutors. If they still value their combos, then they'll have to find other cards that can fulfill the same role. Generally those cards would be less efficient versions or perhaps have some additional drawbacks or hoops to jump though which would explain why they aren't currently included in decklists. Otherwise players can choose to play new and different answers or threats.
I'm pretty sure the concerns about "tuck" are extremely overstated. Unless a deck is solely built around a combo with the general, it should be able to function without the general. Still, if a deck is so dependent upon their general, then they should already be running answers to "tuck" effects. While tutors wouldn't be available in this situation, sacrifice outlets are still perfectly viable and the decks that do worry about these situations should already be running plenty of those.
While the current lore doesn't support this, it certainly would make a lot of sense if the "equipping" a creature was actually the process of creating a magical link between the equipment and the creature instead of/in addition to having the creature physically wielding the equipment. I mean, that would definitely explain how birds of paradise can use a warhamer, 3 swords, and a jitte all at once while wearing greaves and carrying a telescope.
CRAP. I just realized that I haven't had that since my wallet got stolen 6 months back. Do you think they'd let me in if I had my DCI number and some other ID?
I haven't ever heard of anyone getting turned away for not having their card. I'm pretty sure that they'll even look up your DCI number for you in case that you don't remember it.
Even this is underselling the rarity-
I live in SoCal, and would absolutely have gone to buy these,
but one does not simply walk into ComiCon.
It's an expensive event that you generally have to buy a ticket to well, well in advance.
Yeah, too many people are missing this point. No matter where you lived, even if you had unlimited money for travel expenses, it's simply not possible to legitimately obtain a badge to SDCC.
Now if wotc announced that they were going to have a convention exclusive product that would be available at all of the conventions that they attended in any given year: SDCC, GENCON, PAX, etc. I think that would've been much more palatable.
Let's just look at everything it does. For 5GG you get a 6/8 with reach and a nature's lore plus a bramble crush for each opponent. In the case of having 1 opponent, the nature's lore and bramblecrush cost alone would be 3GGG so a single mana more and you get a 6/8 with reach, all for just one card.
Let's look at it from another perspective. Mold Shambler costs 4GG for a 3/3 body and the bramblecrush effect. For 1 more SP more than doubles the size of the body and adds an additional nature's lore effect. Keep in mind this is only in the case of one opponent.
Granted, SP is a rare so it is allowed to do more with the same amount of mana. But at the same time, it is already extremely mana efficient for what it does with only 1 opponent. Any more opponents and it's obscenely undercosted. Not to mention that creatures are often cheated out for even less mana, turning what was obscene to grotesque. I haven't even touched on the card efficiency of having all of those things packaged into one card.
This is more or less an issue with all the primordials, but it's not really an isolated case. This cycle is just another step in the all upside all the time creature push. Let's ask ourselves, would wizards print this card:
Sylvan Primordial Spell 5GG
Sorcery
Put a 6/8 avatar creature token onto the battlefield with reach.
For each opponent, destroy target noncreature permanent that player controls. For each permanent destroyed this way, search your library for a forest card and put it onto the battlefield tapped. Then shuffle your library.
I dislike long ban lists as much as anyone, but not every bomb is created equal. SP does so much for it's cost and only 1 card. It is an answer, a threat, and ramp all at the same time. How many other cards can easily step into that role and aren't already being played?
This doesn't make any sense. None of the other three cards you mentioned can do anything close to what sylvan primordial did in the first part. Collective voyage and new frontiers both have huge drawbacks of being symmetrical and while you might be able to use the extra mana better than your opponents, there are significant risks involved in those two. Boundless realms does allow you to double your mana, which is probably more that SP ramped you at first, but that's all that it does, ramp. None of these 3 cards do anything to the board states of your opponents and none of them present a 6/8 with reach that you can attack or block with.
PT didn't disrupt board states at all. It advanced them, greatly, over and over again. Also, I don't know about the group that you play with, but SP is a 7 for 1 in a 4 player game and that's definitely something worthy of a counterspell to me and my friends. Even better if the countersell was dissipate so we don't have to worry about it coming back.
I reiterate, conceding is covered by the comprehensive rules of magic. I can quote it for you, I can provide you a link to it online, I can even email you a copy if you want. Yes it is partially there because there is no way to prevent someone that wants to leave the game from doing; however that has absolutely no relevance to the fact that it is there in black and white. Choosing to ignore those rules is no better than choosing to ignore any other rules. If you don't like these rules, then make some effort to get it changed. Wizards could very well rewrite the rules and the new ones could easily give you whatever triggers you want. But until that happens, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask everyone to play by the rules as they are written.
Now onto your ludicrous situation. Yes, it is fully legal for you to ask for your property back; however this has nothing to do with the rules of magic. Ownership in magic is solely determined by the player that brought the cards into the game. Legal ownership of those cards is irrelevant as far as the comprehensive rules are concerned. Unlike conceding, which is covered within the rules, what you're proposing is not covered in the rules.
To put it simply:
Conceding is covered in the rules and a part of the game.
Asking for your cards back is not covered in the rules and thus not a part of the game.
And this is not spiteful because?
If a player loses a game because their opponent leaves, then, at the very least, it's misleading to say that player did a better job or outplayed the others. Good players are able to analyze what their opponents can do into their own game plan and win despite those actions, not because of them. Counting on opponents to win the game for you is a fragile strategy and hopefully not something that is often employed.
Calling this a weakness in the rules is disingenuous. Wizards could very well change the rules on how to handle a player leaving the game due to concession to fit a less "douche" vision that many people here would like, but they haven't. It is odd that people will choose to fault others for playing by the rules while not faulting those that don't play by the rules.
At the end of the day this is just a game. It makes no sense that something as simple as conceding to prevent beneficial triggers or some rare cases negative triggers would cause other social ramifications. I suspect that there are other factors in play that would cause people to use the "douche" label and that conceding is merely a convenient excuse for them to apply it.
It's fine, just as you don't want to players that concede to prevent the attacker from gaining an advantage, I don't want to play with players that don't follow the rules. Luckily for me, the people that I play with want to win within the rules of the game and not by breaking the rules and cheating.
Again, that doesn't change the fact that it's there. Until it is changed, it is what it is. Wizards could change how to handle it and to use things such as last known information, or to treat the player as if they were there and decided to take no actions, but the truth in the matter is that they didn't. So until they do, I expect anyone that I play with to follow the rules.
Exactly, flavor is made to fit the game, not the other way around. So to me, for any interpretation to make sense, it must agree with how the mechanics of the game work and not the other way around. I believe that my interpretation does fit mechanically. As far as I can tell, it is the interpretation with the least amount of conflict.
I still prefer an interpretation that doesn't involve fitting the equipment to the creature if possible. To elaborate on my interpretation, I envision that paying the equip cost spends the mana to create a link between the creature and the equipment to grant whatever properties that equipment has onto the creature. With some pieces of equipment, creating that link doesn't necessarily require any mana. In the case of grafted wargear, destroying the creature comes as a result of the link being broken.
Basically I really dislike the idea of physically moving things around the battlefield since time is pretty much immaterial. A colossal whale can move across the battlefield and hit your opponent at the same time as plant.
In the vast majority of game states, conceding mid-combat has no impact whatsoever. But in the times that it does, say perhaps Player B is attacking me for lethal and getting a sword trigger, then expect me to concede before damage happens. Barring some mitigating circumstances, since Player B is killing me, I would much rather have Player C win.
I understand that this is the minority opinion here, but I certainly don't expect my opponents to let me win the game, and if I'm killing them, then I definitely don't expect them to help me.
I'm pretty sure the concerns about "tuck" are extremely overstated. Unless a deck is solely built around a combo with the general, it should be able to function without the general. Still, if a deck is so dependent upon their general, then they should already be running answers to "tuck" effects. While tutors wouldn't be available in this situation, sacrifice outlets are still perfectly viable and the decks that do worry about these situations should already be running plenty of those.
I haven't ever heard of anyone getting turned away for not having their card. I'm pretty sure that they'll even look up your DCI number for you in case that you don't remember it.
Yeah, too many people are missing this point. No matter where you lived, even if you had unlimited money for travel expenses, it's simply not possible to legitimately obtain a badge to SDCC.
Now if wotc announced that they were going to have a convention exclusive product that would be available at all of the conventions that they attended in any given year: SDCC, GENCON, PAX, etc. I think that would've been much more palatable.