MTG Salvation

Quote from ChariSays »

So you're saying that there was in fact at least one conspiracy discussed here? Hmmmm

I'm saying that using the unrealistic theory of MTGS' resident conspiracy theorist (no offense, CSJ, but you did once claim that we need to get more concerned about EMPs) isn't solid ground to build much of an argument. Much ado about nothing, as I said.

I don't think all of the other posters here are doing that. I do believe that there is a vocal minority of the community that tends towards that, though.

If you say so, I don't really see it. If anything, you and Cranky seems to be the vocal minority behaving in tiresome ways. I'm honestly unsure what you're hoping to achieve here, it just seems like you're trolling at this point.

Quote from ChariSays »

I mean, the page before this one (page 10) has multiple posts accusing WotC of bribing the RC but hey, I guess it isn't a conspiracy when it validates you.

It was a couple posts from a regular poster with a history of unsubstantiated and we'll say dubious theories, a post or two explaining why that was unlikely, and one saying that the RC could theoretically profit from the corporation in other ways if such a thing were going on. Much ado about nothing, my dude. You're just making it into a bigger thing than it is because it validates your position.

The entitled people are the ones making claims that they deserve easy and i.mediate access in the form they want it, and are used to it, to whichever cards they want. They they are entitled to decide what is and isn't magic. That they know how Magic is supposed to be enjoyed,and that others shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it that way.

That's what you think other posters here are doing?

Quote from Cranky »

While that would be dreamy, it would be suicide for WotC. My friends and I are discussing this in group chat, and we've all realized that Magic is in contention for the most toxic playerbase in gaming. And we say that knowing Smash has a pedophile problem and 40k has a Nazi problem.

Really? Really?

I know that's likely hyperbole, but I think it reveals more about you and your friends than it does the toxicity of the MTG playerbase.

Quote from bobthefunny »

I joined this site to discuss Magic. I joined it to discuss Commander. I joined the moderator team to help improve the goals of facilitating that kind of discussion. For the last THREE MONTHS, 95% of my interaction and duties on this site have been entirely non-magic related. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this. Everywhere else, I seem to be able to find people who are able to hold a conversation on a topic without needing to proselytize. Conversations in which if a person says "Hey, I don't want to hold this discussion here, can we let it drop," the other person respects it. Or even following simple rules and requests for use of a facility or services. When the people who collect the garbage in my neighborhood arrive in the early morning with their trucks, no one seems to need to quiz them about their political allegiance.

Careful, your slip is showing.

I'm willing to bet that you don't go to a Walmart, or a Target, or even a McDonald's to shout at people about your views on this.

Well, no, and that's a bit of a strawman. I don't do that, I doubt anyone here does. Speaking for myself, however, when I'm in a public space (like a forum) and I witness ignorant comments or bigoted behavior I will (if safe) say something. And, in my experience, the reverse is also true and I've been in public and have had bigoted things said to me (usually for being ~*~TOO GAY~*~ but sometimes for other social justice/progressive statements). Being in public and never experiencing socio-political issues in everyday places is completely foreign to me.

The point I'm trying to make, though, is that the behavior I'm describing, people in public spaces responding to socio-political cues from others, is exactly what was transpiring on the forums. And it's probably going to keep happening because humans have opinions and there will always be organic moments when those opinions are shared in public.

* * *

For me, though, I'm going to take your advice and I'm going to go. I'll probably lurk and hibernate, see if the site changes again, but this clearly isn't the place for me anymore.

Quote from Banned1 »

I'm going to direct this one at bob, for obvious reasons (apart from the fact that this is his thread):

Is there a way that we can connect or converse more directly with the site owners? I would like to know why your site admins seem to think it's okay to casually use the word 'lynch' in the current political climate. See this post: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/mafia/817898-voldemorts-throne-room-mafia-game-over-town-win?comment=4901

Given that lynch is a word with very heavy racial overtones, and that we're currently suffering from societal issues around extrajudicial killings, it doesn't strike me that this is acceptable discourse. Perhaps there is some context that I'm unaware of; it doesn't matter. This was discovered by way of a site admin's profile and viewing their most recent posts, and if there's something buried in that thread to explain it, I don't see how any casual observer would bother to sift through ~5,000 posts for an explanation. I wouldn't hesitate to report a random poster for using such language, I certainly don't see how the site owners can lay claim to promoting a 'neutral' atmosphere here at MTGS when even their own admins exercise poor judgment in conversation.

Given the discourse that has already transpired in this very thread (for whatever that's worth), it would only serve to validate the impression that MTGS has an alt-right bias if shadowlancerx were allowed to maintain their current level of power and authority. I respectfully urge that the wolf be removed from the sheep. Thank you.

For what it's worth, a 'lynch' in mafia-style games refers to the elimination of a player based on group vote. It's literally a game term for mob 'violence', and it's been used on these forums as long as I've been around on the site (likely back to the 'News days).

Though, for the sake of fairness, I know some mafia communities are moving away from that term for obvious reasons.

Depends on your playgroup, I think.

Mine is really wholesome and not so doggedly competitive so there's a feeling of enjoying seeing other players' decks do their thing, so to speak. That, plus we're all largely budget players, means that we can all get away with more synergistic cards that may not provide the best utility for the cost. And we can get away with decks that aren't as finely tuned so there's less stress about utility.

I'm a bigger fan of being on theme, but I'm also not competitive at all and get more enjoyment out of doing fun things than actually winning. And one of our players has the most fun slowing games down and helping underdogs win (or at least not lose). So my situation is a bit different.

At the end of the day, though, the game supports an array of approaches. I say do you, have fun, and don't worry about what's most ideal or 'right'.

Quote from Dontrike »

I pretty much only buy singles (minus some packs and a bundle of a set), skip collectors/VIP boosters, Masters sets, and Secret Lairs and it's getting me bogged down.

Same. The only sealed products I buy are Commander decks and the odd booster box when I want to treat my staff to a draft night, and I feel ver (as you put it) bogged down.

I maintain 12-15 EDH decks at any time and I usually build one or two new decks when a set releases depending on set themes and interesting/affordable commanders (along with, of course, rebuilding/refining existing decks to include new cards). And I haven't built a new deck since Commander 2019 and there are a ton of interesting commanders and themes that I probably just won't catch up on when in prior years, I likely would have.

That's not entirely on WotC, part of it is the pandemic and part of it was my work situation in the months before the pandemic. And I'm not sharing that for the sake of being negative on the internet (:rollout:), it's just the reality of the situation for me at the moment. The perceived barrage of new products makes catching up feel more overwhelming and expensive, and decreases my desire to do so.

Earlier this year when they announced Jumpstart was being pushed back a bit I sat there and though "What's Jumpstart" because there were so many products that I couldn't keep them straight. Considering how rare the packs are, I've only been able to acquire two of them, I practically forget the set even exists still thanks to the printing so far behind.

Hahaha, same.

Sage could easily be a 2/2 at that price. Even 2/3 or 3/1 wouldn't be out of the question. At 1GW, it can be 2/1 as it's a 'worse' Reclamation Sage where the ability to play it as a dual instead justifies it.

It's a worthwhile exploration of MDFCs. I like that it's a dual to fix you if you didn't draw into one of your colors, and it's a decent spell if you're good on mana. It's also a really neat way of bolstering a multicolor set's number of multicolor cards while also providing the manabase decks in Limited require in that environment.

I think the spell side can be generally useful spells, if potentially somewhat limited or situational. In this instance, with the spell being multicolor and not hybrid, I think it's costed fairly as it's technically more difficult to cast than Disenchant or Naturalize. If it were hybrid, it'd have to go up in cost or maybe be slowed to sorcery speed?

In terms of aggressive costing generally, I think MDFCs do require the spell side be less efficient as a trade-off for the added flexibility. I think making things sorceries rather than instants can help reduce how much more expensive the cost can be. Ditto with increased color requirements (where applicable), though your mileage may vary as monocolored spells with higher color needs aren't always a major drawback or balance dial. I think if the spell is much more narrow in effect, it can probably be more in line with how it'd be costed if it were not an MDFC, with mind still paid to the flexibility inherent in MDFCs.

Quote from SpeedGrapher »

Magic has been super dead for me. While I'm still excited to look at new cards I'm not playing very much. They seriously need to cool it with the product release or re-organize the product releases in a way that makes sense.

Legit, I still haven't played anything from Ikoria yet, and barely played with Theros before lockdown. Obviously WotC couldn't have planned for a pandemic, and as a business they're not inclined to slow down a product release schedule, I'm just getting to the point where I just may not catch up. I likely won't see my playgroup until the new year at the earliest (we have immuno-compromised people in the group, and several of us work with youth/in schools/with the unhoused so there's some concerns around risk) and everyone in the group is on the same page. Still excited for the new cards, but between lack of play and reduced luxury spending budgets I don't see anyone in my group buying a lot of the 2020 products anytime soon. By the time I figure we'll be playing again, I'll have Ikoria through to (probably) the D&D set to catch up on, that's 10+ product releases which is an overwhelming number. I don't know how I'll be able to do much beyond get singles to slot into existing decks, it'd be too much to try to build a bunch of new decks around new commanders/themes from almost a dozen releases.

I don't know what to say about it. I'm excited for new cards, but that's tempered somewhat by a lack of play to warrant buying them and a lack of cash to actually buy them with. Who knows, maybe by the time I can justify catching up on all the sets I missed, the single prices will be really down and I'll have more disposable income.

Quote from bobthefunny »

The very idea that black "cant be racist" is mind boggling naive.

That is boggling, and naive, yes. Anyone can be racist.

That depends entirely on the framework you're looking at, the colloquial usage or the social sciences usage. Colloquially, of course anyone can be racist in the sense that anyone of any race can hold race-based prejudices that cause them to see other races as less than and/or their own race as greater than, or otherwise infers inequality on an individual level. That's the typical definition you get when you google racism, and it is entirely true on an individual level.

I think the problem here is that many engaged in this conversation are, because the topic is on a society-wide issue, talking about systemic/institutionalized racism, which is a whole different beast. Unequal practices built into organizations or institutional systems that disproportionately benefit or disadvantage particular racial groups is really what we're talking about here, not racism on an individual level. Within a white supremacist society/system, nonwhite people and groups are going to lack or be denied institutional power, and without significant power on a systemic level, those people/groups are unable to wield systemic racism, even if they may be racially prejudiced on an individual level. So when people say "black people can't be racist," what they're really saying is "black people are denied systemic power and therefore cannot create systems that meaningfully create/sustain black supremacy." Black people can certainly be prejudiced, they just don't have the power to control the very systems oppressing them (which was the point of those systems in the first place). Is that more complicated? Yes. Can it be hard to parse through someone's words to understand what they mean when they talk about racism? Sure. Are the distinctions between the two uses of the word vital to talking about the issue of systemic racism and unjust policing? Absolutely.

Systemic racism and individual racism are certainly connected, they feed and reinforce one another, and dismantling one requires dismantling the other. They just serve distinct functions within society and their complex interactions are a significant reason why these conversations are challenging.

** As an aside, I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about whether racial minorities can create pockets within the larger white supremacist society that involve racially prejudiced systems, but that's a conversation not best served by having it amongst (presumably, and pardon to anyone this does not apply to) white people. At a time where systemic racism is causing untold suffering and taking lives. I think there's an intriguing academic discussion there, it would only serve as a distraction in the current climate/discussion, though.

Quote from Silent Wind »

Dude, I wish wizards had someone like you developing the sets. If any of your ideas were implemented it would have been a lot more fun to play this mechanic

Thank you, though it would appear WotC has their reasons for choosing a different path. Maybe next year.

Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »

I just find it very unfortunate that a lot of the in-tribe synergy cards didn't pull double duty for party and so ended up eating a lot of space in the set for minimal (!) benefit. The next installments are likely to incorporate some of the innovations you have in mind though I suspect it will always be inherently conservative.

Having a board state with four different creature types is not quite magical Christmas land but it's on the verge of that. Meh.

In the early days of spoiler season, I expected we'd get an answer to the question "Why play this mechanic if it expects you to keep four creatures of different tribes (and in some cases, colors) alive?" I don't think we ever got the reason. As you said, the mechanic was designed to be conservative, which is probably easier to balance, but I don't think for a mechanic that's more fun or worth building around.

I agree with you that they may expand on party down the line, even if it'll probably still be conservative.

Quote from ShiroeTheEnchanter »

I strongly feel that the biggest obstacle to card design is that Wizards designs sets for drafting. Because they have to design cards for drafting, certain ideas just don't work, don't scale, or require too many card slots. Your ideas would be great if they designed a non-drafting set or small supplement.

I agree with you, though I don't think pushing some of the scaling effects over to "if you have two or more creatures in your party" would make the set too challenging for draft. The mechanic really needed something to fill out the early/midgame. Thinking about building around party, my biggest reservation is that a lot of the more playable party cards still demand a full party for optimal use, do I just hold them while I'm waiting for another Cleric to cast? That's somewhat facetious.

Quote from SilvosRogueElemental »

I fully agree. Party being so completely binary means there is no early or even mid-game advantage to running a Party deck, but at the same time there’s no real late-game advantage either because having a full party doesn’t really ever pay off. It’s just a completely failed attempt and it’s baffling to me that it was allowed to proceed this way.

I don't know that it's completely failed, though I certainly don't see it as a success. I'm interested to see if players are able to build something fun and playable, and how.

Quote from lookingupanddown »

They did this for Shadowmoor and Eventide, and it was so mentally taxing they lowered complexity in common forever.

Really? It was the cycle of Duos, the auras of the demigods, and the scarecrows at common that cared about how deep you were in a color pair, was that what was considered mentally taxing? Those sets also had cards that cared about their own colors, not unlike Zendikar Rising having cards that cared about their own tribe/tribal theme, so I'm guessing you meant WotC considered the cross-color interactions too complex?

Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »

I think Linvala really made a strong impression for me that the mechanic wasn't understood to need potent payoffs. There are some good full party payoff effects but I can't help but wonder what could have been with different mechanics.

Part of the issue could be addressed if they just adjusted the level of complexity they'd allow. Like the aforementioned Expedition Healer. If it were something like:
~ has lifelink as long as you control another Cleric, first strike as long as you control a Rogue, vigilance as long as you control a Warrior, protection from non creature spells as long as you control a Wizard. Then you'd get a little bit for Cleric redundancy but also jives with full party.

I think a part of it is the limitations of the way they do batching mechanics, your party isn't chosen/static and all the mechanics do is check if things fit basic criteria. What I mean is, the way party was designed doesn't allow for things like "When a creature joins your party" "When ~ dies, if it was a member of your party, " or "Members of your party have lifelink." They were limited to counting roles filled, but even that could have been explored in more dynamic ways than basic scaling with some bonuses for a full party.

Caring if your party has other members ("If your party has two or more creatures in it, ") or more interesting cross-class encouragement ("Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn. if it's a Warrior, it gains lifelink until end of turn." on a Cleric or "When ~ attacks, it gains flying until end of turn if you control a Wizard." on a Rogue) may have helped. As it stands, party is quite a binary mechanic, you either want full party to maximize everything or you don't want it at all. I respect that WotC was pushing for that (much the same way Domain was intended to be maximized and encouraged five color play and didn't bother with half steps), I just think it made for a less dynamic, less interesting mechanic.

I think the flavor was well-received, so hopefully they bring party back and expand on how it is explored.

Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »

Does anyone actually like party? I mean, to actually play with versus the general flavor concept. I feel like there's fairly broad consensus that it's the mechanic that sunk the set, which does not bode well for the D&D set if we have even more of this.

Maybe? I think there's some potential in a WUB build as that trio has some of the better party payoff cards and have a really flush history in the four tribes with really good potential candidates to expand the party with creatures that you both want to play, contribute to a bigger gameplan, and/or protect the party. I think it'd still be pretty casual, and I don't see it making a big splash outside of Limited and constructed formats more focused on fun than fine-tuned competition.

The colors struggle a bit for Warriors that measure up, but a handful may have potential.
Mindblade Render
Mardu Strike Leader
Species Specialist
God-Eternal Oketra
Butcher of Malakir
Solemn Recruit

Once you get into the other tribes, though, things get wonderful. Wizards has Commander stalwarts like Sen Triplets, Azami, Teferi, Venser, Snapcaster. Not to mention more workhorse cards like Exclusion Mage, Vedalken AEthermage, Glen Elendra Archmage, Wizard's Retort, Archaeomancer, Deadeye Navigator. Clerics has Ravos, Ayli, new Mangara, Bishop of Rebirth, Selfless Spirit, Containment Priest. Rogues get Sygg, Oona, Invisible Stalker, Rankle, True-Name Nemesis, Zulaport Cutthroat, Notorious Throng, Gwafa Hazid, Brazen Borrower. These three tribes are deep in these colors, so there's a lot to pick from depending on your playstyle, deck concept, and meta.

Am I overly invested in building around party? No, not really, but if I were, I'd probably run Tazri as a commander focusing only on WUB. I think the biggest hurdles party decks face are consistently getting a full party and keeping that party on the board. WUB likely has the best tools to assemble a party and keep it around, and they have a few party payoffs that are worth it. The red and green party payoffs just aren't worth it.

The story of Nahiri, the ancient Kor, and her plans to restore peace is really reminiscent of the main antagonist of the Dragon Age series as of Inquisition. It's pretty much the same story.

Ancient powerful character from an empire that fell (leading to its people struggling) regrets not using their power to save their people, decides to address their regret by taking steps to bring peace through restoring their old empire (or parts of it), even if that'll hurt everyone else. Certainly there's nuances between the stories, but at their core (heh), they're quite similar.