MTG Salvation

Quote from Titanium Dragon

Maybe it will be more satisfying, though And who said I don't like Magic anymore? Did I say that? No. You did.

Questionable math? It isn't questionable at all, and in fact there's a good chance the difference is more than 19%, as they seem to have slanted the power curve towards the rare/purple cards in this set. Frankly, if 50% of your cards are rares (or rarer than rares), rather than 33%, even though you get twice as many "rares" each individual rare is less likely to be valuable because each slot has less power than normal. Assuming a 25%/25%/25%/25% split of power (which is not unreasonable as an assumption) you're looking at having to open 19% more packs to get what you need. This isn't to "Collect all the cards in the set", this is "to get the card I want". There's a fundamental difference.

How did I got that number?

25% of the power in the set is in the purple slot. There are 121 cards in the purple slot. To get a particular purple card, you need to open 121 packs on average.

25% of the power in the set is in the rare slot. There are 80 cards in the rare slot. To get a particular rare card, you need to open 80 packs on average.

To make my calculation, I made the assumption that each card rarity has a mean power level per card equal to its power distribution. This is to say, if commons have 50% of the power of the set, each common is worth 50 points on average.

With a 33/33/33 distribution, you get this:

With a 25/25/25/25 distribution, you get this:

Well, here's the problem – you don't know about statistics. Yes, an individual pack is a randomized event, but on the whole you're getting 19% less. The reason for this is that, in reality, each card does not have 33 or 25 power points. In reality, that number actually more or less represents the –proportion- of good cards at that rarity. Why is this distinction important?

Because on average, in the "slots that you care about", your chances of getting a good card overall goes up slightly, but your chance of getting the right good cards goes –down-. The reason is that only 25% of the rares, or 20/80, are actually good, and 25% of the purples, or 30.25/121, are actually good. This is in contrast to the usual rares, where you had 26.67/80 good rares. Now, yes, your chances of getting a good card are .25 + .25 - .25*.25, or 43.25%, versus the normal 33% chance of getting a good rare, but… now you need to get 17% MORE 'rares" than you did before, because 50% of the set's power is in the rare slots. This is actually not beneficial for you in the long run, because though your chances of getting a "good card" are up, you need more "good cards" to –play-.

EDIT: Though, without the quotes, your chances of getting a playable card per pack are actually down, as I pointed out above. Even of cards you care about; uncommons can be annoying to find sometimes and be worth money, and now there will be fewer good uncommons (and good commons).

Quote from extarbags

Well wish me luck opening four Psi Blasts and four flying men this Saturday :/.

Quote from Yodafan

Yes, but I am also ready to answer questions to my opinion as an exchange of ideas and to debate the validity of my ideas. You, clearly, are not.



Hydro is a moderator on this site. By joining this site, I effectively signed on to the rights granted by the moderators and administrators. You did too. As such, if the site deems (within its power) that the content of my speech on the site is out of hand, they have every right to warn, suspend, or even ban me. I signed that right to them. Since an infraction has not been issued for my behavior, it is clearly within my rights on MTGS to act as I choose until my behavior becomes unacceptable to them. And since I am not, say, releasing government secrets onto the site, no higher power has the ability to deny me that right, either. Clearly, your definition of rights differs from mine.



For someone so touchy to perceived rudeness, I find this statement oddly amusing. If you find my disagreement with your ideas so offensive, feel free to ignore this discussion.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to earn myself a warning. If I am in any way mistaken about the nature of this site, please, correct me. If my behavior is out of hand, please tell me. I do not feel that it is, but clearly, tank here disagrees.

Quote from Yodafan

Well, that's what I meant. I think we both agree that blue is about where it should be on the power scale now.



But blue has flavor issues beyond that. My main problem, really, stems from the Izzet (UR) in Guildpact. By making passion a red trait, it essentially said that Blue could ONLY look to the long term, and only passively. This never sat too well with me. The fact that so many believe Urza is UR also leads me to believe that the flavor of blue is, at the very least, misunderstood. But you are right: Blue is much more than draw-go.



Than do not attempt to pass it off as an argument. Individual belief is fine, but stating your opinion as the end-all be-all of the debate throws you into the "ring."



However, the fact that over half of the "decks to beat" in our current Standard forum are blue slaps this idea in the face. Blue is balanced, if not still even slightly overpowered. The only reason you feel blue has been nerfed is that it lacks its old toys, but the new ones are keeping up the legacy quite enough. If you believe blue is the weakest color right now, or even second weakest, in standard, you are simply wrong. I'm sorry, but it's true.



None who have posted here, to the best of my knowledge, like it weak or know someone who likes it weak. Therefore, that argument is completely irrelevant. And little name calling has occurred. If you think this conversation is rude, you should check out our debate forum. And even that is actually on the higher end of respectful internet forums. If you think debate and calling an ill-justified point wrong is rude, then you are also sorely mistaken.

Also, we have EVERY right to be rude until a mod says otherwise, should we choose. Hydro did not issue a warning to anyone, so we must be within the realm of MTGS rights.

Hydro: Me likey! Thanks for the info- if that counter is UU1, I can rest easy.

Quote from Yodafan

No, but your complete lack of backup for your listed reasons suggests it, especially considering each reason you have listed has already been discussed within the past few pages.



Well, you see, when you put in your second post that the people didn't want counterspell back hated blue and wanted it nerft permenantly, it implied to me that you felt Titanium Dragon and myself hated blue and were just hating on Counterspell because of our hatred of blue, which is simply untrue. Therefore, I felt the need to correct you.

Also, your opinion of "take this too personally" clearly differs from mine. When you almost directly make a statement at or regarding me, I feel the need to respond for myself. If you think my feelings are actually hurt by the things said here, you are grossly mistaken. If you think I take this argument seriously outside of this discussion, you are even more wrong.



This relates to the above: I don't want blue to be weak. I want it to be balanced. I think it has enough counters as-is to be strong, but not nearly as overpowered as it was for ten years.

Yes, but when you so grossly misunderstand where other players are coming from, as shown with your statement that "some like it (blue) weak," it leaves needlessly hard feelings to be dug up in future interactions.

Quote from Argedracorius

The funny thing about this debate, is that I have never seen it occur in person. Today I was playing a 4 player game, I used Counterspell and nobody said it was to powerful. Although it have had something to do with the spell I was countering would have destroyed all non-token creatures. Nobody I personally know thinks Counterspell is too powerful, wonder where the idea comes from.

Quote from DasGoST

You lost me right about there. Huh?

...seriously now, it's a simple matter of strategic viability. Being a relatively new player, I didn't grow witness of season after season of Counterspell messing with people's minds. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that, by today's standards, the card is an insanely powerful tool for control decks, namely because it's incredibly efficient with your mana and, unlike most other countermagic variants, it doesn't have diminishing effectiveness throughout the game. Counterspell is a no-brainer; if it's legal and in your colors, you play it...

That said, I do think blue needs at least one reasonably costed hard-counter that's control oriented instead of tempo-oriented (like Remand and Mana Leak, which are at their best when they're delaying your opponent's plays while you go for the kill). Why? Because, as flexible as countermagic is, it has a built-in drawback in that it requires you to risk resource efficiency (leaving mana unused turn after turn). This drawback has been further evidenced by the loss of easy instant-speed card advantage spells; I think we can have either this or lesser counters, but having both at the same time seriously weakens control strategies (decisions become too hard and consequences too steep).

Hinder has so far been quite effective at the "control counter" role, and I think 3cc is the just compromise between power and tempo. I doubt we'll be seeing Counterspell back anytime soon, but I certainly hope we'll see a hard-counter variant at 1UU with no further drawbacks.

Quote from bwarren2

I am a huge fan of point-by-point analysis, so here we go. My order doesn;t reflect yours for structural reasons, so bear with me.

Starting with the identity crisis that we can agree upon, what does this mean to blue as a color? Is any other color going through an identity crisis? Let's see: snakes and beasts, check, soldiers and knights, check, goblins, barbarians and minotaur? Zombies, horrors, ghosts (potentially of councils) and such? They're all there and associated with their colors. Blue has none of this, and the "best answer" as you put it is Wizards. I don't think you looked up "guildmage" like I suggested; to spoil the big surprise for everyone, of all the guildmages ever (not jsut the ten we know and love,) three are not wizards. Three. At the point where WOTC has basically said "wizards for everybody!," they begin to look like a neutral tribe, like "human." So simply as a matter of empirical fact and agreed upon premises, blue flavor is in the can at the very least. As for the difficulty of a blue tribe not meaning something is wrong, imagine green without elves or beasts; it would be a less flavorful, less interesting color, less interesting color as a result. For those that actually care about blue, shafting the color this way seems unfair and wrong. Give us kraken, or merfolk, or birds, or homarids (Homarids FTW!) for God's sake; anything is better than nothing.

Next we look into those cards that take blue in new directions, rather than just suckily filling old roles or being overcosted (Tidespout Tyrant.) Obviously, with no real creature theme, something has to set the bar and the unique cards would be the best candidates. The basic fact is that even these new, different rares provide no real flavor or utility for blue as a color, and this kind of sucks on balance. For those people that don't like seeing their color suffer, this sucks a lot.

But how about those abilities you say define blue: stealing, bounce, countering and draw. Think of a steal card in blue that's standard legal, go. I got Confiscate, Keiga, Commandeer and the more questionable Spawnbroker. Setting aside Spawnbroker as a card that results in a net loss most of the time, we have Commandeer (blech) and two six mana cards. Two. At six mana each. Crossapply all my analysis in post #16 as to why expensive cards hardly define a color. When you think of Green, do you think of Nature's Path? I thought not.

Next comes bounce, that much loved mechanic. For the low, low price of UU, you too can have an extra turn without a target permanent in play... only to get beaten down by the one mana 2/3 (Kird Ape) from turn 1. Compare this iconic mechanic to burn, group buffing, tutoring, or ubercreatures; I think we all know what would be at the bottom of a power list there.

Finally, counter and card draw. I think there are some things we can agree are not easily splashable, such as Ghost Council of Orzhova, Utopia sprawl, Sakura Tribe Elder, Shock, Ball Lightning and all of its variants, Glorious Anthem, Isamaru, Hound of Konda, Phyrexian Arena and so on. Name the good blue cards; Oh wait, I did in post #16. Keiga, Remand, Rune Snag, Compulsive/Perilous Research... Seemingly, these cards encompass all of what's left in blue: stealing at high cost, card draw, and countermagic. Common theme: they all only need a single U. All of them, without exception. This seems to, again, leave the last few things blue open to everyone; the remaining core of blueness is communal. In addition to all the erosion of the pie we agreed on, like Ohran Viper and Glare, how could this perfect storm of color nerf NOT make blue mages protest the general slaughter of their color?

Quote from Landstalker

Dammit, 121 extra reprints, more rehashed cards with suspend. Is anything original in this set?

Quote from bwarren2

I am a huge fan of this card, for all the obvious reasons and more. Anyone can play it, but it definitely plays best for those people that are making blue their main color. Thank you, Wizards; I am pleased.

Now if we can get a counterspell variant that doesn;t counter, but removes the spell from the game suspend for 4 or somesuch...

Quote from Jerry Only

the thing is: why are the reprints purple if you treat them as normal reprints?
that doesn´t make sense!

Quote from Silverflame00

I think it will be a Homarid style card, because of his little aside about hermit crabs.