So, they print a card for sutured ghoul decks. Weird.
Lord of Extinction just does that job better. He really made Sutured Ghoul a lot more viable if not for the fact that those decks are just obsoleted by dredge for the most part (or neutered by ban lists)
No one can even find the freaking Broodmate Dragon. They should release more of those instead of moving onto another card that's not any good.
Seconded. I did not know that the Broodmate existed until it was mentioned in this thread, and I have the other two for my cube. Would love a Broodmate.
For those who have been trying to deduce which card was Convertible Turtle, I have to 'fess up: The card didn't actually make it into the set. But have no fear turtle lovers, the card will be coming out in Worldwake.
I think it was one of MaRo's articles, and he gave an example (which I can't quickly find) of a tourney-rampant deck that their design and development crew never built because they never thought of all the possible interactions.
This isn't the one you're thinking of, but Long was absolutely convinced that all the pieces for ProsBloom were deliberately scattered through Mirage and Visions to be discovered.
Are we talking about the same Future Sight? The one that was, pre-M10, the only set with positive EV for cracking a box?
The one with Pact of Negation, Slaughter Pact, Summoner's Pact, Korlash, Bridge from Below (added the same time as Goyf, so if it counts for your argument), Epochrasite, a whole cycle of duals (four of which were even good!), Coalition Relic, Glittering Wish, Magus of the Moon, Pyromancer's Swath, Venser, Take Possession, and Sliver Legion?
Mind you, the rest of the rares contained some reeeeeal stinkers. And not all of those held value at the same time. But Future Sight? Really?
For crying out loud how many times is this lame argument going to be repeated? Type 2 playable cards are nearly all playable in draft! There is no need for special poor "draft" cards when normal type 2 viable cards work fine in draft.
Are you trying to say that all commons should be at the power level of Putrid Leech, which is playable in Type 2?
How would you have changed the "red hill giant" slot to make it Type 2 playable?
What impact would that have upon M10 being intended to be the most simple set available, as the current core set?
I think Wizards made several mistakes with M10, but the mistakes I think they made are apparently not the ones you think they made. It's funny how we can hold similar positions and yet see everything so differently, and certainly a good sign for WotC that different consumers see their mistakes differently - as that relegates it to different points of view liking different things, rather than obvious and glaring flaws with M10... of which there were, at most, one, and it was supply side.
Khalni Gem? You couldn't pay me enough to run it. Your deck is more than good enough that you don't want random screwjob losses to getting Sanctified or Shambled or Roiled there, even if it does turn on your Lynxes.
The only issue I see with an aggressive ban list is that certain cards are simply good cards but when added to the mechanics of a specific block throw the power level way off the charts. If the idea is to keep a relatively open playing field (ie everything but Kamigawa) then they'd probably have to have a ridiculous amount of banned cards or a relative ban list where certain cards would only be banned depending on your pick of blocks + standard.
Admittedly, their combined record was 3-3, but Erwin and Menendian both picked Kamigawa at the '07 Invitational.
I'm not even taking sides on this at this stage of the game. Notwithstanding what I actually think--I do have an opinion, stated in this thread which most of you didn't read--the evidence that this isn't occurring is scraping the bottom of the logic barrel. Not a single one in 250 packs? That makes a lot of sense except for the fact it could be 1 in 251. Or 1 in 10,000...
oh god your point is so good and those last two sentences are so far against how probability actually works that it hurts
Don't mind Mage of Mists. I think this went right over his head.
As for the article itself, I'd say it rings true. Well written and good message.
Well ****, I guess it went right over mine too. From my perspective, this article was written for the sake of being written. I applaud the writer for putting effort in, as it's far more than I ever do, but I don't see the relevance of this article to, well, anything. Perhaps I just read it wrong. That seems far more likely than "this article is just fluff with no substance".
edit: 'nathed!
I'm pumped for Raise the Alarming people out with Allies. So happy with that one.
The one with Pact of Negation, Slaughter Pact, Summoner's Pact, Korlash, Bridge from Below (added the same time as Goyf, so if it counts for your argument), Epochrasite, a whole cycle of duals (four of which were even good!), Coalition Relic, Glittering Wish, Magus of the Moon, Pyromancer's Swath, Venser, Take Possession, and Sliver Legion?
Mind you, the rest of the rares contained some reeeeeal stinkers. And not all of those held value at the same time. But Future Sight? Really?
How would you have changed the "red hill giant" slot to make it Type 2 playable?
What impact would that have upon M10 being intended to be the most simple set available, as the current core set?
I think Wizards made several mistakes with M10, but the mistakes I think they made are apparently not the ones you think they made. It's funny how we can hold similar positions and yet see everything so differently, and certainly a good sign for WotC that different consumers see their mistakes differently - as that relegates it to different points of view liking different things, rather than obvious and glaring flaws with M10... of which there were, at most, one, and it was supply side.
Admittedly, their combined record was 3-3, but Erwin and Menendian both picked Kamigawa at the '07 Invitational.
oh god your point is so good and those last two sentences are so far against how probability actually works that it hurts
Well ****, I guess it went right over mine too. From my perspective, this article was written for the sake of being written. I applaud the writer for putting effort in, as it's far more than I ever do, but I don't see the relevance of this article to, well, anything. Perhaps I just read it wrong. That seems far more likely than "this article is just fluff with no substance".