Page 4 of 55 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
14
54
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontrike View Post
    Wrong, to this day the A/B/R Duals are the best lands, therefore you can't have power creep on lands that need something else to do what they did, like have another land out, played before your 3rd land, needing to put mana into it to get 2 mana meaning it sucks as a turn one land, revealing a specific creature type, or paying 2 life.
    Definition of power creep: the AVERAGE level of power is higher. Congratulations, you look at the original duals and they are really strong, but check out other lands in the early periods? Fetchlands that enter tapped and make the land they fetch come into play tapped? Painlands that come into play tapped? Painlands that only untap every other turn?

    Are you really telling me the average level in the old days is higher than the average level now? Look at alara's tri-lands and compare them to invasion's lairs. Look at the zendikar refuges (at uncommon even) and compare them to tempest's cycle (was it tempest? I think it was... pine barrens and company). This is pure power creep. And don't get me started on the vivid lands!
    Or do you honestly think that the A/B/R duals are bad? And that doesn't even count the snow versions of them which are just as good or better depending on the cards around them.
    Average.

    Mana fixing doesn't mean better lands. It means that they finally started printing duals that don't just make allied colors. It wasn't until Ravnica that we really had enemy dual lands. Accessing those of course means you can now play more or better things.
    You should be aware that there is much more than that around, so I'm going to ignore this comment and assume you're just choosing to ignore the obvious.

    Show me lands that are power creep that their only purpose is mana.
    DONE. Check above.

    Ravnica had more than just 2-3 colors running around. 4 color control was a thing and even now when mana fixing is at it's normal we have 4 color decks with FRites and the only reason that deck is around right now is because of Birds of Paradise.
    4-color control was not only a small portion of the metagame, it also only hade 4-5 of those ravnica duals that you say changed everything. Check out the worlds of that year for example: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazin...rlds05/t8decks

    It matters because creatures were always poor in comparison to their spell counter parts. What person would play the 1/2 for 4 that gets you a basic land when you could do it for 2 with Rampant Growth or play Llanowar Elves/Birds of Paradise?
    So if creatures were always poor and now they are stronger, is it, or is it not, a case where the average power level... is higher? Power level shouldn't be measured in comparison to other card types, it should be measured in comparison to the SAME card type.

    It isn't a 3/2 100% of the time, nor is it assured it will become one on turn 2. People are mad cause blue got a good creature for once.
    Sigh, fine. Look, I give up. I'm not "people", I'm "me". It's a different concept. I'm not mad because "blue got a good creature", I'm mad at _EVERY_ _SINGLE_ _COLOR_ being stronger now than they were. And heck, I'm not even mad at that, power creep is bad but we have to deal with it. I'm mad at you continuously sidetracking the argument and coming up with things that have nothing to do with it.

    Yes it does. It shows that spells were ruling the meta that entire season.
    And why does that have anything to do with power creep? Again, metagames do not power creep define or influence. It does not matter what TYPE of card or what TYPE of deck was stronger at a certain point in time. It matters what the average power level of cards of a A CERTAIN TYPE is over the evolution of a card game. That is power creep, not relative power level of card types. We could STILL be in a world of spells > creatures and could have power creep, we could be in a world of spells > creatures with no power creep, we could be in a world of creatures > spells with power creep and we could be in a world of creatures > spells without power creep. The two concepts have, again, NO. RELATION.

    We are talking about power creep for creatures here and my examples showed that spells have been more powerful for a long time. You agreeing that Ponder, Preordain, and Brainstorm shows that spells are powerful.
    Could you PLEASE start comparing spells to spells and creatures to creatures? :| What can I do to get you to focus and keep on topic ?

    I don't know what you were playing, but Faeries were dominating the format for almost the entirety of the season. Go back and see multiple top 8 finishes in almost every tournament. It wasn't until Alara Reborn that we saw Jund starting to have any chance against them. It was either play Faeries or Jund.
    And? One deck dominating doesn't mean a format becomes unfun. Not to me, but again, fun is subjective, and we're talking about something that is not subjective: power creep. And yet, there was turbofog, doran, even whacky stuff like elementals, BR disruption, 5c control, BG elves. You had control, lock, tempo, midrange, aggro. And there was also that combo deck with time warps and stuff. All in all, it was the last rich format with a wide range of decks, but that's something for a totally different discussion. I'd rather finish the power creep first before moving on.

    You mean the 4/4 that comes down and immediately gets destroyed or chumped? Like Loxodon Smiter? Just because it comes down doesn't mean it can't be stopped.
    Again, irrelevant. Did it not happen to creatures in the old days? Did people not have removal? Look, power creep is comparing same thing to same thing over a lengthy period of time. Yes a 4/4 for 3 is better than a 3/4 for 5 if everything else is equal, even if both can be removed, even if both can be chump blocked or dealt with. It's power creep because the average new is better than the average old! It's such a simple concept man, how can I explain this to you, you keep speaking of metagames, other card types, decks, removal, strategies, symmetry, none of that has anything to do with power creep This is so frustrating!!!

    I can keep going farther back, but over the last two months he no more destroyed Legacy than any other big creature and the only decks that really used him are Reanimator as a 2-4 of or in Omni-Tell as a 2 of. Do remember to look into the numbers. I don't even look at Legacy and I knew Griselbrand wasn't as bad as you made him out to be.
    Do you think domination is the only way something can damage a format? Do you want to be explained why it is not? Are you willing to listen and learn a bit? Honestly, humbly listen and try to understand?

    Exactly, things were overcosted back then, undercosted now. POWER.CREEP.
    Which is over costed. If destroying every creature for 4 is fine than how does nine make sense for one person?
    Which means that for control you are only really blowing up their side of the field, so it, basically, means a one sided wipe.
    That is strategy, playing and deckbuilding well, it has no relevance. Please... PLEASE... At least TRY to understand that strategy does not relate to power creep. Look at braids, ok? A good example. It's a 4 cmc 2/2. It was seen in regionals and got several wins and was impactfull enough that people needed to prepare sideboard cards against it and know how to play against it. If they launched a 3 mana creature that did the same thing, it would be better even if it was unplayable in today's standard and it would be an example of power creep. Same if it was a 2/2 for 4 that only did the same to the opponent. Same if it were a 3/3 by 4. Even if all these examples were unplayable and considered crap now.

    Because, as I stated, in a control or combo deck where you use 4-8 creatures max, you will only really be blowing up their side of the field more often than not or if you do blow up something of yours it really doesn't matter.
    Yes. Yes as you stated something that is totally irrelevant and besides the point, if people build strategically sound decks things are different from people building unfocused decks. However, what does that have to do with analysing power creep: nothing. Look, I'm practically begging you. FOCUS. PLEASE! Discussing things on the internet is so aggravating. I don't want you to stop thinking like you do. Fine. I want you to, for a moment, try to understand what is the common definition of power creep. Just for a moment, think about it, and then come up with your definition, so I can at least decide whether to drop this as it is pointless or to continue cause something decent might come of this. Please.

    Having protection from one of the colors that will kill it is sure as hell a lot better than protection from dragons and demons. Not to mention Akroma would have stood a chance against the Titans and Wurmcoil. Besides lifelink you can tell that Baneslayer is Akroma's little sister with abilities like that. Plus she is part of one of my favorite Magic characters.
    Baneslayer costs 5, akroma costs 8. Baneslayer is much, much better. It impacts the game earlier, has lifelink which is stronger than most of akroma's abilities, and getting to 5 mana is much easier than getting to 8. Akroma was only seen in reanimator decks, which could circumvent that, but again, you cannot compare different things. You need to compare the same things. Compare high mana cost creatures, midgame cmc creatures and early game cmc creatures... Dont mix them up.

    You mean where he was only in, at most, 3 decks, and in, at most, the top 32 of the last 2 months of Legacy Opens
    Correct!

    where he isn't really causing any trouble?
    Irrelevant in concern to power creep, and I disagree. As I said above, will you be willing to listen to me for one minute before starting to mindlessly contradict it? If so, I'll take the time, if not, I wont. Your decision.

    I see more Maverick G/W decks than I do Griselbrand cards showing up total in the Legacy Opens. Looks like legacy players already know what to do.
    You know, this is what you're getting right, but you don't understand the implications of it. If you can see that a certain style of decks forced a metagame to change, then why is it so hard to understand that that change might make it go from a more rich metagame to a less rich one? Domination isn't the only damage that something can do to a format, shifting balance can do far more harm than a card dominating a format can.

    Story shouldn't make cards?
    It should. That was not what I said, now was there?

    How long have you been playing?
    1998.

    Yes, they take it far sometimes, but if the card doesn't match what the story has, then there is a disconnect.
    So you're (again) saying I'm right. I know. Look, that is exactly what I am saying. Sometimes they take it too far. That's what's wrong. They should never do it. Flavor and function are two different things. You mentioned akroma above, great flavor. I mentioned braids. Great flavor. None were overpowered. Jaya ballard's card? Excelent flavor, not overpowered. Hell, doran, I mentioned his deck. AWESOME flavor. Strong as heck in a vacuum, not overpowered. This is how legends/story relevant cards should be designed. It should make the story lovers drool when they see them, but that doesn't mean they should be undercosted by 1 or 2 mana, or get stuffed with abilities beyond their sense just because of it. Griselbrand is important in the story (and damn wizards for not releasing an innistrad book >_< I have most of the books and would love one for this block) but his card should, while still representative of his flavor, still be balanced.

    We also have times when cards are strong with no story like Jace 2, does that mean there is no reason at all to make a strong card, at least with a story you can see why a character has power or not, like Tibalt. Part of the reason he is so cheap, mana cost wise, and bad is because he is a baby planeswalker. No, not because of his age, but because his spark had just activated in the story and didn't know enough about this powers yet.

    Not sure what you are talking about. You seem to be the one disrespecting me for little reason.
    Staying on topic and not digressing a conversation or straying it from the point shows respect to me. The opposite then shows disrespect.

    Fact is cards are stronger, everywhere.
    Can I cry now? This means you agree that there is power creep. Everything is stronger. That's the pure definition of power creep. That is what I've been saying all along. Fact is cards are stronger, everywhere. It's not surprising, that is the easy way out in developing a game. In fact, the opposite would have been surprising. However, I very much would rather see the game without spells, creatures, enchantments, artifacts, lands growing in power over the years. Yes I would.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Snorkle View Post
    Average.
    The best lands ever printed are average? Okay.


    So if creatures were always poor and now they are stronger, is it, or is it not, a case where the average power level... is higher? Power level shouldn't be measured in comparison to other card types, it should be measured in comparison to the SAME card type.
    Except some cards are only good because of other card types, examples being Stoneforge Mystic and Delver of Secrets whom require other card types.

    Could you PLEASE start comparing spells to spells and creatures to creatures? :| What can I do to get you to focus and keep on topic ?
    I have to compare them to show you that creatures have needed to grow and evolve more than spells have to catch up. That is why I keep bringing them up, to use them as a bench mark for what creatures should be closer to.

    And? One deck dominating doesn't mean a format becomes unfun. Not to me, but again, fun is subjective, and we're talking about something that is not subjective: power creep. And yet, there was turbofog, doran, even whacky stuff like elementals, BR disruption, 5c control, BG elves. You had control, lock, tempo, midrange, aggro. And there was also that combo deck with time warps and stuff. All in all, it was the last rich format with a wide range of decks, but that's something for a totally different discussion. I'd rather finish the power creep first before moving on.
    One deck dominating is actually the reason it becomes unfun and why cards get banned. Look back to Mirrodin and why it was the first time in Standard cards were ever banned, because it was either play that deck or the deck that stops it and that is the definition of unfun. If there is only one or two decks then that is all that can be played. Wizards have stated that is the most unfun time to play in any tournament.


    Do you think domination is the only way something can damage a format? Do you want to be explained why it is not? Are you willing to listen and learn a bit? Honestly, humbly listen and try to understand?
    That isn't domination. Showing up a few times in a top 32 isn't domination, it shows it is a good card. Domination is what Mental Misstep was to Legacy and that is why it was banned so quickly, because it was ruining the format, because everyone had to play it and it was killing every aggro deck there. Griselbrand is no more dominating or damaging in Legacy than any of the other 200 cards that frequent top 32. You are making him out to be the boogie man.


    [QUOTEThat is strategy, playing and deckbuilding well, it has no relevance. Please... PLEASE... At least TRY to understand that strategy does not relate to power creep. Look at braids, ok? A good example. It's a 4 cmc 2/2. It was seen in regionals and got several wins and was impactfull enough that people needed to prepare sideboard cards against it and know how to play against it. If they launched a 3 mana creature that did the same thing, it would be better even if it was unplayable in today's standard and it would be an example of power creep. Same if it was a 2/2 for 4 that only did the same to the opponent. Same if it were a 3/3 by 4. Even if all these examples were unplayable and considered crap now.[/QUOTE]

    I am not sure why we are arguing this point. You said that wiping the opponents side of the field is 9 and I gave you a different way of viewing it. Plague Wind, your example, is a pretty bad card in every format besides EDH, because you can't reliably hit 9 mana. You are the one changing the subject here, which is something you seem to bring up quite a bit.

    Yes. Yes as you stated something that is totally irrelevant and besides the point, if people build strategically sound decks things are different from people building unfocused decks. However, what does that have to do with analysing power creep: nothing. Look, I'm practically begging you. FOCUS. PLEASE! Discussing things on the internet is so aggravating. I don't want you to stop thinking like you do. Fine. I want you to, for a moment, try to understand what is the common definition of power creep. Just for a moment, think about it, and then come up with your definition, so I can at least decide whether to drop this as it is pointless or to continue cause something decent might come of this. Please.
    And that was me discussing another point I had about trying to get you to see board wipes the way they should be seen, where their basic effect is wiping your opponents board. You are the one that brought up the power creep on that effect with Plague Wind. I am trying to get you to see that creatures have needed a power creep since the beginning of the game because of similar board wipe effects that cost so little.

    Baneslayer costs 5, akroma costs 8. Baneslayer is much, much better. It impacts the game earlier, has lifelink which is stronger than most of akroma's abilities, and getting to 5 mana is much easier than getting to 8. Akroma was only seen in reanimator decks, which could circumvent that, but again, you cannot compare different things. You need to compare the same things. Compare high mana cost creatures, midgame cmc creatures and early game cmc creatures... Dont mix them up.
    I think you were confusing my opinion about it. I am not saying Baneslayer is bad, I prefer Akroma. I would have thought the last sentence where I said I like her and the character she is a part of.

    Irrelevant in concern to power creep, and I disagree. As I said above, will you be willing to listen to me for one minute before starting to mindlessly contradict it? If so, I'll take the time, if not, I wont. Your decision.
    I give you evidence he isn't "damaging legacy" and you say it is irrelevant when you were the one that brought him "damaging legacy" up. I gave you proof that isn't the case and you say I am mindlessly contradicting it. Seems pretty mindful that I looked it up.

    You know, this is what you're getting right, but you don't understand the implications of it. If you can see that a certain style of decks forced a metagame to change, then why is it so hard to understand that that change might make it go from a more rich metagame to a less rich one? Domination isn't the only damage that something can do to a format, shifting balance can do far more harm than a card dominating a format can.
    That happens all the time with every new set with new cards in Legacy. One card makes other change. It seems pretty rich though. Let's look again at how he is ruining the diversity with the number of decks.

    Look at the last Legacy Open. There are 15 different decks in the top 16. Griselbrand showed up 2 times, in one deck in that entire top 16.

    9/2 Legacy Open. We have 14 decks in top 16.

    8/26 and we have 15 decks in top 16.

    8/12. 11 in top 16.

    8/5. 8 decks in top 16 and Griselbrand doesn't show up at all.

    I am actually showing you evidence that Griselbrand isn't damaging anything. He is showing up because he is a good card. In fact it looks like he helped two more decks actually compete in Legacy, Omni-Tell and Reanimator, which means he is making it more diverse. Seems like that would be a good thing here.

    So you're (again) saying I'm right. I know. Look, that is exactly what I am saying. Sometimes they take it too far. That's what's wrong. They should never do it. Flavor and function are two different things. You mentioned akroma above, great flavor. I mentioned braids. Great flavor. None were overpowered. Jaya ballard's card? Excelent flavor, not overpowered. Hell, doran, I mentioned his deck. AWESOME flavor. Strong as heck in a vacuum, not overpowered. This is how legends/story relevant cards should be designed. It should make the story lovers drool when they see them, but that doesn't mean they should be undercosted by 1 or 2 mana, or get stuffed with abilities beyond their sense just because of it. Griselbrand is important in the story (and damn wizards for not releasing an innistrad book >_< I have most of the books and would love one for this block) but his card should, while still representative of his flavor, still be balanced.
    He is pretty balanced. Only decks getting him out are either cheating him into play, but they do that for any good big creature, or control decks that actually can get up to 8 mana, but like any big creature should when he hits the field he should be a thread for that amount of time to get him out. It isn't like aggro is using Aether Vial to get him out, not every deck can use him and by the tournament reports I linked not everyone is. It isn't a big deal after so much time that something big and strong hits the field it has an immediate effect on the board and it isn't assured you can use his ability as soon as he lands. Any aggro deck should have you low or won by that point, which means if you can use his draw is just win more and probably wasn't necessary anyways. Any other control deck will try and counter it or kill it and, combo will also try and do similar. He really isn't that bad. For 8 mana he is pretty fair.

    Staying on topic and not digressing a conversation or straying it from the point shows respect to me. The opposite then shows disrespect.
    Is a discussion really disrespect? You have been the only one using curse words and when I show actual evidence you call me mindless. If going off topic is a disrespect then what is you belittling my intelligence by saying about disrespect? I have not done such thing. I am pretty sure I am trying to have a conversation with you, just because we don't agree and me using different examples, which you seem to think is me going off topic, although that is me using spells being powerful as a reason for power creep is off topic.

    Also my first example of people whining of power creep was Worldspine Wurm and we haven't talked about that once since then, which means we both went off topic. My first post was to show that Worldspine Wurm wasn't really power creep at all, but you seemed to have taken it really far with us having this discussion with power creep as a whole.

    Sir I believe you are the one disrespecting me.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontrike View Post
    The best lands ever printed are average? Okay.
    Noooooooooooooooo argh *hits head on wall hard *

    For effing eff sakes. THE AVERAGE POWER LEVEL. Do not look at 10 lands, look at ALL.THE.LANDS!!!! And average it... Outliers exist, averages are there to prevent outliers from screwing things up........................ Why... Why must I tell you this ?!?!?! WHY! ?!?!??!!??

    Except some cards are only good because of other card types, examples being Stoneforge Mystic and Delver of Secrets whom require other card types.
    So does mystical tutor, burning wish, etc. Evaluate them vs other spells of the same type, not different ones.
    I have to compare them to show you that creatures have needed to grow and evolve more than spells have to catch up. That is why I keep bringing them up, to use them as a bench mark for what creatures should be closer to.
    Look, I agree with you. But that has nothing to do with power creep. Yes creatures needed to get better from the old days. Yes, spells needed to get worse. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH EVERYTHING BECOMING STRONGER ?!?!? Good grief man!!!!

    One deck dominating is actually the reason it becomes unfun and why cards get banned.
    Careful, fun is subjective. Bannings are not necessarily a bad thing, and domination does not make a metagame unfun for everyone. Careful...

    Look back to Mirrodin and why it was the first time in Standard cards were ever banned
    It was not the first time, and the format was still fun to me, even though affinity was the majority of decks.

    because it was either play that deck or the deck that stops it and that is the definition of unfun.
    YOUR definition of unfun, not mine. Fun is subjective. However, what does any of this have to do with power creep?

    If there is only one or two decks then that is all that can be played. Wizards have stated that is the most unfun time to play in any tournament.
    Again, we're talking about power creep, why does any of this matteR?

    That isn't domination. Showing up a few times in a top 32 isn't domination, it shows it is a good card.
    WILL YOU PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT DOMINATION !??!?! THANK YOU ?!?!?! DO I HAVE TO USE CAPS TO EXPLAIN THAT DOMINATION IS NOT EVERYTHING? Geez dude, are you into s&m or not? why this obsession with domination?

    Griselbrand is no more dominating or damaging in Legacy than any of the other 200 cards that frequent top 32. You are making him out to be the boogie man.
    I am, yes, and if you don't want to understand why, then don't, let's shut up about it and focus on the power creep?

    I am not sure why we are arguing this point.
    I'm not sure why we are arguing either. Your own statements seem to state you agree with me that there exists power creep.

    You said that wiping the opponents side of the field is 9 and I gave you a different way of viewing it. Plague Wind, your example, is a pretty bad card in every format besides EDH, because you can't reliably hit 9 mana. You are the one changing the subject here, which is something you seem to bring up quite a bit.
    WTF? I am only, and only talking about power creep. ONLY. Just that. I am comparing old cards that do X to new cards that are similar, and proving the new ones are stronger. I haven't changed the subject even though you keep talking about strategy, domination, story, etc. I'm still only talking about power creep.

    And that was me discussing another point I had about trying to get you to see board wipes the way they should be seen, where their basic effect is wiping your opponents board.
    But you can't think that way when analyzing power creep. Yes that is the effect, but that. is not. what. the card. does! Please... What do I need to do in order for us to focus here ? If you don't want to speak about power creep then fine, we can discuss breaking symmetry, metagame fun, whatever, but this is what we are talking about now: power creep.

    You are the one that brought up the power creep on that effect with Plague Wind. I am trying to get you to see that creatures have needed a power creep since the beginning of the game because of similar board wipe effects that cost so little.
    Yes creatures needed to get a tad stronger. Or spells weaker. But not everything stronger. Just because creatures were in average poor 10-15 years ago does not mean they need to go overkill mode and make them too strong. You don't need to go from 8 to 80, there's a whole lot of space in the middle.

    I think you were confusing my opinion about it. I am not saying Baneslayer is bad, I prefer Akroma. I would have thought the last sentence where I said I like her and the character she is a part of.
    I see, then I misunderstood. But story and power creep are two issues that don't really mix...

    I give you evidence he isn't "damaging legacy" and you say it is irrelevant when you were the one that brought him "damaging legacy" up. I gave you proof that isn't the case and you say I am mindlessly contradicting it. Seems pretty mindful that I looked it up.
    And yet, it seems the opposite of mindful that I tell you that there's more than domination and you choose to ignore it over and over again.

    I am actually showing you evidence that Griselbrand isn't damaging anything. He is showing up because he is a good card. In fact it looks like he helped two more decks actually compete in Legacy, Omni-Tell and Reanimator, which means he is making it more diverse. Seems like that would be a good thing here.
    You look at decks, not deck types. That's your problem there. Combo is at a low, mid-range and tempo is a much higher slice of the metagame than it ever was, lock is almost gone, control is almost gone. Diversity isn't just in different decks. A metagame with 51 aggro decks is still crap and worse than a metagame with 10 decks where at least one is of each style.

    He is pretty balanced. Only decks getting him out are either cheating him into play, but they do that for any good big creature, or control decks that actually can get up to 8 mana
    I don't think that 2nd one exists...

    not every deck can use him and by the tournament reports I linked not everyone is.
    And as I told you that is not relevant.

    Any aggro deck should have you low or won by that point
    Not really, the metagame has slowed down a lot, long gone are the 1-5 turn games :P

    He really isn't that bad. For 8 mana he is pretty fair.
    Since he is cheated into play, 8 or 80 is irrelevant.

    Is a discussion really disrespect? You have been the only one using curse words and when I show actual evidence you call me mindless. If going off topic is a disrespect then what is you belittling my intelligence by saying about disrespect? I have not done such thing. I am pretty sure I am trying to have a conversation with you, just because we don't agree
    Agree with what? I agree with most of your offtopics. I like the story just like you do, I think cards should be iconic if they are important in the story, I know control and combo decks are most often made through breaking symmetrical effects, I know that griselbrand decks aren't dominating legacy and I agree that creatures were weak in the start of the game. But we were not talking about any of these, we were talking about power creep and all of these are off topics and drifting away from where we should be. This means that in a single discussion about a single aspect, you've brought up 7 different aspects which are not related to the aspect we were discussing. I can discuss any of those with you, but first, I'd like you not to ruin a discussion about power creep by bringing things irrelevant to it. And also, please don't assume about what I agree or not. The only things you can see we disagree is our notion of "being respectful" and "damaging a metagame". For everything else, you don't know if I agree or not.

    Also my first example of people whining of power creep was Worldspine Wurm and we haven't talked about that once since then, which means we both went off topic. My first post was to show that Worldspine Wurm wasn't really power creep at all, but you seemed to have taken it really far with us having this discussion with power creep as a whole.
    Well worldspine wurm, if I remember correctly it is that huge worm that leaves 3 wurms behind. It's not really power creep. To be frank, other than emrakul, humongous creatures don't really have such a thing as power creep, as they are either cheated into play, in which case there may be other more impressive creatures or they take too long to make an impact.

    Sir I believe you are the one disrespecting me.
    As you see, I disagree.

  4. #64
    Well I can see now that all I am going to get from you is "that is irrelevant" so I shall stop this conversation. No reason to get this thread closed.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  5. #65
    Just saw this on MTG Salvation.



    What do you guys think? Fake or not? I'm currently unsure, as it does kind of make sense in the context of the current Rakdos guild as they seem to have a lot of 6 CMC creatures, and this would help reduce their cost.

  6. #66
    If this Rakdos is real then this I like.


    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  7. #67
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    12,109
    Doubt it's fake but holy shit. That, Mercurial Chemister, Jarad. Some insanely powerful cards.

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

  8. #68
    The mana cost might make it a bit restrictive, I'm undecided. 6/6 by 4, that you can probably cast on turn 4 without a drawback and an ability. But can we build a deck around it? And if not, does it enter any current deck? We'll have to wait and see I guess.

    However, in terms of flavor, it's quite rakdos, though I expected more pain than just "losing life"

  9. #69
    Most decks right now won't be around when the rotation happens in 3 weeks so right now he is a decent Commander and where he falls is anyone's guess, he could be playable in Jund or even B/R Zombies come rotation. He would have been nice inZen/SoM to get a free Wurmcoil Engine turn 5 for Vampires though.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  10. #70
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    12,109
    Not like it's gonna be hard to get the life loss in there for the colors. Red and black specialize in it. The proof is in the card names. Rakdos' Charm, Rakdos' Return. Though with each, you're still gonna need 6+ mana to bring him out.

    Sphinx's Revelation doesn't really feel like a mythic rare. Rare, definitely, but not mythic. I can see it going in the cheap bin pretty soon.

    Also, I may have mentioned this before somewhere, but I can't help but place D&D alignments on the guilds. It doesn't really seem that hard. Boros is Lawful Good. Azorius is Lawful Neutral. Rakdos is Neutral Evil. Selesnya is either Neutral or Neutral Good, I'm still not sure of their intentions.

    Speaking of Azorius, Detain looks like it's gonna be really slow. A nice ability, I loved Kor Hookmasters in my soldier deck, but quite expensive. I guess that fits along with the old Azorius guild though, since it ran pretty slow with its creature control.
    Last edited by Pendulous; 2012-09-16 at 05:45 AM.

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

  11. #71
    Hey now, boros is anything but lawful good. They are brutish, militaristic, belligerent and outside of some exceptions, care more about themselves and the law than the common good :P

    As to azorius, "blinking" the ETB detain creatures might make some sense...

    EDIT: Sphinx's revelation seems to be to stroke of genius what supreme verdict is to wrath of god. It has a couple of things that are in it's favor, being instant, etc, but that is no longer the advantage it once was. I agree that it doesn't really feel mythic... But at the same time, this is in keeping with their policy :P of mythic rarity, the original one...
    Last edited by Snorkle; 2012-09-16 at 11:29 AM.

  12. #72
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    12,109
    More seeming callbacks, the Selesnya Keyrune turns into a Watchwolf.

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendulous View Post
    More seeming callbacks, the Selesnya Keyrune turns into a Watchwolf.
    The key runes are definitely good. 3 color decks will love them, although they do compete with the Lantern. I expect a keyrune control deck to show up one time somewhere.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  14. #74
    Over ten years ago. I still have almost full Tempest card set, shit ton of other cards and even few from Alpha/Beta sets. It was very funny game and damn my friend rolled over me with hes "sliver deck".

    Stopped collecting/playing somewhere 2000-2002..

    Looks like modern MTG has ton of stuff added.

  15. #75
    Tons of cards have been spoiled.

    I am especially liking Deathrite Shaman.


    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  16. #76
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    12,109
    Vitu Ghazi Guildmage's ability is really expensive. 6 mana for a 3/3, even repeatable, isn't worth it. Sundering Growth just makes it feel worthless.

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

  17. #77
    Hey guys, I just started back into Uni and found a group that plays magic weekly. Anyways I got a £30 voucher from amazon recently for my cakeday and decided to dump it all on magic cards.

    So wanted to know if you guys had any ideas on cool new decks/individual cards to look out for. Or perhaps some old rare cards I could add to my current decks.

    At the moment I use 3 main decks, a Sliver deck, a Merfolk/Kithkin control deck (B/W) and a G/B death and destruction deck :P, that's mostly big monsters (5x gold dragons) worked around regeneration/sacrifice mostly.

    Any ideas are welcome, thanks in advance.

  18. #78
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    12,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Immoschu View Post
    Hey guys, I just started back into Uni and found a group that plays magic weekly. Anyways I got a £30 voucher from amazon recently for my cakeday and decided to dump it all on magic cards.

    So wanted to know if you guys had any ideas on cool new decks/individual cards to look out for. Or perhaps some old rare cards I could add to my current decks.

    At the moment I use 3 main decks, a Sliver deck, a Merfolk/Kithkin control deck (B/W) and a G/B death and destruction deck :P, that's mostly big monsters (5x gold dragons) worked around regeneration/sacrifice mostly.

    Any ideas are welcome, thanks in advance.
    Wait three weeks or so and pick up a precon from the new set to be released. Been checking daily for the spoilers here http://mtgsalvation.com/return-to-ravnica-spoiler.html

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

  19. #79
    Blademaster Baradur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere under Menethil Harbor
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendulous View Post
    Vitu Ghazi Guildmage's ability is really expensive. 6 mana for a 3/3, even repeatable, isn't worth it. Sundering Growth just makes it feel worthless.
    The first ability isn't the reason to use it though, the populate for 2gw is the ability people will actually use Vitu Ghazi Guildmage for, it costs 1 more that Trostani's, and is reusable while Trostani's requires you to tap her.

    Also, what is everyones thoughts on Rakdos, Lord of Riots?
    The people with the most to say generally know the least.
    I prove the above statement.

  20. #80
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    12,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Baradur View Post
    Also, what is everyones thoughts on Rakdos, Lord of Riots?
    OP, as are a couple other cards in the set. But, since a ton of cards just got spoilered, I figure I'll comment on a bunch of them.

    Phantom General: It's not quite intangible Virtue, but it'll do.
    Rest in Peace: Does this completely negate any "dies" effects, or does "dies" not require a creature to hit the graveyard?
    Selesnya Sentry: Haha, no. I'm not paying 6 mana to regenerate a 3/2. I probably have a much stronger creature that I can pay 6 mana to cast if I have green in my deck anyway.
    Sphere of Safety: Holy crap, it's Windborn Muse, except better.
    Blustersquall: Another card only useful in multiplayer. Otherwise, Sleep is much more efficient at a cheaper cost
    Doorkeeper, Axebane Guardian: There's a potential deck here, I just know it. Add in Chronic Flooding, Crosstown Courier, and Psychic Spiral for a really rounadabout way to drain someone's deck.
    Faerie Imposter: Works great with Detain creatures. Awesome one drop
    Runewing: Aven Fisher with a new name.
    Voidwielder: Wow, over costed. Add a power or two to that and then get back to me
    Desecration Demon: Wow. Unless you're playing against a token deck, prepare to kick some ass. Even keeping him under control makes him stronger, holy hell.
    Deviant Glee, Bloodfray Giant, Chaos Imps: Red creatures with trample. And they're not beasts. What...
    Shrieking Affliction: Bringing back The Rack effect, are we?
    Goblin Rally, Guttersnipe, Lobber Crew: Yay more goblins. I don't see how they fit here, but I don't care, because goblins.
    Centaur's Herald: Huh. Not worth it. Best thought here, use him as a chump blocker, and sacrifice him before the damage goes through. Still though.
    Drudge Beetle: Another way over costed card. The Scavenge part anyway
    Giant Growth: It's actually been awhile since we've seen this. Every prepare your p-p-p-poker faces.
    Golgari Decoy: An evil Elvish Bard
    Horncaller's Chant, Courser's Accord: Ouch. Surely there's an easier way to get 2 4/4's or 3/3's?
    Mana Bloom: Seems really odd. Green has much more efficient ways to generate mana.
    Oak Street Innkeeper: It's the anti-Royal Assassin!
    Seek the Horizon: I'd rather they bring back Cultivate, or Explosive Vegetation.
    Azorius Charm: Great effect, except why would anybody choose to draw ONE card for two mana?
    Collective Blessing: Holy shitballs. But, this pretty much shows the power advancement, because in the original Ravnica set, I'd pay the same amount, but it would be a sorcery, not an enchantment.
    Counterflux: Ok, this is stack issue here. Countering every spell with one card is great, but I'm not seeing any situations where someone would care to have more than one spell on the stack. Two maybe, but this card really seems like another "only useful in multiplayer" card.
    Dreadbore: Am I missing something, or is this the first time we've seen a card that directly targets planeswalkers?
    Essence Backlash: This seems like another case of Induce Paranoia. It sounds nice, but overall, there's no reason to save up four mana for a counterspell, especially one that only counters creatures.
    Fall of the Gavel: See above, not worth the holding cost.
    Hussar Patrol: Right now my favorite flyer in the deck. Good cost, good ability.
    Teleportal: Outside of having a great name, awesome card that could end games.
    Azor's Elocuters: I.....um...wow.
    Armada Wurm: Um, no. Not worth being a mythic rare.
    There's also a lot of enchantments in this set. Possibility for a multi-colored deck with em. Righteous Authority being the leader of those. However, nothing in the set to get them back from the graveyard, so maybe not.
    Last edited by Pendulous; 2012-09-18 at 05:29 PM.

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •