>>44586987 Holy moly, you know they do new things? Flame Slash was a removal spell that was meant for standard, and was in a limited block where it didn't dominate like it would have usually. Boulder Salvo is solely for limited play, and is balanced around that.
Do people who say shit like this ever think, for some crazy reason, maybe the company is printing these cards for.... Wait for it... A REASON!?
>>44587265 Poor card design is poor card design regardless any day or set. Had they made Bouldering Salvo an instant it would still be a bad and overcosted card, but it would be a new card that at least made some sense of its cost/reward/keyword dynamics. Heck, they could even make it cost 6 mana for it to be an instant and it would still be better card design than that.
>>44587368 I don't think there's any argument that we're only talking about draft here, and this card isn't that bad there. I mean, not to say it's good, but it's mediocre removal that fills a hole.
If you try to make literally every card good in constructed and limited, then you get a self feeding cycle of the shit cards just getting progressively better and the good cards getting ridiculous.
>>44587378 This is not poor design, it's a necessary card, a common that demonstrates one of the set mechanics. This happens every set, it doesn't need to be an instant, if you start saying that, then you can make the same argument about almost every 'bad' sorcery that exists. Basically, cards like this exist for two primary reasons, draft, where it really doesn't matter if it's an instant or not, and new players, who need to learn to play with kill spells or things of that ilk, but also need to get to play with new mechanics on simple cards.
>>44587368 Basically wizards thinks people enjoy underpowered environments. From the perspective of a limited player, having mediocre removal is fine when your opponent is playing mediocre creatures because it's mostly fair. I know it hurts for long time players but it makes sense in the context of the set, although personally this set just awful.
>>44588039 >MaRo He's a dirty jew, yes, but you do realise he's not the only one to blame for the powerlevel, right? In fact, there's an entire team of people among whom he doesn't belong that's much more responsible for that. It's called Development.
I wish WotC officially stopped supporting Standard as a format. Everything bad in this game is always justified with "standard needs it". I say we cut the parasite off and leave only the formats that can handle actual good cards.
>>44588582 Man, what a solid argument, I went and played roulette and won $50, gambling sure is fun :^). But seriously, BFZ is even worse than normal, literally only Gideon and an expedition are worth anything, and you got the most expensive one, so, congrats on your £25 profit after having to also sell the cards?
>>44587871 Well, low-powered sets can make for fun drafts and sealed decks, I can't deny that, but I still feel like high-powered sets are more fun in Limited. Good removal in particular improves the experience. RTR drafts were sort of fast and brutal, and very enjoyable (especially if like me you drafted every Stab Wound you could get your hands on), compared to Khans' drafts that were often a slog due to worse removal. Board stalls aren't fun.
>>44588648 While I love picking every removal ever in Draft, it's somewhat close to a no-brainer. It's more fun to skillfully construct your deck from synergistic creatures and then beat your opponent with Bane of Bala Ged.
>>44587265 >Flame Slash was a removal spell that was meant for standard that's a load of bullshit considering lightning bolt was in standard at the time. flame slash was a limited only card during it's time.
>>44588686 Except in practice, it ends up with two boards full of "synergistic creatures" staring at each others with nothing happening while both players are waiting for a topdecked card that doesn't suck.
>>44588720 Hm, that's a fair point, but I think flame slash is as good as you can push that design, I think the point was to make there be an alternative to lightning bolt. From playing back then, all I can imagine is they had a limited set like RoE where slash wasn't going to be oppresive, which meant a removal spell could be pushed to 4 damage for 1 mana, maybe even seeing play alongside lightning bolt. I think the issue was it fell between the reign of jund and cawblade, so a burn spell with no utility to hit face or Jace just wasn't good enough.
>>44588686 >It's more fun to skillfully construct your deck from synergistic creatures I agree, building a board state greater than the sum of its parts, while using removal to disrupt your opponent's should be the goal of limited. Not up to "combo off and win instantly" level, but synergy should be far more important than base stats.
Unfortunately, NWO means that we don't get interesting commons with abilities, or more than 5 different mechanics that matter in a set. Either removal in a set is strong and it comes down to last-creature-standing, or it's weak and we get slow boring slugfests. This all comes together in "the vanilla test", the core problem with limited: the numbers in the bottom corner matter more than any synergy on 90% of creatures. This is what creates boring linear games.
The best format is Cube: all the variance and replay value of draft, but with interesting cards where synergy is more important than base stats.
>>44589178 I love Cube but I still enjoy drafting new sets every month. It's fun finding out what's good in the new environment and what isn't. Limited environments have really gone up in quality recently. And with the two block paradigm we're allowed more mechanics while also having new environments rotating in faster.
>>44589240 Removal recently has been a bit too "safe", yes, but attacking into your opponent's board and coming out as the winner because your opponent thinks you might have combat tricks in your hand, is the best thing ever. I love it when I'm able to win through mind tricks alone.
>>44587265 >be magic noob >see all the pretty cards >what the fuck is modern standard edh doule bullshit with paupers? >how do you tell if you can play a card in one game but not another? >so wait, how many of the little rarity-colored symbols are there? >i just want to throw dragons at my opponent >what the actual fuck >at least colorless mana symbol makes sense
>>44589629 I miss LD. I miss Avalanche Riders and I miss Balance / Zuran Orb. I think people who played back in the days are pretty split on whether LD was good or bad for the game, it's a love it or hate it kind of thing, but WotC pushed the narrative that everyone hated LD and newer players have grown so accustomed to lands being basically untouchable that they're more prone to side with them and call land destruction badwrongfun. See: all casual EDH players, they get mad if you cast Armageddon, because they aren't used to MLD, they never really played with or against it.
If you phase all good removal out of the game like they're doing right now then future generations of players will get mad at removal just the same.
>>44589577 But new players a lot of the time just play casually in their friend group, people who like it will go on to play real formats. Someone who goes to a store and just plays with strangers might come into those issues all at once, but I think if you start with friends it's a lot more gradual.
>Start playing with friends, get an intro pack and some boosters >Slog our decks against eachother every now and then for a month, maybe some new boosters every now and then, and multiplayer when schedules permit >Find out about gatherer and all these old cards, start using them
This culminates in better decks, and maybe some of the players transitioning off the kitchen table into stores to play standard/modern or draft. The situation I said sounds really specific, but atleast in my anecdotal experience, it's extremely common from the players that come into my store.
See, old players knew that land destruction was essential to the balance of the game. Just like discard. Every color needs ways to fight spells, and since only blue gets to outright counter spells, other colors have to pre-emptively prevent them by attacking the hand and/or the mana base. Green was the shit color for the longest time because it really couldn't do either effectively, it could just play the mans and turn them sideways and it turns out that's not what Magic is really about.
Granted, it WAS frustrating to have to sit there and hope you topdeck mana/action so that you get to do something, but it was also frustrating to get your spells countered, and that wasn't removed, even though it was basically the same thing, just more selectively done. Is it okay when blue does it?
>>44589716 >they get mad if you cast Armageddon Even though I agree that LD should be more present in the game, not all cards are balanced in every format, and the quote is an example of it. I like to say that EDH is not supposed to be played with bad cards, but the rule about the 1-of cards is there so that every game you play will be different from any other you have played with the same deck. LD makes the long match even longer, and it gives that feeling that you have already had that exact same board state before, as if everytime you play against LD, you play the same game you have played before. I'm not saying that it should be banned or anything, but it kind of kills the reason of why EDH exists, just like tutoring combos.
>>44589975 More colors should get spell negation fitting their role and effects. Silence is a good example of how a color that is not blue should stop someone from casting a spell.
But green let you cast turn 1 Llanowar Elves into your turn 2 Stone Rain. You also had Plow Under, which was GAS. Oh, and think about Acidic Slime, Terravore, etc. G/R was a natural color pairing for land destruction.
>>44589975 I feel like LD wouldn't even be as strong a strategy today. Used to be we'd play 20 lands in our decks, nowadays in Standard and sometimes Modern it's 23+ even in aggro decks, because we have utility lands, fetches, good mana sinks, etc. So LD would slow people down but it wouldn't lock them out of the game as often as it did back in the days.
>>44591305 UR had total land destruction decks back in standard though. Why turn 1 elf into turn 2 land destruction when you can turn 1 steam vents into turn two eye of nowhere? Babykiller (despite its name) actually used land destruction pretty fairly despite being nominally based on the turn 1 elf turn 2 stone rain combination. >>44594558 >like blue, dislike red >realize the reason I like blue is because it has a bunch of stuff and the reason I dislike red is because it has fucking nothing. >this isn't clearly a problem with the game Blue isn't too powerful (at least not in standard), it just has way more stuff than most other colors (to be fair though, so does white.). What has red got but burn and burn accessories post timespiral?
>>44595272 Green sort of has psuedo-counters in that vein ala Vines of the Vastwood. So those other colors don't really need cards that say "counter target spell" so much as they need ways of dealing with opposing spells. Like nevermore that some other anon mentioned in white.
this is important too. the nature of burn makes it good in both controlling strategies and aggressive strategies. it's reach and removal in one. red's not nearly as limited as people think it is, and most of blue's playable design space is pretty narrow (mainly filtering with a few good stall spells).
It's got other things too like bounce (which isn't played often), mind control effects (which i don't think get played much at all outside EDH), extra turns (almost never played), etc.
I like blue, but I also like red a lot too. I like that red is the most "in your face" color.
>>44595401 >you're forgetting artifact hate, land hate, non basic land hate, temporary mana acceleration, card filtering and limited card draw.
>artifact hate Green does this as well as red, and frequently their hate also can hit enchantments.
>land hate Isn't allowed to be good in modern days because "muh feels"
>nonbasic land hate fucking nothing beyond blood moon, and blood moon is baby hate compared to ye-olden days. Even still, you can't go 5 minutes without some greedy player bitching to have blood moon banned so that they can finally remove the last remaining basic lands from their decks.
>temporary mana acceleration Only shit rituals allowed
>card filtering and limited draw that is inferior to blue.
>>44596131 >yeah if you're forgetting cards like blood moon, stone rain which was pre-timespiral. >as far as i know red is the only color with a one mana instant "destroy target artifact' with no draw back Oxidize came first actually, no. >it also has access to fucking all stars like Vandalblast AND shattering spree. And white has access to stony silence, it is not impressive that red has cards which are good against affinity. >not counting cards like faithless looting then yeah i guess you're right If by 'like faithless looting' you mean faithless looting and literally nothing else then sure. Still inferior to serum visions for most decks. >forgetting siminan spirit guide and the fact that they banned seething song Seething song did not need to be banned, both of those aren't post timespiral and spirit guide is only good for prison decks and turn 1 combo decks (which usually suck). There's also the fact it has absolutely no combo interaction aside from eidolon, red has problems.
red also hasn't had looting for very long, and it's still gotten a lot of great cards for it like OGW chandra and faithless looting. daretti in EDH is also exceptional for his looting ability. you're also missing the point the stony silence shuts down ALL artifacts, while red gets to blow everything up and keep it's toys at the same time. they're not inter changeable and red is an excellent color both gameplay mechanics wise and power level wise. that's why there have been various forms of red decks (from big red decks like atarka in recent standard, to mid range like Jund in Modern, to aggro like Delver and Burn in Modern/Standard, and control like UWR control) and is an absolutely fine color in general.
that doesn't stop babies from whining about how their pet color got the shit end of the stick even though it's doing just fucking fine. other colors have their share of complainers too but red and green are the fucking worst
>>44596695 >OGW chandra I don't think its good but K. >while red gets to blow everything up and keep it's toys at the same time How often is that relevant? Artifacts aren't commonly played in most decks, the fact that red gets artifact destruction is fairly minor. >from big red decks like atarka in recent standard Which plays a grand total of one red card main deck which burns on etb... >mid range like Jund in Modern Which plays red for burn, terminate and sideboard cards... >to aggro like Delver and Burn in Modern/Standard Which plays red for burn... >UWR 'control' Which plays red for burn... >and is an absolutely fine color in general. I am not accusing it of being underpowered. >that doesn't stop babies from whining about how their pet color got the shit end of the stick even though it's doing just fucking fine I play red the least out of all of the colors. >other colors have their share of complainers too but red and green are the fucking worst Because they have absolutely no interaction against spells and thus basically no interaction against combo or control decks in general.
>yuh huh, cause some cards will always be worse than others
Nuh uh, that's the entire point of making cards that do different things, so that they don't have to compete directly for the exact same job. If 1G can get you a 2/2 vigilance, 3/1 trampler or 1/2 dork then you have three different cards with the exact same cost that all have their own reasons to exist and see play. You can multiply that same process many times over to create a pool of thousands of playables, yes it is difficult but when your entire job is literally just making a playable game that really isn't too much to ask.
Instead they can just say "nah dude, bad cards need to exist, for reasons" and people like you eat it up without question even though it's obviously not true. Certainly makes their job easier I guess but the game suffers as a result.
>>44597576 >Considering colors to be factions and you can only play certain factions What the fuck does this even mean? >What about Splinter Twin, a T1 modern deck? Yes because clearly a single card means that red isn't a narrow color. Are you going to bring up pyroblast next? >What about Goblin Guide? Young pyromancer? >these don't count as burn accessories
>>44602047 >If 1G can get you a 2/2 vigilance, 3/1 trampler or 1/2 dork then you have three different cards with the exact same cost that all have their own reasons to exist and see play That works to an extent (and makes total sense within a block) but one limited or standard might need a 3/4 where another needs a 2/4 and wizards should be able to fix their past mistakes in the high end as well as the low end (bolt to shock). But I agree that every card should have its place if that's all you're saying.
Thread replies: 82 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 368083
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.