It's also kind of dense to say "I'm sure they applied all the lessons they learned over the years" in a situation where they clearly decided to go against the tide because they were sure they were right and everybody else (even the player base if it came down to it) was wrong.
Anything new is "against the Tide" so I don't see any problem with it and I believe I can count on one hand the number of times players have been right about a mechanic being horrible or broken when R&D thought it was fine. But every single set players are wrong about a card or mechanic being unplayable or broken. So if anything, finding what the player base thinks is right and doing the opposite or at least something else is at least a very good idea and at worst an ok idea. I'm still of the opinion that companions as a whole aren't a problem. Lurrus has an ability that is obviously broken with 0 that can be sacrificed for mana. The companion ability on them makes decks seeking to take advantage of such an ability overwhelmingly consistent but I believe that without the ability it would have still been a problem, though one that could have been solved by a restriction. I am willing to believe that I am wrong and that if left alone in a few weeks there will be no decks that can compete with companion decks but I just don't see that as likely.
The random card loss makes it completely unplayable. No sane player would gamble with their ability to play at all just to get a decent to strong card. The only formats that would want them would be vintage where every card is insanly broken so trading one of them isn't a big deal.
You need to look at the bigger picture and what I said. You GAIN a guaranteed card with Companions. No where else in the game of Magic are you GUARANTEED a card in your opening hand, NOWHERE. This is the exact opposite of variance. So if you introduce a guaranteed card and promote less variance, it needs to be balanced by more variance, OR an appropriate penalty for that guaranteed card. If the Companion can offer the strength to overcome the addition of variance, then it will be played. Think about it a little bit more before you "pish posh" it. Companions can't continue the way they are unless they power them down a bit (via lower power level OR higher casting cost). They can keep the power up but it would come with a cost. Many SANE players would pay that cost for a guaranteed card if powerful enough.
That is exactly the problem I bring up. None of the companions are good enough to risk turning a solid hand into unkeepable junk. Except in formats where their abilities are actually broken. The risk of keeping a two land hand that goes down to one is far to significant for any of the companions in standard, historic, pioneer or modern. It would reduce the range of keepable hands significantly and none of them as so game ending that they are worth such a blow to your deck.
I see where you are coming from, I do. I also think you are partially correct as well. I would concede that any card at random would be too stiff a penalty in my scenario. It would have to be abridged to randomly discard any NON-LAND card OR a card of that players choice that would be exiled to the sideboard. I think that would be adding in enough variance to counteract the loss of variance with Companions. It would also open them up to be more "Lurrus-like" power level as well. 8 cards in an opening hand breaks a Cardinal rule of Magic, It should be 7. A Guaranteed and Uninteractible card in hand needs to be balanced via a reasonable deck building restriction AND a bit of randomness thrown back in. My opinion and we will have to agree to disagree.
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
It's also kind of dense to say "I'm sure they applied all the lessons they learned over the years" in a situation where they clearly decided to go against the tide because they were sure they were right and everybody else (even the player base if it came down to it) was wrong.
Anything new is "against the Tide" so I don't see any problem with it and I believe I can count on one hand the number of times players have been right about a mechanic being horrible or broken when R&D thought it was fine. But every single set players are wrong about a card or mechanic being unplayable or broken. So if anything, finding what the player base thinks is right and doing the opposite or at least something else is at least a very good idea and at worst an ok idea.
Precisely what collectible card game have you been playing for the past 25 years? It certainly hasn't been Magic. And that bolded part is just ridiculous. Please please invest your entire net worth in a gaming enterprise (or a business of any kind, really), take that advice yourself and become so destitute you cannot afford the internet connection necessary to spout such disinformation.
It's also kind of dense to say "I'm sure they applied all the lessons they learned over the years" in a situation where they clearly decided to go against the tide because they were sure they were right and everybody else (even the player base if it came down to it) was wrong.
Anything new is "against the Tide" so I don't see any problem with it and I believe I can count on one hand the number of times players have been right about a mechanic being horrible or broken when R&D thought it was fine. But every single set players are wrong about a card or mechanic being unplayable or broken. So if anything, finding what the player base thinks is right and doing the opposite or at least something else is at least a very good idea and at worst an ok idea.
Precisely what collectible card game have you been playing for the past 25 years? It certainly hasn't been Magic. And that bolded part is just ridiculous. Please please invest your entire net worth in a gaming enterprise (or a business of any kind, really), take that advice yourself and become so destitute you cannot afford the internet connection necessary to spout such disinformation.
Seriously.
Are you conflating "right" with "enjoy". That is the only way I can imagine you would come to the conclusion you did. Player bases are so laughably wrong with such consistency on what is right that doing the opposite couldn't be nearly as dangerous as doing what they think is right. If you are confusing it with what player bases enjoy then obviously you aren't going to get anywhere doing the opposite of what players enjoy, though they are often wrong about what they will and won't enjoy they are never wrong about what they do and don't enjoy.
It's also kind of dense to say "I'm sure they applied all the lessons they learned over the years" in a situation where they clearly decided to go against the tide because they were sure they were right and everybody else (even the player base if it came down to it) was wrong.
Anything new is "against the Tide" so I don't see any problem with it and I believe I can count on one hand the number of times players have been right about a mechanic being horrible or broken when R&D thought it was fine. But every single set players are wrong about a card or mechanic being unplayable or broken. So if anything, finding what the player base thinks is right and doing the opposite or at least something else is at least a very good idea and at worst an ok idea.
Precisely what collectible card game have you been playing for the past 25 years? It certainly hasn't been Magic. And that bolded part is just ridiculous. Please please invest your entire net worth in a gaming enterprise (or a business of any kind, really), take that advice yourself and become so destitute you cannot afford the internet connection necessary to spout such disinformation.
Seriously.
Are you conflating "right" with "enjoy". That is the only way I can imagine you would come to the conclusion you did. Player bases are so laughably wrong with such consistency on what is right that doing the opposite couldn't be nearly as dangerous as doing what they think is right. If you are confusing it with what player bases enjoy then obviously you aren't going to get anywhere doing the opposite of what players enjoy, though they are often wrong about what they will and won't enjoy they are never wrong about what they do and don't enjoy.
I appreciate you conceding the moment you ran out of coherent arguments rather than devolving into ridiculous name calling. Few have your courage to admit when they are wrong and to even name their flaws.
I appreciate you conceding the moment you ran out of coherent arguments rather than devolving into ridiculous name calling. Few have your courage to admit when they are wrong and to even name their flaws.
Nice try. What I am conceding is the following.
I am educated in this field. I have been employed in this field. I have taught in this field. You are mistaken in nearly every sentence of yours I've bothered to read, and that is obvious to anyone with actual field knowledge. However it is apparent that you are very pleased with your opinions, so even if I took the time to teach you, that time would be wasted. I therefore don't choose to spare that time, and I am content to let you "be wrong on the internet".
I appreciate you conceding the moment you ran out of coherent arguments rather than devolving into ridiculous name calling. Few have your courage to admit when they are wrong and to even name their flaws.
Nice try. What I am conceding is the following.
I am educated in this field. I have been employed in this field. I have taught in this field. You are mistaken in nearly every sentence of yours I've bothered to read, and that is obvious to anyone with actual field knowledge. However it is apparent that you are very pleased with your opinions, so even if I took the time to teach you, that time would be wasted. I therefore don't choose to spare that time, and I am content to let you "be wrong on the internet".
I am glad you have taken the time to flaunt your credentials without ever providing any kind of information or argument. We all know that only credentials matter and because I haven't declared credentials whether or not I have them is irrelevant. You have declared your credentials and thus your complete lack of an argument wins hands down.
If they are going to keep Companions around, here is what I would like to see corrected.
If you reveal a Companion then:
Draw your 7 cards, one card is revealed at random and put on the bottom of your deck after you take your last Mulligan. (It could also be shuffled into the deck as a possibility.)
The companion takes away variance, the random card put on the bottom adds variance right back in. No one starts with an 8 card hand then.
OR
If you reveal a Companion then:
Draw your 7 cards, After all mulligans, pick a card at random from your starting hand and exchange it for your Companion, that card goes to the sideboard.
Again, companion is taking away variance, but the random card placed into the sideboard increases variance AND the opponent now has a means to interact with that Companion card, being in hand instead of out there is exile somewhere.
A couple of thoughts, nothing more.
I would argue that the "pros" of having access to a guaranteed companion in a zone that's not your actual hand is part of the allure of the mechanic. Putting the card in hand and making it susceptible to hand disruption in addition to the measures you mentioned, would not be worth the risk. Additionally, it would all but force decks to run black for things like Thoughtseise as one of the few ways to answer the card before it hits the battlefield.
If anything, I imagine the solution will be somewhere in the middle, where constructed formats will have the companion player mulligan to what amounts to a keep-able hand, and either skips their first draw or puts an additional card of their choice on the bottom of the deck. There's 0 chance it'll be a random card or have the companion put into hand. Both results would amount to a ban "in effect", as the high risk nature of building a deck around the mechanic AND having to increase the amount of hoops for the guaranteed card, would be unpalatable. People might sooner include multiples of the card in deck vs relying on the companion mechanic, which flies in the face of why the card has the mechanic in the first place.
There's 0 chance it'll be a random card or have the companion put into hand.
It would depend on risk-reward. I think many players would do that right now for Lurrus in Pioneer/Modern (and probably would still in Legacy/Vintage). For most of the Companions it would be a no, that is why they would have to be strong enough for this "gamble". As it stands right now the risk is near ZERO and the reward is a protected guaranteed 8th card in hand for a minor deck building restriction. I am of the thought of reducing variance needs to come with an increasing variance clause. There may be a happy medium, but for now we just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
2 ideas that I can think of. Not sure if either of them would actually work... but I like the ideas any way so i will share them here.
1) Only allow the companion to be cast 1 game in the best of X series...
2)Companions can only be cast from sideboard if you do not play first...
with either of these ideas could also allow the following >
Decide who is going to play first > Companions for the decks to be revealed. Do not allow side-boarding, but do allow either player to place their companion into there deck before shuffling (possibly allow them to remove 1 card at random).
Umm..not really? DK boils down to novice's being brash when it comes to rating their (lack) of knowledge and experts being more modest about their expertise. DK is often taken to prove that the beginner rates themselves more highly than the master but that is mostly semantical trickery since it is only RELATIVELY true. At no point is it demonstrated -- or even contended -- that the beginner thinks that they have more knowledge than the master. Obviously, there are plenty of nuts out there delusional enough to think so in plenty of different circumstances, but that isn't what DK shows or even what it is about and you're borderline insane if that is what you're trying to argue.
No matter how powerful companions are, and I think the mechanic was a mistake, I think flat out changing the mechanic drastically from how it's worded on the card is not the answer and sets a dangerous precedent that they can just print anything and it it's too powerful errata it later. This is especially true when a lot of people haven't even played with the cards yet, if you don't play online you probably haven't played with a companion once yet.
I feel like there are way too many casual players around the world on kitchen tables for you to just say a few weeks after a set release, you know that flagship mechanic we just printed, well it no longer works the way it says on the card it works like this. It will cause major headaches at LGS level (albeit they aren't really open right now) and just isn't intuitive to making the game accessible.
One of the other things is also I feel that a lot of the theoretical fixes to the mechanic just make most of them completely unplayable in most cases. Which of the companions would actually see play if the companion mechanic wasn't on the card. Many of them are 5 mana plays which rarely make major waves in competitive. Lurrus would probably be good enough in older formats where you could play something immediately for value, but it's already banned there. At that point it's not worth the hassle if your errata just means they don't see any play anymore.
As crazy an idea as I think companions were, I think it would be even more crazy to errata the mechanic 2 weeks after the set released in paper.
They just need to fess up and admit the mechanic is broken and wrong.
They didn't help the fact by printing the first ten companions with Hybrid mana either and most having great abilities.
Hopefully on Monday:
Teferi or Fires or Yorion or Agent (or some combination)are banned from standard (Teferi will rotate soon but no need to keep him around till then)
Winota is banned in Historic because if your not playing it you mostly lose
Companion: No easy fix unfortunately because the "restrictions" they put on the first 10 really don't restrict when they slot in perfectly to already established decks or easy to build decks.
I like the mechanic itself even with the uninteraction with the free card, its just they are almost all too powerful. So even if they ban 3-4 of the good ones, everyone will shift to finding a way to break the 4-10 ones until they eat up the entire meta.
A free card is just too much to pass up most of the time.
Should have came out really weak and seen if people could make them fringe work, not come out with the first batch that kinda makes you feel like a fool for not playing a free card.
Maybe: Companion the mechanic is banned in eternal formats and Yorion and Lurrus are banned in standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Resigned up after getting lost in the Twitch/MTGS whatever crossover
Been on this forum for 10++ years
Playing since '94
They just need to fess up and admit the mechanic is broken and wrong.
They didn't help the fact by printing the first ten companions with Hybrid mana either and most having great abilities.
Hopefully on Monday:
Teferi or Fires or Yorion or Agent (or some combination)are banned from standard (Teferi will rotate soon but no need to keep him around till then)
Winota is banned in Historic because if your not playing it you mostly lose
Companion: No easy fix unfortunately because the "restrictions" they put on the first 10 really don't restrict when they slot in perfectly to already established decks or easy to build decks.
I like the mechanic itself even with the uninteraction with the free card, its just they are almost all too powerful. So even if they ban 3-4 of the good ones, everyone will shift to finding a way to break the 4-10 ones until they eat up the entire meta.
A free card is just too much to pass up most of the time.
Should have came out really weak and seen if people could make them fringe work, not come out with the first batch that kinda makes you feel like a fool for not playing a free card.
Maybe: Companion the mechanic is banned in eternal formats and Yorion and Lurrus are banned in standard.
Uh I need to remind the teferi train may not end yet because core 2021 is focused on him.
No matter how powerful companions are, and I think the mechanic was a mistake, I think flat out changing the mechanic drastically from how it's worded on the card is not the answer and sets a dangerous precedent that they can just print anything and it it's too powerful errata it later. This is especially true when a lot of people haven't even played with the cards yet, if you don't play online you probably haven't played with a companion once yet.
I feel like there are way too many casual players around the world on kitchen tables for you to just say a few weeks after a set release, you know that flagship mechanic we just printed, well it no longer works the way it says on the card it works like this. It will cause major headaches at LGS level (albeit they aren't really open right now) and just isn't intuitive to making the game accessible.
One of the other things is also I feel that a lot of the theoretical fixes to the mechanic just make most of them completely unplayable in most cases. Which of the companions would actually see play if the companion mechanic wasn't on the card. Many of them are 5 mana plays which rarely make major waves in competitive. Lurrus would probably be good enough in older formats where you could play something immediately for value, but it's already banned there. At that point it's not worth the hassle if your errata just means they don't see any play anymore.
As crazy an idea as I think companions were, I think it would be even more crazy to errata the mechanic 2 weeks after the set released in paper.
Gotta agree with this. Insane case of sending mixed messages and also a very alarming precedent for anything they have planned for the future. Especially since the official comapny line is that Companions are polarizing as opposed to universally loathed.
It's actually very simple and easy to fix companion: just make it a subrule/subformat similar to 2-headed giant, or commander, or planechase. If you choose to play with the subrule then great, but by default games are played without them unless otherwise stated before the match/tournament starts. Possibly with limited being the one exception where the companion subrule would be default to on.
That way companions are not allowed by default, but there can still be companion-standard. or companion-modern (and so on) tournaments if desired.
It's actually very simple and easy to fix companion: just make it a subrule/subformat similar to 2-headed giant, or commander, or planechase. If you choose to play with the subrule then great, but by default games are played without them unless otherwise stated before the match/tournament starts. Possibly with limited being the one exception where the companion subrule would be default to on.
That way companions are not allowed by default, but there can still be companion-standard. or companion-modern (and so on) tournaments if desired.
An inherent problem of Companions is that they are always the same card.
Its like limiting the pool of Commanders to just 10.
Sure they can print more Companions, but if you build a format around Companions, its basically just EDH in which every Commander has a more specific condition than just its color identity , which is also a much more broader scenario in which Companions are totally fine.
If a particular Companion becomes too strong, the resulting decks will look extremely similar, as they have the same deck building restrictions, which limits the variance even more.
The entire idea of how Companions work in deck card restriction is hurting a format in which they "matter" (if they are so weak that they are irrelevant, nobody cares).
Teferi and agent will be out of standard in September so no point in banning them.
But ikoria cards can get the ban such as lurrus or yorion, they probably won't ban fires of invention or lukka though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"May he who is without mana cast the first spell!"
Check out my Youtube channel where I upload MTG content videos twice a week!
Teferi and agent will be out of standard in September so no point in banning them.
But ikoria cards can get the ban such as lurrus or yorion, they probably won't ban fires of invention or lukka though.
If your talking war of the spark teferi it's rotating when core 2021 hits not September
Teferi and agent will be out of standard in September so no point in banning them.
But ikoria cards can get the ban such as lurrus or yorion, they probably won't ban fires of invention or lukka though.
If your talking war of the spark teferi it's rotating when core 2021 hits not September
No, they all rotate in September.
"The next rotation will happen on September 24, 2020 when the set Zendikar Rising is released. Guilds of Ravnica, Ravnica Allegiance, War of the Spark, and Core Set 2020 will be rotated out of Standard on the same day. The table below shows the new Standard format after rotation"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"May he who is without mana cast the first spell!"
Check out my Youtube channel where I upload MTG content videos twice a week!
While I agree they are rotating, I disagree about no point in banning them.
We've dealt with it enough. No need to keep Standard stagnant for the whole summer too.
Jeskai fires will still be good without Yorion so they have to do something about Teferi or Agent or Fires
I think because they are rotating, that's more reason to go ahead and get rid of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Resigned up after getting lost in the Twitch/MTGS whatever crossover
Been on this forum for 10++ years
Playing since '94
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I see where you are coming from, I do. I also think you are partially correct as well. I would concede that any card at random would be too stiff a penalty in my scenario. It would have to be abridged to randomly discard any NON-LAND card OR a card of that players choice that would be exiled to the sideboard. I think that would be adding in enough variance to counteract the loss of variance with Companions. It would also open them up to be more "Lurrus-like" power level as well. 8 cards in an opening hand breaks a Cardinal rule of Magic, It should be 7. A Guaranteed and Uninteractible card in hand needs to be balanced via a reasonable deck building restriction AND a bit of randomness thrown back in. My opinion and we will have to agree to disagree.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Precisely what collectible card game have you been playing for the past 25 years? It certainly hasn't been Magic. And that bolded part is just ridiculous. Please please invest your entire net worth in a gaming enterprise (or a business of any kind, really), take that advice yourself and become so destitute you cannot afford the internet connection necessary to spout such disinformation.
Seriously.
Isn't Dunning-Krueger awesome?
Nice try. What I am conceding is the following.
I am educated in this field. I have been employed in this field. I have taught in this field. You are mistaken in nearly every sentence of yours I've bothered to read, and that is obvious to anyone with actual field knowledge. However it is apparent that you are very pleased with your opinions, so even if I took the time to teach you, that time would be wasted. I therefore don't choose to spare that time, and I am content to let you "be wrong on the internet".
I would argue that the "pros" of having access to a guaranteed companion in a zone that's not your actual hand is part of the allure of the mechanic. Putting the card in hand and making it susceptible to hand disruption in addition to the measures you mentioned, would not be worth the risk. Additionally, it would all but force decks to run black for things like Thoughtseise as one of the few ways to answer the card before it hits the battlefield.
If anything, I imagine the solution will be somewhere in the middle, where constructed formats will have the companion player mulligan to what amounts to a keep-able hand, and either skips their first draw or puts an additional card of their choice on the bottom of the deck. There's 0 chance it'll be a random card or have the companion put into hand. Both results would amount to a ban "in effect", as the high risk nature of building a deck around the mechanic AND having to increase the amount of hoops for the guaranteed card, would be unpalatable. People might sooner include multiples of the card in deck vs relying on the companion mechanic, which flies in the face of why the card has the mechanic in the first place.
It would depend on risk-reward. I think many players would do that right now for Lurrus in Pioneer/Modern (and probably would still in Legacy/Vintage). For most of the Companions it would be a no, that is why they would have to be strong enough for this "gamble". As it stands right now the risk is near ZERO and the reward is a protected guaranteed 8th card in hand for a minor deck building restriction. I am of the thought of reducing variance needs to come with an increasing variance clause. There may be a happy medium, but for now we just have to agree to disagree on this one.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
1) Only allow the companion to be cast 1 game in the best of X series...
2)Companions can only be cast from sideboard if you do not play first...
with either of these ideas could also allow the following >
Decide who is going to play first > Companions for the decks to be revealed. Do not allow side-boarding, but do allow either player to place their companion into there deck before shuffling (possibly allow them to remove 1 card at random).
Umm..not really? DK boils down to novice's being brash when it comes to rating their (lack) of knowledge and experts being more modest about their expertise. DK is often taken to prove that the beginner rates themselves more highly than the master but that is mostly semantical trickery since it is only RELATIVELY true. At no point is it demonstrated -- or even contended -- that the beginner thinks that they have more knowledge than the master. Obviously, there are plenty of nuts out there delusional enough to think so in plenty of different circumstances, but that isn't what DK shows or even what it is about and you're borderline insane if that is what you're trying to argue.
1. You don't start with 8 cards.
2. The companion is not untouchable until you cast it, but can actually be discarded.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
I feel like there are way too many casual players around the world on kitchen tables for you to just say a few weeks after a set release, you know that flagship mechanic we just printed, well it no longer works the way it says on the card it works like this. It will cause major headaches at LGS level (albeit they aren't really open right now) and just isn't intuitive to making the game accessible.
One of the other things is also I feel that a lot of the theoretical fixes to the mechanic just make most of them completely unplayable in most cases. Which of the companions would actually see play if the companion mechanic wasn't on the card. Many of them are 5 mana plays which rarely make major waves in competitive. Lurrus would probably be good enough in older formats where you could play something immediately for value, but it's already banned there. At that point it's not worth the hassle if your errata just means they don't see any play anymore.
As crazy an idea as I think companions were, I think it would be even more crazy to errata the mechanic 2 weeks after the set released in paper.
They didn't help the fact by printing the first ten companions with Hybrid mana either and most having great abilities.
Hopefully on Monday:
Teferi or Fires or Yorion or Agent (or some combination)are banned from standard (Teferi will rotate soon but no need to keep him around till then)
Winota is banned in Historic because if your not playing it you mostly lose
Companion: No easy fix unfortunately because the "restrictions" they put on the first 10 really don't restrict when they slot in perfectly to already established decks or easy to build decks.
I like the mechanic itself even with the uninteraction with the free card, its just they are almost all too powerful. So even if they ban 3-4 of the good ones, everyone will shift to finding a way to break the 4-10 ones until they eat up the entire meta.
A free card is just too much to pass up most of the time.
Should have came out really weak and seen if people could make them fringe work, not come out with the first batch that kinda makes you feel like a fool for not playing a free card.
Maybe: Companion the mechanic is banned in eternal formats and Yorion and Lurrus are banned in standard.
Been on this forum for 10++ years
Playing since '94
Uh I need to remind the teferi train may not end yet because core 2021 is focused on him.
Gotta agree with this. Insane case of sending mixed messages and also a very alarming precedent for anything they have planned for the future. Especially since the official comapny line is that Companions are polarizing as opposed to universally loathed.
That way companions are not allowed by default, but there can still be companion-standard. or companion-modern (and so on) tournaments if desired.
An inherent problem of Companions is that they are always the same card.
Its like limiting the pool of Commanders to just 10.
Sure they can print more Companions, but if you build a format around Companions, its basically just EDH in which every Commander has a more specific condition than just its color identity , which is also a much more broader scenario in which Companions are totally fine.
If a particular Companion becomes too strong, the resulting decks will look extremely similar, as they have the same deck building restrictions, which limits the variance even more.
The entire idea of how Companions work in deck card restriction is hurting a format in which they "matter" (if they are so weak that they are irrelevant, nobody cares).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
But ikoria cards can get the ban such as lurrus or yorion, they probably won't ban fires of invention or lukka though.
Check out my Youtube channel where I upload MTG content videos twice a week!
Mtg Lifestyle
If your talking war of the spark teferi it's rotating when core 2021 hits not September
No, they all rotate in September.
"The next rotation will happen on September 24, 2020 when the set Zendikar Rising is released. Guilds of Ravnica, Ravnica Allegiance, War of the Spark, and Core Set 2020 will be rotated out of Standard on the same day. The table below shows the new Standard format after rotation"
Check out my Youtube channel where I upload MTG content videos twice a week!
Mtg Lifestyle
We've dealt with it enough. No need to keep Standard stagnant for the whole summer too.
Jeskai fires will still be good without Yorion so they have to do something about Teferi or Agent or Fires
I think because they are rotating, that's more reason to go ahead and get rid of them.
Been on this forum for 10++ years
Playing since '94