Why wait at all? Establish it now and players can start playing. In 6-8 years the only thing people will have to start will be money-lands. Time to re-buy Swiftspears and other way out of print uncommons.
Yes, by unachievable I do mean cost of entry. And dropping one format from your play rotation is not an answer. Losing every match-up until you save what pennies you have is not an answer. Show me the answers to the Tier1 and 2 deck please.
Have you all not thought that maybe the power level has peaked? Where can it go from here? What can be done to balance but a Reset button?
They continue to print new cards of equal or arguably better powerlevel that what the format already has, and thats what leads the format to continue to evolve.
Cards I mean are things like Collected Company, and before their ban - Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time. As more Standard-legal sets are printed, the Modern card pool grows, this makes the meta ever-changing.
Also, remember that it costs more to stay in Standard than it does in Modern. The initial entry cost may be higher, but after that Standard becomes increasingly costly to stay in where Modern does not.
Modern is in an ok spot right now, there's no clear best deck, and there are various viable strategies.
I think all you haters will be disappointed at how well this will still sell.
I am not so sure. The pre-order price on Starcitygames went from $300 to $249 overnight for a booster box. That is a dip of $50 simply because of the full spoiler. Many assume this is because of many canceled pre-orders.
It will probably sell ok but to say it will sell "well" I am not sure is the right wording.
And the haters were silenced with MM1 too, because it was a smashing success.
MM2 has a higher EV with more playable rares/mythics. At this point I think people are just complaining to complain (but will still buy it).
Played the format, and I'm not impressed. I built an Aggro Goblins deck, also build a D&T/Voltron deck, played them over a few weeks.
To echo what many have said, the format fails to deliver anything with more value than what I get in another format. If I want the uniqueness of a singleton format, I'll play EDH, and if I want to focus on powerful cards and synergies, I'll play Legacy.
TL doesn't do anything better than any other format - it's a red-headed stepchild. I'll pass.
When people ***** about rarity they often think about it from a constructed point of view.
Constructed is *irrelevant* when discussing rarity.
When comparing this card to Journey to Nowhere, the comparison you have to make is Khans limited to Zendikar limited. Removing a most likely replaceable 2/2 or 2/1 creature for 2 is fine in Zendikar, the format is lightning fast and going wide is better than going tall.
Maybe Khans is slower, and the ability to kill any creature (Especially any Morph creature) for 2 mana is just too powerful. The thing is we don't know how the environment looks. It's entirely possible that given the Khans limited environment, this card *should* be common. It's just as possible that this card is too good at common for that limited environment.
I was going to buy a box of this set without a second thought, but the last few spoils have made me have to start reconsidering. That's a shame.
It's only a shame that you and so many others like you can't get over the fact that sometimes WOTC wants to redesign a concept instead of just doing a lazy reprint. Don't want to buy it? Then don't buy it. No one here likes the constant whining about trivial crap. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Ugin could have been killed in between 450(When bolas was "defeated" in Mandara) - 4000(roughly the time the eldrazi where trapped in Zendikar) years ago... there is alot of room for Ugin,...
I kind of hate MTG storyline (its soo quickly) if i was in the one responsable to it i would have done it spawn for more than 20.000 year ( Maybe 200.000 years or more )
Why would creative want to leave such wide holes in the story timeline with no substance to fill? Seems pointless.
If Wotc was trying to gear the game toward a more intuitive play style, they never would have brought morph back. Morph has to be the most unintuitive mechanic ever created. Add on it doesnt use the stack, so you can not respond to morphing the creature just adds to confusion.
I think allowing the Morph mechanic to be put on the stack would make the whole "trick" part of the mechanic pointless. But I agree that it feels unintuitive to say that one mechanic doesn't use the stack while another does. When I started playing, I bought the Morph expert deck and I didn't get why Morph was any good. But now I know how to use it, and I realize it's very intricate and can lead to some interesting game states and plays.
TLDR: As a new player, Morph is counter-intuitive, but as a veteran, it's very neat and I can abuse it. This is why this discussion is in flux - our opinion on it is based on our experience with the game.
Some things needed to be changed rules wise to make the game better and accepted by a wider group of people. Those complaining about the 'dumbing down' of the game are mostly old time players who won games because of their opponent not understanding the flow of the turn or such. Now players are on more even footing and the decks actually win the game, not the gamesmanship of the player.
Completely agree. Honestly this is all that needs to be said about the topic. Well put.
I'm not looking for your repect. But if you can't respect a valid point I make because of how you feel about me persoanlly, you cannot rightly claim to be respectful of logic. Personal attacks are also pretty lame in an argument.
Except you haven't made any points about the actual topic in your last couple posts; you just keep rambling on about logical fallacies and deconstructing the format of peoples' arguments. You are being increasingly annoying, and you are getting nowhere with your discussion. You're not being called annoying as a name, you're being told that you are, indeed, being annoying. Stop - no one cares.
On topic -
It is in Wizards' right to change rules they find counter-intuitive. When I first sat down to play Magic back in 2006 with my friends, I was told the very basics of the game. Use mana to cast spells/creatures, attack and block with creatures to deal damage. This basic understanding allowed me to play the game on a very fundamental level, and I enjoyed it.
It wasn't until I started going to FNM's that I began to realize the overall complexity of the game, and certain aspects of the rules felt wrong to me (this is that counter-intuitive part). I couldn't understand why a creature with Deathtouch+Trample could trample over my 11/11 Indestructible creature - but that is because the way combat damage was assigned (which I never knew damage was assigned until this point).
Does this mean Wizards need to change the way combat damage is assigned, because this one scenario is counter-intuitive? No, and the ruling remains the same, but this case highlights the fact that some parts of the game are difficult to wrestle with and ultimately it is up to WOTC to decide which rules need tweaking in order to keep it intriguing for new players while also interesting for the veterans.
Also, we'd have to get much more strict about looking at your hand before making your intentions clear. I know half the time I play with little kids, they just think "win coin flip"="go first".
No matter what, you are always supposed to decide who is playing first and who is drawing first before you look at your starting hands.
That being said, there's a few extremely counterintuitive rules I'd like to be fixed. Chief among them is how spells are announced.
Right now, casting a spell goes through these steps:
1) Announce the spell
2) SPELL GOES ON STACK
3) announce modes, targets, etc.
4) compute costs
5) pay costs
However, quite a number of players believe this is the proper sequence:
1) Announce the spell
2) announce modes, targets, etc.
3) compute costs
4) pay costs
5) SPELL GOES ON STACK
Another is "countered by the game rules" ie fizzle. Like summoning sickness, wizards should just straight up adopt the word "fizzle".
I agree with this point. There are a few aspects of the game that still need cleared up, including the example you included about how spells are announced.
It's not clear to new players how you actually pay the mana for a spell AFTER it is put on the stack (but before priority is passed). This causes confusion of all sorts, but I'm not sure what a simple fix for it is, and perhaps there isn't one.
Cards I mean are things like Collected Company, and before their ban - Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time. As more Standard-legal sets are printed, the Modern card pool grows, this makes the meta ever-changing.
Also, remember that it costs more to stay in Standard than it does in Modern. The initial entry cost may be higher, but after that Standard becomes increasingly costly to stay in where Modern does not.
Modern is in an ok spot right now, there's no clear best deck, and there are various viable strategies.
MM2 has a higher EV with more playable rares/mythics. At this point I think people are just complaining to complain (but will still buy it).
To echo what many have said, the format fails to deliver anything with more value than what I get in another format. If I want the uniqueness of a singleton format, I'll play EDH, and if I want to focus on powerful cards and synergies, I'll play Legacy.
TL doesn't do anything better than any other format - it's a red-headed stepchild. I'll pass.
TLDR: As a new player, Morph is counter-intuitive, but as a veteran, it's very neat and I can abuse it. This is why this discussion is in flux - our opinion on it is based on our experience with the game.
Completely agree. Honestly this is all that needs to be said about the topic. Well put.
On topic -
It is in Wizards' right to change rules they find counter-intuitive. When I first sat down to play Magic back in 2006 with my friends, I was told the very basics of the game. Use mana to cast spells/creatures, attack and block with creatures to deal damage. This basic understanding allowed me to play the game on a very fundamental level, and I enjoyed it.
It wasn't until I started going to FNM's that I began to realize the overall complexity of the game, and certain aspects of the rules felt wrong to me (this is that counter-intuitive part). I couldn't understand why a creature with Deathtouch+Trample could trample over my 11/11 Indestructible creature - but that is because the way combat damage was assigned (which I never knew damage was assigned until this point).
Does this mean Wizards need to change the way combat damage is assigned, because this one scenario is counter-intuitive? No, and the ruling remains the same, but this case highlights the fact that some parts of the game are difficult to wrestle with and ultimately it is up to WOTC to decide which rules need tweaking in order to keep it intriguing for new players while also interesting for the veterans.
Hope this explanation helps.
It's not clear to new players how you actually pay the mana for a spell AFTER it is put on the stack (but before priority is passed). This causes confusion of all sorts, but I'm not sure what a simple fix for it is, and perhaps there isn't one.
Flaming Warning -Cythare