>>43467398 >6 CMC, 2 Colored Symbols >Instant Speed >Potentially blows out an opponent, but still vulnerable to pump, indestrucibility, and whatnot Nothing unusual here, carry on my best child. My shining star >8 CMC, 3 Colored symbols >Sorcery Speed >Potentially blows out an opponent but still vulnerable to larger creatures, pump, indestrucibility, and whatnot WOAHWOAHWOAH! What the fuck are you up to, Green!? What gives you the right to interact with the board this way? How dare you? I'm going to have to keep a closer eye on you to make sure you don't do this ever again. You make me sick.
>>43468910 >ummoning beasts and fighting creatures is outside Green's pie? No those ale fine. The problem is scaling of spell "power" to match the opponents, or generally "wipe" effect that isn't Enchantments or Artifacts - that's not a Green thing at all. That's a Blue thing you might see in White or Black ocassionally.
>>43468910 The blue card is really conditional though, as blue combat tricks usually are. Your opponent needs to attack you while you hold six mana open. And whoever attacks a player with six mana open in EDH and does not expect some trickery probably browses /tg/.
MaRo is what we experts call "a huge fucking faggot" and has absurd double standards that favor blue. He's on record for saying Pongify is perfectly fine because its flavor excuses breaking the pie, and Song of the Dryads is not, because flavor cannot be used as an excuse for breaking the pie.
>>43469269 A red card that can take control over a permanent and then immediately sacrificing it would also work in the color pie. Same with blue exiling creatures, giving tokens, and then bouncing everything. It all works in the color pie, right? This is all fine.
>>43469443 I agree with him on those, though. Pongify changes threats into different threats, and transmutation is fine in blue. Has been since pic related and possibly earlier. Removing a creature without using one's own creatures is not part of green's pie, though, so Song of the Dryads is not kosher.
I disagree with him on OP though. The green one is fine.
>>43469584 From Maro's blog: >Your opponent has been playing creatures nonstop all game. You’ve played none. One Green spell shouldn’t eradicate all the creatures. That’s specifically supposed to be a problem for Green.
>>43469584 >But Fight and summoning multiple creatures with a single card IS green mechanics. Yes. >What single part of it isn't green? The fact that this "multiple" depends on board state of the OTHER players. Green is least interactive color - making tokens equal to the number of lands you control, your live total, X you pay, etc. is fine and perfectly Green. This is not.
I thought it was established fact that Blue has always been and always will be the most powerful color, and has been that way for literal decades?
Counterspells in a game where playing creatures is done by spells, and therefore you can use a counterspell as removal in addition to stopping instants/sorceries, is obviously an inherent advantage
Someone spends their turn summoning 10 mana bighuge fuckhead, you counterspell it and kill them, or let them waste their turn and then bounce it to swing, or give everything flying and go around it
That's WHY formats in MTG exist, because if it was just a competition to see which color was better blue wins out the starting gate. Meanwhile Red gets bolt and haste and first strike and that's literally it
Counterspells are stupid arbitrary win-harder when you get them in quality and quantity that Blue does, the fact doom blade is often worse removal than a simple counterspell says a lot.
>>43470006 Is there anything like magic but less logistics? Like you use actual cards for everything and don't carry around a billion dice or card inserts from packs or whatever the hell people use for tokens now?
Do new card games even get made or do they all go straight to cellphones and shit?
I've always fucking hated when maro talks about the color pie and how every color has things they just CAN'T do
I believe every color should be allowed to do anything, in their own manner. Green board wipe? if it's spamming fight club tokens then fine. red card draw? looting and exile-cast-until-eot is fine. Black artifact destruction? pay life, mana, and sac a permanent sounds fine, black can do anything at a cost.
then fucking maro comes around with his nasaly lisp voice and says NO NO NO THE COLOR PIE IS SACRED HOW DARE YOU SINNERS COMMIT SUCH BLASPHEMY WITH *MY* GAME!
>>43470224 The most annoying thing is when they try and claim breaking the color pie and doing weird things is Blue's slice of the pie. It prevents other colors from getting cool new stuff that would fit better in their color.
>>43470239 >>43470392 He probably means that out of White, Blue, Black, and Red, Red gets flying the least often, and its usually on rare creatures like Dragons and Phoenixes. In that way, it makes some sense to give Red more reach so it can deal with flyers outside of its stronger creatures or burn spells.
That said, Reach is a purely defensive mechanic as well, which makes it a bit odd to include. It's not like Red is forbidden from having defensive creatures though.
>>43470340 Yeah, but I used be able to draft and not need a billion tokens. Then that new Ravnica block came along and, like, every green and white card, as well as a bunch of the black ones, made shitloads of tokens. I tried switching to Constructed and just playing a deck with no tokens, making a token-less R/U Delver of Secrets deck. turns out nearly everyone at both the stores in my city was playing G/W tokens with that wurm that makes a copy of himself when he comes into paly and crap like that. And shitloads of cards that let you clone the tokens. I got sick of it. Fuck tokens.
It used to be, tokens were a jokes, like those squirrel decks in Odyssey or Saproling decks, but then they got too good and it wasn't funny anymore. Just like what they did to Goblins in Onslaught. Used to be funny, but now they're too overpowered to be funny.
According to MaRo, green is only allowed to use creatures to deal with other creatures. Noncreature spells that cause creatures to fight other creatures are okay. Noncreature spells that creatures are okay. Noncreature spells that create creatures that fight other creatures are not okay, because it does not rely on any resources other than those created by the spell. The spell is self-sufficient rather than creature-reliant, making it non-green. It is a green noncreature spell that deals with creatures without utilizing existing creatures, therefore making it an abomination in the eyes of the color pie.
>>43470392 >>43470448 green hates flying. it has the least flying creatures by far, red is most definitely second to last in that regard. green gets "destroy target flying creature" or "deal x damage to every flying creature" effects which would be effects that are completely out of its color pie if they hit all creatures. green hates flying and enchantments. red just hates artifacts.
>>43470448 I don't think giving reach would a be a solution. Just give them stuff to combat fliers with what they already do. Fighting, burning, and hitting on land so hard that their fliers will need to block them.
>>43470392 I was going to say it's more "red hates OTHER PEOPLE flying", but looking over red's cards...yeah, what the hell, MaRo? The closest red gets to disliking flying is cards that prevent fliers from blocking non-fliers, but that's more part of red's general blocking hate.
If anything, red hates NON-FLYING.
>>43470518 Seriously, I think this is just a problem with your area. There's been a shit-ton of more token-focused times than the second Ravnica block. Hell, FIRST Ravnica block printed Doubling Season, the single most overpowered token card.
You also seem to be unaware that shit gets powerful, then weak. No one's given a shit about Goblins in a while. Sure, RDW uses them, but it uses a bunch of other red weenies too.
>>43470669 Which is why many of us say "fuck MaRo", when compared to his fucking "everything works" attitude to Blue.
>>43470714 The issue is that the game's lead designer views the product he is designing in a way that's fundamentally different to how his audience views it. Balance isn't the problem in this instance, the issue lies in flavor and theme.
As a result, we only get cool (if janky and borderline unplayable) cards like Ezuri's Predation in sets that he doesn't have on a tight leash. The next one that he doesn't have total control over is SOI, so there might be some potential there.
>>43470224 >I've always fucking hated when maro talks about the color pie and how every color has things they just CAN'T do Then he bends over backwards to use colour mechanics to defend stupid shit. Blue gets flying creatures and cares about instants/sorceries, so who cares if Delver is the best aggro creature in the game when blue is supposed to suck at aggro? It does two blue things and as such produces a blue result. Just like how Ezuri's Predation does two green things and produces a blue result.
I'm not joking. Make it cost 5UUU and Maro could probably justify it somehow.
>>43471099 That's literally my point. Delver does two blue things (flying and instant/sorcery dependence) and creates an un-blue result (ridiculously good aggro creature in a colour that's supposed to suck at that), but Maro's fine with it because "lol blue mechanics." Ezuri's Predation does two green things (shitting out tokens and fighting things) and creates an un-green result (board-state-independent soft wrath in a colour that's supposed to suck at that), and Maro hates it.
It's a retarded double standard but it's how he sees the game.
>>43471237 It's the way in which it is good and what the final result is.
Delver might be a card that does stuff that's related to blue but the final result is effectively an aggro card, with aggro being something that isn't blue. Predation might be a card that does stuff that's related to green but the final result is effectively board clear, with board clear being something that isn't green.
>>43470758 i mean, it's not a joke LOL green gets better card advantage than blue, and rivals white's utility with its ability to destroy literally every type of permanent.
>>43470987 again, i think it's perfectly fine that green can't do literally anything. you do get weird and janky cards like the great aurora, you just don't get to have green wrath effects in standard which is pretty reasonable.
What's always annoyed me is how Black is supposed to be the "most powerful" color because it's wiling to pay any price to reach its goals, no sacrifice too great and no sacrilege unjustifiable.
Yet Blue almost always ends up accomplishing the exact same fucking shit as black without even needing an alternative cost of life or sacrificing creatures or permanents.
Blue gets to break the color pie because it's "creative" and "imaginative", while Black isn't allowed to do something like "pay half your life, destroy all enemy enchantments" or "sacrifice X creatures, you may choose to destroy up to X artifacts"
Alternative cost and sacrifice to destroy are very black things, but because it's not in their pie they can't do it.
Blue gets to do whatever it wants because Maro was bullied as a child and needs hit pet color to be the best
Nevermind the fact that it's been since fucking kamigawa it feels like where Black has had unconditionally not-evil-just-black creatures. Zombies vamps and demons are cool but come on even red gets non dragon ans goblin cards
Snapcaster in Red (as is, just colorswapped) would be pushing it, Flash is not very Red mechanic and neither is the overall power of the card - you'd have to either make it 1 mana more expensive or drop the Flash. Actually there's Dualcaster Mage, that's Snapcaster in Red.
>>43471640 >blue can do a thing black can't do yeah no shit you ingrate, that's the entire fucking point of the color pie. black can do many things blue can't do and vice versa, because they're different colors lol
>>43471489 Man, it must be nice to be this silly. Green has good cards, and is included in a ton of decks because it has solid ramp effects. That's it. White is more powerful than Green. Blue is more powerful than Green.
Claiming green is the most powerful color is like claiming French fries are the most important food, because they come with so many meals. They come with so many things because they're useful and undemanding.
>>43471684 Turn to Swine Mass Polymorph FUCKING MIRROR MATCH, THE CARD IN THE OP IMAGE.
Blue can effectively do everything every other color can do. So can white. Black, Red, and Green are then told they CAN'T, because it "wouldn't be fair."
This is an argument that's been had a dozen times. There's plenty of easy, color-true ways to make it so every color has potential answers to every problem, like Blue and White do. But wizards doesn't want to, because they prefer the current moderately unbalanced system, because it allows them to overcompensate in certain ways that appeal to some players.
Ah, that's right. Continuing the proud red tradition of getting worse mechanics after blue steals the good ones from its side of the color pie.
Flash is a mechanic that's fairly evenly spread out among the colors, except for blue's larger share. Every color gets access to it though for trick cards, such as Snapcaster. Snapcaster itself would have been red, except the guy who designed it was autistic about it being in blue.
Also, which one doesn't work within the colour pie? I see people bitching about Maro "coddling blue", but both of those seem very in-colour. Blue makes tokens and Fights while blue makes clones. If anything, Mirror Match should be Black. It's done similar things, like with Nemesis Trap.
I mean, I can kind of see the mass removal argument. That's not something that Green is supposed to be good with, meanwhile Blue is primary colour for cloning (and therefore getting your opponent's ETB triggers) as well as a reactionary colour. Although "do something only during the blocker phase" is more of a recent thing. Typically punishing people for attacking you is more of a White thing.
>>43470669 He pretty clearly spells out the problem, and really it makes sense. He's basically saying that if this was a CREATURE that had that ability, it would be fine. I mean, people in this thread are bitching but there are plenty of colours who can't do certain things.
>>43471806 would, like, one out of color super high cmc card like EP every now and then really damage the health of this game? at 8cmc it's pretty much guaranteed to not make a splash in any competitive format. the 8cmc category is pretty much reserved for commander and kitchen table.
MaRo is retarded and so are you. Green's already paying more for a shittier board wipe precisely because it's "out of color" and yes it is okay to give colors shittier and more expensive versions of mechanics.
>>43471775 >Did you just say that having good creatures wasn't Red, and was Blue? Wait, sorry, "overall power" was not a good choice of words, read that as "overall versatility" Red can have good creatures in terms of damage, but not so much in term of overall utility. Snapcater does a whole lot of utility.
Also Black has THREE creatures with Flash in whole history of magic. Two of them are from Planar Chaos block. The last one doesn't really need it to function.
>>43472010 So? Beseech the Queen was allowed as is, because paying enough mana for an effect can justify breaking the pie. Otherwise, there's no reason six mana is sufficient to steal tutoring from black. See Planar Portal.
>>43471847 You're right, how could have have been so blind? Turn to Swine isn't a Damnation. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HIT YOUR GUYS. Oh, sure, it costs more to target more than 2 guys, and it gives them 2/2s, because I'm certain that's a fair trade for their 6/6 flier, or their 9/9, their 20/20 indestructible trampler. Yeah, that 2/2 salves the wound.
MIrror Match definitely couldn't also read "Destroy all attacking creatures with power greater than or equal to their toughness", because that would actually be notably WEAKER than what it does, since that one doesn't abuse ETB effects.
You're 100% right on Mass Polymorph, however. That one isn't relevant to the topic. I forgot it only targeted your creatures.
>>43469717 No, because Genesis Wave involves you having creatures in your deck. Creatures like Foe-Razer Regents. He's saying that this card is out of colour for Green because you can get away with playing cards like this and not playing creatures, and Creatures are Green's Thing.
>>43469800>>43469734 Sweepers are in colour for Blue. >where does it fucking say you can't cast Ezuri's Predation unless you control no creatures? You're missing the point. He's saying that it's a problem because you CAN get away with doing that. It doesn't care about your own board state. If it said "create a 4/4 beast for each creature you control. Those tokens each fight a different creature target opponent controls" it would be fine to him.
>>43470224 If the colour pie wasn't stuck to, Magic would suck. MaRo says "no, the colour pie is sacred" because it's one of the secrets to Magic's success over the last few years. The entire point of the colour pie is to facilitate balance. Ignoring that would shit all over the fucking game and render the colours pointless.
Yeah, the colour pie is sacred and it is HIS game. It's not a fucking RPG, you don't get to houserule things. It's a modular but prepackaged game that runs off of an analogue computer system. You don't get to change things any more than you can change how Chess works.
Magic isn't a roleplaying game. Acting like your uninformed opinions matter more than those of the people who continually test and research things--and who SEE what happens when something does break the colour pie--is nerd entitlement.
Red is the best color at dealing 20 damage in a very specific way (burn). Green is the best color at dealing 20 damage in another specific way (efficient creatures). Black is the best color at dealing 20 damage in another specific way (drain life effects). Etc, Etc. All of these colors have viable alternative slices of the color pie to reside in.
Red does not. It has shit all outside of Lightning Bolt.
>>43472167 Direct damage happens to be the fastest way to achieve that goal, and it's been getting strong support lately, so quit fucking whining about it. You can't just give Red the things the other colors have because you don't like what it's supposed to be doing.
>>43472040 wait a sec so you're serious? jesus christ LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA >turn to swine isnt a damnation YEAH NO KIDDING LMOA
jesus christ how do you even breathe when you are this stupid? I know so many people irl that are on the "omg blue op" train but none of them are actually retarded enough to think that random janky blue spells that don't even have anything to do with damnation are damnation... how do i even word this like how do i even express how hilarious it is to me that someone can think an X spell that targets and doesn't net negative creatures on the board is a wrath effect
>mirror match could have read "Destroy all attacking creatures with power greater than or equal to their toughness" i mean sure, if caged sun, gauntlet of power, or hell anthems in general, pump spells, combat tricks, equipments, and a million other things didn't exist i can just imagine myself sitting there with this stupid card in my hand vs some bruna light of alabaster deck swinging at me with about 20 auras and 10 swords on her wishing it was an actually good card from literally any other card like maybe a white card (angel of the dire hour) or an actually good blue spell like aetherspouts and i dont even know why im talking about that, as usual it has nothing to do with black's piece of the color pie which includes creature destruction. "destroy target attacking creature" isn't even remotely the same thing, and this is not that. and of course you're literally retarded, so you're trying to compare this to damnation, which of course is even more of a stretch since they would have to attack you before you can even kill any of their shit
Red is declared to have looting by MaRo, which makes sense. MaRo then decides that red based looting effects have to be discard first, and blue gets the superior draw first, discard later approach, because that's "smarter"
Flashback is red's best mechanic. Blue gets snapcaster mage.
Red gets wheels. For every wheel effect red has, blue has a better one. (Timetwister>Wheel of Fortune, Timespiral>windfall>reforge the soul, Jace's Arcivist>Wheel Magus, etc)
Blue, supposedly the weakest in creatures even gets more efficient creatures than red. It's maddening.
can you quote strong support for red direct damage to the face?
Red hasn't gotten amazing face burn spells in BFZ or Origins, but it has gotten use it or lose it draw power, and prowess creatures, which allows it to push past blockers, win races, as long as it gets reasonably lucky.
But yeah; red is terrible. Not like they'd ever reprint Lightning Bolt.
Stop claiming a color is terrible because most of the cards played in eternal formats are not from that color.
People whinge about how blue is "the best color" because it happens to have the largest number of overpowered cards. But none of those cards is a Black Lotus, a Yawgmoth's Will, a Mishra's Factory, or a Memory Jar.
The colors are balanced. The best cards in a given format are not balanced by color.
Why do I even care about Commander cards anyway? It's almost as bad a format as Standard.
>>43472319 yeah but red is supposed to be the worst color. all it can do is be angry and do damage to things, basically the color as a whole is inherently subpar for a trifecta of reasons that come together in edh: 1. 40 point life total, this one is simple enough 2. singleton, red's best cards are burn cards and a card that can only burn their face like lava spike for example is only "good" if the rest of your deck is also lava spike effects. if you cant devote to attacking their life total with cards rather than with permanents, lava spike is literally useless. 3. multiplayer. obviously aggro in general suffers from this but especially if you are aggressive with spells rather than with permanents, well each spell can only hit em once. at least creatures can keep hitting em.
>>43470671 Wizards of the Coast say it constantly. Magic continues to experience growth each year, even when the rest of the hobby gaming market suffers.
Here's one from 2013 http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/video-games/20-magic-gathering-still-going-strong-not-just-school-lunchrooms-f8C11044163 Here's one from 2014 saying that while other Hasbro divisions lost money, Magic went up 20% http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/27842/magic-up-over-20-hasbro Here's one from this year saying Magic went down in Q3 but is STILL up for the year overall. http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/32837/magic-down-hasbro-q3
>>43471843 >>43471806 See, this is the problem. People don't seem to realize that when something breaks the colour pie it gets used OVER and OVER. Like, as far as I'm aware every Green deck has Beast Within, because every Green deck is GOING to need to get rid of something that they can't deal with. And if they printed MORE of those, even just once every five years, suddenly you've got MonoGreen Control and Green decks that play like those White decks where you wipe the board and then use a Permanent that becomes a temporary creature to attack on an empty field (Gideon for instance). That's not what Green is supposed to be able to do.
>>43471877 That's a problem. Hell, Maro has even said it's a problem. Part of the problem is that Blue's colour mechanically is much more loosely defined.
>>43471891 The issue is that it does those things on one single card. I mean, I personally think it's fine, and that supplementary products should break the colour pie in certain ways, because they're all about testing the waters (I think they should take the silver border role). But the problem is it changes people's perception of the colour pie.
>>43471922 No it's not. And Maro is keeping people like you from ruining the game because of how you THINK things should work. Unless you're one of those people who honestly thinks that early MtG was the best.
>>43472387 >red is supposed to be the worst color Then there is a problem. >all it can do is be angry and do damage to things Because apparently representing how red is also supposed to be joy and inspiration and creativity in card form is "challenging" while blue can get a card about studying every set.
>>43472438 >inspiration >joy yeah uh no lol. red is just about anger. it doesn't matter how many times they tell you "oh no red encompasses all the emotions!" or "b-b-b-b-but look at this one red card we printed this one time and how the guy on it isn't really angry!", there's a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. look at the red cards from any set and you will see, red is about being angry and blowing things up.
A free Force Spike doesn't hard-counter Brainstorm, Cabal Therapy, Entomb, Preordain, Crop Rotation, Swords to Plowshares, Ancestral Recall, Lightning Bolt, Goblin Guide, Breakthrough, Faithless Looting, Spell Pierce, Mana Vault, Dark Ritual, Gitaxian Probe, Mother of Runes, Chain Lightning, Chain of Vapor, Thoughtseize, High Tide, Reanimate, Grafdigger's Cage, Sol Ring, Preordain, Glimpse of Nature, Stifle, Noble Hierarch, Delver of Secrets, or Pithing Needle, among other things.
In other words, a free Force Spike doesn't counter every staple non-land, non-mana-rock in the eternal formats.
>>43472493 >>43472494 >red should just get random flash creatures that make million card advantage too yeah uh sorry boys but the color pie exists for a reason. you get abbot of keral keep, the red snapcaster mage, because red can't be precise and because red can't have too much flash. red is just for angry dumb guys.
>>43472464 Blue breaking the pie is one problem; but complaining that because Blue does it doesn't justify every other color doing it. And maybe it is unfair, but bitching about it on 4chan has and will never help your case.
I'm not defending Rosewater. One of the biggest problems in MtG design is that they keep trying to make cards that are cool in Limited and Standard, but they don't test a damned thing for Modern or the eternal fromats. So they keep banning interesting and useful cards for Modern because they "don't want it to turn out like Legacy." And that's a colossally stupid move, because a non-rotating format is going to accumulate the necessary cards to make turn-1 combos if the game's designers don't test cards for that format.
>>43472331 That's not sad at all. That's literally the point. The point is "that card does something that is not within Green's wheelhouse because it allows Green to wipe the board even if they have no creatures to begin with, which is something that Green should not be able to do through only a sorcery."
>>43472375 Really? Red? It's more White if you ask me. It punishes your opponents for attacking you. How is that Red? Stealing all your opponent's creatures and making them commit sepuku would be Red, but Red doesn't tend to do reactionary stuff.
>>43472438 Blue gets study cards because the game is about MAGIC and studying magic helps you be better at doing magic.
I'll admit they could probably do some joy in card form, but most of it would be out of colour mechanically. Like, how do you show joy rejuvenating someone without it being a White or Green card? How do you show happiness in a way that feels red?
Soulbond might be good as a primarily Red mechanic if it returns. THE FIRE FORGED BONDS OF FRIENDSHIP.
The issue with things like >>43472486 isn't that they're wrong. It's that they're right, but barely exist.
>>43472472 But... it generally isn't. And even then the problem is that Magic is more than just the block. Give a colour something it can't do (especially something that shores up a weakness, like not being able to deal with a larger board presence) and it's going to want to do that thing. People are going to want to use that card because it gets rid of a weakness they had.
Green is the color that relies on creatures to get shit done. If a Sorcery is doing this without using your Creature spells, then it's breaking the pie, even if the means to do so are within Green mechanically.
>>43472601 It has Haste, but it's conditional. It doesn't actually get to ATTACK, it has Haste so that it can quickly use it's ability. Although Bonded Fetch would also work in Red. Or is Red looting discard then draw?
>>43472614 They do test for Modern, it's just that there's so much more to deal with.
>>43472629 Unearth and Suspend get Haste because they wouldn't work without it. Suspend also gets haste because it's already so slow. You cast the creature several turns ago and have to WAIT.
Green can do Ezuri's Predation, it just can't do it on a Sorcery. A creature or even an Enchantment that lets you make 4/4 Beast Tokens and then has "5GGG: Each creature you control fights a different creature target opponent controls" would be fine. It requires you to HAVE some board presence, which is what Green wants to have. Green needs board presence to do things. It doesn't get to have it's pie and eat it too, it needs creatures.
>>43472704 Those both require creatures. Also, Engulfing Slagwurm is a bad card that I love so much.
>>43472793 >>43472736 >Play good cards, not "cards of My Color." This is missing the point so hard that I'm confused as to whether you even know what people are talking about. No one is saying not to play these cards. If anything, the opposite is the problem. The problem isn't that these cards shouldn't be PLAYED, it's that they shouldn't be MADE, at least not in the form they're in. Green isn't supposed to be able to do things like this unless it has creatures. Creatures that a spell gives you to then use to wipe the board doesn't count, because you didn't have those creatures before hand.
>>43472853 Yeah, but it's a poor substitute. Meanwhile they can't just reprint a functional reprint of Snapcaster because holy fuck two of them would be such a terrible idea.
>>43473148 ok anon let's do a thought experiment. let's look at the last x cards to have been printed nowadays that strongly affected eternal formats. the first one is obviously baby jace, but the verdict isn't clear on him yet so let's skip him for now. he may just end up being mediocre in modern and legacy. the next two, then, are dig through time and treasure cruise. these cards were so incredibly powerful they eventually got banned from literally every single eternal format. and look, all these cards are blue, wow! yep, blue sure sucks rn.
>They do test for Modern, it's just that there's so much more to deal with.
I agree that it gets harder and harder to test for all the formats, especially because the card-pool gets exponentially larger the farther back you go. But they still printed Ponder, Mental Misstep, Snapcaster Mage, Deathrite Shaman, Dig through Time, and TREASURE CRUISE, all after deciding that Modern was a format worth "preserving".
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying that if Wizzerds genuinely cares to make Modern a long-game, non-rotating format, they've done a bad job at setting a precedent.
>>43473113 I'm always anti-internet outrage. We talked about this in the last EDH thread, where one anon posted some nobody's facebook reaction about how thoughts can be like heroin and heroin addicts aren't really people and a few other things that weren't relevant. I didn't watch his stream and I don't know what he said but playing devil's advocate is something every intelligent person does, just because the Holocaust is some great big sacred cow doesn't mean that it shouldn't be deconstructed. Understand the actual motives of people in situations like that might be an interesting thing to discover.
let me guess, blue has no weaknesses right? it's not like it only has one form of permanent answer to threats that requires it to hold up mana on it's turn AND have the card when the threat is deployed, unlike every other color's answers.
>>43473239 oh yeah i mean bill boulden's reply was very inane. it's because he's a jew, I think. he talks about how it was wrong of travis to even read mein kampf or even think about the holocaust being fake or whatever, and I'm not really sure how to express the myriad of ways that's retarded. but for absolute starters it's an insult to all of us to imply that we cannot think about evil, bad things and why those things are bad without somehow succumbing to some kind of magical evil ideas plague. it's actually just fucking ludicrous. it's an insult to intellectualism in general, really. it's presumably also patently false, although that's an empirical question that i assume nobody would ever make a study about just because of how retarded it is.
>>43473438 Exactly. A sorcery with "your creatures fight each other creature" or something is fine because you need to have creatures to make use of it. It's broken because it both gives you creature tokens and then immediately has them fight each of your opponent's creatures.
>>43473518 >i dont know what efficient means why do you even post then, anon?
>>43473511 >have to use a removal spell from another color in conjunction with blue's "removal" to actually remove something i guess we can rest our case that pongify is most certainly not a removal spell then? also sick fucking plays "ill just 2 for 1 myself for days"
Why the fuck do we care about the color pie for cards that won't even see widespread play?
These new Commander cards fucking suck in Commander and they're certainly not going to see Eternal play.
So you have this small segment of retarded players who play bad cards who ALSO get angry about the color pie getting all offended over garbage cards and refusing to play them.
Problem #1 - Card prices are fucking ridiculous. Any "issue" Magic players bitch about is secondary to that problem. Any victory about anything is insignificant if it does not advance a solution to that problem. From that problem stems all other problems although color pie discussion is not related it just goes to show how goddamn irrelevant it is.
so you've just wasted two cards to deal with one of their cards.
that sucks man. in fact, that's why instead of dealing with that bullshit you'll usually just run a real removal spell like bolt and then bolt the first creature so you don't have to look like a fucking faggot awkwardly bolting a card that you created with your piece of shit removal spell you only added because /tg/ mislead you about the game because they suck ass at magic.
>>43473611 yeah ok, so to kill a creature blue has to assemble a 2 card combo, and then actually cast both of those cards just to kill 1 card. clearly this means blue has removal right guys? check out green's doom blade, where you cast sedge scorpion and then savage punch it onto whatever you want to kill. somehow having to draw the right 2 cards, and then actually cast both is positive tempo.
>>43473683 why do you care? the means to get cheap cards is out there for anyone who wants them, if people want to keep letting wizards swindle them then they deserve to pay $700 for a standard deck that will be worth under $200 in a year.
i think it's hilarious that blue gets one decent creature that only works in a specific type of deck and everybody shits their britches over it, while other colors get creatures that are just as strong, if not stronger or less situational (tarmogoyf, bob, taylor swift, goblin guide, eidolon of the great revel, tasigur, siege rhino, gurmag angler...) but nobody ever mentions them when they talk about how op blue is.
>>43473587 Doesn't change the fact that it's an instant speed removal spell that can kill a goyf for U. You don't even need to bolt the 3/3, I was saying if it really got down to the wire and that 3/3 feels that threatening to you, you can do it
>This is missing the point so hard that I'm confused as to whether you even know what people are talking about....
Bad cards have existed since the beginning of Magic. If you don't like it, either play another game, or don't waste your time debating people over why they exist.
Cards that "break the color pie" have been printed since the beginning of Magic. If you don't like it, see above.
Green isn't "supposed" to do anything. Nor is any other color. Saying that a card shouldn't be made because it doesn't fit into the color pie is pointless; excellent cards often have failed to fit into the color pie.
Red and green are underpowered? Channel, Sylvan Library, Oath of Druids, Fastbond, Eureka, Hypergenesis, Crop Rotation, Hermit Druid, Deathrite Shaman, Birds of Paradise, Berserk, Tarmogoyf, Scapeshift, Goblin Recruiter, Imperial Recruiter, Rite of Flame, Seething Song, Wheel of Fortune, Pyroblast, Red Elemental Blast, Blood Moon, Goblin Guide, Grim Lavamancer, Eidolon of the Great Revel, Splinter Twin, and Goblin Piledriver are all cards.
Sure, a lot of those cards are banned. And a lot of those cards aren't legal in Modern. So what's your point? Many of those cards defy the color pie, as do many cards in the other colors (Phyrexian Obliterator, Delver of Secrets, Stoneforge Mystic), but certain people don't like seeing "their colors" played less in Format X than the colors they don't like (which probably isn't true anyway, but I digress). I'm not missing the point; the point makes no sense because the best decks don't waste time with the "color pie".
Lands warp the game because they're too powerful. Why can't other colors get The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale (even though they did)? Why can't other colors get Bazaar of Baghdad (even though they did)? Why can't other colors get Ghost Quarter (they totally did)?
or i could just splash black and actually kill the fucker because while taking away my opponent's tarmogoyf is great, replacing it with a 3/3 (which will still kill you in 5-6 turns if they play nothing else) isn't exactly "dealing with the problem". Blue's big weakness is that if it doesn't get you with it's counters (all of which suck now because they're "unfun") it doesn't really have any permanent solutions that don't involve tempo/card loss.
Whatever you use it on is going to be more threatening than the 3/3 due to its size or effect. If the 3/3 is still threatening you, then you can deal with it in the same ways you would a normal 3/3 token.
If giving your opponent a 3/3 in exchange for their bomb loses you the game, you were going to lose anyway.
>>43473733 just the notion of pongifying a goyf is so painful that i can't believe you think that's a real thing. jesus christ. goyf is literally already vanilla, all you do is make it a bit smaller for a card and mana. like if you think about cases where you just want some kind of removal, any kind, who cares if i lose value, you think about stuff like bloom titan or goblin electromancer. the point is that you don't run removal spells to have ready just in case someone plays something you can't otherwise deal with with your vast armada of cards. you play removal spells to actually fucking kill their creatures with, not turn them into 3/3s. why would you build your deck with the plan to 2 for 1 yourself when you can run actual removal spells that kill things permanently out of literally any other color other than green?
>>43473803 the point is that spending a card to make something slightly less threatening is not just a bad play, it means that card is not a removal spell.
what if they're playing fucking goblin guide the 2/2 mother fucker who's been killing you before you even played your first card
that pognify is going to save you now isn't it
what if they damage you before you pognify their creature because you missed the chance to counter their spell and after you pognify their "bomb" they kill you anyways (or...play another creature and kill you with TWO creatures anyways!).
seriously, there's areason these cards NEVER see play.
>>43473861 >a temporary answer is still and answer That is the sort of answer a shitty politician gives. Kick the can down the road and let the next poor fuck deal with it. We'll just use this morphine to "cure" your broken leg.
>>43473883 it's fine in commander, obviously you will run as many pongify effects as you can in basically any monoblue edh deck. that's just for lack of options though. when i put a card like scour from existence in my monored edh deck i don't think to myself, mmm, im running this card therefor it's not a shit tier magic card. anyway we're talking about whether pongify is a real removal spell or not.
>>43473940 i dispute no such thing. every color has an answer for everything if you stretch far enough and count "temporary answers" and shit cards that nobody would ever in their right mind run. it's a pointless thing to argue for though, since obviously it's true that blue can answer anything - fucking colorless can answer anything, so what's the point of even bringing it up?
>>43473443 >>43473403 >>43473488 It's funny how Pongify is terrible because Blue has so many better answers, but Beast Within is amazing because Green doesn't (although Beast also hits non-creatures... which is something Blue can do already).
>>43473438 Exactly. The fact that you can have no creatures before casting the spell and then wipe the board is the problem. A creature that did it or even an Enchantment that created tokens and had them Fight as separate effects would be fine.
>>43473462 Look, the "it's transmutation" argument is fine, but let's not be stupid. It literally says "destroy target creature". It destroys the creature, it just happens to replace it.
>>43473672 MaRo's job--and Magic's success--depends on keeping the Colour Pie as strict as they can for tournament formats. The notion that he's "autistic" because he doesn't want something that breaks the colour pie is so fucking incompetent that it borders on lunacy.
>>43473774 No one is talking about bad cards. And, yes, certain things are "supposed" to do things. Part of the success of Magic comes from the colour pie and sticking to it as much as possible. "Bleed" is allowed, but outright going against the colour pie is detrimental. >Cards that "break the color pie" have been printed since the beginning of Magic. Yes, and you may not have noticed but they're trying not to do that, because older Magic was kind of a shitfest of random "flavour" that didn't mean anything beyond the card it was printed on. Cards like the ones you listed are, if anything, excellent BECAUSE they go outside of the Colour Pie, and that's the problem. The game should not be filled with cards like those. Some of them also don't actually break the colour pie, so I'm not sure why you listed them.
Actually, a LOT of the cards you listed don't break the colour pie, so I'm wondering if you really even understand the issue to begin with.
>>43474011 efficient small creatures with evasion is and big overcosted fatties are the only thing blue has going for it in terms of creatures. Especially something like delver which limits how many other creatures you can run.
>Because Blue has answer for everything, a temporary answer is still and answer.
You're right that blue has an answer for everything in the eternal formats (because free counterspells are a thing there).
You're wrong that a temporary answer is still an answer. If you're not in the process of comboing off, a temporary answer means next to nothing. There's a reason Memory Lapse and Remand aren't good cards. And that virtually no bounce spells see play in Legacy.
>>43474065 LOL what im saying is, im making fun of you, because you are whining about how blue can answer anything, when it's a moot point because every color can answer anything because your definition of "answer" includes basically anything that interacts with the threat in question
>It's funny how Pongify is terrible because Blue has so many better answers, but Beast Within is amazing because Green doesn't (although Beast also hits non-creatures... which is something Blue can do already).
Nobody said Beast Within was great, but the fact that it can answer ANY permanent does make it slightly better than Pognify
and don't even pretend like blue can answer ANY permanent. "Answers" have to remove threats. If you return something to their hand, you're not removing it. You're stalling it.
>Look, the "it's transmutation" argument is fine, but let's not be stupid. It literally says "destroy target creature". It destroys the creature, it just happens to replace it.
That's why it doesn't destroy it. It just changes it into a different creature. It's not answering it, it's replacing it with another permanent that you have to answer.
>>43474167 wow you're really falling apart lmao yes yes, we get it, and red is also the strongest color because it can also answer anything, and also green is the strongest color because it can answer anything. nerfs to red and green when! also black and white can answer anything wtf! nerfs when!
>>43474216 monoblack card that kills artifacts: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=3303 monoblack card that kills enchantments http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=376462 GOOD FUCKING GAME HEYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>>43474229 you misunderstand, anon is trying to tell me blue can answer anything and is therefor op, and im saying that technically any color can answer anything so it's a moot point
>>43474059 >Magic's success--depends on keeping the Colour Pie as strict as they can for tournament formats. wow what a falsifiable statement you're so smart anon
>>43474059 >The fact that you can have no creatures before casting the spell and then wipe the board is the problem. why is it a problem, exactly? because maro feels like saying it's a problem at this precise moment?
>>43474011 Delver has good P/T but it's incredibly situational. It also REQUIRES you to play a "Blue" deck, that works the way Blue decks want to work. Delver by the way would probably work as a Red creature if you gave it Menace.
>>43474115 >Black's answers are colourless I don't think you understand how colours work.
>>43474131 That's not the kind of creature you'll generally be attacking with. It's more for it's ability.
>>43474132 Yes, but Delver >>43474077 limits what you can do with your deck, and has difficult to achieve requirements. You can't play Delver in any old deck. You need to have a "blue" deck that does things like Blue wants them to be done: with lots of Instants and Sorceries.
>>43474200 Beast Within IS great. Because it's completely out of colour and it's something that Green desperately wants to be able to do. Also, stalling is Blue's answer to things, and all things considered it's a good answer.
>That's why it doesn't destroy it It literally says "Destroy target creature". And making something complex into a 3/3 is generally answer enough on it's own.
A temporary answer is still an answer (which is why Blue decks filled with temporary Tempo answers like Bounce can still win the game over Aggro decks that rely on their board presence and constant pouring everything into their board state) and downgrading a threat is still answering it. A 3/3 is easier to deal with than a 4/4 with a special ability.
>>43474291 Those cards intentionally cost you twice the board presence that they remove, and are also rare.
>>43474357 >>43474366 card costs only black to cast, it is monoblack. if you're talking about color identity for edh, you know what cards fit into a monoblack general's color identity that kill enchantments?
ill list em again since you forgot: scour from existence nevy's disk perilous vault unstable obelisk oblivion stone
> A temporary answer is still an answer (which is why Blue decks filled with temporary Tempo answers like Bounce can still win the game over Aggro decks that rely on their board presence and constant pouring everything into their board state) and downgrading a threat is still answering it. A 3/3 is easier to deal with than a 4/4 with a special ability.
that's why mono blue delver is a thing right
tempo decks worked before by splashing for other colors because blue's answers for things on the field were trash. the only good tempo cards delver ran were Remand and Vapor Snag because the latter stalls them while you kill them and draws a card and the latter stalls them and kills them
Remand gets used in Twin because Twin is just going to end the game on Turn 4 if possible anyways. That doesn't make them "good" answers though and it's still a weakness of the color. I don't think the cards are bad (except Pognify and RH, those are shitty), I think Blue has weaknesses and R/G babies who whine about how OP blue is and how it gets special treatment dont' know what the fuck they're talking about (especially when R/G are possibly the best colors in Modern while still being highly represented in literally every format).
When has anyone ever played Quagmire Druid competitively?
Leaving aside the fact that the card requires green mana to actually do the thing we've been arguing about, it's a terrible card. Just like Pongify is a terrible card.
There's no reason to continue arguing about this: there are colors that (for whatever idiotic reason) have a really hard time dealing with specific threats. Concurrently, though not relatedly, certain colors (primarily black and blue) have a large number of extremely powerful, game-warping cards.
That does not make those colors better than colors that don't have those things. There's a reason very few decks in the eternal formats are 0- or 1-color decks: the best answers for certain threats, or the best ways to gain a certain advantage, usually belong to cards of a variety of colors.
People keep arguing about how color X is too powerful or color Y is useless, when really, the cards are what matters, not the breakdown of the colors.
>>43474467 doesn't mean the card is green. "counter target green spell" would not counter it on the stack, nor would "destroy target green permanent" on the field. the card is monoblack, which is what anon asked me for - a monoblack card that kills enchantments. not really much to argue about. you can literally tutor it with a spell that reads "search your library for a black card that is not green, reveal it, and put it into your hand".
>>43474307 >what a falsifiable statement Then prove it. You can say I'm wrong, but several people have written about the Colour Pie being the source of Magic's success (along with mana). There's also the somewhat correlated proof in that when they got stricter on the Colour Pie Magic found more success.
>why is it a problem, exactly? Because--and this is going to be hard for you to understand--limitations and game balance are what make games fun.
Would you really prefer a Magic where there was no colours? Just one type of card? Everything is Colourless and you can do whatever you want with your decks? Do you think that would be more fun?
>>43474404 That's not how "mono" works. If you can't play it in a single colour deck, it's not "mono" anything. Likewise listing off Artifacts means nothing; Artifacts are Colourless and can be played in every colour, they don't give something to a single colour, they allow all colours to access it. that's why certain abilities don't show up on Colourless cards.
>>43474447 Mono Blue Delver *can* be a thing. Few if any decks are ever mono anything, other than Red, and that's because Red doesn't play well with others.
>>43474453 Eh. Red *can* have fliers, even small ones, but it's not something Red generally has. Menace fits better, and could be something flavoured like that Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde one. I forget what it's called. Something Scholar Brute?
>>43474534 Red *rarely* gets fliers, there's a difference. Blue gets them left and right. Red's aggressive bodies also don't make you wait for them. A Red Delver would be a 3/1 flier for R that needs to attack every turn.
>>43474552 This is not something a monoblack deck can use to answer enchantments. I don't know why that's so hard to grasp for you. No one's disputing that it's a black card, it just doesn't fit the criteria of "monoblack answer to enchantments".
>>43474546 never, because the card is shit. similarly, fucking pongify is shit you moron. blue does not, in general, have "answers" to enchantments and artifacts just because there are some random blue effects that can steal them.
>>43474581 >>43474574 oh sure shift the goalposts now that i've proven you mooks wrong. like i already said, i am perfectly aware you cant even put it into an edh deck with a monoblack general. ill list for you for a third fucking time the plethora of cards that can be put in such a deck and actually used to remove enchantments from the field, i dont know how this is so hard to understand but hey maybe third time is the charm: scour from existence, nevy's disk, perilous vault, unstable obelisk, oblivion stone plus a whole bunch of other shit like all is dust. you like that one? wipes every enchantment, 100% legal in monoblack edh.
god you guys are unbelievable. whine about how blue can answer anything because random cards like blatant thievery exist, but evidently black can't kill enchantments because who ever runs all is dust in edh am i right guys?
>>43474574 >Tell me about it. You know I never saw this shit when I was starting out. Occasionally you'd see someone who needed to be told that no, green doesn't get wrath effects, but none of this "WAH MY COLOR DOESN'T GET ENOUGH STUFF."
A red SCM would be playable in burn. Do you really, really want a card that flashes back lightning bolts/lava spikes/searing blazes and then swings in for two in the most aggressive color in the game? Really? Modern is so heavily biased towards aggro decks as it is, it's not like we need to make blue even worse in the format.
Red snap caster mage is the dumbest fucking shit i swear to god. If it was in red, it would probably be banned.
>>43474670 Just something I remembered from an old custom card thread way back in the day (before /tg/ even existed). There was a brief argument over whether or not it was appropriate to give colors anything that fit flavorwise originating from a Wrath of Gaea that did exactly what it sounds like it does.
>>43474635 1. We're talking about the color pie, what each color can do. Artifacts are irrelevant to that conversation. 2. A black card with an activated ability that costs green isn't restrained to black's part of the color pie. That ability can be green. Which it is. Because it costs green mana and it does a green thing. 3. Black still can't answer enchantments on its own terms, your example is shit.
>>43474693 what are you even saying modern burn splashes fucking every color if it wanted snapcaster mage it would have it, but why would it want snapcaster mage? it's slow and costs lots of mana if it's actually going to be a burn spell, at least 3 mana can you imagine paying 3 mana for a lava spike? gross
>>43474747 ok but im not talking about the color pie, im just shrekking some random anon's anus who thinks blue is overpowered because once upon a time wizards printed a card with the text "steal target permanent" on it so basically all your points are invalid 3. is funny though because black actually cannot answer enchantments at all without colorless spells, unless you count "cabal therapy them and hope they choose to sacrifice it" lmao
>>43474693 >it's not like there aren't several high tier red and green decks in fucking every god damn format on the face of the god damn earth
That was my point. It's not about which color has the most pushed cards in it; it's about how you use the cards.
It's pretty hard to argue that blue doesn't have the largest concentration of busted cards, and that black doesn't have the second-largest. Does that make Elvish Spirit Guide a bad card? Or Sylvan Library? Or Land Tax? No. Blue sees a lot of play in Legacy because Force of Will, Brainstorm, Daze, and Delver are cards. That doesn't mean that monoblue tends to get very far; High Tide, Merfolk, and S&T aren't top-tier decks, and the reason is that they don't have access to other cards that do a better job than any blue card would do for what the deck needs.
steal effects cost 5+ mana for a reason you fucking retard, and counters are timing specific and require you to hold up mana on your turn (meaning you're not doing anything) as opposed to stronger answers that can be used whenever the bumfuck you want. bouncing isn't even answering something, it's just delaying needing a real answer to something. the only time bounding answers something is when you stack a bunch of enchantments on uril the misstalker and then have him get evacuated.
it's a 3 mana lava spike that swings for two over and over. there's a reason Twin wins off snapcaster mage beats by a lot (since nobody lets you play the actual combo unless they're bad). It would be even worse if burn (which doesn't splash 'every color' in modern) didn't have to sacrifice anything to get it.
it means it's less awful in blue because it requires more sacrifice and more "building around it" for delver to be good. blue can get good creatures, it's creatures just require sacrifice to be good (Merfolk requires you building entirely about the Tribe, Delver requires stacking the deck with spells). Compare to Tarmogoyf which gets played in every green deck because it doesn't require anything to be good but to exist.
Is everyone arguing this green card is acceptable okay with the idea of a blue instant that bounced a creature to its owner's hand, then countered the next spell with that name played? Both of those effects are blue.
>>43474856 >swings for 2 over and over yeah sure maybe in whatever magical christmasland you come from more realistically it's a 3 mana lava spike and a 2/1 without haste, without prowess, that has absolutely no way to get through blockers. the reason twin wins off snapcaster has nothing to do with burn running it. burn was briefly blue when treasure cruise was legal and they still didnt run snapcaster because, again, it'd be a horrible card in burn regardless of what color it was.
>>43474865 your opponent has an outpost siege on the field. tell me how you leverage your cabal therapy to remove it?
>>43474730 But 3 damage per turn 1 one mana is often not what most decks want. Some decks wants a creature that provides mana for when you get wasted from all your lands, or to accelerate into a turn 2 LOTV or TNN, or to gain life when that matters, or to pressure your opponents life when that matters, or to shut SCM down, or to prevent reanimator from being a little shit.
>>43474909 I have some opposition to bringing cabal therapy to modern, but the bigger problem is how do they reprint CABAL therapy? the cabal were kind of a specific thing. it would be like trying to reprint a phyrexian mana card in a set that has nothing to do with phyrexia. why the fuck did they get rid of core sets again?
Sure, you're right that often there's something else you want to do with a deck. For example, Maverick and Jund don't run Delver, and they don't need to. High Tide doesn't run Deathrite for the same reason. That said, when it comes to top-tier decks that need top-tier beats, if they're not running both cards, they're running Delver.
The joke's on us, though; most serious Legacy decks that run one run both.
>>43475014 ok come on anon. i dont think you understand how modern burn works. the deck literally cannot have "more reach", all the deck is is reach. you cut a 1 mana burn spell for snapcaster, now you have a 3 mana spell that reads "deal 3 to them, put a 2/1 on the field". it costs 3, it's just not good enough.
>>43474865 Bad magic player here. How do you use this card? Say it's being played against R/G Tron, yes I know it's a different format. Do you turn 1 call out a crapshot like Sylvan Scrying and hope for the best, or do you play something like thoughtseize or duress on turn 1 then follow up with it?
Steal effects are very expensive, so they're unlikely to see competitive play because removal is at least half as useful for (often) a third or a quarter of the cost of stealing.
Boomerang effects, as I mentioned earlier, are very rare in competitive play if you go deeper than Modern.
I have to confess I don't know much of anything about EDH because it's not my thing. I'll concede that in the format, from what I've seen, a card like Cyclonic Rift is very powerful, but I've not really taken the format into consideration when making my argument.
>>43475098 well, in competitive settings where you typically know what certain decks play, you name their combo piece or a removal spell you think might fuck you. it also sees use in reanimator and dredge decks, you can target yourself with it and pitch something important like a griselbrand or golgari grave troll.
>>43475098 Both are valid options. It's a shit ton of fun to play with, because of all the mind games involved. Look up stories of mana less dredge decks using it for some examples.
A really safe way to play it is like this:
Always ask yourself what the most likely card they have is that they can use to stop you from winning. You'll miss sometimes, but often times getting their "best card" is irrelevant, if they don't have an answer.
>Cyclonic Rift usually preludes someone winning the game in EDH
because they probably have a bullshit combo in their hand already meaning that they don't have to deal with the bullshit being played again.
steal effects are almost never mana efficient outside of edh where the format lets higher costing cards shine (literally the point of the format) and a boomerang is a temporary answer that doesn't solve your problems, just postpones it.
the funny thing about it is that it fucking fits perfectly in blue too. at it's heart it's a U/R card (which is why the U/R precon is unsurprisingly about spell slinging), and the only way they could really make it any more bluer is if they made it a 1/2.
>>43475098 it's really powerful in certain decks just because they have free bodies for the flashback cost. either monastery mentor or young pyromancer trigger and make a token on the first cast, and then the second cast is free. it's also hard to counterspell because you can't counter it the first time because it still triggers and makes a body, and it still goes to the graveyard where it can be flashed back. similarly nic fit runs it with veteran explorer which they want to die.
so with all that in mind, it's not really about how you use it. it's just THAT powerful. in legacy there are certain cards you know your opponent will have 4 of, right? like counterbalance, or force of will, and so on. whichever of those poses the biggest problem for you is what you name if it resolves the first time. so if you're against tron, and you're on the play, you can choose between naming something like expedition map if you feel like you can beat them before they get online or naming something like wurmcoil engine or karn libterated if you don't think you can stop them from getting online and are planning to win the long game. or you name pyroclasm against r/g tron i guess if you're running young pyro or monastery mentor with that cabal therapy? dunno. it's a fun card because it's so interesting to think about.
>>43475132 i mean, you can cast them in a black edh deck, what else do you want? so, what are blue's answers to extra turns? i genuinely, legitimately do not know, please enlighten me.
>>43475158 that doesn't actually stop extra turns at all though? are you trolling or just dumb?
He's never really known what he's talking about. Whenever I see that he's designing a set, I can tell right away that it's either going to be broken as all hell or just terribly underpowered and forgettable.
He's said a number of ridiculous things that show a complete lack of hindsight.
>>43475261 No one said Beast Within doesn't break the color pie. It does. The issue is idiots think Pongify and Rapid Hybridization do not. It's a long trend of breaking the color pie being part of blue's color pie.
>>43475381 >>43475403 It destroys that creature. I don't know how much more this will have to be repeated. If it was an aura with flash that turned it into a 3/3, it would be completely different. As it stands though, it's polymorphing in flavor alone. Other colors don't get to use flavor as an excuse to break the color pie, blue consistently does (see: Dreamscape Artist, aka Harrow-on-a-stick, it's blue because illusions or something).
>>43475408 Didn't have it at the time. Their upkeep is actually bad for them, and you want them to get 2 in a row, but not all the extra baggage that comes with it You knew they had flutterstorm at the time as their only counter, and it would be enough to stop you on your turn, but not enough on theirs.
>>43474633 >Menace wasn't around during Innistrad That's why I meant "you could make a red card with this ability instead". Also, Menace has been around for ages, just not with a name.
>That to shift it to Red you had to lower its toughness and give it a downside or else it would be too strong for aggro decks. I meant it would be simply R, "Flying, attacks each turn" and 3/2 (I forgot what Delver's Toughness was). No Transforming, no needing to wait.
Delver is Blue because it makes you play the way Blue wants to play. It restricts your deckbuilding.
>>43474635 >>43474721 You haven't proven a fucking thing wrong. >like i already said, i am perfectly aware you cant even put it into an edh deck with a monoblack general. You also can't put it in a deck with only black mana. Colourless boardwipes are also not "Monoblack" board wipes because they are SOMETHING THAT EVERY COLOUR CAN USE.
Since you think we're moving the goalposts, let's just define what "monoblack" means.
>Can be played in a deck that is only black >Has Black in it's casting cost >Does not have colour requirements from any other colour
>>43474642 EDH isn't the problem. Most of these are clearly Standard or Modern players. The problem is that /tg/ is bad at Magic. It always has been.
I was bad at understanding Magic until I stopped coming to /tg/ for a while. You people who actually know Magic? Go to Reddit. You'll get not just Judges (actual Judges! Not just "I was totally a Judge once, I mean, not officially, but I might as well have been, I helped out my shop owner and I knew all the rules even though I never looked at the Rules Compendium" Judges) but also actual people who work at Wizards and actual professional players like Kibler.
People who know Magic because it's their job, because they volunteer, or because they make a living researching it.
>>43475491 It's a one-mana kill spell. It gives them something in return, sure, but it's a one-mana kill spell. You can disguise it under the "flavor" of "polymorphing" all you want but that doesn't change what it is, at its core, and what's written on it.
>>43475687 It kills everything that dies to removal. It just gives them a 3/3 in return, which in most formats, is too big of a downside. The card's playability in eternal formats, however, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether that card breaks the color pie.
>>43467751 my sentiment exactly as to why i will never buy a commander product or play that shitty shitty format. I have a couple friends that like it, but I've come to the conclusion that they just have shit taste >Cube drafting 4 ever!
>>43476087 And yet that's what everyone else agrees the term "mono[color]" means. It's not shifted goalposts, since that's what "Mono[color]" has meant this entire time. The problem is that you failed to understand that and when it was explained to you why you were wrong you say everyone else is being dumb, ignoring the fact that you don't understand the language being used.
>>43476214 im sorry anon but your stupid opinion doesn't change what the word means. mono means only, black means black. like i said before, you could tutor up that creature with a spell that reads "search your library for a black card that is not any other color, reveal it, and put it into your hand" which as far as reality is concerned means that card is black, not green, not white, not blue, and not red. you can wave your hands and try to twist language to imply otherwise but you cannot change reality.
>>43476269 >mono means only, black means black ... which is why a card with a Green activated ability isn't monoblack, and which is why an artifact isn't monoblack. The first isn't only black, the second isn't black at all.
You can't play it in a monoblack deck (as in "a deck that only uses black mana") and use that ability. So a monoblack deck gets no use out of the ability that you tout as Black being able to destroy an Enchantment.
>>43476388 i mean, you literally cannot play it in commander. but again none of that has to do with what i said. having a green activated ability does not make the card green. like i've said twice now, it dies to ultimate price, which means it's a monocolored creature. and which color, you might ask (since evidently you're just too stupid to figure it out)? black. it's a monocolored black creature = monoblack. there's literally nothing to argue about. i've said like 5 times now that i am aware you cannot run it in a black edh deck, and that there are like 9999 colorless spells that can kill enchantments that you can run in a black edh deck.
If it requires nonblack mana, the ability on the card requires nonblack mana.
Therefore, the card doesn't destroy enchantments using only black mana.
The color of the card and the color of the ability are different, which means that the card doesn't fulfil the basic criterion that was established earlier in the thread, which is that you can't use black to point-kill enchantments.
If you're arguing that you've won this argument on semantics, you're probably right because people often aren't perceptive enough to realize you're trolling.
If you're arguing that you've won this argument for any substantive purpose, you're wrong. Flat wrong. There is no counterpoint; there is no counterargument. Using green mana to destroy enchantments and using black mana to destroy enchantments are different things. The argument was about whether a black deck with access to black and colorless mana (and not green mana) can destroy enchantments. It's a stupid argument, but it's the argument.
Lands really are the best answer for anything. Hell; Rishadan Port can counter spells!
>>43476644 >The color of the card and the color of the ability are different, which means that the card doesn't fulfil the basic criterion that was established earlier in the thread, which is that you can't use black to point-kill enchantments.
actually, and i'll go and take a screenshot just so you know that you're ONE HUNDRED PERCENT full of shit, the criterion was a monoblack card that kills enchantments. like, holy shit anon. why do you even talk and argue when you weren't even a part of the conversation? or, worse yet, if you were, why do you make up blatant lies?
and of course i've won the argument, as of ages ago when i agreed with literally everything you've said like 5 times in your posts. other than the part where you keep trying to tell me monoblack means something other than monoblack. there hasn't been anything substantive to say for ages, but you keep on trying to prove me wrong. ill give you a hint, you can't, because i'm right.
>>43476420 >i mean, you literally cannot play it in commander. You also can't get use out of it without Green mana. Requiring Green mana means that it's not ONLY BLACK, which is what you yourself said is what "mono black" means.
Having a Green activated ability may not make the card Green, but it certainly means it isn't ONLY BLACK.
>there are like 9999 colorless spells that can kill enchantments that you can run in a black edh deck. There are only a few, and they can also be run in any other deck. They are also not ONLY BLACK because they're not Black at all.
>>43476739 Yes, but as everyone keeps telling you, that card isn't Monoblack. It is not ONLY BLACK. It requires Green.
I didn't specify the color of cards; I didn't specify anything else. I said that black has no answers to enchantments. By your (rather broad) reading, yes; there is a black card that uses green mana to destroy enchantments. It's worth pointing out that the card is horrid and unplayable, which itself disproves your argument that every color has answers for everything (I assume, of course, that you were referring to viable answers, because there aren't really any others), but looking beyond that, you're posting a card that requires a second color to fulfil the basic tenets of the argument I made, broad as those tenets are. So you're either trolling or you're arguing over semantics without arguing over substance. And that's really all there is to it; you're wrong, it's patently obvious that you're backtracking to try to prove that you've made a viable argument when you haven't (for a number of reasons, some independent of this circus over black and enchantment removal), and you're picking a narrow reading of the thread to try to carve out a semblance of credibility on a corner-case for which there is no broader application.
>>43476900 I really don't know what to tell you. It is a creature that is ONLY BLACK. This isn't an opinion, this isn't semantics, this is a simple fact. The spell ultimate price has text on it that says "destroy target monocolored creature". If you were right, if all of you clamoring retards who keep trying to convince me of falsehoods were right, ultimate price would not be able to target quagmire druid. However, it can, because quagmire druid is a monoblack card, and a monoblack creature when it's on the battlefield. I'm getting a bit bored of this and suspect at this point that you may be trolling me so I'll just repeat this simple argument to you if you don't have anything new to say.
>>43476915 Yeah whatever, I don't really care about you. I know the card is horrible, that was the entire point of my argument. Crybaby black player was trying to tell me blue can technically answer anything and is thus, and my retort was that any color can answer anything. because, among other reasons, there are a plethora of colorless cards that can destroy any permanent. >posting a card that requires a second color to fulfil the basic tenets of the argument I made, broad as those tenets are. it's spelled "positing" and I'm not positing anything, I literally never replied to that post of yours. all you've done is cram your stupid ramblings into a conversation i was having and try to tell me, amongst other stupid things, that a monoblack card is not in fact monoblack. >you're wrong nope.
particularly ridiculous is the fact that you're saying all this dumb shit when if you had read the thread AT ALL you'd have understood what i was talking about
>>43477132 >ONLY ALLOWED TO USE CREATURES TO DEAL WITH OTHER CREATURES >EZURI'S PREDATION USES CREATURES >TO DEAL >WITH >OTHER >CREATURES >???????? ????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>there are a plethora of colorless cards that can destroy any permanent.
1) Colorless cards are not cards of a color. Cards of a color are not colorless. A color does not consist of colorless cards.
Hell; if you want to argue about semantics, I can keep this up for quite a while.
>it's spelled "positing" and I'm not positing anything, I literally never replied to that post of yours. all you've done is cram your stupid ramblings into a conversation i was having and try to tell me, amongst other stupid things, that a monoblack card is not in fact monoblack.
No, "posting" is what one does when one sends a message to be posted on a forum. "Positing" is, for practical purposes, theorizing, which you weren't doing either; you claimed to be making a statement of fact. Once again, don't try me on semantics.
I never said the card wasn't monoblack; that was someone else. I was saying that black (and only black, not colorless, not black cards with green-mana activated abilities, not anything else, just black) has no answers to enchantments. I'm surprised you didn't try the "BUT DISCAD" argument against me, because that would technically fulfill the semantic parameters of the argument, but you and I both know we're talking about resolved enchantments that aren't enchantment creatures, enchantment artifacts, etc. So, as I said, you're picking a corner-case that only barely satisfies your reading (no one else's, mind you) of the argument to make a point that is already disproven by the fact that the card you're discussing is useless.
>>43477179 why would i want to argue about semantics?
i never said colorless cards were of a color. wrong again, try again?
>I never said the card wasn't monoblack i dont care what you said, i wasn't talking to you
>I was saying that black (and only black, not colorless, not black cards with green-mana activated abilities, not anything else, just black) has no answers to enchantments. wow, funny thing i didn't reply to that post then huh? because why would i reply to that, when obviously it's true?
> So, as I said, you're picking a corner-case that only barely satisfies your reading wrong for a second time, try again. ill post a screenshot again since evidently you have short term memory loss, pic related.
>disproven by the fact that the card you're discussing is useless. like i said in the post you JUST replied to, that is actually the entire point wrong for a third time, ding ding ding you're OUT
>>43477036 >I really don't know what to tell you. It is a creature that is ONLY BLACK. But it's not. It is a black creature that requires Green. Yes, it can be destroyed by Ultimate Price. But... it also can't use the ability in question in a black deck.
Or, maybe if we put it this way: It's a monoblack creature, but it has a Green ability. So Black doesn't have an answer to Enchantments, Green does.
>If you were right, if all of you clamoring retards who keep trying to convince me of falsehoods were right, ultimate price would not be able to target quagmire druid. The problem here is that you're treating the mechanical term "monocolored" for the more loose general term that means "can be used fully in a single coloured deck". A card that has an off colour cost isn't monocoloured in that sense. Meanwhile Slitherhead can be played in a monoblack deck. So can Odious Trowe.
>>43477132 >>43477159 >I don't understand the colour pie No, Green primarily uses creatures to deal with other creatures, unless those creatures are Flying.
Ezuri's Predation uses creatures to deal with creatures, but it creates those creatures itself. It doesn't use existing creatures. As has been pointed out several times before, that is the problem. It doesn't require you to have any creatures. You can play a very un-Green deck and still use Ezuri's Predation effectively.
>>43477234 You never said colourless cards are of a colour, but you used colourless cards as an example of "things monoblack can do". That's not a thing Monoblack can do, it's a thing anything can do. It doesn't rely on black mana.
>wow, funny thing i didn't reply to that post then huh? because why would i reply to that, when obviously it's true? That's literally what the post you keep screenshotting was asking. A Green ability is not "Black dealing with Enchantments". It's Green dealing with Enchantments--which is a Green effect--on a Black card.
So because you're arguing with someone who had the same point in essence (if not in the skill of its... positing) that I did, my argument is invalid?
>i dont care what you said, i wasn't talking to you
You were when you posted this:>>43477036. You definitely claimed I said a card wasn't monoblack when I said no such thing.
>i never said colorless cards were of a color.
You said black had answers to enchantments on the board. You said that this came in the form of colorless cards. Colorless cards aren't black cards. Therefore, regardless of whether you said colorless cards were black cards, you were making an invalid argument.
>wrong for a second time, try again. ill post a screenshot again since evidently you have short term memory loss, pic related.
Just because you're responding to someone who didn't articulate the point he was making clearly doesn't mean you haven't chosen a corner-case.
But leaving all that aside, what makes you think every color has an answer for everything when the cards in every color that don't either answer a specific type of card or answer a card in a very specific situation are unplayable?
>>43477349 > It's a monoblack creature, but it has a Green ability.
ten years later, you figured it out good job /tg/
>The problem here is that you're treating the mechanical term "monocolored" for the more loose general term that means "can be used fully in a single coloured deck". actually im not doing that at all, and ive said like 5 times now? 6? who even knows that you cannot use it in a black edh deck. how many times do i have to say that before you keks get it? jesus christ it's literally in my first post after that one i dont know how many times i have to tell you something before you get it
>>43477387 >So because you're arguing with someone who had the same point in essence (if not in the skill of its... positing) that I did, my argument is invalid? no, the other guy's point was that blue as a color can deal with anything. i don't think you've said anything like that, so how about you just tell me what your point is and ill tell you on a scale of 1 - retarded what i think of it
>You said black had answers to enchantments on the board. You said that this came in the form of colorless cards. Colorless cards aren't black cards. Therefore, regardless of whether you said colorless cards were black cards, you were making an invalid argument. black has answers to enchantments on the board. they come in the form of colorless cards. colorless cards are indeed not black cards. what part is invalid? go on, tell me. cuz it seems REALLY simple to me, and im curious as to how you managed to fuck up understanding it.
and, finally, i dont think every color has an answer for everything. if you actually read the fucking thread (you inbred mongoloid), you'd have understood that it was an argument from contradiction. i was accepting blue anon's concept of what it means for a color to have "answers" to something to prove him wrong, by showing that under those terms every color can answer anything.
>>43472487 And they don't really test for eternal formats - they test for standard. And always having to keep X open, where X is (the number of cards in your opponent's hand [max 4] - the number of Mistakes played), regardless of what color they're playing? Yes, that's a problem. That said, they probably should have, you know, gone with ANYTHING BUT A COUNTERSPELL.
>no, the other guy's point was that blue as a color can deal with anything. i don't think you've said anything like that, so how about you just tell me what your point is and ill tell you on a scale of 1 - retarded what i think of it
Black has no answers to enchantments. You have yet to disprove this, and given your choice of ad hominem attacks over attempts to either reach consensus, clarify your point, or abandon a bad example (all things I've done in this thread), I can see there's no use arguing with you.
Black cannot deal with a resolved enchantment. Everyone has access to colorless cards, but everyone has access to cards of any color, so your argument is meaningless because those aren't "black" answers: they're answers one can run in a deck that happens to have black cards. You claimed a black card that requires green mana can answer enchantments, which is tangential to the argument except by a very narrow definition of what said argument is.
I will concede that the overarching argument was ridiculous to begin with (not only because blue genuinely doesn't have all the answers), but that doesn't make your point, nor does it make the way you made it, any more valid. Black answers and colorless answers are different things. You seem content to treat black cards with abilities requiring other colors to activate as "black answers," when that's obviously not what the other posters were saying.
>>43475101 Take more of them? Seriously, of all 34 of the "take an extra turn" cards, 19 of them, aka 56% of them are MONO-blue. If we count a Blue-producing land and multi-color spells that include blue, that increases to 70% (24).
If we increase it to all the blue options, AND COLORLESS OPTIONS, which Blue can definitely use, it's 85%.
And failing that, oh, will you look at that, of the 5 cards that can stop turns, Blue has 2, 2 are colorless, and one is red. One red and one colorless are the only ones that specify an "extra" turn, but the other 3 can be used on those just as well. So Blue has access to 80% of turn-ending abilities, as opposed to red's 60%, and everyone else's 40%.
So, yeah, Blue has the dominant answers to extra turns.
>>43477766 >black cannot cast colorless cards nope, that's wrong, you can pay colorless mana costs with any color of mana. wrong again. ding!
>so your argument is meaningless because those aren't "black" answers they are a subset of the spells that a deck with only black mana sources can cast. i never said colorless cards were black, or vice versa. wrong a second time. ding ding
>You claimed a black card that requires green mana can answer enchantments which is obviously correct
> which is tangential to the argument except by a very narrow definition of what said argument is it was not tangential to the argument i was making, nor have i ever claimed it was relevant to the argument of black having answers to enchantments. wrong a third time!
>but that doesn't make your point, nor does it make the way you made it, any more valid. indeed not, my points are and have been valid because they are factually correct.
>>43477801 blue has the dominant ability to take extra turns, it can't actually answer them though, afaik there's a red enchantment and maybe a red/black hybrid enchantment that can answer them and that's it. so only red and maybe black can answer extra turns, and blue cannot at all.
>>43477556 >who even knows that you cannot use it in a black edh deck. how many times do i have to say that before you keks get it? You also can't use that GREEN ability in a deck that uses only Black Mana. Again, it's not about EDH. You don't seem to understand this. That is not "Black can deal with Enchantments", it's Green dealing with enchantments on a black card.
>>43477898 WHEN WE ARE ASKING FOR "BLACK ANSWERS TO ENCHANTMENTS" WE MEAN CARDS THAT USE ONLY BLACK MANA AND ARE BLACK COLOUR IDENTITY. COLOURLESS CARDS ARE NOT BLACK CARDS, THEY ARE NOT BLACK ANSWERS.
>nor have i ever claimed it was relevant to the argument of black having answers to enchantments. wrong a third time! You brought it up to the statement "Black can't deal with enchantments".
>indeed not, my points are and have been valid because they are factually correct. Your points have been completely and repeatedly missing the point. At this point you're not even on the same page as anyone else and we should all ignore you.
>>43478164 >You also can't use that GREEN ability in a deck that uses only Black Mana. Again, it's not about EDH. You don't seem to understand this. That is not "Black can deal with Enchantments", it's Green dealing with enchantments on a black card. yeah uh, i know all this? zZzZZZ
>You brought it up to the statement "Black can't deal with enchantments". i have literally no idea what you are trying to say
>WHEN WE ARE ASKING FOR "BLACK ANSWERS TO ENCHANTMENTS" WE MEAN CARDS THAT USE ONLY BLACK MANA AND ARE BLACK COLOUR IDENTITY. COLOURLESS CARDS ARE NOT BLACK CARDS, THEY ARE NOT BLACK ANSWERS. yeah uh, no shit? jesus christ anon are you broken? also, i wasnt even fucking talking to you, there are two distinct people i was arguing with who believe(d) that quagmire druid was a monocolored creature. who the fuck is talking about color identity? I already said like FIVE times it has non-monoblack color identity. how are you still arguing about that? like what else do you want from me LOL like im sitting here being like "hey so uh it's black green color identity" and you're like UH HOLY FUCK ANON ARE YOU RETARDED IT'S NOT MONOBLACK COLOR IDENTITY and im like yeah, it's not monoblack color identity and then you're like HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT'S NOT MONOBLACK COLOR IDENTITY like you do realize this makes you a retard, right?
>Your points have been completely and repeatedly missing the point. i mean ive said like 5000 times now what my point was, and that i have literally 0 cares about the argument you keep trying to make about black being able to answer things. i've said like 999 times by now that black cannot actually answer enchantments. you keep trying to pretend like i'm saying otherwise, and I don't know why.
One of these two non-evergreen mechanics is: 1. Broken 2. Overpowered 3. Destroys meta games 4. Extremely competitive 5. Needs more hate vs it 6. Fucking BONKERS 7. Basically a giant mistake 8. So beyond format destroying, universe defining that it's so high on the storm scale that will never, ever, foreverial be on a card EVER AGAIN(that's how broken it is) The other one is a 3 in the storm scale and totally fine according to the kike himself.
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 content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.