Oath of the Gatewatch in short
>>44586987
Holy moly, you know they do new things? Flame Slash was a removal spell that was meant for standard, and was in a limited block where it didn't dominate like it would have usually. Boulder Salvo is solely for limited play, and is balanced around that.
Do people who say shit like this ever think, for some crazy reason, maybe the company is printing these cards for.... Wait for it... A REASON!?
>>44587265
So what, draft is only fun if 99% of the cards are garbage?
Why not kill two birds with one stone by making cards that are good in both constructed and limited
>>44587265
Poor card design is poor card design regardless any day or set. Had they made Bouldering Salvo an instant it would still be a bad and overcosted card, but it would be a new card that at least made some sense of its cost/reward/keyword dynamics. Heck, they could even make it cost 6 mana for it to be an instant and it would still be better card design than that.
>>44587368
I don't think there's any argument that we're only talking about draft here, and this card isn't that bad there. I mean, not to say it's good, but it's mediocre removal that fills a hole.
If you try to make literally every card good in constructed and limited, then you get a self feeding cycle of the shit cards just getting progressively better and the good cards getting ridiculous.
>>44587378
This is not poor design, it's a necessary card, a common that demonstrates one of the set mechanics. This happens every set, it doesn't need to be an instant, if you start saying that, then you can make the same argument about almost every 'bad' sorcery that exists. Basically, cards like this exist for two primary reasons, draft, where it really doesn't matter if it's an instant or not, and new players, who need to learn to play with kill spells or things of that ilk, but also need to get to play with new mechanics on simple cards.
>>44587368
Basically wizards thinks people enjoy underpowered environments. From the perspective of a limited player, having mediocre removal is fine when your opponent is playing mediocre creatures because it's mostly fair. I know it hurts for long time players but it makes sense in the context of the set, although personally this set just awful.
>>44586987
Haha oh wow, and here I thought Bathe in Dragonshit was bad enough already.
I guess MaRo once again decided to flex his brilliant design muscles and let people experience the joy of not playing with a card.
>>44588039
>MaRo
He's a dirty jew, yes, but you do realise he's not the only one to blame for the powerlevel, right? In fact, there's an entire team of people among whom he doesn't belong that's much more responsible for that. It's called Development.
>>44588039
To be fair, Sam Stoddard and the rest of development deserves most of the blame for the powering down of standard simplifying cards for babies.
Feel free to blame Maro for megamorph and anus mana.
Rise was a battlecruiser limited format, where Flame Slash is okay but not the best. OGW is trying to be more varied and Flame Slash is very very good in limited.
>>44588146
>anus mana
Why do people call it this? I hope your anus isn't a rhombus.
>>44587265
>but this card is solely designed for limited play!
The more people say this, the less boosters I want to crack.
>>44588175
But it's round and looks like a puckered butthole
>>44588175
>>44588341
I sincerely hope they give up on the anus mana symbol after this block. It looks like ass.
>>44588039
>>44588136
>Development is made up of Pro Tour players
Blame professional Magic players for your shitty cards, whiners! :^)
>>44588466
I wish WotC officially stopped supporting Standard as a format. Everything bad in this game is always justified with "standard needs it". I say we cut the parasite off and leave only the formats that can handle actual good cards.
>>44588257
If you're cracking boosters for something other than limited play, and you're not new to the game, then I'm really not sure what to tell you. Other than 'stop', of course.
>>44586987
>Burn took huge nerf over few years
>Chandra still able to burn both titans to death
Sorin and Ugin are some little bitches if Chandra just won with 5 mana 4 damage burn spells
>>44588506
Also, we cut the art and WotC only needs to release 20 good cards every three months.
>>44588435
Carlos!
>>44588520
I bought a BFZ box and fat pack for ~£123 and made £150 off the Delta alone so whatever nerd.
>>44586987
>power is related to rarity in non-limited environments
>people still take the game seriously enough to get angry over design decisions
>>44588582
Man, what a solid argument, I went and played roulette and won $50, gambling sure is fun :^). But seriously, BFZ is even worse than normal, literally only Gideon and an expedition are worth anything, and you got the most expensive one, so, congrats on your £25 profit after having to also sell the cards?
>>44587871
Well, low-powered sets can make for fun drafts and sealed decks, I can't deny that, but I still feel like high-powered sets are more fun in Limited. Good removal in particular improves the experience. RTR drafts were sort of fast and brutal, and very enjoyable (especially if like me you drafted every Stab Wound you could get your hands on), compared to Khans' drafts that were often a slog due to worse removal. Board stalls aren't fun.
>>44588648
While I love picking every removal ever in Draft, it's somewhat close to a no-brainer. It's more fun to skillfully construct your deck from synergistic creatures and then beat your opponent withBane of Bala Ged.
>>44587265
To make more money by having lots of competing bullshit rather than a single, remotely balanced game?
>>44587265
>Flame Slash was a removal spell that was meant for standard
that's a load of bullshit considering lightning bolt was in standard at the time. flame slash was a limited only card during it's time.
>>44588686
Except in practice, it ends up with two boards full of "synergistic creatures" staring at each others with nothing happening while both players are waiting for a topdecked card that doesn't suck.
>yfw they Reprint________Shockin OGW
>>44588748
there's a strictly better shock in FRF.
>>44588720
Hm, that's a fair point, but I think flame slash is as good as you can push that design, I think the point was to make there be an alternative to lightning bolt. From playing back then, all I can imagine is they had a limited set like RoE where slash wasn't going to be oppresive, which meant a removal spell could be pushed to 4 damage for 1 mana, maybe even seeing play alongside lightning bolt. I think the issue was it fell between the reign of jund and cawblade, so a burn spell with no utility to hit face or Jace just wasn't good enough.
>>44588811
That has never stopped them before.
>>44588648
I really hope we get a Stab Wound reprint, I never tired of drafting that card.
>>44588686
>It's more fun to skillfully construct your deck from synergistic creatures
I agree, building a board state greater than the sum of its parts, while using removal to disrupt your opponent's should be the goal of limited. Not up to "combo off and win instantly" level, but synergy should be far more important than base stats.
Unfortunately, NWO means that we don't get interesting commons with abilities, or more than 5 different mechanics that matter in a set. Either removal in a set is strong and it comes down to last-creature-standing, or it's weak and we get slow boring slugfests. This all comes together in "the vanilla test", the core problem with limited: the numbers in the bottom corner matter more than any synergy on 90% of creatures. This is what creates boring linear games.
The best format is Cube: all the variance and replay value of draft, but with interesting cards where synergy is more important than base stats.
>>44588686
im sorry but this guy:
>>44588743
is right
there's nothing fun about board stalls because all the removal is worthless, neither player can swing because the trade will leave them worse off
>>44589178
I love cube, but many of the cubes I've played are just "pile of mtg's greatest hits" and offer little to no synergy
>>44589178
I love Cube but I still enjoy drafting new sets every month. It's fun finding out what's good in the new environment and what isn't. Limited environments have really gone up in quality recently. And with the two block paradigm we're allowed more mechanics while also having new environments rotating in faster.
>>44589240
Removal recently has been a bit too "safe", yes, but attacking into your opponent's board and coming out as the winner because your opponent thinks you might have combat tricks in your hand, is the best thing ever. I love it when I'm able to win through mind tricks alone.
>>44589392
but anon what makes a magic card good is how it synergizes with other cards
i feel like on /tg/ people think of synergy strictly as very, very narrow combo interactions, cards that are almost worthless outside of their combos
which is dumb
you think people choose their cards in vintage and legacy without considering synergy?
Wizards could print the shittiest of cards and people would still defend it.
>>44588530
For real, why does wizards hate red so much?
>only gets burn
>burn gets nerfed to oblivion
>>44589466
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/218
>>44587265
>be magic noob
>see all the pretty cards
>what the fuck is modern standard edh doule bullshit with paupers?
>how do you tell if you can play a card in one game but not another?
>so wait, how many of the little rarity-colored symbols are there?
>i just want to throw dragons at my opponent
>what the actual fuck
>at least colorless mana symbol makes sense
>>44589529
They should bring land destruction back big time. LD used to be one of red's main mechanics, and it was just removed because apparently not being able to play cards was not "fun".
As a bonus, it would kill these annoying 4-color goodstuff decks DEAD.
>>44589629
I miss LD. I miss Avalanche Riders and I miss Balance / Zuran Orb. I think people who played back in the days are pretty split on whether LD was good or bad for the game, it's a love it or hate it kind of thing, but WotC pushed the narrative that everyone hated LD and newer players have grown so accustomed to lands being basically untouchable that they're more prone to side with them and call land destruction badwrongfun. See: all casual EDH players, they get mad if you cast Armageddon, because they aren't used to MLD, they never really played with or against it.
If you phase all good removal out of the gamelike they're doing right nowthen future generations of players will get mad at removal just the same.
>>44589629
Kill you are self anytime.
>>44589577
But new players a lot of the time just play casually in their friend group, people who like it will go on to play real formats. Someone who goes to a store and just plays with strangers might come into those issues all at once, but I think if you start with friends it's a lot more gradual.
>Start playing with friends, get an intro pack and some boosters
>Slog our decks against eachother every now and then for a month, maybe some new boosters every now and then, and multiplayer when schedules permit
>Find out about gatherer and all these old cards, start using them
This culminates in better decks, and maybe some of the players transitioning off the kitchen table into stores to play standard/modern or draft. The situation I said sounds really specific, but atleast in my anecdotal experience, it's extremely common from the players that come into my store.
>>44588643
There is a difference between having 50% of getting a good chunk of your money back, and praying for expedition or bust.
>>44589716
See, old players knew that land destruction was essential to the balance of the game. Just like discard. Every color needs ways to fight spells, and since only blue gets to outright counter spells, other colors have to pre-emptively prevent them by attacking the hand and/or the mana base. Green was the shit color for the longest time because it really couldn't do either effectively, it could just play the mans and turn them sideways and it turns out that's not what Magic is really about.
Granted, it WAS frustrating to have to sit there and hope you topdeck mana/action so that you get to do something, but it was also frustrating to get your spells countered, and that wasn't removed, even though it was basically the same thing, just more selectively done. Is it okay when blue does it?
>>44589716
>they get mad if you cast Armageddon
Even though I agree that LD should be more present in the game, not all cards are balanced in every format, and the quote is an example of it. I like to say that EDH is not supposed to be played with bad cards, but the rule about the 1-of cards is there so that every game you play will be different from any other you have played with the same deck. LD makes the long match even longer, and it gives that feeling that you have already had that exact same board state before, as if everytime you play against LD, you play the same game you have played before. I'm not saying that it should be banned or anything, but it kind of kills the reason of why EDH exists, just like tutoring combos.
>>44589975
More colors should get spell negation fitting their role and effects. Silence is a good example of how a color that is not blue should stop someone from casting a spell.
>>44589975
But green let you cast turn 1 Llanowar Elves into your turn 2 Stone Rain. You also had Plow Under, which was GAS. Oh, and think about Acidic Slime, Terravore, etc. G/R was a natural color pairing for land destruction.
>>44589975
I feel like LD wouldn't even be as strong a strategy today. Used to be we'd play 20 lands in our decks, nowadays in Standard and sometimes Modern it's 23+ even in aggro decks, because we have utility lands, fetches, good mana sinks, etc. So LD would slow people down but it wouldn't lock them out of the game as often as it did back in the days.
>>44589529
Yeah! Poor Red! It's not like it's an all star color in Modern, will always have a deck archtype in standard, and is pretty much good in every format or something gay like that.
>>44589975
>red player complains about how bad his color is
>talks about how blue is too strong
it's like clock work.
>>44591305
UR had total land destruction decks back in standard though. Why turn 1 elf into turn 2 land destruction when you can turn 1 steam vents into turn two eye of nowhere?
Babykiller (despite its name) actually used land destruction pretty fairly despite being nominally based on the turn 1 elf turn 2 stone rain combination.
>>44594558
>like blue, dislike red
>realize the reason I like blue is because it has a bunch of stuff and the reason I dislike red is because it has fucking nothing.
>this isn't clearly a problem with the game
Blue isn't too powerful (at least not in standard), it just has way more stuff than most other colors (to be fair though, so does white.). What has red got but burn and burn accessories post timespiral?
>>44589975
Well, more colours SHOULD get some countering. Even if it's just in a limited way. Like White or green countering a spell that targets your creatures.
Countering is one of the few things that basically doesn't turn up at ALL outside it's main colour.
>>44595272
Green sort of has psuedo-counters in that vein ala Vines of the Vastwood. So those other colors don't really need cards that say "counter target spell" so much as they need ways of dealing with opposing spells. Like nevermore that some other anon mentioned in white.
>>44595184
while red seems narrow sometimes you're forgetting artifact hate, land hate, non basic land hate, temporary mana acceleration, card filtering and limited card draw.
>>44595401
Burn is also a pretty broad category in what you can do with it. Anger of the gods and lightning bolt are different design spaces.
>>44595272
white gets taxing effects VERY rarely.
>>44595452
this is important too. the nature of burn makes it good in both controlling strategies and aggressive strategies. it's reach and removal in one. red's not nearly as limited as people think it is, and most of blue's playable design space is pretty narrow (mainly filtering with a few good stall spells).
It's got other things too like bounce (which isn't played often), mind control effects (which i don't think get played much at all outside EDH), extra turns (almost never played), etc.
I like blue, but I also like red a lot too. I like that red is the most "in your face" color.
>>44589529
>Wizards hates Red
>Red Aggro wins two of 2015's PTs
>>44595401
>you're forgetting artifact hate, land hate, non basic land hate, temporary mana acceleration, card filtering and limited card draw.
>artifact hate
Green does this as well as red, and frequently their hate also can hit enchantments.
>land hate
Isn't allowed to be good in modern days because "muh feels"
>nonbasic land hate
fucking nothing beyond blood moon, and blood moon is baby hate compared to ye-olden days. Even still, you can't go 5 minutes without some greedy player bitching to have blood moon banned so that they can finally remove the last remaining basic lands from their decks.
>temporary mana acceleration
Only shit rituals allowed
>card filtering and limited draw
that is inferior to blue.
>>44596031
>land hate isn't allowed to be good in modern days
yeah if you're forgetting cards like blood moon, stone rain, crumble to dust yeah red's land hate sucks ass i guess.
>green does this as well as red
as far as i know red is the only color with a one mana instant "destroy target artifact' with no draw back. it also has access to fucking all stars like Vandalblast AND shattering spree.
>blood moon is baby hate
i mean, it instantly wins you games on the spot sometimes but other than that yeah i guess it's total garboige
>only shit rituals allowed
forgetting siminan spirit guide and the fact that they banned seething song because they thought storm was too good sure i guess red mana accel sucks
>inferior to blue
not counting cards like faithless looting then yeah i guess you're right
red is fine as a color you fucking gigantic baby.
>>44596131
>yeah if you're forgetting cards like blood moon, stone rain
which was pre-timespiral.
>as far as i know red is the only color with a one mana instant "destroy target artifact' with no draw back
Oxidize came first actually, no.
>it also has access to fucking all stars like Vandalblast AND shattering spree.
And white has access to stony silence, it is not impressive that red has cards which are good against affinity.
>not counting cards like faithless looting then yeah i guess you're right
If by 'like faithless looting' you mean faithless looting and literally nothing else then sure. Still inferior to serum visions for most decks.
>forgetting siminan spirit guide and the fact that they banned seething song
Seething song did not need to be banned, both of those aren't post timespiral and spirit guide is only good for prison decks and turn 1 combo decks (which usually suck).
There's also the fact it has absolutely no combo interaction aside from eidolon, red has problems.
>>44596487
>seething song did not need to be banned
i agree but it's still good
>ssg is only good for 1 turn combo decks
it's also used in ad nauseum
red also hasn't had looting for very long, and it's still gotten a lot of great cards for it like OGW chandra and faithless looting. daretti in EDH is also exceptional for his looting ability. you're also missing the point the stony silence shuts down ALL artifacts, while red gets to blow everything up and keep it's toys at the same time. they're not inter changeable and red is an excellent color both gameplay mechanics wise and power level wise. that's why there have been various forms of red decks (from big red decks like atarka in recent standard, to mid range like Jund in Modern, to aggro like Delver and Burn in Modern/Standard, and control like UWR control) and is an absolutely fine color in general.
that doesn't stop babies from whining about how their pet color got the shit end of the stick even though it's doing just fucking fine. other colors have their share of complainers too but red and green are the fucking worst
>>44588550
Worked for L5R for the majority of its lifespan.
>>44587265
Hello MaRo!
>>44596695
>OGW chandra
I don't think its good but K.
>while red gets to blow everything up and keep it's toys at the same time
How often is that relevant? Artifacts aren't commonly played in most decks, the fact that red gets artifact destruction is fairly minor.
>from big red decks like atarka in recent standard
Which plays a grand total of one red card main deck which burns on etb...
>mid range like Jund in Modern
Which plays red for burn, terminate and sideboard cards...
>to aggro like Delver and Burn in Modern/Standard
Which plays red for burn...
>UWR 'control'
Which plays red for burn...
>and is an absolutely fine color in general.
I am not accusing it of being underpowered.
>that doesn't stop babies from whining about how their pet color got the shit end of the stick even though it's doing just fucking fine
I play red the least out of all of the colors.
>other colors have their share of complainers too but red and green are the fucking worst
Because they have absolutely no interaction against spells and thus basically no interaction against combo or control decks in general.
>>44595184
>What has red got but burn and burn accessories post timespiral?
>Considering colors to be factions and you can only play certain factions
First of all, you're retarded. Secondly, you're a fuckwit. What about Splinter Twin, a T1 modern deck?
What about Goblin Guide? Young pyromancer? Just off yourself right now
>>44588520 Underrated post.
>>44596747
MaRo isn't allowed on /tg/.
WotC's R&D contracts prevents him from looking at custom cards because muh intellectual property (and also lawsuit paranoia).
>>44598672
I actually like Hedron Alignment/Dimensional Anchor. Both are pretty cool/original win conditions.
>>44598922
I like them too.
Unrelated to my liking them, WotC R&D explicit aren't supposed to come in contact with custom cards.
Which I was jokeingly replying to 44596747 about.
>>44588743
>two boards full of "synergistic creatures" staring at each others with nothing happening while both players are waiting for a topdecked card that doesn't suck.
You just described every BfZ draft I ever saw. I'd be stalling til I hit Swarm Surge to blow them out, they'd be stalling til they hit their big beater, Breaker of Armies or similar.
>>44589529
Red got a new mechanic (prowess) and a new subtheme (exile play) in the last year only
>>44601751
The new subtheme is barely that and also older than a year and prowess is blue primarily
In the last year though, red DID get menace stolen from it by black
>>44588175
It's called that cause the sides are beveled
>>44601774
menace was always red (goblin war drums). A smattering of green and black creature sometimes got it too
>>44587265
Flame Slash was also printed at a time when removal spells were allowed to be a lot better than they are now, and even then it was considered too good.
>>44587522
>bad cards are necessary
No, they really aren't.
>yuh huh, cause some cards will always be worse than others
Nuh uh, that's the entire point of making cards that do different things, so that they don't have to compete directly for the exact same job. If 1G can get you a 2/2 vigilance, 3/1 trampler or 1/2 dork then you have three different cards with the exact same cost that all have their own reasons to exist and see play. You can multiply that same process many times over to create a pool of thousands of playables, yes it is difficult but when your entire job is literally just making a playable game that really isn't too much to ask.
Instead they can just say "nah dude, bad cards need to exist, for reasons" and people like you eat it up without question even though it's obviously not true. Certainly makes their job easier I guess but the game suffers as a result.
>>44601851
Black didn't get it ever until DTK
>>44597576
>Considering colors to be factions and you can only play certain factions
What the fuck does this even mean?
>What about Splinter Twin, a T1 modern deck?
Yes because clearly a single card means that red isn't a narrow color. Are you going to bring up pyroblast next?
>What about Goblin Guide? Young pyromancer?
>these don't count as burn accessories
>>44602047
>If 1G can get you a 2/2 vigilance, 3/1 trampler or 1/2 dork then you have three different cards with the exact same cost that all have their own reasons to exist and see play
That works to an extent (and makes total sense within a block) but one limited or standard might need a 3/4 where another needs a 2/4 and wizards should be able to fix their past mistakes in the high end as well as the low end (bolt to shock).
But I agree that every card should have its place if that's all you're saying.
