Why does Wizards make bad cards?
>>46825156
Freedom from negative consequences? They can always just load a set with mythic (fucking mythic) lands.
limited
it makes no sense because limited is also fun when they print good cards, but that's their reason.
The lower the power disparity between the high and low end, the lower the price of the top-end cards. Bad cards exist to dilute the cardpool.
>>46825193
>limited
Official answer.
Real answer, bulk filler to make sure people need to buy more packs to get the good cards.
>>46825156
Generally if you see a bad card. You first reaction should be:
>Oh. It's for EDH
And 9/10 times you'll be correct.
In all honesty? Because they want you to buy more packs to get the good ones.
"Truthfully"? To make limited more interesting.
Zurgo and Bloodlord were for Commander, and Drogskol Cavalry was a limited/intro pack card. urgo is actually good in Commander and for decks that want duplicates of the effect Bloodlord is OK too. Hedonist's Trove is like the only card in the OP with no purpose. I think maybe it was a Commander card but iirc it was not correctlu playable in Commander and it still isn't worth it for any deck.
>>46825156
I'm pretty sure it's because Wizards is so bad at Magic. Does anyone really doubt this?
>goyf gets a reprint
>threshold is never ever tier
can anyone explain the logic here
>>46825569
They were actually going to use Threshold in SOI until they decided they liked Delirium's card types matter gimmick caring less about the amount of cards in grave and more about the exact kind. So hreshold probably isn't never ever tier. It just needs to make sense. And do what they're looking for.
>>46825569
Goyf works on card types, Threshold works on cards count. Different mechanics entirely.
>>46825156
So they can make money, you idiot.
>>46825156
Zurgo Helmsmasher is actually pretty damn incredible as a general in duel commander
You tell me. This card might as well say "10/0, when this creature dies deal 10 damage split in any combination of ways to creatures target opponent controls."
>>46825850
I smell a wombo combo.
>>46825850
If it said that then i may think twice before i stab it with a removal spell. However since it doesn't I won't worry about it at all.
>>46825156
Coupla reasons.
First, as people have said, to sell packs. This is the most important reason, but it isn't the only one.
Second, as people have said, to balance limited. Bad cards make it a bit simpler to prioritize your picks, especially in the early draft. That's the major thing that "all good cards" can't do for limited. While that sounds like dumbing the game down, you should realize that it's actually critical for making the game skill-based - not only does card evaluation become an important skill, it also reduces the influence of luck (if every card is good, then building an effective deck will depend more on getting passed relevant cards every turn instead of the usual tapering down as good cards get taken and choices get easier), and tests players on their ability to tell when a generally bad card passes the threshold into being worthwhile in their particular deck.
Finally, it gives them an outlet for weird effects - sometimes they want to do something bizarre and aren't sure what effect it'll have on the meta if it's competitive, so they'll cost it unfairly instead of not doing it at all. At least then combo can still orchestrate convoluted ways to make it happen.
But, yes - it is ultimately about selling packs. Cardboard crack is what keeps WotC afloat. Anybody attempting to convince you that all these other arguments rule that out is a liar. These helpful side effects really are true, it's just that they're secondary.
>>46825850
It should actually be "When Breaker of Armies attacks, sacrifice it. It deals 10 damage split as you choose among any number of target creatures defending player controls."
>>46826677
If only there was a way to give it indestructibility. Perhaps at instant speed, might be to flashy though.
>>46826724
You could always strap like... Indestructibility on it.
>>46827191
And give them a two for one? Fat chance! Do you understand how exile-based-removal saturated this format is?
>>46825405
This, 3 out of 4 of those cards in the OP's pick see casual EDH play. Hedonist's Trove is a straight Johnny card, Zurgo is a supper aggressive commander, and Defiant Bloodlord is Sanguine Bond on a creature and thus easier to reanimate/retrieve from the graveyard.
I literally can not explain Drogskol Cavalry though.
>>46827346
Dude, don't delude yourself. Hedonist's Trove is shit even in EDH.
>Can't use it on your own graveyard
>Can't spend mana as though it was any color to play the exiled cards
>Can only play one per turn
>SEVEN
>MANA
It's garbage.
>>46825850
...Man, /tg/ really is bad at magic. OK, think about it this way - what happens if you have a couple of other creatures attacking alongside of it?
>>46827708
mmm yeah baby toss in some Magmatic Chasm maybe uncaged fury and titan strength and it will be worth
What if wizards decided that every expansion, from now on, where every card was playable in some constructed format, excluding edh, to varying degrees of power?
I might be biased since I sold all of my expensive cards in the last few years, but the only problem I could see with this is that older cards might be devalued and that wizards couldn't cope with the creativity needed to balance power level and viability? Why is having 100 viable decks in modern and 30 in standard a bad idea?
>>46827943
This is basically what konami does with YGO
>older cards might be devalued
In YGO, a top tier deck consists of 70% cards from the newest few sets and a couple of staples that go into every deck, and MAYBE occasionally some old card that got broke by new interactions. A top tier deck will cost you several hundreds of dollars and in two years will be worth jack shit because by then they will have printed better stuff.
>>46828102
Would you say that power creep was inevitable for yugioh?
It does seem impossibly difficult to keep releasing set after set of powerful sets without resorting to power creep but did yugioh ever come close to it?
>>46825156
Because not every card can or should be good.
>>46830026
But why is the percentage of bad cards so high, then?
>>46825156
while not my first choice, I would consider cheating out hedonist's trove after obliterating with an academy rector on the field.
>ok I actually can't imagine a deck with academy rector every running hedonist's trove. but that's my best try,
>>46830583
i forgot to say this is for edh
>>46825850
This card might as well say "0/0, when this creature dies deal 0 damage split in any combination of ways to creatures target opponent controls."
>>46825156
Because people keep buying them.
>>46827402
True when it came out, but the mana rule has been changed since then.
Not saying the card is good, but at least it's slightly more playable.
>>46825156
Go get a Magic Card maker program and make some yourself. Print those, playtest them with friends and listen to their bitching and moaning that your cards are overpowered, undercosted and do not match the mana color.
Then you will realize that you made some bad cards that don't make any sense and that your keywords aren't that original and don't make sense.
Then you cry, a lot. And maybe, just maybe, you realize that game designers are people who do their best to entertain and sometimes make mistakes instead of being there to suck your rancid dick.
>>46831533
Go to bed MaRo
custom cubes are the fucking bomb, and you and your devs are blinded because their heads are so far up their asses
>>46831533
Found the WOTC shill.
Seriously, I see what you're saying, but you can't chalk shit like Boulder Salvo up to "a mistake was made" when Flame Slash happened in Original goddamn Zendikar, and the only changes were arbitrarily stapling on (4) in front of the R mana, and giving it a Surge cost which is still more expensive than Flame Slash.
>>46831533 Here
>>46831565
Okay, I'm going to be legit here. I'm not against custom cards. But players who moan about 'bad' cards are biased against cards that they wouldn't choose.
I'm a Johnny, every card that makes me think "Why would I do that?" I immediately ask "Why wouldn't I?" To see the look on the player's faces when they see these useless cards doing something they couldn't imagine is so satisfying!
But other players just judge them as useless and bitch about them being so. Guess what: It's a TRADING card game! Go get SOCIAL and TRADE the fucker with someone who actually is HAPPY to get that shit!
Game design is more of an art than a science. They are doing their best to control the game balance and make the majority of players happy so they can earn money. They earn money with an ever changing art. If this game bombs, they can't pay for food and shelter.
>>46831575
I'm a little upset on the powercreeping, too. The new cards have some abilities that are powerful for their cost, but aren't that combo-licious. It's because they need to keep the attention of new and current players. These rare and mythic rare cards are to wow everyone with: "It's awesome to have this card! You want this card!" so the people can earn money, to buy food and shelter...
>>46831655
The whole point of the comic in the OP though is that some cards clearly AREN'T Johnny, or even Timmy cards. They're just awful. They're "Oscar" cards, they're trash. I think the point it's trying to make is muddled a bit though, cards like Aven Battle Priest or Rite of the Serpent are for sure Oscar cards, irredeemable shitpiles that no one would ever play.
>>46825156
I mean depending on your definition of "bad":
>Overcosted
Probably because their playtesters fucked something up, or they couldn't slot things into the set's mana curve without fucking something up.
>Inferior to previous versions
Because the previous version was too good.
>Underwhelming for a rare/mythic
Accidentally. This is the thing that tends to annoy me.
>>46832004
Getting rid of core sets unfucks some of this because that tended to be where the "nobody gives a shit" cards were dumped, on account of being easier for new players to get into (probably).
>>46827346
A 4/4 flier is something you want to have, and you can really easily draft a deck around it in Limited plus it self-triggers. It's *playable* in draft, but it's pretty overcosted.
>>46825156
>The standard creature is 2 mana for a 1/1
>This is okay because it's the standard
>Print Raging Goblin, 1/1 Haste for one mana.
>Suddenly the 2 mana 1/1 is shit and nobody will ever seriously play it again
>Later print 1 mana 2/2 with haste
>Raging Goblin is now useless and nobody ever plays it because it's SHIT FOR SCRUBS
And that is why we have bad cards. If you can never print below or above the power level, you get stagnated with the same, identical cards and the game becomes boring because there is no variety.
>>46832107
That's called the "nirvana fallacy".
Just because the perfect result (perfectly balanced cards with new mechanics) is impossible doesn't mean you are excused for not even fucking trying.
>>46832107
Explain Rite of the Serpent then, which is unplayable under any circumstances. It didn't get outclassed by new cards, it got outclassed 20 years before it was even printed.
>>46830026
Why?
>>46832107
>the only way to have unique creatures is through p/t and evergreen abilities
>>46826054
> if every card is good, then building an effective deck will depend more on getting passed relevant cards every turn
Have you ever played Cube? In my experience, having a draft environment that has only good cards makes the draft much less luck-based.
actually as a limited player I feel as though the big problem is the fact that their arent enough of the mediocre cards, the cards that are still playable but that you will table, its a problem when cards like siege mastodon no longer table
>>46832674
Removal has just become so bad in limited that 5 toughness might as well be unkillable
>>46825850
It wrecks people with no creatures, and you're free to attack with any other creature you control since every creature you have is forced to block that one. It's still 8 mana, so I wonder, but it's not all that bad.
>>46826677
"As your opponent chooses"
>>46832282
I actually played it fairly effectively in KTK Limited, particularly at the prerelease. Unconditional removal was kind of at a premium in that set - obviously Murderous Cut was better, but at Uncommon it was hardly something reliable.
So, 50 posts in and nobody has any fucking clue as to the actual reason? lol
I mean there's supposedly some highly talented dude putting a reasonable amount of effort into designing card he knows is a complete waste of space, over and over again, hundreds of times, and yet there's no official explanation for this?
is it like a trade secret or something?
>>46833583
It's been said more than once. Official reason is "for limited", but we're pretty sure (like, 100%) that it's just to make you have to buy more cards to get the good ones.
>>46833583
Limited. The answer was already given, years ago.
>>46833583
Magic has lots of customers who play in different formats and are looking for different things in new card sets. If a card looks bad to you, it was probably just designed for someone else.
>>46833605
This is the correct answer. Same with the mythic rarity. Official reason? Limited. Real reason? Money. If you wanna see what happens when Wizards tries to make a good set instead of a profitable one, look at Time Spiral block.
>>46825156
1. So that bad players can still be bad (eg, aquus steed is super good!)
2. Balance, if everything is good then the only way to make cards people want to buy is to introduce power creep
3. Make more money
>>46826724
Indestructibility doesn't stop you from sacrificing it
>>46832282
>Rite of the Serpent
I somehow wound up with like 7 copies of this from drafting KTK limited. Nobody ever drafted them and I kept getting them as last picks. I have literally no use for this shit, not even janky Pharika snake tribal EDH.
>>46833605
It can be both.
Supporting a format of the game can lead to money, because a healthy game format leads to more sales, especially when that format exclusively uses sealed product that can't really be passed around on the secondary market.
If the way to support it also creates incentive for players of other formats to buy more, then so much the better. If they decide specifically to support it in that manner for that effect, then that's a sound business decision.
>>46833401
Only if he has banding.
>>46825850
See >>46830752
Apply burn ointment directly to the affected area.
>>46825850
The point is you use him to stop enemy from blocking your other shit
He'd be a lot better if his power and toughness were swapped, or if he was just lower cost in general since the swing for lethal effect is what's important not the body, but it's still a cool card design
>>46832282
>>46834250
Oh god, you guys weren't kidding. What a fucking waste of good non-cg art too. Why couldn't it have just given us X snakes based on that creature's power?
>>46834830
>>6 cmc
>>BB required
>>sorcery speed
>>Conditional upside
>>Upside is a fucking single 1/1
Who the fuck approved this?
>>46834830
That art being wasted makes me so fucking upset.
>>46834830
Would it be playable is it gave you X 1/1s, where X is the creature's power, toughness or CMC?
What would be the most balanced choice?
>>46834875
I didn't realize this was a sorcery. That's bad.
>Not that I would leave 6 mana open to kill the creature you put a counter on to get a snake.
>>46825192
Mythic lands could be interesting. If they are actually very powerful or interesting I would be fine with them.
Bring back lands that dont tap for mana!
>>46834830
X Power snakes sounds a little too good for a common, maybe X snakes where X is the number of +1/+1 counters on it, that sounds a little more fair. Hell, if they can't even do that then why not at least make it two snakes? Why the fuck does this piece of shit only give you one snake when the art shows you clearly making two of them at once!? I feel like AVGN should be reviewing this garbage card right now. What were they thinking?
>>46834875
Not to mention it's even just a destroy, it can be negated by regeneration for fuck's sake. If it was a remove from play, maybe.
>>46825405
I honestly dont know where this mentality came from. EDH is open to every single set. We have access to cards that would be flat banned in standard. I've seen so many cards where people have said "Its for EDH!" and all I can think of is "Well yeah but we already have X and Y. We also have plenty of cards that give us some variation of that effect so we dont need another to round out the deck and make getting access to the effect consistent."
The cards me and the other EDH players get excited about are the same ones everyone else gets excited about plus legendaries. But we rarely get a viable legendary for the same reason as above. More often than not we already have one that fills that roll better and they are almost never interesting or thematic enough for us to waive there weak utility.
>>46832510
>>46832225
>>46832282
No matter how good your guys are at balancing or making up innovative and fun cards, those who play the game "seriously" will only play some of those cards, and the rest will be shit. It's impossible to balance all cards in a game like magic, especially if you consider their monetization plan.
>>46825156
You know how girls have that ugly friend they keep around so it makes them look better by comparison? It's kinda like that.
If EVERY card was "good", then the really "good" cards would be scrutinized to hell and back.
Also because they have some hierarchy format tier list they print for. Limited is usually first.
>>46835082
There's a balance to be sought for, and wizards is far from it. >>46834830 has no excuse for existing.
>>46825554
Its not that wizards is bad at magic. Its that fundamentally old players and WotC want different games. WotC's primary goal is money and their primary targets are new players since they spend the most.
Alright, here's the thing about TCGs, every set has to have a certain amount of good and bad cards. You may think that having random packs that have only good things would mean that sales would go up, but that's not shown to be the case.
Let's give a brief scenario. Someone comes into a game store, buys two packs, and both packs have awesome cards. They are content and leave. Someone else comes in, buys two packs, and both packs are full of junk. They feel frustrated, knowing the set has good stuff in it, and buy another two packs and get mixed results, one good rare, some useful uncommons. They may be satisfied, or may try one more time for better stuff. Ask your FLGS.
In short, printing a mix of good and bad cards is more profitable, because it turns it into gambling.
>>46830026
While this is true the bottom line should be higher. Also there should never be a card that is strictly worse than another card from the same standard unless the new card makes the older card strictly worse.
>>46825156
Limited. Also Standard, something might look useless in Modern or EDH because there's an older version that is vastly better could be very usable in Standard.
>>46825156
To price gouge you for good ones and to sell to clueless Timmies who just want the SOOPER COOOOOOOL ARRRRRRRT!!!!111!!11
>>46834830
Maybe they're trying to see how overcosted a removal card can be in limited and actually survive a single rotation.
>>46827943
There will never be 100 viable decks. At least fifty of those will be worse than other decks.
What you're asking for is impossible in a competitive environment.
>>46827943
>Why is having 100 viable decks in modern and 30 in standard a bad idea?
Absolutely impossible to balance this without some crazy computer simulations or something designing it all. Some will naturally be slightly better or worse.
>>46832107
This is why we need the power dips. The breathing effect. Bring the power up to a peak then down to a valley and back up. People only get upset it you dont bring it back up. People remember the peak and want it back. They dont want the valley to be the new "peak" and for them to drop it even more than raise it back to that "peak"
Everyone I've talked to in real life is perfectly fine with lowering the power level as long as their is an upswing again. From what people have said a three year cycle is best. From the peak spend three years to get to the valley than three years back up. So
>Peak year
>Decrease year
>Decrease year
>Decrease year
>Valley year
>Increase year
>Increase year
>Increase year
>Peak year
So on and so forth. The key is to make sure you start the upswing and bring the power level back up.
>>46835621
gotta be careful with those peak years though. We don't need another Urza's saga.
>>46835695
>We don't need another Urza's saga.
Speak for yourself
>>46835695
Well of course they need to make sure everything jives and is cool but they still need to do it. They decreased the power level and now its just kinda floundering with no hope in sight for an increase. Then they point at stuff like cruise and go "But see! It is powerful!"
The power of the set is based on the average power of all cards not a handful of good cards.
>>46835063
Not a lot of people understand EDH, even those who play it. As a format, EDH really doesn't like overcosted cards, as the best cards are still those that cost the least.
When a card has a "high cost" in EDH, it really ends up being around 3 to 5 mana, with 6 mana being a weird grey area. 7+ mana cards are almost always garbage, and with the exception of those that grant incredibly powerful effects (Worldfire, Boundless Realms, Praetor's Counsel). If it costs enough to be a dead card in hand half the game, it's a bad card. If it doesn't actually win you the game for that much mana, you should really reevaluate your card choices.
"EDH cards" aren't for EDH, they're for really bad kitchen table players. Somehow, people think EDH is the format for really bad kitchen table shenanigans.
It works there, yeah, if you're amongst solely likeminded players. But as soon as a single person starts getting actually interested in the format, that dream dies, and you start loving other format staples, like Path to Exile, Swords, Maelstrom Pulse, Batterskull, Force of Will, and such.
>>46835844
>As a format, EDH really doesn't like overcosted cards, as the best cards are still those that cost the least.
You can always tell the guys who don't understand EDH by their average CMC. Unless they're playing a special commander that ignores casting costs like Jhoira or Rakdos and that shit is 4 or more, they have no idea what they're doing.
>>46835695
>We don't need another Urza's saga.
Is this what NWO made people to believe?
>>46836100
>implying I care about what a PMMMfag has to say about anything
>>46825757
>>46825489
These people are wrong. Zurgo is utter shit in commander it's just that he's even worse in any other format
>>46836179
>Zurgo is utter shit in commander
He's not the best Voltron, but utter shit? Come on man. He also gains massive bonus points for being fun as hell. Everyone loves a Zurgobro.
>>46832674
This makes zero sense whatsoever
A cards likelihood of wheeling is directly related to its power level relative to the other cards in the pool
If there are too many good cards you want that aren't making it around the table, what you actually mean is that there are too many shitty cards and therefore you are unable to get two good picks from a single pack
Why aren't all poker hands royal flushes?
>>46836405
This poster doesn't play poker or magic, he's just a stupid cunt
>>46836221
I don't see what's fun about him and I certainly don't love him or anybody who plays him unless they have unrelated redeeming qualities
>>46836849
>I don't see what's fun about him
Go to the EDH general and ask people's opinions on Zurgo Worldsmasher.
>>46825405
no, nobody plays most of these bad cards in EDH
>>46836902
Those people are why I hate zurgo
>>46836926
The EDH fanbase is why you hate Zurgo?
>>46836975
No zurgo fags are why I hate zurgo, it's tapered off but the spam from zurgo posters used to be really annoying
>>46836926
Why do you dislike them?
>>46836990
Zurgo posters are leagues better than an of the other memes from edh general
I hate Helmsmasher because its a shining example of NWO. I fucking hate conditional temporary upsides. The card may as well not even have it because when it actually fucking matter that ability wont be in play. It lets them make cards that look interesting and good when they are in fact barely worth more than vanilla creatures.
>>46837057
>missing the point of the conditional ability
>>46837017
what other memes? A single person posting pictures of craterhoof doesn't bother me
A bunch of different people masturbating about how awesome land destruction and how special they are for not running green or blue is highly annoying
It's primarily the fact that zurgo players seem to think their strategy is novel or interesting and that they are saving the format or something
again this was in the past though, that's kinda died down recently now that zurgo is old news compared to git gud frog
>>46837169
Then whats the "point" to make you feel safe when in fact your not?
>>46837057
>mythic
>NWO
>>46837057
Conditional temporary upsides are good design space
It just doesn't work well with indestructible, and especially not with 5 mana 2 toughness triple color creatures with basically no other advantages
>>46837207
Why are you feeling safe in the first place? Anyone with a brain knows that he is vulnerable 99% of the time and knows that a simple go for the throat will remove him. The indestructible while attacking just means that you can do some fun stuff while he is attacking.
>>46837243
No they are not they may claim they are more "interactive" but in reality the ability may as well not even be there.
>>46834976
Mirror Pool would be a good example of what mythic lands might hold
>>46837254
Zurgo's only purpose is to survive your own board wipes and to be mardu colors (mardu doesn't have many options)
>>46828102
>A top tier deck will cost you several hundreds of dollars and in two years will be worth jack shit
Isn't MtG Standard exactly the same (only now it's in 18 months, not 2 years)?
>>46837254
The point of abilities is to increase board presence and gain ground. Abilities like helm smashers give the illusion of gaining ground when it doesn't at all.
>>46837329
yes but there are other formats than standard
>>46837300
Ehh mirror pool is far to weak for me to say its mythic worthy.
>>46837282
I disagree
That's true for zurgo's indedtructible because a creature only needs to be destroyed once and it doesn't matter if it happens during your turn or before your next turn
But it's not necessarily true for other creatures, for instance dragon lord ojutai's hexproof is very effective when you drop him defensively and if you need to use him offensively you can use untap tricks
The result is a card that's very strong in the formats it's designed for but not overpowered like it might have been if it had regular hexproof
>>46837057
Not defending zurgo or anything else, but the way you refer to NWO is just a meme.
New World Order is, at it's core, redefining the "common." Before the NWO, limited games in certain blocks were miserable. Odyssey sealed was particularly fucked up. It will always have a special place in my heart, and it was skill intensive, but we don't need to have limited formats where ten out of the fifteen cards in a pack require "build-around-me" attention, and we don't need exponential board complexity every time a player puts a card into play or the graveyard.
Zurgo isn't affected by NWO.
>>46837400
>untap tricks
In the moments before that works they just need to drop removal on the stack and that's it. That's the exact problem. When it matters the ability is not there. That's what I'm saying.
It greatly weakens the card to unplayability. It makes a good card bad. I have yet to see a card with a a temporary conditional ability that was worth laying.
Conditional abilities on their own are perfectly fine. Once you turn an ability "on" it should stay on except at great cost to you opponent. This is why delirium is bad. Its far to hard to activate for what you get and far to easy for your opponent to turn off.
>>46837331
>when it doesn't at all
It does when all your opponent's creatures are dead and you still have one left over.
>>46837490
In my opinion mythics should be the unplayable cards meant for collectors to chase and "value." Commons should be where all the power is at with decreasing power the further up the rarity chain you go.
>>46837554
>brings up a single rare instance that wasn't even possible in the standard format.
>>46837522
Do you not understand how hexproof works
You can respond to removal by untapping ojutai
>>46837583
Respond with more removal. We can do this all day. Your point doesn't disprove my point. If it had flat hexproof you would not have to worry about that thus moving on to wining the game rather than protecting your board presence.
>>46835621
That would work if Wizards would be willing to reprint cards as necessary. The Khans Fetch Lands that have a Mountain or Island in them still can't replace Scalding Tarn.
Or fucking anything on the reserve list.
>>46837582
>implying we're talking about standard
>implying worldslayer isn't the fucking point of Zurgo EDH
>implying Mardu doesn't have an assload of tutor for equipment
>>46837715
I'm talking about all formats but standard in particular because standard is the gateway for every other format. If its not at least notable in standard it has zero hope in any other format.
>>46837641
Your point doesn't disprove mine though
My point was that ojutai would probably have been too good for standard if it had normal hexproof and no other changes
With his current form, he's quite strong but not broken and with untap tricks you can force your opponent to use 2 instant speed removal spells
Idk why you're pretending that's not useful and also not engaging at all with my point which is that ojutai was balanced correctly compared to zurgo, who was mot
>>46837347
There is no other constructed format that Wizards cares about.
>>46837775
>standard is the gateway for every other format
>if its not at least notable in standard it has zero hope in any other format
EDH is full of exceptions to your made up rule. A decent number of very good commanders were pretty uninteresting in Standard, but with a deck tied around them they become very lethal.
>>46837641
If it had flat hexproof it would be beyond broken in standard and especially limited
>>46837813
>There is no other constructed format that Wizards cares about.
Then why do they keep popping out EDH precons and designing standard cards that are clearly tailor made to be Commanders? Why do they keep adjusting the modern banlist? They clearly care about more than standard.
>>46837793
Its balance is completely subjective which is the problem. To me ojutai is worthless. I would never ever use it. I would prefer a much smaller incremental advantage rather that it since it would be my choice when it was lost and not my opponents choice.
My whole job is to not let you do anything to me. As such cards like ojutai and helm smasher are beyond worthless to me. A vanilla creature would be better because of the psychological effect of "its just a vanilla with no abilities. I should focus on something else."
>>46837835
EDH also has legacy cards in it. Any card can be "good" if you build to it.
A card should be good without building to it unless it adds to the whole archtype of the deck.
>>46837848
This tells me that standard and limited need to be brought up to match it. It shouldn't be lowered to match them.
Ojutai is a very "okay" card if it had flat hexproof. That fact that its gimped form is a bomb in standard tells me that standard is broken and needs to be fixed.
>>46837884
>to me, a card that was significantly played in relevant standard decks is worthless
You don't get to decide what a card is worth, results are what determines a cards worth and the results were that ojutai was strong but balanced in the format it was designed for
Compared to zurgo who is bad in all formats but especially the ones it was designed for, limited and standard
>>46837905
>unless it adds to the whole archtype of the deck
Which some do. People like pic related can take advantage of cards once considered way too expensive to be playable because to her, CMC doesn't actually matter. Really there's a lot of Commanders that reduce mana costs, ignore mana costs, or just play right from the graveyard, so lots of cards considered to be too expensive in their standards are finding uses.
>>46837857
They dump out the EDH ptecons because they require next to zero time and effort from design/development . Like was mentioned earlier on the thread: the majority of the "muh EDH" cards released in standard are actually bad-to-mediocre cards in all formats that just exist to pad out the set list.
As for Modern, it only gets chaneed when Wizards ducks up royally and, again, banning/unbanning cards does not cost time or effort.
>>46837929
If ojutai had full on hexproof he would be legacy playable
Is that what you mean? You could've just saved us some time by telling me you play legacy and you wish wotc designed more legacy playable cards
>>46837935
Yes, yes I do. Because of what I said before. Ojutai with flat hexproof is only an okay card. Standard is the problem and needs to be fixed. The fact that the gimped version was good proves that standard is diseased and needs to be healed.
>>46837884
You sound like that fag on CFB who said Sinister Concoction is terrible as it's a 3-for-1 since you have to mill yourself to activate it.
>>46837942
Who says I was talking about CMC costs? I was talking about the card standing on its own two legs. In the case of EDH you have two decks types the "Everything in my deck builds to my commander" or the "My commander builds to everything in my deck." This separates EDH in of the fact that it fundamentally plays differently.
>>46837975
There is nothing wrong with printing legacy playable cards anon. and no I dont play legacy. I dont even play modern. I primarily play limited, standard, and casual non tournament viable EDH.
>>46837980
I'm not gong to argue a point like that
As long as you admit that ojutai was designed well GIVEN that it was designed for standard, then we agree
However I don't think that ojutai's conditional hexproof is the problem
Regular hexproof is tiresome and you can't just throw it into every creature or you get a power creep that already exists to a certain extent where only hexproof creatures or creatures that you don't care about dying are viable
If they wanted to make ojutai a serious meta choice in modern and legacy there are other ways to do that besides giving it flat hexproof
>>46838017
Sinister Concoction is a godlike card. Primarily for its psychological effect. I won games I should have lost just because my opponent was afraid to play anything important with it on the field.
Spending unusual resources for an effect is not a bad thing.
>>46838050
I never said there was anything wrong with it, I too wish legacy playables appeared more in new sets
My point was that just because a card wasn't designed to be legacy playable doesn't mean it was designed badly
>>46838051
>power creep
How can you people even claim this when WotC has been doing nothing but lowering the power level with no plans on raising it soon?
>>46838095
You don't have to explain it to me, I was talking about this idiot in LSV's set reviews who vehemently argued that any self-mill was like giving your opponent free X-for-1s and was therefore unplayable.
>>46838149
Mill means nothing. Its the same as if that card was not on top of your library. In some decks its even a good thing. I dont understand why people cant understand that. Sure you might have put a key card in my graveyard but it effect its the same as if it was never there to start with.
>>46838137
Power creep can be discussed within a specific card subset
Among creatures, power creep is undeniable
>>46838222
>Among creatures, power creep is undeniable
Counterpoint: Goyf was first printed in 2007, no better creature was printed since.
>>46838222
I dont see it at all. I look at the whole history and see a random ass start that clears with very low power that gradually rises then sharply rises to a correct mid point. Then it creeps in power then drops and keeps dropping to where it is today.
The first mirrodin should be the mid point all sets try to stay around power level wise.
>>46835397
I can confirm this. I have pretty bad luck opening packs so everytime I end up getting nothing worthwhile I tell myself I'll never buy a pack again and only invest in singles but sooner than later I'm in the store again buying packs because "what if I have a lucky hand today and pull something awesome.
The most expensive cards I pulled so far are Mana Confluence and Collected Company though.
>>46838273
I don't think goyf is better than monastery mentor if we're talking about the eternal card pool here
>>46838322
Thats why you should draft. Same risk but greater reward. You get first pick at the money cards you open the same as if you bought packs but you also get the chance off being passed them.
>>46838398
This. Not only is drafting the best format because you actually have to think about what you have and build with it instead of looking online, but you also get to pick and choose cards.
Even if you just draft for the express purpose of getting what you need, you'll improve your card turnout. Plus you might even get better at the game.
I'm playing Standard with a deck that I built out of cards I drafted, and I'm having fun doing it.
>>46838273
Goyf is not that good in a normal standard format tho tbqh senpai
>>46834830
>Art has 2 snakes
>Only get 1 snake
>Maybe
>>46834830
>This shit common gets gorgeous art
>New Olivia looks like trash
Why live?
>>46840245
Hopefully they'll fix it with an FNM promo? Either way, I was planning to alter it. It's a hideous thing.
>>46828295
No, power creep was involved ever since Mechanical Chaser.
