C19 - Tokens
The token design change from Core Set 2020 was a great move
Last edited:
The token design change from Core Set 2019 was a great move
Abilities can be activated at any time you can cast an instant, unless stated otherwise.Question: creatures with abilities on their card stating 2/B mana, "do this"— are those abilities like instants or do they have to be played during main phases?
Thanks!Abilities can be activated at any time you can cast an instant, unless stated otherwise.
Agreed. I'm excited for the Throne Collector boosters (more foil/full art/variants), though I will probably only be able to afford one or two of them.
I mean, I don't pay too much attention to Modern and older formats, but wasn't this sort of expected?
I mean, I don't pay too much attention to Modern and older formats, but wasn't this sort of expected?
The last tournament that mythic thing had only 2 hogaaks in top 8, or 1 I don't remember, but it was very prevalent and succesful against a field that was supposedly ready for it. The green force blowing up leylines didn't help matters.
And when they ban him mere 2 months after being printed maybe people can stop pretending play design are balance geniuses, they're pretty bleh at their jobs.
The only thing that's shit about the situation is that Hogaak is still running around when the card is clearly a problem. I don't mind them trying to push the boundaries once in a while, but I do mind them not taking care of business when things have clearly gone awry. That's not play/design's fault imo
TBH, a lot of people assumed banning Bridge would be enough, so it's not like the whiff was something everyone saw coming. There was a brief window where everyone thought the Hogaak deck was dead and buried, or at least way worse, without Bridge.Pretty bad to not emergency-ban given that the only reason we're in this situation was them whiffing on the last scheduled B&R. Feel for anyone playing Modern tournaments in the meantime.
Yeah, I don't blame play design: there seems to be a clear mandate to push boundaries on power level. The issue is that, if that's your policy, you need to be pretty aggressive with bannings or risk ruining formats for long periods of time. "Print Hogaaks" + "be cautious with bans and restrictions" + "don't ban new cards" is the real problem combo.
Nah. Play Design's been fantastic for standard and limited.The last tournament that mythic thing had only 2 hogaaks in top 8, or 1 I don't remember, but it was very prevalent and succesful against a field that was supposedly ready for it. The green force blowing up leylines didn't help matters.
And when they ban him mere 2 months after being printed maybe people can stop pretending play design are balance geniuses, they're pretty bleh at their jobs.
The thing is, emergency bans suck for people actually attending tournaments. Emergency banning Hogaak is basically telling people to come up with a new deck on the fly.Pretty bad to not emergency-ban given that the only reason we're in this situation was them whiffing on the last scheduled B&R. Feel for anyone playing Modern tournaments in the meantime.
Nah, they're not. And that's a pretty shit way of looking at people who I'm sure work hard af trying to make things fun for the game. Ok, so hogaak is busted. It happens, ban it, move on. For the most part, Modern Horizons has been great, and so has standard for the last year or so.
I don't play Modern, but from what I recall reading, Hogaak dominated the Mythic Championship in the Modern portion... it's just that its pilots did poorly in limited on the aggregate, and thus the deck didn't produce as many top finishes as you'd expect.The last tournament that mythic thing had only 2 hogaaks in top 8, or 1 I don't remember, but it was very prevalent and succesful against a field that was supposedly ready for it. The green force blowing up leylines didn't help matters.
And when they ban him mere 2 months after being printed maybe people can stop pretending play design are balance geniuses, they're pretty bleh at their jobs.
I think Karn, Narset, W6, and Hogaak have all been meaningful mistakes. I don't think their current philosophy of design for eternal formats is working; a lot of focus seems to be on power level and little focus on whether things encourage positive play patterns. I see few actual eternal players clamoring for cards to be pushed as aggressively as these.I'm fine with them missing stuff for non-limited/standard, as long as they are going a great job with those formats. Hoggak wasn't the obvious insane card at spoiler season that it is seen as now (otherwise it would have preordered for a ton of money), but that said, if you are intentionally designing cards for powerful formats, they either need to be pushed to the point where they might be broken, or they won't see play.
It's not just Hogaak, to be fair the misses are more notable than the hits but they've made plenty of dubious design decisions in their short time as a team.
What I don't understand is why some players insist on propping them up as these ingenious design masters, I've had people tell me they "saved" magic lmao.
Just to be clear, it's fine that they make mistakes but maybe have a little perspective. They're about as good/bad as whoever was designing before they were formed, DOM was the outlier not a preview of things to come.
Limited and Standard have been excellent. I'd imagine that's where they focus their time. Modern is impossible to balance realistically.
I think you're the one who lacks perspective here. We currently have a standard environment where aggro, midrange, control, and honest-to-goodness combo are all powerful, diverse, and viable. Do you know how refreshing that is? Especially after the complete garbage fire that was Kaladesh standard? The same standard environment that saw nine cards banned, including a fucking basic land tutor?It's not just Hogaak, to be fair the misses are more notable than the hits but they've made plenty of dubious design decisions in their short time as a team.
What I don't understand is why some players insist on propping them up as these ingenious design masters, I've had people tell me they "saved" magic lmao.
Just to be clear, it's fine that they make mistakes but maybe have a little perspective. They're about as good/bad as whoever was designing before they were formed, DOM was the outlier not a preview of things to come.
See? Just like this, PD can do no wrong, even when they do lol.
And standard has not been "excellent" as subjective as that is, but I'm not gonna tell someone they didn't enjoy something they did.
Play Design have been doing fine in standard but they missed a lot with WAR and some in m20. Standard is really bad rn despite high deck diversity.
I don't think this was the case as I am playing mono-red in Arena.
Okay, I'll pay more attention next time this occurs.
It's not that bad, I think you can attribute most of the problems to us now being in a 8 set standard which always gets a bit messy. But the format is still much better than it was a couple of years ago.this standard is quite awful. lots of viable decks doesn't really mean anything when most of them can't even disrupt the opposing gameplan, so your games are determined by how well you draw and who goes first rather than any sort of decision-making
The format has been solved for several weeks now and we're in a cyclical meta.It's not that bad, I think you can attribute most of the problems to us now being in a 8 set standard which always gets a bit messy. But the format is still much better than it was a couple of years ago.
I will say though, Wizards completely dropping the ball with organised play at all levels has meant it's harder to know what the best deck is because people are rarely trying to find it (outside of the MPL where there is an additional weird metagame thing going on that requires a different approach). This means diversity can be a bit false.
Even if the play patterns are worse, it's not a disaster of a format.The format has been solved for several weeks now and we're in a cyclical meta.
With Play Design should be much better than it is. They didn't fail on the balance so much since there's various top tier decks as opposed to singular in recent 8 set standards but the play patterns are arguably worse in exchange.
Apparently the new criteria for banning should be "Is part of a moderately successful deck I don't like".the side-effect of play design existing is that it might lead to more strong cards without greatly increasing the risk of creating ban-worthy cards, but the process doesn't have enough real checks. they've set up this scenario where they're responsible for both balancing the cards and also judging whether the cards are balanced. so their natural reaction will be to not ban anything because they're trying to use lack of bans as evidence that they're doing a good job.
nobody would have even cared if they added some made-for-multiplayer uncommon (wilderness reclamation) to the standard banlist, but instead we get 9 months of having to win by turn 5 and punishing decks that try to interact with creatures or planeswalkers. and then their "solution" to that (presumably teferi 3) was making the only remaining piece of interaction (counterspells) unplayable 🙄
god i wishApparently the new criteria for banning should be "Is part of a moderately successful deck I don't like".
Apparently the new criteria for banning should be "Is part of a moderately successful deck I don't like".
To be perfectly frank, Teferi Time Raveler is a toxic card that is single-handedly warping the metagame in various ways.Apparently the new criteria for banning should be "Is part of a moderately successful deck I don't like".
Wizards have to do something about organised play, like, yesterday. They've already made GPs close to pointless for top level competitive play so no pros turn up, now people are questioning the point of PTs.
At what point do the payout and costs intersect on the graph? It probably doesn't make much monetary sense if you don't place high enough
Well a trip to the US costs 1k alone in flights so top 64 of a PT which needed 30 match points in the latest MC/PT and good breakers against a bunch of other 30 match point players. That's a 10-6 record that doesn't even qualify you for the next MC/PT I think eitherAt what point do the payout and costs intersect on the graph? It probably doesn't make much monetary sense if you don't place high enough