Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
Congratulations, you found a misspelling. Based on the context it was obviously meant to say "Preventing one type of counter is not a basis for preven every type of counter"
Removing counter =/= Preventing counters.
Are you gaslighting me? This is a serious question.

Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post

That's +1/+1 counters, which are positive. +1/+1 counters can be negated with -1/-1 counters. The card [Blightbeetle] could have said "whenever a +1/+1 counter is put on a creature an opponent controls, put -1/-1 counter on that creature." and it would undoubtedly be black. Preventing counters isn't black, but preventing +1/+1 counters is.
In that post, YOU argued that REMOVING COUNTERS == PREVENTING COUNTERS... And you argued that it was functionally the same a few more posts.


Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
Please give your substantial evidence for black being able to prevent all kinds of counters.
From a mechanical perspective, there aren't much justifications. Black can already remove any number of counters and the article notes it as sole color for removing counters. Which is flawed. R&D drifted on it, so it's hard to say where they are right now, but it seems that white can prevent counters and black can prevent some counters.

From a flavor perspective, black would be a color that would allow you to dump your poison onto others, or manipulate it in a similar fashion. Not necessarily prevention, but in essence the same or worst.

Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
Also white wasn't noted as preventing or removing counters in that article.
And I've explained, Melira was before that article, Blightbeetle, Suncleanser, and Solemnity are after.


Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
Yes, in 95% of cases damage and corruption is a meaningless distinction. That's not worth the design space.
Give me an example where you don't deal with 20 corruption and yet it is still relevant that the damage is corruption.
Well, here is why I did. I didn't want corruption to be parasitic, I wanted to make sure that if you are adding corruption on yourself, it's a minor tradeoff, not a 99% free tradeoff.

In my book, the damage is part of the design space. Sure I give some design space up, but it is worth it for the flavor and interactivity.

Also, I was responding to your claim "corruption=1 damage in counters" was parasitic.
It's not. Not in any sane* way of defining it.

*I could just as easily argue creatures with X is parasitic if I only insist on attacking with creatures that have X.

Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
You shouldn't just look at the stats and make conclusions, but you should look at tendencies and try to understand them.
Most of the white cards with a purge flavor destroys creatures and/or enchantments, because that makes sense.
Don't say "can I do it this way?" ask "why am I doing it this way?"
Yeah. I know.

And I know why I'm doing it that way. Because it's meant to show how the Inquisition burns people and their instruments - that's the flavor. But even on a most basic mechanical level (modulo flavor), no one else found this problematic. Well. Almost no one

Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
Also you should do your research better, before Kaladesh there were still over 50.
Congratulations. I wrote down Kaladesh by mistake, I meant to write Alara. In Kaladesh, they became deciduous.

I still have the problem with "They never did it, so they will never do it" mentality. R&D shifts their position all the time.