Magic the Gathering Thread XXIV: *Slaps Roof* This Thread Can Hold So Many Chandras!

[zlefin]

That's a pretty huge change; I don't follow constructed closely enough to say much about it. What's the average rate these days of them having to ban cards or make changes like that?
I imagine it varies over time, and tends to be high when sets are tuned to a high power balance point.

[Fable Wright]

That's a pretty huge change; I don't follow constructed closely enough to say much about it. What's the average rate these days of them having to ban cards or make changes like that?
I imagine it varies over time, and tends to be high when sets are tuned to a high power balance point.

There was a 5-year period without bannings between the dreaded Combo Winter of '99 until Mirrodin.

Then there was a 6-year period without bannings between Fifth Dawn and Worldwake.

Then there was another 6-year period without bannings until everything went completely off the rails in 2017 when there were three Standard bans. And then another two before the end of the year. And then four bans in 2018. Then three bans in 2019. And now two bans so far in Standard, and the first rules patch.

I've recently begun associated character-driven storylines rather than world-driven storylines, horrible balance issues, and 'return to a loved plane so you can trash it after its original fulfilling conclusion' together as the New New World Order.

On a related note, I have been playing far less Magic after 2015 (when Dragons of Tarkir started the paradigm) than I did before 2015.

[tgva8889]

To be fair, I am not certain how necessary all the bans were across the last 4 years. Some of them I think are not as much a result of Wizards making cards too good, but that a lot more people are playing a lot more Magic and breaking things too quickly. They need some way to change up Standard so that it remains fun and interesting, and they can't make more products or rotate Standard faster because we complained the last time they did that. Some of the cards they've made were definitely problems (like Oko) but I think some cards they banned in order to make people play different stuff, effectively a mini-rotation.

Companions needed to change, that much is clear, but the other two bans? While I think it revitalizes Standard a bit since the top deck and a half is banned out, mainly I think they did it because people were getting bored with Standard as it was and not necessarily that those cards were broken. In my experience playing Standard, I didn't have as much problem dealing with those cards myself, so I think Standard might have still been fine if those cards hadn't been banned. But I am excited for New Standard, which I'm certain was what they were going for. And I remember when Rampaging Ferocidon was banned and thinking, "what?"

[Techwarrior]

I mean Agent of Treachery still is a huge design mistake that either got sweet talked past devs or everyone was misreading the card.

[LansXero]

I mean Agent of Treachery still is a huge design mistake that either got sweet talked past devs or everyone was misreading the card.

Overpowered design mistakes are marketing successes, same as Wrex; the repentant bs they spew when their scheduled ban comes is insulting to the intelligence of average readers.

[mythmonster2]

I mean Agent of Treachery still is a huge design mistake that either got sweet talked past devs or everyone was misreading the card.

Agent of Treachery's been fine for most of its life in Standard; we've just recently hit a critical mass of ramp and mana cheating that made it oppressive. Playing Agent on turn 7 is a decent play, but not a game winning one. Powering it out on turn 4 and knocking your opponent down to three lands is the problem, and that's mostly happened because of cards like Lukka and Winota.

[NigelWalmsley]

Honestly, part of the problem with Companions is that, other than maybe Kyruga, the restrictions aren't actually that restrictive.

I think that's a bad take. Most of the restrictions are meaningful (particularly for Standard). It's only Yorion, Lurrus (in older formats), and Kaheera (for creatureless decks, it's super restrictive if you want to play creature cards) that are easy to stick in without changes. The others all require sacrifices (e.g. Embercleave in Standard RDW).

because people were getting bored with Standard as it was and not necessarily that those cards were broken.

They did that because Standard is miserable (and in particular it's super miserable if you're not playing on of the top decks). Frankly, they didn't go far enough. They should have banned Teferi and Reclaimation. Personally, I think they should ban things for being godawful a lot more frequently than they do. Lots of formats are stuck being kinda miserable for a long time because WotC is unwilling to ban things. Which is why I'm excited for Historic. I hope that an all-digital format allows them to manage it more aggressively for broken nonsense, though not getting Teferi there worries me.

I didn't have as much problem dealing with those cards myself

The Jeskai Lukka deck had a 60% winrate in the Red Bull tournament. That percentage went up after sideboarding. Your personal experience is not indicative, though I understand that WotC's resolute refusal to give us hard numbers makes it tempting to think this way.

I mean Agent of Treachery still is a huge design mistake that either got sweet talked past devs or everyone was misreading the card.

I think Agent is actually a fairly small design mistake. It would be super fair if it had the "if you cast it from your hand" restriction that the various "ETB blow up the world" creatures like Dread Cacodemon have. Even the "if you cast it" restriction that's on Lutri (whose ETB is a 2-mana spell) has would be fine. The issue is that you can cheat it out easily and that's busted.

[Techwarrior]

Agent of Treachery's been fine for most of its life in Standard; we've just recently hit a critical mass of ramp and mana cheating that made it oppressive. Playing Agent on turn 7 is a decent play, but not a game winning one. Powering it out on turn 4 and knocking your opponent down to three lands is the problem, and that's mostly happened because of cards like Lukka and Winota.

I think Agent is actually a fairly small design mistake. It would be super fair if it had the "if you cast it from your hand" restriction that the various "ETB blow up the world" creatures like Dread Cacodemon have. Even the "if you cast it" restriction that's on Lutri (whose ETB is a 2-mana spell) has would be fine. The issue is that you can cheat it out easily and that's busted.

The fact that Agent doesn't specify non-land fundamentally shifts the power level of the card. It creates a huge color pie break wherein blue isn't supposed to be able to interact with lands. More importantly though, a creature that is flicker-able that casts Stone Rain on your opponent is a card that needed to be thoroughly tested around for standard. It obviously didn't get that testing, or the devs think that scenario is an acceptable thing to have in a standard environment. Either scenario is not a good look for the dev team as a whole.

Furthermore, saying that X wouldn't be broken if you were hard casting it for mana is just an inadequate assessment of card design at this point in this game's lifecycle. Magic is a game where things are going to be cheated out, reanimated, etc. A card should at least be reasonable in regards to the actual wording of it's effect.

Does anyone here really think that if the card said "non-land permanent" that we would even still be having a discussion about this card being ban-worthy? I don't think so. I believe it would be a card that still saw sideboard play, but it wouldn't be a card that needed banning.

[Silfir]

The fact that Agent doesn't specify non-land fundamentally shifts the power level of the card. It creates a huge color pie break wherein blue isn't supposed to be able to interact with lands.

Blue interacts with lands just fine, usually via bouncing them. Blue is also the color of stealing your opponent's stuff, including lands. Annex shows as much. It's not a color pie break. That said, moving away from doing it with Auras and making it effectively irreversible is quite dangerous.

I think Agent of Treachery was printed in good faith that its 7 CMC mana cost would be a significant limitation on its use. (I.e. it would show up only in dedicated ramp decks.) The general wisdom of card design is that seven mana won't be reached without a dedicated ramp deck. Of course, then they print Lukka and Winota...

Never attribute to malice what can be explained with simple stupidity.

[Eurus]

Does anyone here really think that if the card said "non-land permanent" that we would even still be having a discussion about this card being ban-worthy? I don't think so. I believe it would be a card that still saw sideboard play, but it wouldn't be a card that needed banning.

I... absolutely do, tbh, and it's surprising to me that you feel like land-stealing is what makes it powerful. Almost every deck is going to run nonland permanents, and being able to steal those is huge. Agent of Treachery is only stealing lands, in every game I've seen, when the defending player has no nonland permanents (or nothing remotely useful), which I tend to think of as a situation in which you are likely losing the game anyway.

[NigelWalmsley]

It creates a huge color pie break wherein blue isn't supposed to be able to interact with lands.

Blue doesn't interact with lands specifically, but it's allowed to have effects that target any permanent, and it's allowed to have permanent stealing. There's even another "steal any permanent" card in Standard right now (Kiora Bests the Sea God). It's just that no one plays it, because you can't cheat it out T5 then repeatedly flicker it until your opponent wants to die.

Furthermore, saying that X wouldn't be broken if you were hard casting it for mana is just an inadequate assessment of card design at this point in this game's lifecycle. Magic is a game where things are going to be cheated out, reanimated, etc.

Yes that's why cards should use cast triggers to make mana cheating less broken. The basic technology has existed at least as far back as the original Eldrazi Titans. The broken thing about the card is doing it on T5 and flickering it with Yorion. Making its effect only trigger on cast fixes that.

A card should at least be reasonable in regards to the actual wording of it's effect.

When and how the effect triggers is part of the effect. Again, Kiora Bests the Sea God. Exact same (actually, slightly better) effect. But since it's much harder to trigger, cheat out, or repeat, it's a forgettable card instead of one that's banned in Standard.

I... absolutely do, tbh, and it's surprising to me that you feel like land-stealing is what makes it powerful. Almost every deck is going to run nonland permanents, and being able to steal those is huge. Agent of Treachery is only stealing lands, in every game I've seen, when the defending player has no nonland permanents (or nothing remotely useful), which I tend to think of as a situation in which you are likely losing the game anyway.

You stole lands when you cheated it out T5 reasonably often, because that was a good way of crippling your opponent before they could get going. T5 double Stone Rain was an absolutely brutal swing. It's still probably banworthy without that, but the most powerful lines where definitely the ones where you passed to your opponent's T5 and they had three lands to your seven.

[Ninjaman]

The Companions fix seems bad. Companion as a mechanic wasn't any worse then planeswalkers, it just had some stand outs (just like planeswalkers.) Lurrus should have eaten a ban, Zirda in the older formats, that seems plenty. Yorion was ok, Gyrudra was good as an all in combo in legacy, otherwise they were nothing to write home about.

Companions were problematic because they gave you a free card, planeswalkers didn't.

[Silfir]

The other problem with companions was that they have very relevant static or ETB abilities. If Lurrus was only a 3/2 lifelink, or if Yorion was only a 4/5 flying - both perfectly reasonable things for a 3 CMC and a 5 CMC creature, respectively, to be - they wouldn't have warped formats around them. Similarly, if they had kept the special abilities, but been reduced to 1/1 and 2/2, maybe they'd have been more trouble than they were really worth.

The line "When *** enters the battlefield, you draw a card." is usually worth about 1.5-2 CMC. The card advantage inherent to companions is worth at least as much as that, but companion creatures were priced as though being a companion was worth nothing - the truth is that it probably should have been priced as about 2 CMC or more (and indeed, that's what Wizards' fix is aiming for). Imagine if Fblthp was printed with a 3/3 statline with no alterations to the card text. Just a 2 CMC 3/3 beatstick that also draws a card. It would be immediately recognizable as utterly broken and beyond the pale. But then I look at Questing Beast, and I wonder what Wizards' limits for mythic or even rare creatures actually are these days.

[Personification]

So, M21 previews have started.
Dogs are now dog.
Phasing is in standard.
They printed a mono-W card draw card (the draw is linked to your opponent doing stuff, but still).
There is a planeswalker that can be activated at instant speed.
Baneslayer Angel is back.
To invoke the immortal name of the goblin patron of excited fans: Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

EDIT: and (I actually think the reason I posted this and then forgot to put it (thanks LaZodiac), MILL IS A KEYWORD!

[LaZodiac]

Don't forget Mill is a keyword now!

They're literally cracking open a lot of those old rules and swirling around the insides.

[Amechra]

Don't forget Mill is a keyword now!

They're literally cracking open a lot of those old rules and swirling around the insides.

So, I can't watch the stream, but... is the keyword actually going to be "Mill X", or is there just going to be a keyword for milling?

[LaZodiac]

So, I can't watch the stream, but... is the keyword actually going to be "Mill X", or is there just going to be a keyword for milling?

The wording is now "mill X cards" so it's more like an ability word?

Like "If you would draw a card, mill a card instead".

[enderlord99]

So, I can't watch the stream, but... is the keyword actually going to be "Mill X", or is there just going to be a keyword for milling?

"Target opponent mills two cards"

[Eurus]

You stole lands when you cheated it out T5 reasonably often, because that was a good way of crippling your opponent before they could get going. T5 double Stone Rain was an absolutely brutal swing. It's still probably banworthy without that, but the most powerful lines where definitely the ones where you passed to your opponent's T5 and they had three lands to your seven.

Well, fair enough. I still think it would absolutely be a huge problem even if it was restricted to nonlands, because stealing your opponent's planeswalkers/creatures/fires of invention/whatever is a huge tempo move.

[Douglas]

Baneslayer Angel is back.

Which raises the question of whether it's going to earn the name "Bankslayer Angel" again.

[NigelWalmsley]

Probably not. It doesn't do anything when it ETBs, and it doesn't passively give you card advantage.

[Eurus]

Comparing Baneslayer Angel to this guy...

Spoiler: Card text:

Show

Elder Gargaroth {3}{G}{G}

Creature — Beast

Vigilance, reach, trample

Whenever Elder Gargaroth attacks or blocks, choose one —

• Create a 3/3 green Beast creature token.

• You gain 3 life.

• Draw a card.
6/6

[Fable Wright]

Comparing Baneslayer Angel to this guy...

Spoiler: Card text:

Show

Elder Gargaroth {3}{G}{G}

Creature — Beast

Vigilance, reach, trample

Whenever Elder Gargaroth attacks or blocks, choose one —

• Create a 3/3 green Beast creature token.

• You gain 3 life.

• Draw a card.
6/6

... I've been out of the loop for a while, but this appears to be more pushed than Thragtusk back in the day. What the heck has happened to game design that green is so absurdly pushed?

[Silfir]

Everything is pushed. Creatures are just silly now. Be glad this doesn't trigger on entering the battlefield, too. If you kill it right away, it's a 1-for-1, unlike Hydroid Krasis or Uro.

[Amechra]

... I've been out of the loop for a while, but this appears to be more pushed than Thragtusk back in the day. What the heck has happened to game design that green is so absurdly pushed?

A couple years back Green and Red went kinda insane. Thragtusk is, quite frankly, on curve at this point.

[Spore]

... I've been out of the loop for a while, but this appears to be more pushed than Thragtusk back in the day. What the heck has happened to game design that green is so absurdly pushed?

I feel the phrase "x dies to removal" is so prevalent at this point that they needed to push green. And they kinda went a bit ham on that. Which is coincidentally the reason why the Gargaroth is probably not even worth it, if the meta evolves to be removal heavy again.

Unless you have a Henge out that replaces the card, or some form of denial (Alseid in G/W, counterspell in G/U) or haste, the card does not survive a turn.

[Amechra]

I think my favorite example of how utterly devalued creatures have become is Umori the Collector.

Umori is a 4/5 for {2}{B/G}{B/G} legendary creature from Ikoria with two abilities - first off, it straight-up has a better version of Cloud Key stapled to it (there's no restriction on the types you can pick). Secondly, once per game, if all of the non-land cards in your library are the same type, you can pay {3} to put it into your hand from your sideboard. Note that you don't have to build around Umori's Companion ability if you don't want to, but that it wouldn't be that hard to build around, say, Artifacts.

You can pick up a copy for $0.38. Cloud Key costs 54.5x that.

[Tvtyrant]

... I've been out of the loop for a while, but this appears to be more pushed than Thragtusk back in the day. What the heck has happened to game design that green is so absurdly pushed?

Thragdaddy has etb and ltb triggers, not really comparable. WotC is constantly trying to find where the line for a creature without enter or exist triggers and being playable in higher cmcs is, because deliberately bad removal hasn't gone over well with players.

I thought an indestructible 7/6 that destroys permanents would do it but no one plays Kogla, for instance. It even combos with charming prince as an advantage engine.

[mythmonster2]

Yeah, Thragtusk would see way more play than this card. Doom Whisperer's been in Standard for over a year and half, and it's barely seen any play. Big dumb creatures without immediate value just don't cut it.

[Ninjaman]

Elder Gargaroth will probably be good, but I doubt it will be too good. Sometimes big dumb idiots are just big and dumb enough to be playable, Kalonian Hydra comes to mind, but I don't recall them often being too good.

I agree that it is probably worse than Thragtusk, but I could be wrong.

Baneslayer was before I started playing, but I believe it was very dominating when it was first in standard, and then not much of a presence the second time around.