General "Looking for a card"-Thread
- Thread starter ravnic
- Start date
pithing needle, sorcerous spyglass, phyrexian revoker, and null rod stop equipment and crystal shard in a manner of speaking.
Ptshr.. Meteors that cannot destroy lands..
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
It won't hurt the land because it is from the land, technically...
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Nah the flavor win would be it turns a land into a wastes
I'm looking for green or white (or colorless) cards that you would put in a deck full of vigilance creatures. It's for a retail-level +1/+1 counter archetype, but what Is interesting with vigilance?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Here you go, ravnic:
Edit: Actually, some of those specifically proliferate +1/+1 counters only, which you didn't ask for, so I guess I'll move them to their own bonus category for the benefit of others
I'm looking for UW cards, specially those that are control oriented. I have Supreme Veridict, Sphinx's Revelation but I'm not sure about what more could be interesting. Deputy of Retention seems fun, but he also seems much weaker and he's far from a card that would push me into UW.
Deputy of Detention seems like a card that's more for creature decks and less for control, where I would prefer Detention Sphere but that doesn't really draw you into Azorius.
My players personally love Dragonlord Ojutai. I like that it's a big splashy card that saw play in standard and the hexproof ability provides interesting counterplay compared to something like Sphinx of Jwar Isle.
I've been toying around with the idea of Dovin's Acuity but I haven't played with it outside of Arena Best of One and Draft so I'm not sure how it would translate to a cube environment.
Other cube communities really like Fractured Identity but its power level makes me nervous.
Deputy of Detention seems like a card that's more for creature decks and less for control, where I would prefer Detention Sphere but that doesn't really draw you into Azorius.
My players personally love Dragonlord Ojutai. I like that it's a big splashy card that saw play in standard and the hexproof ability provides interesting counterplay compared to something like Sphinx of Jwar Isle.
I've been toying around with the idea of Dovin's Acuity but I haven't played with it outside of Arena Best of One and Draft so I'm not sure how it would translate to a cube environment.
Other cube communities really like Fractured Identity but its power level makes me nervous.
I recommend everyone steer clear of Fractured Identity. It is such an un-fun card to play against, and it usually creates huge swings in the play of the average game. It can also be abused with cards that transform due to State-Based Effects (I think) like Garruk Relentless. Basically, don't play it, it's only popular because it's game breaking, not because it's actually fun or interesting. It's a bad design in the context of two-player magic that was created for the context of what is arguably the worst magic format.
This has ben a P.S.A. from the Trainmaster Commission for Fair and Balanced Magic.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Oh please, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad format. I hugely enjoy the Commander games with my playgroup, and really, there's nothing inherently "worst" about 100 card highlander Magic with a general that you build around. In general, I find that players who soured on the format either don't enjoy the politics of multiplayer games, or played some Commander games where the players at the table went into the game with divergent expectations on what is appropriate/fun in the format. Neither of those make Commander the "worst" format, they just make it "the format that's not for you" and "the format that didn't get a fair chance" respectively.
I don't think finding Commander to be a bad format is just a matter of taste. Magic is not well-suited to multiplayer and does not lend itself well to politics. Negotiation is one of my favourite game genres and I can't see a reason to play multiplayer Magic over Cosmic Encounter or Intrigue. In fact, now you can get preconstructed decks of Vampire: The Eternal Struggle for 20€ and that's a far better multiplayer game than Magic, if simply because it was designed for it.
I also think that that the loose social contract of what's "fun" is a poor replacement for proper game design and balance. But that's very off-topic, I think.
I also think that that the loose social contract of what's "fun" is a poor replacement for proper game design and balance. But that's very off-topic, I think.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Off-topic is what we live for here
That's an opinion that I respectfully disagree with, but I won't force you to play a format you don't enjoy. It's just that I don't really get why people feel the need to badmouth commander, when there's obviously a lot of people (myself included) that do enjoy the format. Live and let live, or something like that.
Hence why I say "arguably." Some people really enjoy it, and if people like a format, it can't be the worst. There is absolutely nothing wrong with highlander type formats- CanLander is probably one of my favorite formats. The problem also isn't the multiplayer/political aspect. Although getting ganged up on by 4 people can absolutely ruin a game, the political aspect of an EDH game can also lead to some interesting lines of play that just simply don't exist in other formats. I've played a lot of commander- as much as I rip on it, I think the presence of a general makes it a fun format to brew for. The big issue is just that commander is way too swingy. If you don't have a playgroup with well-defined power band boundaries- you're going to have a bad time.
There's a lot more reasons why I think commander is not that great, maybe I'll write a piece about it in the future. I think commander can be a great format, but I would say about 90% or so of games just get ruined by one factor or another. The fact that sometimes the gimmick of the format (the generals) can ruin entire games doesn't spell good things for the format. That doesn't mean it's a bad gimmick or even that it's un-fun, but the fact of the matter is, commander is poorly regulated and relies far too heavily on social contracts to do the heavy lifting in the balance department. If you don't have that (which many people don't), it is incredibly disheartening.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Well, I can agree on that, and I do consider myself lucky for having a play group which roughly operates in the same power band. I think the difference is that I don't count that as a flaw of the format, but more a flaw of how the format is managed.
Games have to be "regulated" and it's bad to rely on social relations between human beings to have a fun experience with your friends?
Fuck, I've been gaming wrong this whole time. Oh man, this is a really really bad sign for D&D, might be time to retire the old DM screen.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I was going to say it's not a great example because D&D is better categorized as a toy and hence works very differenly from a game like Magic but, you know what? I actually think this is a similar to the Monte Cook design debate.
For those not in the know, Monte Cook is a game designer mostly known for his D&D work. He's a controversial designer, mostly for his approach to balance and the social contract, much like in the Commander debate. Most notably, Monte Cook argues that he "doesn't have to design for assholes", with "assholes" being people who use flaws in the design of his games. So the guy carrying Vuvuzuelas to get a charisma bonus and not for pure roleplaying interest is an asshole, just like the guy playing Ruination or Armaggedon might be at the Commander table.
Personally, the issue with this line of thinking is that it turns a design problem (Balance) into a social one. It's no longer about the game being flawed or poorly made but about people being bad and ruining others fun by not following an unwritten, poorly defined "social contract". The designer offloads his responsabilities (Making a good, balanced game) onto the players. Because, sure, I can house-rule and ban the Vuvuzuelas and Ruinations but that's simply me donning the hat Mr Cook or Wizards should have worn instead. In other words, the only reason the "social contract" is necessary it's because the game is unbalanced in the first place. It's not a proper mechanism for ensuring balance but a cop-out.
Counter my turn 1 Sol Ring if you disagree.
I knew this was going to be a galaxy brain take after this intro, but hoooo boy, I wasn't expecting the "gaming isn't and shouldn't be a social interaction" argument.