Powercreep?

Unknown

Maybe this has already been noted, but I get the feeling that BFZ just has more powerful cards than Origins did.
For example, one BFZ Uncommon is almost strictly better than an Origins Mythic.

Is it just me?

Rootbreaker

There are a ton of Very Terrible Cards in Magic Origins. For there to be power creep worth worrying about, there needs to be a card in BFZ better than one of the better cards in Magic Origins.

Now, I haven't looked at BFZ much, so it's very possible there are such cards, but your vague description doesn't necessarily indicate power creep. After all, there are a lot of commons in magic origins better than Skaab Goliath.

Unknown

Generally mana efficiency seems to be much better.
The cards I meant were Chandra's Ignition and Rolling Thunder, BTW.

Rootbreaker

Yeah, Rolling Thunder does seem to be significantly better than Chandra's Ignition. For 1 more mana, you deal 6 damage to the opponent too, plus you have the non-awaken option. I'm not sure that Chandra's Ignition was a particularly strong card before though.

There are certainly more some more efficient cards in BFZ than there were in Origins for some uses, and some ridiculous cards (Exert Influence).

There are some creatures that are more efficient than most of the Origins creatures, but there were a few cards in Origins that were way above the curve too.

EDHdad

In paper Magic, the power level of a card is not determined by its rarity. Basic Island is one of the most common cards you can get, and it's also one of the most powerful. A card is common based on how often they want the card to show up in a Limited (sealed) format (where you play only with cards you just opened).

It's often the case that commons are more playable than rares or Mythics. A common might be something which almost always useful. A rare or Mythic might be something that has a very specialized purpose, and isn't for every deck. In paper Magic, there's a format called "Pauper" which only uses common cards. Most people are surprised to find out how powerful the decks really are.

In Magic Puzzle Quest, a lot of the Mythics are flat-out unplayable. To compensate for the more powerful effects, a lot of them have been given huge casting costs which make them impractical.

With paper Magic, there are also different formats. Rolling Thunder is a great card in Limited. Chandra's Ignition is more useful in a multiplayer game than a 1-vs-1 format. Rolling Thunder also sees some play in Pauper, since it was originally printed as a common.

Incidentally, Rolling Thunder is a reprint of a card which first appeared in 1997. So it isn't really "power creep" if it's generally more playable than a rare from 2015.

Potatoperson

Yes, there is some power creep. Examples:

Betrayal is a strictly better Act of Treason.

Ruinous Path is a strictly better (for all practical purposes) Unholy Hunger.

It's not that bad, since these cards weren't any good to begin with, and the core set itself has a lot of "card A is ridiculously better that card B, in fact, why would anyone with half a brain ever play card B" situations.

Some more examples which are relevant to decks people might actually play:

Serene Steward is, I belive, the cheapest 4/4 creature in the game, and it even comes with a tribe and an ability.

Felidar Sovereign is kind of ridiculous for 8.

In most Jace decks, Exert Influence will probably work better than Turn to Frog or Harbinger of Tides.

Hagra Sharpshooter isn't half bad for a black creature.

Endless One is probably the best neutral 4/4.

So far, I think that the cards tied to new mechanics are underwhelming, but the set does include some gems.

Morphis

Also new dual color gem support cost 5(one less than old one) and have more shield charges(think old ones have 2 charges and new 4.. Not sure though).

When you add that the 2 colors are not detrimental you have a power creep for sure.
so for instance if you get as Gideon white and green one, green gives +1, old ones you had to get a 0 color gem together with the main one.

If shield charge is 4 I think I will put one o these land cards in almost all my decks(probable exception being Chandra since has anti sinergy with supports and does not need ramp usually)

Rootbreaker

This video has a good explanation of power creep. If you're releasing strictly better versions of **** cards, it's not really power creep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3b3hDvRjJA

Morphis

Rootbreaker wrote:

This video has a good explanation of power creep. If you're releasing strictly better versions of **** cards, it's not really power creep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3b3hDvRjJA

I see the point of the video even though I am not conpletely sold on it on abstract.
If I have a card that costs 20 and summon a 2/2 nobody is gonna play it. If later I release a 20 mana card that summons a 3/3 for me it is still a power creep even if this card will also never be played.

Anyways since I already use dual old dual land mana production, these one are strictly better so it ends up being a power creep.

EDUSAN

Morphis wrote:

Also new dual color gem support cost 5(one less than old one) and have more shield charges(think old ones have 2 charges and new 4.. Not sure though).

When you add that the 2 colors are not detrimental you have a power creep for sure.
so for instance if you get as Gideon white and green one, green gives +1, old ones you had to get a 0 color gem together with the main one.

If shield charge is 4 I think I will put one o these land cards in almost all my decks(probable exception being Chandra since has anti sinergy with supports and does not need ramp usually)

the new "land support" are NOT power creep because they dont give the same color gems

for instance, the one i was "lucky" to get is BLUE AND WHITE. None of the Supports in origins that converted gems into 2 colors had that combination.
The ones in origin were the "friendly" colors of each particular color. For instance Shivan Reefs gives blue and red, which means is the "black" support (not considering if its useful or not)
The one i have from BFZ is White and Blue, so there is no color that benefits from it besides blue and white, one being their primary color and the other one being a friendly one.

If the cards have different effect they are no power creep.

For a card to be power creep it has to be exactly the same for less mana or STRICTLY better for the same mana.
We had some power creep in origin.

Exquisite Firecraft (6 damage for 6 mana) is power creep of the origin common that deals 3 damage for 6 mana
The funny thing is that the same exquisite firecraft is power creep of a BFZ card that deals 5 damage for 10 mana.
Effect is the same, costs are worse


From what i was able to gather i've seen that some creatures that range from 7-11 mana that used to be 4/4 in Origin now are 4/3 with an effect and maybe a little less cost. that is what i felt with some cards, maybe im wrong

Morphis

EDUSAN wrote:

Morphis wrote:

Also new dual color gem support cost 5(one less than old one) and have more shield charges(think old ones have 2 charges and new 4.. Not sure though).

When you add that the 2 colors are not detrimental you have a power creep for sure.
so for instance if you get as Gideon white and green one, green gives +1, old ones you had to get a 0 color gem together with the main one.

If shield charge is 4 I think I will put one o these land cards in almost all my decks(probable exception being Chandra since has anti sinergy with supports and does not need ramp usually)

the new "land support" are NOT power creep because they dont give the same color gems

for instance, the one i was "lucky" to get is BLUE AND WHITE. None of the Supports in origins that converted gems into 2 colors had that combination.
The ones in origin were the "friendly" colors of each particular color. For instance Shivan Reefs gives blue and red, which means is the "black" support (not considering if its useful or not)
The one i have from BFZ is White and Blue, so there is no color that benefits from it besides blue and white, one being their primary color and the other one being a friendly one.

If the cards have different effect they are no power creep.

For a card to be power creep it has to be exactly the same for less mana or STRICTLY better for the same mana.
We had some power creep in origin.

Exquisite Firecraft (6 damage for 6 mana) is power creep of the origin common that deals 3 damage for 6 mana
The funny thing is that the same exquisite firecraft is power creep of a BFZ card that deals 5 damage for 10 mana.
Effect is the same, costs are worse


From what i was able to gather i've seen that some creatures that range from 7-11 mana that used to be 4/4 in Origin now are 4/3 with an effect and maybe a little less cost. that is what i felt with some cards, maybe im wrong

Lol the new lands ARE STRICTLY BETTER than previous ones cause BOTH the colors AND mana cost is better

you can choose to get the one with your color in it you can count it as 3 value(cause your main color gives +3) and the secondary color as +1.

Old one you have to choose.
You can get your color + a 0 mana gain color
You can get both +1 mana gain color.

In both cases the new one grant on average a bigger benefit and for lower mana investment.
Cannot see why you can argue this is not a power creep

There are sometimes things related to the meta game where for instance a 3/4 could be better than a 4/4 cause it is immune to the new white kill spell.
But this does not apply to supports for sure.

EDUSAN

you have the definition of power creep wrong

a stricly better version of the origin support card shivan reef would be if it would convert 2 gems to red and 2 gems to blue, or 1 gem to red, 1 gem to blue and 1 gem to something else

We are no talking about which one you like the most, or which one nets you the most mana when matches a gem

Power creep is THE SAME for less mana or MORE for same mana (or less)

DIFFERENT is not power creep

To me this new supports, even though they work nicely with the +1 bonus mana we got from lvl 60 pw, seem to be more focused on the possibility of multicolored PW in the future and thats why they are making them rare

Morphis

EDUSAN wrote:

you have the definition of power creep wrong

a stricly better version of the origin support card shivan reef would be if it would convert 2 gems to red and 2 gems to blue, or 1 gem to red, 1 gem to blue and 1 gem to something else

We are no talking about which one you like the most, or which one nets you the most mana when matches a gem

Power creep is THE SAME for less mana or MORE for same mana (or less)

DIFFERENT is not power creep

To me this new supports, even though they work nicely with the +1 bonus mana we got from lvl 60 pw, seem to be more focused on the possibility of multicolored PW in the future and thats why they are making them rare

To be honest I do not understand what you all mean by power creep then...

The new land:
- cost less mana
- GIVE MORE MANA RETURN TO ALL PWALKERS
- have more shield charges

It looks like you are not alnowledging the second point as true.

Let's take a pwalker as example: Gideon.

Gideon gains the following amount with gem match:
+3
+ 1
0

Now there are 2 good new dual land support for him:
-white + green
-white + blue

The old options were 3 different ones:
-white + red
-White + black
-blue + green

Now with both white + anything supports the comparison is direct and obviously having green or blue is better for Gideon than having red or black.
Also white + (green or blue) beats blue + green cause of course for Gideon white is better than green or blue.

Now the fact that these new support cover different colors have no other direct impact in gameplay.
Is not like let's say with creatures where you can argue a 3/4 being better than a 4/4 cause it cannot be killed by the new white spell.

That is unless you are telling me that HAVING MORE for LESS mana is not power creep...

EDHdad

The terms "power creep" and "strictly better" are frequently tossed around on discussion boards, and are often used incorrectly.

For a card to be strictly better than another card, it has to do absolutely everything that the original card does for less mana, or something extra for the same mana.

For example, Exquisite Firecraft is (deal 6 damage for 6 mana) is strictly better than Lightning Javelin (deal 3 damage for 6 mana). However, this does not make Lightning Javelin unplayable. In a dedicated burn deck, you might want both. You have to fill 10 slots in your deck, and if you need to kill a creature with 3 toughness, Lightning Javelin will get the job done just as well.

In paper Magic, Lightning Bolt (deal 3 damage to any target at instant speed) is the best 1-drop burn spell in the game, but in paper Magic, you can only run 4 copies of a particular spell (in a 60-card deck with a 15 card sideboard). So a burn deck might run 12-16 copies of spells which are strictly worse than Lightning Bolt (depending on the format).

In a black deck with a dedicated removal suite, I'm not making a choice between playing Ruinous Path, Unholy Hunger and Scour from Existence. I'm playing all 3 if I have them. In a green ramp deck, I'm not making a choice between Nissa's Renewal and Fertile Thicket. I'm playing both. It's OK for one card to be better than another card, even strictly better. You want redundancy in your deck if you want to get the effect consistently.

Power Creep is something that affects ALL games where you get new stuff. If you're going to play with the new stuff, some of it has to be more playable than some of the old stuff. Paper Magic has dealt with this problem for over 22 years. In general, they've done a much better job than some other card games which have existed since the 1990's. The way they usually do it is by adding drawbacks or by going wide rather than deep. They also tend to print a lot of "hoser" cards, so if one strategy gets out of control, they print a card which hoses that strategy. There's a lot of paper-rock-scissors aspect to paper Magic.

Paper Magic also gets around powerful cards with bans and restrictions in tournament settings. If they print a card which turns out to be too powerful for the metagame, they'll ban or restrict it. In Magic Puzzle Quest, we've seen many instances where format warping effects have been Nerfed (Mizzium Meddler, Harbinger of Tides), or where weak cards have been strengthened (The Great Aurora used to cost 30 and was unplayable. Now it's 15 and it's the best board wipe in the game if you have it).

Unknown

EDHdad wrote:

Incidentally, Rolling Thunder is a reprint of a card which first appeared in 1997. So it isn't really "power creep" if it's generally more playable than a rare from 2015.

Rolling Thunder is absolutely power creep, as in the game we're talking about, Ignition did come first.

In addition, the fact that you might play both does not change the fact that one is for all intents and purposes strictly better.
And this new expansion seems to have a lot of things whose rarity is used to excuse higher power than the last set and lower rarities.

EDHdad

It's either strictly better or it's not strictly better. "Almost strictly better" is like "almost pregnant". A spell that costs 20 is not strictly better than a spell that costs 19.

One tool the developers of this game have is the ability to do "functional errata". That is, they can completely change the casting cost or effect of a spell at any time. Paper Magic no longer does this.

If we grant your general point, I would say that the casting cost on Rolling Thunder is probably fair, but the casting cost on Chandra's Ignition is probably too high. The Great Aurora costs 15. I think Chandra's Ignition would be improved if it also cost 15.

Unknown

"Almost" != "for all intents and purposes".

That aside, Thunder/Ignition isn't the only example. I feel like they stuffed in some bonkers cards and better mana efficiency to make it more appealing.
A few months ago I was playing Managorger Hydra simply because it was a 3/3 for 8, which was a good deal. Now there's a way better card, which I will name in a bit.

VacaNeon

EDHdad wrote:

It's either strictly better or it's not strictly better. "Almost strictly better" is like "almost pregnant".

If you want to be so paranoid and strict about the term "strictly better", then there would be only very few cards that can fall into its category as you have to consider all the possible cases (includes corner cases).

For example, card A is an exact copy of card B, the only difference is that card A summons a 4/4 creature and card B summons a 3/4.
Is card A strictly better than card B?
If yes, is card A still strictly better if the opponent has a Smite the Monstrous (PS: this common card is ridiculous) in hand?

So, I see nothing wrong with the term "almost strictly better".

And, "strictly better/not strictly better" is a relational expression, while "pregnant/not pregnant" is a Boolean expression, you are comparing orange with apple.

VacaNeon

Back to the topic.

I don't mind the power creep in new expansions as it is a "necessary evil", the only thing that bothers me is the "intensity" of the power creep.
Many new cards are just ridiculous strong compare to Origin.

Unknown

That's what I was thinking.
It does make BFZ New&ExcitingTM but I don't want my Origins cards to be outdated.

span_argoman

Act of Treason
Uncommon. 4 mana. Control target non-Defender or non-Reach till the end of the turn + Haste

Turn Against
Uncommon. 3 mana. Control target creature till end of turn + Haste.

Equal rarity. Cheaper. Lesser restrictions.

That's clear-cut power creep.