Cards requiring rebalance

Morphis

I played some paper magic back in the days and also duel of planeswalkers on pc for many years so I know enough about the color pie, strength etc...
My point was that green has already 2 viable ways to deal with supports so that is not a problem.
Yes the 8 mana one could have been cheaper but it is still there.

Black is the only one with no support removal but if we keep the colors typical weaknesses in mind, yes it should be meant to have this weakness.
So the sum of our posts means that only whit should have access to better support removal.
That would bring it in line with one of the color strengths in paper magic.

This is really strange when you consider that supports are basically enchantment and artifact(non creature) in this game and red, that usually is good at destroying artifact can destroy it, green usually good at removing enchantment can destroy it while white, the only one good at both has the worst option of all.

The main problem seem to be that most white removals tha target enchantments or artifact can target creatures too, mostly through exile(like scour).

Probably they should consider for next cards similar to scour, to make it destroy target creature AND a random support for adequate cost of course.

This woukd still give an option to white.

Plastic

I still think tragic arrogance should remove at least one support from opponent.

Deus422

Morphis wrote:

I played some paper magic back in the days and also duel of planeswalkers on pc for many years so I know enough about the color pie, strength etc...
My point was that green has already 2 viable ways to deal with supports so that is not a problem.
Yes the 8 mana one could have been cheaper but it is still there.

Black is the only one with no support removal but if we keep the colors typical weaknesses in mind, yes it should be meant to have this weakness.
So the sum of our posts means that only whit should have access to better support removal.
That would bring it in line with one of the color strengths in paper magic.

This is really strange when you consider that supports are basically enchantment and artifact(non creature) in this game and red, that usually is good at destroying artifact can destroy it, green usually good at removing enchantment can destroy it while white, the only one good at both has the worst option of all.

The main problem seem to be that most white removals tha target enchantments or artifact can target creatures too, mostly through exile(like scour).

Probably they should consider for next cards similar to scour, to make it destroy target creature AND a random support for adequate cost of course.

This woukd still give an option to white.

Im fairly sure that in Paper Magic there hasnt been a mono-black card that could destroy artifacts/enchantments in years

shteev

EDHdad wrote:

One fundamental difference between this game and paper is the inability to target a specific support for removal. Even if you cast a card like Demolish or Conclave Naturalists, it's still a **** shoot which of your opponent's supports are going to be destroyed.

Indeed. One of the infinite reasons that Kiora is overpowered is that she can very easily 'protect' her powerful enchantments like Prism Array or From Beyond simply by running both Nissa's Pilgrimage and Fertile Growth, and almost all Kiora players do exactly that.

However, there is no reason why cards in this game could not target specific supports! I imagine it would take some extra coding, but probably less than ingest/void/process did. I look forward to seeing such cards in the future!

shteev

Rogan Josh wrote:

Prism Array for example might seem hugely under costed but considering Blue's rather poor card pool and underwhelming offensive power I think it's a well needed boost.

Tl;Dr Dual coloured PW's are way more of a balance shift than any individual card can be.

The thing about Prism Array, and other Landfall-style cards (like Part the Waterveil) is that they kind of suck in mono-blue. Prairie Stream is considerably less powerful than Nissa's Pilgrimage.

You're absolutely right that dual colored planeswalkers are an issue. Some serious thought needs to be given to how mono blue decks can be given powerful cards without them being abusable by Kiora. Poor Jace is everyone's least favorite now.

madwren

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if we find that the issue isn't Kiora per se, but green's ramp/mana flood abilities in general. However, until we get a green-red, green-white, or green-black deck, we can't really put that theory to the test.

Somewhat tangentially, I played a game today against Kiora that went like this:

1. I match gems for 5 mana, drop a Canopy Vista.

2. Kiora Fertile Grounds into a cascade that begets a turn filled with more Fertile Grounds, Animist's Awakenings, and Natural Connections, and other spells. Kiora winds up casting 4 Day's Undoings during this turn, managing to drop a 32/32 octopus, drop a 4/4 elf and something else, and get back to 12 loyalty...

....all before I had my second turn. Which consisted of me matching gems for 3 mana.

Certainly, Day's Undoing is a unique tool that can capitalize on green's mana, but I'm really intrigued to see how (presumably) Arlinn Kord works out later this year.

MTG_Mage

since its been mentioned a few times, gaea's revenge is a bit too big at 16/9 and something like 12/8 seems more appropriate.

Exert influence is probably the strongest and most annoying card in the game in my opinion and should really have its cost increased. Instead of 10 mana I thing it should be at least 13, or preferably 16+.

Crush of tentacles should have its cost reduction ability removed and cost increased as well since it clears the board and puts out a big creature with defences.

Morphis

MTG_Mage wrote:

since its been mentioned a few times, gaea's revenge is a bit too big at 16/9 and something like 12/8 seems more appropriate.

Exert influence is probably the strongest and most annoying card in the game in my opinion and should really have its cost increased. Instead of 10 mana I thing it should be at least 13, or preferably 16+.

Crush of tentacles should have its cost reduction ability removed and cost increased as well since it clears the board and puts out a big creature with defences.

First 2 points, I agree as I posted.

About crush of tentacles...
The mana reduction for it(and valykut) does not help most of the time since it requires casting other things in the same turn. The reduction is not permanent. So not point in taking it away(IMO no point in being there at all, if it was permanent than we could talk).

Increasing the mana cost would make it only realistically usable with mirrorpool.
So the mana increase in itself would not solve that much.

I think a better solution is to just let it spawn 1 octopus instead of 2.

Sortash

I agree that hixus prison warden needs to be changed. Depending on where the support is dropped on the board it will become nearly impossible to remove it, which will completely lock down every deck that deals damage with creatures (and there are few decks out there that win via direkt damage) Give it a timer (2-3) so it will automatically be removed. Or give it a mechanic that works with the number of creatures that are trapped bei hixus (3 health when dropped, gains one health every turn... loses one health everytime a creature is disabled by hixus ... just an example).

I agree that it also can be totally useless when it immediatly lands matchable on the board. But cards that are dependant on luck that much are actually something i really dislike.

bk1234

Just to clear a couple things up.

Mirrorpool does not give you a spell of your choice free. It fills the next spell in your hand if you launch a spell. It's actually a big pain when you're holding it for a card and have to launch a spell in the meantime. It hinders your play, it does not make it better. I only have this in 2 of my 16 decks.

Omnath was a very expensive mythic to buy -- that's why he's "OP" in your opinion -- but he's actually quite hard to get going --and he takes up two creature slots. If you are manna denying AI and AI automatically does the same to you, no-one is getting landfalls.

The same thing goes for Prism Array -- the only deck it ever pops in is my J2 which is designed around manna and loyalty gen. But it's abilities are why it's a rare card.

I guess my point is -- just because a card seems OP to play against doesn't mean it's OP to play with

PS: UC is one of the easiest creatures to destroy -- and it's bugged which makes it easier to destroy -- have fun with that because we've pretty much figured they're never going to fix it.

Xakarath

I'm a control player and I still feel creatures in general are too little. An Eldrazi in paper puts you on a 2 turn clock, but Kozilek only puts you on a 6 to 8 turn clock in this game. That's fine if they don't want to make 50/50 creatures, but there is room for creep. I think the problem is that there is no limit to the amount of mana you can generate on your first few turns, effectively allowing a "dark ritual'ed" bomb early in the game.

alextfish

Xakarath wrote:

I'm a control player and I still feel creatures in general are too little. An Eldrazi in paper puts you on a 2 turn clock, but Kozilek only puts you on a 6 to 8 turn clock in this game. That's fine if they don't want to make 50/50 creatures, but there is room for creep. I think the problem is that there is no limit to the amount of mana you can generate on your first few turns, effectively allowing a "dark ritual'ed" bomb early in the game.

I'm fine with lots of 4/4-6/6 creatures. The problem is that those are all uncommon or mostly rare. Commons are down at the 1/1, 1/2, 2/1 kind of size, and those are just unplayably small when you've only got 3 creature slots and you're against opponents with 100 HP.