Okay.... so what exactly happened here devs?

Gunmix25

Overwhelming splendor: a card with mythic rarity for 12 mana, adds 6 mana to all cards in opponent's hand .

Vs.

Defense grid: a card with Masterpiece rarity for 10 mana, adds 5 mana to all spells in opponent's hand.

The masterpiece just became a floor mat by comparison. It's rarity value for it does now with overwhelming splendor doing more and is more accessible is silly   My two cents. 

madwren

Welcome to power creep. It returned sooner than we expected/hoped--though to be fair, Defense Grid is colorless, so can be splashed in any deck, while Splendor is limited to the eight thousand white planeswalkers we have access to.

speakupaskanswer

Yes, I agree. I still can't wrap my head around Steward of Solidarity vs. Ornithopter. A 4/4 for 5 which gives you extra creatures (a Rare) vs. a 4/4 for 4 with flying and vigilance (a Masterpiece).

shteev

speakupaskanswer said:

Yes, I agree. I still can't wrap my head around Steward of Solidarity vs. Ornithopter. A 4/4 for 5 which gives you extra creatures (a Rare) vs. a 4/4 for 4 with flying and vigilance (a Masterpiece).

I guess after 2 years they still haven't worked out that they should cost defensive abilities as a disadvantage.

speakupaskanswer

How about Lethal Sting vs. Imprisoned in the Moon? To be fair, Prison is blue but it's a rare and Lethal Sting is a common.

speakupaskanswer

shteev said:

speakupaskanswer said:

Yes, I agree. I still can't wrap my head around Steward of Solidarity vs. Ornithopter. A 4/4 for 5 which gives you extra creatures (a Rare) vs. a 4/4 for 4 with flying and vigilance (a Masterpiece).

I guess after 2 years they still haven't worked out that they should cost defensive abilities as a disadvantage.

Yes, that really frustrates me still. If you look at Angel of Condemnation, you'll see that problem. Powerful card, expensively costed but because of vigilance, it's just a 6/6 which will probably be dead before its ability ever triggers. Or the vigilance on Djeru. 

I also still don't understand what exactly the difference between vigilance and defender is supposed to be.

Ohboy

There's a definite correlation between people who think defender/Vigilance is a negative and those who dislike control objectives like <x hp or cast Y creatures. 

Yes, it's overcosted. No, it's not a disadvantage. 

speakupaskanswer

It becomes a disadvantage when it's overcosted or when abilities won't be around for long enough to work.

Ohboy

Those two things are different. 

If you're saying defender is a disadvantage, that means you're saying that taking it away should increase its cost. 

If you're saying defender is overcosted, you're saying that giving a creature defender should not increase its cost by that much. 

speakupaskanswer

I don't think they're so different. A creature without defender could cost more because it will survive longer. That's why creatures with defender are often overcosted because it's not worth so often to play them. Creatures with defender should cost less and creatures without defender could cost more. Instead we have very expensive defenders and very cheap non-defenders.

madwren

speakupaskanswer said:

How about Lethal Sting vs. Imprisoned in the Moon? To be fair, Prison is blue but it's a rare and Lethal Sting is a common.

I suspect that Sting requires you to have a creature in play. Still, I was pretty shocked to see it.

madwren

The odd thing about giving certain creatures creatures vigilance/defender is that it renders their abilities irrelevant or superfluous.

Take for example Djeru. Fascinating ability. Has vigilance. How do you keep him alive?

1. Lock down opposing creatures so they can't attack? Great, then you don't need his ability.
2. Kill opposing creatures so they don't kill him? Don't need his ability.
3. Play defenders, either large (Colossus) or small (Trueheart Duelist) to bump Djeru to the second slot? Then once again, you don't need his ability. 

It's possible they have some PVE node designed that has copious amounts of creatureless damage, of course, which would give him some usefulness. But in general play, if he's going to die pretty much the first turn after he comes out, you never actually receive any benefit from casting him.

This game would have been far more interesting if they'd decided to treat blocking like they do in paper magic--as optional and assignable. Unfortunately, the "all creatures must inexorably run into your creature" concept limits design space.
 

Gunmix25

madwren said:

speakupaskanswer said:

How about Lethal Sting vs. Imprisoned in the Moon? To be fair, Prison is blue but it's a rare and Lethal Sting is a common.

I suspect that Sting requires you to have a creature in play. Still, I was pretty shocked to see it.

I dunno... flesh bag maurader doesn't have that requirement. 

speakupaskanswer

Gunmix25 said:

madwren said:

speakupaskanswer said:

How about Lethal Sting vs. Imprisoned in the Moon? To be fair, Prison is blue but it's a rare and Lethal Sting is a common.

I suspect that Sting requires you to have a creature in play. Still, I was pretty shocked to see it.

I dunno... flesh bag maurader doesn't have that requirement. 

But it is worded much differently. Lethal Sting explicitly says to target a creature you control while Marauder says something happens IF you control another creature. So I would also assume that Sting needs a creature. It gives Standard a strong kill spell but at common, which is odd. Not to mention Desert's Hold again.

madwren

Gunmix25 said:

I dunno... flesh bag maurader doesn't have that requirement. 

But something like Ruthless DIsposal does. We won't know til we see the card, of course. If only they had consistent templating for card text.

madwren

speakupaskanswer said:

But it is worded much differently. Lethal Sting explicitly says to target a creature you control while Marauder says something happens IF you control another creature. So I would also assume that Sting needs a creature. It gives Standard a strong kill spell but at common, which is odd. Not to mention Desert's Hold again.

I think there's been a definite push towards having more power at the lower rarities, which is a good thing overall. You shouldn't need rares and mythics to perform basic functions; paper Magic understands this and is better for it. Cheap black removal should be a staple.  As I've said elsewhere, however, too much power is probably not good for the game, and 3-mana removal really pushes the envelope in a familiar/uncomfortable direction. 

Sarahschmara

madwren said:

This game would have been far more interesting if they'd decided to treat blocking like they do in paper magic--as optional and assignable. Unfortunately, the "all creatures must inexorably run into your creature" concept limits design space.
 

I agree 100%

shteev

madwren said:

Gunmix25 said:

I dunno... flesh bag maurader doesn't have that requirement. 

But something like Ruthless DIsposal does. We won't know til we see the card, of course. If only they had consistent templating for card text.

Well, as JC has told us in the past, it's very very hard to template cards in MTGPQ, because reasons.

Where is that guy? Does he still work for Hibernum?

Laeuftbeidir

shteev said:

-snip-

Well, as JC has told us in the past, it's very very hard to template cards in MTGPQ, because reasons.

Where is that guy? Does he still work for Hibernum?

Look at the cards. They should be answer enough.

shteev

Laeuftbeidir said:

shteev said:

-snip-

Well, as JC has told us in the past, it's very very hard to template cards in MTGPQ, because reasons.

Where is that guy? Does he still work for Hibernum?

Look at the cards. They should be answer enough.

Anyone can design bad cards. And, JC leaving is the only reason I can think of for the bizarre decision to change clues from white gems to gems of all colors. Why does Nahiri destroy white gems? To pop clues!

Ohboy

Why does Nahiri destroy white gems? To pop clues!

Really? Because that doesn't sound right.