Why we are disappointed in Ixalan's cards

Gunmix25

Bil said:

The bad thing is most mechanics introduced rely once again on mythic engines. Mavren fein and lannery are good examples.
 Mythic sun dinos also make the whole tribe reliable except for the red one wich is tinykitty. 
Once again, a few bombs in the set, if you miss them you miss the set potential and get plenty of underpowered cards. 
Balancing is the key of interesting deckbuilding, but if theres no balance into the block itself there cant ca any balance beetween the sets.

A dino deck with wakening sun avatar, HUF and red hour is just a triple lol ... And its standard ...

SOI has been considered overpowered but it was at least coherent ... All the cards were OP.
In fact since amk ive got the feeling there is even more disparity than before. OP cards are worse than ever, and the rest of cards are no match for them at all. 

This might just be a personal feeling though.

I will have to disagree to a degree. I have Mavren and he isn't necessary to make vampires work in this set. Not like lightning runner and dynavolt were in KLD/AER for energize to be effective. Mavren is a poor man's version of Horsey. Only decent if you have anoited procession to double tokens. Otherwise he is much slower than what we have elsewhere. I have not been finding any need to put in an IXN mythic to make the build work. In fact I have been using cards from other sets to make IXN move faster... well trying to anyways. 

Bil

I get your point, mavren isnt an engine, but my feeling is its one of the few cards that can give the boost to the vampire reinforcment mechanic and make it worthy. I wasnt meaning its required to build a decent vampire deck.
Of course horsey will always be stronger, but it doesnt interact with the vampire faction mechanic at all.

arNero

Just a minor post:

Noticing a few "hate supports that self-destruct" comments makes me think if this may send the wrong message to Oktagon.

I do agree that some supports are pretty powerful and thus needs some limitation, such as self-destruct, which in the case of Swarm Intelligence and Omniscience for example, is a good idea. But looking at a few comments here (several of which I agree with), I worry that Oktagon may have indeed realized some support need self-destruct option (Hixus, Starfield, IMO), but seems like they may have overdone it.

Kinesia

[arNero] said:

Just a minor post:

Noticing a few "hate supports that self-destruct" comments makes me think if this may send the wrong message to Oktagon.

I do agree that some supports are pretty powerful and thus needs some limitation, such as self-destruct, which in the case of Swarm Intelligence and Omniscience for example, is a good idea. But looking at a few comments here (several of which I agree with), I worry that Oktagon may have indeed realized some support need self-destruct option (Hixus, Starfield, IMO), but seems like they may have overdone it.

Yes, before there were supports that needed to self-destruct that didn't, or ones that didn't that didn't die enough for "loopy woopy" reasons. but now there are supports that ABSOLUTELY do not need to self-destruct that do.
Supports have natural attrition just from matching which creatures do NOT. It's like the think supports only die to support destruction, if that were true things would be sort've reasonable, but it's not even _vaguely_ true.

FindingHeart8

[arNero] said:

 I worry that Oktagon may have indeed realized some support need self-destruct option (Hixus, Starfield, IMO), but seems like they may have overdone it.

As a player who hates facing Hixus and Starfield in battle, I'd still disagree they need a self-destruct ability added.  Hixus only has 1 shield, making it easily removable with matching a single gem-swap.  Starfield is 24 mana (expensive!), and has been around since the beginning with the intention to be as powerful as it is (one of the AI Gideon's in story mode runs that combo at game-start).

Yeah, they're a pain to deal with.  But with support destruction being as cheap as 4cmc (some with cycling if you don't need it) and easy to obtain (common), I'd argue that being unable to handle those supports means you either need better luck or a better deck.

Gunmix25

FindingHeart8 said:

[arNero] said:

 I worry that Oktagon may have indeed realized some support need self-destruct option (Hixus, Starfield, IMO), but seems like they may have overdone it.

As a player who hates facing Hixus and Starfield in battle, I'd still disagree they need a self-destruct ability added.  Hixus only has 1 shield, making it easily removable with matching a single gem-swap.  Starfield is 24 mana (expensive!), and has been around since the beginning with the intention to be as powerful as it is (one of the AI Gideon's in story mode runs that combo at game-start).

Yeah, they're a pain to deal with.  But with support destruction being as cheap as 4cmc (some with cycling if you don't need it) and easy to obtain (common), I'd argue that being unable to handle those supports means you either need better luck or a better deck.

I agree about Hixus, but cost is not a good excuse for not applying a self-destruct ability to Starfield. The cost of the support begins to be recovered when it brings back destroyed supports. In a lot of ways this card is like Whir but from the graveyard and it stays in play. If whir was a support that continually cast out free supports from your library every turn, I would be insisting a self-destruct be installed. Easier to visualize this imaginary version, but Starfield pulling from the graveyard makes it no more less powerful in its own right. Something to think on anyways.

khurram

Starfield is fine as it is. It's been around since the start and people have survived. It can easily be dealt with, but suddenly it needs the new tinykitty self-destruct feature? (which is hugely unpopular btw)
If it self destructs it is not worth the investment of all that Mana you need to cast it and the other supports. It can't be compared to an imaginary version of Whir that doesn't exist, in order to make an argument about nerfing it.

But yeah let's just nerf any card that may give you even a least bit of challenge while facing the AI, and turn this game into candy crush.

FindingHeart8

Gunmix25 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

[arNero] said:

 I worry that Oktagon may have indeed realized some support need self-destruct option (Hixus, Starfield, IMO), but seems like they may have overdone it.

As a player who hates facing Hixus and Starfield in battle, I'd still disagree they need a self-destruct ability added.  Hixus only has 1 shield, making it easily removable with matching a single gem-swap.  Starfield is 24 mana (expensive!), and has been around since the beginning with the intention to be as powerful as it is (one of the AI Gideon's in story mode runs that combo at game-start).

Yeah, they're a pain to deal with.  But with support destruction being as cheap as 4cmc (some with cycling if you don't need it) and easy to obtain (common), I'd argue that being unable to handle those supports means you either need better luck or a better deck.

I agree about Hixus, but cost is not a good excuse for not applying a self-destruct ability to Starfield. The cost of the support begins to be recovered when it brings back destroyed supports. In a lot of ways this card is like Whir but from the graveyard and it stays in play. If whir was a support that continually cast out free supports from your library every turn, I would be insisting a self-destruct be installed. Easier to visualize this imaginary version, but Starfield pulling from the graveyard makes it no more less powerful in its own right. Something to think on anyways.

If whir were an enchantment that held it's ability I'd agree with you 100%, but as is I don't think there's much room to compare whir to starfield:

1) Fetching from library is significantly more powerful than fetching from graveyard; graveyard requires the additional condition to get a card into the graveyard...while fetching from library just works without effort.
2) Whir (at 11cmc) is less than half the mana cost of Starfield
3) Whir isn't intractable (unless you have one of the handful of spell-countering supports already on board).  Nyx takes a turn to activate it's ability, so if you have support-destruction in your hand, you have a turn to shut it down.

arNero

I can agree with some points here saying that my opinion that some powerful supports from ages yore needs self-destruct option is indeed probably overreacting.

Still, consider the fact that things like Starfield is so game-changing that at any point in the game, playing any game without support destruction can easily end your game on the spot when you're at full health once those supports show up at the wrong place at the wrong time (to add more grievances, think also Thopter Spy Network, which nets you 4/4 Thopters with little investment, Sandwurm Convergence which not only shuts down your fliers but also nets 5/5 Wurm every turn, Gideon's Defeat that gives us a damn good reason why cards like Farm and Silverstrike only have 1 shield etc).

And even when you say that we have support destructions, they are very unreliable, especially when the enemy runs Servos, Clues, Treasures, and I'm very sure you have experienced firsthand how your Demolishes are more likely to strike Clues first instead of the more dangerous supports.

Also, I saw in this forum some people complaining about River's Rebuke, a blue card that shuts down supports in a game where blue has been devoid of support destruction since Kaladesh. Blue and Black have no support destruction since Kaladesh, and yet they are not really gone, if in part because people play multicolor pretty often.

Bottomline is, some supports are so powerful they definitely need drawbacks, but at the same time we'll probably need to work with Oktagon in deciding which supports need to have such drawbacks and which ones actually don't, in light of how, as I agree, some of the newer supports have been given self-destruct option when they already don't impact the game massively enough.

Bil

[arNero] said :

And even when you say that we have support destructions, they are very unreliable, especially when the enemy runs Servos, Clues, Treasures, and I'm very sure you have experienced firsthand how your Demolishes are more likely to strike Clues first instead of the more dangerous supports.

   That is what mass support destruction is made for ... if it wasnt for starfield, those cards would have almost no use at all.
   
   As starfield decks are an archetype you might face quite often, if you wanna deal with them you must consider changing a few cards in your deck when you face any walker that handles white cards... particularly in events that require to aim perfect scores like HOD. (Same goes for green decks and gaias revenge or red decks with direct damage ... You know you are likely to face them, so you try to anticipate). Adaptation is an intersting part of the game IMHO.

   Let's not forget that in many cases starfield decks have other weaknesses because they require a lot of supports to be worth using it and you might be able to win even without destroying the starfield.
   As a personal feeling, i would add i like the thrill when  I see it enters the board and know i have to find a insidious way to deal with it ... because i foolishly forgot or decided not to include mass support destruction in my deck.

   

babar3355

[arNero] said:

I can agree with some points here saying that my opinion that some powerful supports from ages yore needs self-destruct option is indeed probably overreacting.

Still, consider the fact that things like Starfield is so game-changing that at any point in the game, playing any game without support destruction can easily end your game on the spot when you're at full health once those supports show up at the wrong place at the wrong time (to add more grievances, think also Thopter Spy Network, which nets you 4/4 Thopters with little investment, Sandwurm Convergence which not only shuts down your fliers but also nets 5/5 Wurm every turn, Gideon's Defeat that gives us a damn good reason why cards like Farm and Silverstrike only have 1 shield etc).

And even when you say that we have support destructions, they are very unreliable, especially when the enemy runs Servos, Clues, Treasures, and I'm very sure you have experienced firsthand how your Demolishes are more likely to strike Clues first instead of the more dangerous supports.

Also, I saw in this forum some people complaining about River's Rebuke, a blue card that shuts down supports in a game where blue has been devoid of support destruction since Kaladesh. Blue and Black have no support destruction since Kaladesh, and yet they are not really gone, if in part because people play multicolor pretty often.

Bottomline is, some supports are so powerful they definitely need drawbacks, but at the same time we'll probably need to work with Oktagon in deciding which supports need to have such drawbacks and which ones actually don't, in light of how, as I agree, some of the newer supports have been given self-destruct option when they already don't impact the game massively enough.

I would argue that the only supports that need to self destruct are some type of loop engines.  Omniscience, Swarm Intelligence are clear violators.   In isolation they can lead to infinite loops if they don't self-destruct.  In other words, you would never get another turn once the engine started if the deck was built properly. That's clearly not good for the game.

I tend to side with people who say that Starfield should not self destruct.  It is pretty clearly meant to be a piece of a larger combo that can be extremely difficult to beat. But it also takes quite a bit of set up and can be interacted with in many ways unlike the 2 above.  Hixus doesnt really fit the bill at all.  There are plenty of ways to deal with Hixus including matching gems, support destruction, replacing creatures, board wipes, etc.

TLDR: You only need to use a self-destruct mechanism in something that can enable other cards to get cast for free or enables loops in other ways.

FindingHeart8

[arNero] said:

I can agree with some points here saying that my opinion that some powerful supports from ages yore needs self-destruct option is indeed probably overreacting.

Still, consider the fact that things like Starfield is so game-changing that at any point in the game, playing any game without support destruction can easily end your game on the spot when you're at full health once those supports show up at the wrong place at the wrong time (to add more grievances, think also Thopter Spy Network, which nets you 4/4 Thopters with little investment, Sandwurm Convergence which not only shuts down your fliers but also nets 5/5 Wurm every turn, Gideon's Defeat that gives us a damn good reason why cards like Farm and Silverstrike only have 1 shield etc).

And even when you say that we have support destructions, they are very unreliable, especially when the enemy runs Servos, Clues, Treasures, and I'm very sure you have experienced firsthand how your Demolishes are more likely to strike Clues first instead of the more dangerous supports.

Also, I saw in this forum some people complaining about River's Rebuke, a blue card that shuts down supports in a game where blue has been devoid of support destruction since Kaladesh. Blue and Black have no support destruction since Kaladesh, and yet they are not really gone, if in part because people play multicolor pretty often.

Bottomline is, some supports are so powerful they definitely need drawbacks, but at the same time we'll probably need to work with Oktagon in deciding which supports need to have such drawbacks and which ones actually don't, in light of how, as I agree, some of the newer supports have been given self-destruct option when they already don't impact the game massively enough.

I agree with what Bil and Barbar said above me.  I'd also like to add another drawback to Starfield...not only is it slow, but in the weighted card draws it's an easy draw, which is bad when you only need one.  I've lost count of the number of times my opening hand has been 3 starfields, which can cost you the game if your opponent is playing a fast deck.

babar3355

FindingHeart8 said:

I agree with what Bil and Barbar said above me.  I'd also like to add another drawback to Starfield...not only is it slow, but in the weighted card draws it's an easy draw, which is bad when you only need one.  I've lost count of the number of times my opening hand has been 3 starfields, which can cost you the game if your opponent is playing a fast deck.

I honestly can't wait to River's Rebuke a Starfield Lock

FindingHeart8

babar3355 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

I agree with what Bil and Barbar said above me.  I'd also like to add another drawback to Starfield...not only is it slow, but in the weighted card draws it's an easy draw, which is bad when you only need one.  I've lost count of the number of times my opening hand has been 3 starfields, which can cost you the game if your opponent is playing a fast deck.

I honestly can't wait to River's Rebuke a Starfield Lock

 I would be SO SAD if the AI Rebuked my Starfield Lock

babar3355

FindingHeart8 said:

babar3355 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

I agree with what Bil and Barbar said above me.  I'd also like to add another drawback to Starfield...not only is it slow, but in the weighted card draws it's an easy draw, which is bad when you only need one.  I've lost count of the number of times my opening hand has been 3 starfields, which can cost you the game if your opponent is playing a fast deck.

I honestly can't wait to River's Rebuke a Starfield Lock

 I would be SO SAD if the AI Rebuked my Starfield Lock

Get ready for Sadness =(

HypnoticSpecter

... I'd also like to add another drawback to Starfield...not only is it slow, but in the weighted card draws it's an easy draw, which is bad when you only need one. 

Sorry, n00b here. What do you mean by weighted card draws?

FindingHeart8

HypnoticSpecter said:

... I'd also like to add another drawback to Starfield...not only is it slow, but in the weighted card draws it's an easy draw, which is bad when you only need one. 

Sorry, n00b here. What do you mean by weighted card draws?

no worries, happy to explain

In short summary: It's still a theory at the moment, but there's a lot of players (myself included) who believe that certain cards are more likely to be drawn then others.  That you are more likely to draw your support cards than your best cards.

HypnoticSpecter

Wow. Does @Volrak buy this?

Gilesclone

Is there actually any evidence to support this theory?

FindingHeart8

HypnoticSpecter said:

Wow. Does @Volrak buy this?

I don't know if Volrak has gathered any data on in-game card draws, or if he has I haven't seen it.  I personally suspect that if there is an algorithm weighing certain cards as more likely to draw than others, that the weight is minor so it's not blatantly obvious to players but still does shape gameplay.

However (devil's advocate against myself here), if weight card draw is not currently part of the game (and some of us just have absolutely horrendous luck) than implementing that might be the solution to solving all these card-balancing issues players have been arguing about.