critman said: jtwood said: It's not a knock on the game designers to have support removal with constraints on its use or applicability. Constraints make for more interesting competitive scenarios so that we aren't simply jamming Demolish into every red deck. And Demolish hasn't always been a rock star. I recall a time on these boards when people were complaining that Storm the Vault put out too many support tokens, making it hard for a card like Demolish to hit it before it flipped. I know I definitely changed my support destruction strategy during StV's time in Standard. Constraints *would* be interesting if we didn't have Demolish to use, but we do.Storm the Vault has always been too powerful. And didn't they change Demolish so it prioritises non-token supports?
jtwood said: It's not a knock on the game designers to have support removal with constraints on its use or applicability. Constraints make for more interesting competitive scenarios so that we aren't simply jamming Demolish into every red deck. And Demolish hasn't always been a rock star. I recall a time on these boards when people were complaining that Storm the Vault put out too many support tokens, making it hard for a card like Demolish to hit it before it flipped. I know I definitely changed my support destruction strategy during StV's time in Standard.
critman said: Mburn7 said: critman said: jtwood said: It's not a knock on the game designers to have support removal with constraints on its use or applicability. Constraints make for more interesting competitive scenarios so that we aren't simply jamming Demolish into every red deck. And Demolish hasn't always been a rock star. I recall a time on these boards when people were complaining that Storm the Vault put out too many support tokens, making it hard for a card like Demolish to hit it before it flipped. I know I definitely changed my support destruction strategy during StV's time in Standard. Constraints *would* be interesting if we didn't have Demolish to use, but we do.Storm the Vault has always been too powerful. And didn't they change Demolish so it prioritises non-token supports? Its funny, the constraints were announced to make it easier to destroy supports like Hixus (since they let you go after a specific support you are expecting to see) but since Hixus doesn't have a support type in this case they seem pretty dumb.Back in the days of white disable decks when standard had like 3 different disable supports, being able to only hit enchantments would have been super helpful (I don't care about your land, I want to hit Cast Down, for example).But yeah, Demolish is probably the best right now as long as it avoids tokens and you aren't expecting to see a lot of vanguards. It's not really to do with laser focusing the effect of your cards. You simply don't have room in your deck to include one card that deals with enchantments, one that deals with artifacts, one that deals with vanguards, one that deals with no-types, and one that deals with lands (and you really, really do need to deal with lands; leave 3 gates on the table for too long, and you've got yourself real problems).If you did include 5 different cards in your deck to deal with all the support types, you'd end up with dead cards in a lot of fights.Increasing diversity of support types, and the resultant creation of ever more niche cards to deal with them, is, in general, a bad idea. There's a reason why MTG has lasted for 25 years and been infinitely expandable, whereas Netrunner, another early game by WOTC, ran out of steam so quickly: The Corporation couldn't include an ever increasing variety of threats, because the Runner deck simply couldn't hold an ever increasing number of answers to deal with them.Disagree with me if you like, and then go and look at just how many cards which deal with subsets of supports in MTGPQ there are that you never play with.
Mburn7 said: critman said: jtwood said: It's not a knock on the game designers to have support removal with constraints on its use or applicability. Constraints make for more interesting competitive scenarios so that we aren't simply jamming Demolish into every red deck. And Demolish hasn't always been a rock star. I recall a time on these boards when people were complaining that Storm the Vault put out too many support tokens, making it hard for a card like Demolish to hit it before it flipped. I know I definitely changed my support destruction strategy during StV's time in Standard. Constraints *would* be interesting if we didn't have Demolish to use, but we do.Storm the Vault has always been too powerful. And didn't they change Demolish so it prioritises non-token supports? Its funny, the constraints were announced to make it easier to destroy supports like Hixus (since they let you go after a specific support you are expecting to see) but since Hixus doesn't have a support type in this case they seem pretty dumb.Back in the days of white disable decks when standard had like 3 different disable supports, being able to only hit enchantments would have been super helpful (I don't care about your land, I want to hit Cast Down, for example).But yeah, Demolish is probably the best right now as long as it avoids tokens and you aren't expecting to see a lot of vanguards.
critman said: Mburn7 said: critman said: Mburn7 said: critman said: jtwood said: It's not a knock on the game designers to have support removal with constraints on its use or applicability. Constraints make for more interesting competitive scenarios so that we aren't simply jamming Demolish into every red deck. And Demolish hasn't always been a rock star. I recall a time on these boards when people were complaining that Storm the Vault put out too many support tokens, making it hard for a card like Demolish to hit it before it flipped. I know I definitely changed my support destruction strategy during StV's time in Standard. Constraints *would* be interesting if we didn't have Demolish to use, but we do.Storm the Vault has always been too powerful. And didn't they change Demolish so it prioritises non-token supports? Its funny, the constraints were announced to make it easier to destroy supports like Hixus (since they let you go after a specific support you are expecting to see) but since Hixus doesn't have a support type in this case they seem pretty dumb.Back in the days of white disable decks when standard had like 3 different disable supports, being able to only hit enchantments would have been super helpful (I don't care about your land, I want to hit Cast Down, for example).But yeah, Demolish is probably the best right now as long as it avoids tokens and you aren't expecting to see a lot of vanguards. It's not really to do with laser focusing the effect of your cards. You simply don't have room in your deck to include one card that deals with enchantments, one that deals with artifacts, one that deals with vanguards, one that deals with no-types, and one that deals with lands (and you really, really do need to deal with lands; leave 3 gates on the table for too long, and you've got yourself real problems).If you did include 5 different cards in your deck to deal with all the support types, you'd end up with dead cards in a lot of fights.Increasing diversity of support types, and the resultant creation of ever more niche cards to deal with them, is, in general, a bad idea. There's a reason why MTG has lasted for 25 years and been infinitely expandable, whereas Netrunner, another early game by WOTC, ran out of steam so quickly: The Corporation couldn't include an ever increasing variety of threats, because the Runner deck simply couldn't hold an ever increasing number of answers to deal with them.Disagree with me if you like, and then go and look at just how many cards which deal with subsets of supports in MTGPQ there are that you never play with. Interesting comparison to Netrunner, which is a game I love but absolutely agree that that is a big problem with it.The point of niche support removal is to target something specific that you are afraid of. If your deck can handle anything except a certain support but you don't care about the rest, then you want something more targeted. There is no reason to have a spell to deal with each individual type of support, you might as well use the general stuff instead. I think we're agreeing on this and just not expressing that clearly enough, to be honest lol. Give me an example. You're playing the top node in Nicol Bolas HoD... what specific supports out of the ~560 or so are you playing specific, targeted subset support removal for, and what is the subset support removal card you are playing?
Mburn7 said: critman said: Mburn7 said: critman said: jtwood said: It's not a knock on the game designers to have support removal with constraints on its use or applicability. Constraints make for more interesting competitive scenarios so that we aren't simply jamming Demolish into every red deck. And Demolish hasn't always been a rock star. I recall a time on these boards when people were complaining that Storm the Vault put out too many support tokens, making it hard for a card like Demolish to hit it before it flipped. I know I definitely changed my support destruction strategy during StV's time in Standard. Constraints *would* be interesting if we didn't have Demolish to use, but we do.Storm the Vault has always been too powerful. And didn't they change Demolish so it prioritises non-token supports? Its funny, the constraints were announced to make it easier to destroy supports like Hixus (since they let you go after a specific support you are expecting to see) but since Hixus doesn't have a support type in this case they seem pretty dumb.Back in the days of white disable decks when standard had like 3 different disable supports, being able to only hit enchantments would have been super helpful (I don't care about your land, I want to hit Cast Down, for example).But yeah, Demolish is probably the best right now as long as it avoids tokens and you aren't expecting to see a lot of vanguards. It's not really to do with laser focusing the effect of your cards. You simply don't have room in your deck to include one card that deals with enchantments, one that deals with artifacts, one that deals with vanguards, one that deals with no-types, and one that deals with lands (and you really, really do need to deal with lands; leave 3 gates on the table for too long, and you've got yourself real problems).If you did include 5 different cards in your deck to deal with all the support types, you'd end up with dead cards in a lot of fights.Increasing diversity of support types, and the resultant creation of ever more niche cards to deal with them, is, in general, a bad idea. There's a reason why MTG has lasted for 25 years and been infinitely expandable, whereas Netrunner, another early game by WOTC, ran out of steam so quickly: The Corporation couldn't include an ever increasing variety of threats, because the Runner deck simply couldn't hold an ever increasing number of answers to deal with them.Disagree with me if you like, and then go and look at just how many cards which deal with subsets of supports in MTGPQ there are that you never play with. Interesting comparison to Netrunner, which is a game I love but absolutely agree that that is a big problem with it.The point of niche support removal is to target something specific that you are afraid of. If your deck can handle anything except a certain support but you don't care about the rest, then you want something more targeted. There is no reason to have a spell to deal with each individual type of support, you might as well use the general stuff instead. I think we're agreeing on this and just not expressing that clearly enough, to be honest lol.
QuiksilverHg said: The only way to make it close to original would be turn it into a creature. That seems like a bridge too far. Right now the card is more like “moat” than anything else, which is an enchantment
Barnabes said: @FindingHeart8 They just recently edited it to reactivate your creatures if it gets exiled rather than destroyed. So they are definitely not ignoring the card.