All B/R update speculation.

[wcm8]

MtG's mana system can be frustrating at times, but it's a major part of the game's design, if not perhaps the *primary* design aspect. The idea behind the mechanic is fairly genius: you use mathematical probability in an attempt to balance the number and type of lands in a deck with the number, type and cost of the spells. There's an opportunity cost with going too far in any particular direction, as well as not going far *enough*. Of course the underlying chaos of chance plays a role too. Despite a player's best efforts towards perfecting their deck and their strategic choices during a game, the risks of mana-screw, mana-flood or simply not drawing relevant cards are ever-present. Both players are fighting against this chaotic backdrop in addition to fighting each other in this puzzle-like system, which makes overcoming both obstacles that much more satisfying. Winning is not only a victory against the opponent; to some degree it's also a victory against Fate Itself.

If you want to play a game with no randomness, I'd recommend chess -- I'm not being sarcastic. It's a great game with centuries of history and strategic development. But it's completely different from MtG due to that lack of randomness (among many other factors).

Any card game that has the players shuffle the deck is going to have an element of randomness. I'm not so sure that reducing that element of randomness through additional arbitrary rules and complication makes for a better game.

If you think randomness is completely unfair and "stupid", perhaps the competitive environment of MtG isn't right for you. But I personally enjoy playing MtG, even despite the occasional frustrations associated with chaotic factors like mana screw, godly topdecks or ridiculously lop-sided matchup pairings. Life itself is unfair and chaotic, and so MtG presents a sort of microcosm, within which boundaries you can express your creativity (through deck building and metagaming) and strategy (through a myriad of gameplay decisions such as sequencing and selection).

[Dice_Box]

I am probably kicking the hornet's nest here, but here goes:

I am on a graveyard shift right now (for any wondering why an Australian is on at odd arse times of the morning, this is common for me.) and thus listing to podcasts while moving shit around. One of them mentioned they feel social media pressure makes up a large amount of the reason for Top's banning. I wish to ask if this is in fact at all true.

I don't have a social media presence online. I barely use Twitter and I despise Facebook. I have no idea what people are talking about outside of The Source, Salvation (For Modern, I haven't visited the Legacy side in at lest a year I think) The Mana Drain or major sites like Channelfireball, SCG, Goldfish or Hipsters.

So from my point of view, I have been seeing people asking for a card to be taken out of Miracles for years. But I am well and truly entrenched amongst the Legacy faithful. Those of us who are invested in the game enough to come somewhere like this and debate the format. I am not talking to those who play twice a month with one deck who would never even care to look for a site like this.

So for those of you on Social media, has there been a change of late? Is the argument that only recently has real pressure started being placed on Wizards actually true or have people been saying the same things on Twitter and Facebook over the last few years as I have been seeing on CB, SCG and here?

[Julian23]

From my observation, there's been a ton of complaining about Top on Twitter over the last years and it only ever increased over time. I remember after GP Lille even the commentators went on Twitter saying that they would have enjoyed the tournament more without SDT being legal, which is a pretty unprecedented move.

Also, the sign.

[Barook]

I am probably kicking the hornet's nest here, but here goes:

I am on a graveyard shift right now (for any wondering why an Australian is on at odd arse times of the morning, this is common for me.) and thus listing to podcasts while moving shit around. One of them mentioned they feel social media pressure makes up a large amount of the reason for Top's banning. I wish to ask if this is in fact at all true.

I don't have a social media presence online. I barely use Twitter and I despise Facebook. I have no idea what people are talking about outside of The Source, Salvation (For Modern, I haven't visited the Legacy side in at lest a year I think) The Mana Drain or major sites like Channelfireball, SCG, Goldfish or Hipsters.

So from my point of view, I have been seeing people asking for a card to be taken out of Miracles for years. But I am well and truly entrenched amongst the Legacy faithful. Those of us who are invested in the game enough to come somewhere like this and debate the format. I am not talking to those who play twice a month with one deck who would never even care to look for a site like this.

So for those of you on Social media, has there been a change of late? Is the argument that only recently has real pressure started being placed on Wizards actually true or have people been saying the same things on Twitter and Facebook over the last few years as I have been seeing on CB, SCG and here?

I think the only difference was that Miracles put up results in various big events in a row, including the latest SCG Open where the winner (playing Miracles despite not wanting to) straight out said in the interview to ban the fucking deck. I also wouldn't be suprised if that sign before WotC's HQ did play a big role in terms of awareness. Articles about banning Miracles have been written for years and I've fed Aaron Forsythe quite a while with data about Miracles' dominance on Twitter. If they actually gave a fuck, they would have banned it much earlier.

Let's face it: WotC's employees are social media whores and cave in quite easily to any kind of pressure (exceptions: abolishing the RL and improving MTGO). The emergency banning of Felidar Guardian is a prime example for that. Or the whole stupidity about Garruk "raping" Liliana in Triumph of Ferocity, totally disregarding that it was about dealing the killing blow and Liliana winning moments later in Triumph of Cruelty.

[Dice_Box]

Also, the sign.

I truly believe the choice was made before the sign went up. Because a lot of Vintage people posted just before Lodestone was restricted "Don't take action, wait and see, here are the reasons". Wizards then got in contact with some of these people after the announcement and told them "Next time write your article sooner, the choice had been made by the time you did". Agree with the choice or not, once it's made they don't seem to change it. It's one of the reasons I feel social pressure is not as effective as it's made out to be. As long as it doesn't effect their Promotional Tour that is.

[clavio]

Any reason why we can't have Frantic Search?

[16km]

Any reason why we can't have Frantic Search?

High Tide, UB Reanimator, Sneak n Show. It's a free spell that can net you more mana while finding your combo pieces. The decks become a consistent turn 1 or turn 2 deck with protection.

I think there's more detailed posts on the topic if you use the search function.

[Tittliewinks22]

Any reason why we can't have Frantic Search?

Because the nostalgia people of yore don't understand how new printings have shifted and make for a handful of the cards on the ban list playable now that there is sufficient hate.

In reality, Earthcraft, Mind Twist and Recruiter are all safe, Survival and Search are likely safe as well.

A few friends and I got into an actual discussion on Tolarian Academy... Does this card break Affinity too much? I can't see how it would be any more oppressive than Gaea's Cradle or Serra's Sanctum. (this isn't vintage with a plethora of mana rocks.) So if anyone can provide me some sound reasoning for this being banned still I would love to hear it, right now I just scratch my head and wonder.

[clavio]

High Tide, UB Reanimator, Sneak n Show. It's a free spell that can net you more mana while finding your combo pieces. The decks become a consistent turn 1 or turn 2 deck with protection.

I think there's more detailed posts on the topic if you use the search function.

I don't buy it. I'm sure it's good in some decks but there's no way it's the key piece to push any of those decks over the top.

[TsumiBand]

Any reason why we can't have Frantic Search?

Arrogant Wurm, obviously

[Dr_D]

High Tide, UB Reanimator, Sneak n Show. It's a free spell that can net you more mana while finding your combo pieces. The decks become a consistent turn 1 or turn 2 deck with protection.

I think there's more detailed posts on the topic if you use the search function.

Reanimator already can get a turn 1 or turn 2 fatty, often with protection. I don't know how you expect a 3 drop instant to speed reanimator up. High tide still needs lands in play to go off and wants to wait as long as possible. You can't even go hightide -> frantic search off of two islands. Sneak and Show has lotus petal to power out turn 1 show and tells, would they even run search? This isn't a comment on if the card should remained banned or not, but I don't understand your comments about its effect on these archetypes you mentioned.

[16km]

I think it enables combo a bit too much. It provides card draw, filtering, and it's basically free.

[Fox]

3 lands in play, cast Frantic Search....oh look I have 6 mana counting delve. It's not getting unbanned for both fair and unfair reasons after Khans.

Just think about that for a moment, if opponent has access to 4 mana (3 lands at least in that counting) with 1 extra card in hand they could dig 2 deeper, find a Gurmag, untap 3 lands, and before you ever got priority to use DRS slam Angler. That's probably the most innocuous, yet still likely overpowered, interaction that is already knowable with Frantic Search.

[Barachai]

Decks that aren't currently playing careful study probably don't want a "free" version, with the obvious exception of decks that really like untappy effects (spring tide!). Storm might play it, but it'd feel awkward; probably would make a turn three past in flames kill the default noob level storm-kill fotm.

Seems like it would be fun.

[Ace/Homebrew]

WotC's employees are social media whores and cave in quite easily to any kind of pressure (exceptions: abolishing the RL and improving MTGO). The emergency banning of Felidar Guardian is a prime example for that. Or the whole stupidity about Garruk "raping" Liliana in Triumph of Ferocity, totally disregarding that it was about dealing the killing blow and Liliana winning moments later in Triumph of Cruelty.

I'm pretty much off social media...

What exactly did WotC do that was 'caving in' regarding Triumph of Ferocity/Triumph of Cruelty. I'm vaguely aware of the complaint (complainers gonna complain), but what was WotC's response that caused you to cite this as an example of them caving?

[PirateKing]

I'm pretty much off social media...

What exactly did WotC do that was 'caving in' regarding Triumph of Ferocity/Triumph of Cruelty. I'm vaguely aware of the complaint (complainers gonna complain), but what was WotC's response that caused you to cite this as an example of them caving?

One side complained, then Elaine Chase tweeted an apology. Then the other side complained that Wizards were too fast to apologize and they should have stood their ground. Then everybody (almost?) forgot about it. Because who cares.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Elaine Chase tweeted an apology.

That sounds... appropriate. I mean, tweeting an apology is literally the least they could do without completely ignoring it.

Then everybody (almost?) forgot about it. Because who cares.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I think you can let it go Barook.

[JDK]

High Tide, UB Reanimator, Sneak n Show. It's a free spell that can net you more mana while finding your combo pieces. The decks become a consistent turn 1 or turn 2 deck with protection.

Dr_D already covered your post, but I'd like to add that High Tide is currently (still) dead (aka a fringe deck) and needs a buff anyway.

[PirateKing]

Yeah, that sounds about right. I think you can let it go Barook.

Well I mean, for what caring is worth, Barook isn't wrong. They were crazy fast in issuing an apology and it would have been nice if they stood up a little for the art(s) representing two sides of the same fight, where in literally the next scene he's on his back, defeated. But to insinuate that for the moment he could have had the upper hand, they crumpled kind of fast and that was disappointing. BUT in a world of things to care about, this is way down there.

[Crimhead]

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the idea of getting mana screwed due to land destruction, because that's something the opponent is doing. That's an actual strategy.

As somebody who has played multiple LD archetypes, I feel the Strategy is only really made viable by the fact that players limit their land count to avoid mana-flood. I don't think Sinkhole or Rishadan Port are very good cards if the opponent can draw lands essentially at will.