This is why you always choose to exile him to the command zone as a replacement effect.Originally Posted by Matsaya
Twenty Kavus and a Dream is NOT a Legacy deck.
It's odd you still seem to be arguing when you basically just conceded the point by mentioning cards that you can cast for cheaper if you fulfill certain circumstances. And the "level" is irrelevant; your complaint that the ability to cast a card for a cheaper cost by itself is a violation of the basics for some reason, even though you just admitted there have been tons of cards that do exactly that (additional examples: Affinity, Prowl, Convoke, Delve, the Avatar cycle, Ghoultree, Karador Ghost Chieftain, Khalni Hydra, Marshmist Tyrant, Nemesis of Mortals, Not of This World, Draco). If you think Terminus is too powerful, that's a completely separate argument, and actually not really even that related to the Miracle mechanic.
You can have more than one relentless rats it does not mean they should make it one of the design concepts for new EDH cards. I do not care if there are few random cards that do not fit with the general game play; Personally I hardly ever attack with Oloro it does not mean I can not do so though. My point is about the overall design of Command-Walker. Last years Commanders interacted with the Command Zone. This years offering do not interact with the command zone and by not being creatures they remove even more interaction from the game. In my opinion that makes them a poor design for games of EDH.
My Legacy Decks of choice: Pox, Miracles, D&T or Lands.
Online Trading Reference Checker
As I've said elsewhere, I don't get all the hate for a planeswalker commander.
First, players have been house-ruling planeswalkers as commanders for years. I myself have played in a group that allowed both planeswalkers and Nephilim as commanders and neither of those were anywhere close to as broken or oppressive as the top-tier legendaries. I would argue that there have been more players asking for planeswalkers as commanders than there were players asking for commanders to do something from the command zone prior to the 2013 Commander product. In that sense, this just represents giving the people what they want, which is totally fine as far as casual products are concerned as long as it doesn't create power-level nightmares for competitive players. Teferi seems safe in that regard, at least.
Second, it makes more sense than its opponents seem to want to admit. Planeswalkers in-game are now flesh-and-blood spellcasters who are just slightly more powerful than the named characters that end up on Legendary Creature cards due to the former's ability to planeswalk. If there's any card type that made sense as an exception to the rules defining choice of generals, it's the planeswalker card type. Hell, both Teferi and Venser have legendary creature versions that are commander-eligible.
Finally, planeswalkers are not very high on the power curve of things you can do in EDH. If you're using the French list and dueling a lot or if you're playing Vintage Lite using the main list, planeswalkers will likely be too slow, too long-game, and not immediately impactful enough to be playable as commanders in your metagame. If you're in the hypothetical Midrange Casual Paradise towards which the main banned list is geared, there will likely be enough creatures lying around to keep planeswalkers from ultimating easily unless you cheat (Doubling Season, extra turns) or build the world's most defensive do-nothing deck. It's only if your metagame is super inbred and consists mostly of creatureless control decks that these new planeswalkers could pose an issue, but the fact that they'll limit you to one color puts an upper limit on how oppressive they can be. Traditionally, the two best colors for mono-colored control decks in EDH have been blue and black, the former because of stack interactions and the latter because it's a jack-of-all-trades with board control, library manipulation, recursion, and the ability to deal with non-permanents via discard. Teferi provides you with a mostly-better Phyrexian arena but his ultimate doesn't do a whole lot in a mono-colored deck, especially considering the lion's share of blue planeswalkers all have the same 'Jace' subtype.
So yeah, I'm not feeling the hate, but then I guess I don't want to continue to play the same unchanging game forever and ever.
Yes, you named a bunch of flimsy cards. That all have much more narrow requirements to fulfill in order to function. This was already addressed by me in my last post. I named the widely played ones as an exception because they are powerful. Note all those cards named require a card or two to be used up. Either a land in play or card in hand, or something that required more resources. Miracles mechanic doesnt.
It is impossible to have a discussion on what cards do without bringing up how powerful they are.
The discussion wasnt that there were never free spells. the topic is how powerful and badly designed those free spells are. How much of the basic premise of mana cost to effect ratio they violated.
Or to put it simpler and be as disingenuous as you are being. You could simply swap out Terminus for Massacres and Submerges? Foil/Thwart for foWs. And miracles would be fine, right?
Obviously all cards break the rules in some way. It's how far they go that is the topic. Not that the mechanic existed before. Or that there are other cards that do something similar. The power creep and how much of the basics of the game they break is what makes them good.
You're really stretching the concept of "breaking the rules" if you're applying it to any given card that has text on it beyond power and toughness. It's like...
Look at it this way -- Aven Mindcensor. It has flying, which changes the way *that creature* behaves during combat; it's an internal change, and it isn't really altering the rules of "the game". Meanwhile, its ability saying that opponents only get to search the top 4 cards of a library instead of the whole thing, now that is a change to the rules of the game; it directly affects the way the game is executed.
It's really easy to just throw hyperbole around (I do it all the fucken time) and I know that everything is a Time Walk, but not every thing is a Time Walk, right? It's the same with 'breaking the rules' of the game, and in spite of my above statement I'm not horribly interested in rabbit holing a discussion about where the actual line in the sand is; I knows it when I sees it, I guess. :shrug:
I wonder what flavor the next blue card from commander will come in. Good (Flusterstorm) or Busted (True-Name Nemesis).
Maybe its red's time to shine right guys?
Two-mana Chaos Warp for instants and sorceries. Turn their Force of Will into a Ponder!I wonder what flavor the next blue card from commander will come in. Good (Flusterstorm) or Busted (True-Name Nemesis).
Maybe its red's time to shine right guys?
Actually, that sounds less awesome than it seemed in my head.
Ha, Chaos Warp for spells would be some kind of amazing Red counter.
"Shuffle target spell into its owner's library. They reveal the top card - if it shares a type, cast it without paying its cost. If not, BONED"
Lol when they hit an X spell. "GSZ aw fuk yoo man i quit"
I want that spell pretty bad now. Heck of a way to pwn the commander too
Like Spellshift? It it were opponent-only, or it shuffled before revealing it could be for.
Their "flimsiness" is irrelevant. Your complaint was that the Miracles mechanic violated some basic rule of the game that you have never demonstrated actually exists. Being able to make cards cost less when you fulfill the right circumstances has been around for a long time.
If you wish to complain that you think Terminus is too powerful, that is one thing (though if it is too powerful, it's by virtue of being too powerful, not breaking any basic rule of the game, unless you think the somewhat abstract idea of "too powerful" is indeed violating a basic rule). But you are complaining about the Miracle mechanic itself, and have not made any real explanation as to how it violates basics of the game outside of pointing to one card with Miracle you consider to be too good.
You claim Force of Will has more narrow requirements. Is that why it sees way, way more play than Terminus? Force of Will requires you play Blue. Terminus requires you actively build your deck around it to ensure you have a real shot at being able to have it on top of your library when you need it. That seems like considerably more narrow requirements to me. Additionally, to be able to reliably use Terminus, you must have one of your deck-stacking cards, whereas Force of Will just requires a Blue card.That all have much more narrow requirements to fulfill in order to function. This was already addressed by me in my last post. I named the widely played ones as an exception because they are powerful. Note all those cards named require a card or two to be used up. Either a land in play or card in hand, or something that required more resources. Miracles mechanic doesnt.
It is impossible to have a discussion on what cards do without bringing up how powerful they are.
What is interesting is you appear to be ignoring something: You complain a lot about the mana costs, but their mana costs actually reflect their extra abilities. To compensate for their ability to be cast for free, Force of Will and Daze cost more than their normal counterparts (Counterspell and Force Spike). Similarly, hard casting a Terminus costs more mana than Hallowed Burial because of the extra ability Terminus has of being far cheaper if you topdeck it.
Though I would put the "blame" (if there is any) not on Terminus, but on Brainstorm and Sensei's Divining Top. Those are powerful cards with or without Terminus, particularly Brainstorm. On the other hand, Terminus is not particularly impressive without them. It's why it sees basically zero play in Modern.
Except this is something that has been going on through the entire game. And I'm not talking about cards that specifically cost less mana if you fulfill a requirement. I'm talking about cards that trade mana cost in exchange for something else, giving it the "violation" of mana cost to effect ratio that are being violated.The discussion wasnt that there were never free spells. the topic is how powerful and badly designed those free spells are. How much of the basic premise of mana cost to effect ratio they violated.
For another example, consider Lotus Bloom. Obviously, a 0-mana card that gives you 3 mana is far too powerful. And Lotus Bloom still costs 0 mana; that's a major violation of mana cost to effect ratio, because 3 mana of any color is worth more than 0 mana. But Lotus Bloom is not considered overpowered, because it has a cost in it other than mana: The fact you must wait 3 turns to use the thing.
Or, if you want to go all the way back to the beginning... how much should a vanilla Red 2/3 cost? Looking at some cards, it seems 3 mana is what you would normally cost it at. But wait a minute, Kird Ape only costs 1 mana! That's because its cost lies somewhere other than its mana: It requires you to have a Forest in play.
Obviously, how much of an extra cost these effects actually are depends on the deck. If you're running Taigas and fetchlands, the extra cost for Kird Ape is almost nonexistent because you're so guaranteed to have that Forest in play. The decks that are interested in playing such cards tend to be ones for which the extra cost is easily reduced or irrelevant. Nimble Mongoose is great in RUG Delver (or RUG Threshold if you're a traditionalist), yet it sees really no play in other decks. That's because while a 3/3 shroud creature for one Green mana is way, way over the curve, the other decks see its extra cost (requiring 7 cards in your graveyard) as too high and reject it, similar to how they would reject Mist Leopard for its cost being too high.
Cards like this are doing exactly what I've been saying: They reduce mana cost when you fulfill the right requirements. Perhaps not as obviously as something like Frogmite does, but they nevertheless do. If you have Threshold, then Nimble Mongoose's mana cost is effectively dropped, because you're getting a 3/3 shroud creature (which seems to be worth about 3-4 mana) for only one. But if you don't have Threshold, then its mana cost isn't reduced at all, and in fact is increased because you could be playing something like Slippery Boggle instead, which has hexproof instead of shroud and can be cast for Blue mana.
The game has never solely relied on mana cost to effect ratio to decide whether something is suitably powered/costed or not. It takes into account all of the costs of a card, mana or otherwise, in comparison to its effect.
In the case of Miracle, the extra cost is that to cast it for its lower mana cost, you can only do it when you draw it as the first card in your turn, and at any other point you must pay a premium mana cost to cast it (i.e. more than Hallowed Burial). Therefore, the card is only played in decks that can reduce that extra cost, namely decks running Sensei's Divining Top, Brainstorm, and Jace the Mind Sculptor. If you don't meet the requirements, you're paying a premium mana cost, but if you do meet it, you get to save mana. Just like Nimble Mongoose.
Now, someone can claim that Terminus's effect is too powerful for its cost, which is one White mana plus the timing requirement. But again, that has nothing to do with the Miracle mechanic and everything to do with its total cost compared to its effect. No one complains about Revenge of the Hunted because its total cost (one Green mana plus the timing requirement) is considered too high for its effect. If Terminus breaks any basic rules in regards to mana cost compared to effect, it doesn't break it because of the Miracle; it breaks it for the same reason that Ancestral Recall breaks it, in that it gives you too much for its total cost (which for Ancestral Recall is simply its mana cost, as it has no extra cost associated with it).
Massacre and Submerge don't even do the same thing as Terminus, so that's a poor comparison. As for Foil/Thwart for Force of Will, I'm not even sure what your point here is. The fact that some alternate casting costs are better than other alternate casting costs? Okay, but what does that have to do with anything?Or to put it simpler and be as disingenuous as you are being. You could simply swap out Terminus for Massacres and Submerges? Foil/Thwart for foWs. And miracles would be fine, right?
Obviously I'm not supposed to take the argument seriously as you admit it is disingenuous, but I don't see how the argument even works.
Which again, has nothing to do with the Miracle mechanic, which is yet another in a long line of "set stuff up right and you get this for cheaper, but in recompense it's more expensive if you don't set things up right." Or, as I pointed out in my explanation on costs, yet another in an even longer line of "reduce something's mana cost in exchange for having to pay an additional non-mana cost." If you reject Miracle on the ground that it trades mana cost in exchange for a different cost, then you must reject every card that has ever had either a "if you fulfill this requirement, this card is more powerful" or "in exchange for a lower mana cost, this card comes with a drawback."Obviously all cards break the rules in some way. It's how far they go that is the topic. Not that the mechanic existed before. Or that there are other cards that do something similar. The power creep and how much of the basics of the game they break is what makes them good.
And that's not to say that the Miracle mechanic deserves no criticism. I think it actually does, but for completely different reasons. My problem with it is that it increases luck. While luck of course is a fundamental part of the game, a mechanic that does nothing but increase the luck factor is not a mechanic I think is a particularly good one.
I did not expect to write that much when I started on this post.
It can't be irrelevant. They are tied together. No one is going to care if the card did anything that wasn't good. So, I don't see how it is irrelevant. Maybe if you want to stick to the this mechanic exists already line of argument. Which was also addressed by me in previous posts. Obviously the alternate costs have been around a long time. It has to do with how much the card does for 1 mana. There has never been a 1 mana wrath effect in the game. maybe Balance for 2 mana, but that does a host of other things and was designed when magic was fledgling.
No, you misunderstood. The cards I named are the exception. Force was an exception to most others in that it is powerful and easy enough of a requirement to fulfill. Even though Force also requires you to build your deck around it as well. By virtue of playing more blue cards. I specifically placed a few cards on the outlier as they are above the curve. The rest are not good enough to see widespread play. Although Terminus in only 1 deck.
This illustrates one of the reasons why Miracles are poorly designed. There is Restore Balance and Lotus Bloom and those are well designed. Powerful enough but not as good. Is there a deck that these spells are better in than their original namesake? No, I can't think of any. Terminus actually is better in its deck than Hallowed Burial. That is a design flaw and contempt for the basics of having an universal sweeper for 1 mana. Would it see play at 3 mana? Most undoubtedly not I believe. Like another one is LED. The design flaw was thinking at the time discard your hand was too narrow to abuse. Which to be fair at that time it was. While not the best example because the game has evolved so much since Mirage, bad design rears its head.
Correct. Mana costs aren't the only thing taken into consideration when breaking the curve. Kird Ape in its hayday was a formidable card. As was Nacatl. Both banned in one format or another before the power creep. Paired with Goyf they gave us the Zoo deck. Which was a beast in 2009-2010. Mongoose is well designed despite being ahead of the curve. Similar to Terminus in that only one deck plays it. But not as globally powerful and constricting to most other decks.
I think the Miracle mechanic is why it is so poorly designed. Thankfully they didn't make an Ancestral Miracle. Recall breaks the mana cost to effect ratio wildly. Terminus in its deck does the same. While not as good as Recall, clearly. It nonetheless does as you stated. providing too much for too little with negligible drawbacks.
While a poor comparison it serves to show that the effect is unprecedented for its cost. One couldn't simply replace a Terminus in Miracles with any other sweeper. Same relation to FoW/Daze. But those are not as oppressive as terminus is to creatures. The costs being better than others has to do with design and an adherence to basics of the game. All the other Miracles aren't really game breaking or even playable. Well designed. And some have seen play in some formats. Notably Bonfire in Standard. Sure Entreat is good, but I'd take Miracles with Entreat and no Terminus any day of the week. I'm sure most would.
I think it has everything to do with its mechanic. It wouldn't be so low costed if not for the mechanic. And no one would even play it if it cost 3 or 4. The mechanic coupled with an easy requirement and little drawbacks makes it what it is. Very few cards are even comparable despite being "free" or low costed. And of those cards, 2 are banned, and 2 see a ton of play. Brainstorm, Top, Jace are certainly its enablers but its limitations aren't as restricting as most of the other free cards. And none of them is a universal sweeper despite Massacre having a global effect it is limited to x/2s and Swamps and Plains. Very well designed I think. Free spells are always tricky, but I think they screwed up on this one. Even though it is only in one deck.
The mechanic is widely considered to be one that increases luck. A lucksack mechanic of sorts. But none of the others are remotely a problem. Turns out what I and some others thought would be broken in Time Walk really wasn't and Terminus is. One mana Burial is very much poorly designed and has too much of an impact on this format. Not ban worthy and not as powerful as say Show and Tell. But it is poorly designed with a luck sac mechanic and too low costed.
And, btw. One hell of a post you made. Great discussion. Not that I expected the usual Source one liner of something akin to " do you even lift, bro?"
I want a FOW style Fork. Now that would be fun.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
As this discussion is rather off topic, I will try to respond to just a few points to avoid beleaguering it:
You are again missing the point. If your problem is that the extra cost of the Miracle effect (having to draw it at the right time) does not adequately compensate for its lower mana cost, the problem there is not the Miracle effect, but the fact that the mana cost was not set correctly.
If Wizards of the Coast opted to print a 6/6 flying haste creature for one Red mana with the drawback of hitting you for one damage during your upkeep, would you consider this card a reason of how "ping drawbacks" (or whatever you want to call cards that make you lose 1 life per turn) are badly designed and break the basic rules of the game because it results in such an undercosted creature? I doubt it.
I'm sorry, but this point is nonsensical. Your argument is that Restore Balance and Lotus Bloom are A-OK because you basically never want them instead of the originals, but Terminus can be better than Hallowed Burial. The key point you miss here is the fact that Balance and Black Lotus are crazy broken whereas Hallowed Burial is merely an okay card. It's not really a valid comparison because the power levels of the "original" cards are so disparate.This illustrates one of the reasons why Miracles are poorly designed. There is Restore Balance and Lotus Bloom and those are well designed. Powerful enough but not as good. Is there a deck that these spells are better in than their original namesake? No, I can't think of any. Terminus actually is better in its deck than Hallowed Burial. That is a design flaw and contempt for the basics of having an universal sweeper for 1 mana. Would it see play at 3 mana? Most undoubtedly not I believe. Like another one is LED. The design flaw was thinking at the time discard your hand was too narrow to abuse. Which to be fair at that time it was. While not the best example because the game has evolved so much since Mirage, bad design rears its head.
Again, let's go back to that 6/6 flying haste creature for one Red mana. Would you blame the "ping drawback" for it being overpowered? No, you would say that the creature's problem is its drawback isn't big enough. Which is a very different matter.I think the Miracle mechanic is why it is so poorly designed. Thankfully they didn't make an Ancestral Miracle. Recall breaks the mana cost to effect ratio wildly. Terminus in its deck does the same. While not as good as Recall, clearly. It nonetheless does as you stated. providing too much for too little with negligible drawbacks.
Okay, now you're saying something completely different. You kept talking about how the Miracle mechanic broke the basic rules of the game, and now you suddenly turn around and say that these other Miracle cards are okay. So what is it?While a poor comparison it serves to show that the effect is unprecedented for its cost. One couldn't simply replace a Terminus in Miracles with any other sweeper. Same relation to FoW/Daze. But those are not as oppressive as terminus is to creatures. The costs being better than others has to do with design and an adherence to basics of the game. All the other Miracles aren't really game breaking or even playable. Well designed. And some have seen play in some formats. Notably Bonfire in Standard. Sure Entreat is good, but I'd take Miracles with Entreat and no Terminus any day of the week. I'm sure most would.
Again, look at my example. Is the problem there the ping mechanic itself? No, it isn't. It's absurd to say "creatures that damage their controller are badly designed because this one creature with that ability is totally overpowered!"I think it has everything to do with its mechanic. It wouldn't be so low costed if not for the mechanic. And no one would even play it if it cost 3 or 4.
I know this is getting even more off topic, but I would say the worst one is not Terminus, but Bonfire of the Damned. That card may see pretty much no Legacy play, but it was huge in its Standard environment, and that's where I find it highly problematic.The mechanic is widely considered to be one that increases luck. A lucksack mechanic of sorts. But none of the others are remotely a problem. Turns out what I and some others thought would be broken in Time Walk really wasn't and Terminus is. One mana Burial is very much poorly designed and has too much of an impact on this format. Not ban worthy and not as powerful as say Show and Tell. But it is poorly designed with a luck sac mechanic and too low costed.
Look at the various Miracle cards without cards like Brainstorm or Sensei's Divining Top, when you have to just draw them naturally. You might notice something they tend to have in common: You sometimes have no interest in casting them when you draw them. For example, Terminus can feel like a waste if your opponent has only 1 creature in play, so you may wish to put it into your hand and hope to cast it later for a bigger blowout. Alternatively, you may not want to cast it because it hurts you due to having a creature in play. I remember seeing quite a few players draw a Terminus and opt not to cast it because the timing was poor enough they judged it was preferable to have to hold onto it, even if it meant they had to wait until they had 6 mana to get any usage out of it.
Similarly, Revenge of the Hunted (which was substantially less popular but still was a minor player), while powerful when cast for only one mana, can frequently be drawn in situations where casting it isn't optimal, forcing you to decide whether to cast it for cheap right then or wait for a better opportunity and have to spend 6 mana on it when you do.
Additionally, there is the very real possibility that casting them, even for their cheap costs, will prevent you from casting another spell that turn you wanted to cast. While in some cases it's obvious if you want to cast it or not (if your opponent has no creatures in play you're sure not casting that Terminus), a lot of the time it requires some thinking. And you have to do said thinking very fast, or else your opponent will know you drew a miracle card.
Bonfire of the Damned doesn't have that problem. If you have the mana to cast it (which requires only 2 lands), you will want to cast it when you draw it basically every single time no matter what the board state is, because it's pretty much always preferable to do that than to wait and hardcast it. Sure, Bonfire is a liability if it's in your opening hand, but once you have two lands in play, it's pretty much never a bad idea to cast it as it's drawn, unlike something like Terminus. Heck, I'd argue that of all the Miracle cards, Bonfire of the Damned has the best ratio of mana cost to power when hardcast. Thus, it removes the actual strategy of Miracles, something Terminus retains.
Due to this, Bonfire of the Damned is the biggest, per your terms, "lucksack" of the Miracle cards due to its lack of strategy. Most of the hate in that Standard environment went towards Thragtusk, but I think Bonfire of the Damned was the most irritating card in Innistrad-RTR Standard.
So much for trying to keep things brief...
I think youre missing the point. The problem isn't so abstract. It directly relates and is ingrained in the mechanic itself. You cant separate the cost when the cost is part of what the mechanic is. Semantically you keep arguing that the mechanic is different from the cost. But that's not entirely true from a design standpoint when one correlates to the other. Terminus for one doesnt exist without the Miracle drawback.
That would be terribly designed. The Ping creatures were in their day powerful and above the curve. If they made a set of new ones and one of them was the card you you made up. Then the problem wouldn't be the mechanic. But this doesnt reflect Miracles as an alt cost. Youre bringing up Kird Apes again. Which has just one cost. Totally absurd comparison. And one that has no basis since a card as such doesnt exist. Nor ever will.
That is the entirety of the issue. Terminus is better than the original. It's not even close. And again unprecedented. They didnt take a broken card and tried to fix the cost. They took a good card and broke its cost.
The mechanic in this case is tied to its alternative cost and drawback.
But yet again, you keep complaining about how the simple idea of Miracles is a bad one because they make cards cost less, yet the only actual argument you've put forward is that one Miracle card is too good according to you, which again comes down to it (in your view) being undercosted. This could be easily changed while retaining the Miracle mechanic.
Sorry, but it's not an totally absurd comparison. Your complain is continually that it costs too little, and for some reason the Miracle cost is to blame, even though it could be fixed in your view while retaining the Miracle mechanic. Similarly, the overpowered 6/6 hasted flyer could be fixed if it cost more.That would be terribly designed. The Ping creatures were in their day powerful and above the curve. If they made a set of new ones and one of them was the card you you made up. Then the problem wouldn't be the mechanic. But this doesnt reflect Miracles as an alt cost. Youre bringing up Kird Apes again. Which has just one cost. Totally absurd comparison. And one that has no basis since a card as such doesnt exist. Nor ever will.
You complain about the analogy not being a perfect one because it doesn't have an alternate cost, but that's actually besides the point that's being made.
So again, you are pointing to one instance of Miracle, not the Miracle mechanic itself. And you even said that the other Miracle cards were fine and called them "well-designed." So why are you suddenly turning around and saying Miracle is a problem? I feel like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. If you want to complain about Terminus, fine, but leave the mechanic out of it, especially when complaining about the mechanic goes straight against what you've said.That is the entirety of the issue. Terminus is better than the original. It's not even close.
And I'd like to once again point out that the only reason Terminus is better than the original is because of Brainstorm and Sensei's Divining Top, which are very powerful cards without Terminus. Meanwhile, Terminus is significantly weaker when not using those cards, and Hallowed Burial is by far the better option. It's why there were 5 decks in the last Magic Championship that used Hallowed Burial, while zero used Terminus.
I'm not certain I understand the disapproval of Terminus... There SHOULD be a control deck that can reliably sweep the board in a healthy Legacy meta. If I was going to complain about a card in Miracles, it would be Entreat.per 4/4 flyer after a
investment is way more OP than a board reset.
You know that people used to play Wrath of God in Legacy, right?I'm not certain I understand the disapproval of Terminus... There SHOULD be a control deck that can reliably sweep the board in a healthy Legacy meta. If I was going to complain about a card in Miracles, it would be Entreat.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
They used to play Werebear and Morphling too... What is your point? (no snark intended, I'd actually like to know where you were going with that)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote