last edited by Guest
I'll move the following post to the Lavinia thread if other users find it distracting:
@vaughnbros I'm willing to accept that no new trend is happening if someone has the time to come up with statistics comparing the percentage of asymmetrical 'hate' cards in older sets to that in newer sets.
But I wouldn't say there is selection bias underlying my perception when I can and have looked at the entirety of the more popular sets, both old and new, that are available to view on Scryfall. That's all insignificant semantics though. I get what you mean.
My impression is that, before this perceived trend started taking place, hate cards often (not always) had counterparts or cards that nullified their effects. For example, Tormod's Crypt has Feldon's Cane, Acid Rain has Tsunami, and so on. The point is that these counterpart cards were made consistently enough that you could expect to see answers for newly printed hate cards with good reason.
Considering the previous few sets, would you expect WotC to print a counterpart to Lavinia, that maybe costed UB, that said: "Each opponent can’t cast non-sorcery and non-instant spells with converted mana cost greater than the number of lands that player controls"?
Had they printed a card like Lavinia before this perceived trend started taking place, I think they would've printed a counterpart to Lavinia worded similarly to above. I don't expect to see such a card being printed in current sets, considering the cards they've been printing recently. There would be an 'outrage' on reddit every day.
So, based on those (unsubstantiated) impressions, I find it difficult to believe that WotC hasn't been incentivizing having permanents in play, at the cost of discouraging holding cards in hand. What I perceive as the problem with the newer cards is that the asymmetrical hate cards are backed by an asymmetrical design approach.