Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever

I agree with those saying that Vintage is a format about playing all the cards, and that neither power-level errata, nor power-level "rules adjustments," would be a satisfactory solution to Lurrus.

Lurrus has warped the metagame for sure (I've been playing more MTGO recently and Lurrus is rampant there) but I'm far from convinced that Vintage is in a crisis. Even if decks are incapable of competing with Lurrus (by running more maindeck creature and graveyard hate, e.g.) there are other levers that can be tried, for example restricting (absurd as it may look to the outside) the Baubles.

last edited by evouga

@evouga Except vintage has never been about playing ALL the cards. Ante cards are banned, and things like Planes and Conspiracies were never allowed. The precedent of banning card "types" (i.e. Companion) is certainly there.

Now that is an interesting thought. Banning Companions just like banning Ante cards.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

@evouga Except vintage has never been about playing ALL the cards. Ante cards are banned, and things like Planes and Conspiracies were never allowed. The precedent of banning card "types" (i.e. Companion) is certainly there.

Ante was never considered for tourney play. I am of the mindset that I would not mind errata on those cards to make ante mean something else so they would be playable. Like what if demonic contract upped your ante by 1, which means that if you lose the game you lose the match instead? Playing "all the card possible" is probably a more accurate way to describe the format, as I think that manual dexterity should not be a factor.

To that point, companions are not really comparable to planes or vanguards or conspiracies, because at the end of the day those are card types that were printed with the explicit thought that they would not be playable in tourney play from the onset, the same with silver bordered cards. Companions are creatures that were fully intended and designed for competitive play.

Let me ask the very blunt question of is Lurrus more powerful or warping that these cards already on the restricted list:
Lotus
Moxen
Ancestral Recall
Time walk
Chalice of the Void
Thorn of ameythist
Trinisphere

And let me add three that are not
Force of will
Bazaar
Workshops

All of those cards are openly allowed and accepted as some form of baseline for powerlevel in the format. Much of that is not because of the cards inherent balance but because of our fondness for the cards. Most of you would flat out say that vintage simply would not be vintage without these cards in some number.

I submit to you that Lurris as a companion is still not better than having a lotus in your deck. If Lurris had copy on him that said you cannot have Force of will in your deck, likely you would not play him. If those cards are restricted, not banned, or in the case of bazaar and workshops somehow still unrestricted, then I fail to see how you can justify banning either Lurrus or the mechanic.

@protoaddict

Well, as I said, I'm not arguing that the Companions are too OP. They're strong, but I put them on the level of Oko. Annoying as fuck, but they can live in Vintage. My argument has always been that there is a clean way to remove them from vintage if they are problematic without banning.

As far as OP cards though, you REALLY want to allow ante cards? 4x Contract from Below doesn't sound like a deck I want to play against. I just don't understand the desire to cling on to every card to play with as opposed to a functional format. Maybe vanguard and such were not designed for tourney play, but we also know Vintage is rarely in mind in card design.

What if WotC printed a companion that cost 1{U/W}{U/W} that read "Permanent cards in your deck can't cost more than 1" and "0: return a nonland permanent you control from the battlefield to it's owner's hand, then draw 1 card." Essentially, "play this with a mox and draw your deck." Would you want to allow that to live in Vintage just because you want to allow ALL playable cards to be played? That's ridiculous. You're putting "play all cards" above a healthy format at any cost by taking such a stance.

I mean, that's the philosophy of Legacy, right? Allow most cards, except the ones that are most broken?

I guess we could also have "Type 1.25" that sits somewhere in between Vintage and Legacy, but frankly it seems absurd to create a format around excluding Lurrus alone.

@evouga I think the fact that this is a card that starts in a different zone and has errata already just to be played anywhere (clarifying what "from outside of the game" means) means that you can cleanly remove the whole mechanic from the format without having to do individual card bans.

There comes a point where you either want A) a format that is fun, healthy, and has some variety, or B) a format that is 95% the same deck, turn 1 wins, and plays all the cards. That's a bit of hyperbole, however, clinging to the "let me play every card" stance means that with future printings, we will hit critical mass at some point, and the format really WILL become coin flip city. Once a REALLY problematic card gets printed where a restriction has no effect, you won't ban it, so then you just have every deck being thatcard.dec. We're not there yet, and these companions really aren't so terrible - just currently overplayed as the flavor of the month - but we can eventually get there. Vintage is an afterthought (or not a thought at all) in card design, so there could be something broken along the lines of "U - instant - contract from below sans ante" with a drawback that is negligible in Vintage....something like Armageddon yourself.

If we adhere to the "play every card no matter the effect on the format" philosophy, then we may eventually not have a format to enjoy that's not all mirror copies of the same uber-broken pile. Consider the "blue vice" deck of Alpha40. Are we okay with Vintage if it becomes all copies of this same deck and whoever wins the coin flip wins the game on the following upkeep? I'd personally rather a game I can actually play and use strategy over turns, and not just a face-off with my opponent where we're both holding a loaded bazooka and just need to hit the trigger. We're not there yet, and the Companions are no where near this problematic - but the philosophy of "playing all cards printed" is.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

As far as OP cards though, you REALLY want to allow ante cards? 4x Contract from Below doesn't sound like a deck I want to play against. I just don't understand the desire to cling on to every card to play with as opposed to a functional format. Maybe vanguard and such were not designed for tourney play, but we also know Vintage is rarely in mind in card design.

I mean, I would restrict it.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

What if WotC printed a companion that cost 1{U/W}{U/W} that read "Permanent cards in your deck can't cost more than 1" and "0: return a nonland permanent you control from the battlefield to it's owner's hand, then draw 1 card." Essentially, "play this with a mox and draw your deck." Would you want to allow that to live in Vintage just because you want to allow ALL playable cards to be played? That's ridiculous. You're putting "play all cards" above a healthy format at any cost by taking such a stance.

And what if they printed a lightning bolt for 20 that costed Phyrexian mana? A card that broken would likely never be printed because it would break other formats as well and it would be caught in playtesting. I have confidence that this hypothetical is unrealistic.

The issue with most of the newer power cards is that the nature of vintage is different than other formats. There is overlap in the Venn diagram to be sure, but vintage has some space of its own where things that are ok in other places are not ok in it.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

There comes a point where you either want A) a format that is fun, healthy, and has some variety, or B) a format that is 95% the same deck, turn 1 wins, and plays all the cards. That's a bit of hyperbole, however, clinging to the "let me play every card" stance means that with future printings, we will hit critical mass at some point, and the format really WILL become coin flip city.

Vintage has always suffered from the second law of thermodynamics, in that over a long enough timeline all things trend towards decay. The restricted list was always a band aid because the core idea of the format was always allow as many of the cards as possible from the start of the game until forever. If you don't have that then I would argue vintage simply isn't vintage. In many ways the restricted list is also definitional to the format. It is the only format that maintains one and people identify the format with it.

I do believe there are fixes to this situation that do no require outright banning should the format last until that point, but I'm not sure people would accept them. Things like a point system ala Canadian highlander, a much more expansive restricted list (duals, fetches, workshop, bazaar, sphere, fow, etc), or making the format just purely singleton would preserve the idea that you can use cards from the entire games history, just maybe not all at the same time or in the same numbers you were allowed to before.

I actually recreated my account to try and focus on article-type posts and primers, but to answer some of the questions in this thread, Lurrus actually is probably as good or better than all of the restricted cards in the format.

A consideration is decks will always have Lurrus as an additional card. Period. That's a boost to every game played. They will rarely have a particular restricted card. They will have a 4-of 40% of the time per 7 card hand. The metagame data we have from the format shows that Lurrus decks have an estimated 61% win rate against non-Lurrus decks (when adjusted for expected mirror matches). The odds of having a restricted card in your opening hand approach that 11% differential, though it can be higher with mulligans, and is obviously mitigated by just considering that having a restricted card doesn't necessarily translate into a win (it won't necessarily resolve or might not win the game). Prior to Ikoria, I was making the argument that Black Lotus was actually detrimental to the control game plan, which was more built on attrition, and was cutting it from Jeskai and other decks. I even won a couple Vintage challenges, which prompted comments like "Uro/Oko is better than Black Lotus, confirmed" from people outside the format. Having something powerful to do with zero risk of putting yourself down a card, has made Lotus much better, so don't worry, not cutting Black Lotus any more.

Furthermore, if you compare the decks, Shops and Bazaar decks are really struggling in this metagame. Shops has a 42% win rate. Dredge has a 36% win rate. You can argue that if these decks were to replace Workshops and Bazaar with Darksteel Ingot, they would have worse win rates, but that's a pretty uncompelling theoretical argument that ignores how decks are actually constructed. Cards don't exists in isolation. Force of Will has risen in importance and prevalence but honestly, a huge part of this is due to Lurrus. Lurrus is essentially a 2-for-1, no matter how you slice it up, and Force of Will is arguably one of the better ways to 2-for-1 yourself. MBT is also decent as is Force of Negation and STP because of the exile effect, and this is evidence of metagame warping.

Restricting the Baubles and other pieces makes little sense, due to the redundancy of effects. Breach decks are very functional at one copy, Urza and Mishra's Bauble are very close in efficiency, restricting Remora really doesn't have much of a structural effect on the metagame, are you really going to restrict value-based Dredge hate like Nihil Spellbomb and Soul-Guide Lantern? There are many ways to derive value from recurring permanents <=2 mana, decks are even running [Unbridled Growth].

People have tried to combat or ignore Lurrus but you are just sacrificing too much utility and there is just too much versatility in how Lurrus can be used that make targeted approaches difficult. Hatebears strategies fall victim to a huge increase in creature removal as a response to Lurrus being prevalent, not to mention more Karakas, and the fact that most decks have a 3/2 lifelinker to recoup life loss as an 8th card every game. Reality Smasher is much less impressive when the 5 life attack is negated by Lurrus + a Deathrite Shaman. Similarly, attacking the graveyard or artifacts, trades at a card disadvantage since the floor of Lurrus is still a 3/2 lifelinker. It's similar to Illness of Ranking or Dread of Nighting Mentor in that you are going down a card to mitigate the effects of your opponent's card, except this card was cast from outside the game. Graveyard hate and null rod effects are only great when they attack the opponent's core strategies such as Breach combo or PO.

The main approaches now are to accept that Vintage is the Lurrus format and diversity exists in the confines of Lurrus Combo vs Lurrus Value, or eliminate Lurrus as companion. People can play what they want and will play what they want, and indeed, the power of restricted cards can be pretty good at obscuring a decks flaws. However, Lurrus has been absurdly dominant immediately, taking 16/16 top 8 slots in both Vintage Challenges on MTGO, as well as winning both Paper Online events held in this weekend. As noted above, it doesn't appear from the data that other strategies are on par with Lurrus or that there is an emergence of viable countermeasures that exist outside of Lurrus decks.

In any case, I don't think anything the Vintage community does will necessarily influence WotC's decision on what they end up doing. Like Dig through Time and Treasure Cruise, Lurrus is creating similar patterns of dominance across other formats. WotC restricted Cruise and Dig at the same time it banned those cards in Legacy and if they too action on Lurrus, the would likely do the same in Vintage. What that will be, I don't know. I'm just representing my view as someone that plays the format and collects the data. My preference as a brewer would be for Lurrus to exist as playable as a non-companion rather than an overt ban of either Lurrus or the companion mechanic. In that respect, I am not as much of a philosophical purist as others in this thread.

Interestingly enough, I've actually just started running Lurrus in any maindeck that can support him mana-wise, but not as a companion, and has a fair amount of < 3cmc drops already. That's in Modern and Vintage. And he's just great whenever he hits. He's just insane valuetown. I actually find his lifelink to be the most annoying trait as you can't come out ahead in any way - even surprise chumping with snapcaster as a 1-for-1 gives them a free healing salve. There's just no stopping this card from being awesome, whether he's companion or a main deck value-engine.

@chubbyrain1 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

The main approaches now are to accept that Vintage is the Lurrus format and diversity exists in the confines of Lurrus Combo vs Lurrus Value, or eliminate Lurrus as companion. People can play what they want and will play what they want, and indeed, the power of restricted cards can be pretty good at obscuring a decks flaws.

Vintage was in many ways already this type of format. Many decks were and still are heavily defined as if you have Force, Shops, Bazaar. It's all framing. No one ever looked at a shops deck and said oh your playing a non-bazaar deck huh? For all the nuance of specific card selections, many decks at there core were still doing the same things. Pitch Dredge and Sun Titan Dredge are still 2 separate builds, but at there core they are still basically the same.

Format diversity is worse in vintage more so than any other format pretty consistently since the dawn of the format. That is fundamental to the cards that are on the restricted list and the few that are surprisingly not. Most of the veteran players are not only ok with that, but actually strive to maintain it because they do not want radical shifts to the format. This is in large part why workshops has yet to catch a restriction but so many of it's pieces have.

@chubbyrain1 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

However, Lurrus has been absurdly dominant immediately, taking 16/16 top 8 slots in both Vintage Challenges on MTGO, as well as winning both Paper Online events held in this weekend. As noted above, it doesn't appear from the data that other strategies are on par with Lurrus or that there is an emergence of viable countermeasures that exist outside of Lurrus decks.

Do we feel like this data is of a solid sample however. We really don't have a control for this type of analysis because we have never been playing under a pandemic with a set that is currently not available in paper. I also think that 1 month of results in the best of times is not enough to be sure, because new cards ALWAYS get used in high numbers at first.

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

Interestingly enough, I've actually just started running Lurrus in any maindeck that can support him mana-wise, but not as a companion, and has a fair amount of < 3cmc drops already. That's in Modern and Vintage. And he's just great whenever he hits. He's just insane valuetown. I actually find his lifelink to be the most annoying trait as you can't come out ahead in any way - even surprise chumping with snapcaster as a 1-for-1 gives them a free healing salve. There's just no stopping this card from being awesome, whether he's companion or a main deck value-engine.

This is actually undermining to the argument in the first place. If Lurrus is better maindeck as a 4 of then it would go some length to show that companion is not the issue, it's the power level of the card. If the card is too powerful as a 4 of the first step would be to restrict it. What if the ideal build for Lurrus is actually some copies main deck with a different companion in the board?

@protoaddict

It is questionable in the extreme to suggest that the pandemic has structurally altered MTGO tournaments. More people are playing on the client, but the game is the same, card acquisition is the same, and there really isn't a tangible or credible difference. In addition, as stated above and apparently missed, two paper events have been held via online platforms using webcams, one advertised on here and which I did metagame analysis for, the other from Japan. Lurrus was more dominant in the one I have data for, winning the event with an unadjusted MWP of 63.9%. The two Lurrus Breach players went undefeated, one winning the event, the other losing to the winner in the quaterfinals. Lurrus Breach also won the Japanese event. The metagame percentage was smaller but paper normally lags behind MTGO play and this was no exception, so again, there is very little actual merit to your position here.

As for @Thewhitedragon69's testing, while he has his personal experience (which I am not criticizing), that is one person's anecdotal evidence and is absolutely incomparable to the 157 players that registered Lurrus as a companion in the MTGO challenges and put up a non-mirror win rate 61% in ~513 matches, winning 3 events (5 if you include the online paper events). I encourage you to consider a hierarchy of evidence in forming your opinions that weighs tournament results and data from competitive events over other forms of evidence.

Of note, Lurrus is indeed a card that is powerful in its own right. It's current power and dominance is certainly not from being a maindeck inclusion, though. It's the fact that they made it a companion on top of being a solid magic card that makes it a multi-format defining card. Veil of Summer was given the additional card draw spell, Once upon a Time was given the additional free clause, these are examples of adding relatively small effects to cards that would eventually result in them being too powerful for certain formats and ultimately being banned.

Edit: I will also add that while you can divide things by "Force of Will deck", "Workshops deck", "Bazaar deck", again, those cards are not literally in your "hand" every game and we cannot or have not done directly tied the introduction of those cards to such a huge discrepancy in success. As stated again, Bazaar and Workshop decks are struggling in the current metagame. Even among Shops decks, those with Lurrus are doing better than those without. Among Force of Will decks, those with Lurrus are doing better than those without. So yes, you can split formats into classifications, but it's pretty clear that you are arguing a false equivalence here. Lurrus is the main reason these decks are doing well relative to non-Lurrus decks and we have data both before and after the introduction of Ikoria that supports this. You can also argue that we have a limited amount of time to draw on but these are structural issues apparent in every Eternal format. It's clear that these issues are not going to be addressed outside of B&R or rules action. Like I said, you can say that Vintage should be a Lurrus format just like it is a Power 9 format or perhaps a Force of Will/Bazaar/Shops format (though I would argue those cards except for FoW maybe are less impactful), but if you are ignoring the data and game play patterns, you are just deluding yourself at this point.

last edited by chubbyrain1

@protoaddict said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

Interestingly enough, I've actually just started running Lurrus in any maindeck that can support him mana-wise, but not as a companion, and has a fair amount of < 3cmc drops already. That's in Modern and Vintage. And he's just great whenever he hits. He's just insane valuetown. I actually find his lifelink to be the most annoying trait as you can't come out ahead in any way - even surprise chumping with snapcaster as a 1-for-1 gives them a free healing salve. There's just no stopping this card from being awesome, whether he's companion or a main deck value-engine.

This is actually undermining to the argument in the first place. If Lurrus is better maindeck as a 4 of then it would go some length to show that companion is not the issue, it's the power level of the card. If the card is too powerful as a 4 of the first step would be to restrict it. What if the ideal build for Lurrus is actually some copies main deck with a different companion in the board?

I think you're misunderstanding me entirely. He is INFINITELY better as a companion. What I'm saying is that he is also a very strong 3-drop maindeck for decks that can't conform to his companion-mandated deck-building requirements. Like in a modern deck I run that is an elementals deck; it hinges on Lightning Skelemental and Spark Trooper, so I can't make it's restraints work for Lurrus as companion. However, Lurrus buys back Thunderkin Awakener and Flamekin Harbinger all day, as well as being a lifelinker, so he's just a solid include. That deck runs the Orphanguard as its companion - and Lurrus meets that requirement just fine. Lurrus is a very solid card maindeck in any quantity. He's extremely strong (far more than main deck) as a companion.

A couple other notes:

When you say "Most veteran players," I think you are speaking for yourself and a handful of people you know. Myself and many others I know are just fine with changes and realize they are inevitable in a continually-growing format. If bazaar or workshop got restricted, we'd embrace the shift, not bemoan it.

I also think you miss the point @chubbyrain1 was making. It's not that Vintage is defined as Lurrus combo or Lurrus value to compare variations of a build as you would say pitch dredge or sun titan dredge. Sun Titan Dredge and Pitch Dredge are two variants of a similar build in a meta where Jeskai xerox, PO, humans, shops, hollowvine, etc. are all viable options. What chubby's post suggest is that Vintage is now Lurrus combo/lurrus value as tier 1 and all else are piles of non-viable 60 cards in comparison (as far as the numbers and results thus far have shown).

I agree the cat is just the new flavor everyone wants to try and it's overplayed...but how strong it is over time we'll find out soon. What if the trend continues and Lurrus builds still have a 60% winrate vs ANYTHING non-mirror in perpetuity? What if it is refined over time and gets to 70%+? Are you still okay with WotC doing nothing to the mechanic so that Vintage stays "pure" even though there would only be one deck type vs chaff left as a format?

@protoaddict

I get (got) all of my data from MTGGoldfish. It has some of the best data because it draws from the largest pool of played games of Vintage. Vintage, like Pauper, is a MODO format that sees niche paper play. Your analysis and @Thewhitedragon69's analysis come from a position of no online play. This speaks to me that you are passionate about talking about Vintage but not passionate about actually playing Vintage, which can skew your anecdotes.

I was referred to @chubbyrain1's data and the Vintage Discord by @Brass-Man in a different thread and can surmise that, while you're attempting to bury him under an avalanche of words, the curated analysis that he provides for the community will always speak much louder. You'd be best to prove your analysis on the battlefield.

@80percentbuffoon How is my position from a perspective of no online play? My point has been that 1) the card is bonkers, 2) it's stronger as a companion than main deck, but is still amazing even main deck, 3)there's a clean way to remove companions from Vintage without B&R, and 4) That chubby's analysis points to ALL of Vintage distilling down to Lurrus variants and "fringe-playable other".

Where do you have me making any of the same arguments as protoaddict?

@thewhitedragon69 said in Vintage 101: Cat Scratch Fever:

@80percentbuffoon How is my position from a perspective of no online play? My point has been that 1) the card is bonkers, 2) it's stronger as a companion than main deck, but is still amazing even main deck, 3)there's a clean way to remove companions from Vintage without B&R, and 4) That chubby's analysis points to ALL of Vintage distilling down to Lurrus variants and "fringe-playable other".
Where do you have me making any of the same arguments as protoaddict?

Because it is a broadly sweeping attack on character and validity meant to undermine my arguments, you just happened to get swept up in it. For the record @Thewhitedragon69 I understand your arguments and feel they are well reasoned and consistent, I just disagree with them for the reasons I have stated above. I do not see that the other poster has actually offered a line of reasoning other than to agree with @chubbyrain1 (whom also makes a well reasoned argument with backing logic) and try to impugn my reasoning through assumptions of my personality.

Wizards will never remove companion as a mechanic. The argument that other card types are banned like that is nonsensical since the card types banned are clearly not meant for constructed play. This is way different and there is no way they'll remove that as a mechanic. Suggesting this is similar to suggesting they'd ban all Delve or Phyrexian mana cards instead of Dig/Cruise and Probe/Misstep. It won't happen.

They also won't errata how companions work. This is also something they haven't done in a long time and would open a lot of phylosophical questions about the game. You wouldn't even want that because that would mean they're willing to errata cards for power level reasons instead of banning them, an approach only online-centered card games take (nerfing), which would be terrible for Magic.

I also don't see any problem whatsoever with banning the card. It has been discussed before (I clearly remember this being the case for Yawg Will circa 2006, with Menendian advocating for it constantly) and this would be clearly an exception to the rule since a restriction wouldn't solve the problem. It's bad, I agree, but it's the only solution possible. They'll probably wait a while before doing this, to see if the meta adapts. I'm just sad that there's a high chance Narset got restricted for no reason. 😛

last edited by fsecco

@fsecco Except the entire reason we're discussing the rule change to make companion not a tourney viable mechanic is because some want to take banning off the table completely. If banning were an option, sure, ban Lurrus!, Zirda?, and Gyuru? (not that I think any need to be banned or handled in any way - for the umpteenth time). But some on here were saying that vintage is where you can play ALL cards and the only acceptable bannings are kitchen table cards (Arenas, Vanguards, Commanders, etc.), ante cards, time-restrictive cards (Sharazad), or manual dexterity cards (chaos orb, falling star). Some don't even want THOSE banned.
So if banning is off the table, we're left with A) find an elegant fix that doesn't require power-level errata, or B) let the game devolve into Lurrus.format. I doubt it'll come to option B, but this was the thought experiment if B is inevitable. If B will happen, then what do we do with option A if power-level errata and bannings are not allowed?

I think the most elegant solution I've heard of to the Lurrus issue is to ban it as a companion, but not as a card in your deck. It keeps the supposed spirit of the format alive (a place where you can play "any" card), while solving the issue of Lurrus being the companion for literally every deck.

last edited by revengeanceful

@fsecco They have done this before less than two years ago by removing the Partner functionality from Online 1v1 Commander:

The following changes take effect on Magic Online on July 25:

Rules change: You may only have one commander. Creatures with a partner ability function as if they did not have that ability.

This was a banned list that Wizards themselves maintained. Paper 1v1 Commander addressed the problem of Partners and Commanders through a different mechanism, which is also practical and hasn't negatively effected those communities. I'm sure people are happier being able to play their Barals in some fashion even though they can't play them as a Commander. (And naturally, kitchen table and player-run events can adopt whatever rules sets they want).

Arguing that Wizards needs to abide by some set principle seems detrimental to the growth of the game. If Wizards is going to be innovative with these types of effects, tournament rules (i.e. banned/restricted lists) should be adaptable as well.

Counter arguments that one instance of "power-level" errata will lead to a never-ending sequence power-level errata is close to a slippery slope fallacy. For one, the inability to deal with a card by power-level banning is unique to Vintage (obviously, cards are supposed to be restricted for power-level reasons which is impractical in this case). Every other format has that ability. Two, even Lurrus isn't dominant in every format. Standard is, I believe, dominated by Yorion decks, which generate obscene value in Fires control shells, blinking Teferi, Narset, and all the absurd planeswalkers, not to mention Fires of Invention, which unlocks your mana and lets you cast more than two spells in a turn. Lurrus is still very good, but not as dominant as it is in Vintage, Legacy, and possibly Modern. Pure power-errata as a response to one or several formats can have unintended consequences in other formats and doesn't work as well in a complex game such as Magic. Online games are simpler. I imagine Wizards would be quite hesitant to implement power-errata as most people envision it, again. The game has simply grown too much.

  • 107
    Posts
  • 7913
    Views