@chubbyrain1 cool, good responses. Yeah, I got that, but also similar to Vault decks you aren't totally reliant on Uro+Gush, which is good, and also why I would consider Uro #3 a threat not a combo piece. Sometimes he will just take over. I suppose you have more hard mana than most that casting 4-5 mana forces is actually rather easy as well, and I wasn't considering the hard cast even if you cant find a 2nd green card.
@protoaddict true-name seems really, really bad for this deck. It isn't really interested in life totals, and sounds like it has all day to kill when it is working, which allows you time to set up the appropriate circumstances to avoid removal. I imagine a 3rd Uro or Brazen Borrower would be among the best options for an extra threat, or a Snapcaster (though it doesn't seem like he feels there is a need anyway).
@chubbyrain1 Loving the Misdirection, do you ever feel you want a 2nd? Is 12 green-count postboard enough for 3 Force of Vigor? And if not would the 3rd Nature's Claim be better/more reliable than the 3rd Force?
@protoaddict said in [B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020]
What is the draw to the format if not for the restricted cards and the small subset that are not restricted here but banned in legacy? Remove those from the equation and the format is very close to just being legacy. You can't not have a restricted list and still have lotus, moxen, ancestral, etc not be banned, and if you ban them here they are officially unplayable everywhere. The whole point of the format is to be able to play cards you cannot play elsewhere.
You would still be able to play your power if they change the rules. If you are playing in paper, Vintage is about as sanctioned as Old School. Just do what you want, woo!
I feel like the best draw to a format would be a fun format, dunno how best to accomplish that, but I'm also not gonna expect Wizards to put a lot of effort into fixing a format they don't really think about. To say the rules can never change is very constraining to our common goal in having fun playing Magic, and it kinda surprises me that the Vintage B&R isn't community driven already. I feel like Wizards might embrace that change, they at least wouldn't have to hear us complain all day, and Vintage is moving further and further from their ability to contain without a mindful eye.
By the way, I'm not advocating to ban any cards, just suggesting to ban the companion mechanic. I almost love the design, and think they should try again with something similar but -1 card.
The format NEEDS a restricted list and NEEDS to not have power level bans, because it is bluntly critical to the nature of the format, it just needs a better method and no matter what it's going to create a shake up to the format as we know it.
Is there a reason that you are so adamant about this?
I find that precedent is an odd form of measurement, and in all metrics. The way that you feel today is not how you will feel tomorrow. If that is the case, I would challenge to you (in a non-threatening way) that if you feel the same tomorrow it is likely that you haven't learned enough today.
I'm just saying if you +1 starting hand size to half the decks in the format that the other half start looking like poor options to play. Yes, obviously the +1 card can't be trash (people playing 3/2 vigilance dude in a 0 creature deck), but if it's playable the advantage is huge and huge consistently.
Not totally vintage relevant, but it also really bothers me that Gyruda is one of like 3 cards that works through Leyline of the Void for no apparent reason.
I think this printing will further magnify the schism between MTGO and paper and elite players and casual.
Lurrus games can be very deep and nuanced and engaging battles of attrition for elite players. They can also be mind-numbingly repetitive for casuals.
We're right back in the same conundrum that Mentor caused. Each individual game can be deep and awesome, but from an aerial view the format looks horrible. People quit then. They didn't come back. I know that's not a good reason to make decisions from, but it's definitely relevant.
This is a good point. I imagine Lurrus vs. Lurrus to be a really cool matchup and incredibly skill intensive, maybe some of the best Magic you could ever possibly play, but sooo damn polarizing that I'm forced to say "fuck that". I'd like to hurl the companion mechanic in a sack, and hurl that sack in a river, and hurl that river into space.
I fail to see how this is true. All the cards in your deck are arguably there for synergistic reasons, companions are no different. To say that a companion stifles you because it places restrictions on you is completely contrary to all the magic design principals that Maro has constantly talked about, where restrictions and limitations breed creativity.
Saying the companions stifle creativity is like saying Lord of Atlantis stifles creativity because he is only used in a prescribed list and is totally linear.
I say this because companions and their +1 to starting hand size essentially invalidate any non-companion strategy. Card advantage is the name of the game and always has been. If they had to shuffle a card back to insert the companion into their hand I wouldn't care at all, and would then be excited for such design space.
I think the main issue is that this dude might as well cost 10 to cast within the context of your shops deck, and to use a spot in the 75 on it is probably irresponsible. If it had a tax effect instead of a reducing effect I would be more inclined to give it a chance.
It's worth noting that you probably still want 0 cards in your library when you cast Thassa's Oracle, as they can still cast whatever random removal spell they have to kill the Oracle in response to the trigger, which will most likely make your devotion to blue 0.
It isn't so difficult to cast this normally for 6 and have it resolve into your graveyard, at which point the potential card advantage becomes extreme. It is incredibly unique in that aspect, as most other draw 7's need help/luck to chain, this only needs mana.