Why innovate when you can restrict whole pillars out of existence? Then we can just enjoy a blue circle jerk until the end of time.
What a joke this is.
I already got Andy's opinion on Dark Confidant, but I am appalled by the lack of Bob in this thread. I've played many games with it in a similar deck, and I would not even think about playing Painful Truths especially in this format where no one plays removal (no, 4 Swords is not "removal").
This feels true to me. That said, MTG Goldfish does have Shops at 20%+ and Mentor at 11%+ of the metagame.
This is kind of off topic and I'm not trying to be a jerk (for once). I'd just like to point out that using MTGoldfish for anything other than just carousing lists is like getting your election news from The Daily Mail.
My single issue with this community is the notion that Joe Schmoe is somehow more fit to dictate what is healthy and unhealthy than top competitors spanning multiple generations.
Say what you will about Randy but I'll take his absurdity over 99% of the garbage written here.
The notion that WotC even listens to dialog when forming decisions speaks a lot to our own entitlement and sense of self importance.
I like when people evaluate cards on the B&R in a vacuum but adamantly argue against said methodology when considering meta viablity. Makes about as much sense as Mishra's Workshop being unrestricted in this format.
Pikula nailed it last night, hands down.
Ban the Survival not the Vengevines.
Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.