Topic: New vs old mtg

I am finding that the new cars are extremely overpowered. Also, the newer modern, / standard decks utilize multiples of the same few cards. This is unfortunate, because there is an apparent lack of any other strategy than simply playing fast to win. sad
After 1997 the forma changed were are maanyy less drawbacks that would normally force one to think more
Intiutivley. For example, niv mizzets effect is I deals damage every time it's controller draws... But that's a free ability and is garrenteed every turn. .... Ugggghhhhh soo cheap tongue
Lol, Idk what do u think??

Re: New vs old mtg

I used to play pre-Tempest and remember when getting a 4/4 on the battlefield was a big deal and putting an Unholy Strength on an Erg Raiders was a nasty combo.  The amount of +1/+1 effects that are around these days are CRAZY.

Nevermind the number of infinite combos that are around now.  I still remember when the first infinite mana loop with Enduring Renewal, zero cost creatures (typically Kobolds or Ornithopters) and Ashnod's Altar came together, so to see someone pull one off with only two cards now, c'mon.

BUT, I have to commend Wizards for coming up with the different formats to prevent you from having to run into this sort of problem that often.  Quality competitive standard decks will likely kill your completely casual vintage/legacy decks, but if you put even a little bit of money into the older decks, you will walk all over the standard one all day, every day.

Re: New vs old mtg

I've read a couple articles written by people from Wizards and the same theme seems to come up, at the beginning of magic creatures were overestimated and non creature spells were underestimated. The idea was you need to win through damage and creatures achieve damage so they're the best and spells that make you lose life can have really powerful abilities since the drawback is so huge, however this isn't the case.

Another factor is that creatures are pretty simple so new players will want to build creature heavy decks so they want to make amazing creatures that are extremely powerful so new players will strive to get them.

In summation, creatures IMO are getting too powerful, they're not to that point yet but they could get there, the idea of "Mythic Rare" I think is a terrible idea, it makes things too good for the cost. But all of the most powerful cards are from early sets, Black Lotus, the (original) Moxen, Time Walk, Time Vault, all of the insane cards, they're all from older sets, but most of the other cards in those sets are garbage compared to what we have today.

http://deckbox.org/users/imsully2

Re: New vs old mtg

"Mythic Rares" would be much better if there were only like 10,000 of them printed or something, because the so-called "Mythics" come at a rate of at least 1-2, and in some cases more like 4-6, per box.

I'm also down on creatures getting so big... it was such a big deal when Ice Kraken was an 11/11, now, look at how easy it is to drop Primordial Hydra, wait two turns, and he's bigger than 20/20.  Where's the drawback?  Leviathan needed you to sack islands just to untap the thing... I mean c'mon.

I'll agree that the power-nine are all older cards and that the first disgusting combo was Black Lotus + Channel + Fireball.  But outside of that, I don't remember hearing about as many turn three or four kills in the olden days as you do now.

Re: New vs old mtg

You're very right about that, there used to be less ways to win very quickly but how recently has there been a T1 win combo not using any power 9 cards? I think that the overall power of cards is increasing, leading to shorter and less fun games, which is why I like Casual EDH, it's a slower format where you're just having fun without needing to win t3

http://deckbox.org/users/imsully2

Re: New vs old mtg

Yyaay!! Thnks for backing me up on that. Lol cus all my friends who currently play use all the new stuff to play really fast, and win games in like  less than 10 mins. yikes playing slower with no repeated cards is more fun in my opinion, it allows for the complex buildup of the board smile

Re: New vs old mtg

If you're looking for slower, with fewer repeated cards, definitely go EDH.  I have several friends who will only play that format.

Re: New vs old mtg

imsully2 wrote:

You're very right about that, there used to be less ways to win very quickly but how recently has there been a T1 win combo not using any power 9 cards? I think that the overall power of cards is increasing, leading to shorter and less fun games, which is why I like Casual EDH, it's a slower format where you're just having fun without needing to win t3

I think the really short games are a result of pairings at FNM and similar events where you have really experienced deck builders and players up against newer/less experienced deck builders and players.  At least locally, I see that all the time, but see pairings between some of the best players in the house and the games fill the allotted time and sometimes go over.  The same is true when the less experienced players match up.  While things may be stacked to allow for some of those crazy, quick wins, I think the developers have also done a great job of working to balance some of those mechanics (e.g., Cavern of Souls as an answer to Snapcaster Mage and various counterspells, high damage spells in response to high power/toughness creatures).

In some ways, it's like price inflation.  Everyone remembers what gas cost when they were young (or fruit, or ground beef, or whatever), and they always end up comparing current prices with what first imprinted on their memories.  Prices go up.  The power of cards goes up.  As long as the price and power increases in line with everything else, things remain balanced, even if we remember what it was like "in the good old days".

Profile - Wishlist - Tradelist

Black and Blue--not just for bruises anymore.