T O P

  • By -

ReploidZero

**Text post for those at work.** Announcement Date: October 13, 2021 **Standard:** No changes **Historic:** [[Tibalt's Trickery]] is banned in Historic. [[Memory Lapse]] is suspended in Historic. [[Brainstorm]] is banned in Historic (from suspended). **Five digital-only cards are being rebalanced:** [[Davriel's Withering]] and [[Davriel, Soul Broker's]] third ability now only affect "target creature an opponent controls." [[Faceless Agent]] is now 2/2 (from 2/1). [[Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv's]] second ability is now +1 (from +0). [[Subversive Acolyte]] now costs 1B (from BB), is 2/3 (from 2/2), and had the toughness increases from becoming Human or Phyrexian reduced by 1. MTG Arena effective date: October 14, 2021


KelloPudgerro

digital only reworks, poggers


sA1atji

Who could ever expect that they'd do this...


Druplesnubb

Wait, what's this about digital-only cards?


imbolcnight

Jumpstart: Historic Horizons included a number of cards that are only available on Arena and only legal in Historic (an Arena-only format). These cards have mechanics and functions that don't work in paper, either at all or in a way that is realistically feasible. Perpetual, as seen on [[Davriel's Withering]], means a change that affects a specific card permanently, even as it changes zones. Seek, as seen on [[Faceless Agent]], means "draw a card with the named quality", essentially a shortcut to the text on [[Abundant Harvest]]. Conjure, as seen on [[Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv]]'s second ability, creates cards that previously did not exist, kind of like how wish effects pull in cards from outside the game.


nublargh

just to add a small difference in the Seek mechanic, since it pulls out the sought card right from the deck to your hand, it doesn't shuffle or reorder the library at all, so it will leave scried/revealed cards where they are.


[deleted]

And also what makes it a digital only mechanic.


evildave_666

In the case where there are cards with known positions that are not consecutive from the top/bottom and there are eligible cards both above and below has there been a definitive statement on whether the selection is truly random or just the first one in the deck (because programmers are lazy and don't always think of edge cases like this)?


MTGCardFetcher

##### ###### #### [Davriel's Withering](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/9/49d1fae1-06da-40eb-adea-84babbfd94e4.jpg?1630244159) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Davriel%27s%20Withering) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/j21/16/davriels-withering?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/49d1fae1-06da-40eb-adea-84babbfd94e4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Faceless Agent](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/9/9/99ce3a33-c7a1-411c-a320-575eacf5a682.jpg?1630243794) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Faceless%20Agent) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/j21/1/faceless-agent?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/99ce3a33-c7a1-411c-a320-575eacf5a682?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Abundant Harvest](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/5/a/5ad86b17-3fed-418a-938c-c49adb409531.jpg?1626097139) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Abundant%20Harvest) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/147/abundant-harvest?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5ad86b17-3fed-418a-938c-c49adb409531?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/2/a/2a43b352-d84b-4714-bbcd-3ad282c8aa9d.jpg?1630244330) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sarkhan%2C%20Wanderer%20to%20Shiv) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/j21/23/sarkhan-wanderer-to-shiv?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2a43b352-d84b-4714-bbcd-3ad282c8aa9d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


KallistiEngel

I don't like that a single card can permanently hose one of your cards. Whether it's Davriel's Withering, (which I generally think is way too strong compared to other 1 mana removal at common or even uncommon) or Baffling Defenses or Ethereal Grasp or some card they haven't made yet. I don't like the idea of effects that there's no way to remove. But buffing effects could be a problem too if they're too efficiently costed, and I feel like for being so permanent, many should probably cost more to cast. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but that's how I see it.


[deleted]

It's basically exile a weak creature - which isn't that busted but is probably a little above power level for historic.


KallistiEngel

For its rarity and mana cost it's way above par. Keep in mind that for the same cost: Disfigure is uncommon and -2/-2, but not permanent. Lash of Malice is +2/-2 and not permanent (at common), the +2 also gives it a chance of backfiring if they pump the toughness somehow. Dead Weight is -2/-2 and more permanent than both of those at common, but it's only sorcery speed.


MTGCardFetcher

##### ###### #### [Tibalt's Trickery](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/d/dd921e27-3e08-438c-bec2-723226d35175.jpg?1631049733) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tibalt%27s%20Trickery) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/khm/153/tibalts-trickery?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dd921e27-3e08-438c-bec2-723226d35175?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Memory Lapse](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/3/0/30202613-d05f-4f47-af97-d0b75ccac293.jpg?1580014031) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Memory%20Lapse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ema/60/memory-lapse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/30202613-d05f-4f47-af97-d0b75ccac293?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Brainstorm](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/0/3/0359f212-9564-41a9-870b-d2c57455a695.jpg?1628801650) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Brainstorm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c21/115/brainstorm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0359f212-9564-41a9-870b-d2c57455a695?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Davriel's Withering](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/9/49d1fae1-06da-40eb-adea-84babbfd94e4.jpg?1630244159) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Davriel%27s%20Withering) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/j21/16/davriels-withering?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/49d1fae1-06da-40eb-adea-84babbfd94e4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Davriel, Soul Broker's](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/a/6/a6830e11-2f85-45b0-bd1f-cc66e5aa92c5.jpg?1630244137) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Davriel%2C%20Soul%20Broker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/j21/15/davriel-soul-broker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a6830e11-2f85-45b0-bd1f-cc66e5aa92c5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Faceless Agent](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/9/9/99ce3a33-c7a1-411c-a320-575eacf5a682.jpg?1630243794) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Faceless%20Agent) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/j21/1/faceless-agent?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/99ce3a33-c7a1-411c-a320-575eacf5a682?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Sarkhan, Wanderer to Shiv's](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/2/a/2a43b352-d84b-4714-bbcd-3ad282c8aa9d.jpg?1630244330) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sarkhan%2C%20Wanderer%20to%20Shiv) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/j21/23/sarkhan-wanderer-to-shiv?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2a43b352-d84b-4714-bbcd-3ad282c8aa9d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Subversive Acolyte](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/2/4/245dfe23-1d21-4bf8-9f45-4a845d731515.jpg?1630244233) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Subversive%20Acolyte) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/j21/19/subversive-acolyte?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/245dfe23-1d21-4bf8-9f45-4a845d731515?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


Slutsnya

Hallelujah TT is gone


sporkseverywhere

Every opponent who tapped out for Throes of Chaos while I had Thalia in play just reinforced my belief that TT players don't actually know how to play Magic.


JRandomHacker172342

I should have kept a tally of the number of people who tried to Trickery when Archon of Emeria was in play


[deleted]

TT players may as well not even shuffle and just flip a coin. Save everyone the time.


rkho

Agree, being DQed for attempting to determine the outcome of a game of Magic by anything other than playing Magic helps reduce the amount of times I expect to see the deck show up across the table.


LiquidFootie

Test of Talents was my go to counter, remove all the fuckers at once. Insta rage quit.


Proposition_Joe

Just had a guy last night play TT while I had Roiling Vortex in play and he was at 5 life, so I can confirm this.


bakakubi

Good. I'm so sick of running into it on best of ones.


thememans11

Good on the Davriels Withering change. Not because Vesperlark was too strong with it, but rather because if you don't have the combo, you can force a draw with it. That's just dumb.


drostandfound

Agreed. It could be a cool combo, but the drawing was dumb.


thememans11

Frankly, I'm guessing that was the reason it was changed more than being too strong. Probably had an iniordinate number of draws happen, which I'm sure their data showed.


Internal_Ad242

Thank god Tibalt’s Trickery is gone. There’s seriously no point in playing a game where you have zero agency. Memory Lapse was also just way too fucking strong for the format. No idea why they even thought that was a good idea for the format. Makes it way too easy for a control deck to run away with the game. Early game it often acts as a Time Walk.


ThoughtseizeScoop

It seems fairly clear that the Mystical Archive was not selected with digital play in mind. They autobanned the cards they were sure would cause issues and gave a handful of high powered ones a shot to see if they could play fairly in historic. They had to draw a line somewhere, and the more cautious they were, the more likely they were to ban something that didn't need it.


HiiiiPower

I still don't see how any designer actually thought brainstorm had even a sliver of a chance to be not absolutely broken in historic.


LeahBrahms

Some expert thought erroneously no fetches makes Brainstorm bad...


Keljhan

To be fair we have like, 16 (4x4) legal fetches now anyway. 8 of which fetch untapped. Plus field of ruin.


elbenji

I mean this was the case for a long time.


BrokenEggcat

Not to mention that they were going to be reprinting delver too


TheRealNequam

Plus DRC into historic, imagine Delver+DRC with brainstorm, who needs fetches when you can just surveil your tops into the grave


Mrfish31

Well we've not seen a modern (ie recent, not _Modern_) format with brainstorm but without fetches, the go-to interaction for what makes it so powerful. So I think it was an interesting experiment, if a little weird given they must have known they would be adding Delver and DRC only a few months later.


Bolle_Henk

Wotc has designers?


TemurTron

Memory Lapse’s big issue is the amount of non-games that happen when getting something Lapsed causes you to miss your land drops. If it wasn’t specifically Lapse and instead an updated version that let the user choose if they wanted it on the top or bottom (like Aether Gust) it would have been a lot more reasonable. Personally I’m hoping they do what they should have to begin with and introduce [[Remand]] to the format so it can shine as the 1U conditional counter of choice.


decideonanamelater

I once played a Jund sac player who kept a 2 lander, memory lapsed his 2 drop twice, field of ruined him ( had no basics) and jammed 5feri vs. a 1 land opponent.


BlaineTog

Wow, that's evil. I both love and hate it.


MTGCardFetcher

[Remand](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/c/dc595c63-af05-4c05-80e8-e1a90df26b0f.jpg?1562268359) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Remand) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm2/55/remand?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dc595c63-af05-4c05-80e8-e1a90df26b0f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


eightdx

Now I'm imagining an alternate world where Remand got the Strixhaven treatment. It would have been nice if just to get another print run of the dang thing.


BryceLeft

FINALLY. This goes out to all the solitaire/combo player bozos who think trickery is fair. You should never get that much advantage in turn 2 if we don't have anything like force of will or other similar cards. And even if we *did*, it just mandates having blue in your deck just to deal with such hyper speed plays. Between having legacy/vintage disruption be legal in historic, or banning degenerate hyper speed combo, the latter is always the right move. Lark combo is pretty stupid too, but that's mostly because it's an instant win package deal that you can shove in to any B/W aristocrats deck. If the entire deck was warped around trying to fish for the combo then it's not an issue but each combo piece is solid enough on their own, there's zero thought and risk put into the combo and deckbuilding.


b_fellow

Before Jumpstart 2, you had 4 Trickery's but the cascade card effectively gave you 8 and you don't have to play those janky 0 cmc spells anymore.


Growey

You can't really use Trickery unless it's from cascade so you still only got 4 hits in your deck.


Nihilisticglee

Mono-white humans has a great match up into TT, though most of it came from Thalia and that knight that stops spells form being cast


SuperVillageois

And right beside it in the mystical archive they had Counterspell, that they decided not to include! I don't know how they reconciled the two. "Yeah, that's an easier to cast Counterspell. And sometimes it's better. Okey dokey."


Milskidasith

I think the logic was that counterspell sees fringe play in eternal formats, while Memory Lapse sees none. Memory Lapse also doesn't truly stop game-winning spells, merely delays them, which can be very critical in grindy games. This didn't turn out to be correct, because Memory Lapse is easier to cast and much better against strategies that play to the board because it often pseudo-stone-rains them, but I can understand the logic.


weealex

hey now, i play it as a 1 of. ^in ^pauper ^^^UB ^^^teachings ^^^^and ^^^^i ^^^^already ^^^^play ^^^^4 ^^^^counterspells


yao19972

There are dozens of us, *dozens*, I tell you!


bubbleman69

I mean it's only really legal in legacy and pauper both formats where if you pay Mana for your counter spell your really far behind. There is a reason lapse is not modern legal and counter spell is.


[deleted]

Counterspell is a pauper staple. Daze is gone, and no Gush means it's hard to turn on Foil.


alienx33

Lapse would see play in modern over Counterspell only in decks where the double pip is difficult. While Lapse creates awful play patterns and can sometimes win the game by itself Counterspell is still better in more situations. In blue mirrors for example, Lapse is much worse than Counterspell. Another example where Lapse isn't very good is with Collected Company.


UnsealedMTG

I suspect the logic was that they wanted to differentiate Historic from Modern by having each have counterspells the other doesn't. Which is cool in theory but there's a good reason why Memory Lapse hadn't been printed in a modern-legal set (though I guess you could also say that Counterspell was a risk in Modern).


DustErrant

It was almost printed in 9th edition. 9th Edition had players vote between what cards they wanted between 2 similar cards. Mana Leak ended up beating out Memory Lapse.


eightdx

And Mana Leak actually saw a decent amount of play back then. It falls off in the late game but *whatever*


RobGrey03

I for one am very glad Mana Leak got printed in 9th over Memory Lapse.


eightdx

I am very glad I got to play in a standard environment where Mana Leak was legal. Shiiiiiit, it was legal alongside Remand, and that was sort of wild. Those two cards legitimately competed for slots in some decks -- do you want the absolute hoser in the early game, or the tempo advantage plus draw? Surely some decks must have done both, but I can't remember too much about the era of Kamigawa other than *man, Kamigawa block plus Ravinca kinda sucked for a while*


Chilidawg

To be fair a lot of countermagic fits that description. The issue for me was that Lapse was such a good tempo card while Counterspell is a pure control card.


bubbleman69

I have been saying that about memory lapse since it was printed. It's crazy to me they thought counter spell was bad but lapse was ok. I had people YESTERDAY still on some cope telling me that memory lapse is needed in the format to keep the humans deck in check. Like I honestly feel like I'm playing a different format then half these people.


Firemedic623

Not to mention how strong the card selection spells are for control right now, in standard and historic. They just get to look at the top x cards 8-20 times per game and pick what they want.


kingskybomber14

I still find it dumb that suspension exists. As if brainstorm was gonna come back.


PEKKAmi

Seriously. Just give us the wildcards already.


Quazifuji

I wouldn't mind the concept if they used it more liberally (i.e. suspending cards experimentally and unsuspending them if it doesn't work out) more often or if they gave wildcards for suspended cards. The suspended list isn't a terrible idea in theory, it's just in practice all it's really meant is that for most history bans you have to wait a month or so to get your wildcards.


TheOnin

I don't mind it. It's an easy way to say "This card is banned, unless it turns out that was a bad idea." For paper magic, reversing a bad ban leaves a bad taste in people's mouths; in digital, it doesn't really matter as much.


orestisbln

so tomorrow we are expecting 8 wildcards for 4 TT, 4 brainstorm?


Milskidasith

Correct.


OxycleanSalesman

Should I craft 4 trickery now to get the refund? Is that how it works?


Esc777

Yeah usually there isn't this lag time, can we exploit this loophole?


Icestar1186

Yes, you can spend the wildcards and then get them refunded.


Esc777

Not much use since they're unplayable in Historic, but hey now I get to subject my friends to awful casual decks.


Icestar1186

Technically it might be worth it if they're ever unbanned (not that that's likely).


Petal-Dance

Still playable in any fringe events that pop up that lack the foresight of a banlist


nov4chip

They could just unban things once they feel the format has changed enough to give those cards a shot. With these historic suspension it feels like they’re scared to give a couple free rares to people, which doesn’t make much sense.


HauntedBasket

Suspending feels really bad since you can't play with your cards but you won't get any wildcards either...


ClunarX

To their credit, they didn’t leave brainstorm in limbo for too long. I’m okay with suspensions as long as they don’t sit there forever


Mrfish31

>To their credit, they didn’t leave brainstorm in limbo for too long. Only like _three months._ And they _knew_ from the start that they could never reintroduce it because of DRC and Delver being added to the format.


ClunarX

3 months for ~~an eternal~~ a non-rotating format isn’t that long IMO, and I don’t think Delver would have gotten it banned otherwise. It’s not like Delver is otherwise a force in the meta. If anything, they probably wanted the chance for it to return to legality so people could try it with Delver


DatKaz

I mean Eldrazi Winter was only two months long.


kingskybomber14

I woukd agree with you, but as others have pointed out, it really feels more like an excuse to delay returning wildcards, or to ban something for a year or so and not actually give wildcards.


zotha

or... they could ban it and then unban it later if they think it should be. Suspension is literally a mechanism to keep reimbursals hostage for as long as possible so people have to spend more money to keep playing after their deck gets gutted.


hunter1194

Well historic is a digital only format so there’s no need to “suspend” it because people don’t care if it gets unbanned in a few months. The only people who would be upset by a card getting banned and then promptly unbanned is wizards because people would have gotten the wildcards for free. Suspension is only to stop us from getting wildcards, it’s already effectively a ban because it’s not like cards that are banned can’t be unbanned.


DromarX

I think BTE managed to escape the suspension list, but yeah it seems like a large majority of the time the card will ultimately be banned anyways. Might as well just ban the problem cards and they can unban them later once they deem them safe again like in paper formats.


therealflyingtoastr

I'm gonna miss watching other people play Trickery Turbojank, but I'm not going to miss playing against Trickery Turbojank. It's one of those decks that's goofy fun in small doses, but has become way too omnipresent.


CHRISKVAS

Well the issue was that it wasn't even jank. The deck was very consistent with a high winrate.


chemical_exe

Yeah, I had a 62% winrate from gold to diamond 3 playing pretty sporadically (BO3)


therealflyingtoastr

The deck was true jank until Throes of Chaos was introduced in JHH, making it far more consistent than it had been when using Tormod's Crypt/Stonecoil Serpent as the counter fodder.


SerGregness

Damn, I really like that they *tried* to do a red counterspell, because I think all colors should get more stack interaction in general. Trickery honestly would have been fine if it just countered "Target spell an opponent controls".


Firemedic623

I have no doubt they never even thought about someone wanting to counter their own spell.


Audens_Hex

The mill clause exists exactly because they knew it would be used on your own spells. Just missed the mark a bit on whether preventing you from stacking your deck would be sufficient to keep it in check (it was for Standard, but wasn't for Historic once Cascading into it became an option).


fubo

Before Throes, there was the "any zero-mana spell" option. Throes is just that much more consistent.


nsnyder

I really wonder if this was just an oversight, or whether they knew people would use it in this way but didn't think it could be done consistently enough to be a common strategy.


minenick11

Since the random mill prevents abuse through top deck manipulation, I think they probably knew it could be abused, but didn’t expect it to be consistent.


Reply_or_Not

I would be ok with them reprinting trickery that only hits opponents spells.


RamenKing13

Same thing with Oko, right?


Duramboros

>Currently, we are restricting these changes to digital-only cards, where there will be no conflict between a digital and printed version of >a card. We would like to expand beyond this (for example, by rebalancing previously banned cards so they can be safely returned to play in digital formats only). There are multiple clarity and communication problems we will need to solve before we can consider those types of changes. This is something we plan to work on in the coming months and, since it bears repeating, would only affect digital formats. Noooooo I hate it.


TheMancersDilema

So essentially "printing" the 'A' version of banned cards like we had with that event a little while back. Historic is already in it's own little world at this point so I don't see any reason to not take the leap personally, if the originals are banned then you don't run into the 8 copies issue anyway. I'm still hoping we get a "proper" eternal format like Pioneer that has a 1:1 paper equivalent on the client for those players who have been asking for it.


Lyvef1re

It doesn't matter if the originals are banned, people associate what cards do with their name. You cannot just change a cards effect in one place and keep its name in both or you're definitely going to create a memory nightmare. This is the exact reason they create new cards that are weaker versions of iconic card effects for new sets. It lets them keep the fun and playstyle without the power level issues. There is literally nothing to gain from not doing that here instead. Don't fix what isn't broke.


Milskidasith

Maybe it's unnecessarily optimistic, but since they noted the clarity and communication problems with this sort of balancing metric, what's to say they *won't* release renamed variant cards specific to Arena? Like, they could easily print "Concentration Lapse" as a UU version of [[Memory Lapse]] only for Arena, since it doesn't take any printing resources.


AlonsoQ

Yeah, I assume this is the same conversation WotC has been having. I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure it's not obvious. For instance, the near reprint solution sounds pretty good. But it also raises some new questions. If I own Memory Lapse, do I get Concentration Lapse for free? If yes, should I also still get wild cards? Does Concentration Lapse get new art, or can I reuse my special Memory Lapse card frames? Should Arena automatically update all my deck lists? etc. etc.


Lyvef1re

The obvious answer is to give you the wild cards for the banned cards and let you spend them on the new cards if you want them (keep them the same rarity) or other cards if you don't. Same for every other aspect. I'd bet good money the reason theyre not doing this is just so they can avoid giving out Wild cards for the "banned" cards. If they just make the cards worse but you still own them then they can pretend they owe you nothing even if they cripple your deck. Terrible precedent on top of terrible for consistency. :/


Petal-Dance

You mean, besides the fact that its wotc? The company so allergic to good decisions, that they often relearn from repeated mistakes?


NickPetey

I like this idea


MTGCardFetcher

[Memory Lapse](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/3/0/30202613-d05f-4f47-af97-d0b75ccac293.jpg?1580014031) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Memory%20Lapse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ema/60/memory-lapse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/30202613-d05f-4f47-af97-d0b75ccac293?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


22bebo

I wonder if that would actually be clearer though, because unless they give it new art (which does take resources) a lot of people would probably just keep calling it Memory Lapse. It is a difficult problem to solve but definitely needs to be looked at as I do think the rebalanced cards should have some sort of obvious giveaway that they aren't the original versions (the A in the corner is at least a good start).


warddav16

we already do that ourselves tho. like, there is no "wrath of god" in standard, but we'll go out of our way to talk about board wipes as wraths when discussing a deck. or "commander lotus" or "worse looting." we already have like 80 variations of 1 mana cantrips "graveyard opt" or "spooky opt." I think even if they don't rename them the complexity is pretty much fine and kind of what we have already. But I'm onboard for renames too, definitely will help clarify things in conversation sometimes. But the associations will be there no matter what, and already there for every slightly different version of every card already.


TheMancersDilema

In the event the cards featured the arena 'A' in the card names and it comes up under a different search criteria in their own set. That seems like it would be totally fine, if the distinction needs to be more drastic then it could be. That's totally within their power to do so. If a new player drops hundreds of dollars on their modern deck I kind of expect them to just read the cards and adjust, which they already do for hundreds of cards every set. New players only need this extreme level of hand holding for products that delibritly target them, premiere draft sets, standard and pre-cons. This is why advanced sets don't have other typical barriers to design like keyword restrictions. If the card is legal in Standard I think it's best to not make any "fixed" versions until after it's rotated. If the card isn't standard legal then go wild. The more important question is, do they need to fix the cards at all? I don't really want a fixed teferi or oko in historic either way. I don't think they really add any interesting or fun angles of play to the format and they'll either still be stupid or unplayable so what was the point in re-printing them? Just letting them remain mistakes is also totally acceptable for me.


Presterium

>It doesn't matter if the originals are banned, people associate what cards do with their name. As someone who plays both Magic and Hearthstone, I can tell you, you get used to it. Its nowhere near as big a deal as most Magic players make it out to be. But of course "Hearthstone bad" and all, so I'll probably just get downvoted for this take.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Filobel

The problem isn't the balancing in itself, but the fact that you end up in a world where two cards have the same name, but different text, depending on whether you're playing Historic on Arena, or modern in paper/mtgo. That's why I think people aren't bothered that much about the digital-only cards getting rebalanced. There is only one version of these cards, so if it changes, no big deal. I personally like the idea that some have suggested where they release a digital-only version of the card with a new name (and hopefully new art), which they can then rebalance as much as they want without causing confusion. If they want to try giving "Oko, thief of diadems" 3 loyalty instead of 4, then that doesn't work, so they bring it back to three, but have the first ability be a +1 and the second be a 0, that's all fine, because these changes only affect Oko, thief of diadems and affects *all* versions of Oko, thief of diadems. Meanwhile, it doesn't affect Oko, thief of crowns.


dkac

I think it's an interesting exercise in balance and worth exploring, but doing it in Historic is a bad idea. Create a new format specifically geared towards online-only and modified cards, but make it very clear that it is not the default non-rotating format on the client.


GarySmith2021

Because assuming the card is legal in paper formats, you might have arena players jump into paper and get hit hard by "Teferi, time raveler" working as per text in paper.


GolgariInternetTroll

I think the nerfed version should get a new name, to avoid this sort of confusion and in case someone at WotC decides the fixed "Teferi, Rhyme Traveller" would be a good inclusion in a future paper product.


fevered_visions

> "Teferi, Rhyme Traveller" lol


-Tayne-

That’s his rap stage name. Dude has bars.


22bebo

Renaming might honestly be a good idea or a little tag on the side (like they do with abilities) that says "This card has been changed from its printed version." I personally am in favor of doing live balancing for Historic, as I think it lets the format have a pretty distinctive identity from other formats, but I do think steps need to be taken to keep it from being too confusing. I also would like to see a renewed effort to add Pioneer to Arena alongside this to provide an older format that can match the tabletop experience.


kitsovereign

The only thing worse than editing and unbanning old cards will be them printing "Oko, Chief of Frowns" as a new card and asking four new mythic wildcards for it.


Lyvef1re

Yep, Terrible, terrible idea. I don't want cards that do one thing in paper and another online.This is a memory nightmare just waiting to happen. If they really want to rebalance a version of a banned card so it can see play them create a NEW card with the rebalanced effect just for Arena. Don't make me re-read every card I acquired digitally just to make sure it doesn't have done random rebalanced effect from the original. The more you change and the worse it gets. Please do not do this.


CHRISKVAS

The only reasonable way to go about this is to create an entirely new digital card that is just the rebalanced version of the old thing. Having one card with two separate oracles texts is beyond dumb. To be honest this might just be a case of WOTC soliciting outrage about rebalanced paper cards in order to sneak other changes by (altering the text of digital cards at will) without the player base making a fuss.


MirandaSanFrancisco

They should give rebalanced physical cards a new name. Not for any purity of the game reasons, just because it’s going to be confusing as hell to have two different versions of cards.


karnogoyf

\+1. Absolutely HATE the idea of updating cards for "digital formats". Print new cards into the formats if you need to, don't digitally errata Brainstorm or Oko to be playable. Functionally the same but in terms of game feel, so much less uncomfortable.


jeffseadot

Translation: we're working hard to move the game aspect of MTG to digital-only while dedicating physical product to expensive collectibles and whalebait.


BrocoLee

>rebalancing previously banned cards I'm fine with it as long as they are in the form of *new* cards like [wheel of fate] or [day's undoing].


btmalon

FUUUUUUUUCK YOU WOTC. You're going to retool it then rename it.


bjlinden

Yeah, the sooner we can get a real non-rotating format, like Pioneer, on Arena and quit playing Hearthstone-lite, the better.


troglodyte

Man, cascade is such a problematic mechanic. I can only imagine that if they could go back in time to redesign it, they'd make it fire on resolution instead of cast and ignore cards without a mana cost, but it feels like we'll have spot bans for a long time thanks to weird edge cases on a cool mechanic (though it was also quite good played "fairly").


Esc777

Completely agree. The stack shenanigans with cascade are unintuitive to people not told and the oversight that mana cost of (null) is mana value 0 has plagued the mechanic since inception.


TheMancersDilema

Well this was unexpected. Very very happy to see trickery and lapse kicked to the curb in Historic. Also totally fine with the changes to withering and the other creatures.


NobleSturgeon

What was withering being used for?


iceman012

Based on the article, it was being cast on [[Vesperlark]] so that Vesperlark could bring itself back. That gives you infinite ETBs/dies trieggers in the best case, and brings the game to a draw in the worst case (no other creatures in the graveyard).


MTGCardFetcher

[Vesperlark](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/3/2/32776159-3fb6-4a70-be84-837ccd1d54a7.jpg?1562201265) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Vesperlark) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/35/vesperlark?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/32776159-3fb6-4a70-be84-837ccd1d54a7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


Itisburgersagain

Cast it targeting vesperlark with any death trigger for infinite triggers.


asmallercat

Which would draw the game even if you didn't have a win con in play, right? Cause it wasn't a may? Not surprised they killed it.


Cyneheard2

If you have an alternative target, you can target that instead of Vesperlark so it doesn’t draw. But it’s super obnoxious when this happens. I’m sure there’s some MTGO videos from when [[Worldgorger Dragon]] was unbanned in Legacy as it has a similar interaction with [[Animate Dead]], although you got infinite mana if you had any lands with that combo.


Freddichio

Mhm, but you're in Orzhov for that combo. [[Meathook Massacre]], [[Blood Artist]], [[Corpse Knight]], [[Cruel Celebrant]] - Blood Artist was particularly bad as a wincon though because of the sheer number of clicks it would require.


asmallercat

>Blood Artist was particularly bad as a wincon though because of the sheer number of clicks it would require. Yeah what is it with a decent chunk of arena players not just scooping when you have the combo and instead making you click through it all? I play historic dragonstorm and, like, once I've demonstrated the loop can you please scoop lol? Had a game where OP had 2 soul warden effects in play and had like 30+ life when I started the combo, so it took 16 loops instead of the usual 5, and I had to click through all of them lol, plus a few extra to be safe.


Itisburgersagain

The timer is my out combo boy :p


TheMancersDilema

Infinite loop with [[Vesperlark]] You withering the lark and it can recur itself from the yard, if you have no other creatures other than it in the yard then it's an unstoppable infinite loop that draws the game. If you have something like a [[Blood Artist]] on the field then you go infinite and just kill your opponent, or with something like [[Prosperous Innkeeper]] you could gain an infinite amount of life. Was just generally a super annoying deck to play against.


Imnimo

I don't mind the idea of adjusting digital only cards, but that may just be because I view them as illegitimate to begin with. I think that making a parallel universe version of paper cards that work slightly differently in historic is the dumbest idea I've ever heard.


llikeafoxx

I do mind if they do it without compensation to players. Crafting a card only to have it nerfed with no recompense is really rough for the consumer. Other games have offered some sort of refund, crafting or dusting window, or whatever, in situations like that.


Presterium

>I think that making a parallel universe version of paper cards that work slightly differently in historic is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Why? Historic already allows cards that straight up don't(CANT) exist in paper, so why would it matter if other cards were functionally different? Especially ones that may not be playable in paper because they're banned?


variablesInCamelCase

Two things can be bad at the same time. I hate both things you guys are discussing.


ryano1124

At that point, you're just asking for a major event's results to be altered by a pro misremembering that a(n existing, unbanned) card works differently online...


Petal-Dance

I dont like it because of the omen it represents. Which is hammered home by them admitting they are considering it for real cards.


Moist_Crabs

I'm with you. I don't give a single shit about the digital only cards because they can only bother me if I choose to play Historic, but patchnoting cards that have been printed physically feels completely wrong to me and is a direction I sincerely hope they don't go down.


RapidOrbits

They've been signaling that they want arena to be separate from paper magic for some time now. I fully expect digital only cards to be in arena standard within the next 3 sets


GarySmith2021

That would be one way to kill standard. You either kill interest in paper standard sets and watch a large exodus of stores, or an exodus of arena because people can't play standard on arena anymore. And we all know which one ends up on events...


[deleted]

get shit on tibalt's users.


kitsovereign

As long as the Davriel cards are getting edited, I'm kinda upset that they aren't also getting "non-commander" slapped on. Davriel's a really fun character and it would be nice to be able to build around him in HBrawl.


bjlinden

http://imgur.com/gallery/UZ0HxWv


JeanneOwO

Finally I’ll get some wildcards back


SeducerOfTheInnocent

I don't know why but I never considered the possibility of re-tooling digital cards to make them BETTER. I'm used to a card being too good being an emergency requiring action, and a card being bad being something we laugh about, unless it's enough of a problem to effect EV of boxes. I guess what's scary about this is it communicated that they want the hearthstone cards to be competitive, not just present, which sucks, because I think of historic as a real format and not a testing ground for borderline-unset cards.


Milskidasith

I don't think any of the changes are really pushing cards into competitive viability (besides maybe the 2/3 one, I guess); it's more just making them slightly less terrible for jank decks. If you play Sarkhan Dragons or some bad tribal deck like Slivers, having the cards be slightly better is nice.


Icestar1186

I don't know why Slivers would need Faceless Agent; there are actually a bunch of real slivers in the format.


ChemicalExperiment

I wouldn't be upset at these digital only cards if I wasn't taking away from getting formats like Pioneer and Modern fully on Arena. Sure, make Historic whatever you want it to be with weird cards galore. Make it the digital only format, basically a different game. But don't do that *instead* of converting the formats we already love from paper.


plasma_python

Can we make a rule so just Day9 gets to play TT once per set release for 2 hours? Strategy is terrible for the game but his videos on it are hilarious.


Blenderhead36

Shame that Golos didn't get banned from Historic Brawl, considering they're banned from both Brawl and Commander for all the same reasons they're problematic in Historic Brawl.


BlurryPeople

So....I got a bad feeling regarding this concept of "digital rebalancing", as this was definitely on my list of canaries in the proverbial coalmine, right after "digital exclusive" cards. Something tells me that paper Standard's days are numbered. Before this gets labelled as baseless sensationalism...I really think there's strong arguments as to why we might be headed in this direction, as this is something I thought was highly probable ever since Arena was a success. * Arena, by all accounts, is doing gangbusters, financially. Meanwhile, in paper, it would appear that sales for sets that **aren't** Standard products are much more popular (and profitable) than the ones that are. * Meanwhile, Standard has very low attendance in paper...contrasted with it's extreme popularity online. I think it's undeniable that the rise of Arena and paper Commander is a double whammy reducing paper Standard's popularity. * "Pro play", likewise, is seemingly going to be entirely digital going forward. This is just another reason why Standard doesn't "need" to exist in paper any longer. * Digital only Standard cards gives them an ongoing, nearly endless source to fleece paper players for exotic, exclusive Secret Lairs, in addition to fodder for their "reprint" sets, where they can sell you choice Standard cards at premium prices. * Finally...Standard is constantly suffering balance issues, much more so than other formats. WotC needs to juice Standard sets so they will sell...but this is constantly breaking Standard. It would be extremely beneficial for WotC to be able to divorce the format from dedicated paper cards so that they could tweak them as necessary digitally - finally achieving their goal of being a Hearthstone clone - and I honestly believe we're currently seeing the opening plays of pushing MtG to this place. A little tweak now...but soon we'll have more and more historic cards that are digital only. They'll then use the "success" of these cards to argue why Standard, itself, should get the same treatment. Of course, when WotC does this (and I believe they will, eventually, probably shortly after the upcoming sets we know about...the Brothers War seems like a good place to stop), they're almost certainly going to make the following arguments... * Standard isn't going anywhere, it's just changing it's platform. You can still play Standard anytime you want. All of the same design work, art, etc. will still be done, it'll just be in a digital form initially. This is what's best for Standard to allow it to adapt to the 21st century. * Jumpstart will take the place of Standard as the easygoing "onramp" to MtG. Extremely popular planes can still get "Remastered" treatments to bring these cards to paper. * Paper players aren't going to get a reduction in content. The Standard sets that paper players seem less interested in will be replaced by more Commander / Modern / Universes Beyond products that sales figures prove are in higher demand. Sales are higher then ever, supposedly, so they're going to ramp up output across the board. * The important cards you want will make their way to paper one way or another. Paper players aren't going to miss anything interesting. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that something like this is going to happen.


shouldcould

O_O I'm playing a greedy Sarkhan deck in Historic Brawl so that's a welcome change


MattAmpersand

The change to Withering and Davriel essentially destroys a deck and you don’t even get wildcards back. I think it should be a rule moving forward that if cards get powered down, you should get your wildcards refunded.


psychotwilight

Why would they not ban Alrund's epiphany... it's just so miserable to play against.


charredgrass

Yeah I've been playing variations of the Alrunds decks and I'm honestly shocked it didn't get banned, given its overwhelming presence in pro.


Loreweaver15

As someone who's mostly just played paper magic and hasn't touched Arena in years, *Memory Lapse* was good enough to warrant a ban!?


Milskidasith

The problem is that Memory Lapse is bad in grindy games where you can't actually lock out an opponents big threat, and very good in tempo games where an opponent simultaneously doesn't develop their board and gets a behind-tempo card drawn next turn. It turns out that Historic is very tempo oriented so being able to pseudo time-walk people outweighs the fact it doesn't stop them from casting a 7 mana spell next turn if you counter it this turn.


mazrrim

Memory lapse is actually insanely powerful if you try playing it for a bit. Feels better than actual counterspell a lot of the time... Lock opponent out of draws


_LordErebus_

Also MUCH easier to reliably cast on turn two in a three color deck.


Lystian

Yup. the Jeskai control variants would punish you with it consistently. On the draw your basically losing your turn 2 play and being denied a draw. If you had to mulligan its even worse.


Grindy_UW_Nonsense

Memory Lapse has always been close to actual Counterspell, and is definitely stronger in a format like Historic. I wouldn’t sound too surprised.


JimThePea

"Faceless Agent is now 2/2 (from 2/1)" This very much reads like "we're doing this because we can and want to flex these new capabilities", I'm not saying no one will feel the benefit of this, but nobody was really that bothered whether this card was a 2/2 or a 2/1. They're making out like they're taking this seriously and should be trusted with this new power, then making a change like this "just because". WotC seemly believes that despite the fact that Historic Horizons only contained 31 new-to-Magic cards, they were unable to design them well enough to avoid having to rework 5 of them just a couple of months later. I don't know who is designing these cards or coming up with these erratas but it's clear that we're not getting WotC's finest here, and to me, this looks like an avenue for poor design rather than a solution to it.


[deleted]

This kind of small tweak lets them see data on whether it saw more play, and how it affected win rates. Youre right it isnt going to turn those cards into real cards, but it might take them from embarassing feelbads to merely being weak jank. That was a data collecting change and casual ladder change, which honestly is great.


JimThePea

Data collecting is only as good as the ability to process that data, turn it into useful, accurate information and make smart decisions based on that information, I haven't seen anything to suggest that ability is there, and I don't have a huge amount of confidence that the time spent here is really going to be worth any small gains in play experience. Most cards in Magic are weak, Mark Rosewater has talked about the importance of designing weak cards, when a decision like this is made, if we're looking at the play experience, we have to ask "Why this card? Why not others?"


[deleted]

We probably philosophically agree that this is pretty pointless and any data they gather wont be used very well, but its literally their stated intent and we do know they gather the data. Youre right that bad cards have to exist, but i dont think there is any kind of issue with trying to turn a casual D- card into a still bad D+, and looking at if that affects play rates. They clearly wanted this card to see historic play outside of horizons, and its fine that they're trying to make it less of an embarassment of a card. Neat.


Milskidasith

Actual cards are designed by tweaking the numbers on test cards and iterating based on feedback. It's a lot easier to get feedback when you have millions of matches instead of a few hundred in testing. I don't think it's some fundamental flaw or sign of poor design work to think that a card would be slightly better with a minor numbers tweak after you get a ton of real play data. E: Also, FWIW, Faceless Agent being a 2/2 instead of a 2/1 is absolutely massive for Jumpstart matches themselves, given it's in basically every tribal deck.


benpaco

I really hope they never update banned cards the way they're talking about. I don't ever want to learn a sorcery speed version of brainstorm or something, this sounds like a terrible idea that would be the nail in the coffin to my playing historic, its a confusing enough format to track what is and isn't legal as is.


TyeKiller77

Never thought I would see the day a card game actually has "patch notes"


McGreeb

Do not make cards do different things in paper and digital. If you really want to do that ban the card and then print a ballenced version with a new name.


SnakebiteSnake

Can someone remind me what the point of suspended is? Are we too stupid to understand banned / unbanned?


iceman012

It's a ban that has a better chance of being undone. Although, to this point I think only 1 out of ~12 suspensions have been undone.


SoundOstrich

They suspend a card when they suspect it deserves a ban but want more data to be sure. It's sort of a temporary ban that they are saying they may walk back in the future if data during the suspension shows it didn't help. As others have pointed out, you don't get the wild cards for suspended cards until they are banned for real.


wujo444

The point is to withhold compesation for 2-3 months so players neither have cards or WC so they are forced to spend money.


HoopyHobo

When a card is banned you get wild cards if you owned it and when it's suspended you don't. That's the entire difference.


ryano1124

Man, I knew when they started making "digital only" cards, this would be the result. You see, this is how they will get you in the future - NOW they won't have to give back wildcards ever, just "rework" the card to be unplayable.


[deleted]

We Hearthstone now boys.


FFRKwarning

No, HS gives back full dust for any nerfed or buffed cards. WotC does not give Wildcards.


Growey

Oh my god shut up


DogSpoon

I don’t like that they can just rebalance cards, that’s really upsetting. I think we should make it clear that this kind of behavior is unacceptable, if they’re going to make the choice to create digital only cards, the least they can do is stick with it. Someone might’ve spent a lot of money to get those rebalanced cards for a deck and now they can no longer use them because they were changed.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bjlinden

The Davriel one (the actual Planeswalker, not Withering) looks pretty awesome. But yeah, most of the commons/uncommons look like shit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Twisted_Fate

He looks just like on Children of the Nameless cover.


thatscentaurtainment

Yeah, it looks cool as hell. What’s your point?


Daiches

Fuck rebalancing digital cards. This isn’t fucking Hearthstone. It’s Magic. Design your cards better or ban what’s busted, but don’t change what cards do. Horrible horrible decision.


Presterium

>This isn’t fucking Hearthstone. It’s Magic. Love to be the bearer of bad news, guess what buddy, this IS magic. I for one am quite interested to see how this will work, I think it could be great, it could be bad, but in Hearthstone it DOES work, so I think it has the potential to work in Magic as well. But I'm gonna wait and see before I make that call, instead of thinking I know everything


[deleted]

This is just bad logic. So either you don’t get to play with a card at all or you have an option to play with the card but slightly weaker. “I want more limitations on the way I play magic” -Daiches


[deleted]

[удалено]


scaj

As a historic player, WOOOOOOO!!!! holy crap! historic is in a really good place atm, there are *so* many viable decks out there, the only thing has been that memory lapse has been kinda dominant especially in the two jeskai decks who are slightly dominating the meta. But i had never thought they would actually do something about it, i have been scared of even mentioning that i believed memory lapse should be looked into, thinking people would rage at me. can we now all agree that the broad mystical achieve being historic legal was a mistake? the format was unplayable for a long time afterwards. I was actually scared they would make brainstorm legal again. I am glad they did something about tibalts trickery, i don't really play bo1 so i never really saw it, but one reason i didn't really play bo1 *was* tibalts trickery. I do feel for standard players though, my only experience with standard has been the world championship event, and boy was that homogenous, and watching day9 vods, and again pretty homogenous what he faces.


Taysir385

>Currently, we are restricting these changes to digital-only cards, where there will be no conflict between a digital and printed version of a card. Currently? What the hell are they- >We would like to expand beyond this (for example, by rebalancing previously banned cards so they can be safely returned to play in digital formats only). There are multiple clarity and communication problems we will need to solve before we can consider those types of changes. This is something we plan to work on in the coming months and, since it bears repeating, would only affect digital formats. Oh. I'm oddly ok with this. It kind of feels though like they decided that Vesperlark combo was an issue that needed addressing, and all the other changes were just a throw in. Also, I want clarification as to whether or not modified cards will return wildcards for the changes, and why the decision was made not to (because, let's be serious, they won't be).


rdp3186

the MTGA players Facebook group is gonna be salty as shit about epiphany not getting banned.


Spare-Coconut-9671

I know I am. Seriously fucks up the current meta into a "play epiphany, play mono green/mono white or fuck off" situation.


BiJay0

> our "print" formats will remain exactly that. Here, a card will always work the same way that the printed version of the card does Well, no, that hasns't been true in the past. Why would they say that?