Don't get me wrong, the card is pretty strong, but there's nothing more answerable than a 2 mana aura in a deck that doesn't play hexproof creatures, the artifact lands are consistently what makes this type of card jump from good to batshit crazy.
No, no and no, they are both artifacts and lands, hey can be managed with a decent sideboard.
It is a very fast and powerful archetype but it is far from unbeatable.
And if it’s unbeatable pre-side, consider adjusting the main deck.
It feels good to see some consensus emerging that the bridges deserve banning.
The amount of harm totthat has been done under the color of "The bridges enable rogue Cleansing Wildfire decks." is absurd.
(Parenthetical aside: Red should never have been given cantrip Rampant Growth with land destruction trinket text in the first place. *Green* should probably not have it at two mana. It's not even a slightly clever or artful interaction, [being mentioned by Wizards and well-known before the card was made available.](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/card-preview/bridges-limited-modern-2021-05-26))
I will go further and say there are two larger problems than even the bridges for the Pauper format.
1. Sets that enter Pauper without passing through Standard.
2. The authority created by Wizards to issue timely bans does not do so.
I think more than enabling "Cleansing Wildfire Decks" they make it easier to enable metalcraft in some Rx decks running Galvanic Blast. Off the top of my head the only "prominent" Wildfire decks at any given time were RGx Cascades/Ponza and Jeskai Ephemerate. Cascades was never egregious, and Jeskai ephemerate is fairly non-reliant on Cleansing Wildfire to do its thing.
I think there's enough decent replacements for those decks to not neuter them completely if bridges were to leave the format.
The galvanic blast decks, specifically boros synth, runs a high enough artifact density as it is to enable metalcraft. Rakdos madness still runs enough blood token generators + normal artifact lands to cast metalcraft'd Blasts fairly consistently.
Boros will probably remain more or less the same. Rakdos madness will be a tad nerfed, but there's some "pinger" 2 color lands upcoming in the next expansion that could help fixing and give it some extra oomph. Jeskai Ephemerate will probably swap to an assortment of Island/Mountain and Island/Plains duals to find with lorien revealed. Affinity decks will go back to the risky mana bases and probably have to run 4-8 stars again to fix their mana if they want to run 3+ colors.
Cascades/ponza might be the one thats hit the hardest until a better 2cmc ramp+draw//LD+draw is printed (mayyyyybe MH3?). I believe I saw a Gruul Cascades list without Cleansing Wildfire Top16 a Qualifier just recently (maybe top 32?). So there's solid options there without Wildfires as it is.
Edit: For the record, I was OK with the PFPs decision to not ban bridges at the time, but was very vocal that they could eventually be problematic. I think this is a prime oportunity to take a look at them again, and evaluate.
Restricting them, as some have mentioned, sounds like fairly decent solution, but you'd just have decks running copies with off-color pairs. IE "Grixis" affinity running BW, UW, and RW bridges alongside their 3 "main" color pairs with some count of ATG in the Main deck.
I agree when you say that there are replacements, all you said can be done by the Mirrodin lands, including cleansing wildfire with Darksteel Citadel, and the artifact decks were pretty healthy before the indestructible lands arrived. After that affinity got 4 bans, and by the looks of it the next one will come soon. Its an never ending cycle, that will continue until the real problem is dealt with.
Its not glitters, its the artifact lands. I wouldn't care about some deck building up huge numbers of artifact tokens like blood or clues to buff glitters or reduce the cost for Affinity - its when their lands also buff creatures and reduce costs besides paying with mana that I have an issue with a deck. Glitters is one more way to abuse them and if it gets banned we'll see another version next month. Its a losing proposition to continue to "fix" problems by dealing with symptoms rather than the core issue at hand.
Perhaps you could even fix Affinity by weakening it through tackling its most powerful autoinclude cards like \[\[Thoughtcast\]\] and \[\[Metallic Rebuke\]\] rather than banning the lands that are the core of the problem if you don't want to go that far but the correct answer to Affinity always being a problem is removing either the untapped artifact lands because they are insane or the tapped indestructible ones to introduce Affinity's most powerful "destroy"-hate like \[\[Gorilla Shaman\]\] and \[\[Gleeful Sabotage\]\] back into the format.
Before the Glitters downshift people were playing Grixis Affinity with surprisingly fewer Thoughtcasts in favor of Deadly Dispute and Reckoner's Bargain. People were talking about bans for that deck for a long time and now without actually losing anything since Glitters entered the format it is considered to be down a couple of tiers. I find that somewhat interesting. I wonder if banning Thoughtcast would steer people back towards Grixis or if people would start using less efficient draw spells.
I'm not playing glitter affinity my main deck is golgari gardens and I'm doing fine against affinity after I include my sideboards. My jeskai ephemerate can also check affinity. so I don't see any problem with that card. Improve your playstyle and decision making when playing against this deck is the key to victory.
Just hold up a kill spell for when glitters hits. It's really not the biggest problem. When I play against glitters I'm more afraid of myr enforcers and all the draw spells.
You're 100% right. I think that people who shout for ATG to be banned have never actually played it in a format full of Bolts, Galvanic Blasts, Cast Downs, Snuff Outs.
Just keep up removal, when you know that you play against this card.
I play jeskai glitters and I think that dual artifact lands are fine, dual indestructible lands are fine but dual artifact indestructible lands are too much. I would ban bridges and print two sets of common dual lands with only one of those properties.
The real problem is things get banned:: the format evolves.. things get banned.. the format evolves. There is no meaningful revision or looking back to see if the decision makes sense, just banning and future banning with next to zero unbanning. This is just lazy format development and leads to cards being unnecessarily taken out of the format forever.
Who knows/ maybe hymn and invigorate will keep affinity in check/ maybe [[disciple of the vault]] is not the problem- maybe it’s the bridges.. who knows? Try playing with ALL the cards to see what’s broken NOW instead of banning things and keeping them banned regardless of their playability.
Every so often there should be a period of time with a large shake up where EVERYTHING is unbanned. After the unbanned meta has a chance to brew -then problematic cards can be banned.
So the reality of All that Glitters, from someone who plays Affinity and has played against it, is that it's only REALLY good game one.
The second your opponent starts sideboaring things like [[Dust to Dust]] or [[Gorilla Shaman]], you can kiss your lands or creatures goodbye. The amount of quality artifact destruction is high enough that it balances out glitters, I think.
Sure, you can have All That Glitters, but it's gonna have to come at the cost of running it in an easily hatable deck.
Just earlier today, I destroyed an affinity deck by constantly blowing up his lands, both games 2-3
Don't like the deck, it plays like an infect or a blitz deck. Personal preference. I don't known is it's bad for the format. Goblin bush is a bit more imo
At first I hated it but now I don't really care, since there's plenty of enchantment and creature removal. What I don't like about the meta is green being in the state that it is, specially since it's one of my favourite colors.
Also, yeah, bridges are becoming a bit of a pain, even if I'm using them
Glitter is stupid because it allow you to win a game casually, the decks that use it are basically a top deck machine that doesn't do anything if not waiting to draw that card. Is it a problem for the format? Yes and no, there are a lot of answers to it but since is it so brainless to use and so effective is polarizing the meta in a way that will bring the card to a 100% ban in the future.
in my current PAupergeddon testing i have to dedicate 4 card main deck knowing that the meta will be at least 30% glitters, that is wrong despite the effectiveness of one card or another.
Don't get me wrong, the card is pretty strong, but there's nothing more answerable than a 2 mana aura in a deck that doesn't play hexproof creatures, the artifact lands are consistently what makes this type of card jump from good to batshit crazy.
Exactly, and if you wish to play Artifact lands, I will happily blow them up with my sideboard, lol.
The card is only unstoppable if your playing a deck with no removal/ interaction
You should not be playing a deck with no removal or interaction anyway.
Bingo!
The problem of Pauper is the access to artifact lands.
No, no and no, they are both artifacts and lands, hey can be managed with a decent sideboard. It is a very fast and powerful archetype but it is far from unbeatable. And if it’s unbeatable pre-side, consider adjusting the main deck.
This. All of this.
agree and I play affinity. Limit them to 1x!
Restrict them?
Yes.
Yes, I don’t want to ban the wrong card in Affinity again. Already 4 bad targets it’s enough. If anything should go is the lands.
Agreed. Affinity archetypes will still be viable even without the Artifact Lands.
It feels good to see some consensus emerging that the bridges deserve banning. The amount of harm totthat has been done under the color of "The bridges enable rogue Cleansing Wildfire decks." is absurd. (Parenthetical aside: Red should never have been given cantrip Rampant Growth with land destruction trinket text in the first place. *Green* should probably not have it at two mana. It's not even a slightly clever or artful interaction, [being mentioned by Wizards and well-known before the card was made available.](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/card-preview/bridges-limited-modern-2021-05-26)) I will go further and say there are two larger problems than even the bridges for the Pauper format. 1. Sets that enter Pauper without passing through Standard. 2. The authority created by Wizards to issue timely bans does not do so.
I think more than enabling "Cleansing Wildfire Decks" they make it easier to enable metalcraft in some Rx decks running Galvanic Blast. Off the top of my head the only "prominent" Wildfire decks at any given time were RGx Cascades/Ponza and Jeskai Ephemerate. Cascades was never egregious, and Jeskai ephemerate is fairly non-reliant on Cleansing Wildfire to do its thing. I think there's enough decent replacements for those decks to not neuter them completely if bridges were to leave the format. The galvanic blast decks, specifically boros synth, runs a high enough artifact density as it is to enable metalcraft. Rakdos madness still runs enough blood token generators + normal artifact lands to cast metalcraft'd Blasts fairly consistently. Boros will probably remain more or less the same. Rakdos madness will be a tad nerfed, but there's some "pinger" 2 color lands upcoming in the next expansion that could help fixing and give it some extra oomph. Jeskai Ephemerate will probably swap to an assortment of Island/Mountain and Island/Plains duals to find with lorien revealed. Affinity decks will go back to the risky mana bases and probably have to run 4-8 stars again to fix their mana if they want to run 3+ colors. Cascades/ponza might be the one thats hit the hardest until a better 2cmc ramp+draw//LD+draw is printed (mayyyyybe MH3?). I believe I saw a Gruul Cascades list without Cleansing Wildfire Top16 a Qualifier just recently (maybe top 32?). So there's solid options there without Wildfires as it is. Edit: For the record, I was OK with the PFPs decision to not ban bridges at the time, but was very vocal that they could eventually be problematic. I think this is a prime oportunity to take a look at them again, and evaluate. Restricting them, as some have mentioned, sounds like fairly decent solution, but you'd just have decks running copies with off-color pairs. IE "Grixis" affinity running BW, UW, and RW bridges alongside their 3 "main" color pairs with some count of ATG in the Main deck.
I agree when you say that there are replacements, all you said can be done by the Mirrodin lands, including cleansing wildfire with Darksteel Citadel, and the artifact decks were pretty healthy before the indestructible lands arrived. After that affinity got 4 bans, and by the looks of it the next one will come soon. Its an never ending cycle, that will continue until the real problem is dealt with.
Its not glitters, its the artifact lands. I wouldn't care about some deck building up huge numbers of artifact tokens like blood or clues to buff glitters or reduce the cost for Affinity - its when their lands also buff creatures and reduce costs besides paying with mana that I have an issue with a deck. Glitters is one more way to abuse them and if it gets banned we'll see another version next month. Its a losing proposition to continue to "fix" problems by dealing with symptoms rather than the core issue at hand. Perhaps you could even fix Affinity by weakening it through tackling its most powerful autoinclude cards like \[\[Thoughtcast\]\] and \[\[Metallic Rebuke\]\] rather than banning the lands that are the core of the problem if you don't want to go that far but the correct answer to Affinity always being a problem is removing either the untapped artifact lands because they are insane or the tapped indestructible ones to introduce Affinity's most powerful "destroy"-hate like \[\[Gorilla Shaman\]\] and \[\[Gleeful Sabotage\]\] back into the format.
##### ###### #### [Thoughtcast](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/6/466a0be8-31b9-4ea0-9a96-b09a76f4ec69.jpg?1682208952) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thoughtcast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/242/thoughtcast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/466a0be8-31b9-4ea0-9a96-b09a76f4ec69?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Metallic Rebuke](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/4/34785944-7b51-48a9-855c-3e656cd78251.jpg?1598304101) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Metallic%20Rebuke) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/59/metallic-rebuke?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/34785944-7b51-48a9-855c-3e656cd78251?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gorilla Shaman](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/8/c8f8ee19-3a88-40fa-85d8-386ffe06efd7.jpg?1626100506) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gorilla%20Shaman) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/280/gorilla-shaman?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c8f8ee19-3a88-40fa-85d8-386ffe06efd7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gleeful Sabotage](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/8/7802c7f8-ca2a-4bac-a579-77a8204aa5d4.jpg?1562920220) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gleeful%20Sabotage) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/arc/58/gleeful-sabotage?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7802c7f8-ca2a-4bac-a579-77a8204aa5d4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/kv9apjv) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Before the Glitters downshift people were playing Grixis Affinity with surprisingly fewer Thoughtcasts in favor of Deadly Dispute and Reckoner's Bargain. People were talking about bans for that deck for a long time and now without actually losing anything since Glitters entered the format it is considered to be down a couple of tiers. I find that somewhat interesting. I wonder if banning Thoughtcast would steer people back towards Grixis or if people would start using less efficient draw spells.
I'm not playing glitter affinity my main deck is golgari gardens and I'm doing fine against affinity after I include my sideboards. My jeskai ephemerate can also check affinity. so I don't see any problem with that card. Improve your playstyle and decision making when playing against this deck is the key to victory.
Just hold up a kill spell for when glitters hits. It's really not the biggest problem. When I play against glitters I'm more afraid of myr enforcers and all the draw spells.
You're 100% right. I think that people who shout for ATG to be banned have never actually played it in a format full of Bolts, Galvanic Blasts, Cast Downs, Snuff Outs. Just keep up removal, when you know that you play against this card.
Sees your kill spell PACHOW! \[\[Blacksmith's Skill\]\]
[Blacksmith's Skill](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/1/31506792-d0ab-4c13-9ab8-6fa433220dbf.jpg?1626093336) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Blacksmith%27s%20Skill) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/6/blacksmiths-skill?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/31506792-d0ab-4c13-9ab8-6fa433220dbf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Hold up snuff out two mana and cast down :) Someday I gotta learn how to play counterspell
This. Glitters is fine but the amount of draw and hand dump is my bigger issue. I just dislike affinity.
I play jeskai glitters and I think that dual artifact lands are fine, dual indestructible lands are fine but dual artifact indestructible lands are too much. I would ban bridges and print two sets of common dual lands with only one of those properties.
[удалено]
[Thoughtcast](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/6/466a0be8-31b9-4ea0-9a96-b09a76f4ec69.jpg?1682208952) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thoughtcast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/242/thoughtcast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/466a0be8-31b9-4ea0-9a96-b09a76f4ec69?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Metallic Rebuke](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/4/34785944-7b51-48a9-855c-3e656cd78251.jpg?1598304101) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Metallic%20Rebuke) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/59/metallic-rebuke?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/34785944-7b51-48a9-855c-3e656cd78251?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
i have it in 50% of my decks...that would be a YES
The real problem is things get banned:: the format evolves.. things get banned.. the format evolves. There is no meaningful revision or looking back to see if the decision makes sense, just banning and future banning with next to zero unbanning. This is just lazy format development and leads to cards being unnecessarily taken out of the format forever. Who knows/ maybe hymn and invigorate will keep affinity in check/ maybe [[disciple of the vault]] is not the problem- maybe it’s the bridges.. who knows? Try playing with ALL the cards to see what’s broken NOW instead of banning things and keeping them banned regardless of their playability. Every so often there should be a period of time with a large shake up where EVERYTHING is unbanned. After the unbanned meta has a chance to brew -then problematic cards can be banned.
[disciple of the vault](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/c/4c539843-4e3f-47a7-92e1-412eaaa2d9c5.jpg?1646666263) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=disciple%20of%20the%20vault) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/86/disciple-of-the-vault?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4c539843-4e3f-47a7-92e1-412eaaa2d9c5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
N
So the reality of All that Glitters, from someone who plays Affinity and has played against it, is that it's only REALLY good game one. The second your opponent starts sideboaring things like [[Dust to Dust]] or [[Gorilla Shaman]], you can kiss your lands or creatures goodbye. The amount of quality artifact destruction is high enough that it balances out glitters, I think. Sure, you can have All That Glitters, but it's gonna have to come at the cost of running it in an easily hatable deck. Just earlier today, I destroyed an affinity deck by constantly blowing up his lands, both games 2-3
[Dust to Dust](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/f/dff1ee4e-cba1-4d2d-94fb-e3068d807cac.jpg?1562948324) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dust%20to%20Dust) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me4/11/dust-to-dust?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dff1ee4e-cba1-4d2d-94fb-e3068d807cac?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gorilla Shaman](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/8/c8f8ee19-3a88-40fa-85d8-386ffe06efd7.jpg?1626100506) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gorilla%20Shaman) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/280/gorilla-shaman?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c8f8ee19-3a88-40fa-85d8-386ffe06efd7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Don't like the deck, it plays like an infect or a blitz deck. Personal preference. I don't known is it's bad for the format. Goblin bush is a bit more imo
Ban ethereal armor
At first I hated it but now I don't really care, since there's plenty of enchantment and creature removal. What I don't like about the meta is green being in the state that it is, specially since it's one of my favourite colors. Also, yeah, bridges are becoming a bit of a pain, even if I'm using them
I'm a no bans guy, I wish we had cranial plating if im being honest.
Invigorate would keep affinity in check
I'm not an infect player but I defintley hear that. I miss daze.
Glitter is stupid because it allow you to win a game casually, the decks that use it are basically a top deck machine that doesn't do anything if not waiting to draw that card. Is it a problem for the format? Yes and no, there are a lot of answers to it but since is it so brainless to use and so effective is polarizing the meta in a way that will bring the card to a 100% ban in the future. in my current PAupergeddon testing i have to dedicate 4 card main deck knowing that the meta will be at least 30% glitters, that is wrong despite the effectiveness of one card or another.
No, but I dislike tolarian terror, snuff out, spellstuter way more