Skip to content

entregadordepizza#60576

My feedback

10 results found

  1. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 shared this idea  · 
  2. 34 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 supported this idea  · 
  3. 249 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 supported this idea  · 
  4. 44 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 supported this idea  · 
  5. 39 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 supported this idea  · 
  6. 2,448 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 supported this idea  · 
  7. 727 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 supported this idea  · 
  8. 886 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 supported this idea  · 
  9. 567 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    entregadordepizza#60576 supported this idea  · 
  10. 35 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    entregadordepizza#60576 commented  · 

    I think the topic is valid, however it doesn't seem to explore the main problem, which are interactions and combos that seem to escape fair play. On the other hand, the suggestions don't make any sense either, considering the current rules of the game.

    As someone mentioned before on a board discussion, Scurry Oak is already nerfed on MTG Arena, since on tabletop, once any player resolves this combo would just declare "1 billion" tokens being created. If that's the problem, MTG Arena could offer a pop-up counter to stablish the total desired token to generate (within reasonably limits in order to not crash the game), therefore solving the time-wasting problem.

    Is not a good idea to limit the time in which a player can interact between cards they own, because that would mean an alteration on the card hability as well. Scurry Oak's squirrel token generation hability isn't limited. In order to give this hability any kind of limit, the card hability should be instead "put up to X +1/+1 squirrel tokens".

    The thing is, I think this topic isn't addressing the real issue, which is broken dynamics and fair play - and all of these things are already considered when it comes to ban a specific card.

    Also, Scurry Oak belongs to the Historic format, while there are a lot of decks based on infinite combos on Standart and Explorer that are arguably worse than Scurry Oak, since some of them are based on direct damage to creatures and players (usually Rakdos vampire decks sacrificing artifacts or Saheeli planeswalker giving infinite damage to another red creature like Fireweaver). We also have infinite combos involving artifacts in blue decks. Honestly I think all of them are a much bigger rip-off than the Scurry Oak + ETB lifegain combo, given that they're been played on Standart and Explorer.

    Apparently this is how MTG has been since its inception, but the only existing resource for this is card banning. Maybe all the examples above should be banned aswell if that's the case.

Feedback and Knowledge Base