Not just comp games, the incentives are basically the same in any game. Ignoring the particulars (and I'm roughly quoting from the announcement I think) it turned games into a two-horse race by giving two players massively more resources than the other two.ISBPathfinder wrote: ↑3 years agoI actually never felt that Trade Secrets was that powerful as a one time effect to be honest. My understanding of why it was banned was more or less people who were kingmakering each other in comp games by letting each other draw their entire decks.
The repeatability was intended as a downside on TS. In 1v1 it basically gives your opponent the choice of "you draw 2 I draw 4 once" or "we both draw as much as we want". Since they get the selection, it's whichever the worse of those two is (for you). But multiplayer removes the symmetry of the second choice and makes it broken.Its also more powerful than what I am suggesting the white effect should be in that it draws four cards for 3 mana not 3 cards for 3.
Anyway, my point is that it makes sense that a card without the downside of giving an opponent a choice would be less efficient. Plus I don't think TS was designed with multiplayer in mind (or if it was, it was designed by a moron), whereas SR is costed fairly for multiplayer.
I think it's probably balanced at least in part for 1v1. If it drew 1 for the opponent I think there's a solid chance it'd show up in standard (which isn't necessarily a problem but maybe they didn't want to make white the color of draw in standard). I do think draw 2 would have been printable, but I don't think that makes the card we got a bad card. I think the intention was to force players to use it politically, rather that just giving a generically good draw spell.The most important part of the effect is going to start off being how many cards do you draw for the mana but I just don't feel that draw three for three also deserves to give an opponent three cards still.
Again, good when behind is kinda white's thing - and that's not a bad thing to be good at. You could never print a card like Keeper of the Accord without the "from behind" clause, just like they can't print a draw 3 for 3 without a downside that becomes significant when ahead.
One of the nice things about SR is that you don't need to worry about Thassa's Oracle since the benefit it gives is capped instead of unlimited.I am not trying to say that the effect of Trade Secrets is bad, but you essentially have to be playing a combo deck or be 100% sure that your opponent doesn't have a combo to cast that spell. If you cast that and target someone who WHOOPSIE has a Thassa's Oracle in their deck you essentially just punted.
I think a one shot use Trade Secrets is only.... ok.
TS was insane in basically any meta, and SR isn't really a fair comparison since it's a much smaller effect. But my point was mostly that the strength of both cards rests on the fact that they only benefit a single opponent. If they were truly symmetrical they'd be awful.
Oh god, please let's not make more rhystic studies. Optional tax effects are cancer.Venedrex wrote: ↑3 years agoMaro recently mentioned that a version of Rhystic Study that only drew one card per turn would be OK. That is more along the lines of the card draw I believe white should get. More cards similar to Mangara, the Diplomat is what I would like to see. Also, as far as Secret Rendezvous goes, has anyone here put it in their decks, or is planning on running it? I would be very curious to see the results of it being played.