The change from "converted mana cost" to "mana value" seems so... unnecessary. It'll just cause confusion for returning players who attempt to find out what mana value is, and more problems for new players who will be confused as to why converted mana cost.
My personal theory on why it changed is because WotC wants to print more 200-word-long cards, and changing converted mana cost to mana value in addition to removing "your library" allows for more words on the card. Witherbloom Command wouldn't be so compact if it said "converted mana cost".
U/W is far from the worst color combination imo. Looking at modern, both Spirits and Azorious Control - two of the eight most popular decks in modern - use U/W, meanwhile the two most popular W decks in standard also play blue. There are also a bunch of random but popular U/W decks in other formats, such as Azorious Aggro in Historic and almost every W-playing deck in legacy and vintage.
I'd rather argue that W/B is the worst color combination. It's currently a splash color for a standard control deck and the 9th most popular pioneer deck, infrequently seen in Pauper in the form of Pestilence, has no appearances in the top 8 most played decks for both Legacy and Vintage, and is one of the least valued color combinations for Commander.
I like making really stupid commander decks online. Like a UBRG deck that uses all of the cards like Eye of the Storm and Knowledge Pool, or a five-color deck with all of the experience counter commanders. Though since I make so many dumb deck ideas, I don't usually create those decks in real life.
A discussion of what the "best" or "worse" color/color combos are highly subjective and also majorly depend on format. In very general, broad terms, white and black, both together and mono color, tend to be the weaker performers, but that's not true of every format either.
Also this entire thread has gotten majorly off-topic from discussing the upcoming wording errata's.
I think mana value vs. converted mana cost each have strengths and weaknesses, including that they both have different but equally "confusing" terminology.
Converted mana cost sounds like your doing a math equation, - which technically you are adding up numbers - and is a bit of a mouthful and does take up valuable space on a card (and no, not just for adding more abilities to make "200 word" cards).
Mana value has the major disadvantage of the fact that converted mana cost has been around since Sixth edition meaning that the majority of cards printed use that wording and is what the majority of players at this point are used to. It does have the advantage of sounds more fluid and being shorter, both to say and to write on a card, saving space. It also loses some of that "mathy" sound to it that can be a turn off for some players.
Both wordings make as much sense as the other, although I'm almost surprised they didn't do it as "total mana value" but I think they figured it was implied enough that they could save the space.
Changing "shuffle your library" to shuffle was pretty much a no brainer. It also is a much smaller errata that won't cause much of a problem and they have obviously already been thinking about since the "partner with" mechanic.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
I have a combo that starts on turn three (Its fairly inconsistent, but feels so good to pull off):
Turn 1 & 2:
- Do whatever and avoid putting creatures in opponents graveyard
Turn 3:- Buried alive (Sending Kolaghan, Atartka, and another creature with power 6 or greater (my preference is Utvara Hellkite) to the graveyard)
Turn 4:- Do whatever and avoid putting creatures in opponents graveyard
Turn 5:Yes, I know that this works with a bajillion other creatures that are probably better, but I like dragons, and I'm not changing my mind.
d r a g o n s
DOMINARIA. Guess which one is my favourite.
My personal theory on why it changed is because WotC wants to print more 200-word-long cards, and changing converted mana cost to mana value in addition to removing "your library" allows for more words on the card. Witherbloom Command wouldn't be so compact if it said "converted mana cost".
I'd rather argue that W/B is the worst color combination. It's currently a splash color for a standard control deck and the 9th most popular pioneer deck, infrequently seen in Pauper in the form of Pestilence, has no appearances in the top 8 most played decks for both Legacy and Vintage, and is one of the least valued color combinations for Commander.
oh okay then. guess im wrong.
also, by "worst" I meant "I like playing it the least". should've been clearer with that.
Fair enough. Basically any angels will do.
Also this entire thread has gotten majorly off-topic from discussing the upcoming wording errata's.
I think mana value vs. converted mana cost each have strengths and weaknesses, including that they both have different but equally "confusing" terminology.
Converted mana cost sounds like your doing a math equation, - which technically you are adding up numbers - and is a bit of a mouthful and does take up valuable space on a card (and no, not just for adding more abilities to make "200 word" cards).
Mana value has the major disadvantage of the fact that converted mana cost has been around since Sixth edition meaning that the majority of cards printed use that wording and is what the majority of players at this point are used to. It does have the advantage of sounds more fluid and being shorter, both to say and to write on a card, saving space. It also loses some of that "mathy" sound to it that can be a turn off for some players.
Both wordings make as much sense as the other, although I'm almost surprised they didn't do it as "total mana value" but I think they figured it was implied enough that they could save the space.
Changing "shuffle your library" to shuffle was pretty much a no brainer. It also is a much smaller errata that won't cause much of a problem and they have obviously already been thinking about since the "partner with" mechanic.