安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
Erhältlich auf www.gloup.store
Non-basic lands may serve niche purposes, like giving your legends banding, but their uses are too narrow to be a reason why they shouldn't be banned.
Non-basic lands are expensive in part because every EDH deck can run 99 of them, even though there isn't a real need to. The price increases because of multiformat demand ruins the ability for c a s u a l formats that need them more to obtain them. Therefore they should be banned.
Changing non-basic lands to have the card name "Plains", "Island", "Swamp", "Mountain", or "Forest" with a black sharpie before playing a game with me is a simple solution that fixes all the issues I have.
[[Evolving Wilds]] / [[Terramorphic Expanse]] don't have the same problem as other non-basic lands (which is that they make me butthurt) because I can personally afford them.
Are any of his claims valid? Are there other reasons against them?