In his latest article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af27), Aaron Forsythe went into his mailbag to act as a spouting head for WotC policy. Okay, fine. That's all mtg.com does, anyway. But here's where things get fun, when he contradicted himself: Aaron Forsythe: I do believe, by the way, that there is a great deal of skill required to play affinity decks well. Granted, if no one is prepared for them, a random pile of affinity cards can overpower a bad deck, but in a field full of artifact hate it takes a ton of skill to pull out win after win. Good point, but affinity is still strong. Whatever. He then went right to a letter... Nik Smith: I think R&D did a fantastic job on designing some amazing cards this block. But they all became unplayable the moment artifact lands and affinity for artifacts became printed, because the hate necessary to beat that deck meant the death of any other original deck with an artifact base. He has an absolutely good point here. But, rather than admit to the collateral damage effect and prove even further that WotC has no idea how to balance things (not saying anyone could...just that they claim to yet never can), Forsythe pulls this lame excuse out of his rump... Aaron Forsythe: The phenomenon of which you speak is more the product of an artifact block as a whole than that of the affinity mechanic or artifact lands. Oh, so now the hate is all present not to counteract those abusive affinity decks, but just because the block is artifact? Makes me have way less faith in his articles. Its hard to even read mtg.com anymore, the way they sit there and try to rationalize stupid decisions. Its like reading memos from the Bush administration.