It is linear and it is limited. Drawing a single card a turn greatly limits your ability to set up combos or dig yourself out of a whole if you find fortune favoring your opponent. A limit of putting a single land into play is always going to greatly restrict your ability to play cards. This limitation allows for some very powerful cards to be created because playing them becomes difficult early on requiring a development of resources over several turns before you can put them into play... except for having the rare cards that produce multiple mana or don't cost antyhing to put into play (read lotus/moxes) and as such an expensive deck can play high cost very powerful cards very early in a game... something that no one else can match without the same cards in their deck... end result every deck needs these cards or a way to counter those cards reliably (which is one of the reasons why Blue was so powerful for so long).
Because Blue was really the only color that could reliably stop over powered decks it became the color that dominated (either solely or in combination) most tournaments for years (I have no idea what happened after I stopped playing). However it is no fun to have a deck that you spent hours crafting and weeks or months fine tuning to never be able to play half your cards as the Mother-May-I/Permission decks became all the vogue.
Anyway, back to limitations. The Attack Defense is atrocious. I mean it works for what it was when it was developed and believe me I am a huge fan of Richard Garfield. There was nothing that he had to base his game off really, it was very much a case of every game after able to look at the games that came before and avoid making some of the decisions that led to some unneeded limitations (though surprisingly few actually did so successfuly, but I could write a paper on the psychology of self-limitation/innovation).
The intricacies of the game are based around the direct damage effects versus attack/defense, that a blocked creature without trample has all his damage canceled (which is as much a limitation), and the FILO system.
I like the idea of direct damage versus attacking to deal damage, it does provide a two pronged method by which to achieve victory but compared to the games FFG produced it is still woefully simple.
The blocked creature losing all damage potential without trample is a feature I hate. It does make cards with trample much more valuable and interesting but I just don't see it as a positive feature. It becomes the difference between the two were interesting things happen, versus all cards essentially having trample and requiring more planning on the part of the defender and in general a more balanced deck.
I HATE FILO/LIFO. Period. It is unintuitive, overly complicated, and increases the learnign curve of the game without producing an equal amount of innovationin and of itself. I was rather disappointed with its inclusion for W:I though I do understand why the choice was made. The one (and only benefit to me) of the stack is that it allows for a lot of player interaction for every play which gives the impression of a very fast and active game, even if it in fact slows down a game. Once you can get a total new gamer to understand that yes a card I played that boosts someones hit points after he has played a card that lowers their hit points which would have killed it actually takes place before his own card it can get interesting. Getting them to stop using logic which dictates that I should have had to play my card before theirs can be a bit difficult. It is a frustration I understand. It is one of the reasons why I love AGoT so much. I play a card that would kill one of your characters, you essentially must play a card that effects my card effect to stop it, rather than playing something on your card to stop my effect after the fact (simplified and generalized but I think the point comes across).
That pretty much sums up my thoughts about the things I hate about magic.