They could always make a 3/2 that gets -1/-1 and haste when unleashed.
It's way too early to judge this.
Sigh...
No they can't. Unleash is now a keyword with the reminder text being a descriptive. If it was an "ability" word, then it could do what your suggesting, being an "ability" word that represents free kickers.
This is not a "free kicker" ability as you are suggesting this is a keyword, meaning the reminder text is there to remind us of what it does. it puts a +1/+1 counter on a creature, and then that creature can't block.
I have mixed feelings on this. It's an aggresive ability, and it is limited by not being an 'X' ability. I think perhaps they made this decision because they thought there was no reason to do 2+ on anything because of the powerlevels that might represent. As a conditional, it's pretty different from Graft, Scry, and it's ilk.
aka. How do you cost this
Supposed "fixed" rakdos guy - mana cost of something.
Creature - a demon or something.
Unleash 2(You may have this creature enter the battlefield with 2 +1/+1 counters on it. It can't block as long as it has a +1/+1 counter on it.)
2/2
Now your saying, take out the can't block aspect. this would mean the keyword would be: You may have this creature enter the battlefield with X +1/+1 counter(s) on it. The problem here is that now you need to come up with text that explains why this creature can just magically get +1/+1 counters. By itself such a mechanic requires other abilities on the card to justify having the mechanic at all. That is bad design.
So:
Unleash X would be an ability that requires other mechanics to make it fair. That is a bad mechanic. The current mechanic has a fixed power raise for a fixed disadvantage. It both requests you play +1/+1 counter support, and also punishes you for doing so.
This is very rakdos, and not so much gruul. I love how people insult this mechanic by saying "it's something those boring red/green guys would do" I guess imagining Gruul as a bunch of crazy dumb berserker dudes who hit each other in the face constantly. That isn't Gruul. This is really not a gruul mechanic.
Black Red is super destructive. A black red mindset combines the anti-social aspects of red, with black's amorality. Black/Red is greedy, it personifies it. Greedy and Selfish. Possibly insane. Self-destructive not because they want to be destroyed but because it brings them pleasure to be so. It is the color combination of PCP addicts. It pushes these excessive traits as a very destructive nature. hellbent reflects this, Malfegor reflects this, Rakdos reflects this. Hell, Lyzolda was basically screaming "Hey everybody, let's kill that guy and dance in his intestines! It'll be fun, and we'll freak everyone out by doing it, while increasing our power!"
People say that Black/Red is villainous, but not really, however black red is a mindset you want to avoid in life. It is the color combo of going against the best wishes of everyone else to do what you want to do. It even represents going against the best wishes of yourself to do what you want right now.
It's the color combo you represent when you get payed 100 dollars, and rather than buying food, purchase two Bonfire of the damned off ebay and then end up eating ramen because you didn't plan out your spending. What you did wasn't evil, but now your dealing with the consequences of "all in". You have the bonfires, and if you win some tournaments, maybe you'll make back the money next month, and eat well since you don't have to buy more cards. Still, you just gambled and punished yourself a little for doing so to foolishly buy these things that really do nothing for you in your life.
Everyone is black red sometimes. Everyone makes stupid in the moment decisions that come back to haunt them. That isn't evil. Unleash is also not evil.
Unleash represents this fine. Get a more powerful creature, but leave yourself open. This is something gruul wouldn't do on a regular basis, because Gruul isn't about such decisions. I'll get to gruul in a minute. This is something Rakdos does everyday. What's more, the cards that have this ability aren't necessarily flavorfully "evil", or "crazy". They are all in. When they unleash, they see an opponent who is about to die, and badly. They are going to tear that guy apart. A few turns later they may regret such a mindset, but for now that is where they are.
On the other hand, Gruul. Gruul disagrees with society because it doesn't believe we should cull the weak in favor of everyone getting along. Red/Green wants you to prove yourself. It is the color of might makes right. Whereas this means they may let hits through occasionally due to the thought that they are mightyer and can thus take it, it isn't something they regularly do. Red/Green is aggresive in a different way. They battle you for more than one reason, and are happy at either outcome. If you beat red/green then they have to secede that you are strong, possibly stronger than them, and thus one to be respected, possibly befriended. If they beat you, then they proved who is mightyest. Them.
Bloodthirst worked great to represent this. When the opponent took damage, it was a sign of weakness, giving other creatures more strength with the knowledge that you could be hurt, and possibly destroyed. Now those creatures are going to come at you harder because you made the mistake of showing weakness. Bloodthirst isn't self-destructive or suicidal, it's purely aggresion.
Gruul will get something like that again. I don't know what it is yet, but it won't be something saying "hey, don't block" because red/green likes blocking. In fact, red/green likes blocking with the biggest guy there, so they can beat the crap out of your little weakling of a piss-ant and be on their way taking what they earned through their might.
Both color combinations can be good and bad, and given a minute I could give you examples of both protagonists, and antagonists that share this theme as a core part of their being. Gambling heroes who take too many risks, and get off on the thrill of adventure are often somewhat Rakdos. Heroes like Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly have a little bit of this in them. Reynolds might have a good heart, but he's bitter, his cause has fallen, and now he lives by risking everything everyday. He's on the fringe, and living self-destructively since he feels he has no other choice. Similarly Jayne from the same show REALLY represents this, being the most mercenary and selfish member of the crew, going as far as selling out the crew to get rid of the two members of it that annoy him the most.
Similarly Han Solo at the beginning of Star Wars. He slides into other colors later(and so do planeswalkers, go figure) but at the beginning, he's a smuggler who a powerful gangster now wants to kill for screwing up. It's why people hate that he was made to shoot first later, because Han was the kind of jerk who would shoot first, and why not. He had no love for Greedo, and he can gaurantee that with Greedo dead, he can get off Tatooine without anyone tracking him.
Any of these characters could have unleash if translated to magic.
Do you guys even know what point you are arguing? Or do you just like shouting at the rain?
First, to each his own. And I can't tell if you're being serious about this or just trolling. In case you're serious, people are simply trying to defend the fact that creatures that are 2/1 and can't block aren't necessarily bad. In the past, similar cards were format defining, and like Unskilled Ninja said, judging a card that was only legal in legacy doesn't make your definition of "decent" to be very accurate.
In case you're serious, people are simply trying to defend the fact that creatures that are 2/1 and can't block aren't necessarily bad.
Defend that position from whom? The bogeyman? Can you find an instance of anyone making that claim? Or did they completely fabricate a position just to argue against it?
Defend that position from whom? The bogeyman? Can you find an instance of anyone making that claim? Or did they completely fabricate a position just to argue against it?
You just said that whoever said Jungle Lions were good were the same people who said split cards were from Ravnica, so you're implying it's false. We're defending that position from you. Just wow...okay now I know you're trolling. I'm done. *shrugs*
"Last I heard, Jungle Lion was pretty decent. A Jungle Lion in Red with 1 more toughness that can also be a blocker in a pinch is great."
"No. No it isn't. Whoever you heard that from is probably the person that told you that split cards were invented in Ravnica. They are wrong about both. "
Nice to meet you bogey man...
I should have hacked that quote more, for sure. It's pretty obvious I was talking about Jungle Lion, though. That doesn't explain how we got to Jungle Lion in the first place, though.
You just said that whoever said Jungle Lions were good were the same people who said split cards were from Ravnica, so you're implying it's false. We're defending that position from you. Just wow...okay now I know you're trolling. I'm done. *shrugs*
Jungle Lion wasn't ever good. It still isn't. Why are we even talking about it anyway, though? What does it have to do with anything?
From a keyword standpoint it showcases a complete lack of flexibility, which is odd considering abilities trends like bloodthirst X, Graft X, Devour X, Bushido X, Poisonous X or even Echo with diferent mana cost.
There is a reason we haven't seen many X mechanics since original Ravnica. X mechanics are generally more complex than they have to be. A standard value mechanic makes a design cleaner. It's a tradeoff that usually favors the cleaner design.
This card is decent only because the regeneration (and external ability that has nothing to do with unleash) gives the creature defensive capabilities which would be lost should you decide to unleash. Undying, bushido, flash, and a whole lot of other abilities are inherently good regardless of other abilities on the card. Here... i can't see it working without at least 1 supporting ability.
Then it's not printed without a supporting ability. It's designed to have a secondary ability to play off of, there's nothing wrong with that. It's ignorant to believe being able to be put on a card alone is a measure of a mechanic's quality. There's nothing inherently wrong with having more than one ability on a creature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out the thread for my cube if you have the time, and tell me how terrible it is.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
This card is decent only because the regeneration (and external ability that has nothing to do with unleash) gives the creature defensive capabilities which would be lost should you decide to unleash. Undying, bushido, flash, and a whole lot of other abilities are inherently good regardless of other abilities on the card. Here... i can't see it working without at least 1 supporting ability.
This mechanic needed an arbitrary drawback as a result of the creature having +1/+1 counters on it, not just hardwired "it can't block". Heck, it doesn't even need to be a keyword, it could just be a ability word like Radiance or kinship.
I think some people are missing the point that this was specifically designed to be simple. There will be 5 new mechanics introduced in both RTR and Gatecrash, with all 10 showing up in "Sinker". Wizards is very aware now that introducing too much complexity at one time can be a very bad thing.
If this weren't Ravnica and there were fewer new mechanics being introduced, then they could push the complexity by adding X counters or giving it a changeable drawback. But for a guild mechanic the simple, clean, easiest to understand version is more appropriate.
I've been thinking about this for a while and... I think this mechanic will be boring unless they have other interactions with it. In the same way that infect had 'poisoned,' unleash could have 'unleashed.'
For example, "Whenever ~ is unleashed," or "If ~ is unleashed..."
What do you think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard WUControlWU
Commander (EDH) WBRKaalia of the VastWBR WRGMayael the AnimaWRG
jungle lions was good, if you where able to use it in stompy it would have been an iconic green one drop, you seam to fail see that the no block clause isn't the end of the world, as long as its offensive capabilities are good enough for the meta, or are you saying that jackal pup wasn't a good card?
Let's see here. You make the assertion that a card that never saw meaningful competitive play ever was good ~because you say so~. And then you wander into Logical Fallacy Land attempting to link my reasonable premise to a bunch of random things I never said. Brilliant. You have succeeded in topping your previous worst post with an even worse badpost.
Let's see here. You make the assertion that a card that never saw meaningful competitive play ever was good ~because you say so~. And then you wander into Logical Fallacy Land attempting to link my reasonable premise to a bunch of random things I never said. Brilliant. You have succeeded in topping your previous worst post with an even worse badpost.
I actually agree with him. The only reason why Jungle Lion never saw meaningful competitive play was because portal wasn't legal for tournament play back then. Stompy was a real deck, and it would have loved a Jungle Lion. Heck, it played Wild Dogs and Pouncing Jaguar.
I actually agree with him. The only reason why Jungle Lion never saw meaningful competitive play was because portal wasn't legal for tournament play back then. Stompy was a real deck, and it would have loved a Jungle Lion. Heck, it played Wild Dogs and Pouncing Jaguar.
These creatures were exciting before cards like strangleroot geist came along and redefined power levels. A card like diregraft ghoul isn't exactly a game changer, its just a good role player.
What are you kidding me? Have you seen a 10 Land Stompy deck before? Just look up 10 Land Stompy, and you'll find tons of links for decks that go back as far as 1998-2002 or so, as well as updated versions with modern cards. The fact that many of these lists back in the day ran Ghazban Ogre, Pouncing Jaguar and Wild Dogs means that Jungle Lion would have been a shoe in for the deck. It just wasn't tournament legal at the time.
I actually agree with him. The only reason why Jungle Lion never saw meaningful competitive play was because portal wasn't legal for tournament play back then. Stompy was a real deck, and it would have loved a Jungle Lion. Heck, it played Wild Dogs and Pouncing Jaguar.
Oh I remember that deck in an old extended tournament once. I remember someone lending that exact deck to me with Rogue Elephants, Wild Dogs, Pouncing Jaguars, and I ended up winning that tournament. Those were good times.
@ Toshimo: Sorry, I don't have a citation for my win that day. And I honestly can't say much more than play or play against stompy yourself with the meta from those days yourself to understand our point (and I did find a thread here, but I doubt it will change your mind knowing how things are going here). And I totally change my mind about you being a troll since your arguments honestly remind me of things I've said myself back when I was a teenager who didn't have many friends back then.
@ Toshimo: Sorry, I don't have a citation for my win that day. And I honestly can't say much more than play or play against stompy yourself with the meta from those days yourself to understand our point (and I did find a thread here, but I doubt it will change your mind knowing how things are going here).
Give us a clear answer. Do you think a 1/1 for R with unleash is unplayable in Type 2?
The fact that you can ask this question shows that not only did you not bother to read my posts, but that you don't have a clue what the discussion was about in the first place.
The fact that you can ask this question shows that not only did you not bother to read my posts, but that you don't have a clue what the discussion was about in the first place.
That's right. When I was that teen who couldn't stand being wrong, I would do things like finger pick little points that I could argue with and ignore the things I had no answer to.
On topic: as for my take on a 1/1 unleash for R, it won't really be that relevant nowadays, but it would find a nice place in old sligh, a tier 1 deck in the old days that main boarded 4 ironclaw orcs.
The fact that you can ask this question shows that not only did you not bother to read my posts, but that you don't have a clue what the discussion was about in the first place.
Toshimo, stop evading the question. You never explained why you think a R/R with Unleash is bad. You only compared it to Tattermunge Maniac, a card that did see play and has a different drawback.
Explain why you think a 1/1 for R with Unleash is unplayable.
EDIT
That's because I never said it. The people that think I said it are either illiterate or willfully ignorant, a fact I have pointed out multiple times. That you continue to assert that I did, begs the question: Which are you?
A 1/1 for R with Unleash is roughly equivalent to Tattermunge Maniac. If you get excited about that, more power to you. I bet you also get excited about Chimney Imp and Mindless Null.
You never explained why you think a R/R with Unleash is bad.
That's because I never said it. The people that think I said it are either illiterate or willfully ignorant, a fact I have pointed out multiple times. That you continue to assert that I did, begs the question: Which are you?
"A 1/1 for R with Unleash is roughly equivalent to Tattermunge Maniac. If you get excited about that, more power to you. I bet you also get excited about Chimney Imp and Mindless Null."
as you can see people are neither "illiterate or willfully ignorant", except you as it seems, that or you have a very short memory.
I find basic lands unexciting. I don't think I've ever called them unplayable, either. Reading Comprehension: It's what's for dinner.
I'd just like to thank you 3 or 4 guys for your 2 page, childish argument that has little to do with actually discussing the new card.
The new card is pretty much finished. It's pretty nice in limited; all cheap regenerators are. The unleash ability can be useful if they have a 2 toughness wall or something of the like. There's not much to discuss on a common.
I'd be more interested in how the mechanic is going to be used. I think a 1 drop unleashed creature is likely, but I'm hoping that they don't give it a drawback (Like making it a 1/0 with Unleashe).
The other thing I'm wondering about is how they'll balance Unleash and Scavenge in limited formats. Any card with a cheap Scavenge cost can possibly screw over a Rakdos deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The wedding is over. Now it's time for the honeymoon.
The way unleashed could go is to have abilities that trigger upon death that does more if the creature had more power. For instance, there could be a creature with unleash that dealt damage to a creature/player equal to its power when it dies. This could make interesting plays as unleashing it would increase the damage it could potentially deal, but since it can't block you need to find a way to kill it or wait until the opponent chooses to block it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sigh...
No they can't. Unleash is now a keyword with the reminder text being a descriptive. If it was an "ability" word, then it could do what your suggesting, being an "ability" word that represents free kickers.
This is not a "free kicker" ability as you are suggesting this is a keyword, meaning the reminder text is there to remind us of what it does. it puts a +1/+1 counter on a creature, and then that creature can't block.
I have mixed feelings on this. It's an aggresive ability, and it is limited by not being an 'X' ability. I think perhaps they made this decision because they thought there was no reason to do 2+ on anything because of the powerlevels that might represent. As a conditional, it's pretty different from Graft, Scry, and it's ilk.
aka. How do you cost this
Supposed "fixed" rakdos guy - mana cost of something.
Creature - a demon or something.
Unleash 2(You may have this creature enter the battlefield with 2 +1/+1 counters on it. It can't block as long as it has a +1/+1 counter on it.)
2/2
Now your saying, take out the can't block aspect. this would mean the keyword would be: You may have this creature enter the battlefield with X +1/+1 counter(s) on it. The problem here is that now you need to come up with text that explains why this creature can just magically get +1/+1 counters. By itself such a mechanic requires other abilities on the card to justify having the mechanic at all. That is bad design.
So:
Unleash X would be an ability that requires other mechanics to make it fair. That is a bad mechanic. The current mechanic has a fixed power raise for a fixed disadvantage. It both requests you play +1/+1 counter support, and also punishes you for doing so.
This is very rakdos, and not so much gruul. I love how people insult this mechanic by saying "it's something those boring red/green guys would do" I guess imagining Gruul as a bunch of crazy dumb berserker dudes who hit each other in the face constantly. That isn't Gruul. This is really not a gruul mechanic.
Black Red is super destructive. A black red mindset combines the anti-social aspects of red, with black's amorality. Black/Red is greedy, it personifies it. Greedy and Selfish. Possibly insane. Self-destructive not because they want to be destroyed but because it brings them pleasure to be so. It is the color combination of PCP addicts. It pushes these excessive traits as a very destructive nature. hellbent reflects this, Malfegor reflects this, Rakdos reflects this. Hell, Lyzolda was basically screaming "Hey everybody, let's kill that guy and dance in his intestines! It'll be fun, and we'll freak everyone out by doing it, while increasing our power!"
People say that Black/Red is villainous, but not really, however black red is a mindset you want to avoid in life. It is the color combo of going against the best wishes of everyone else to do what you want to do. It even represents going against the best wishes of yourself to do what you want right now.
It's the color combo you represent when you get payed 100 dollars, and rather than buying food, purchase two Bonfire of the damned off ebay and then end up eating ramen because you didn't plan out your spending. What you did wasn't evil, but now your dealing with the consequences of "all in". You have the bonfires, and if you win some tournaments, maybe you'll make back the money next month, and eat well since you don't have to buy more cards. Still, you just gambled and punished yourself a little for doing so to foolishly buy these things that really do nothing for you in your life.
Everyone is black red sometimes. Everyone makes stupid in the moment decisions that come back to haunt them. That isn't evil. Unleash is also not evil.
Unleash represents this fine. Get a more powerful creature, but leave yourself open. This is something gruul wouldn't do on a regular basis, because Gruul isn't about such decisions. I'll get to gruul in a minute. This is something Rakdos does everyday. What's more, the cards that have this ability aren't necessarily flavorfully "evil", or "crazy". They are all in. When they unleash, they see an opponent who is about to die, and badly. They are going to tear that guy apart. A few turns later they may regret such a mindset, but for now that is where they are.
On the other hand, Gruul. Gruul disagrees with society because it doesn't believe we should cull the weak in favor of everyone getting along. Red/Green wants you to prove yourself. It is the color of might makes right. Whereas this means they may let hits through occasionally due to the thought that they are mightyer and can thus take it, it isn't something they regularly do. Red/Green is aggresive in a different way. They battle you for more than one reason, and are happy at either outcome. If you beat red/green then they have to secede that you are strong, possibly stronger than them, and thus one to be respected, possibly befriended. If they beat you, then they proved who is mightyest. Them.
Bloodthirst worked great to represent this. When the opponent took damage, it was a sign of weakness, giving other creatures more strength with the knowledge that you could be hurt, and possibly destroyed. Now those creatures are going to come at you harder because you made the mistake of showing weakness. Bloodthirst isn't self-destructive or suicidal, it's purely aggresion.
Gruul will get something like that again. I don't know what it is yet, but it won't be something saying "hey, don't block" because red/green likes blocking. In fact, red/green likes blocking with the biggest guy there, so they can beat the crap out of your little weakling of a piss-ant and be on their way taking what they earned through their might.
Both color combinations can be good and bad, and given a minute I could give you examples of both protagonists, and antagonists that share this theme as a core part of their being. Gambling heroes who take too many risks, and get off on the thrill of adventure are often somewhat Rakdos. Heroes like Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly have a little bit of this in them. Reynolds might have a good heart, but he's bitter, his cause has fallen, and now he lives by risking everything everyday. He's on the fringe, and living self-destructively since he feels he has no other choice. Similarly Jayne from the same show REALLY represents this, being the most mercenary and selfish member of the crew, going as far as selling out the crew to get rid of the two members of it that annoy him the most.
Similarly Han Solo at the beginning of Star Wars. He slides into other colors later(and so do planeswalkers, go figure) but at the beginning, he's a smuggler who a powerful gangster now wants to kill for screwing up. It's why people hate that he was made to shoot first later, because Han was the kind of jerk who would shoot first, and why not. He had no love for Greedo, and he can gaurantee that with Greedo dead, he can get off Tatooine without anyone tracking him.
Any of these characters could have unleash if translated to magic.
First, to each his own. And I can't tell if you're being serious about this or just trolling. In case you're serious, people are simply trying to defend the fact that creatures that are 2/1 and can't block aren't necessarily bad. In the past, similar cards were format defining, and like Unskilled Ninja said, judging a card that was only legal in legacy doesn't make your definition of "decent" to be very accurate.
Defend that position from whom? The bogeyman? Can you find an instance of anyone making that claim? Or did they completely fabricate a position just to argue against it?
You just said that whoever said Jungle Lions were good were the same people who said split cards were from Ravnica, so you're implying it's false. We're defending that position from you. Just wow...okay now I know you're trolling. I'm done. *shrugs*
I should have hacked that quote more, for sure. It's pretty obvious I was talking about Jungle Lion, though. That doesn't explain how we got to Jungle Lion in the first place, though.
Jungle Lion wasn't ever good. It still isn't. Why are we even talking about it anyway, though? What does it have to do with anything?
There is a reason we haven't seen many X mechanics since original Ravnica. X mechanics are generally more complex than they have to be. A standard value mechanic makes a design cleaner. It's a tradeoff that usually favors the cleaner design.
Then it's not printed without a supporting ability. It's designed to have a secondary ability to play off of, there's nothing wrong with that. It's ignorant to believe being able to be put on a card alone is a measure of a mechanic's quality. There's nothing inherently wrong with having more than one ability on a creature.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
I think some people are missing the point that this was specifically designed to be simple. There will be 5 new mechanics introduced in both RTR and Gatecrash, with all 10 showing up in "Sinker". Wizards is very aware now that introducing too much complexity at one time can be a very bad thing.
If this weren't Ravnica and there were fewer new mechanics being introduced, then they could push the complexity by adding X counters or giving it a changeable drawback. But for a guild mechanic the simple, clean, easiest to understand version is more appropriate.
For example, "Whenever ~ is unleashed," or "If ~ is unleashed..."
What do you think?
WUControlWU
Commander (EDH)
WBRKaalia of the VastWBR
WRGMayael the AnimaWRG
Let's see here. You make the assertion that a card that never saw meaningful competitive play ever was good ~because you say so~. And then you wander into Logical Fallacy Land attempting to link my reasonable premise to a bunch of random things I never said. Brilliant. You have succeeded in topping your previous worst post with an even worse badpost.
I actually agree with him. The only reason why Jungle Lion never saw meaningful competitive play was because portal wasn't legal for tournament play back then. Stompy was a real deck, and it would have loved a Jungle Lion. Heck, it played Wild Dogs and Pouncing Jaguar.
Juju Alters - Altered MTG Cards
{Citation Needed}
What are you kidding me? Have you seen a 10 Land Stompy deck before? Just look up 10 Land Stompy, and you'll find tons of links for decks that go back as far as 1998-2002 or so, as well as updated versions with modern cards. The fact that many of these lists back in the day ran Ghazban Ogre, Pouncing Jaguar and Wild Dogs means that Jungle Lion would have been a shoe in for the deck. It just wasn't tournament legal at the time.
Juju Alters - Altered MTG Cards
Oh I remember that deck in an old extended tournament once. I remember someone lending that exact deck to me with Rogue Elephants, Wild Dogs, Pouncing Jaguars, and I ended up winning that tournament. Those were good times.
@ Toshimo: Sorry, I don't have a citation for my win that day. And I honestly can't say much more than play or play against stompy yourself with the meta from those days yourself to understand our point (and I did find a thread here, but I doubt it will change your mind knowing how things are going here). And I totally change my mind about you being a troll since your arguments honestly remind me of things I've said myself back when I was a teenager who didn't have many friends back then.
Someone thinks they're the big fish in the fish bowl don't they?
Give us a clear answer. Do you think a 1/1 for R with unleash is unplayable in Type 2?
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Oh boy! Casual decks! Hallmark of good design.
The fact that you can ask this question shows that not only did you not bother to read my posts, but that you don't have a clue what the discussion was about in the first place.
Aaaand I'm pretty sure you just proved Loganuc's point...
(Loganuc can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, here...)
That's right. When I was that teen who couldn't stand being wrong, I would do things like finger pick little points that I could argue with and ignore the things I had no answer to.
On topic: as for my take on a 1/1 unleash for R, it won't really be that relevant nowadays, but it would find a nice place in old sligh, a tier 1 deck in the old days that main boarded 4 ironclaw orcs.
Toshimo, stop evading the question. You never explained why you think a R/R with Unleash is bad. You only compared it to Tattermunge Maniac, a card that did see play and has a different drawback.
Explain why you think a 1/1 for R with Unleash is unplayable.
EDIT
Toshimo is obviously a troll.
Thanks to Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery Signatures!
That's because I never said it. The people that think I said it are either illiterate or willfully ignorant, a fact I have pointed out multiple times. That you continue to assert that I did, begs the question: Which are you?
I find basic lands unexciting. I don't think I've ever called them unplayable, either. Reading Comprehension: It's what's for dinner.
The new card is pretty much finished. It's pretty nice in limited; all cheap regenerators are. The unleash ability can be useful if they have a 2 toughness wall or something of the like. There's not much to discuss on a common.
I'd be more interested in how the mechanic is going to be used. I think a 1 drop unleashed creature is likely, but I'm hoping that they don't give it a drawback (Like making it a 1/0 with Unleashe).
The other thing I'm wondering about is how they'll balance Unleash and Scavenge in limited formats. Any card with a cheap Scavenge cost can possibly screw over a Rakdos deck.
Thanks to Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery Signatures!