It's a 20 year-old game! How can anyone expect new removal to consistently challenge removal from older formats going forward? The only way that can happen on a consistent basis is by pure power, since a lot of the bases have been covered already. Two mana Flame Javelin and one mana Oblivion Ring, is this what's expected?
But anyways, people keep saying these cards suck, when they haven't played in the upcoming standard yet. With RtR's crazy power leaving standard, it's going to be an entirely different ballpark (no 4-mana sweeper! YAY!). I say wait for everything to come out, and wait for a chance to play with this.
The primary reason is probably relating somewhat to the new Standard structure. Wizards stated they would be more willing to print more powerful cards, and while this card MAY be fine in a given Standard environment, it's still very objectively weak. It's an already existing removal spell, with a condition tacked on and moved up a rarity. To me, the fact it's uncommon is what irritates me, not the card itself.
It's a 20 year-old game! How can anyone expect new removal to consistently challenge removal from older formats going forward? The only way that can happen on a consistent basis is by pure power, since a lot of the bases have been covered already. Two mana Flame Javelin and one mana Oblivion Ring, is this what's expected?
No, we simply don't expect watered down versions of other cards placed a full rarity level above their superiors. I really don't think that's too much to ask. We aren't asking for close to any of the hyperbolic examples you make, stop making ridiculous comparisons.
I was going to buy a box of this set without a second thought, but the last few spoils have made me have to start reconsidering. That's a shame.
I was going to buy a box of this set without a second thought, but the last few spoils have made me have to start reconsidering. That's a shame.
It's only a shame that you and so many others like you can't get over the fact that sometimes WOTC wants to redesign a concept instead of just doing a lazy reprint. Don't want to buy it? Then don't buy it. No one here likes the constant whining about trivial crap. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
When people ***** about rarity they often think about it from a constructed point of view.
Constructed is *irrelevant* when discussing rarity.
When comparing this card to Journey to Nowhere, the comparison you have to make is Khans limited to Zendikar limited. Removing a most likely replaceable 2/2 or 2/1 creature for 2 is fine in Zendikar, the format is lightning fast and going wide is better than going tall.
Maybe Khans is slower, and the ability to kill any creature (Especially any Morph creature) for 2 mana is just too powerful. The thing is we don't know how the environment looks. It's entirely possible that given the Khans limited environment, this card *should* be common. It's just as possible that this card is too good at common for that limited environment.
Salvation, once again, is just bad at Magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whenever someone claims to hate blue I automatically assume they're a bad player.
But anyways, people keep saying these cards suck, when they haven't played in the upcoming standard yet. With RtR's crazy power leaving standard, it's going to be an entirely different ballpark (no 4-mana sweeper! YAY!). I say wait for everything to come out, and wait for a chance to play with this.
The primary reason is probably relating somewhat to the new Standard structure. Wizards stated they would be more willing to print more powerful cards, and while this card MAY be fine in a given Standard environment, it's still very objectively weak. It's an already existing removal spell, with a condition tacked on and moved up a rarity. To me, the fact it's uncommon is what irritates me, not the card itself.
It's a 20 year-old game! How can anyone expect new removal to consistently challenge removal from older formats going forward? The only way that can happen on a consistent basis is by pure power, since a lot of the bases have been covered already. Two mana Flame Javelin and one mana Oblivion Ring, is this what's expected?
No, we simply don't expect watered down versions of other cards placed a full rarity level above their superiors. I really don't think that's too much to ask. We aren't asking for close to any of the hyperbolic examples you make, stop making ridiculous comparisons.
I was going to buy a box of this set without a second thought, but the last few spoils have made me have to start reconsidering. That's a shame.
My comment is more directed to the Legacy/Modern players that have unreasonable expectations and want newer cards to constantly cause a shift in a format that already has a large pool of cards. It makes no sense to sacrifice balance in the format with the SMALL card pool for the sake of the formats with the HUGE card pools. As to the point of rarity, if you're a constructed player, it's not a big deal. I just went in to the Gatherer to take note of how many janky uncommons and junk rares there have been in the history of the game. It's not like the previous sets weren't loaded with garbage. And I made no ridiculous comparisons, it was an honest question. What's ridiculous is all the whining.
To actually discuss this card, does anyone have a compelling reason to play this in future standard? A few things I keep thinking about:
The color which will probably have big stuff I care about: Green
The card green will be 100% playing: Reclamation Sage
Another card which I feel is superior in removing big green things: Reprisal
When people ***** about rarity they often think about it from a constructed point of view.
Constructed is *irrelevant* when discussing rarity.
When comparing this card to Journey to Nowhere, the comparison you have to make is Khans limited to Zendikar limited. Removing a most likely replaceable 2/2 or 2/1 creature for 2 is fine in Zendikar, the format is lightning fast and going wide is better than going tall.
Maybe Khans is slower, and the ability to kill any creature (Especially any Morph creature) for 2 mana is just too powerful. The thing is we don't know how the environment looks. It's entirely possible that given the Khans limited environment, this card *should* be common. It's just as possible that this card is too good at common for that limited environment.
Salvation, once again, is just bad at Magic.
Completely agree here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
To actually discuss this card, does anyone have a compelling reason to play this in future standard? A few things I keep thinking about:
The color which will probably have big stuff I care about: Green
The card green will be 100% playing: Reclamation Sage
Another card which I feel is superior in removing big green things: Reprisal
It's a 20 year-old game! How can anyone expect new removal to consistently challenge removal from older formats going forward?
Ignoring for a second that this could have been Journey to Nowhere with the new formatting, reprints are the obvious answer. Doom Blade, Ultimate Price, and Go for the Throat are all great black removal spells that they could reprint. Condemn, Path to Exile, and Oblivion ring are all great white removal they can reprint. The problem is moving good removal up in rarity. They don't want to reprint the same rare every third block, but doing it with uncommons would have been fine. We don't need new things just because they're new. Keep and reprint the quality removal at uncommon, and print things at rare or mythic that will sell packs.
My comment is more directed to the Legacy/Modern players that have unreasonable expectations and want newer cards to constantly cause a shift in a format that already has a large pool of cards. It makes no sense to sacrifice balance in the format with the SMALL card pool for the sake of the formats with the HUGE card pools. As to the point of rarity, if you're a constructed player, it's not a big deal. I just went in to the Gatherer to take note of how many janky uncommons and junk rares there have been in the history of the game. It's not like the previous sets weren't loaded with garbage. And I made no ridiculous comparisons, it was an honest question. What's ridiculous is all the whining.
It's the idea behind it. I play Legacy exclusively, but I realize expecting them to print card to influence it is unreasonable. Wizards stated they wanted to allow more powerful cards in Standard, and instead we have been getting cards with iffy rarities. I just hate the idea of after all that, we get this. I know the other sets have had trash in them as well, but I at least found some other quality cards in those sets that had an overall good enough feel for me to accept them as fine. As of now, I am just upset by the concept, not the cards themselves. I feel like this set will be very great limited but rather poor constructed. And I know we haven't seen half the cards in the set yet so it's way too early to say....but as I am saying, it is the concept that upsets me. I like powerful cards, and I don't think I am being ridiculous and simply wanting these cards to have lower rarities. I'm really not asking for much.
It's a 20 year-old game! How can anyone expect new removal to consistently challenge removal from older formats going forward? The only way that can happen on a consistent basis is by pure power, since a lot of the bases have been covered already. Two mana Flame Javelin and one mana Oblivion Ring, is this what's expected?
We don't need strictly better removal spells - in fact, those would be bad because they'd invalidate previous forms of removal. What we need are more VARIED choices of removal. Abrupt Decay isn't strictly better than any removal before it - it's different. Same with Dismember, same with Disfigure, same with Izzet Charm, same with everything else.
This would've been interesting if it were 1 mana and only exiled things with toughness 5 or 6+, or something else unique. As-is, it's nothing but a strictly worse Journey to Nowhere, and no one wants that. Also, Journey to Nowhere NEEDS a functional reprint with the new duration clause so it can appear in future sets. Now would have been a perfect time for that.
When people ***** about rarity they often think about it from a constructed point of view.
Constructed is *irrelevant* when discussing rarity.
When comparing this card to Journey to Nowhere, the comparison you have to make is Khans limited to Zendikar limited. Removing a most likely replaceable 2/2 or 2/1 creature for 2 is fine in Zendikar, the format is lightning fast and going wide is better than going tall.
Maybe Khans is slower, and the ability to kill any creature (Especially any Morph creature) for 2 mana is just too powerful. The thing is we don't know how the environment looks. It's entirely possible that given the Khans limited environment, this card *should* be common. It's just as possible that this card is too good at common for that limited environment.
Salvation, once again, is just bad at Magic.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I was going to buy a box of this set without a second thought, but the last few spoils have made me have to start reconsidering. That's a shame.
It's only a shame that you and so many others like you can't get over the fact that sometimes WOTC wants to redesign a concept instead of just doing a lazy reprint. Don't want to buy it? Then don't buy it. No one here likes the constant whining about trivial crap. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
But this IS a lazy reprint. It's a card that was previously printed with an additional restriction. To claim that this isn't Journey to Nowhere that was "scaled down" is being disingenuous.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I'm not implying sets should be developed solely for limited, but *rarity* is something that is exclusively relevant in limited. If people are going to complain about "Journey to Nowhere being bumped to uncommon", that is a complaint relevant only in limited. In constructed, it could be a Mythic rare and it wouldn't actually make a difference.
The power level, the restriction, those are complaints relevant to constructed and beyond.
I was simply saying the complaint of rarity is irrelevant to constructed players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whenever someone claims to hate blue I automatically assume they're a bad player.
I was going to buy a box of this set without a second thought, but the last few spoils have made me have to start reconsidering. That's a shame.
It's only a shame that you and so many others like you can't get over the fact that sometimes WOTC wants to redesign a concept instead of just doing a lazy reprint. Don't want to buy it? Then don't buy it. No one here likes the constant whining about trivial crap. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
I am stating an opinion. That's what forums are for; sharing ideas. It isn't "whining." I am discussing my point of view in an educated manner. Calling that "whining" is practically trolling.
And to use your argument against you, if you don't like it don't read/respond to it.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I've seen this Coldsnap comparison thrown around a couple times now and I just wanted to emphasize that Coldsnap was a small set which had multiple cards (Feast of Flesh, Sound the Call, etc) as well as an entire mechanic (ripple) hat were essentially built around drafting. In no way does crafting the removal suite of a set to emphasize the set's mechanics make this a second Coldsnap.
Honestly, I wouldn't expect much high-power, low-rarity removal in this set because of the incentivization of morph; morph depends on overcosted vanilla 2/2s surviving in order for it to even be usable in any way. I would much rather get a chance to actually use this very cool, very anticipated returning mechanic without having my wobbly-dragon-fireball-pudding-spiders constantly immediately destroyed.
Not trying to fan the flames at all, I had the same knee-jerk reaction, I really did. But after thinking about it, I'm fine with this. And if it even has the chance of seeing fringe standard play, that's honestly good enough for me.
It's a 20 year-old game! How can anyone expect new removal to consistently challenge removal from older formats going forward? The only way that can happen on a consistent basis is by pure power, since a lot of the bases have been covered already. Two mana Flame Javelin and one mana Oblivion Ring, is this what's expected?
We don't need strictly better removal spells - in fact, those would be bad because they'd invalidate previous forms of removal. What we need are more VARIED choices of removal. Abrupt Decay isn't strictly better than any removal before it - it's different. Same with Dismember, same with Disfigure, same with Izzet Charm, same with everything else.
This would've been interesting if it were 1 mana and only exiled things with toughness 5 or 6+, or something else unique. As-is, it's nothing but a strictly worse Journey to Nowhere, and no one wants that. Also, Journey to Nowhere NEEDS a functional reprint with the new duration clause so it can appear in future sets. Now would have been a perfect time for that.
I can definitely agree with that. About a functional Journey reprint, it probably is coming. It seems like they really want Morph to be a thing in Limited.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I'm not implying sets should be developed solely for limited, but *rarity* is something that is exclusively relevant in limited. If people are going to complain about "Journey to Nowhere being bumped to uncommon", that is a complaint relevant only in limited. In constructed, it could be a Mythic rare and it wouldn't actually make a difference.
The power level, the restriction, those are complaints relevant to constructed and beyond.
I was simply saying the complaint of rarity is irrelevant to constructed players.
Rarity is relevant to constructed. It is a big factor in how much a card will cost. A good common can maybe be about a dollar at the most. An uncommon can be up to $3. For a good rare it can easily reach $20-$30 dollars and for mythics $100 like we have seen with Jace. So don't say rarity isn't relevant to constructed, because it is. How much would have delver been if he was a rare? Certainly more than a dollar. What if Gray Merchant was uncommon?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
none
Modern UBG B/U/G control BBB MBC WUR Control WWW Prison RRR Goblins
Legacy BBB Pox UBG B/U/G Control UWU StoneBlade UW Miracle Control
This card is disappointing mainly because I've been waiting for the new Journey to Nowhere, but I understand why they made it weaker with their new views of removal in limited. This was constructed so that it couldn't remove morph creatures, I'm sure.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I'm not implying sets should be developed solely for limited, but *rarity* is something that is exclusively relevant in limited. If people are going to complain about "Journey to Nowhere being bumped to uncommon", that is a complaint relevant only in limited. In constructed, it could be a Mythic rare and it wouldn't actually make a difference.
The power level, the restriction, those are complaints relevant to constructed and beyond.
I was simply saying the complaint of rarity is irrelevant to constructed players.
Rarity is relevant to constructed. It is a big factor in how much a card will cost. A good common can maybe be about a dollar at the most. An uncommon can be up to $3. For a good rare it can easily reach $20-$30 dollars and for mythics $100 like we have seen with Jace. So don't say rarity isn't relevant to constructed, because it is. How much would have delver been if he was a rare? Certainly more than a dollar. What if Gray Merchant was uncommon?
Where are you getting those numbers from? M15 is a similarly sized set, will be drafted for far less time than Khans, and you still don't see non-reprinted commons for more than 20 cents, uncommons for more than a dollar, and most rares are only about $2. Even some mystics are under $3.
The price of a card is determined partially by it's rarity, yes. But it's also determined by good the card is. A really good common won't have a high price because of how many are opened and a really bad rare won't have a high price because it's junk.
I suggest reading what crovax was implying again. The issue here is with playable cards. If Doom Blade wasn't reprinted like 500 times it would be commanding a minimal price of $1. Look up Banishing Light on SCG and you'll be surprised. Go on.
Please do not assume constructed players are filthy rich. And that they have petty cash for staple C & U always. This wasn't an issue 5 years ago. The proliferation of cartels and hoard mentality brought about hike spike for many cards.
If suspension field was as playable as say Blastfire Bolt, no one would give a damm. But because it is potentially playable, it unnecessarily goes up. And rarity has mostly to do with that.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I'm not implying sets should be developed solely for limited, but *rarity* is something that is exclusively relevant in limited. If people are going to complain about "Journey to Nowhere being bumped to uncommon", that is a complaint relevant only in limited. In constructed, it could be a Mythic rare and it wouldn't actually make a difference.
The power level, the restriction, those are complaints relevant to constructed and beyond.
I was simply saying the complaint of rarity is irrelevant to constructed players.
Rarity is relevant to constructed. It is a big factor in how much a card will cost. A good common can maybe be about a dollar at the most. An uncommon can be up to $3. For a good rare it can easily reach $20-$30 dollars and for mythics $100 like we have seen with Jace. So don't say rarity isn't relevant to constructed, because it is. How much would have delver been if he was a rare? Certainly more than a dollar. What if Gray Merchant was uncommon?
If you have trouble affording a $3 uncommon you should not be playing constructed Magic on anywhere near a serious level.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whenever someone claims to hate blue I automatically assume they're a bad player.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I'm not implying sets should be developed solely for limited, but *rarity* is something that is exclusively relevant in limited. If people are going to complain about "Journey to Nowhere being bumped to uncommon", that is a complaint relevant only in limited. In constructed, it could be a Mythic rare and it wouldn't actually make a difference.
The power level, the restriction, those are complaints relevant to constructed and beyond.
I was simply saying the complaint of rarity is irrelevant to constructed players.
Rarity is relevant to constructed. It is a big factor in how much a card will cost. A good common can maybe be about a dollar at the most. An uncommon can be up to $3. For a good rare it can easily reach $20-$30 dollars and for mythics $100 like we have seen with Jace. So don't say rarity isn't relevant to constructed, because it is. How much would have delver been if he was a rare? Certainly more than a dollar. What if Gray Merchant was uncommon?
If you have trouble affording a $3 uncommon you should not be playing constructed Magic on anywhere near a serious level.
The vast majority of Magic players are not "serious" players. They play the game for fun. And if I have to spend $12 on a play set of an uncommon that should be common, I'm very irritated about it.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I'm not implying sets should be developed solely for limited, but *rarity* is something that is exclusively relevant in limited. If people are going to complain about "Journey to Nowhere being bumped to uncommon", that is a complaint relevant only in limited. In constructed, it could be a Mythic rare and it wouldn't actually make a difference.
The power level, the restriction, those are complaints relevant to constructed and beyond.
I was simply saying the complaint of rarity is irrelevant to constructed players.
Rarity is relevant to constructed. It is a big factor in how much a card will cost. A good common can maybe be about a dollar at the most. An uncommon can be up to $3. For a good rare it can easily reach $20-$30 dollars and for mythics $100 like we have seen with Jace. So don't say rarity isn't relevant to constructed, because it is. How much would have delver been if he was a rare? Certainly more than a dollar. What if Gray Merchant was uncommon?
If you have trouble affording a $3 uncommon you should not be playing constructed Magic on anywhere near a serious level.
The vast majority of Magic players are not "serious" players. They play the game for fun. And if I have to spend $12 on a play set of an uncommon that should be common, I'm very irritated about it.
You're not playing on a serious level. You don't "have" to spend money on a playset of anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whenever someone claims to hate blue I automatically assume they're a bad player.
I suggest reading what crovax was implying again. The issue here is with playable cards. If Doom Blade wasn't reprinted like 500 times it would be commanding a minimal price of $1. Look up Banishing Light on SCG and you'll be surprised. Go on.
Please do not assume constructed players are filthy rich. And that they have petty cash for staple C & U always. This wasn't an issue 5 years ago. The proliferation of cartels and hoard mentality brought about hike spike for many cards.
If suspension field was as playable as say Blastfire Bolt, no one would give a damm. But because it is potentially playable, it unnecessarily goes up. And rarity has mostly to do with that.
Thanks, that sums it up nicely. For an already good card an increase in rarity means an increase in price. I wasn't talking about just any random card. Like you said with doomblade, if it was uncommon and only printed once it would be a few dollars. Since it is actually common and printed several times it is much cheaper.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
I'm not implying sets should be developed solely for limited, but *rarity* is something that is exclusively relevant in limited. If people are going to complain about "Journey to Nowhere being bumped to uncommon", that is a complaint relevant only in limited. In constructed, it could be a Mythic rare and it wouldn't actually make a difference.
The power level, the restriction, those are complaints relevant to constructed and beyond.
I was simply saying the complaint of rarity is irrelevant to constructed players.
Rarity is relevant to constructed. It is a big factor in how much a card will cost. A good common can maybe be about a dollar at the most. An uncommon can be up to $3. For a good rare it can easily reach $20-$30 dollars and for mythics $100 like we have seen with Jace. So don't say rarity isn't relevant to constructed, because it is. How much would have delver been if he was a rare? Certainly more than a dollar. What if Gray Merchant was uncommon?
If you have trouble affording a $3 uncommon you should not be playing constructed Magic on anywhere near a serious level.
So only rich people should play mtg? Lowering the rarity on something is an easy way to make the game at least a little bit more affordable. $12 for one playset, 12 for another, it adds up quickly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
none
Modern UBG B/U/G control BBB MBC WUR Control WWW Prison RRR Goblins
Legacy BBB Pox UBG B/U/G Control UWU StoneBlade UW Miracle Control
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The primary reason is probably relating somewhat to the new Standard structure. Wizards stated they would be more willing to print more powerful cards, and while this card MAY be fine in a given Standard environment, it's still very objectively weak. It's an already existing removal spell, with a condition tacked on and moved up a rarity. To me, the fact it's uncommon is what irritates me, not the card itself.
No, we simply don't expect watered down versions of other cards placed a full rarity level above their superiors. I really don't think that's too much to ask. We aren't asking for close to any of the hyperbolic examples you make, stop making ridiculous comparisons.
I was going to buy a box of this set without a second thought, but the last few spoils have made me have to start reconsidering. That's a shame.
Constructed is *irrelevant* when discussing rarity.
When comparing this card to Journey to Nowhere, the comparison you have to make is Khans limited to Zendikar limited. Removing a most likely replaceable 2/2 or 2/1 creature for 2 is fine in Zendikar, the format is lightning fast and going wide is better than going tall.
Maybe Khans is slower, and the ability to kill any creature (Especially any Morph creature) for 2 mana is just too powerful. The thing is we don't know how the environment looks. It's entirely possible that given the Khans limited environment, this card *should* be common. It's just as possible that this card is too good at common for that limited environment.
Salvation, once again, is just bad at Magic.
My comment is more directed to the Legacy/Modern players that have unreasonable expectations and want newer cards to constantly cause a shift in a format that already has a large pool of cards. It makes no sense to sacrifice balance in the format with the SMALL card pool for the sake of the formats with the HUGE card pools. As to the point of rarity, if you're a constructed player, it's not a big deal. I just went in to the Gatherer to take note of how many janky uncommons and junk rares there have been in the history of the game. It's not like the previous sets weren't loaded with garbage. And I made no ridiculous comparisons, it was an honest question. What's ridiculous is all the whining.
The color which will probably have big stuff I care about: Green
The card green will be 100% playing: Reclamation Sage
Another card which I feel is superior in removing big green things: Reprisal
It can hit Courser of Kruphix faster than a Banishing Light. That's the only thing I can think of as of now lol.
Ignoring for a second that this could have been Journey to Nowhere with the new formatting, reprints are the obvious answer. Doom Blade, Ultimate Price, and Go for the Throat are all great black removal spells that they could reprint. Condemn, Path to Exile, and Oblivion ring are all great white removal they can reprint. The problem is moving good removal up in rarity. They don't want to reprint the same rare every third block, but doing it with uncommons would have been fine. We don't need new things just because they're new. Keep and reprint the quality removal at uncommon, and print things at rare or mythic that will sell packs.
It's the idea behind it. I play Legacy exclusively, but I realize expecting them to print card to influence it is unreasonable. Wizards stated they wanted to allow more powerful cards in Standard, and instead we have been getting cards with iffy rarities. I just hate the idea of after all that, we get this. I know the other sets have had trash in them as well, but I at least found some other quality cards in those sets that had an overall good enough feel for me to accept them as fine. As of now, I am just upset by the concept, not the cards themselves. I feel like this set will be very great limited but rather poor constructed. And I know we haven't seen half the cards in the set yet so it's way too early to say....but as I am saying, it is the concept that upsets me. I like powerful cards, and I don't think I am being ridiculous and simply wanting these cards to have lower rarities. I'm really not asking for much.
We don't need strictly better removal spells - in fact, those would be bad because they'd invalidate previous forms of removal. What we need are more VARIED choices of removal. Abrupt Decay isn't strictly better than any removal before it - it's different. Same with Dismember, same with Disfigure, same with Izzet Charm, same with everything else.
This would've been interesting if it were 1 mana and only exiled things with toughness 5 or 6+, or something else unique. As-is, it's nothing but a strictly worse Journey to Nowhere, and no one wants that. Also, Journey to Nowhere NEEDS a functional reprint with the new duration clause so it can appear in future sets. Now would have been a perfect time for that.
You only have to make the comparison if you're talking about this card in a limited perspective. While some believe that sets' primary focus should be their limited environments, I find that short-sighted for two reasons:
1. A Limited environment lasts for 8-9 months (and as low as 3 months for smaller sets).
2. Wizards has already pointed out that sets developed solely for Limited have been overwhelming mistakes, such as Coldsnap.
Rather than Salvation being bad at Magic, you fail to view things from anything but your own myopic perspective.
But this IS a lazy reprint. It's a card that was previously printed with an additional restriction. To claim that this isn't Journey to Nowhere that was "scaled down" is being disingenuous.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
I'm not implying sets should be developed solely for limited, but *rarity* is something that is exclusively relevant in limited. If people are going to complain about "Journey to Nowhere being bumped to uncommon", that is a complaint relevant only in limited. In constructed, it could be a Mythic rare and it wouldn't actually make a difference.
The power level, the restriction, those are complaints relevant to constructed and beyond.
I was simply saying the complaint of rarity is irrelevant to constructed players.
I am stating an opinion. That's what forums are for; sharing ideas. It isn't "whining." I am discussing my point of view in an educated manner. Calling that "whining" is practically trolling.
And to use your argument against you, if you don't like it don't read/respond to it.
I've seen this Coldsnap comparison thrown around a couple times now and I just wanted to emphasize that Coldsnap was a small set which had multiple cards (Feast of Flesh, Sound the Call, etc) as well as an entire mechanic (ripple) hat were essentially built around drafting. In no way does crafting the removal suite of a set to emphasize the set's mechanics make this a second Coldsnap.
Honestly, I wouldn't expect much high-power, low-rarity removal in this set because of the incentivization of morph; morph depends on overcosted vanilla 2/2s surviving in order for it to even be usable in any way. I would much rather get a chance to actually use this very cool, very anticipated returning mechanic without having my wobbly-dragon-fireball-pudding-spiders constantly immediately destroyed.
Not trying to fan the flames at all, I had the same knee-jerk reaction, I really did. But after thinking about it, I'm fine with this. And if it even has the chance of seeing fringe standard play, that's honestly good enough for me.
I can definitely agree with that. About a functional Journey reprint, it probably is coming. It seems like they really want Morph to be a thing in Limited.
Rarity is relevant to constructed. It is a big factor in how much a card will cost. A good common can maybe be about a dollar at the most. An uncommon can be up to $3. For a good rare it can easily reach $20-$30 dollars and for mythics $100 like we have seen with Jace. So don't say rarity isn't relevant to constructed, because it is. How much would have delver been if he was a rare? Certainly more than a dollar. What if Gray Merchant was uncommon?
none
Modern
UBG B/U/G control
BBB MBC
WUR Control
WWW Prison
RRR Goblins
Legacy
BBB Pox
UBG B/U/G Control
UWU StoneBlade
UW Miracle Control
Where are you getting those numbers from? M15 is a similarly sized set, will be drafted for far less time than Khans, and you still don't see non-reprinted commons for more than 20 cents, uncommons for more than a dollar, and most rares are only about $2. Even some mystics are under $3.
The price of a card is determined partially by it's rarity, yes. But it's also determined by good the card is. A really good common won't have a high price because of how many are opened and a really bad rare won't have a high price because it's junk.
Please do not assume constructed players are filthy rich. And that they have petty cash for staple C & U always. This wasn't an issue 5 years ago. The proliferation of cartels and hoard mentality brought about hike spike for many cards.
If suspension field was as playable as say Blastfire Bolt, no one would give a damm. But because it is potentially playable, it unnecessarily goes up. And rarity has mostly to do with that.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
If you have trouble affording a $3 uncommon you should not be playing constructed Magic on anywhere near a serious level.
The vast majority of Magic players are not "serious" players. They play the game for fun. And if I have to spend $12 on a play set of an uncommon that should be common, I'm very irritated about it.
You're not playing on a serious level. You don't "have" to spend money on a playset of anything.
When is it going to be changed? The suspents is killing me!
So only rich people should play mtg? Lowering the rarity on something is an easy way to make the game at least a little bit more affordable. $12 for one playset, 12 for another, it adds up quickly.
none
Modern
UBG B/U/G control
BBB MBC
WUR Control
WWW Prison
RRR Goblins
Legacy
BBB Pox
UBG B/U/G Control
UWU StoneBlade
UW Miracle Control