Awaken really seems like an overcosted ability. It should at least untap the land as well.
Also, why can't we just have a sweeper like this?
4W
Sorcery
Destroy all creatures.
They are trying to limit the power of sweepers. That card is significantly better than any 3WW version. They want pretty full commitment to white if you want access to sweepers, which is reasonable.
Why is it reasonable though? What is wrong with splashable 5 mana sweepers? They said that they'd be making 5 mana sweepers have strong upsides to compensate for them costing 5 mana, but compared to 5 mana sweepers of the past (Hallowed Burial, Rout), these new 5 mana sweepers really have minor upsides. Besides, the reason for making sweepers cost 5 mana was to stop them from being cast on turn 4 and just destroying aggro. Making them splashable wouldn't change that.
Awaken really seems like an overcosted ability. It should at least untap the land as well.
Also, why can't we just have a sweeper like this?
4W
Sorcery
Destroy all creatures.
They are trying to limit the power of sweepers. That card is significantly better than any 3WW version. They want pretty full commitment to white if you want access to sweepers, which is reasonable.
Why is it reasonable though? What is wrong with splashable 5 mana sweepers? They said that they'd be making 5 mana sweepers have strong upsides to compensate for them costing 5 mana, but compared to 5 mana sweepers of the past (Hallowed Burial, Rout), these new 5 mana sweepers really have minor upsides. Besides, the reason for making sweepers cost 5 mana was to stop them from being cast on turn 4 and just destroying aggro. Making them splashable wouldn't change that.
I believe white sweepers are double white cause they are a VERY white thing to do flavorwise. Destroying the entire field when in your favor is a very white philosophy. "Oh, we do it to everyone cause we are fair, but only if it benefits us."
Awaken really seems like an overcosted ability. It should at least untap the land as well.
Also, why can't we just have a sweeper like this?
4W
Sorcery
Destroy all creatures.
They are trying to limit the power of sweepers. That card is significantly better than any 3WW version. They want pretty full commitment to white if you want access to sweepers, which is reasonable.
Why is it reasonable though? What is wrong with splashable 5 mana sweepers? They said that they'd be making 5 mana sweepers have strong upsides to compensate for them costing 5 mana, but compared to 5 mana sweepers of the past (Hallowed Burial, Rout), these new 5 mana sweepers really have minor upsides. Besides, the reason for making sweepers cost 5 mana was to stop them from being cast on turn 4 and just destroying aggro. Making them splashable wouldn't change that.
Destroying all creatures is white. If you make a card 4W, then blue or blue/x can easily destroy all creatures with very little cost, and that is bad.
Awaken really seems like an overcosted ability. It should at least untap the land as well.
Also, why can't we just have a sweeper like this?
4W
Sorcery
Destroy all creatures.
They are trying to limit the power of sweepers. That card is significantly better than any 3WW version. They want pretty full commitment to white if you want access to sweepers, which is reasonable.
Why is it reasonable though? What is wrong with splashable 5 mana sweepers? They said that they'd be making 5 mana sweepers have strong upsides to compensate for them costing 5 mana, but compared to 5 mana sweepers of the past (Hallowed Burial, Rout), these new 5 mana sweepers really have minor upsides. Besides, the reason for making sweepers cost 5 mana was to stop them from being cast on turn 4 and just destroying aggro. Making them splashable wouldn't change that.
Destroying all creatures is white. If you make a card 4W, then blue or blue/x can easily destroy all creatures with very little cost, and that is bad.
Why is it bad? The deck is still playing white, is it not (and destroying all creatures is also black by the way)? Wizards is fine with blue being able to splash for black creature destruction (Ultimate Price) and red direct damage (Lightning Strike). Why not white sweepers?
We need three mana sweepers like Toxic Deluge not garbage 5 mana sweepers.
Sounds like Standard is not for you. Feel free to play Legacy for stronger cards.
Agreed, though I still think 4 mana sweepers were safe in Standard, just like strong 2 mana removal, 2 mana counterspells that didn't require you to warp your entire deck around them, and 1 mana mana-dorks.
Awaken really seems like an overcosted ability. It should at least untap the land as well.
Also, why can't we just have a sweeper like this?
4W
Sorcery
Destroy all creatures.
They are trying to limit the power of sweepers. That card is significantly better than any 3WW version. They want pretty full commitment to white if you want access to sweepers, which is reasonable.
Why is it reasonable though? What is wrong with splashable 5 mana sweepers? They said that they'd be making 5 mana sweepers have strong upsides to compensate for them costing 5 mana, but compared to 5 mana sweepers of the past (Hallowed Burial, Rout), these new 5 mana sweepers really have minor upsides. Besides, the reason for making sweepers cost 5 mana was to stop them from being cast on turn 4 and just destroying aggro. Making them splashable wouldn't change that.
Destroying all creatures is white. If you make a card 4W, then blue or blue/x can easily destroy all creatures with very little cost, and that is bad.
Why is it bad? The deck is still playing white, is it not (and destroying all creatures is also black by the way)? Wizards is fine with blue being able to splash for black creature destruction (Ultimate Price) and red direct damage (Lightning Strike). Why not white sweepers?
Because destroying single creatures that have certain requirements exists in all colors but blue. "Destroying" all creatures is wholly white now, and therefore, it requires the heavier commitment to white. Honoring the color pie is important in game theory because it provides identity for colors and gives players an idea of what those colors are about.
They are trying to limit the power of sweepers. That card is significantly better than any 3WW version. They want pretty full commitment to white if you want access to sweepers, which is reasonable.
Why is it reasonable though? What is wrong with splashable 5 mana sweepers? They said that they'd be making 5 mana sweepers have strong upsides to compensate for them costing 5 mana, but compared to 5 mana sweepers of the past (Hallowed Burial, Rout), these new 5 mana sweepers really have minor upsides. Besides, the reason for making sweepers cost 5 mana was to stop them from being cast on turn 4 and just destroying aggro. Making them splashable wouldn't change that.
Destroying all creatures is white. If you make a card 4W, then blue or blue/x can easily destroy all creatures with very little cost, and that is bad.
Why is it bad? The deck is still playing white, is it not (and destroying all creatures is also black by the way)? Wizards is fine with blue being able to splash for black creature destruction (Ultimate Price) and red direct damage (Lightning Strike). Why not white sweepers?
Because destroying single creatures that have certain requirements exists in all colors but blue. "Destroying" all creatures is wholly white now, and therefore, it requires the heavier commitment to white. Honoring the color pie is important in game theory because it provides identity for colors and gives players an idea of what those colors are about.
Sweepers are actually a less important part of white's color pie than direct damage is of red's or creature-destruction is of black's, yet there are splashable single-target removal spells and direct damage spells, so that argument seems flawed. In addition, a blue deck splashing white is also a white deck, so it is not breaking the color pie to make wraths splashable.
Edit: Also, destroying all creatures is not wholly white. It is also black (Crux of Fate being a recent example).
All of you naysayers didn't even play with Martial Coup when it was in standard I see.
Agreed - this has the potential to be much more a one-sided Wrath than people give it credit for.
It's a damned good thing Nissa, Worldwaker is rotating...
I really hope they're spoiling the junk cards up front this time and that tomorrow's spoilers are really going to get things going because so far, aside from the lands and a handful of mythics, the rares in this set are doing nothing for me.
Apparently, this set doesn't need good rares aside from lands cause approx. 95% of the players/stores who open bfz product are only doing so for full art fetches that cost an arm and a leg. I really hate bringing up modern masters15, which had seemingly infinite bulk-rares, but at least you could also pull stuff like hierarch or cryptic. I hope future spoilers sway my opinion on bfz, I really do.
I'm SO SICK of the "too strong for Standard" argument. It's the new "Dies to removal". We can have a two mana 4/4 with a zillion abilities, but we can't just have Accumulated Knowledge. Makes sense.
Methinks you guys are a little ungrateful of a wrath suite that includes Languish, Crux of Fate, Tragic Arrogance, and this new powerhouse. All that in a post-rotation setting, and we don't even know what the rest of the set has in store!
For Abzan Control, as it currently stands, is this really any better than Duneblast? Duneblast requires you to have a creature on the field already, but will nuke land creatures as well. I think the more likely scenario is that non-Abzan W/X control decks pick this up as either a replacement or supplement to End Hostilities. I like this a little better than End Hostilities in a control shell as it can be both a board wipe and a win-con. For those worried about the possibility of not clearing the whole board, I would point to Crux of Fate as an example of a potentially incomplete boardwipe that has still seen its fair share of play.
Actually, you're not required to have any creatures. "Choose up to one" means you don't have to choose any.
I meant in terms of wiping the board and retaining presence.
Why is it bad? The deck is still playing white, is it not (and destroying all creatures is also black by the way)? Wizards is fine with blue being able to splash for black creature destruction (Ultimate Price) and red direct damage (Lightning Strike). Why not white sweepers?
After all, why would ANY card have double or triple color requirements in their casting cost?
The answer of course is that it is a power level issue as well as a flavor issue.
Why is it bad? The deck is still playing white, is it not (and destroying all creatures is also black by the way)? Wizards is fine with blue being able to splash for black creature destruction (Ultimate Price) and red direct damage (Lightning Strike). Why not white sweepers?
After all, why would ANY card have double or triple color requirements in their casting cost?
The answer of course is that it is a power level issue as well as a flavor issue.
Exactly. But 5 mana wraths without significant additional upside are not overpowered, so being able to cast your playable but not exciting card shouldn't be a power-level issue.
I really hope they're spoiling the junk cards up front this time and that tomorrow's spoilers are really going to get things going because so far, aside from the lands and a handful of mythics, the rares in this set are doing nothing for me.
All they need to do is spoil the art work for misty rainforest in a few hrs time and they will suddenly sell another 100,000 cases preordered the same day
Why is it bad? The deck is still playing white, is it not (and destroying all creatures is also black by the way)? Wizards is fine with blue being able to splash for black creature destruction (Ultimate Price) and red direct damage (Lightning Strike). Why not white sweepers?
After all, why would ANY card have double or triple color requirements in their casting cost?
The answer of course is that it is a power level issue as well as a flavor issue.
Exactly. But 5 mana wraths without significant additional upside are not overpowered, so being able to cast your playable but not exciting card shouldn't be a power-level issue.
Maybe WotC consider the upside to be significant? Maybe WotC consider it a flavor fail to cost sweepers with only a single color requirement?
Why is it bad? The deck is still playing white, is it not (and destroying all creatures is also black by the way)? Wizards is fine with blue being able to splash for black creature destruction (Ultimate Price) and red direct damage (Lightning Strike). Why not white sweepers?
After all, why would ANY card have double or triple color requirements in their casting cost?
The answer of course is that it is a power level issue as well as a flavor issue.
Exactly. But 5 mana wraths without significant additional upside are not overpowered, so being able to cast your playable but not exciting card shouldn't be a power-level issue.
Maybe WotC consider the upside to be significant?
Being able to cast it is not an upside. It just makes it able to be played in more decks. Once it is in those decks, it would as any other wrath would, with the difference being that it would actually be castable.
Maybe WotC consider it a flavor fail to cost sweepers with only a single color requirement?
I like this, but End Hostilities is gonna be the sweeper of choice for W/x standard control decks.
Why? The attached cards clause of End Hostilities almost never matters and having a sweeper that can pack a body late game seems way better. With Theros rotating out and Awaken coming in I think this is contextually outright better than End Hostilities.
I once allowed a Herald of Torment to drop off and keep attacking me. Both of us forgot about the attached thing. I felt so bad about it later but on that day it wouldn't have mattered much, I was misplaying all over due to lack of sleep.
I don't think this is a bad sweeper, just that you'd want to have a nice little land army to take advantage of the synergy.
Exactly. But 5 mana wraths without significant additional upside are not overpowered, so being able to cast your playable but not exciting card shouldn't be a power-level issue.
It could be 4W in lots of formats. A format with fetchable duals? You need to be extremely careful with mana costs to avoid every deck splashing a W/X dual for a wrath. A wrath they might not have access to otherwise.
Awaken really seems like an overcosted ability. It should at least untap the land as well.
I KNOW! I just don't get it. What's the point of giving the land haste if it's usually just going to be tapped to pay the Awaken cost?
Besides, you could just target a land that's already been in play for more than a turn.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
We need three mana sweepers like Toxic Deluge not garbage 5 mana sweepers.
Sounds like Standard is not for you. Feel free to play Legacy for stronger cards.
That's not true at all. They can print extremely strong eternal/modern cards that are good, but not too strong for standard. Look at recent stuff like Abrupt Decay, Dig Through Time, etc. They can print something like:
1WW
Sorcery
Exile all creatures with CMC 3 or less.
Maybe the exile clause is a little too powerful, but in a format where Hangerback Walker, Den Protector, and Deathmist Raptor are WAY too ubiquitous, this card is perfectly fine as a police-card. In addition, it would actually be a powerful player in non-standard formats.
Generally, you can print powerful cards that are standard niche, but really good in non-standard formats, and cards that interact way better in eternal-formats than standard (things like say, CMC clauses, etc. because Standard isn't as efficient-based as modern and eternal-formats...).
I'd kill for a Counterspell that was like Abrupt-Decay sans the uncounterability. It'd be fine in standard - not too powerful, but amazing in all other formats.
Awaken really seems like an overcosted ability. It should at least untap the land as well.
I KNOW! I just don't get it. What's the point of giving the land haste if it's usually just going to be tapped to pay the Awaken cost?
Besides, you could just target a land that's already been in play for more than a turn.
The haste is there to prevent "rules-lawyering". I can imagine without the haste, there will be competitive people out there in the Pre-release paying attention to every land you've dropped and immediately start invalidating your attack since he can specifically prove your land came down on this turn somehow. Since the Judges cannot be possibly be paying attention to every table (let alone land drop), they can't possibly judge that effectively in such a case.
Yes, careful playing can reduce the problems, but from what we've seen so far, Awaken feels quite Limited/Casual, I can imagine this popping up at a lot of Pre-releases. There are players out there who deem every game as Competitive REL regardless and plenty of newer players in Pre-releases.
Yes, it's one of those "simplified for beginners" abilities, but I can see the rationale behind it and I'd take the chance to not having to memorize everyone's land drops for the sake of that haste during a game.
That being said, I'm also wondering how often I will have an extra land for the awaken and haste to be relevant together though, considering the awaken costs we have so far. The tapped land can't even block like Phyrexian Rebirth at least can.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why is it reasonable though? What is wrong with splashable 5 mana sweepers? They said that they'd be making 5 mana sweepers have strong upsides to compensate for them costing 5 mana, but compared to 5 mana sweepers of the past (Hallowed Burial, Rout), these new 5 mana sweepers really have minor upsides. Besides, the reason for making sweepers cost 5 mana was to stop them from being cast on turn 4 and just destroying aggro. Making them splashable wouldn't change that.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I believe white sweepers are double white cause they are a VERY white thing to do flavorwise. Destroying the entire field when in your favor is a very white philosophy. "Oh, we do it to everyone cause we are fair, but only if it benefits us."
Destroying all creatures is white. If you make a card 4W, then blue or blue/x can easily destroy all creatures with very little cost, and that is bad.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
Why is it bad? The deck is still playing white, is it not (and destroying all creatures is also black by the way)? Wizards is fine with blue being able to splash for black creature destruction (Ultimate Price) and red direct damage (Lightning Strike). Why not white sweepers?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Sounds like Standard is not for you. Feel free to play Legacy for stronger cards.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
Agreed, though I still think 4 mana sweepers were safe in Standard, just like strong 2 mana removal, 2 mana counterspells that didn't require you to warp your entire deck around them, and 1 mana mana-dorks.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Because destroying single creatures that have certain requirements exists in all colors but blue. "Destroying" all creatures is wholly white now, and therefore, it requires the heavier commitment to white. Honoring the color pie is important in game theory because it provides identity for colors and gives players an idea of what those colors are about.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
Sweepers are actually a less important part of white's color pie than direct damage is of red's or creature-destruction is of black's, yet there are splashable single-target removal spells and direct damage spells, so that argument seems flawed. In addition, a blue deck splashing white is also a white deck, so it is not breaking the color pie to make wraths splashable.
Edit: Also, destroying all creatures is not wholly white. It is also black (Crux of Fate being a recent example).
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Agreed - this has the potential to be much more a one-sided Wrath than people give it credit for.
It's a damned good thing Nissa, Worldwaker is rotating...
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
Apparently, this set doesn't need good rares aside from lands cause approx. 95% of the players/stores who open bfz product are only doing so for full art fetches that cost an arm and a leg. I really hate bringing up modern masters15, which had seemingly infinite bulk-rares, but at least you could also pull stuff like hierarch or cryptic. I hope future spoilers sway my opinion on bfz, I really do.
Cubetutor Link
After all, why would ANY card have double or triple color requirements in their casting cost?
The answer of course is that it is a power level issue as well as a flavor issue.
Martial coup kills all of our opponents creatures, this does not
Exactly. But 5 mana wraths without significant additional upside are not overpowered, so being able to cast your playable but not exciting card shouldn't be a power-level issue.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
All they need to do is spoil the art work for misty rainforest in a few hrs time and they will suddenly sell another 100,000 cases preordered the same day
Maybe WotC consider the upside to be significant? Maybe WotC consider it a flavor fail to cost sweepers with only a single color requirement?
Being able to cast it is not an upside. It just makes it able to be played in more decks. Once it is in those decks, it would as any other wrath would, with the difference being that it would actually be castable.
Which makes no sense.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I once allowed a Herald of Torment to drop off and keep attacking me. Both of us forgot about the attached thing. I felt so bad about it later but on that day it wouldn't have mattered much, I was misplaying all over due to lack of sleep.
I don't think this is a bad sweeper, just that you'd want to have a nice little land army to take advantage of the synergy.
It could be 4W in lots of formats. A format with fetchable duals? You need to be extremely careful with mana costs to avoid every deck splashing a W/X dual for a wrath. A wrath they might not have access to otherwise.
My wife was on MTV with this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUutIZg2EpU
I KNOW! I just don't get it. What's the point of giving the land haste if it's usually just going to be tapped to pay the Awaken cost?
Besides, you could just target a land that's already been in play for more than a turn.
That's not true at all. They can print extremely strong eternal/modern cards that are good, but not too strong for standard. Look at recent stuff like Abrupt Decay, Dig Through Time, etc. They can print something like:
1WW
Sorcery
Exile all creatures with CMC 3 or less.
Maybe the exile clause is a little too powerful, but in a format where Hangerback Walker, Den Protector, and Deathmist Raptor are WAY too ubiquitous, this card is perfectly fine as a police-card. In addition, it would actually be a powerful player in non-standard formats.
Generally, you can print powerful cards that are standard niche, but really good in non-standard formats, and cards that interact way better in eternal-formats than standard (things like say, CMC clauses, etc. because Standard isn't as efficient-based as modern and eternal-formats...).
I'd kill for a Counterspell that was like Abrupt-Decay sans the uncounterability. It'd be fine in standard - not too powerful, but amazing in all other formats.
The haste is there to prevent "rules-lawyering". I can imagine without the haste, there will be competitive people out there in the Pre-release paying attention to every land you've dropped and immediately start invalidating your attack since he can specifically prove your land came down on this turn somehow. Since the Judges cannot be possibly be paying attention to every table (let alone land drop), they can't possibly judge that effectively in such a case.
Yes, careful playing can reduce the problems, but from what we've seen so far, Awaken feels quite Limited/Casual, I can imagine this popping up at a lot of Pre-releases. There are players out there who deem every game as Competitive REL regardless and plenty of newer players in Pre-releases.
Yes, it's one of those "simplified for beginners" abilities, but I can see the rationale behind it and I'd take the chance to not having to memorize everyone's land drops for the sake of that haste during a game.
That being said, I'm also wondering how often I will have an extra land for the awaken and haste to be relevant together though, considering the awaken costs we have so far. The tapped land can't even block like Phyrexian Rebirth at least can.