Judging this card based on it's merits in Modern alone is completely missing the point. Of course it's bad (I think?) in Modern, I'm mainly interested in it's applications in Standard. Blue is currently doing fine in Modern but really needs the push in Standard. This alone probably won't cut it but it is an interesting card, much more so then the fifty shades of Cancel we've been getting for the past decade or so.
How is blue doing fine in Modern but is weak in Standard? In Standard, Copycat (which plays a decent amount of blue) is arguably the best deck and 8 of the top 50 cards (including 4 of the top 10) are blue. In Modern, the only tier 1 blue decks (as of the last metagame breakdown on Modern Nexus) are Affinity and Bant Eldrazi, neither of which are really blue decks, and only 3 of the top 50 (and 1 of the top 10) cards are blue.
Perhaps I should reiterate. When I say "blue" I mostly mean "draw-go-control". You just don't have that prominent blue control decks in Standard. Temur tower is kind of there but just out of reach. There are, however, reasonable blue control decks in Modern (take the latest Modern GP as an example), at least in my experience.
While we are on the subject of Top cards how many cards in the Top 50 would you consider to be enough evidence that a color isn't sidelined in the format? 15%? More?
At the very least 10%, and probably closer to 15%.
I wonder, then, why more Standard players aren't using Horribly Awry? It costs 1U and counters then exiles creature spells with a cmc <= 4, a condition which hits at least 85% of the creatures in the two largest archetypes in the format right now. *shrug* A rhetorical question only which does not actually require a response.
Magic R&D playtests exclusively for standard/limited with their block sets, but they absolutely do design cards for any format when they can. That minotaur legendary, for instance, is Commander food. That guy's not gonna win any pro tours, nor was he meant to. Then there's stuff like Insolent Neonate, which went completely unnoticed in standard and limited yet found an easy home in modern. That was no accident.
I also think that it's fair to talk about modern here. New standard sets are the only source of new cards for modern, just like standard, so why can't we talk about modern here? I could say "don't talk about standard here, obviously this card was just designed for limited" and I'm making the exact same argument.
I think there is a difference between "talking about Modern" and "using Modern benchmarks for Standard-legal sets". There is no problem with talking about what new innovations could come to the table, but they won't come in the form of raw power. Someone repeatably brought up Mana Leak as a point of reference which is something I consider good to not be in Standard.
The best proposition would be one that creates counterspells that are good in Standard, but a lot better (or still very good) in Modern due to aspects beyond raw power. But that would require more creative thinking than "this should be a reprint of Miscalculation" or "this should cost to cycle because that's where I see my power level based on Modern".
It's also a difference between judging whether a card works in your format of choice or spamming 40% of the posts on the first page of a thread with deriding remarks because a card that was balanced for Limited/Standard is not going to show up in an Eternal format.
The problem here - if no one wants to apply some lateral designs to solve this - clearly is that Modern only gets new cards via Standard-legal releases not that Standard should warp its balance around an eternal format (which are notoriously hard to balance and please with new releases).
Also of note is that complaining about not getting a reprint and instead getting a new design is also weird. A reprint wouldn't extend the card pool any more than a card that is not Modern-playable.
Nobody is measuring the entire set by Modern standards. People are hoping for a few modern playables and a group among them for a modern playable counterspell.
The latter has been hoping for a very long time. People thought Miscalculation would be of an appropriate (not unreasonable) power level and a possibility because its a set with cycling.
A degree of frustration and bitterness is hardly unexpected after not only missing out on that card but getting this garbage instead. That its an uncommon just annoys people even more.
If you're telling me Miscalculation is too strong for Standard I dunno what to say. Maybe you're right, but I'd bet that you're wrong.
Varyag, I agree 100%. This is what I don't get about standard: why are good cards bad for the format? With all of the problems in standard over the last few years, nobody could possibly argue that post-bolt standard has been consistently better than bolt standard. I started with M11 & Innistrad. I liked the game so much because it felt like I could do really powerful things. Everyone just assumes that cards like counterspell and bolt and thoughtseize are inherently bad cards that shouldn't be in standard. But that just doesn't fit with the reality of how we've seen standard evolve over the last decade, and how people have reacted to it.
True, people didn't like thoughtseize when it was in this most recent standard. But I would argue that this wasn't thoughtseizes fault, they just didn't put it in the right standard format. Obviously not every standard format should revolve around efficient counterspells, or hand disruption. But the beauty of standard is that they can change it. Maybe this year's standard has more powerful cards like counterspell and bolt, and next year's standard starts to shift back into midrange. What's so wrong with that?
Meh, they could have made this a Cancel with cycle U, or a mana leak for the same mana as it currently costs, it seems weak either way. Not every counter is going to be Disallow but they could at least be partially close.
You are flat out wrong. True-Name Nemesis was designed for Commander. HOWEVER the card was very popular in Legacy which led to buyouts of the card and of the deck that contained said card. You would know that if you paid even a modicum of attention. Scavenging Ooze was also not designed for other formats. But guess what? It sees play in other formats. I would stop reading your comments as well if you lack this much knowledge of the game and certain trends.
Yeah WotC prints things for specific formats in supplemental sets (Commander, Masters Sets, Conspiracy) mainly. The bottom line is that the card(s) in question need to be functional in sealed and constructed play of a standard set/audience. If a card has ramifications in other formats, that's secondary. Having said that, I do believe that they create legendary creatures with EDH in mind (which also fit into the set: mechanically, thematically, and within it's archetypes).
I think that's mainly why they can't just print a card with 'infect' because it needs it's own archetype/design space to support it. One could argue however, with the block using -1/-1 counters as a mechanic that they could but it think it's unlikely. IMO, and more relative to the OP, this card is pretty bad outside of sealed limited or draft.
^^ I also agree with DP (DoctorPepper) above, if some cards come out of these sets for Modern (and beyond) they are a treat for those format players.
That's what made Prowling Serpopard worth printing? Okay.
Force Spike and Daze see a lot of play. Granted, this is probably not going to see play in the same types of decks (and those decks are eternal decks that use Winter Orb) just because this costs you more than your opponent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
At the very least 10%, and probably closer to 15%.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
It missing Heart of Kiran, Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, and Saheeli Rai is a pretty big problem.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Frontier?? get real
C Long Live Eldrazi C
I think there is a difference between "talking about Modern" and "using Modern benchmarks for Standard-legal sets". There is no problem with talking about what new innovations could come to the table, but they won't come in the form of raw power. Someone repeatably brought up Mana Leak as a point of reference which is something I consider good to not be in Standard.
The best proposition would be one that creates counterspells that are good in Standard, but a lot better (or still very good) in Modern due to aspects beyond raw power. But that would require more creative thinking than "this should be a reprint of Miscalculation" or "this should cost to cycle because that's where I see my power level based on Modern".
It's also a difference between judging whether a card works in your format of choice or spamming 40% of the posts on the first page of a thread with deriding remarks because a card that was balanced for Limited/Standard is not going to show up in an Eternal format.
The problem here - if no one wants to apply some lateral designs to solve this - clearly is that Modern only gets new cards via Standard-legal releases not that Standard should warp its balance around an eternal format (which are notoriously hard to balance and please with new releases).
Also of note is that complaining about not getting a reprint and instead getting a new design is also weird. A reprint wouldn't extend the card pool any more than a card that is not Modern-playable.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Varyag, I agree 100%. This is what I don't get about standard: why are good cards bad for the format? With all of the problems in standard over the last few years, nobody could possibly argue that post-bolt standard has been consistently better than bolt standard. I started with M11 & Innistrad. I liked the game so much because it felt like I could do really powerful things. Everyone just assumes that cards like counterspell and bolt and thoughtseize are inherently bad cards that shouldn't be in standard. But that just doesn't fit with the reality of how we've seen standard evolve over the last decade, and how people have reacted to it.
True, people didn't like thoughtseize when it was in this most recent standard. But I would argue that this wasn't thoughtseizes fault, they just didn't put it in the right standard format. Obviously not every standard format should revolve around efficient counterspells, or hand disruption. But the beauty of standard is that they can change it. Maybe this year's standard has more powerful cards like counterspell and bolt, and next year's standard starts to shift back into midrange. What's so wrong with that?
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
Yeah WotC prints things for specific formats in supplemental sets (Commander, Masters Sets, Conspiracy) mainly. The bottom line is that the card(s) in question need to be functional in sealed and constructed play of a standard set/audience. If a card has ramifications in other formats, that's secondary. Having said that, I do believe that they create legendary creatures with EDH in mind (which also fit into the set: mechanically, thematically, and within it's archetypes).
I think that's mainly why they can't just print a card with 'infect' because it needs it's own archetype/design space to support it. One could argue however, with the block using -1/-1 counters as a mechanic that they could but it think it's unlikely. IMO, and more relative to the OP, this card is pretty bad outside of sealed limited or draft.
^^ I also agree with DP (DoctorPepper) above, if some cards come out of these sets for Modern (and beyond) they are a treat for those format players.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
Force Spike and Daze see a lot of play. Granted, this is probably not going to see play in the same types of decks (and those decks are eternal decks that use Winter Orb) just because this costs you more than your opponent.
On phasing: