Rosey, Pounce got the nod for being new design space, but as DOM obsoleted it immediately and that card hasn't seen play, Titanic Brawl isn't going to change that. This is not to say that a Pounce variant couldn't be constructed playable, but I think the cost for it has to be G or it has to have a substantive upside (giving hexproof).
Siren's Ruse draws a card 95% of the time in any constructed deck it might see play in. Justiciar's Portal... is a combat trick.
Here's the thing - Cloudshift should be in standard - it's like Duress or naturalize or smelt. Good design space that creates interesting situations. Doubling the mana cost and adding something that won't work most of the time doesn't make it a good card.
That said, if it said "Scry 2" or had a good block mechanic (cycling, buyback, madness, kicker, flashback, etc., etc.) then a 2 mana blink effect might be worth considering.
Long story short? Justiciar's Portal was designed to fail; designed to be a mediocre limited combat trick, to have little or anti-synergy with most of the cards in the set, and to not have any block keywords. Why?
Titanic Brawl, in contrast, is one of many cards in the set trying to make up the abject failure of Adapt. Pounce is an elegant (C) design that turns out to be too weak for the format. Yeah, I wish IXA team had figured this out in testing... but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt... mostly because they named it with a coveted one-word name. But this is now the 2nd, multi-word named card that costs the same as Pounce but adds too much text. Players usually misread the DOM variant (thinking it needed to hit a legend); this borrows from the superior Savage Stomp design... but reduces the cost by 1. That's 3 lines of game text to "discount" the card by 1 mana. It needed to be an instant speed version of Prey Upon to see any play. Indeed, I'd go so far as to think that Pounce was in the design file at G before being nerfed before print. It would explain the "strictly better" Pounce variants being printed within a year, despite worse names.
Re: Reprints - You say WOTC doesn't have incentive to feed us reprints; but you can't have it both ways - either (C) cards sell a set, or they don't. The consensus is that they don't sell the set, that's why common cards are designed "for limited" (and nothing else). But if they don't sell sets, putting constructed playable commons in the set... might.
From the very first stand alone expansion, WOTC has reprinted cards w/ new art. Right now we have Opt and Duress in two standard-viable sets. And new players need those cards, and older players can use their favorite art. To that end, "staple reprints"... aren't a bad idea. I'd get a lot more use out of a RNA Murder than a Grotesque Demise or Consign to the Pit. (Of course, what we probably need is a Dark Withering variant with spectacle, and then a Vicious Offering variant for Orzhov... but that's irrelevant to the question of reprints).
Prying Eyes costs 6 mana. Opportunity is functionally better in 2 ways... and significantly more simple.
Undercity's Embrace - Diabolic Edict + ferocious-light feels bad. The fact this doesn't work with any block mechanics is also disappointing. Finally, "each" vs "target" makes all the difference for Commander and 2HG. This fails even that test.
Skewer - Twice worse Lightning Bolt is bad, save MAYBE modern mono red burn... you know, the bad version of the tier 2-3 modern deck that doesn't get Boros Charm or Lightning Helix... notably 2 cards from Ravnica expansions.
Undercity Scavenger - Uh.... Demon of Catastrophes, which is unplayable as Doom Whisperer outclasses it. Undercity's Embrace - Vona's Hunger, Plaguecrafter - Ferocious-light is just not a viable mechanic, and is out of place here. Aeromunculus - I am unprepared to talk about this card, as it dies to everything, has an ability you're losing if you even consider using, and doesn't affect the board. There are dozens of cards I could point to, but let's compare it to Trygon Predator - a card you might know as it has a repeatable practical ability that lets it see play.
...
I saw a couple of comments mentioning how some common cards are strictly worse than cards at higher rarities as proof that this set has bad commons. Strictly worse commons have existed for a long time. Kill shot is strictly worse than Immolating Glare. So is Rebuke. Final reward is strictly worse than Hour of glory.
Commons can be strictly worse than uncommons and rares. It can help balance the set in limited and standard. If Lightning bolt were printed at common in RNA, draft would probably heavily favor red. To say nothing of if Doom whisperer was a common.
Re: Reprints - You say WOTC doesn't have incentive to feed us reprints; but you can't have it both ways - either (C) cards sell a set, or they don't. The consensus is that they don't sell the set, that's why common cards are designed "for limited" (and nothing else). But if they don't sell sets, putting constructed playable commons in the set... might.
I... don't see this as a conflict in the same way that you do.
Yes, high-value commons can make a set better value for cracking packs or limited play. Unfortunately, Wizards has other factors to take into consideration which may outweigh the marginal benefit of good commons. For example...
1. Design Space: Because core sets allow them to reprint the same cards over and over again, Wizards is preserving available design space. I know that this doesn't always make sense on the surface. It is easy for us to say that Spectacle isn't coming back, for instance, and be angry that we are probably never going to see an instant-speed spectacle staple now that this set goofed it up. That just isn't true, however. There were cards in Kaladesh with "Metalcraft" and "Affinity for Artifacts". Further, "Ferocious" is a secondary theme in Jund colors for RNA. Wizards could technically print that instant-speed "spectacle" staple in literally any set (probably at uncommon or rare).
2. Power Creep: Staying with the same "baseline" cards in core set after coreset allows wizards to maintain a very precise level of control over the power of different effects, whereas creating new and "competitive" variants in each set would risk speeding up power creep (which may be bad for the long-term health of the game).
These are difficult factors to directly see or measure, which admittedly makes it hard to counter. I guess that my point is that Wizards isn't guided purely to create good commons. Other factors may be inviting them to keep the status quo even if good commons would make money.
I think I have to side with Metaethics. With the exception of Final Payment, Growth Spiral and maybe Skewer the Critics, most of them are rather blah. It seems very top-heavy in terms of power distribution with the exception of a few great uncommons.
Overall I think it was designed with the intention of slowing the environment further like with what Dominaria did.
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
I think metaethics has a point. I also think WOTC/Hasbro is missing a key fact by creating a linear relationship between power and rarity. It may seem like a good marketting idea that rewards people buying more, but whereas in the early days of magic I never bought singles and prided myself on that fact, now I never buy booster packs and shop exclusvely in the secondary market. This may not make a difference to the manufacturers as the cards have to come from packs somewhere. I wouldn't pretend to guess at the economics from their side, but for me if I am going to buy a pack for only one usable card and its 4-5 dollars a pack I might as well buy the single or play set online when most of the singles cost less than the booster pack each. For the ones that aren't (with a few exceptions), it is still more efficient to get a playset from a dealer than drawing cards. For a while I mixed it up, but as packs rose in cost and value of non-rare cards went down my buying habits have changed. I hadn't really thought about how they have evolved until reading this thread.
I know not everyone can or will see it the same way. Each person has different resources and styles, but I think the reduction in qualtiy of commons and uncommons has been a key factor in my buying habits.
I think having useful, meta or intersting commons and uncommmons maks opening packs more fun and less of a rare chase.
I find that a lot of people are undervaluing rather good cards in this set. It might have something to do with the way guilds are distributed, which automatically makes stuff from the new ravnica not immediately and obviously slot into existing archetypes. Also, a lot of the actually busted stuff from the previous set completely flew over people's head. I was getting phoenixes for 1 E at the prerelese for example.
There's fine commons in this set. The RG 3/3 thing with riot and mana-sink pump is more than fine. Skewer the Critics is not lightning bolt... but neither are most other tings in pauper burn. Petty much nothing is. I don't see a new Gurmag Angler in this set, sure, but if I saw something that could top Gurmag Angler it'd be a 1 mana 6/6 and they're not going to print that except by accident. There's nothing better than Delver of Secrets at common in the set, either... but only a loon would expect anything nearly as good as Delver anywhere below mythic and even there It'd be a ridiculous card.
So yeah, there might be fine enough commons here, and as usual it takes time to figure them out. Speaking as a Pauper player, if anything common looks like it's an automatic pauper staple, it's probably a design mistake.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Masques Block is the worst block ever! There's not one decent card in there! The whole internet say's so, you're literally the only person who ever said it was good!" - random noob in a conversation with an Eldrazi.
The new design philosophy intentionally make commons useless outside of limited. The modern design space for commons are so narrow and anti-consumer. They are forcing players to build with 80% rares and mythics. everything has become premium. including the bedrock of a deck--lands--demand mass amounts of rares. there used to be good removal at common, now players are forced to pay premium for playable removal.
when rarity = power level, there's no reason to play common creatures, when rarer creatures are more powerful, more utility at same or cheaper mana cost.
The only good Commons in this set are Growth Spiral, Skewer the Critics, Shimmer with Possibility, and Imperious Oligarch. Anything else playable would support a niche strategy or otherwise is bad.
Whose calling my Skewer the Critics bad? It runs on the same principle as a Rift Bolt, Wizard's Lightning, or Shard Volley. You are paying a cost based on a condition in order to make it equivalent to a Lightning Bolt in cost and damage. Skewer is lifeloss prior in the turn. Rift is based on time. Shard is sacing a land. Wizard's is tribal matters. Skewer the Critics is literally a rider card like Needle Drop. In which if you want Skewer's spectacle cost, you ride it off a previous source of damage/lifeloss in the turn which in burn is super easy and reliable to do as long as you setup a Rift Bolt the prior turn OR have two untapped mountains and another burn spell in hand. Its like the equivalent of landfall, you are rewarded for simply playing the game, as spectacle is just about trying to get your opponent's life total down.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
R Pauper Burn R R Legacy Burn R R Modern Burn R R Standard Burn R
After drafting quite a lot, the power seems to be in the uncommons. Which itself is not so bad. And by that I mean that there are a lot of constructed-calibre uncommons here in this set, probably much more than GRN.
Pounce got the nod for being new design space, but as DOM obsoleted it immediately and that card hasn't seen play, Titanic Brawl isn't going to change that. This is not to say that a Pounce variant couldn't be constructed playable, but I think the cost for it has to be G or it has to have a substantive upside (giving hexproof).
Siren's Ruse draws a card 95% of the time in any constructed deck it might see play in. Justiciar's Portal... is a combat trick.
Here's the thing - Cloudshift should be in standard - it's like Duress or naturalize or smelt. Good design space that creates interesting situations. Doubling the mana cost and adding something that won't work most of the time doesn't make it a good card.
That said, if it said "Scry 2" or had a good block mechanic (cycling, buyback, madness, kicker, flashback, etc., etc.) then a 2 mana blink effect might be worth considering.
Long story short? Justiciar's Portal was designed to fail; designed to be a mediocre limited combat trick, to have little or anti-synergy with most of the cards in the set, and to not have any block keywords. Why?
Titanic Brawl, in contrast, is one of many cards in the set trying to make up the abject failure of Adapt. Pounce is an elegant (C) design that turns out to be too weak for the format. Yeah, I wish IXA team had figured this out in testing... but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt... mostly because they named it with a coveted one-word name. But this is now the 2nd, multi-word named card that costs the same as Pounce but adds too much text. Players usually misread the DOM variant (thinking it needed to hit a legend); this borrows from the superior Savage Stomp design... but reduces the cost by 1. That's 3 lines of game text to "discount" the card by 1 mana. It needed to be an instant speed version of Prey Upon to see any play. Indeed, I'd go so far as to think that Pounce was in the design file at G before being nerfed before print. It would explain the "strictly better" Pounce variants being printed within a year, despite worse names.
Re: Reprints - You say WOTC doesn't have incentive to feed us reprints; but you can't have it both ways - either (C) cards sell a set, or they don't. The consensus is that they don't sell the set, that's why common cards are designed "for limited" (and nothing else). But if they don't sell sets, putting constructed playable commons in the set... might.
From the very first stand alone expansion, WOTC has reprinted cards w/ new art. Right now we have Opt and Duress in two standard-viable sets. And new players need those cards, and older players can use their favorite art. To that end, "staple reprints"... aren't a bad idea. I'd get a lot more use out of a RNA Murder than a Grotesque Demise or Consign to the Pit. (Of course, what we probably need is a Dark Withering variant with spectacle, and then a Vicious Offering variant for Orzhov... but that's irrelevant to the question of reprints).
I saw a couple of comments mentioning how some common cards are strictly worse than cards at higher rarities as proof that this set has bad commons. Strictly worse commons have existed for a long time. Kill shot is strictly worse than Immolating Glare. So is Rebuke.
Final reward is strictly worse than Hour of glory.
Commons can be strictly worse than uncommons and rares. It can help balance the set in limited and standard. If Lightning bolt were printed at common in RNA, draft would probably heavily favor red. To say nothing of if Doom whisperer was a common.
We are not comparing apples to oranges. Please compare commons to commons. For example: Open fire < Lightning Strike < Lightning bolt
I... don't see this as a conflict in the same way that you do.
Yes, high-value commons can make a set better value for cracking packs or limited play. Unfortunately, Wizards has other factors to take into consideration which may outweigh the marginal benefit of good commons. For example...
1. Design Space: Because core sets allow them to reprint the same cards over and over again, Wizards is preserving available design space. I know that this doesn't always make sense on the surface. It is easy for us to say that Spectacle isn't coming back, for instance, and be angry that we are probably never going to see an instant-speed spectacle staple now that this set goofed it up. That just isn't true, however. There were cards in Kaladesh with "Metalcraft" and "Affinity for Artifacts". Further, "Ferocious" is a secondary theme in Jund colors for RNA. Wizards could technically print that instant-speed "spectacle" staple in literally any set (probably at uncommon or rare).
2. Power Creep: Staying with the same "baseline" cards in core set after coreset allows wizards to maintain a very precise level of control over the power of different effects, whereas creating new and "competitive" variants in each set would risk speeding up power creep (which may be bad for the long-term health of the game).
These are difficult factors to directly see or measure, which admittedly makes it hard to counter. I guess that my point is that Wizards isn't guided purely to create good commons. Other factors may be inviting them to keep the status quo even if good commons would make money.
Overall I think it was designed with the intention of slowing the environment further like with what Dominaria did.
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
I think metaethics has a point. I also think WOTC/Hasbro is missing a key fact by creating a linear relationship between power and rarity. It may seem like a good marketting idea that rewards people buying more, but whereas in the early days of magic I never bought singles and prided myself on that fact, now I never buy booster packs and shop exclusvely in the secondary market. This may not make a difference to the manufacturers as the cards have to come from packs somewhere. I wouldn't pretend to guess at the economics from their side, but for me if I am going to buy a pack for only one usable card and its 4-5 dollars a pack I might as well buy the single or play set online when most of the singles cost less than the booster pack each. For the ones that aren't (with a few exceptions), it is still more efficient to get a playset from a dealer than drawing cards. For a while I mixed it up, but as packs rose in cost and value of non-rare cards went down my buying habits have changed. I hadn't really thought about how they have evolved until reading this thread.
I know not everyone can or will see it the same way. Each person has different resources and styles, but I think the reduction in qualtiy of commons and uncommons has been a key factor in my buying habits.
I think having useful, meta or intersting commons and uncommmons maks opening packs more fun and less of a rare chase.
There's fine commons in this set. The RG 3/3 thing with riot and mana-sink pump is more than fine. Skewer the Critics is not lightning bolt... but neither are most other tings in pauper burn. Petty much nothing is. I don't see a new Gurmag Angler in this set, sure, but if I saw something that could top Gurmag Angler it'd be a 1 mana 6/6 and they're not going to print that except by accident. There's nothing better than Delver of Secrets at common in the set, either... but only a loon would expect anything nearly as good as Delver anywhere below mythic and even there It'd be a ridiculous card.
So yeah, there might be fine enough commons here, and as usual it takes time to figure them out. Speaking as a Pauper player, if anything common looks like it's an automatic pauper staple, it's probably a design mistake.
when rarity = power level, there's no reason to play common creatures, when rarer creatures are more powerful, more utility at same or cheaper mana cost.
........................
R Legacy Burn R
R Modern Burn R
R Standard Burn R
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
"If you don't hit your adversaries wile they're down, they might get up again." --Whipkeeper
"Victory favors neither the righteous nor the wicked. It favors the prepared." -- Lay of the Land