I may be. The format obviously has the potential to be very fast, in which case this card is going to just be one of several cards which need immediate answers. I hate that this card exists, because the format in which it is a good card is one I don't want to play. It would have to be non-interactive and very fast, and just generally uninteresting. So yeah, I'm choosing to believe the card is a trap until proven otherwise, because the format still has the potential to be one that punishes people for playing this.
I do think the card is likely to be bad, because of Tahn's point about the extra answers from being an enchantment. But the fact that there are possible temporary answers knocking around isn't the problem.
I'm not sure I buy that. People are rarely maindecking more than 1 piece of enchantment removal and the fact that it dodges most of the other removal in the set seems like it balances that out.
I do think the card is likely to be bad, because of Tahn's point about the extra answers from being an enchantment. But the fact that there are possible temporary answers knocking around isn't the problem.
I'm not sure I buy that. People are rarely maindecking more than 1 piece of enchantment removal and the fact that it dodges most of the other removal in the set seems like it balances that out.
Tahn's point was that people may maindeck more enchantment removal with the enchantment focus in JOU. That could well fall flat, of course.
Plenty of which are sorcery speed, which doesn't do a great job of answering this while netting you a card. Trading 5 damage for 1 card or just having an unanswered 3 drop that ends the game in 4 or less turns are both situations that are going to be far, far more common than them getting multiple cards without losing to other things while they delay this guy. I guarantee even if people start running more maindeck enchantment removal, he's going to have fewer answers than something like a Wingsteed Rider.
All arguments in favour center on "I drop this on turn 3, lol" scenarios. It's a good three-drop, sure. Later in the game, it is merely "I paid only 3 instead of your 6 for my 5 powers", which is a lot less convincing when your giving away a card per turn. Even compared to a mere vanilla 3/3 for 3 (say, centaur courser), is the extra evasion + damage worth 1 card per turn? I'd be wary of running it.
A three drop being good an turn 3 is a meaningful thing. A 2/1 for 2 is terrible on turn six but a good aggressive deck still runs a fair number of them anyway. And heck yes flying and +2/+2 is worth a drawback like that. Courser doesn't win the game even if you drop him turn 3. Demon does and is still a respectable guy on turn 6 (if you're paying half what the other guy is for his 5 power from then that's 3 mana you're holding up for bounce/removal/another creature/whatever over him).
And heck yes flying and +2/+2 is worth a drawback like that. Courser doesn't win the game even if you drop him turn 3. Demon does... [/snip]
It's not that simple. Maybe he'll be really good on turn 3 under enough circumstances to warrant running him, but even then, the drawback is a problem because it's exactly what they need in order to find an out to it. He is definitely not an auto-win just because you laid him turn 3. The fact that his drawback makes him the worst possible defender in the history of ever, and generally awful in any long game, means that he's only good on turn 3 or 4. Courser doesn't have that problem.
If this card is good, it'll be because the format is extremely fast, because if turns 8-9 are relevant, then playing this late will be tantamount to handing the win to your opponent.
He is "awful" if he sits on the board for a long time, not necessarily in a long game where you draw him late. Playing him turn 8-9 is hardly a bad thing, especially if your opponent has already used up what answers he has. And sure he's a bad defender but it's a rare board stat where your 5/5 flyer needs to be the defender. Far more often he swings and your opponent needs to defend. Finally yes giving them more draws does give them more potential to find an answer but that really begs the question of if they have a good enough answer fast enough to matter.
Maybe more enchantment removal will see play (people said that for BotG and it didn't happen) and maybe the format will slow down (can't know till we see it all play out but I'm not betting on it just yet) but until then I'll gladly first pick this card and feel no hesitation to play it.
I don't understand why you're arguing that the card is good when I'm not arguing that the card is bad. I fully acknowledge that he has the capacity to cause complete blowouts. I'm just looking at the card and actually evaluating the sort of situations that are going to come up when you play it.
When the card comes down late, it's going to be competing with voltrons. That's a given. It compares extremely badly in that context, even before you consider that your opponent may not need or even want to answer a "threat" that puts him further ahead. If you want to play this card, it has to be because you want to end the game early, and in that context it might be one of the best cards in the set. I dunno, and neither does anyone else, but it's not impossible. But let's not go arguing that the card is fine in the late game because it isn't.
A 5/5 flyer is very relevant in most late game board states in Theros block. Green can put up a strong road block, but white has probably already killed you if they have a wingsteed or skyguard voltron, and a 5/5 outclasses almost all blue flying threats. Yes, there do exist board states where it's bad, but I'm rarely unable to profitably attack with a 5/5 flyer in the late game.
You always want to primarily evaluate cards on curve.
That's not true for plenty of stuff. 1- and 2-mana creatures that are bad in the endgame tend not to get played for exactly that reason, unless the format is extremely fast. This guy is just another aggro card that's bad in the endgame, and should be evaluated along the same lines. If the format stays extremely fast, he'll be fine, possibly great (if the format ends up truly sucking). But he is absolutely not ever going to be reliably good like a typical Dragon is, in the late game, because putting him on the board is inherently risky.
Why not? Like you said, aggro cards aren't good on their own, and the Master is certainly no exception. If the format surrounding the card is one that can stabilize fine against a typical aggro deck, this won't be the card that pushes it over the edge because in that environment it's as likely to slow you down (and eventually outright lose you the game) as anything.
You always want to primarily evaluate cards on curve.
That's not true for plenty of stuff. 1- and 2-mana creatures that are bad in the endgame tend not to get played for exactly that reason, unless the format is extremely fast. This guy is just another aggro card that's bad in the endgame, and should be evaluated along the same lines. If the format stays extremely fast, he'll be fine, possibly great (if the format ends up truly sucking). But he is absolutely not ever going to be reliably good like a typical Dragon is, in the late game, because putting him on the board is inherently risky.
Pretty much all 1/2 drops are bad topdecks late game. You still run plenty of them if you can. You also act like a discount is meaningless late game. There's actually a pretty significant difference, especially in a format loaded with combat tricks, between using all of your mana turn 6 to drop a 5/5 flier or only using 3 mana. You're not seriously going to act as though you've had to way the benefits/costs of tapping out to drop your 6 mana bomb or playing something smaller or nothing at all to leave up a counter, a Griptide, a removal spell or a combat trick, right? It happens all the time.
I also have no idea why you think he's only aggro. I'm not sure why I wouldn't play him in UB or WB control.
He isn't a game ending threat on his own, unless he comes down early. That is entirely the point. Getting him out on turn six doesn't turn him into a must-answer threat like a typical 5/5 flier, but instead just turns you into a piñata. What are you going to do, block with him?
He probably ends the game in just as many upkeeps late game as he does early game. Maybe a few more if they have a few fliers in the deck or even more quickly if they already used up their applicable removal. 3/3 fliers can end games easily on their own at turn 5+, let alone 5/5 fliers.
We're going in circles somehow. As others have pointed out, he's still a threat late-game as well
I don't think we are, because the only point I've ever been trying to make is that he is patently not a threat late-game, at least not in the sense of being more likely to win you the game than to lose you the game. People keep saying he attacks just fine in the late game, but that's irrelevant, because you're literally putting the means of winning the game before you into your opponent's hand. Whether it's removal or a faster clock or a blocker, basically every deck has some threshold of free cards that will allow them to answer/outrace a late game 5/5 flier, and the Master guarantees that your opponent will eventually hit it.
Think about it this way: drawing a card means there's a sliding scale.
<--The card isn't necessary to win---The card is the factor that lets you win---the card isn't enough to help win the game---the card is dead (i.e. would actively cause you to lose games you'd have otherwise won)--->
There's a window somewhere to the left of the middle which you'd ideally want to maximize. The Master does his best to minimize it instead.
*Please* note that I'm not saying the card sucks unconditionally. If you feel like arguing with me, it should only be because you want to say the card is legitimately good in the late game, because I'm not disagreeing with anything else.
The key word is "eventually". Yes, if you can't close the game out fast enough, the card advantage will catch up to you. However, a 5/5 flyer is a very effective way of quickly closing out a game...especially since in the situation we're talking about, your opponent likely has only 10 or so life when he hits the table (you should be playing an aggressive strategy with him, after all). The fact that he attacks fine is extremely relevant...the card advantage only matters if your opponent can survive long enough to make use of it. You're assuming that they will be, and while sometimes that will be the case, taking it as categorically true....well, it certainly doesn't match up with my experiences with the format in any way, shape, or form.
The kind of decks I build in draft will make this card bad. If you get it on turn three then maybe you'll stick me for 5, but when I get any of my big green dudes online or have (now cantriping) vapor snags and griptides online then Your only helping me. Even throwing cheap flyers in front of this guy seems okay. And as soon as I bestow or pump anything he can be out matched and out raced. Especially with pin to the ground spoiled.
I actually like him in standard though, especially in black/white with the new god and gods willing protecting him and his ilk. And since I love mainboarding the you can't draw extra cards two drop.
Imagine two cards, measured according to the following metrics: Likelihood of being unnecessary to a win, Likelihood of being a critical component of a win, Likelihood of being insufficient to win, Likelihood of causing a loss.
Say the first card is 10%/40%/50%/0%, and the second card is 15%/45%/30%/10%. Which card is better? Obviously the first one, right? Even though it's a critical component less often, it's also less damaging to your record when it goes bad.
(I am not making any assertions about actual metric values here. This is an example only, using purely hypothetical numbers to demonstrate a concept.)
Sure, your numbers are easy off though , and if you were asserting that 10% of the time drawing the master will cause you too lose when you would otherwise win, you're crazy. You've already stated that you don't want the card to be good, and it's pretty obvious that bias is warping your evaluation of the card. I'm done arguing about it for now...well see who can say "I told you so" in a month.
Now that we have the full spoiler it seems to include several cheap, common cards in JOU that will make this card worse: Pin to the Earth Oppressive Rays Cast into Darkness (not that he's likely to want to block, but a 3/5 that draws opponents cards is quite a bit worse).
I'm not sure I buy that. People are rarely maindecking more than 1 piece of enchantment removal and the fact that it dodges most of the other removal in the set seems like it balances that out.
Plenty of which are sorcery speed, which doesn't do a great job of answering this while netting you a card. Trading 5 damage for 1 card or just having an unanswered 3 drop that ends the game in 4 or less turns are both situations that are going to be far, far more common than them getting multiple cards without losing to other things while they delay this guy. I guarantee even if people start running more maindeck enchantment removal, he's going to have fewer answers than something like a Wingsteed Rider.
It's not that simple. Maybe he'll be really good on turn 3 under enough circumstances to warrant running him, but even then, the drawback is a problem because it's exactly what they need in order to find an out to it. He is definitely not an auto-win just because you laid him turn 3. The fact that his drawback makes him the worst possible defender in the history of ever, and generally awful in any long game, means that he's only good on turn 3 or 4. Courser doesn't have that problem.
If this card is good, it'll be because the format is extremely fast, because if turns 8-9 are relevant, then playing this late will be tantamount to handing the win to your opponent.
Maybe more enchantment removal will see play (people said that for BotG and it didn't happen) and maybe the format will slow down (can't know till we see it all play out but I'm not betting on it just yet) but until then I'll gladly first pick this card and feel no hesitation to play it.
When the card comes down late, it's going to be competing with voltrons. That's a given. It compares extremely badly in that context, even before you consider that your opponent may not need or even want to answer a "threat" that puts him further ahead. If you want to play this card, it has to be because you want to end the game early, and in that context it might be one of the best cards in the set. I dunno, and neither does anyone else, but it's not impossible. But let's not go arguing that the card is fine in the late game because it isn't.
The key is the word "profitably". The Master sets the bar really high for what counts as profitable.
That's not true for plenty of stuff. 1- and 2-mana creatures that are bad in the endgame tend not to get played for exactly that reason, unless the format is extremely fast. This guy is just another aggro card that's bad in the endgame, and should be evaluated along the same lines. If the format stays extremely fast, he'll be fine, possibly great (if the format ends up truly sucking). But he is absolutely not ever going to be reliably good like a typical Dragon is, in the late game, because putting him on the board is inherently risky.
Why not? Like you said, aggro cards aren't good on their own, and the Master is certainly no exception. If the format surrounding the card is one that can stabilize fine against a typical aggro deck, this won't be the card that pushes it over the edge because in that environment it's as likely to slow you down (and eventually outright lose you the game) as anything.
Pretty much all 1/2 drops are bad topdecks late game. You still run plenty of them if you can. You also act like a discount is meaningless late game. There's actually a pretty significant difference, especially in a format loaded with combat tricks, between using all of your mana turn 6 to drop a 5/5 flier or only using 3 mana. You're not seriously going to act as though you've had to way the benefits/costs of tapping out to drop your 6 mana bomb or playing something smaller or nothing at all to leave up a counter, a Griptide, a removal spell or a combat trick, right? It happens all the time.
I also have no idea why you think he's only aggro. I'm not sure why I wouldn't play him in UB or WB control.
I don't think we are, because the only point I've ever been trying to make is that he is patently not a threat late-game, at least not in the sense of being more likely to win you the game than to lose you the game. People keep saying he attacks just fine in the late game, but that's irrelevant, because you're literally putting the means of winning the game before you into your opponent's hand. Whether it's removal or a faster clock or a blocker, basically every deck has some threshold of free cards that will allow them to answer/outrace a late game 5/5 flier, and the Master guarantees that your opponent will eventually hit it.
Think about it this way: drawing a card means there's a sliding scale.
<--The card isn't necessary to win---The card is the factor that lets you win---the card isn't enough to help win the game---the card is dead (i.e. would actively cause you to lose games you'd have otherwise won)--->
There's a window somewhere to the left of the middle which you'd ideally want to maximize. The Master does his best to minimize it instead.
*Please* note that I'm not saying the card sucks unconditionally. If you feel like arguing with me, it should only be because you want to say the card is legitimately good in the late game, because I'm not disagreeing with anything else.
I actually like him in standard though, especially in black/white with the new god and gods willing protecting him and his ilk. And since I love mainboarding the you can't draw extra cards two drop.
It certainly doesn't have to be categorically true. If it's true even 10% of the time, it's already costing you way more than you'll ever get from it.
Huh? A card that wins me the game/gives me a strong advantage 90% of the time is an excellent top deck to have available in my deck.
Say the first card is 10%/40%/50%/0%, and the second card is 15%/45%/30%/10%. Which card is better? Obviously the first one, right? Even though it's a critical component less often, it's also less damaging to your record when it goes bad.
(I am not making any assertions about actual metric values here. This is an example only, using purely hypothetical numbers to demonstrate a concept.)
I really tried to make it clear that I wasn't saying the card was bad in general. Over and over and over, in practically every single post.
Pin to the Earth
Oppressive Rays
Cast into Darkness (not that he's likely to want to block, but a 3/5 that draws opponents cards is quite a bit worse).