A few ways Chromium can kill an opponent:
1) 3 hits over 3 normal turns.
2) Hatred to insta-gib one player.
3) Double strike to shave off one turn such as Battle Mastery or Fireshrieker
4) Extra turn shenanigans.
5) Quietus Spike to whittle an opponent's health down.
Among a plethora of other methods. Chromium is one of the most straight forward control finishers printed and yet it seems like some can't wrap their brains around it.
I rermember when Khans came out people didn't think much of Dragonlord Ojutai. Then it ended up hitting 30 dollars or so when it was in standard. this feels kinda similar.
Chromium’s ability is awful. I understand it’s flavor related, but yikes is that garbage. Its static stuff is fine at least. m
How is turning any card in your hand (dead lands, etc.) into a free counterspell versus removal against itself bad?
You won't be able to block and dodge removal in the same turn.
I honestly don't see that as a very big detriment.
Let's say you flash this in to block a 4/4 dragon(or die) and it takes 4 damage. Converting it to a 1/1 will instantly kill it. You spent 7 mana on a kill spell that was your finisher.
Let's say you flash this in to block a 4/4 dragon(or die) and it takes 4 damage. Converting it to a 1/1 will instantly kill it. You spent 7 mana on a kill spell that was your finisher.
Given the scenario, you'd die otherwise.
That's not a hard choice.
First rule of winning a game of Magic is don't die. If you burn any other valuable part of your deck's plan to not die it feels bad, but it gives you another turn to find a solution.
Let's say you flash this in to block a 4/4 dragon(or die) and it takes 4 damage. Converting it to a 1/1 will instantly kill it. You spent 7 mana on a kill spell that was your finisher.
Given the scenario, you'd die otherwise.
That's not a hard choice.
First rule of winning a game of Magic is don't die. If you burn any other valuable part of your deck's plan to not die it feels bad, but it gives you another turn to find a solution.
My point was this, if it takes any damage it will die if you use the ability. It's kind of a flawed design.
I mean, I get it, we'd all prefer an evasive 7/7 with hexproof, flash, and can't be countered.
The design meaning that it isn't instantly an unanswerable clock on the game is because, you know, that'd be a stupidly easy to win with card and nobody would be happy about it.
I rermember when Khans came out people didn't think much of Dragonlord Ojutai. Then it ended up hitting 30 dollars or so when it was in standard. this feels kinda similar.
Ojutai is a lot easier to play with than Chromium, though. I mean, Hexproof so long as he's untapped? He's in THE definitive Tap/Untap colors. Card draw as a result of damage that can't be easily blocked? Icing on the cake.
These Elder Dragons are just the weirdest things I've ever seen. It's like they said "Okay, we're gonna do a new cycle of the old Elder Dragons."
"Let's make them every bit as esoteric and strange as the originals. Because nostalgia."
"BRILLIANT."
I mean, I get it, we'd all prefer an evasive 7/7 with hexproof, flash, and can't be countered.
The design meaning that it isn't instantly an unanswerable clock on the game is because, you know, that'd be a stupidly easy to win with card and nobody would be happy about it.
Do you, get it? Because, honestly, I don't think you do based on your sarcastic and patronizing tone. It's a poor design.
A card having drawbacks =/= poor design.
Also, you not liking how a card works =/= poor design.
I bet if the ability removed all damage upon resolution ir made it indestructible or something, people would be complaining about how the card is "dumbed down" and "doesn't require the player to think on their own".
A card having drawbacks =/= poor design.
Also, you not liking how a card works =/= poor design.
I bet if the ability removed all damage upon resolution ir made it indestructible or something, people would be complaining about how the card is "dumbed down" and "doesn't require the player to think on their own".
What are you guys not understanding? The card doesn't have a real drawback. Nor, do I prefer a stupidly easy win condition. They've already printed brain dead cards like Carnage Tyrant. I'm saying that the ability is only good for attacking. That's it. Yes, I know it's a finisher, but there are times when you'll have to play defense. When you do, you'll have to live with the fact that this card will get destroyed because you won't be able to use the ability without killing it.
You just mentioned a scenario where the card's/ability's drawback comes into effect.
Also your opponent has to have a removal spell for that to work. Cards are not played in a vacuum, you will most likely have other options to deal with an attacker if you think Chromium is likely to get killed.
You just mentioned a scenario where the card's/ability's drawback comes into effect.
Also your opponent has to have a removal spell for that to work. Cards are not played in a vacuum, you will most likely have other options to deal with an attacker if you think Chromium is likely to get killed.
Do you know what a drawback is? Typically it's a cost or price you have to pay in order to play the card or maintain it. Like the new demon, in order to play it sacrifice a creature. The dragon doesn't have a bad drawback, it is inherently flawed by design.
Honestly the problem isn't the fact it's a drawback. It's the fact the drawback is weird and counterintuitive as hell.
As a 7/7 general his primary way to win is voltroning. To protect him you need to lose 6 power. That's a lot. The opponent can just don't block and bait you with removals, so he will only take 1 damage instead of 7.
[···]
Add to this the fact that making him unblockable is just weird and won't be needed 90% of the time.
Well ... only dealing 1 damage and having your clock set back for one turn is still better than having Chromium die and spending 9 mana to re-cast him, so...
And again, the protection ability isn't JUST protection, its protection and fluff. It's part trinket text because of the flavor. I can understand why people don't like that, think it's weird, boring etc (not only the ability, but Chromium as a whole). But it's not "bad design" because it has a clear purpose (protect the big beater + add flavor) and does what ut's supposed to do, while adding a small layer of complexity (you have to decide whether you want to risk blocking or being blocked).
@Slaugh: Call it a downside it you want to get into semantics.
Honestly the problem isn't the fact it's a drawback. It's the fact the drawback is weird and counterintuitive as hell.
As a 7/7 general his primary way to win is voltroning. To protect him you need to lose 6 power. That's a lot. The opponent can just don't block and bait you with removals, so he will only take 1 damage instead of 7.
[···]
Add to this the fact that making him unblockable is just weird and won't be needed 90% of the time.
Well ... only dealing 1 damage and having your clock set back for one turn is still better than having Chromium die and spending 9 mana to re-cast him, so...
And again, the protection ability isn't JUST protection, its protection and fluff. It's part trinket text because of the flavor. I can understand why people don't like that, think it's weird, boring etc (not only the ability, but Chromium as a whole). But it's not "bad design" because it has a clear purpose (protect the big beater + add flavor) and does what ut's supposed to do, while adding a small layer of complexity (you have to decide whether you want to risk blocking or being blocked).
FFS... WOTC cheerleaders are impossible to debate with.
Wow, haven't had an exchange like this in a long time.
How should the ability be worded then, in your opinion? Add indestructibility? Remove all damage? Remember, you can't remove the "become a 1/1 human" part because that is a flavor thing that they wanted to get across (and I'm not making this up because I'm a "fanboy", it was specifically mentioned in the article).
Wow, haven't had an exchange like this in a long time.
How should the ability be worded then, in your opinion? Add indestructibility? Remove all damage? Remember, you can't remove the "become a 1/1 human" part because that is a flavor thing that they wanted to get across (and I'm not making this up because I'm a "fanboy", it was specifically mentioned in the article).
I don't design cards. But, both options are better than what they did. Wouldn't you agree?
For those of you that want to join in, the card has a drawback. You have to discard a card to activate the ability. That isn't what's being debated or what is being called a drawback.
But it's not "bad design" because it has a clear purpose (protect the big beater + add flavor) and does what ut's supposed to do
At the end, it's just a protection ability with flavor fluff, like you said.
But people thought it was more and wanted more.
That's why i don't think his design is good. It's just the classic standard control beater.
Considering that they already "wasted" Palladia Mors, the only one really interesting for EDH is Vaevictis. That's sad.
People use the phrase "bad design"/"lazy design" way too often imo and I especially don't like it when it's just used to basically "hide" the fact that they simply don't like the card as a whole or think it's not strong enough. To me, design is all about function. So even a 3/3 for 3 can be considered "good design" if it fulfills its purpose in any given environment, even if it's not exciting in any way. "Boring design" I can live with. Mind you, I don't think Chromiums ability is the pinnacle of interesting design either. But I still like it more than Palladia-Mors (which I think is legit boring) and I think people are just trying to brand it as "bad design" when they really just don't like it because it's not as exciting as they wished it to be. It's like saying Rekindling Phoenix is bad design because your opponent could just remove the token (inb4 "but that one doesn't cost 7 mana").
@Slaugh: It would definitely make the card stronger. But a main complaint about the card seema to be that it's too boring. So adding either extra-protection option would just further remove interactivity and thus add to the boringness (and now before you say that I stated that I care about function, interactivity is part of function in my eyes when it comes to a card game).
But it's not "bad design" because it has a clear purpose (protect the big beater + add flavor) and does what ut's supposed to do
At the end, it's just a protection ability with flavor fluff, like you said.
But people thought it was more and wanted more.
That's why i don't think his design is good. It's just the classic standard control beater.
Considering that they already "wasted" Palladia Mors, the only one really interesting for EDH is Vaevictis. That's sad.
People use the phrase "bad design"/"lazy design" way too often imo and I especially don't like that when it's just used to basically "hide" the fact that they simply don't like the card as a whole or think it's not strong enough. To me, design is all about function. So even a 3/3 for 3 can be considered as "good design" if it fulfills its purpose in any given environment, even if it's not exciting in any way. "Boring design" I can live with. Mind you, I don't think Chromiums ability is the pinnacle of interesting design either. But I still like it more than Palladia-Mors (which I think is legit boring) and I think people are just trying to brand it as "bad design" when they really just don't like it because it's not as exciting as they wished it to be. It's like saying Rekindling Phoenix is bad design because your opponent could just remove the token (inb4 "but that one doesn't cost 7 mana").
Um... your analogies really aren't working here. The phoenix is a proper design... it dies and is reborn. Now, if the phoenix died and the token took the same amount of damage, well, then that would be poor design.
Let me put it this way. They had three goals when they worded this ability:
1) It has to protect the big creature the player just spent 7 mana on from spot removal.
2) It has to transport the flavor of Chromium being able to transform into a human and blend into society.
3) It has to have some downside so that the opponent still has a chance to remove the creature, in order to make the card interactive.
The deaign goals for the Phoenix were very similar. The rebirth ability protects it and is flavorful and the egg token allows for some interaction. The token is purposefully left vulnerable for one turn so that the opponent has a chance to remove it. If he uses a flying blocker to kill the Phoenix and then a Shock to remove the token, he spent 2 cards to get rid of it, just like in Chromium's case.
Sure, on the flavor side it may be a bit weird that Chromium dies from a dagger-sized stab wound inflicted on him in his dragon form when he transforms into a human, but it's not super unbelievable either (since that depends on how transformation works in-universe). And if you're new to the game, the damage carrying over may seem unintuitive to you. But that doesn't change that the ability was intended to work tbis way. Why? Because unless you're playing a black deck with a dedicated discard theme, there are not a whole lot of ways you can control how many cards your opponent has in hand to discard for the ability. And compared to Pearl Like Ancient and Nezahal, the initial cost is very easy to pay (one card vs three). So they added another "loophole".
People use the phrase "bad design"/"lazy design" way too often imo and I especially don't like it when it's just used to basically "hide" the fact that they simply don't like the card as a whole or think it's not strong enough. To me, design is all about function. So even a 3/3 for 3 can be considered "good design" if it fulfills its purpose in any given environment, even if it's not exciting in any way. "Boring design" I can live with. Mind you, I don't think Chromiums ability is the pinnacle of interesting design either. But I still like it more than Palladia-Mors (which I think is legit boring) and I think people are just trying to brand it as "bad design" when they really just don't like it because it's not as exciting as they wished it to be. It's like saying Rekindling Phoenix is bad design because your opponent could just remove the token (inb4 "but that one doesn't cost 7 mana").
Probably boring design is better definition than bad design in this case. But i can undestand the disappointing because these are the elder dragons, not a random legend.
A 3/3 for 3 may be good design, but a 3/3 elder dragon for 3 surely it's not. At least for me. The elder dragons have a name, a flavor, an history behind them and you can't expect people to ignore them.
Palladia Mors is what aggravated the problem. Chromium probably received more hate than Palladia because it came after. With Palladia everyone was like "ew she sucks, but it's just a card in a cycle of 5, who cares". But after seeing Chromium, people were like "again? This card is terrible, this isn't what i want from an elder dragon!" because instead of being only 1 card, now it's 50% of the spoiled cycle.
We can only hope for a good Arcades Sabboth. By good i mean creative and fun, not good in standard.
What do you mean by "boring" here? This word is so overused that it's almost a buzzword.
Also, why do you think Chromium isn't "fun" or "creative"?
I rermember when Khans came out people didn't think much of Dragonlord Ojutai. Then it ended up hitting 30 dollars or so when it was in standard. this feels kinda similar.
Ojutai is a lot easier to play with than Chromium, though. I mean, Hexproof so long as he's untapped? He's in THE definitive Tap/Untap colors. Card draw as a result of damage that can't be easily blocked? Icing on the cake.
That didn't stop people from underestimating Ojutai due to his conditional hexproof, which is the point. This happens every time cards that have glaring drawbacks or aren't overtly busted are spoiled, because some segment of the playerbase habitually assesses these cards in a vacuum. This happened with Hazoret, baby Jace, Liliana, the Last Hope and even Emrakul, the Promised End, with the latter being mainly because it wasn't as strong as Aeons Torn.
Chromium is lacking flexibility, he pretty much wants to be 'that card in control you win with' who also happens to be 'sometimes he takes a hit so you don't die' or 'card that costs your opponent a lot of resources to kill.' He isn't bad design, and certainly Ojutai is an easier design to make work (it is impossible to get Vigilance in White, after all), but Chromium isn't going to be making a lot of varied decks off of his existence.
The flavor on his effect is on point for what he does with his days off, even if that doesn't lead to the optimized gameplay experience (which, again, this is trinket text. How often does Eye Gouge killing a Cyclops come up, even in limited). And his trinket text doesn't get in the way of being a 7/7 flying flash uncounterable threat (because if they were hitting him with a killspell, he'd just be dead, and we'd be on 'dies to doomblade lol' arguments still).
But, counterpoint, remember what he was like last time we saw him? I mean that's so much more playable! Think of how easily he kills multi-blocks with Rampage, and that double Esper in his mana cost means you for sure have the WUB to pay his upkeep!
(I'd apologize for the sarcasm but I'm not actually sorry.)
Sure, that was a low blow, comparing Chromium to Chromium.
Rest of my points stand, his trinket text doesn't get in the way of his design and plays out his flavor entirely. It is an improvement to his card as opposed to not having the text. And is way better than Ferocious 2 on pretty much every conceivable testing parameter.
Right, sorry, forgot we just agreed comparing Chromium to Chromium is unreasonable.
1) 3 hits over 3 normal turns.
2) Hatred to insta-gib one player.
3) Double strike to shave off one turn such as Battle Mastery or Fireshrieker
4) Extra turn shenanigans.
5) Quietus Spike to whittle an opponent's health down.
Among a plethora of other methods. Chromium is one of the most straight forward control finishers printed and yet it seems like some can't wrap their brains around it.
-Chandra Nalaar
Let's say you flash this in to block a 4/4 dragon(or die) and it takes 4 damage. Converting it to a 1/1 will instantly kill it. You spent 7 mana on a kill spell that was your finisher.
That's not a hard choice.
First rule of winning a game of Magic is don't die. If you burn any other valuable part of your deck's plan to not die it feels bad, but it gives you another turn to find a solution.
My point was this, if it takes any damage it will die if you use the ability. It's kind of a flawed design.
The design meaning that it isn't instantly an unanswerable clock on the game is because, you know, that'd be a stupidly easy to win with card and nobody would be happy about it.
Ojutai is a lot easier to play with than Chromium, though. I mean, Hexproof so long as he's untapped? He's in THE definitive Tap/Untap colors. Card draw as a result of damage that can't be easily blocked? Icing on the cake.
These Elder Dragons are just the weirdest things I've ever seen. It's like they said "Okay, we're gonna do a new cycle of the old Elder Dragons."
"Let's make them every bit as esoteric and strange as the originals. Because nostalgia."
"BRILLIANT."
Do you, get it? Because, honestly, I don't think you do based on your sarcastic and patronizing tone. It's a poor design.
Also, you not liking how a card works =/= poor design.
I bet if the ability removed all damage upon resolution ir made it indestructible or something, people would be complaining about how the card is "dumbed down" and "doesn't require the player to think on their own".
What are you guys not understanding? The card doesn't have a real drawback. Nor, do I prefer a stupidly easy win condition. They've already printed brain dead cards like Carnage Tyrant. I'm saying that the ability is only good for attacking. That's it. Yes, I know it's a finisher, but there are times when you'll have to play defense. When you do, you'll have to live with the fact that this card will get destroyed because you won't be able to use the ability without killing it.
Also your opponent has to have a removal spell for that to work. Cards are not played in a vacuum, you will most likely have other options to deal with an attacker if you think Chromium is likely to get killed.
Do you know what a drawback is? Typically it's a cost or price you have to pay in order to play the card or maintain it. Like the new demon, in order to play it sacrifice a creature. The dragon doesn't have a bad drawback, it is inherently flawed by design.
And again, the protection ability isn't JUST protection, its protection and fluff. It's part trinket text because of the flavor. I can understand why people don't like that, think it's weird, boring etc (not only the ability, but Chromium as a whole). But it's not "bad design" because it has a clear purpose (protect the big beater + add flavor) and does what ut's supposed to do, while adding a small layer of complexity (you have to decide whether you want to risk blocking or being blocked).
@Slaugh: Call it a downside it you want to get into semantics.
FFS... WOTC cheerleaders are impossible to debate with.
How should the ability be worded then, in your opinion? Add indestructibility? Remove all damage? Remember, you can't remove the "become a 1/1 human" part because that is a flavor thing that they wanted to get across (and I'm not making this up because I'm a "fanboy", it was specifically mentioned in the article).
I don't design cards. But, both options are better than what they did. Wouldn't you agree?
For those of you that want to join in, the card has a drawback. You have to discard a card to activate the ability. That isn't what's being debated or what is being called a drawback.
@Slaugh: It would definitely make the card stronger. But a main complaint about the card seema to be that it's too boring. So adding either extra-protection option would just further remove interactivity and thus add to the boringness (and now before you say that I stated that I care about function, interactivity is part of function in my eyes when it comes to a card game).
Um... your analogies really aren't working here. The phoenix is a proper design... it dies and is reborn. Now, if the phoenix died and the token took the same amount of damage, well, then that would be poor design.
1) It has to protect the big creature the player just spent 7 mana on from spot removal.
2) It has to transport the flavor of Chromium being able to transform into a human and blend into society.
3) It has to have some downside so that the opponent still has a chance to remove the creature, in order to make the card interactive.
The deaign goals for the Phoenix were very similar. The rebirth ability protects it and is flavorful and the egg token allows for some interaction. The token is purposefully left vulnerable for one turn so that the opponent has a chance to remove it. If he uses a flying blocker to kill the Phoenix and then a Shock to remove the token, he spent 2 cards to get rid of it, just like in Chromium's case.
Sure, on the flavor side it may be a bit weird that Chromium dies from a dagger-sized stab wound inflicted on him in his dragon form when he transforms into a human, but it's not super unbelievable either (since that depends on how transformation works in-universe). And if you're new to the game, the damage carrying over may seem unintuitive to you. But that doesn't change that the ability was intended to work tbis way. Why? Because unless you're playing a black deck with a dedicated discard theme, there are not a whole lot of ways you can control how many cards your opponent has in hand to discard for the ability. And compared to Pearl Like Ancient and Nezahal, the initial cost is very easy to pay (one card vs three). So they added another "loophole".
What do you mean by "boring" here? This word is so overused that it's almost a buzzword.
Also, why do you think Chromium isn't "fun" or "creative"?
That didn't stop people from underestimating Ojutai due to his conditional hexproof, which is the point. This happens every time cards that have glaring drawbacks or aren't overtly busted are spoiled, because some segment of the playerbase habitually assesses these cards in a vacuum. This happened with Hazoret, baby Jace, Liliana, the Last Hope and even Emrakul, the Promised End, with the latter being mainly because it wasn't as strong as Aeons Torn.
The flavor on his effect is on point for what he does with his days off, even if that doesn't lead to the optimized gameplay experience (which, again, this is trinket text. How often does Eye Gouge killing a Cyclops come up, even in limited). And his trinket text doesn't get in the way of being a 7/7 flying flash uncounterable threat (because if they were hitting him with a killspell, he'd just be dead, and we'd be on 'dies to doomblade lol' arguments still).
But, counterpoint, remember what he was like last time we saw him? I mean that's so much more playable! Think of how easily he kills multi-blocks with Rampage, and that double Esper in his mana cost means you for sure have the WUB to pay his upkeep!
(I'd apologize for the sarcasm but I'm not actually sorry.)
Rest of my points stand, his trinket text doesn't get in the way of his design and plays out his flavor entirely. It is an improvement to his card as opposed to not having the text. And is way better than Ferocious 2 on pretty much every conceivable testing parameter.
Right, sorry, forgot we just agreed comparing Chromium to Chromium is unreasonable.
EDH DECKS
Currently under construction
MAGECRAFT STORM
-Veyran, Voice of Duality-
Protection from Degeneracy
Do not pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to endure a difficult one.