Basking rootwalla is a constructed playable, staple, fun card. Frilled Sandwalla is Basking rootwalla with what made it interesting taken away, and NOTHING new added. I want to be clear here wizards: Unacceptable.
There are dozens of things they could have done to make this not functionally worse. The easiest, yet not sufficient to make it constructed playable in most formats, would be to give it cycling. Maybe cycling 2, with Cycling 1 actually pushing it to playable in quite a few situations. Of course "cycling - return a land from your graveyard to your hand" would be build-around-me-old and work with the desert themes, and cycling - sacrifice a land" would be terrible, but still lead to some interesting deckbuilding options (and comboing well with Dunes of the Dead, incidentally one of the better designed cards in the set... but so similar to the maligned Cradle of the Accursed that it probably shouldn't have been printed in the same block/year.)
It's a cute callback, but I am surprised they didn't give it cycling (or eternalize, or something). See also Twinblade Slasher and Wolfbitten Captive for other examples of similar cards with a block-relevant twist.
Yeah it's a bit weird, but this is still a fine card for limited which is really all that matters in the end
"a fine card for limited" it is not,
If you mean "it's card people would run in limited", I've got lots of gray ogre for you. If "fine" has any meaning, then this does not satisfy that meaning.
It's much better than a Gray Ogre. Have we already forgotten Sludge Crawler? That card turned out to be bizarrely good, and this is probably better. Not a high pick, but a solid playable. Most cards are designed for Limited. Picking one out to hate on for not being a Constructed card is pointless.
It's a one drop that trades with most creatures in limited. It's a perfectly acceptable common even though it's not really going to see play otherwise.
This card was likely in the play test file as "Small Green Common with Pump Ability". When creative got their hands on it they noticed, if it was a "rootwalla" it would be a fun call back to an older call. Could the card have cycling? Sure, but I actually think cycling on one-drops is.... more problematic than it looks on the surface. Not every card is going to have constructed applications anyway.
It's a one drop that trades with most creatures in limited. It's a perfectly acceptable common even though it's not really going to see play otherwise.
The question is this: Why print this over basking rootwalla? Even giving it a relevant creature type would have made it printable. Make it a zombie. A goblin. A snake!
But no! It's just WORSE THAN AN EXISTING CARD, the existing card can be printed, so Wizards said "Here, we can give you better for the same cost... and won't." Unacceptable!
This card was likely in the play test file as "Small Green Common with Pump Ability". When creative got their hands on it they noticed, if it was a "rootwalla" it would be a fun call back to an older call. Could the card have cycling? Sure, but I actually think cycling on one-drops is.... more problematic than it looks on the surface. Not every card is going to have constructed applications anyway.
Either they were aware of the older card or they weren't. If they were, they knew this wasn't good enough. If they weren't, it wouldn't be named "Sandwalla".
Would giving it cycling make it good? NO! But what it would do is make it not functionally worse than an existing card.
Printing functionally inferior cards adds nothing to the game. It makes people feel bad for opening them. And yeah, MAYBE a rootwalla variant was *NEEDED* here, and MAYBE making it a goblin or naga would have broken the format ("Maybe", but really not so much!). But giving it cycling doesn't seem like it makes it any better in 99% of situations. But... it would make it not functionally worse.
Or they could given it trample. The activation could be 2. It could have been 1/2. It could gain hexproof. It could gain reach. It could be a zombie. It could be a camel!
What you get from this is that someone said "I don't care", and no one cared. unacceptable.
They can't print the original in the set because madness isn't one of the evergreen words. Also, why would it ever be cycled? Like I said, it's a one drop that trades with practically everything in limited and it probably isn't constructed playable. The original was constructed playable in the madness deck and only the madness deck.
No.
It doesn't have to.
Nah, I will keep playing Magic.
Le'ts be clear: This is a strictly worse version of several existing cards.
Either this is acceptable, or it is not. If it is not, you should be worried about it.
Let's entertain the notion it's acceptable: Give one profession where is it acceptable to intentionally give you a lesser product for the same price when it doesn't affect the seller EITHER WAY?
Even greedy organizations that try to cut back on a product so you'll buy more of it, or they can make more money, etc. - professional moral failings aside - still get AFFECTED by it! Wizards would not be adversely affected if they took 2 seconds to give this cycling, or make it a naga, or etc.
But by making it bad, they have been affected. I will now buy less cards. So, demonstrably, this is not in their interest. Let's hope they notice.
They don't design each card for you. They design the set for you and the thousands of other players in the world. Strictly worse cards happen all the time for a variety of reasons, and if you can't accept that then I imagine it's been several years since you've bought any set at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
This will never make a constructed deck, and that's a serious problem when a simple change would let it do so.
This is the crux of the issue here and you are 100% incorrect. Not all cards can be destined for constructed. Full stop. We should be glad the designers of the game understand that.
No.
It doesn't have to.
Nah, I will keep playing Magic.
Le'ts be clear: This is a strictly worse version of several existing cards.
Either this is acceptable, or it is not. If it is not, you should be worried about it.
Let's entertain the notion it's acceptable: Give one profession where is it acceptable to intentionally give you a lesser product for the same price when it doesn't affect the seller EITHER WAY?
Even greedy organizations that try to cut back on a product so you'll buy more of it, or they can make more money, etc. - professional moral failings aside - still get AFFECTED by it! Wizards would not be adversely affected if they took 2 seconds to give this cycling, or make it a naga, or etc.
But by making it bad, they have been affected. I will now buy less cards. So, demonstrably, this is not in their interest. Let's hope they notice.
This is hilarious. So, let's break this down.
1.) If by "I'll buy less cards" means you won't be buying this as a single, cool, that doesn't affect their bottom line at all. Good job!
2.) If you mean buying boosters/boxes, well, you aren't buying any "less" cards, unless you just mean not buying them at all(which if your reasoning is because of bad commons/uncommons, well, that's your prerogative) as you have a random chance of obtaining this card regardless, you going to ask for a refund after opening it? They still have their money.
3.) I can assure you nobody at WotC is sweating your potential boycott of their product.
4.) What you fail to comprehend in your crusade is that if even half of a sets cards are constructed playable, then the value of the set will plummet.
Keep that hate train rollin', it's comical at least.
This will never make a constructed deck, and that's a serious problem when a simple change would let it do so.
Correction, this won't be part of a pro tour deck. 10/10 times it will be in someones FNM or Casual deck. Not because its the best thing ever, but it will have a permanent home in someones deck. This can be for any number of reasons. Because its a cool looking lizard, they are on a budget, because its their lizard tribal deck even though their is really no tribal support, etc, etc.
For instance, Those Who Serve? They have a home in my mono-white zombies deck. It cost me like what to build that deck? $8. $4 of that was because of a play set of Cast Out. Doesn't run any rares at the moment. But when Hour of Devastation is released I will pick up some of the rare deserts along with some new white cards that fit the theme like Unconventional Tactics, Mummy Paramount and Dutiful Servants.
The OP has a point. If cards are made that not enticing, what point is there for me to crack packs? Not even the lotto Masterpieces are sufficient if the whole set (like this one) is underwhelming.
Wizards loses money because there is no reason for me to buy sealed product, at all, when 99.9% of it is recycle bin fodder, and I mean that, its paper I would throw away.
I personally think people get bent out of shape to easily and quickly. After all, this thread is about someone who is getting bent out of shape because a common that resembles another common and because one is better that is the excuse. Pretty petty if you ask me as that is rate we might as well be arguing about two forest cards. Its not even about something like the planeswalker Samut, the Tested which has driven up much more discussion and has more reason to be criticized.
The OP has a point. If cards are made that not enticing, what point is there for me to crack packs? Not even the lotto Masterpieces are sufficient if the whole set (like this one) is underwhelming.
Wizards loses money because there is no reason for me to buy sealed product, at all, when 99.9% of it is recycle bin fodder, and I mean that, its paper I would throw away.
And you have every right to, but you are not everyone. Your opinion isn't everyones.
The OP has a point. If cards are made that not enticing, what point is there for me to crack packs? Not even the lotto Masterpieces are sufficient if the whole set (like this one) is underwhelming.
Wizards loses money because there is no reason for me to buy sealed product, at all, when 99.9% of it is recycle bin fodder, and I mean that, its paper I would throw away.
I doubt that Wizards is going to care if a handful of older players leave and are replaced by hordes of stupid, eager newcomers who don't know the difference between Serra Angel and Linvala, Keeper of Silence, especially since the former will not be buying their watered down product and the latter will be.
The OP has a point. If cards are made that not enticing, what point is there for me to crack packs? Not even the lotto Masterpieces are sufficient if the whole set (like this one) is underwhelming.
Wizards loses money because there is no reason for me to buy sealed product, at all, when 99.9% of it is recycle bin fodder, and I mean that, its paper I would throw away.
I doubt that Wizards is going to care if a handful of older players leave and are replaced by hordes of stupid, eager newcomers who don't know the difference between Serra Angel and Linvala, Keeper of Silence, especially since the former will not be buying their watered down product and the latter will be.
Oh the irony!
You realize Serra Angel came before Linvala, Keeper of Silence, right? Like, that's what creatures were "to older players". The games come a long way, this was bound to happen sooner or later.
I understand the frustration of strictly worst cards and I've voiced them a few times.
The thing is though, that your spending a lot of energy for a case that's not very important: the card is a common, it mimicks a card printed years ago, and it fills a role in limited.
Compared to more egergious, recent examples: smuggler's copter vs sky skiff (in the sme set, for god's sake) was one, there was another I don't recall where it was a black removal that was 1 mana worse compared to a card in the previous set of the same block (I think throttle vs flatten).
So we're getting upset that a one drop common doesn't have an ability that it couldn't have had in the first place because that keyword doesn't exist in the set in the first place? Okay.
I mean sure this thing could have had cycling for 2 or G but it just... Doesn't. Would that have made it a new constructed lynchpin?... Probably not. That would probably have made it marginally better at being what it is, which is a decent limited creature. I'm just sitting here thinking the Basking Rootwalla callback is cute.
I'm also starting to think that entombedhydra is DesolatorMagic's MTGS account.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
i think its indicative of a larger problem with this entire set.
its mechanically bland.
this card is one of many examples. the cards in this set aren't necessarily bad, its just that they didn't actually explore any design space with them. there are a slew of cards that are not as powerful as their original counterparts, and thats fine, but they don't do anything new or exciting or different, they just exist. thats a problem. that makes for a boring set, not a bad set, not a weak set, a boring set. boring sets don't sell. boring sets see diminished attendance for limited events. boring sets don't shake up standard. boring sets don't inspire casual decks.
a boring set causes interest in the game to wane as there are more enjoyable ways to spend your time and money. i very much enjoy having people to play against, i don't foresee this set encouraging that and cards like this one are very much a reason why.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basking rootwalla is a constructed playable, staple, fun card.
Frilled Sandwalla is Basking rootwalla with what made it interesting taken away, and NOTHING new added. I want to be clear here wizards: Unacceptable.
There are dozens of things they could have done to make this not functionally worse. The easiest, yet not sufficient to make it constructed playable in most formats, would be to give it cycling. Maybe cycling 2, with Cycling 1 actually pushing it to playable in quite a few situations. Of course "cycling - return a land from your graveyard to your hand" would be build-around-me-old and work with the desert themes, and cycling - sacrifice a land" would be terrible, but still lead to some interesting deckbuilding options (and comboing well with Dunes of the Dead, incidentally one of the better designed cards in the set... but so similar to the maligned Cradle of the Accursed that it probably shouldn't have been printed in the same block/year.)
Not cool Wizards.
"a fine card for limited" it is not,
If you mean "it's card people would run in limited", I've got lots of gray ogre for you. If "fine" has any meaning, then this does not satisfy that meaning.
Stop being so accepting.
R Norin the Wary: I've Got a Bad Feeling About This
UG Thrasios & Kydele: Knowledge is Power
RG Borborygmos Enraged: The Breaking of the World
BG The Gitrog Monster: All Glory to the Hypnotoad
WUR Zedruu the Greathearted: Endless Possibilities, One Outcome
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain: What's Dead May Never Die
Turn your junk into something great with PucaTrade!
The question is this: Why print this over basking rootwalla? Even giving it a relevant creature type would have made it printable. Make it a zombie. A goblin. A snake!
But no! It's just WORSE THAN AN EXISTING CARD, the existing card can be printed, so Wizards said "Here, we can give you better for the same cost... and won't." Unacceptable!
Either they were aware of the older card or they weren't. If they were, they knew this wasn't good enough. If they weren't, it wouldn't be named "Sandwalla".
Would giving it cycling make it good? NO! But what it would do is make it not functionally worse than an existing card.
Printing functionally inferior cards adds nothing to the game. It makes people feel bad for opening them. And yeah, MAYBE a rootwalla variant was *NEEDED* here, and MAYBE making it a goblin or naga would have broken the format ("Maybe", but really not so much!). But giving it cycling doesn't seem like it makes it any better in 99% of situations. But... it would make it not functionally worse.
Or they could given it trample. The activation could be 2. It could have been 1/2. It could gain hexproof. It could gain reach. It could be a zombie. It could be a camel!
What you get from this is that someone said "I don't care", and no one cared. unacceptable.
No.
Yes.
This will never make a constructed deck, and that's a serious problem when a simple change would let it do so.
Anyone without standards will buy anything. If you have no standards, go play DC's Overpowered. You'd accept it.
No.
It doesn't have to.
Nah, I will keep playing Magic.
Le'ts be clear: This is a strictly worse version of several existing cards.
Either this is acceptable, or it is not. If it is not, you should be worried about it.
Let's entertain the notion it's acceptable: Give one profession where is it acceptable to intentionally give you a lesser product for the same price when it doesn't affect the seller EITHER WAY?
Even greedy organizations that try to cut back on a product so you'll buy more of it, or they can make more money, etc. - professional moral failings aside - still get AFFECTED by it! Wizards would not be adversely affected if they took 2 seconds to give this cycling, or make it a naga, or etc.
But by making it bad, they have been affected. I will now buy less cards. So, demonstrably, this is not in their interest. Let's hope they notice.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
This is the crux of the issue here and you are 100% incorrect. Not all cards can be destined for constructed. Full stop. We should be glad the designers of the game understand that.
R Norin the Wary: I've Got a Bad Feeling About This
UG Thrasios & Kydele: Knowledge is Power
RG Borborygmos Enraged: The Breaking of the World
BG The Gitrog Monster: All Glory to the Hypnotoad
WUR Zedruu the Greathearted: Endless Possibilities, One Outcome
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain: What's Dead May Never Die
Turn your junk into something great with PucaTrade!
This is hilarious. So, let's break this down.
1.) If by "I'll buy less cards" means you won't be buying this as a single, cool, that doesn't affect their bottom line at all. Good job!
2.) If you mean buying boosters/boxes, well, you aren't buying any "less" cards, unless you just mean not buying them at all(which if your reasoning is because of bad commons/uncommons, well, that's your prerogative) as you have a random chance of obtaining this card regardless, you going to ask for a refund after opening it? They still have their money.
3.) I can assure you nobody at WotC is sweating your potential boycott of their product.
4.) What you fail to comprehend in your crusade is that if even half of a sets cards are constructed playable, then the value of the set will plummet.
Keep that hate train rollin', it's comical at least.
For instance, Those Who Serve? They have a home in my mono-white zombies deck. It cost me like what to build that deck? $8. $4 of that was because of a play set of Cast Out. Doesn't run any rares at the moment. But when Hour of Devastation is released I will pick up some of the rare deserts along with some new white cards that fit the theme like Unconventional Tactics, Mummy Paramount and Dutiful Servants.
The OP has a point. If cards are made that not enticing, what point is there for me to crack packs? Not even the lotto Masterpieces are sufficient if the whole set (like this one) is underwhelming.
Wizards loses money because there is no reason for me to buy sealed product, at all, when 99.9% of it is recycle bin fodder, and I mean that, its paper I would throw away.
Spirits
And you have every right to, but you are not everyone. Your opinion isn't everyones.
I doubt that Wizards is going to care if a handful of older players leave and are replaced by hordes of stupid, eager newcomers who don't know the difference between Serra Angel and Linvala, Keeper of Silence, especially since the former will not be buying their watered down product and the latter will be.
Oh the irony!
You realize Serra Angel came before Linvala, Keeper of Silence, right? Like, that's what creatures were "to older players". The games come a long way, this was bound to happen sooner or later.
The thing is though, that your spending a lot of energy for a case that's not very important: the card is a common, it mimicks a card printed years ago, and it fills a role in limited.
Compared to more egergious, recent examples: smuggler's copter vs sky skiff (in the sme set, for god's sake) was one, there was another I don't recall where it was a black removal that was 1 mana worse compared to a card in the previous set of the same block (I think throttle vs flatten).
I mean sure this thing could have had cycling for 2 or G but it just... Doesn't. Would that have made it a new constructed lynchpin?... Probably not. That would probably have made it marginally better at being what it is, which is a decent limited creature. I'm just sitting here thinking the Basking Rootwalla callback is cute.
I'm also starting to think that entombedhydra is DesolatorMagic's MTGS account.
-Chandra Nalaar
its mechanically bland.
this card is one of many examples. the cards in this set aren't necessarily bad, its just that they didn't actually explore any design space with them. there are a slew of cards that are not as powerful as their original counterparts, and thats fine, but they don't do anything new or exciting or different, they just exist. thats a problem. that makes for a boring set, not a bad set, not a weak set, a boring set. boring sets don't sell. boring sets see diminished attendance for limited events. boring sets don't shake up standard. boring sets don't inspire casual decks.
a boring set causes interest in the game to wane as there are more enjoyable ways to spend your time and money. i very much enjoy having people to play against, i don't foresee this set encouraging that and cards like this one are very much a reason why.