Your assessment of competitive standard is completely, utterly off. Gruul is highly competitive deck who is everywhere in mtgo and paper. And that deck plays 3-4 Rekindling Phoenix main board and sometimes Nullhide Ferox split in the 75. Nightveil Predator still sees some play in Esper control and hero SB. Rekindling Phoenix is also included in mono-red SB.
Comparing Mu to a 4 cmc creature is also completely pointless as her cmc is 3. And really doesn't matter the creature will only ht the board later. This is exactly like comparing Delver to cmc 2-3 creatures because he only transforms by turn 2-3.
@italofoca I think I'm mostly on board with what you're saying. Like I mentioned before, "mostly solved" is sort of a weird term to use right now insofar as this is the most volatile Standard environment I can remember since I started playing. That being said, there are still a few known quantities, and the Bant decks are still primarily Nissa decks. This format is crazy with regards to flex slots, with people going back and forth on individual card choices almost constantly. Can I imagine a decklist showing up with a singleton Mu in the main or board? Absolutely. Would I bet on it? Nope.
You're totally right, people don't always (a/k/a never) accurately predict the meta, which is how major price spikes happen in Standard. My musings are simply that. But we still have some information we can be pretty sure about, and I think that helps us make informed decisions about what we play in the early days of the format. Heck, that's why mono-red tends to do well early--people are dicking about with new cards to see whether or not they're good. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it.
I guess if I had to boil down my point it would be that I don't see why you shouldn't be able to make an educated guess about something even if you ultimately turn out to be incorrect. Frankly, I like it when people tell me I'm wrong and give me reasons. If someone's argument is persuasive enough, I might change my mind. That's how I grow as a player.
TL;DR: Mu is most certainly NOT trash; regardless, I don't foresee her seeing much if any play in this current Standard format; talking about new cards' utility in new formats is fun and is, I think, productive; and, this game is awesome and we all have our love of it in common. Good talk.
Well, everyone has it's educated guesses and it's fun to talk about it. I believe we agree on that. But judging the card playability by those guesses alone ? I would rather judge it "in a vacuum".
Btw I think Mu is worth testing in Jeskai (replacing Dovin) and in mono-U.
There is always cards that slips everyone's radars and cards that people hype that don't see any play. It's always like this because cards can only be evaluated in a vacuum but whether or not they see play depends on what will be released in the future and how the environment shapes up. It even depends on out-of-the-game factors like how much people are spending in the game.
You can't use playability to measure quality because playability depends on many factors other then quality. Your claim that this card does not see any play in any of the current meta decks is futile for many, many reasons: (i) the current meta is not solved; (ii) this card is not part of this format; (iii) no one can predict how the meta shifts with a new set with any degree of certainty, this is hard fact of reality; (iv) even if you could, M20 is not fully spoiled; (v) there are local variation of meta, even in high level competition, and you can't possibly account for all this.
It's not people that are bad at evaluating cards, it's just that they don't use your evaluation criteria because it is useless.
Saying evaluating a card in the context of the existing meta is useless when we have 2/3rds of the next set doesn't make any sense to me. As volatile as this format has been, it's still mostly "solved" insofar as the pillars of the format have been pretty much established. This Standard format is about Teferi, Time Raveler decks, Nissa, Who Shakes the World decks, and the various forms of aggro. To a lesser extent we have Arclight Phoenix decks. I guess Nexus of Fate is still around somewhere.
I don't think it has been "mostly solved". For example, it has been a matter of weeks that Bant started to show serious results and is now a tier 1 deck. Someone could claim Shalai, Voice of Plenty saw literally no high competitive play 2-3 weeks ago but claiming she is unplayable would still be wrong.
We've seen a huge chunk of M20 already, and nothing looks like it will result in format upheaval like the release of WAR. Again, I can't speak to future formats with additional sets, but as far as evaluation goes RIGHT NOW, this card just isn't as good as Teferi or Narset, and thus I think it will see little to no immediate play. This is not to say the card is a bad card by any measure, it's just not well-supported currently. I would never argue that quality equates to playability. Tons of great cards see no play (look at Tezzeret, Artifice Master). Also, I've played many "bad" cards because they were well-positioned at a specific point in time (there was a time where I wrecked people with sideboard Woodlot Crawlers, for example). But saying no one can predict how a new set will impact the current metagame is untrue. If a new card competes with existing cards that are more generically powerful, something else has to happen to make the new card viable. I don't see anything in the current spoilers that would indicate Mu slots well into any existing deck, nor do I see any indication that she would be the basis of some new archetype.
However, by several posters' logic, there's no point in evaluating cards AT ALL before a set releases. If that were the case, what? Everyone just puts random good stuff in their decks with literally no consideration to the existing metagame? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Whether I'm right or wrong remains to be seen, but saying the exercise of trying to predict a new card's viability is fruitless is a disservice to MtG players. To a great extent, it's the entire reason there's a spoiler season.
Nobody disputes she is not as good as Teferi, Time Raveler but there's a huge gap between the best card in standard and "unplayable" or "junk".
I agree with most of your assessment except that Narset is more "generally powerful" then Mu. Narset is mostly a SB card who is seem lot's of play because everyone is playing the thing she is hating. Plus she is only really good in non-creature decks. Esper Hero still plays her because of the cheer amount of card draw in the format but she is a liability there.
And people are unable to predict the meta otherwise prices would be stable before and after launch. We still have to guess but no one can guess right. At least not enough to make money consistently.
I don't know what's the point of judging cards by the current meta is. The meta will shake for sure and "playability right now" will only matter in the few weeks after release. It's much more productive to judge a card by whether it's worth at least being tested and Mu certainly is.
Additionally, I'm not sure why it's an issue to express an opinion to what appears to be the popular opinion? I provide reasons why i think this card is bad and what to be shown scenarios (applicable ones) where it is good and no one has done this. No one has shown me an existing deck that wants to play this that is better than anything else they can play in that spot.
Is this a site where we can have meaningful discussions or just be fan boys that can't handle constructive criticism?
What discussions can be had when the card is labeled “literally unplayable”? Because at that point it is not a discussion, you just want people to agree with you because there is nowhere to go with the discussion.
And “constructive criticism”? Lol that’s what this-
i mean this in the nicest way possible but the majority of you are quite terrible at evaluating cards.
-is? First off, you may need to brush up on what constructive criticism actually is, because that is certainly not what you’ve demonstrated through this thread. What’s wrong with fanboys? They can like the card. They’ll play the card, maybe even have it in a FNM winning deck, at that point it makes all that “unplayable” nonsense you’ve been spewing look pretty stupid.
I mean this the nicest way possible, but you come off as an arrogant dick that probably prefers the sound of their own voice over anything else.
magic players are generally bad at evaluating cards. this is not an insult, it's simply true. this is why there's always cards that slip everyone's radar.
i gave plenty of reasons why this card is unplayable in the current format. it just is. mono red is not even the boogeyman anymore.
if you think I'm being a dick about my point of view... well maybe you need to get your panties out of that knot i tied.
but ok.
There is always cards that slips everyone's radars and cards that people hype that don't see any play. It's always like this because cards can only be evaluated in a vacuum but whether or not they see play depends on what will be released in the future and how the environment shapes up. It even depends on out-of-the-game factors like how much people are spending in the game.
You can't use playability to measure quality because playability depends on many factors other then quality. Your claim that this card does not see any play in any of the current meta decks is futile for many, many reasons: (i) the current meta is not solved; (ii) this card is not part of this format; (iii) no one can predict how the meta shifts with a new set with any degree of certainty, this is hard fact of reality; (iv) even if you could, M20 is not fully spoiled; (v) there are local variation of meta, even in high level competition, and you can't possibly account for all this.
It's not people that are bad at evaluating cards, it's just that they don't use your evaluation criteria because it is useless.
Insanely strong planeswalker. This on turn 3 is a major threat for most decks. The only "problem" is that there is an arguably better card - Teferi, Time Raveler - at the same CMC, and which conveniently is a great answer to a turn 3 Yianling.
Ok please help me understand what i'm missing that makes you think that this is a powerful walker??? I even forgot about teferi which is leagues better than this card.
i mean this in the nicest way possible but the majority of you are quite terrible at evaluating cards.
show me a deck in the meta that wants this over anything else. it's not a card that will spawn a deck by itself so you gotta consider which deck needs this. making a 4/4 on t4 that basically has no text is incredibly underwhelming. it's a token that does nothing etb, has no haste and no ability beyond flying. and it getting bounced by teferi effectively means you've done absolutely nothing of note over two turns.
ignore the ultimate because every walker that ultimates usually wins the game. you have to consider what this card can do on its first two abilities in a color that is hardly aggressive.
vryns prodigy is not a good comparison because his minus cost be used right away and flashing back any spell is significantly better than making a token. plus he was a looter which is a good card in itself.
i can see the appeal of this card as a casual. but competitive play? not a sniff. and you can quote me on that.
All her abilities are relevant in all match ups.
First one saves you 2 life per turn or ensures her survival against aggro. Against Esper hero, it nullifies thief of sanity. Against UGX it removes flying from krasis which allows for your own flyers to connect. Against Jeskai it does the same against sarkhan's dragons.
Sarkhan makes the same token on t5, t5 Nissa does 3/3 vigilance tokens using your own lands and both are widely played. A treat is a treat, it forces your opponent to spend cards and mana. I think you criminally underrate the tempo factor here: you are not tapping lands for this 4/4 flyer on turn 4.
Walkers ultimate cannot be ignored, they are the win con of half the meta. Having extra win cons is always useful because it gives you ways to play around spyglasses which is extremely important.
This is for sure a inclusion in mono-u. I don't think she dispute slots with little Teferi who's clearly OP pushed card (he could cost 2WU and would still be 4x in most decks that run him). But she disputes slots with Narset, Kasmina and Saheli.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard - Serious BGU Control R Aggro
Standard - For Fun BG Auras
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those 3 cards sees FAR more play then Frilled Mystic, Murmuring Mystic and Josu Vess, Lich Knight (the first sees marginal play, the later two sees no play at all). And Phoenix does see more play then Nicol Bolas, the Ravager given it's role in gruul and mono-red.
Comparing Mu to a 4 cmc creature is also completely pointless as her cmc is 3. And really doesn't matter the creature will only ht the board later. This is exactly like comparing Delver to cmc 2-3 creatures because he only transforms by turn 2-3.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Well, everyone has it's educated guesses and it's fun to talk about it. I believe we agree on that. But judging the card playability by those guesses alone ? I would rather judge it "in a vacuum".
Btw I think Mu is worth testing in Jeskai (replacing Dovin) and in mono-U.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I don't think it has been "mostly solved". For example, it has been a matter of weeks that Bant started to show serious results and is now a tier 1 deck. Someone could claim Shalai, Voice of Plenty saw literally no high competitive play 2-3 weeks ago but claiming she is unplayable would still be wrong.
Nobody disputes she is not as good as Teferi, Time Raveler but there's a huge gap between the best card in standard and "unplayable" or "junk".
I agree with most of your assessment except that Narset is more "generally powerful" then Mu. Narset is mostly a SB card who is seem lot's of play because everyone is playing the thing she is hating. Plus she is only really good in non-creature decks. Esper Hero still plays her because of the cheer amount of card draw in the format but she is a liability there.
And people are unable to predict the meta otherwise prices would be stable before and after launch. We still have to guess but no one can guess right. At least not enough to make money consistently.
I don't know what's the point of judging cards by the current meta is. The meta will shake for sure and "playability right now" will only matter in the few weeks after release. It's much more productive to judge a card by whether it's worth at least being tested and Mu certainly is.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
There is always cards that slips everyone's radars and cards that people hype that don't see any play. It's always like this because cards can only be evaluated in a vacuum but whether or not they see play depends on what will be released in the future and how the environment shapes up. It even depends on out-of-the-game factors like how much people are spending in the game.
You can't use playability to measure quality because playability depends on many factors other then quality. Your claim that this card does not see any play in any of the current meta decks is futile for many, many reasons: (i) the current meta is not solved; (ii) this card is not part of this format; (iii) no one can predict how the meta shifts with a new set with any degree of certainty, this is hard fact of reality; (iv) even if you could, M20 is not fully spoiled; (v) there are local variation of meta, even in high level competition, and you can't possibly account for all this.
It's not people that are bad at evaluating cards, it's just that they don't use your evaluation criteria because it is useless.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
All her abilities are relevant in all match ups.
First one saves you 2 life per turn or ensures her survival against aggro. Against Esper hero, it nullifies thief of sanity. Against UGX it removes flying from krasis which allows for your own flyers to connect. Against Jeskai it does the same against sarkhan's dragons.
Sarkhan makes the same token on t5, t5 Nissa does 3/3 vigilance tokens using your own lands and both are widely played. A treat is a treat, it forces your opponent to spend cards and mana. I think you criminally underrate the tempo factor here: you are not tapping lands for this 4/4 flyer on turn 4.
Walkers ultimate cannot be ignored, they are the win con of half the meta. Having extra win cons is always useful because it gives you ways to play around spyglasses which is extremely important.
This is for sure a inclusion in mono-u. I don't think she dispute slots with little Teferi who's clearly OP pushed card (he could cost 2WU and would still be 4x in most decks that run him). But she disputes slots with Narset, Kasmina and Saheli.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras