Infiltration Cloak, if existed would cost 2 to play and 1-2 to equip. That's a difference good enough, taking in account that (quoting you) 99% of the times it will act exactly as the "cloak" except the one last time. And then you draw 2 cards, which may give you the victory that same turn anyway.
/facepalm
Look, if you can't follow the argument just stay out of the kitchen. In the argument the fake card Infiltration Cloak costs 1 to cast and 1 to equip and we're comparing it to Infiltration Lens and concluding that it is essentially strictly better.
This card is too reliant on other cards to be successful. Maybe if you had a reusable source of artifact destruction AND a deck that focused on Metalcraft you'd be able to it, but as it is now it will more often than not be a dead card.
This.
By itself Liquimetal Coating does absolutely nothing. And worse yet, if you fill your deck with artifact destruction expecting to use it with Liquimetal Coating you'll have the same effect with them; without the Coating they'll be useless.
It's a great combo in limited because arti destruction is maindeckable, but awful in constructed. When you only have arti destruction it has no value, and when you only have the Coating it has no value, and so unless you have both nothing even happens.
In a complete and utter vacuum. The terms 'Strictly Better' and 'Strictly Worse' are used to describe cards that are better or worse than an already pre-existing card in every possible tournament legal situation. This is definitely not the right terminology to be using to describe this card.
Show me a single situation where Infiltration Lens is better than Infiltration Cloak that does not involve poor play.
The problem with that analysis is that it's in a theory vacuum and not in practice. Drawing 2 cards for 2 mana is at least equivalent to, (although actually far better), than being unblockable for 2 mana. So regardless of which effect you end up getting x amount of times (with an extremely high probability of unblockable being x in the majority of Magic Games), you're at least guaranteed the worst of the effects, that which is being unblockable.
Think about it like this.
Let's continue with the Infiltrator Cloak fake argumentative card and compare it to Lens.
If you put an Infiltrator Cloak on a 4/4 creature and swing five times he will always be unblocked because he is unblockable. You then win the game.
If you put an Infiltration Lens on a 4/4 creature and swing five times 99% of the time you'll be unblocked for four swings and blocked the fifth swing. You have not yet won the game. You have to deal with his blockers or find another way to win.
This will happen every single time. As a result, in actual play Infiltration Lens is strictly worse than Infiltrator Cloak.
This is ignorant. What finisher are you playing for 3 mana? I'd love to have one. How long do finishers usually stay on the board right now? There's a lot of removal, and a lot of other creatures. With this in play you can attack without worrying because if you trade creatures? That's fine just imprint the better one. If they kill? It's ok you can bring one back for 3 to attack with, or block with!
I have no idea how this is a 'win more' card, or how it could be considered bad in any way. But that's ok -- you'll see when it's in a lot of the top decks winning tournaments. It's by far the best card to come out of scars.
It also works wonders with Voltaic Key and Mox Opal on the board.
I missed this post somehow.
It takes the same card slot as a finisher, because the only thing it can reliably do is deal damage. If you cut control cards for this you're lowering your overall control capacity and that's fine, but even then you're better off running more finishers.
It's a win more card in control because if you're killing big enough creatures to be worth paying 3 for every turn you're winning. If you are not dealing with their creatures as a control deck you're typically losing and if you're losing and you resolve a Vat it does nothing to help you whereas a good finisher would help stabilize the board. That's why Baneslayer is so good. It stabilizes the board. This does nothing of the sort.
Aggro can't control whether the Vat gets something good to use. Control would rather have a finisher in all situations. Mid range... maybe. I could have seen it in Jund perhaps.
Finally, another falseness: this card does not generate CA and the fact that it can replace a creature if lost in combat is irrelevant. If you're swinging into blockers that can kill your creature you're a moron even with Vat and the likelihood that you'll have a creature imprinted that exactly trades with a creature on the other side of the board is almost 0 (barring the rare deathtouch not granted by collar). Remember, you can't really control what ends up in your vat. When you need it most you'll be stuck with a Goblin Guide as the best card you've managed to kill.
Grappling Hook is a million billion mana. forget about playing it in time for anything to matter.
sidenote:
Fact or Fiction is good because the final choice is not your opponents', its yours. Opponent makes the piles BUT YOU PICK THE PILE that you draw. you are guaranteed to get the most powerful/relevant card in the top 5 even if thats the only card you get. there is no way for your opponent to screw you out of at least getting the 1 best card in the bunch.
You know, they should print a Fict or Faction. You create the piles, the opponent picks the on you keep. It'd be interesting to see if it still got played.
I'm not to sure about this, koth is a great way for RDWs to finish out it's curve, both by pumping out unlimited threats, having insane synergy with dragonlord, and his ultimate can win you the game long after normal red decks have lost.
Koth is awful in RDW. If you are paying 4 mana for a card in RDW it better win you the game now, not later. Koth is a ramp card, not Giant Solifuge. And if you've got a Kargan Dragonlord on the board and four free mana your best option is just pay four mana into Kargan Dragonlord. Compared to dropping Koth then using his -2 you'll max him out the same speed and you won't waste a card on it.
Amazing post. I want to add one thing to it, though, not being sarcastic or anything but as an example that, despite all of those downsides, a card involving the opponent's choice can still be good: Fact or Fiction. When the worst possible outcome is still unbelievably good (drawing multiple cards at instant speed) the card in question is still very good despite the choice aspect.
Most cards involving opponent's choice are not very good, but sometimes they can be surprising.
What? Red Deck Wins is a historic staple. I wouldn't be surprised if more mono red decks have top-8'd than any other color but blue.
Sorry, should've been more specific; mono red midrange/ramp decks don't exist. RDW wants nothing to do with anything over 4cc (and rarely plays 4cc cards to begin with). Koth would never see play in RDW.
I would pick Volition Reigns, not only because steal effects are obscene in limited but also because of signals. There are still a lot of blue cards in the pack, but they all are underwhelming and are unlikely to be picked. However if you pick Tempered Steel you're passing along an Edgewright, a very good white card. You also aren't sending a strong red or black signal either; the 5 mana common is good, but it's also an expensive common and I wouldn't myself read too terribly much into it being passed if an uncommon is missing and it's the only red card in the pack.
All in all, avoid white because you're passing a strong white signal no matter what, and if you don't pick the reigns you pass a strong blue signal as well. Picking the reigns could let you cut off blue while keeping your options open on black and red.
@CorporateNoun : I agree with some of your opinions, but on Elspeth Tirel, I wonder if the people putting her at #1 card have actually tested her. I have, and she's pretty bad, or at least disappointing. In WW / Tokens (in T2 and Extended), she's pretty bad, and while she may be decent in UW T2 Control decks, usually at 5 manas you want to block evasive beaters (unless you're playing against bad creatures), and 3 soldiers won't help.
If only she had a good + ability... If she gets killed before her ultimate, you've just wasted a turn gaining from 0 to 2 points in Control, and up to 6-8 pv in tokens decks (which is pretty good, but at this point you're already winning anyways).
Not to mention her ultimate often has drawbacks... Kills your nontoken permanents like creatures, PW, enchantments (Journey to Nowhere), etc.
As a fan of White, and of Elspeth, Knight-Errant, I can say that this card will be disappointing for a lot of people.
...
Or I could be mistaken.
I agree she's not too hot. But neither is the rest of the set. The whole set is very underwhelming, and in the land of the blind the one eyed woman is queen.
Except when say your Putrefax get bolted or blocked by a wall. Say your next draw is Pump spell next turn or a 1/1 infext. You can just 'cast' Purtefax again for 3and your pump or infect creature. I don't think it's a 4 of in most decks and it's not a great top deck, but it can help aggro push through some extra creatures once they've dumped their hand and it can help control as a card advantage engine. It can go in a lot of decks in Standard, Legacy EDH, ect.
In that situation I would still rather have Vines of the Vastwood or another creature.
Also control is where Vat is the worst in. Control would rather just play a finisher than Vat. Finishers have the benefit of helping stabilize the board; Vat does not. Vat only helps you win if you're already winning.
It's just win more there. It would be superior to lay down another infect beater. Infect.dec should win the game when Putrefax connects; if it doesn't, then you aren't being aggressive enough with it. Possibly because you're playing slow cards like Mimic Vat.
I would rather cast Duress or Inquisition, not even looking at the mana costs. I suppose if you were already sporting playsets of those this could be considered, but that seems unlikely.
Khift-Unless you've tested the card, in over 100 games, don't say it's horrible and unplayable. =) THanks bud
Edit: Scratch that, it helps to read the card better. I misread the imprint text. Still, it's possibly even worse than I originally read it as. This could take several turns to even do anything.
I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's just poor, not horrible.
Look, if you can't follow the argument just stay out of the kitchen. In the argument the fake card Infiltration Cloak costs 1 to cast and 1 to equip and we're comparing it to Infiltration Lens and concluding that it is essentially strictly better.
By itself Liquimetal Coating does absolutely nothing. And worse yet, if you fill your deck with artifact destruction expecting to use it with Liquimetal Coating you'll have the same effect with them; without the Coating they'll be useless.
It's a great combo in limited because arti destruction is maindeckable, but awful in constructed. When you only have arti destruction it has no value, and when you only have the Coating it has no value, and so unless you have both nothing even happens.
Let's continue with the Infiltrator Cloak fake argumentative card and compare it to Lens.
If you put an Infiltrator Cloak on a 4/4 creature and swing five times he will always be unblocked because he is unblockable. You then win the game.
If you put an Infiltration Lens on a 4/4 creature and swing five times 99% of the time you'll be unblocked for four swings and blocked the fifth swing. You have not yet won the game. You have to deal with his blockers or find another way to win.
This will happen every single time. As a result, in actual play Infiltration Lens is strictly worse than Infiltrator Cloak.
It takes the same card slot as a finisher, because the only thing it can reliably do is deal damage. If you cut control cards for this you're lowering your overall control capacity and that's fine, but even then you're better off running more finishers.
It's a win more card in control because if you're killing big enough creatures to be worth paying 3 for every turn you're winning. If you are not dealing with their creatures as a control deck you're typically losing and if you're losing and you resolve a Vat it does nothing to help you whereas a good finisher would help stabilize the board. That's why Baneslayer is so good. It stabilizes the board. This does nothing of the sort.
Aggro can't control whether the Vat gets something good to use. Control would rather have a finisher in all situations. Mid range... maybe. I could have seen it in Jund perhaps.
Finally, another falseness: this card does not generate CA and the fact that it can replace a creature if lost in combat is irrelevant. If you're swinging into blockers that can kill your creature you're a moron even with Vat and the likelihood that you'll have a creature imprinted that exactly trades with a creature on the other side of the board is almost 0 (barring the rare deathtouch not granted by collar). Remember, you can't really control what ends up in your vat. When you need it most you'll be stuck with a Goblin Guide as the best card you've managed to kill.
Most cards involving opponent's choice are not very good, but sometimes they can be surprising.
All in all, avoid white because you're passing a strong white signal no matter what, and if you don't pick the reigns you pass a strong blue signal as well. Picking the reigns could let you cut off blue while keeping your options open on black and red.
Also control is where Vat is the worst in. Control would rather just play a finisher than Vat. Finishers have the benefit of helping stabilize the board; Vat does not. Vat only helps you win if you're already winning.
I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's just poor, not horrible.