well the problem with it is, it costs you a card, 2 mana, and a mana every turn. that's quite a bit, so you better be making something with power greater than 2 fly. i guess it also sort of works with cipher. it's not the worst card in the world. you grab one late if you find you either have a lot of craw wurms (there aren't a lot in this format) or cipher but lack evasion. picking up creatures that already have flying is generally a safer strategy. i tend to avoid equipment, auras, and cards in general that don't actually make creatures do more damage, but only grant them evasion
I think simic is going to be the weakest guild by far. If you happen to play everything on curve, in the correct order, it's decent, but simic decks will probably randomly lose to themselves a lot. Too many of it's best commons are actually not great in multiples because they won't evolve themselves.
Boros looks quite strong. If you can't interact with it, you're in a bad place. This is one of the isuses simic has. Boros kind of has the advantages and disadvantages of selsnya and rakdos combined. It's the fastest deck, and will be the color combo that keeps greedy decks in check. It's mechanic is more easily disrupted than rakdos, but more powerful if you ignore it.
Grull seems great. Having access to a lot of efficient creatures and having a large number split cards is a good place to be. Reenforce was my favourite limited mechanic. Good to see it back in a fairer form (now you choose between a temporary boost or a creature, where as reenforce was always good if it worked).
Dimir seems slow and wonky. I think controlling decks might be esper more than dimir or orzhov. Orzhov, on the other hand, seems to have a more defined game plan. It does seem to lack evasion though. Extort is cool, but extorting for 20 seems a touch unrealistic
i'm also guessing that the next set is going to be a '5 coloured vs monocolored' set, or just monocolored in general.
The greatest dark confident deck i've ever seen was a red/black suicide rakdos deck in standard, that ran 3 greater gargadons along side 4 of dark confident. so brave!
2) After a lot of back and forth on the issue, I think you just slam it turn 2. If they have one of the couple potential answers in hand right then...we'll you lose.
You absolutely slam it. If you are on the play, the number of maindeckable common answers are almost none. And even if they hit it, you don't lose. all you've lost is a 2 drop. You just don't get a free win. It's basically, 80-90% chance, rat sticks and game is easy. 10-20% chance, you play a normal game of magic where your 2 drop was removed. That's why rat is so powerful
I wasn't around for that, what made it worse than Armored Ascension?
Armored Ascension pumps by 2 to 4, on turn 4 or 5, in a set with plentiful removal. Empyrial armor is 1WW, +5/+5 on turn 3 in a format where creatures were small, pretty bad at blocking, and removal was not easy to come by. Turn 2 guy, enchant your guy and swing, then play no more cards for the rest of the game. it's just deceptively efficient (even by todays standards, turn 3 +5/+5 is a lot), and not much dealt with it.
i forgot about sprout swarm. spikeshot goblin is also just a stupid stupid common...
I don't think any common has Pestilence beat. I don't know if the fact that it's part of the same draft format in the same color with other cards that might make the list of best limited commons of all time makes it better or worse.
rolling thunder and empyrial armor both deserve a mention. limited was not a balance focus back then
Well, the very first avatar, personal incarnation, not only let you use your life total to save it, it took half your life with it when it died. serra avatar is another example of the avatar being a reflection of yourself.
And these were all cards that were considered the brute of the pack, Tier 1 creatures.
Magic changes, we are all aware of it
I don't deny there hasn't been power creep, but your list lacks context. For starters, many of these cards were never actually good. Mahamoti djinn and shivan dragon were both horrible, even when they were the biggest creatures ever printed. 6 mana for a creature that died to terror wasn't good. But shivan dragon was the most expensive card in the set it was printed BECAUSE magic prices were set by the kitchen table crowd, not the tournament goers. If you looked at tournaments, the only creature anyone was playing with a casting cost greater than 4 was serra angel. autumn willow and ishan's shade both got played when they were out because: a. you had to have some homeland cards legally to have a legal deck (standard required you to use cards from every set legal for a brief window), and because they were both immune to terror and swords to plowshares. 'dies to removal' isn't an idiom that was invented when the titans were printed. it's always been true. when man o' war, and nekrataal got printed, everything changed!
Lets go through them:
Juzam djinn is black, and dreadbridge goliath is green. A fairer comparisson is enrham djinn to dreadbridge. Also, it's all irrelevant because Juzam Djinn was only playable in decks with dark ritual, and even then, it was only played casually. The only formats it's been legal were too powerful for a 4 mana 5/5. ironically spiketail hatchling got more play in vintage than juzam ever will.
alms beast is a card i really like. but it's worse than juzam in aggro. juzams disability is much smaller than alms beasts. 4 mana 6/6s aren't new either. hunted wumpus has been around for a long time, with arguably a smaller disability than alms beast (honestly, what are they playing that's bigger than wumpus), and it never got played
experiment one is green. isamaru is white. also, i think isamaru is better than experiment one. it hasn't been that long since goldmeadow stalwart was a format defining card. creature type does matter though. it is sad to say though, that savanah lions day has come and gone.
and yeah, mahamoti and shivan have always been horrible. serra angel and millstone were both easier to protect, and back in the day, there was no rush to kill your opponent. there were no creatuers that single handidly could defeat you if they resolve, like there are today.
there has been power creep, but power creep is neseccary. 2 mana 2/2s were always considered fair, but 4 mana 4/4s were (and still are) considered better. but there's a huge, inherint disadvantage to large creatures. you invest a lot of resources, but it normaly is just as easy to kill them. if you are willing to save 6 mana for a creature, it better be worth while.
a long time ago, in magic, the rule used to be 'if it costs 5 mana, it better win you the game.' that number actually moves in different formats. sometimes it's 4 . sometimes it's 6. the thing that has changed is that, the spell that got you there used to not be a permanent. now, creatures and their new buddies, planeswalkers are the big spells decks want to be casting. this trend, i'd argue, actually started with the dragon cycle in kamigawa, the original titans.
also, infiltraitor was never hot stuff. he was never bad, but for 1UB, you could cast a 20/20 (psychatog)
Scry is a pretty strong ability, but index is weak because it doesn't draw you a card. At scry 5, you're approaching value (scry 2 is often seen as draw .5). I'd be willing to bet that ponder no shuffle would see a considerable amount more play than ponder no draw. if index had a shuffle, it still wouldn't be played. spending mana on increasing consistency can be worthwhile. spending mana and a card needs to get you mirage tutor levels of consistency
This is now my least favorite card in the set. Bar none. It's worse than Pack Rat. At least Pack Rat is identifiably a bomb. Creature Aura strategies should never ever be this powerful.
why not? auras have intrinsic downsides that balance them out. it's not like ethreal armor is rancor (a common in the set it was printed). auras have needed a boost for a long time. the umbras and original Rav auras were basically the only time auras have ever been worth while. the fact that this card's power level is hard to evaluate makes it even better that it's situationally strong. helps give better players an edge in the early stages of the format.
I don't know... I have been incredibly impressed with the assasin. X/4s (which are plentiful) have a harder time blocking it than either splatter thug or dread reveler. Even trestle troll needs a 3 mana investment to prevent the 2 damage, from assasin. If you look at how toughness, power break down in this set goes, 4 toughness on blockers is pretty critical, but very few good blockers can deal 3 damage back to the assasin. On the early turns, Rakdos would be happy to trade it's 2 drop with a centaur token. 2 semi-evasive power for 2 mana is a pretty big deal, especially because it's a spot on the curve harder to fill than 3. I'd happily slam the assasin, knowing that it makes all my dread revellers stronger (i can curve into them), and that you can't really have too many 2 drops in this format, especially when many of them are quite weak (see every common not named chain walker)
"So what you are saying, is that no play has any value if it's not a play made in a game that you won?"
This is a textbook strawman. Phrasing it as a question doesn't change that. What you may have been attempting, in your reply, was a Reductio ad absurdum, which is to say, by showing your opponents argument produces logical fallacies, you dissprove their argument. The problem is that your statement (no play has any value if it's not a play made in a game that you won) can, in no way, be derived from what he said at all. It's a logical leap, he didn't make, which is what makes the whole thing a strawman.
What's more, this is also the textbook definition of trolling. You are intentionally misrepresenting what urafever said, and inviting him to respond. I'm not sure what you think 'trolling' is, but the generally accepted defenition is when you 'fish' for a reaction (it comes from the fishing term of the same name). While, it might not have been your intention, your statement, by all accounts, is a troll. If you don't want to be perceived as trolling try not to: fan flames, deliberately misconstrue what others say, or make bold claims you know will illicit strong reactions (i.e. going on a gaming website and proclaim XBOX IZ #1 PS3 IZ TEH SUX). Even if you didn't mean to incite others, your use of hyperbole, put forward in the form of a question would understandably be perceived that way by others. I hope you can appreciate that. If your goal had really been to garner clarity, I'm sure there are more direct ways you could have asked. And I don't see how magicmerl misrepresented what you said in any way...
to stay on topic, 3 mana, early game, is worth a lot more than 2 life. this is why necksnaps are generally quite weak, unless you have other ways of using mana on your opponents turn if they don't attack (inspiration, eyes in the skies, etc)
Boros looks quite strong. If you can't interact with it, you're in a bad place. This is one of the isuses simic has. Boros kind of has the advantages and disadvantages of selsnya and rakdos combined. It's the fastest deck, and will be the color combo that keeps greedy decks in check. It's mechanic is more easily disrupted than rakdos, but more powerful if you ignore it.
Grull seems great. Having access to a lot of efficient creatures and having a large number split cards is a good place to be. Reenforce was my favourite limited mechanic. Good to see it back in a fairer form (now you choose between a temporary boost or a creature, where as reenforce was always good if it worked).
Dimir seems slow and wonky. I think controlling decks might be esper more than dimir or orzhov. Orzhov, on the other hand, seems to have a more defined game plan. It does seem to lack evasion though. Extort is cool, but extorting for 20 seems a touch unrealistic
i'm also guessing that the next set is going to be a '5 coloured vs monocolored' set, or just monocolored in general.
You absolutely slam it. If you are on the play, the number of maindeckable common answers are almost none. And even if they hit it, you don't lose. all you've lost is a 2 drop. You just don't get a free win. It's basically, 80-90% chance, rat sticks and game is easy. 10-20% chance, you play a normal game of magic where your 2 drop was removed. That's why rat is so powerful
Armored Ascension pumps by 2 to 4, on turn 4 or 5, in a set with plentiful removal. Empyrial armor is 1WW, +5/+5 on turn 3 in a format where creatures were small, pretty bad at blocking, and removal was not easy to come by. Turn 2 guy, enchant your guy and swing, then play no more cards for the rest of the game. it's just deceptively efficient (even by todays standards, turn 3 +5/+5 is a lot), and not much dealt with it.
i forgot about sprout swarm. spikeshot goblin is also just a stupid stupid common...
rolling thunder and empyrial armor both deserve a mention. limited was not a balance focus back then
I don't deny there hasn't been power creep, but your list lacks context. For starters, many of these cards were never actually good. Mahamoti djinn and shivan dragon were both horrible, even when they were the biggest creatures ever printed. 6 mana for a creature that died to terror wasn't good. But shivan dragon was the most expensive card in the set it was printed BECAUSE magic prices were set by the kitchen table crowd, not the tournament goers. If you looked at tournaments, the only creature anyone was playing with a casting cost greater than 4 was serra angel. autumn willow and ishan's shade both got played when they were out because: a. you had to have some homeland cards legally to have a legal deck (standard required you to use cards from every set legal for a brief window), and because they were both immune to terror and swords to plowshares. 'dies to removal' isn't an idiom that was invented when the titans were printed. it's always been true. when man o' war, and nekrataal got printed, everything changed!
Lets go through them:
Juzam djinn is black, and dreadbridge goliath is green. A fairer comparisson is enrham djinn to dreadbridge. Also, it's all irrelevant because Juzam Djinn was only playable in decks with dark ritual, and even then, it was only played casually. The only formats it's been legal were too powerful for a 4 mana 5/5. ironically spiketail hatchling got more play in vintage than juzam ever will.
alms beast is a card i really like. but it's worse than juzam in aggro. juzams disability is much smaller than alms beasts. 4 mana 6/6s aren't new either. hunted wumpus has been around for a long time, with arguably a smaller disability than alms beast (honestly, what are they playing that's bigger than wumpus), and it never got played
experiment one is green. isamaru is white. also, i think isamaru is better than experiment one. it hasn't been that long since goldmeadow stalwart was a format defining card. creature type does matter though. it is sad to say though, that savanah lions day has come and gone.
and yeah, mahamoti and shivan have always been horrible. serra angel and millstone were both easier to protect, and back in the day, there was no rush to kill your opponent. there were no creatuers that single handidly could defeat you if they resolve, like there are today.
there has been power creep, but power creep is neseccary. 2 mana 2/2s were always considered fair, but 4 mana 4/4s were (and still are) considered better. but there's a huge, inherint disadvantage to large creatures. you invest a lot of resources, but it normaly is just as easy to kill them. if you are willing to save 6 mana for a creature, it better be worth while.
a long time ago, in magic, the rule used to be 'if it costs 5 mana, it better win you the game.' that number actually moves in different formats. sometimes it's 4 . sometimes it's 6. the thing that has changed is that, the spell that got you there used to not be a permanent. now, creatures and their new buddies, planeswalkers are the big spells decks want to be casting. this trend, i'd argue, actually started with the dragon cycle in kamigawa, the original titans.
also, infiltraitor was never hot stuff. he was never bad, but for 1UB, you could cast a 20/20 (psychatog)
why not? auras have intrinsic downsides that balance them out. it's not like ethreal armor is rancor (a common in the set it was printed). auras have needed a boost for a long time. the umbras and original Rav auras were basically the only time auras have ever been worth while. the fact that this card's power level is hard to evaluate makes it even better that it's situationally strong. helps give better players an edge in the early stages of the format.
This is a textbook strawman. Phrasing it as a question doesn't change that. What you may have been attempting, in your reply, was a Reductio ad absurdum, which is to say, by showing your opponents argument produces logical fallacies, you dissprove their argument. The problem is that your statement (no play has any value if it's not a play made in a game that you won) can, in no way, be derived from what he said at all. It's a logical leap, he didn't make, which is what makes the whole thing a strawman.
What's more, this is also the textbook definition of trolling. You are intentionally misrepresenting what urafever said, and inviting him to respond. I'm not sure what you think 'trolling' is, but the generally accepted defenition is when you 'fish' for a reaction (it comes from the fishing term of the same name). While, it might not have been your intention, your statement, by all accounts, is a troll. If you don't want to be perceived as trolling try not to: fan flames, deliberately misconstrue what others say, or make bold claims you know will illicit strong reactions (i.e. going on a gaming website and proclaim XBOX IZ #1 PS3 IZ TEH SUX). Even if you didn't mean to incite others, your use of hyperbole, put forward in the form of a question would understandably be perceived that way by others. I hope you can appreciate that. If your goal had really been to garner clarity, I'm sure there are more direct ways you could have asked. And I don't see how magicmerl misrepresented what you said in any way...
to stay on topic, 3 mana, early game, is worth a lot more than 2 life. this is why necksnaps are generally quite weak, unless you have other ways of using mana on your opponents turn if they don't attack (inspiration, eyes in the skies, etc)