Can you get incidental value from Glacier Hawk with EDH staples you're likely to already have in your deck? Yeah, absolutely. Is that enough to warrant replacing something else in the 99? My personal opinion is no, it's not. A general principal of Magic is "don't play bad cards just because they combo well with something else." Stick with Land Tax and, if you want something that's good on its own and also combos with Lightning Greaves, Weathered Wayfarer. Also: don't play mono white.
The hope is that this, and a few other cards will be enough to open up mono white. I certainly agree this isn't enough on its own but rather then replacing something in the 99 for existing options maybe this will help add some consistency to those decks. Land Tax,, Withered Wayfarer, Sword of the Animist and even original Thawing Hlaciers are all cards that fill the same role, but having 1 more option isn't the worst idea. Obviously color shifted farseek would be better but we're never getting that.
This is *not* going to happen every game, but running Sol Ring and Lightning Greaves is pretty much just good deckbuilding.
T1 - Plains(or any other mana source) Sol Ring, Lightning Greaves
T2 - Bird, equip, swing, fetch your land, play a land. Make a 1 mana play
T3 - Bird again, equip, swing, fetch.
Again, this is the cieling of what can be done, but if you have ways to eat your own lands (like Kjeldoran Outpost, Dust Bowl etc. this gets very sick. So that's the tension the developers had when designing the card. It may have been nerfed a little too hard, but if it were much better it would have to be a green card or just break the pie.
Because, as you pointed out - it's not good. My play scenario is a perfectly fine way to play out your first few turns. Sword of the Animist on something like a T1 [card[Diamond Mare[/card] (or other 2CMC or less beasty you can play off of sol Ring) is also a fine way for white to get lands off a T1 Sol Ring.
This is *not* going to happen every game, but running Sol Ring and Lightning Greaves is pretty much just good deckbuilding.
T1 - Plains(or any other mana source) Sol Ring, Lightning Greaves
T2 - Bird, equip, swing, fetch your land, play a land. Make a 1 mana play
T3 - Bird again, equip, swing, fetch.
Again, this is the cieling of what can be done, but if you have ways to eat your own lands (like Kjeldoran Outpost, Dust Bowl etc. this gets very sick. So that's the tension the developers had when designing the card. It may have been nerfed a little too hard, but if it were much better it would have to be a green card or just break the pie.
for cEDH, Is it worth experimenting with some sort of Naya almost creatureless build with token creation and tutors to line this guy up for a really meaty swing? I just don't know which commander to put him in. I'd originally thought maybe some sort of creatureless warp world Temur would be the way to go but there's too many great tutors in GW.
And that’s a first they secretly made haldan a vanilla legednary without his dog
That was my first thought, that Haldan was basically vanilla without the pup, but couldn't say for sure it was the first time we'd seen this. Given how powerful the effect is I don't mind but its be a little weird.
there's a couple of decks in my meta where this will net you about a dozen tokens... at the same time though, i'm on the fence. those decks that tend to be artifact heavy tend to also be able to answer this - the instant speed is nice, but generally they're combo decks so that swarm of 3/3's has to deal with a boardstate they can't get through, or the spell just eats a counterspell. i really think this one falls under good on paper, mediocre in practice
There's some truth to that, but I think the sweet spot for this is getting 3 or 4 tokens out of a player accelerating with mana rocks, ideally with aura shards. I know I was playing a turbo Sidisi with an 80% success rate by t4.:if green could get under me, orbit failed to combo, this would wreck me.
We also have midnight clock and magic mirror in standard and a blue control build could help make this viable, bluvred wouldn't hate this with witching well, the new legend and Niv mizzet. I kind of think I'm in love with this set.
Thing is, we saw a singleton of the Amonkhet one fairly often during Amonkhet standard and enchantments weren't as prevelant then. But, cycling support may also be less parasitic this time around, so there's a very good chance we will see this just for cycling it.
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Ah, but historically, strictly better is an academic exercise, more than anything else. Is this better? Absolutely, and I'll play it in EDH, maybe even standard and I do agree with your logic, but strictly better is all about splitting hairs.
It is an academic exercise, yes. But to include statistically insignificant instances makes what would have been an academic exercise into "what if" for unlikely situations. Coming from an engineering background, even statistically insignificant events are disregarded because they're that, insignificant. They exist but shouldn't be regarded.
Now if there was say many cycling hosers and some were super pushed beyond being a balanced card, sure I'd agree with the idea of it not being strictly better, but as stands, even printing a handful of hosers with some upside just wouldn't push the needle
Yes, I think that's a fair place to draw the line.
OK, between Lukka, all the Godzilla cards, King Kong, Jaws and now this, this whole set seems hellbent on making references that make me laugh out loud.
As for the card itself, it's technically one of those "overpriced do-nothing Enchantment" cards, but it works very well in Fires of Invention decks, and I could see some Fires builds running this as a sideboard option against Control. It's either a very threatening Enchantment that racks up quick advantage if left unchecked or an uncounterable big flier that draws you a card and allows you to get around Fires's casting restriction at your opponent's turn.
You missed a mode, for 2U its a flash chump blocker that draws a card.
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
I disagree with this sentiment. From a player perspective it comes down to if you were given a choice of one or the either, you'd pick the objectively superior version every time.
From a statistical standpoint there's probably a good 16000 cards in MTG. Even if they printed 2 hoser cards the odds of it being better is 99.99% of all given scenarios. And honestly I would consider 0.01% of instances a statistically insignificant event. So, yes, this card would be strictly better mathematically speaking too.
Ah, but historically, strictly better is an academic exercise, more than anything else. Is this better? Absolutely, and I'll play it in EDH, maybe even standard and I do agree with your logic, but strictly better is all about splitting hairs.
Diabolic Tutorwhere the second one buys back the first? This has memories of Den Warden and Ever After written all over it. This is going to be fun while in standard.
Love it - replacing explosive vegetation in every instance. Does this fulfill the "strictly better" definition?
Until they print a card that specifically punishes other cards for having cycling it does. As far as I know no such card exists today but if there were "2UU, counter target spell. This spell costs 2 less if it targets a spell with cycling", then it stops being strictly better. (I'm not sure if that templating would work - does the spell have cycling while it's on the stack or is that only a trait of the card while it's in your hand?).
Even then, it would still be strictly better. Just like how Lightning Bolt is still strictly better than Lightning Strike despite the existence of Mental Misstep. There will always be a card that punishes the exact qualities that make a card strictly better.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.
The hope is that this, and a few other cards will be enough to open up mono white. I certainly agree this isn't enough on its own but rather then replacing something in the 99 for existing options maybe this will help add some consistency to those decks. Land Tax,, Withered Wayfarer, Sword of the Animist and even original Thawing Hlaciers are all cards that fill the same role, but having 1 more option isn't the worst idea. Obviously color shifted farseek would be better but we're never getting that.
Because, as you pointed out - it's not good. My play scenario is a perfectly fine way to play out your first few turns. Sword of the Animist on something like a T1 [card[Diamond Mare[/card] (or other 2CMC or less beasty you can play off of sol Ring) is also a fine way for white to get lands off a T1 Sol Ring.
This is *not* going to happen every game, but running Sol Ring and Lightning Greaves is pretty much just good deckbuilding.
T1 - Plains(or any other mana source) Sol Ring, Lightning Greaves
T2 - Bird, equip, swing, fetch your land, play a land. Make a 1 mana play
T3 - Bird again, equip, swing, fetch.
Again, this is the cieling of what can be done, but if you have ways to eat your own lands (like Kjeldoran Outpost, Dust Bowl etc. this gets very sick. So that's the tension the developers had when designing the card. It may have been nerfed a little too hard, but if it were much better it would have to be a green card or just break the pie.
That was my first thought, that Haldan was basically vanilla without the pup, but couldn't say for sure it was the first time we'd seen this. Given how powerful the effect is I don't mind but its be a little weird.
There's some truth to that, but I think the sweet spot for this is getting 3 or 4 tokens out of a player accelerating with mana rocks, ideally with aura shards. I know I was playing a turbo Sidisi with an 80% success rate by t4.:if green could get under me, orbit failed to combo, this would wreck me.
Only thing I can think of is that sharks aren't mammals so they can't be whales?
Yes, I think that's a fair place to draw the line.
You missed a mode, for 2U its a flash chump blocker that draws a card.
Ah, but historically, strictly better is an academic exercise, more than anything else. Is this better? Absolutely, and I'll play it in EDH, maybe even standard and I do agree with your logic, but strictly better is all about splitting hairs.
Also a helluva pop culture reference.
I've always believed in the strict definition of strictly better.