You're looking at it as having two good options, but that's not what it is. It's simply a 5/5 for 5 with a big downside.
But in limited, a 5/5 for 5 is playable and in limited letting your opponent take 5 to the face to make it a 3/3 is still acceptable. That's what he is talking about.
Why are you singling those things out, is the better question.
One can can compare cards that aren't identical - in fact, non-identical things are the only things that CAN be compared. They've got to be different. A card doesn't have to deal 5 damage and have Scry in order to be compared to Nefarious Burn. In fact, no other cards deal 5 damage and Scry, so by your logic nothing can be compared to it.
No, it isn't a better question. If there isn't a spell that does the exact same thing as the card you are looking at then you should compare it spells that are as close as possible to what it does. Clearly that sort of comparison can be made by "my logic", because that's exactly what I did. It's okay if you don't have any real counter argument, just don't strawman me okay.
Quote from rancored_elf »
Re-read that conversation, you're missing a lot.
No he isn't. He got exactly what I was saying. But what the hell, let's see what red has gotten historically for 2RR. It's one thing to look back and see how expensive dealing 5 damage in red has historically has been when looking at this new card, but let's also see what direct damage red has gotten for what you argue should have been it's price.
Rekindled Flame: Less damage and the possibility it might return to your hand. Chandra's Outrage: Less flexible in what you can target and does less damage to either target Homing Lightning: Less damage to a specific creature but can hit multiple creatures but can't hit players or planeswalkers. Flame Javelin: Less damage, but more flexible price.
To sum up, this spell isn't great but it does more damage to more potential targets for it's cost than any previous red burn spell that the color has gotten without having to jump through some sort of hoop to do it.
I think you should re-read Five-Alarm Fire. I'm not saying it's particularly good, but it is a bit better than your summary of it. Most people assume you have to hit your opponent; you don't. You just need to deal some sort of combat damage to something.
Fine, I misread it. Should I also mention how it's the only one on the list that can be stopped by a Naturalize? It's an easier hoop to jump though, but it is still a hoop.
rancored_elf
Just out of curiosity, why do you keep comparing this card to ones that do less damage and don't scry? Why are you ignoring those things? Let's compare it to red spells that do 5pts of damage shall we?
The pattern is pretty clear. If you want a red spell that does 5 damage, you either pay more mana or sacrifice something or jump through some other hoop. In addition, none of the above scry. Sure, they could have pushed it and made it cost 2RR, but they didn't. If they had, people would be complaining about power creep.
I think they could use snow as a returning mechanic in a Core set. It's a big set so there would be no problem with drafting like in Coldsnap. They could also easily print snow basics and duals in a core set. They could also reprint snow cards from Ice Age block. If they don't want to dedicate a full block to it it would be a really nice way to bring it back.
It would help explain the extra cards in the new core set. You could have a set of snow duel lands as well as two more of each of the basic snow lands. That sounds as good as any theory right now to me.
I think the bigger complaint is the fact that 99% of every creature type belongs to a single color. It used to be you'd at least see cultures that had multiple colors, but these days outside of humans there's almost no blending.
What are you talking about? From Lorwyn on, almost every tribe has been duel colored.
In Magic, that neutral group of cards are called artifacts. Are they easier to destroy as a way to balance out how they are easier to cast since you don't have to worry about color of your mana? Yes. So what is the problem?
Okay, let's brainstorm what different ideas they might do for the different color combinations. So far the bestow creatures have given us
W: Flying + First Strike, Tap or Untap creature when attack, Lifelink, Vigilance U: Flying, Draw when damage opponent B: Deathtouch, Intimidate, Discard a creature card to pump +2/+2 UOT, +X/+x where X = # of creatures in all graveyards R: Has to be blocked by 2 or more creatures, First Strike G: Reach, Trample
The fact that two of them give flying is interesting, but might not mean anything. Assuming that they are going to try to minimize such overlaps here is what I think they could give each color combination.
WU: Protection from color of your choice (doesn't effect itself) OR +x/+x where x= cards in hand OR Unblockable
UB: Opponent discards when hit OR Unblockable, fateseal when attacks
BR: Damage when attacks or dies OR Firebreathing/shade pumping OR Haste OR can't block
RG: Haste OR Has to attack every turn OR +X/+0 where X equals creatures current power
GW: Add Mana (either tap or main phase after it attacks) OR Create token when attacks OR destroy artifact/enchantment when damages opponent
WB: Sac for some effect OR pay life to regenerate OR destroy target non-land permanent when damages opponent
UR: Switch power/toughness OR when you play an instant or sorcery +X/+0 OR Tap to deal damage
BG: Regenerate OR Every creature must block this creature when it attacks OR return creature (or permanent) from graveyard to hand when damages opponent
RW: Double Strike OR Whenever dealt damage deals that much to target creature or player OR When this attacks +X/+0 based on something
GU: Hexproof, Unblockable, +X/+X where X=# cards in hand
Yeah, I was pretty vague with some of those, but some of them could be pretty flexible in the direction they could take them. All in all there are a lot of effects they could go with. This is especially true if they where to have some keywords show up more than once, but I would think it more interesting if they didn't. Some of those above are negative abilities, but I figure it would give them an excuse to make the cost of both the creature and the bestow cost less.
Duke Daemon: Greek myths had a lot of humans in them. In fact, more than a few of them didn't have non-humans involved*. Humans are going to be a major part of the storyline because it's based on human mythology with human players as it's target audience, it's that simple. This is especially true when you factor in the fact that they are trying to throw in every other creature type connected to Greek myths and then some. The only way they wouldn't be the largest tribe is if they made humans either non-existant (or close to it) or drastically reduced the variety of non-humans. The low count of humans wouldn't make storyline sense because these non-humans are supposed to be interacting with human city states to make it true to it's source and the other would just irritate the fans of the creature types left out and fail to capture the variety found in that source.
*This statement doesn't include the gods who basically where humans in a lot of their behavior only with godlike powers.
Mateusfw: Most of those look fine. The WU would be pretty similar to the hexproof one so I could see them not wanting both and the GU one could have the ability to draw a card when they damage a player. Because of how expensive bestow is, I think BR would be better off with something other than haste. The GW one should most likely give more mana than just one to be worth while and I also wouldn't be surprised if they had an unblockable one in there somewhere.
Well, out of the 138 creatures in Theros, only 33 of them where humans. Even if you lump the cycle of nymphs with them because they look human, that still means that there is a clear majority of creatures in Theros that aren't human.
Honestly, 5 nymphs a set isn't that much to ask for and it would give them plenty of space for more satyr, sirens, etc.
Lorelone: A 5 color legendary nymph (or legendary group of nymphs) would be pretty cool. I would be willing to put together an EDH deck based around nymphs and dryads. Sure it wouldn't be that good, but I wouldn't care.
Aeschylus1: If they worked mechanically like the originally cycle, I wouldn't expect their bestow cost to be that aggressive. That said, being multicolored would allow their power to be pushed a bit more since they would be harder to cast. That is assuming they didn't use hybrid mana cost.
As far as abilities go, it just depends on if gave them abilities that both colors share in common or if they where to give them two abilities (ie one from each color). If the first, then I would expect them to be better priced, if the second then they will end up being more expensive.
Barinellos: Why would having 15 different types of nymphs being represented be really any different than another race having 15 different cards? Both have the same memory issues of remember the same number of names. Most people aren't going to care about the differences in their mythologies, but instead will view them as just 15 more card names. Only a very few would care and for them it would be a bonus.
Rakath: If they did the others differently I would expect two different cycles. That said, I would hope that the nymphs would be able to work together mechanically. Enchantment creatures that aren't creatures some of the time really doesn't work well with the first cycle which only enchant creatures. As soon as they become a non-creature the other nymph would fall off. Not only that, but it doesn't seem like a mechanic that is in color for all 5 colors.
I have to admit I was a bit disappointed with there being only a cycle of them in the first set, but something occurred to me. If the nymphs are connected to the gods and are basically living mana/nyx, then does that mean that we might get 10 more of them in the next two sets? Theros gave us both the mono-colored gods and a cycle of mono-colored nymphs. Perhaps when they give us the duel-colored gods they might give us some duel-colored nymphs to go with them.
If that's the case, then I would be happy. Fifteen of them would allow me to put together a casual deck of some sort. Thoughts?
Having looked into it, a completely colorless commander deck, while not impossible by any means, cannot have any basic lands, and thus has a rather complicated and confusing mana base. It also can't run the two lands they've made specifically for commander, so I doubt they would do it.
I would think that preconstructed colorless commander deck would be the perfect place to place a relentless land into. And by that I mean a land that only taps for colorless mana that states on it, "A deck can have any number of cards named ~". Where ~ is the name of the land and then have those be in place of the basic lands that come in these things. If nothing else, it would make constructing a colorless general a lot more appealing to those on a budget.
My guess is a vanilla creature with 20+ power and/or 20+ toughness.
I agree. While ideally, rarity shouldn't equal power, it often does. A mythic vanilla creature should be more impressive than even a 5 color uncommon vanilla creature. Seriously, if we can get 7/7 with abilities at rare for one of each color, an 8/8 vanilla for the same cost seems pretty conservative.
But in limited, a 5/5 for 5 is playable and in limited letting your opponent take 5 to the face to make it a 3/3 is still acceptable. That's what he is talking about.
No, it isn't a better question. If there isn't a spell that does the exact same thing as the card you are looking at then you should compare it spells that are as close as possible to what it does. Clearly that sort of comparison can be made by "my logic", because that's exactly what I did. It's okay if you don't have any real counter argument, just don't strawman me okay.
No he isn't. He got exactly what I was saying. But what the hell, let's see what red has gotten historically for 2RR. It's one thing to look back and see how expensive dealing 5 damage in red has historically has been when looking at this new card, but let's also see what direct damage red has gotten for what you argue should have been it's price.
Rekindled Flame: Less damage and the possibility it might return to your hand.
Chandra's Outrage: Less flexible in what you can target and does less damage to either target
Homing Lightning: Less damage to a specific creature but can hit multiple creatures but can't hit players or planeswalkers.
Flame Javelin: Less damage, but more flexible price.
To sum up, this spell isn't great but it does more damage to more potential targets for it's cost than any previous red burn spell that the color has gotten without having to jump through some sort of hoop to do it.
Fine, I misread it. Should I also mention how it's the only one on the list that can be stopped by a Naturalize? It's an easier hoop to jump though, but it is still a hoop.
Just out of curiosity, why do you keep comparing this card to ones that do less damage and don't scry? Why are you ignoring those things? Let's compare it to red spells that do 5pts of damage shall we?
Acceptable Losses: Requires you to randomly discard
Artillerize: Requires you sac an artifact or creature
Beacon of Destruction: Cost more
Blazing Salvo: Is a punisher mechanic card that doesn't let you control it's effect
Bolderfall: Cost more
Brimstone Volley: Has to have morbid active or it only does 3 damage.
Browbeat: Another punsher card
Burning Fields: Cost more
Cackling Flames: Requires you have no hand to do 5 damage
Explosive Impact: Cost 2 more mana to play
Fiery Conclusion: Another one that requires a sacrifice
Five-Alarm Fire: Requires creatures to hit opponents 5 times before it can go off.
Goblin Grenade: Requires you sac a specific creature type
Lava Axe: Cost more
Shrapnel Blast: Requires a sacrifice
Thermal Blast: Requires threshold to be met or does less damage
Thunderous Wrath: Cost more unless you can miracle it
The pattern is pretty clear. If you want a red spell that does 5 damage, you either pay more mana or sacrifice something or jump through some other hoop. In addition, none of the above scry. Sure, they could have pushed it and made it cost 2RR, but they didn't. If they had, people would be complaining about power creep.
It would help explain the extra cards in the new core set. You could have a set of snow duel lands as well as two more of each of the basic snow lands. That sounds as good as any theory right now to me.
What are you talking about? From Lorwyn on, almost every tribe has been duel colored.
W: Flying + First Strike, Tap or Untap creature when attack, Lifelink, Vigilance
U: Flying, Draw when damage opponent
B: Deathtouch, Intimidate, Discard a creature card to pump +2/+2 UOT, +X/+x where X = # of creatures in all graveyards
R: Has to be blocked by 2 or more creatures, First Strike
G: Reach, Trample
The fact that two of them give flying is interesting, but might not mean anything. Assuming that they are going to try to minimize such overlaps here is what I think they could give each color combination.
WU: Protection from color of your choice (doesn't effect itself) OR +x/+x where x= cards in hand OR Unblockable
UB: Opponent discards when hit OR Unblockable, fateseal when attacks
BR: Damage when attacks or dies OR Firebreathing/shade pumping OR Haste OR can't block
RG: Haste OR Has to attack every turn OR +X/+0 where X equals creatures current power
GW: Add Mana (either tap or main phase after it attacks) OR Create token when attacks OR destroy artifact/enchantment when damages opponent
WB: Sac for some effect OR pay life to regenerate OR destroy target non-land permanent when damages opponent
UR: Switch power/toughness OR when you play an instant or sorcery +X/+0 OR Tap to deal damage
BG: Regenerate OR Every creature must block this creature when it attacks OR return creature (or permanent) from graveyard to hand when damages opponent
RW: Double Strike OR Whenever dealt damage deals that much to target creature or player OR When this attacks +X/+0 based on something
GU: Hexproof, Unblockable, +X/+X where X=# cards in hand
Yeah, I was pretty vague with some of those, but some of them could be pretty flexible in the direction they could take them. All in all there are a lot of effects they could go with. This is especially true if they where to have some keywords show up more than once, but I would think it more interesting if they didn't. Some of those above are negative abilities, but I figure it would give them an excuse to make the cost of both the creature and the bestow cost less.
*This statement doesn't include the gods who basically where humans in a lot of their behavior only with godlike powers.
Mateusfw: Most of those look fine. The WU would be pretty similar to the hexproof one so I could see them not wanting both and the GU one could have the ability to draw a card when they damage a player. Because of how expensive bestow is, I think BR would be better off with something other than haste. The GW one should most likely give more mana than just one to be worth while and I also wouldn't be surprised if they had an unblockable one in there somewhere.
Honestly, 5 nymphs a set isn't that much to ask for and it would give them plenty of space for more satyr, sirens, etc.
Aeschylus1: If they worked mechanically like the originally cycle, I wouldn't expect their bestow cost to be that aggressive. That said, being multicolored would allow their power to be pushed a bit more since they would be harder to cast. That is assuming they didn't use hybrid mana cost.
As far as abilities go, it just depends on if gave them abilities that both colors share in common or if they where to give them two abilities (ie one from each color). If the first, then I would expect them to be better priced, if the second then they will end up being more expensive.
Barinellos: Why would having 15 different types of nymphs being represented be really any different than another race having 15 different cards? Both have the same memory issues of remember the same number of names. Most people aren't going to care about the differences in their mythologies, but instead will view them as just 15 more card names. Only a very few would care and for them it would be a bonus.
Rakath: If they did the others differently I would expect two different cycles. That said, I would hope that the nymphs would be able to work together mechanically. Enchantment creatures that aren't creatures some of the time really doesn't work well with the first cycle which only enchant creatures. As soon as they become a non-creature the other nymph would fall off. Not only that, but it doesn't seem like a mechanic that is in color for all 5 colors.
If that's the case, then I would be happy. Fifteen of them would allow me to put together a casual deck of some sort. Thoughts?
I would think that preconstructed colorless commander deck would be the perfect place to place a relentless land into. And by that I mean a land that only taps for colorless mana that states on it, "A deck can have any number of cards named ~". Where ~ is the name of the land and then have those be in place of the basic lands that come in these things. If nothing else, it would make constructing a colorless general a lot more appealing to those on a budget.
I agree. While ideally, rarity shouldn't equal power, it often does. A mythic vanilla creature should be more impressive than even a 5 color uncommon vanilla creature. Seriously, if we can get 7/7 with abilities at rare for one of each color, an 8/8 vanilla for the same cost seems pretty conservative.