In the end, I think that Quicksilver Amulet is not quite good enough for constructed play, but has an outside shot. Still, some of you have given reasons for it not being good enough that don't make a lot of sense.
First of all, saying that if Quicksilver Amulet was broken it would already be known is silly. We know that the card is too slow for Eternal formats, but this card was in URZA BLOCK. There were way too many broken cards in that Standard format to say this card has ever had a real chance.
Second, the fact that this card is vulnerable to artifact removal implies that people will still be playing those cards in a non-caw blade format. It is possible for sure, but recent history says that is unlikely.
Third, Saying that a creature AURA is less vulnerable than a artifact (in reference to comparing this card to Splinter Twin) because noone play enchantment removal is nonsense. Clearly auras are weak to all the things that kill what they enchant.
We as players often know by instinct what is good or bad. We should learn to say that and then seek verification, rather than come up with dumb reasons for 'knowing' something.
I have played Magic for a while, and I have built a LOT of decks. I have tried playing with most cards, and have certainly played with the punisher mechanic and cards from Mercadian Masques that have the "block me and its bad for you" mechanic. I am pretty sure that my opinion that this card is not inherently good is correct. The short reason is that its simply not the way that Magic works (not winning Magic, anyway).
Let me use the Goblin Guide/Lens vs. Wall of Omens argument that is on this thread as an example. Assuming Guide goes first, you have done nothing if you cast or equip this on turn 2. You may have helped, but you don't know, because he hasn't cast a wall yet. So maybe you do something else instead. Or maybe you read him and know he has a wall, so you do it to save mana for another play.
He casts the wall. He hasn't lost a card, but blocking is awful. You have effectively removed his wall... but you haven't improved your other creatures, because they are still able to be blocked by said wall. Right now, you have spent a card that has given you an extra 2 damage, but no cards. If he has removal, you can put it on the next guy. But he has a lot of time to find an answer, because the guide hasn't become a faster clock; this isn't a Umezawa's Jitte we're talking about here. In all, you haven't actually done much. If he can't deal with the Guide+Lens, he probably couldn't deal with Guide+Other Dude either, which means that the latter would most likely be better. Infiltration Lens is just not doing enough until he HAS to block, but if that happens another card would have killed him already.
I think that if you think through actual game situations that you have been in, you will realize that in constructed, THIS is the Magical Christmas land. Removal can invalidate it (both creature and artifact), even if you get the cards it will be slow, it costs you a card, and it does not affect a creatures clock by itself. I know that clan_iraq is in border-line flame mode, but it is because he has explained the issues for pages now. History shows type of effect to not be tournament worthy. If you make something cheap enough it can get around a lot, and this is cheap, but to be fair all of the punisher spells are undercosted (at least for their time, most still) and they still weren't good enough.
This is a nice crop of cards for limited, though I don't really like the artifact wall having a green activation cost; it seems fine but a little weird. Perhaps there is a cycle that I didn't see/catch on to yet. That would make more sense then.
Razor Boomerang isn't a clunky card, it's just a crap one. Tapping and returning to hand makes sense if it's a boomerang.
I just wanted to use this as an opportunity for a small rant. In fact, razor boomerang makes no sense, and is from a flavor perspective one of the worst designed cards in 5 years. If you as a planeswalker create a boomerang and one of your creatures uses it, why would it return to YOUR hand? If I buy a boomerang and throw it, it doesn't go back to Walmart. The new equipment actually does make sense; it's so unwieldy that its hard for the creature to use; two creatures using it together have more success. But Razor Boomerang is just stupid. /rant complete
Sonicqaz is dead on. If you cast a Sarkhan Vol on a board with just lands, you still have accomplished nothing. With Koth that is not the case, and that is a big difference.
Sarkhan and Gideon are the only planeswalkers that can be dropped on an empty board and be unable to do ANYTHING to affect the game other than change their loyalty. Sarkhan is the only one who still does nothing the next turn if nothing changes.
For a few months you have 12 howling mine effects with runeflare trap and reverberate. You even have a voltaic key to untap one of the mines. Seems like a simple deck to throw together and test. I plan to do it right away.
Agree with aurorasparrow. Could be too fairly costed (as in not undercosted) but seven sacrifices means that this thing is prime for abuse. In addition, the fact that it fights through two wrath effects instead of just one makes it interesting.
On topic: I am looking forward to playing with this card. I found myself playing with Harrow last year and just wishing it was Kodama's Reach. Sometimes you need actual card advantage, and this gives it.
Off topic: The problem with the word 'strictly' in front of the word 'better' is that it only serves to make a person more likely to have their argument less useful.
True Statement- Lightning Bolt is strictly better than shock.
A person who is just learning how to play magic can figure out that in a game where the goal is to take a person from 20 to 0 and creatures are harder to kill when their toughness is higher can figure out that 1=1 and 2<3. The word strictly does nothing to help drive that point home.
I challenge someone (via PM) to come up with a situation where the term 'strictly better' is both correct AND useful; that is, a situation where 'strictly better' actually does more than just saying 'better' for people who play and understand this game.
Just to be clear, I do not challenge that there is a reasonable definition of 'strictly better'. I do disagree with those people who say that the term is actually useful in discussions like the ones we have here on Salvation.
Having dropped Bramblesnap, it seems like testing Shared Discovery is a needed step. A very narrow card, but the additional cost does not appear to be worse than 5 mana at sorcery speed (referring to Soul's Majesty). Spot removal does not counter it, and the way it functions can lead to turns that are affinity-like, since the creatures can be tapped even if they have summoning sickness.
First, because Repeal is a cantrip, it is easier to justify as a maindeck card. Second, most of the time repeal is being used for a tempo gain (or a tempo retain) where as echoing truth is functioning as an answer. While the two cards are both bounce spells, their utility is very different. The vast majority of your points are valid, and echoing truth is surely a good card. But you can't just replace Repeal with Echoing Truth in decks, because much of the time repeal is also being used to smooth draws and produce tempo with out a loss of card advantage.
Thank you guys for the information. I've been playing for a long time but am always looking for ways to make my time do more, so these answers will be considered so that I can do just that.
@Nick- Wow. That is a LOT of playtesting. Do you test online or in real life? How fast are you able to finish results for a particular matchup, and are you doing this testing as just a pair or as a group compiling results?
I am interested in taking an informal poll of how people are handing playtesting with sideboards right now. So I ask those people who have done reasonable playtesting at this point (let's say at least 40 games worth) are you:
1) Only playtesting Game ones (no sideboarded games at all)
2) Playtesting only sideboarded games (this is a lot easier when you are testing stock decks against one another, so if you are testing rogue decks and doing this, how are you handling that?)
3) Playtesting Matches with Game Ones unsideboarded (if you test online this is most likely what you do, but I want to hear about it regardless. If you do this in RL playtesting I am certainly interested.)
4) Doing something else entirely
Serious competitive players know that testing sideboarded matches is key. I am really interested in learning some different ways that people are getting those sideboarded games in.
There is more hate for Dredge, but that it is more able to prepare for that hate than Hypergenesis. I would add to that by saying (and you obviously share this observation) that All-In Red is a deck that some people will choose, and that it is a problem for Hypergenesis but not as much for Dredge. That means that there could be some matches where your game 1's will be rough for Hypergenesis, but a dredge deck should have more successful game 1's over that course of a PTQ or a PTQ season.
I would argue that Dredge is more likely to be able to fight through its hate than Hypergenesis, and if this was what I was using to make a deck decision and these were the two decks I were choosing from I would choose Dredge.
My last note would be that a metagame that is very hateful to Dredge is likely to be weak to Hypergenesis, so I would have both built and audible to HG if my scouting indicated that Dredge was being heavily sideboarded against.
The worst thing about this card is that it is Jace. The two versions of Jace seem like they would be great in play together. That is not to say you could not play both in the same deck, but it would certainly be awkward to get the numbers right. I really wish this was 'Manny the Mindcensor'. Synergy and alliteration for the win.
This new Jace seems like it would be better suited for a Blue/Green strategy than the old one, as many people have noted.
My thought process is that you will keep the four blood moons, but will need to take out a similar casting cost spell. While Blood Moon effects keep them from going off, Zo Zu can kill them for trying. So you can hate on their strategy while maintaining your (already dicey, in AIR) curve.
In other words, Zo Zu may be an upgrade to Magus of the Moon in this matchup, and you have a limit on what you can take out. You may be able to remove Chalice of the Void instead, but then you could easily end up with a deck full of three drops after boarding, which may be less effective overall.
I should note that I am assuming that the Scapeshift deck looks similar to this-
...where Zo-Zu may be able to limit their ability to get to the mana point they need. In this list Moon effects can be dealt with pretty easily, because they don't actually keep the deck from casting any spells. They just get to the mana point they need, then repeal/firespout/cryptic the Moon effect and go off. They have plenty of basics to facilitate that plan. This is the list in my testing gauntlet, which is Ben Stark's 4-2 list from Worlds. It is of course possible that other Scapeshift lists would have an easier time versus Zo-Zu, or a tougher time versus Moon effects.
I do like the idea of Zo-Zu for All in Red versus Scapeshift. AIR can actually put it into play on turn 1, where it can take the spot of Magus of the Moon in sideboarded games. The Scapeshift decks will have to remove it to go off, or to even get in position to go off.
In almost any other deck, I would probably want a different option. Putting Zo Zu into play quickly seems critical to its success, and AIR is the best for that.
Depending on what you are up to, I like Primal Command against Scapeshift for green. If you can get to that mana level, you can set them back a turn while gaining enough life to cost them more time. This is only good in a small subset of decks, though.
First of all, saying that if Quicksilver Amulet was broken it would already be known is silly. We know that the card is too slow for Eternal formats, but this card was in URZA BLOCK. There were way too many broken cards in that Standard format to say this card has ever had a real chance.
Second, the fact that this card is vulnerable to artifact removal implies that people will still be playing those cards in a non-caw blade format. It is possible for sure, but recent history says that is unlikely.
Third, Saying that a creature AURA is less vulnerable than a artifact (in reference to comparing this card to Splinter Twin) because noone play enchantment removal is nonsense. Clearly auras are weak to all the things that kill what they enchant.
We as players often know by instinct what is good or bad. We should learn to say that and then seek verification, rather than come up with dumb reasons for 'knowing' something.
Let me use the Goblin Guide/Lens vs. Wall of Omens argument that is on this thread as an example. Assuming Guide goes first, you have done nothing if you cast or equip this on turn 2. You may have helped, but you don't know, because he hasn't cast a wall yet. So maybe you do something else instead. Or maybe you read him and know he has a wall, so you do it to save mana for another play.
He casts the wall. He hasn't lost a card, but blocking is awful. You have effectively removed his wall... but you haven't improved your other creatures, because they are still able to be blocked by said wall. Right now, you have spent a card that has given you an extra 2 damage, but no cards. If he has removal, you can put it on the next guy. But he has a lot of time to find an answer, because the guide hasn't become a faster clock; this isn't a Umezawa's Jitte we're talking about here. In all, you haven't actually done much. If he can't deal with the Guide+Lens, he probably couldn't deal with Guide+Other Dude either, which means that the latter would most likely be better. Infiltration Lens is just not doing enough until he HAS to block, but if that happens another card would have killed him already.
I think that if you think through actual game situations that you have been in, you will realize that in constructed, THIS is the Magical Christmas land. Removal can invalidate it (both creature and artifact), even if you get the cards it will be slow, it costs you a card, and it does not affect a creatures clock by itself. I know that clan_iraq is in border-line flame mode, but it is because he has explained the issues for pages now. History shows type of effect to not be tournament worthy. If you make something cheap enough it can get around a lot, and this is cheap, but to be fair all of the punisher spells are undercosted (at least for their time, most still) and they still weren't good enough.
I just wanted to use this as an opportunity for a small rant. In fact, razor boomerang makes no sense, and is from a flavor perspective one of the worst designed cards in 5 years. If you as a planeswalker create a boomerang and one of your creatures uses it, why would it return to YOUR hand? If I buy a boomerang and throw it, it doesn't go back to Walmart. The new equipment actually does make sense; it's so unwieldy that its hard for the creature to use; two creatures using it together have more success. But Razor Boomerang is just stupid. /rant complete
Sarkhan and Gideon are the only planeswalkers that can be dropped on an empty board and be unable to do ANYTHING to affect the game other than change their loyalty. Sarkhan is the only one who still does nothing the next turn if nothing changes.
Off topic: The problem with the word 'strictly' in front of the word 'better' is that it only serves to make a person more likely to have their argument less useful.
True Statement- Lightning Bolt is strictly better than shock.
A person who is just learning how to play magic can figure out that in a game where the goal is to take a person from 20 to 0 and creatures are harder to kill when their toughness is higher can figure out that 1=1 and 2<3. The word strictly does nothing to help drive that point home.
I challenge someone (via PM) to come up with a situation where the term 'strictly better' is both correct AND useful; that is, a situation where 'strictly better' actually does more than just saying 'better' for people who play and understand this game.
Just to be clear, I do not challenge that there is a reasonable definition of 'strictly better'. I do disagree with those people who say that the term is actually useful in discussions like the ones we have here on Salvation.
@Nick- Wow. That is a LOT of playtesting. Do you test online or in real life? How fast are you able to finish results for a particular matchup, and are you doing this testing as just a pair or as a group compiling results?
1) Only playtesting Game ones (no sideboarded games at all)
2) Playtesting only sideboarded games (this is a lot easier when you are testing stock decks against one another, so if you are testing rogue decks and doing this, how are you handling that?)
3) Playtesting Matches with Game Ones unsideboarded (if you test online this is most likely what you do, but I want to hear about it regardless. If you do this in RL playtesting I am certainly interested.)
4) Doing something else entirely
Serious competitive players know that testing sideboarded matches is key. I am really interested in learning some different ways that people are getting those sideboarded games in.
I would argue that Dredge is more likely to be able to fight through its hate than Hypergenesis, and if this was what I was using to make a deck decision and these were the two decks I were choosing from I would choose Dredge.
My last note would be that a metagame that is very hateful to Dredge is likely to be weak to Hypergenesis, so I would have both built and audible to HG if my scouting indicated that Dredge was being heavily sideboarded against.
This new Jace seems like it would be better suited for a Blue/Green strategy than the old one, as many people have noted.
In other words, Zo Zu may be an upgrade to Magus of the Moon in this matchup, and you have a limit on what you can take out. You may be able to remove Chalice of the Void instead, but then you could easily end up with a deck full of three drops after boarding, which may be less effective overall.
I should note that I am assuming that the Scapeshift deck looks similar to this-
2 Flooded Grove
4 Forest
3 Island
2 Misty Rainforest
1 Mountain
4 Steam Vents
4 Stomping Ground
2 Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle
4 Sakura-Tribe Elder
4 Wood Elves
2 Cryptic Command
4 Firespout
3 Harrow
4 Peer Through Depths
4 Remand
4 Repeal
4 Scapeshift
In almost any other deck, I would probably want a different option. Putting Zo Zu into play quickly seems critical to its success, and AIR is the best for that.
Depending on what you are up to, I like Primal Command against Scapeshift for green. If you can get to that mana level, you can set them back a turn while gaining enough life to cost them more time. This is only good in a small subset of decks, though.