Magnifying Glass won me a game yesterday, with my death on the stack (sotospeak). Tamiyo's Journal has been decent, too. We need all the help with draw power as we can get.
That's true - I didn't consider that the clues themselves had value as a way to draw a card. It might be good enough to use - but Staff of Nin already draws me an extra card every turn (for 1 more) in addition to being a win condition with Volty combo. I think what'll really be the deciding factor for me will be if there's any other reasonable support for clues in colorless.
If anything, it's a 5/5, lmao. In all seriousness, though, I'm on the ropes about adding it, too.
If I use Karn, Silver Golem to make Erratic Portal a creature, then use Mirrorpool to put a token on the battlefield that is a copy of the temporarily animated Erratic Portal, what happens to the token created with Mirrorpool?
Edited so it makes sense. I realize Memorial is legendary -- in this scenario, a Mirror Gallery was in play. Changed it to something that makes more sense.
I'm finding it's tough to find spots for some of the new cards coming. We can't go too far into non-artifact territory, without compromising card synergies we need. As good as Workshop is, the more non-artifacts we run, the more chance of the card being useless (like it typically is, when people put it in decks it's not supposed to be in).
um, no I acknowledged your points (before you even made them lol and again afterwards) and tried to explain why that was already factored into my conclusions. But whatever, you clearly want an argument and not a discussion so this will be my last response to you.
Uh, wasn't it you that suggested monoblack decks would want scour because of its weakness to enchantments/artifacts??
Nope. Wasn't me. But they COULD use it, if they really have a problem with a problematic Enchantment, or Artifact. Depends on the meta. Black can get decent enough ramp, with Urborg, and Coffers. It all depends.
...Whatever, I'm not looking to get into a nitpick war here. If you're going to fixate on minor details of a randomly chosen example and completely ignore the central point that the example was intended to demonstrate, then this discussion is going to go nowhere.
Certain colors have very limited options of dealing with certain things. This just gives all colors a chance at an answer.
If you're trying to get me to acknowledge that Scour is a good card for some decks, that's not gonna happen because I honestly don't think that's true. I understand the appeal of this card, I just think that most deck-builders, if they really put in the time and effort to identify weak points and critically evaluate their options, they'll find better ways of addressing them than an over-costed catch-all. And that includes decks with limited color-options. I think just shrugging and putting in scour is lazy deck-building, and sacrificing too much efficiency.
For most decks, it's NOT a good option (I've stated this, over and over and over). I'm just saying that some decks need answers that their colors can't provide. In most situations, you don't run Scour, by replacing Karn, or All is Dust, etc. with it. You run it IN ADDITION TO those cards, if your deck has no other ways of dealing with whatever problem cards you may run in to (face it, certain colors suck at dealing with certain things. Those things can become a problem in games -- depends on your meta.).
Despite what you may think, how much mana your deck can generate on average, dictates how playable this card is (I thought this point to be pretty obvious, and it seems to be to most people).
What I'm saying isn't complicated at all, and I've even conceded some points to you (with some clarification/limits on how far I agree with you), but I choose to take everything in context (everything works better that way).
And it's worth pointing out that in your scenario....turn 3 karn is still miles better lol.
Wrong. Being able to deal with something at the end of someone's turn can make all the difference in the world.
I've bolded this part because I think this is the crux of the flaw in your logic. "Deck can ramp well" doesn't equate "don't care about casting costs". Rather, if your deck is properly tuned it should imply "more card draw". Casting dismember on a threat AND casting promise of power to refill your hand is getting a LOT more done with less mana than just answering one threat. I mean, I'm sure you're going to nitpick the life loss and the lack of exile in that example or whatever...but the point is you get X mana to spend each turn, and you should be aspiring to accomplish as much as possible with that X, even when it's a big X.
You act as though all colors have access to such a bountiful array of better cards. What solid card draw options does colorless have? Or Red? Or White? Compared to Blue and Black, they all suck at card draw.
What solid spot removal does blue have access to? Or Red? Or black (with enchantments and artifacts)?
It's like you're implying that just because cheaper options exist in other colors (which not every player is going to have access to, because of their commanders color identity.), that running Scour is a waste, JUST because another color can do a similar effect cheaper, which is absolutely asinine.
Yeah, playing a Dismember, and following it up with Promise of Power is good, IF YOU'RE IN BLACK. If you're not, you don't have that option, do you? Not all colors have access to the same types of options. And Dismember only hits a creature. Very limited scope, and not a good comparison in this situation.
That's like saying "well craw wurm exists, so wurmcoil engine should cost at least 11 to maintain the balance". Screw that, I love wurmcoil at 6! Craw wurm is underpowered, we don't have to scale our creatures according to that.
Recently (last 7-8 years or so), Wizards has made the shift from focusing on powerful non-creature spells, to upping the power curve of creatures. Comparing Craw Wurm (which is a COMMON) to Wurmcoil Engine (MYTHIC) isn't very reasonable. When Craw Wurm was originally printed, the game was in its infancy.
Lol do you honestly believe this? That ramping to scour is an efficient gameplan??
Okay, follow me here: IF you are out of the colors necessary to handle certain threats, and you happen to have a Scour from Existence in your hand, with the ability to ramp to it quickly, to deal with the problem card, then that is NOT a bad play. Sometimes, getting rid of that one card will cause you to steal the game away (it happens ALL the TIME).
If you aren't in colors that can handle certain threats, and need an extra piece of removal, and can RAMP efficiently, then Scour is a decent addition.
I've stated SEVERAL times already that the card is not good for all decks. As a matter of fact, many decks out there would NEVER even consider this card (and I completely understand why)... but there are certain decks where it can, and DOES have the potential to shine.
It's not a matter of "decks that could make use of it inefficiently"
If you were being realistic, you'd acknowledge that the card is inherently inefficient.
I just have a certain understanding of how game mechanics are designed, and implemented in games like this.
You don't seem to see how the fact that since it's colorless (and a common), that fact alone changes things quite a bit, at how expensive Wizards can realistically make it, without upsetting the balance of cards already made, that do similar things, but not quite the same effect.
The fact is, certain colors aren't supposed to have inherent answers to certain card types, like the red example I gave earlier, when it comes to getting rid of enchantments. If red wants to have spot removal for enchantments, you can expect that card to have a drawback. Scour removes from the game, any single problem card (without Shroud/Hexproof), and enables all colors to have a piece of spot removal, even if it is a little more expensive...
If I can ramp to 7 on turn 3, to get rid of a problem card, that hoses my game plan, doing so isn't a bad play, or inefficient... as long as your deck is built properly.
When I play Karn Liberated for 7, it mostly only hits 1 thing, then it gets taken out by someone else at the table. Playing Scour for 7, as an instant, isn't nearly as bad as you seem to think, if you are out of range of the colors necessary to handle said threat.
I'm just saying it's overpriced and therefore not very good, and I'm disagreeing with the rationalizing in this thread because people WANT it to be good.
Well, let me just say this:
I don't WANT the card to be good. It's not even like that, at all, because experience tells me that a card like this only will see play in decks that could make use of it efficiently.
I just prefer to be realistic when it comes to considering how well a card is designed.
Another card I've been thinking about toying with is Thran Turbine.
If anything, it's a 5/5, lmao. In all seriousness, though, I'm on the ropes about adding it, too.
Edited so it makes sense. I realize Memorial is legendary -- in this scenario, a Mirror Gallery was in play. Changed it to something that makes more sense.
Are you trying to build a fun deck, or a deck that is only fun for you? Lol.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Cheers!
Nope. Wasn't me. But they COULD use it, if they really have a problem with a problematic Enchantment, or Artifact. Depends on the meta. Black can get decent enough ramp, with Urborg, and Coffers. It all depends.
Certain colors have very limited options of dealing with certain things. This just gives all colors a chance at an answer.
For most decks, it's NOT a good option (I've stated this, over and over and over). I'm just saying that some decks need answers that their colors can't provide. In most situations, you don't run Scour, by replacing Karn, or All is Dust, etc. with it. You run it IN ADDITION TO those cards, if your deck has no other ways of dealing with whatever problem cards you may run in to (face it, certain colors suck at dealing with certain things. Those things can become a problem in games -- depends on your meta.).
Despite what you may think, how much mana your deck can generate on average, dictates how playable this card is (I thought this point to be pretty obvious, and it seems to be to most people).
What I'm saying isn't complicated at all, and I've even conceded some points to you (with some clarification/limits on how far I agree with you), but I choose to take everything in context (everything works better that way).
Wrong. Being able to deal with something at the end of someone's turn can make all the difference in the world.
You act as though all colors have access to such a bountiful array of better cards. What solid card draw options does colorless have? Or Red? Or White? Compared to Blue and Black, they all suck at card draw.
What solid spot removal does blue have access to? Or Red? Or black (with enchantments and artifacts)?
It's like you're implying that just because cheaper options exist in other colors (which not every player is going to have access to, because of their commanders color identity.), that running Scour is a waste, JUST because another color can do a similar effect cheaper, which is absolutely asinine.
Yeah, playing a Dismember, and following it up with Promise of Power is good, IF YOU'RE IN BLACK. If you're not, you don't have that option, do you? Not all colors have access to the same types of options. And Dismember only hits a creature. Very limited scope, and not a good comparison in this situation.
Recently (last 7-8 years or so), Wizards has made the shift from focusing on powerful non-creature spells, to upping the power curve of creatures. Comparing Craw Wurm (which is a COMMON) to Wurmcoil Engine (MYTHIC) isn't very reasonable. When Craw Wurm was originally printed, the game was in its infancy.
Okay, follow me here: IF you are out of the colors necessary to handle certain threats, and you happen to have a Scour from Existence in your hand, with the ability to ramp to it quickly, to deal with the problem card, then that is NOT a bad play. Sometimes, getting rid of that one card will cause you to steal the game away (it happens ALL the TIME).
If you aren't in colors that can handle certain threats, and need an extra piece of removal, and can RAMP efficiently, then Scour is a decent addition.
I've stated SEVERAL times already that the card is not good for all decks. As a matter of fact, many decks out there would NEVER even consider this card (and I completely understand why)... but there are certain decks where it can, and DOES have the potential to shine.
It's all relative.
Tron can also run 4 copies of each card. Commander is a singleton format. That's a false equivalency.
I just have a certain understanding of how game mechanics are designed, and implemented in games like this.
You don't seem to see how the fact that since it's colorless (and a common), that fact alone changes things quite a bit, at how expensive Wizards can realistically make it, without upsetting the balance of cards already made, that do similar things, but not quite the same effect.
The fact is, certain colors aren't supposed to have inherent answers to certain card types, like the red example I gave earlier, when it comes to getting rid of enchantments. If red wants to have spot removal for enchantments, you can expect that card to have a drawback. Scour removes from the game, any single problem card (without Shroud/Hexproof), and enables all colors to have a piece of spot removal, even if it is a little more expensive...
If I can ramp to 7 on turn 3, to get rid of a problem card, that hoses my game plan, doing so isn't a bad play, or inefficient... as long as your deck is built properly.
When I play Karn Liberated for 7, it mostly only hits 1 thing, then it gets taken out by someone else at the table. Playing Scour for 7, as an instant, isn't nearly as bad as you seem to think, if you are out of range of the colors necessary to handle said threat.
Well, let me just say this:
I don't WANT the card to be good. It's not even like that, at all, because experience tells me that a card like this only will see play in decks that could make use of it efficiently.
I just prefer to be realistic when it comes to considering how well a card is designed.