Don't think it's that big of a deal that this will be 1 CMC in the late game, being uncastable for the first 3-4 turns is pretty big draw back.
The cost drawback of removal spells is most important in the early game, not the late game.
Id rather have murder than GFTT on turn 7. But GFTT is clearly better card, because of the early turns.
I think this card is slightly better than murder, but worse than the as falcone puts it "triumvrant" 2 mana removal spells.
But it's close...
If for some wild reason you play like 3x of each fetch in your cube, Id play this card Otherwise, resign it to large cubes.
Yeah this card really stood out to me when I first saw it.
How the hell do they print this at common?!?!?!?!?!??!
Wouldn't be surprised if it's the best common in the set in limited.
As for cube, figured it's too rare that counters get on your guys, that this was more often a 2/1 with a level up ability to go to a 3/2 first strike.
But, the card is goooood and certainly reasonable filler for larger cubes.
Jesus, this card is good. Raises the wedge narrowness question like all the other ones, but am a huge fan of it.
All modes are strong in different situations...
The duality of being a solid counterspell (realistically mana leak is above curve at 1U) and an ok removal spell (deck contingent) is really strong.
Both of these situations are extremely common and are complementary.
Then tacking on a third mode that is, very narrow, but when it is good, it's game altering, is exactly what you want in a charm who's other two modes are versatile.
Realistically you only want this in a RUG midrange deck (or agro, but that's super rare for cube), dedicating a card just for this archetype, that while very good, isn't "build around me" power level, is too narrow :/
Arguing about new cards is a lot of fun (I've done more than my share of it in several threads this spoiler season), but it's not a competition, and it's not a good idea to take it personal.
There comes a point where if you like a card, you just put it in your own Cube and test it. No one is keeping you from doing that by dissing the card on the internet. If it turns out the card is indeed really good, like you're arguing, then the only ones that are missing out are those who're not Cubing with it. In the opposite case, you take it out of your list and that's that, no harm done.
Apparently you're not planning on doing that since the card is too narrow (which is perfectly reasonable), so I feel like you're just continuing the discussion for discussion's sake, which is not very helpful.
Totally, turned into an ego thing. Super frustrating when you are convinced that masses are completly wrong, but no persuading them.
But yeah, I've said more than my piece and rehashing this thread doesn't serve anyone.
It's a reactive card in a wedge, that is generally wanting to be proactive.
I like how it serves double duty as a solid removal spell vs agro , while still having an ok use against creature less control decks. Breaks out of the typical problem that a lot of removal has.
However, for it's versatility, you pay quite a cost.. And unlike the sultai charm that can profitably cycle, there are a lot more situations that this card is going to be pretty poor in. Mostly vs big dumb creatures, non creature permanents and planeswalkers.
Id say best case scenario is vs agro, the second mode, can 2 for 1 + leave 2 relevant blockers behind.
Might be underrating the value of sniping a control player who's top decking on their draw step tho. Would need to play with it more to see that...
Yeah, card is awful, shouldn't see play in 1000 large cubes. Even channelfireball authors are blind to it's low power level.
If you feel like repeating yourself, in reply to my sarcastic post about it's extremly hard to cast mana, or how this article isn't cube, don't bother.
My arguments are contained in the 6 essays I wrote in this thread.
Just giving more evidence, that the cards intrinsic power level is high and therefore should never be dismissed as a thread. In a cube with way above par fixing, lots of agro support, it could be easily argued for a slot if only considering power level.
Despite how high I am on the card, I Think it's too narrow to include even in that cube, but that has little to do with it's power level.
The "win more" and "too conditional on favorable game states" arguments are blind sighted. It's extreme narrowness is why it misses out on cube, nothing else.
Because it's at its best in a Bant deck. I classify every card where it's best. There are intrinsic components to the card that make it function better in a specific combination of colors. I currently have it in my green section because I don't have a Bant section. But if I did, I'd put it there instead.
It'd be like classifying Birds of Paradise as a colorless card because it mana fixes for all five.
No, it's not like that at all.
The fact it also has the mana symbols of bant in the card is a big part of your classification system too.
There's a TON of monocolored cards in cube that are clearly at it's best in specific two color and three color combinations.
IE opposition could be classified as simic under that definition, unless you specify it has "the other symbols in the card".
If ignoring the mana symbol requirement, id say opposition is MUCHHH more a simic card than noble hierarch is a bant card.
I agree it's best to limit CC creatures, for flexibility of drafting and deck design etc.
But, Im very surprised people are having trouble getting primarily red decks.
Two-color agro decks are common here too, but if drafted well, it's typically base color + 2-5 spells of another color.
Mono-red is by far the most common mono-colored deck.
Even with 5 spells of another color and solid fixing, 12 sources is very doable. (say 3 duals + 4 basics of the other color for a 12-6-1 with a colorless land).
Totally estimating, but I wouldn't be surprised if 5/6 of the cards in red are easily playable in agro. No other color comes close to that.
I've looked at red sections here and they aren't much different than mine, so the only conclusions Im coming to are;
Your drafters aren't drafting it well ,you are playing a lot of small 2-4 man drafts, and/or red is very heavily drafted.
Have you ever done the math on the number of sources required to hit double-cost guys on T2? It's harder than you think. With 10 sources of red, you'll only be able to cast him on T2 ~57% of the time.
Your right It is lower than I thought haha, but I trust youve done the math (rememeber the article).
Are the those numbers including any mulligan assumptions?
It's interesting how much our experiences differs with red. Since I run a similar # of agro cards I believe? Im guessing it's the playgroup.
Id say there's a monor or 85%+ red deck in almost every draft. Sometimes two in an 8 man.
I try to avoid all the RR creatures in decks without 12 red mana sources anyway... But I get mostly red decks a fair bit with 12 red sources.
1. Hellspark elemental
2. Keldon marauders
3. Stormblood berzerker
4. Ash zealot
5. Plated Geopede
6. Lightning mauler
7. Young pyromancer
8. Burning-tree emissary
9.Kragon dragonlord (dont play him over #9, but hes more powerful)
10, Borderland marauder
Havent tested eidolon of great revel, really should tho, considering how insane its been in constructed.
although I estimated it would be a lot better in constructed...
I'm guessing it's very close to the 3/2 for 2 red guys in power level.
Going to guess slightly above them.
I think the times where a couple tokens or an 0/4 wall would stone wall chain walker, but this guy is going to get a few full attacks in.
Is going to be more valuable than the times a vanilla 3/2 is better than a vanilla 2/1 (considering the frequency of him being a 2/1 not a 3/2).
Also a few fringe scenarios that add up, say they have a fat creature and a couple tokens. They might not be able to attack with the creature, because this guy could counter attack. Buying you time to burn them etc.
He works better with equipment etc.
Think the pros vs cons are close enough that it's clear he's at least close in power to his direct competition.
Whereas I think it's clear that most of the other 2 drops commonly run in small-medium cubes for red are flat out better than the chain-walker.
So my estimate would be slightly above chain-walker/borderland marauder but below most/all of the staple 2 drops.
A cards "best" case scenario is a very important part of the cards value.
I use the word in quotation because there's a difference between the literal best case scenario and the top 10 percent of scenarios. The term BCS is ambiguous considering how people use it.
A cards power level is the sum of its power level across all potential scenarios divded by the number of scenarios.
a sick planeswalker or an eldrazi, or a control magic, or a vedalken shackles is a very good case scenario, not a "best". It's not THAT rare this happens.
The power level to frequency distribution, is so different between this card and howl that they are a horrible comparison.
This card has a very flat distribution of power level, relative to howl who's power/frequency distribution is extremely skewed.
Howls top 10-20% case scenario is worse than it looks because not only does it require a spell to copy and the mana to do it, but you may have been forced to sand bag the copied spell, to a less than ideal time.
Ie maybe a lightning bolt would have been better on turn 3, but you held it to turn 4 for howl. Causing an opportunity cost.
Howls literal best case scenario is insane , but it's very good case scenario is worse than it looks.
And obviously it's below average case scenario is horrendous.
Wow. Well done wizards! Was starting to think blue was getting the shaft these past couple blocks.
Already feel like have a enough powerful clone effects for my cube size, but they are all so good that I'll make room for one more at this power level.
Estimating this is verrryy slightly better than dack's duplicate, and dack's duplicate has been performing strongly.
Perhaps when another really sweet izzet spell comes along, can bump out dack's duplicate now.. Due to having so many clone effects, but that day is long away.
My guess is auto-include @ 450, Test and likely include @ 360.
PS first sentence is obviously a troll, lol @ cutting metamorph
It's just bad design. Deathtouch on a 6/6 is unnecessary the vast majority of the time. These abilities really have no synergy together and it just looks like it was designed for two different cards and slapped onto a 4/4.
Vigilance and a tap ability work really well together, for instance. Nice from a design perspective. These things are just disjointed.
Ah fair enough, the abilities definitly don't feel connected.
Card was clearly pushed for constructed, mostly modern. Combo hate on an above curve base line stat creature. Cheap enough and dodges lightning bolt
The cost drawback of removal spells is most important in the early game, not the late game.
Id rather have murder than GFTT on turn 7. But GFTT is clearly better card, because of the early turns.
I think this card is slightly better than murder, but worse than the as falcone puts it "triumvrant" 2 mana removal spells.
But it's close...
If for some wild reason you play like 3x of each fetch in your cube, Id play this card
How the hell do they print this at common?!?!?!?!?!??!
Wouldn't be surprised if it's the best common in the set in limited.
As for cube, figured it's too rare that counters get on your guys, that this was more often a 2/1 with a level up ability to go to a 3/2 first strike.
But, the card is goooood and certainly reasonable filler for larger cubes.
The semi-inevitability it provides is way too slow for cube... Will be a limited house but that's it
All modes are strong in different situations...
The duality of being a solid counterspell (realistically mana leak is above curve at 1U) and an ok removal spell (deck contingent) is really strong.
Both of these situations are extremely common and are complementary.
Then tacking on a third mode that is, very narrow, but when it is good, it's game altering, is exactly what you want in a charm who's other two modes are versatile.
Realistically you only want this in a RUG midrange deck (or agro, but that's super rare for cube), dedicating a card just for this archetype, that while very good, isn't "build around me" power level, is too narrow :/
Gonna see infinite constructed play
Totally, turned into an ego thing. Super frustrating when you are convinced that masses are completly wrong, but no persuading them.
But yeah, I've said more than my piece and rehashing this thread doesn't serve anyone.
Sorry forum.
Think the card is fine , but nothing special.
It's a reactive card in a wedge, that is generally wanting to be proactive.
I like how it serves double duty as a solid removal spell vs agro , while still having an ok use against creature less control decks. Breaks out of the typical problem that a lot of removal has.
However, for it's versatility, you pay quite a cost.. And unlike the sultai charm that can profitably cycle, there are a lot more situations that this card is going to be pretty poor in. Mostly vs big dumb creatures, non creature permanents and planeswalkers.
Id say best case scenario is vs agro, the second mode, can 2 for 1 + leave 2 relevant blockers behind.
Might be underrating the value of sniping a control player who's top decking on their draw step tho. Would need to play with it more to see that...
Yeah, card is awful, shouldn't see play in 1000 large cubes. Even channelfireball authors are blind to it's low power level.
If you feel like repeating yourself, in reply to my sarcastic post about it's extremly hard to cast mana, or how this article isn't cube, don't bother.
My arguments are contained in the 6 essays I wrote in this thread.
Just giving more evidence, that the cards intrinsic power level is high and therefore should never be dismissed as a thread. In a cube with way above par fixing, lots of agro support, it could be easily argued for a slot if only considering power level.
Despite how high I am on the card, I Think it's too narrow to include even in that cube, but that has little to do with it's power level.
The "win more" and "too conditional on favorable game states" arguments are blind sighted. It's extreme narrowness is why it misses out on cube, nothing else.
The fact it also has the mana symbols of bant in the card is a big part of your classification system too.
There's a TON of monocolored cards in cube that are clearly at it's best in specific two color and three color combinations.
IE opposition could be classified as simic under that definition, unless you specify it has "the other symbols in the card".
If ignoring the mana symbol requirement, id say opposition is MUCHHH more a simic card than noble hierarch is a bant card.
But, Im very surprised people are having trouble getting primarily red decks.
Two-color agro decks are common here too, but if drafted well, it's typically base color + 2-5 spells of another color.
Mono-red is by far the most common mono-colored deck.
Even with 5 spells of another color and solid fixing, 12 sources is very doable. (say 3 duals + 4 basics of the other color for a 12-6-1 with a colorless land).
Totally estimating, but I wouldn't be surprised if 5/6 of the cards in red are easily playable in agro. No other color comes close to that.
I've looked at red sections here and they aren't much different than mine, so the only conclusions Im coming to are;
Your drafters aren't drafting it well ,you are playing a lot of small 2-4 man drafts, and/or red is very heavily drafted.
Your right It is lower than I thought haha, but I trust youve done the math (rememeber the article).
Are the those numbers including any mulligan assumptions?
It's interesting how much our experiences differs with red. Since I run a similar # of agro cards I believe? Im guessing it's the playgroup.
Id say there's a monor or 85%+ red deck in almost every draft. Sometimes two in an 8 man.
I try to avoid all the RR creatures in decks without 12 red mana sources anyway... But I get mostly red decks a fair bit with 12 red sources.
1. Hellspark elemental
2. Keldon marauders
3. Stormblood berzerker
4. Ash zealot
5. Plated Geopede
6. Lightning mauler
7. Young pyromancer
8. Burning-tree emissary
9.Kragon dragonlord (dont play him over #9, but hes more powerful)
10, Borderland marauder
Havent tested eidolon of great revel, really should tho, considering how insane its been in constructed.
although I estimated it would be a lot better in constructed...
Going to guess slightly above them.
I think the times where a couple tokens or an 0/4 wall would stone wall chain walker, but this guy is going to get a few full attacks in.
Is going to be more valuable than the times a vanilla 3/2 is better than a vanilla 2/1 (considering the frequency of him being a 2/1 not a 3/2).
Also a few fringe scenarios that add up, say they have a fat creature and a couple tokens. They might not be able to attack with the creature, because this guy could counter attack. Buying you time to burn them etc.
He works better with equipment etc.
Think the pros vs cons are close enough that it's clear he's at least close in power to his direct competition.
Whereas I think it's clear that most of the other 2 drops commonly run in small-medium cubes for red are flat out better than the chain-walker.
So my estimate would be slightly above chain-walker/borderland marauder but below most/all of the staple 2 drops.
I use the word in quotation because there's a difference between the literal best case scenario and the top 10 percent of scenarios. The term BCS is ambiguous considering how people use it.
A cards power level is the sum of its power level across all potential scenarios divded by the number of scenarios.
a sick planeswalker or an eldrazi, or a control magic, or a vedalken shackles is a very good case scenario, not a "best". It's not THAT rare this happens.
The power level to frequency distribution, is so different between this card and howl that they are a horrible comparison.
This card has a very flat distribution of power level, relative to howl who's power/frequency distribution is extremely skewed.
Howls top 10-20% case scenario is worse than it looks because not only does it require a spell to copy and the mana to do it, but you may have been forced to sand bag the copied spell, to a less than ideal time.
Ie maybe a lightning bolt would have been better on turn 3, but you held it to turn 4 for howl. Causing an opportunity cost.
Howls literal best case scenario is insane , but it's very good case scenario is worse than it looks.
And obviously it's below average case scenario is horrendous.
Wow. Well done wizards! Was starting to think blue was getting the shaft these past couple blocks.
Already feel like have a enough powerful clone effects for my cube size, but they are all so good that I'll make room for one more at this power level.
Estimating this is verrryy slightly better than dack's duplicate, and dack's duplicate has been performing strongly.
Perhaps when another really sweet izzet spell comes along, can bump out dack's duplicate now.. Due to having so many clone effects, but that day is long away.
My guess is auto-include @ 450, Test and likely include @ 360.
PS first sentence is obviously a troll, lol @ cutting metamorph
Ah fair enough, the abilities definitly don't feel connected.
Card was clearly pushed for constructed, mostly modern. Combo hate on an above curve base line stat creature. Cheap enough and dodges lightning bolt