A terrible thread that does NOT have a title worthy of a Mark Rosewater article got me thinking about evaluating cards. I've seen a lot of cards that really feel like they should be good, even having similar counterparts that have demonstrated that they are very strong, and yet in practice they just don't hold up.
An example that immediately comes to mind is Wee Dragonauts. I've been playing a lot of Duals of the Planeswalkers over the last year or so - it's actually what got me back into playing competitive Magic again - and I used to absolutely love Kiln Fiend. A fiend will totally destroy an opponent if they don't kill it quickly and it happened to synergize very well with Chandra's Phoenix. A few other decks later had the Wees and I thought they were going to be insane. Yeah, they cost a little more, but they are tougher and they fly. That's still good, right? But it turns out that I really don't like them. They feel very slow and unwieldy and I feel like, strangely enough, the pump ability is less useful in this form. I have a hard time telling if the Wees are actually not as good as Fiends or if the decks using Wees happen to be poorly designed. Does one mana really make all of the difference on an otherwise ridiculous ability?
I seem to recall Wees being played in high level magic somewhere, is that the case? Or am I crazy? Either way, it's hard for me to believe in it in any format.
I'm sure you all have other examples of these feels.