1/1/2013 RC: "Evil Never Dies"

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's ReConstructed, which goes live Tuesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Thank you, yes: I will make this into my new EDH deck. No, you're welcome.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
In the article, it says detention sphere doesn't work on council, I think it does, when it exiles the ghost council, the council won't be able to use its your-end-phase blink ability, and it remains exile until the sphere is gone.
In the article, it says detention sphere doesn't work on council, I think it does, when it exiles the ghost council, the council won't be able to use its your-end-phase blink ability, and it remains exile until the sphere is gone.



That's true, but you'd have to find a way to flash in the Sphere.  Obzedat won't be sticking around during your turn.
he meant it won't work because it's sorcery speed

ninjas everywhere 
Nice card.  Not much else I can say.
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1205820039/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
EDIT: I decided I was being too whiny. I should just be dad Ghost Dad's back.

Love Obzedat's art. While I still favor Ghost Council, that's not a mark against the new version; they portray the same subject (Scheming mafia heads) in two very different ways, and both approaches are cool.
All I can say is...




...problem?

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

I feel the writing is trying too hard to make the card look awesome. I mean, it IS very strong and will be played, but lines such as
For five mana, you get a 5/5. All right, that's already looking interesting.


are kind of too much because those stats on an easier to cast creature that costs 1 less and has a huge upside still do not make constructed playable creatures in these days of mad creature power creep. A 5/5 for 1AABB is actually downright terrible these days.

We get it that it's very powerful (I hope most do), but when you exaggerate it looks as if you're overhyping it.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
You just had to say something, didn't you? That'll make you the first to be sacrificed to the new Ghost Council.

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

I feel the writing is trying too hard to make the card look awesome. I mean, it IS very strong and will be played, but lines such as
For five mana, you get a 5/5. All right, that's already looking interesting.


are kind of too much because those stats on an easier to cast creature that costs 1 less and has a huge upside still do not make constructed playable creatures in these days of mad creature power creep. A 5/5 for 1AABB is actually downright terrible these days.

We get it that it's very powerful (I hope most do), but when you exaggerate it looks as if you're overhyping it.



It's a 5/5 for 5, don't gotta push it or pay 6 later (for a "huge upside"), and it involves a 4-point life swing when you drop it and every one of your turns afterward (if you choose to exile it). Which means just being being in play it's killing your opponent. You CAN block with it, if you wish, but Phasing it out is even better in some circumstances.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
I feel the writing is trying too hard to make the card look awesome. I mean, it IS very strong and will be played, but lines such as
For five mana, you get a 5/5. All right, that's already looking interesting.


are kind of too much because those stats on an easier to cast creature that costs 1 less and has a huge upside still do not make constructed playable creatures in these days of mad creature power creep. A 5/5 for 1AABB is actually downright terrible these days.

We get it that it's very powerful (I hope most do), but when you exaggerate it looks as if you're overhyping it.



It's a 5/5 for 5, don't gotta push it or pay 6 later (for a "huge upside"), and it involves a 4-point life swing when you drop it and every one of your turns afterward (if you choose to exile it). Which means just being being in play it's killing your opponent. You CAN block with it, if you wish, but Phasing it out is even better in some circumstances.


How does anything you said have anything to do with my post you quoted?

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
Today is January 1.  I'm going on record as saying this is a worthless card, whose price will only be propped up by the mythic rare status (i.e. for collectors).  In a year or two, some writer at Daily MTG is going to admit that this is a crap card (maybe even Mr. Verhey).


Does this card even work?  The rules text says "... may exile Obzedat."  The card's precise name is not Obzedat.  Is there some obscure rule about cards not refering to cards by their exact name?  Can I play spoils of the vault and name Garruk, and then decide which specific card I meant after I search?  Or play pithing needle and name 'you know, that legendary creature in your deck'?
Looks pretty bonkers to me. I agree a 5/5 for 1CCDD is really not very good at all these days (and Gavin was massively overstating things to claim that was "interesting"), but the abilities are indeed absolutely terrifying.

Not very inspiring as an EDH general, because there's not very much to build around in his effects. Lots of blinking and ETB triggers, I guess. The original Ghost Council was more build-around-me-able. But nonetheless, I'll certainly be very happy to open one in a booster if I do.
Hmm, we can play 'guess the abilities of Orzhov Charm' now! How about...

Choose one: return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand; exile target creature you control, then return it to the battlefield at the beginning of the next end step; or target player loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
Hmm, we can play 'guess the abilities of Orzhov Charm' now! How about...

Choose one: return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand; exile target creature you control, then return it to the battlefield at the beginning of the next end step; or target player loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.



For , I'll guess: discard a card effect; some way to destroy hexproof creatures (maybe choose a creature target player controls.  That player sacrifices that creature); and a creature gains lifelink until end of turn.
Efficient does not equal awesome. This article is very similar to the one trying to hype the Golgari mechanic. Its too bad other people at WOTC don't hate really boring cards because that is why they'd have shot this thing down. It is certainly not too awesome. You wasted a Legendary creature slot in an extremely under-represented color pairing on a purely Spike card.
I feel the writing is trying too hard to make the card look awesome. I mean, it IS very strong and will be played, but lines such as
For five mana, you get a 5/5. All right, that's already looking interesting.


are kind of too much because those stats on an easier to cast creature that costs 1 less and has a huge upside still do not make constructed playable creatures in these days of mad creature power creep. A 5/5 for 1AABB is actually downright terrible these days.

We get it that it's very powerful (I hope most do), but when you exaggerate it looks as if you're overhyping it.



It's a 5/5 for 5, don't gotta push it or pay 6 later (for a "huge upside"), and it involves a 4-point life swing when you drop it and every one of your turns afterward (if you choose to exile it). Which means just being being in play it's killing your opponent. You CAN block with it, if you wish, but Phasing it out is even better in some circumstances.



I really liked the gracefulness of a single life syphon fomr the original one. I wish they would have continued with that or did something totally different. The 2 life syphon is getting serious cliché//over used and it makes the card appear all BOLD CAPS LOCK-ish.

I guess it's too late to turn back now, so no pressure; but something to keep in mind.

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

Does this card even work?  The rules text says "... may exile Obzedat." The card's precise name is not Obzedat.  Is there some obscure rule about cards not refering to cards by their exact name?


There is. If text uses the name two or more times, the first time is the only one where its full name is used (if appropriate). Thrun comes to mind.

Can I play spoils of the vault and name Garruk, and then decide which specific card I meant after I search?


If you only have one version of Garruk, it will be fine, especially if it's the Top 8 of a PT or GP tournament.


 
Or play pithing needle and name 'you know, that legendary creature in your deck'?


If it's the only Legendary creature in their deck (and you know their decklist due to being in the Top 8 of a PT or GP tournament), then that's fine.


Most of the time, there is insufficient information here in your questions. But if I forget the full name of Obzedat, for example, with SGames I can just name "that WWBB1 Ghost Orzhov Guild Leader guy", it's perfectly legal.
Dies to counterspell.
Efficient does not equal awesome. This article is very similar to the one trying to hype the Golgari mechanic. Its too bad other people at WOTC don't hate really boring cards because that is why they'd have shot this thing down. It is certainly not too awesome. You wasted a Legendary creature slot in an extremely under-represented color pairing on a purely Spike card.

the reason they made him boss is because extort is kinda lame. even bloodrush kicks its pants off in the "cool" department. (not saying iits weak, just dull) So they create the new version of hero of bladehold.

but the reason dead-bridge goliath isn't played is because we have tragtusk and restoration angel. maybe in a year it will be good.
Efficient does not equal awesome. This article is very similar to the one trying to hype the Golgari mechanic. Its too bad other people at WOTC don't hate really boring cards because that is why they'd have shot this thing down. It is certainly not too awesome. You wasted a Legendary creature slot in an extremely under-represented color pairing on a purely Spike card.

the reason they made him boss is because extort is kinda lame. even bloodrush kicks its pants off in the "cool" department. (not saying iits weak, just dull) So they create the new version of hero of bladehold.

but the reason dead-bridge goliath isn't played is because we have tragtusk and restoration angel. maybe in a year it will be good.



I like extort more than any other guild mechanic. I want to play fun games of Magic, and if I don't win, that is OK. Cards like this just try to win and don't care if it is interesting or not. I think the preview card from last week with extort is many times more interesting than this legend. I'd have rather that guy have been legendary than this thing. This legend is similar to one that exists in a color combination with less than a handful of legends.

It is a huge disappointment and is in no way awesome-especially when all the author could say is it is awesome because it is efficient. The thing still dies in a fight with a craw wurm. That isn't exactly my definition of awesome.  

So they took a card that aloready existed, tweaked the mechanic slightly and buffed up the numbers? That seems to be fashion in R&D at the moment. I'm looking forward to the day they reprint a super-awesome exact copy of Baneslayer Angel, except as a 7/5 for 2WWW and with protection from Red and Black.

This kind of thing always comes across as a 'couldn't think of a card' card.
Efficient does not equal awesome. This article is very similar to the one trying to hype the Golgari mechanic. Its too bad other people at WOTC don't hate really boring cards because that is why they'd have shot this thing down. It is certainly not too awesome. You wasted a Legendary creature slot in an extremely under-represented color pairing on a purely Spike card.

the reason they made him boss is because extort is kinda lame. even bloodrush kicks its pants off in the "cool" department. (not saying iits weak, just dull) So they create the new version of hero of bladehold.

but the reason dead-bridge goliath isn't played is because we have tragtusk and restoration angel. maybe in a year it will be good.



I like extort more than any other guild mechanic. I want to play fun games of Magic, and if I don't win, that is OK. Cards like this just try to win and don't care if it is interesting or not. I think the preview card from last week with extort is many times more interesting than this legend. I'd have rather that guy have been legendary than this thing. This legend is similar to one that exists in a color combination with less than a handful of legends.

It is a huge disappointment and is in no way awesome-especially when all the author could say is it is awesome because it is efficient. The thing still dies in a fight with a craw wurm. That isn't exactly my definition of awesome.  


then the card isn't designed for you and you dont need to play with it. Play with the extort cards, their all more common and thus cheaper. but their are people who love this card, so let them enjoy it and dont demand it not be printed cuz u dont like it.
I like extort more than any other guild mechanic. I want to play fun games of Magic, and if I don't win, that is OK. Cards like this just try to win and don't care if it is interesting or not. I think the preview card from last week with extort is many times more interesting than this legend. I'd have rather that guy have been legendary than this thing. This legend is similar to one that exists in a color combination with less than a handful of legends.

It is a huge disappointment and is in no way awesome-especially when all the author could say is it is awesome because it is efficient. The thing still dies in a fight with a craw wurm. That isn't exactly my definition of awesome.  


then the card isn't designed for you and you dont need to play with it. Play with the extort cards, their all more common and thus cheaper. but their are people who love this card, so let them enjoy it and dont demand it not be printed cuz u dont like it.

He's not "demanding it not be printed". He's saying that, when there are so very few opportunities to print a black-white legendary creature and thus potential commander of a black-white EDH deck, printing one that's just a retread of what Ghost Council of Orzhova did is rather disappointing. I broadly agree. I certainly think Extort is much more fun than this card (although I guess I've not played with this yet). I guess this is more flexible, in that it doesn't suggest a tokens deck like the original Ghost Council do, but the "amp the numbers and call it a day" school of mythic design is really annoying.
For what it's worth, it's too bad they didn't do something that would effectively suspend this guy. Then it would be possible to trigger extort every turn...:P
Efficient does not equal awesome. This article is very similar to the one trying to hype the Golgari mechanic. Its too bad other people at WOTC don't hate really boring cards because that is why they'd have shot this thing down. It is certainly not too awesome. You wasted a Legendary creature slot in an extremely under-represented color pairing on a purely Spike card.

the reason they made him boss is because extort is kinda lame. even bloodrush kicks its pants off in the "cool" department. (not saying iits weak, just dull) So they create the new version of hero of bladehold.

but the reason dead-bridge goliath isn't played is because we have tragtusk and restoration angel. maybe in a year it will be good.



I like extort more than any other guild mechanic. I want to play fun games of Magic, and if I don't win, that is OK. Cards like this just try to win and don't care if it is interesting or not. I think the preview card from last week with extort is many times more interesting than this legend. I'd have rather that guy have been legendary than this thing. This legend is similar to one that exists in a color combination with less than a handful of legends.

It is a huge disappointment and is in no way awesome-especially when all the author could say is it is awesome because it is efficient. The thing still dies in a fight with a craw wurm. That isn't exactly my definition of awesome.  


then the card isn't designed for you and you dont need to play with it. Play with the extort cards, their all more common and thus cheaper. but their are people who love this card, so let them enjoy it and dont demand it not be printed cuz u dont like it.




I am 99.9% sure I spend more on Magic than you. I have no idea why you'd feel the need to open w/ something about that. Legends should be awesome, not just efficient ways to win the game. That creature type carries a lot more weight than just making a Magic card. If this was just a non-legendary card they previewed, I'd say 'not for me and that's no big deal.' But that's not the case when there aren't hardly any black/white legends. Why not try and do something that is actually awesome with it?   

Extort is about slow, grindy type games. This card is basically a variant of doing Sorin Markov's plus loyalty ability. That is not awesome. If you're using removal and smashing with him, then this card doesn't fit the slow, grindy nature of the guild mechanic. I am not agaist aggro. I like the Gruul mechanic. They found a way to make split cards that are half creature and half pump spell. That's great for playing aggressively. The new ghost Legend is just wrong for the guild and wrong from using up one of the rarest opportunities for creating awesome legendary creatures.  
Efficient does not equal awesome. This article is very similar to the one trying to hype the Golgari mechanic. Its too bad other people at WOTC don't hate really boring cards because that is why they'd have shot this thing down. It is certainly not too awesome. You wasted a Legendary creature slot in an extremely under-represented color pairing on a purely Spike card.

the reason they made him boss is because extort is kinda lame. even bloodrush kicks its pants off in the "cool" department. (not saying iits weak, just dull) So they create the new version of hero of bladehold.

but the reason dead-bridge goliath isn't played is because we have tragtusk and restoration angel. maybe in a year it will be good.



I like extort more than any other guild mechanic. I want to play fun games of Magic, and if I don't win, that is OK. Cards like this just try to win and don't care if it is interesting or not. I think the preview card from last week with extort is many times more interesting than this legend. I'd have rather that guy have been legendary than this thing. This legend is similar to one that exists in a color combination with less than a handful of legends.

It is a huge disappointment and is in no way awesome-especially when all the author could say is it is awesome because it is efficient. The thing still dies in a fight with a craw wurm. That isn't exactly my definition of awesome.  


then the card isn't designed for you and you dont need to play with it. Play with the extort cards, their all more common and thus cheaper. but their are people who love this card, so let them enjoy it and dont demand it not be printed cuz u dont like it.




I am 99.9% sure I spend more on Magic than you. I have no idea why you'd feel the need to open w/ something about that. Legends should be awesome, not just efficient ways to win the game. That creature type carries a lot more weight than just making a Magic card. If this was just a non-legendary card they previewed, I'd say 'not for me and that's no big deal.' But that's not the case when there aren't hardly any black/white legends. Why not try and do something that is actually awesome with it?   

Extort is about slow, grindy type games. This card is basically a variant of doing Sorin Markov's plus loyalty ability. That is not awesome. If you're using removal and smashing with him, then this card doesn't fit the slow, grindy nature of the guild mechanic. I am not agaist aggro. I like the Gruul mechanic. They found a way to make split cards that are half creature and half pump spell. That's great for playing aggressively. The new ghost Legend is just wrong for the guild and wrong from using up one of the rarest opportunities for creating awesome legendary creatures.  

i can see the argument about edh generals that alextfish made, its something i can respect and i think that you do have a right to be disapointed.

However, when you were first posting, and thus what i was originally addressing, was that you not liking it does not mean wizards flopped. If you didn't like anything in the set thats different. As it is, you say you like the guild mechanic, you like bloodrush, and that the treasury thrull is appealing to you. Maro hinted that next set will have new guild champions (a la Ulasht) and you haven't seen that.

Im sorry if i misunderstood your point.
Today is January 1.  I'm going on record as saying this is a worthless card, whose price will only be propped up by the mythic rare status (i.e. for collectors).  In a year or two, some writer at Daily MTG is going to admit that this is a crap card (maybe even Mr. Verhey).


Does this card even work?  The rules text says "... may exile Obzedat."  The card's precise name is not Obzedat.  Is there some obscure rule about cards not refering to cards by their exact name?  Can I play spoils of the vault and name Garruk, and then decide which specific card I meant after I search?  Or play pithing needle and name 'you know, that legendary creature in your deck'?


Everyone knows what the card means. And if not, that's what errata's for. Geeze, rules lawyers abound.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
I feel the writing is trying too hard to make the card look awesome. I mean, it IS very strong and will be played, but lines such as
For five mana, you get a 5/5. All right, that's already looking interesting.


are kind of too much because those stats on an easier to cast creature that costs 1 less and has a huge upside still do not make constructed playable creatures in these days of mad creature power creep. A 5/5 for 1AABB is actually downright terrible these days.

We get it that it's very powerful (I hope most do), but when you exaggerate it looks as if you're overhyping it.



It's a 5/5 for 5, don't gotta push it or pay 6 later (for a "huge upside"), and it involves a 4-point life swing when you drop it and every one of your turns afterward (if you choose to exile it). Which means just being being in play it's killing your opponent. You CAN block with it, if you wish, but Phasing it out is even better in some circumstances.


How does anything you said have anything to do with my post you quoted?



OK, I'm gonna walk you through this step by step, so pardon me for my slightly patronizing tone, because I'm gonna lecture on how i reached my conclusion:

1. You stated "are kind of too much because those stats on an <strong>easier to cast</strong> creature that <strong>costs 1 less</strong> and has a <strong>huge upside</strong>".

2. Forgiving the horrible grammar, I agreed that Deadbridge Goliath was an "easier to cast" creature that "costs 1 less," but I made a specific point about the "huge upside" you spoke of, that being apparently the effect you can get on another creature down the road or already in play. As I said "pay 6 later (for a 'huge upside')" is NOT necessarily a big bonus. You're paying TEN mana, and staggered between three turns (turn 4 play the bug, turn 5 swing with it or into something that kills it, turn 6 scavenge it), meaning it's eating up your mana for two of three turns.

3. As noted in the original article this thing can race Thragtusk; there's no reason it cannot really race a Goliath, unless one feels Goliath should sit back and block, and in that case you have a Mexican standoff. Each of these will simply sneer at each other over the battlefield; and if I chose to keep Obzedat in play, I am going to be betting you will try to swing into it to scavenge the bug for parts later. Otherwise, I will be blinking the thing and forcing you to swing at me rather than give you an opportunity to kill the Obzedat in combat: your creature won't get bigger, mine will force you to essentially only deal 3 to me a hit while I am hitting you for 2 each turn or 7 if you won't block it, and so forth. And if either of us have Restoration Angel, my use of it would overshadow yours because your "huge upside" never comes into play. This lead to me saying: "Which means just being being in play it's killing your opponent."

4. You write: "We get it that it's very powerful (I hope most do), but when you exaggerate it looks as if you're overhyping it."

I'm finding it difficult to understand your actual evaluation of the card: you either think it's worse than Deadbridge, or suddenly it's "very powerful," but alternate with him "overhyping" it. I'm not sure he's hyping it much at all: At least according to one source, the whole point of Selesnya Charm's middle ability was to deal with THIS thing, that it was such a problem tools had to be constructed to fight it.

At no point is the Goliath more powerful than the Obzedat.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
Efficient does not equal awesome. This article is very similar to the one trying to hype the Golgari mechanic. Its too bad other people at WOTC don't hate really boring cards because that is why they'd have shot this thing down. It is certainly not too awesome. You wasted a Legendary creature slot in an extremely under-represented color pairing on a purely Spike card.

the reason they made him boss is because extort is kinda lame. even bloodrush kicks its pants off in the "cool" department. (not saying iits weak, just dull) So they create the new version of hero of bladehold.

but the reason dead-bridge goliath isn't played is because we have tragtusk and restoration angel. maybe in a year it will be good.



I like extort more than any other guild mechanic. I want to play fun games of Magic, and if I don't win, that is OK. Cards like this just try to win and don't care if it is interesting or not. I think the preview card from last week with extort is many times more interesting than this legend. I'd have rather that guy have been legendary than this thing. This legend is similar to one that exists in a color combination with less than a handful of legends.

It is a huge disappointment and is in no way awesome-especially when all the author could say is it is awesome because it is efficient. The thing still dies in a fight with a craw wurm. That isn't exactly my definition of awesome.  


then the card isn't designed for you and you dont need to play with it. Play with the extort cards, their all more common and thus cheaper. but their are people who love this card, so let them enjoy it and dont demand it not be printed cuz u dont like it.




I am 99.9% sure I spend more on Magic than you. I have no idea why you'd feel the need to open w/ something about that. Legends should be awesome, not just efficient ways to win the game. That creature type carries a lot more weight than just making a Magic card. If this was just a non-legendary card they previewed, I'd say 'not for me and that's no big deal.' But that's not the case when there aren't hardly any black/white legends. Why not try and do something that is actually awesome with it?   

Extort is about slow, grindy type games. This card is basically a variant of doing Sorin Markov's plus loyalty ability. That is not awesome. If you're using removal and smashing with him, then this card doesn't fit the slow, grindy nature of the guild mechanic. I am not agaist aggro. I like the Gruul mechanic. They found a way to make split cards that are half creature and half pump spell. That's great for playing aggressively. The new ghost Legend is just wrong for the guild and wrong from using up one of the rarest opportunities for creating awesome legendary creatures.  

i can see the argument about edh generals that alextfish made, its something i can respect and i think that you do have a right to be disapointed.

However, when you were first posting, and thus what i was originally addressing, was that you not liking it does not mean wizards flopped. If you didn't like anything in the set thats different. As it is, you say you like the guild mechanic, you like bloodrush, and that the treasury thrull is appealing to you. Maro hinted that next set will have new guild champions (a la Ulasht) and you haven't seen that.

Im sorry if i misunderstood your point.



No problem. It's all opinion really. This preview is something I've been hoping would be awesome for awhile and it was a bummer. I wish WOTC took making legends way more seriously, and this article shows that they don't. Maybe they make up for it all with the next set, but at the end of the day, they still wasted a golden ticket. This article proves they didn't see it that way. Legend means a lot now. It is a drawback to competitive players. It is a build-around-me card to EDH players. Just making an efficient card is about the worst use of legend there is. It pushes placing on drawback to justify efficiency while never providing build-around-me status to a card.

At no point is the Goliath more powerful than the Obzedat.

I don't think that was the point he was making.

He was saying, in the context of the line about "five mana for a 5/5 is good", and that line only, that the card was being overhyped.

Five mana for a 5/5 is not good these days. He used the Goliath as an example to show that even four mana for a 5/5 is still not playable. And worse yet, Obzedat isn't just five mana, it's two-colored and has four colored mana symbols. It's extremely restrictive.

So yes, the card is powerful. He conceded that point. However, it is also overhyped, because any claim approaching "five mana for a 5/5 is good" is blatant falsehood in current Magic.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c6f9e416e5e0e1f0a1e5c42b0c7b3e88.jpg?v=90000)
I feel the writing is trying too hard to make the card look awesome. I mean, it IS very strong and will be played, but lines such as
For five mana, you get a 5/5. All right, that's already looking interesting.


are kind of too much because those stats on an easier to cast creature that costs 1 less and has a huge upside still do not make constructed playable creatures in these days of mad creature power creep. A 5/5 for 1AABB is actually downright terrible these days.

We get it that it's very powerful (I hope most do), but when you exaggerate it looks as if you're overhyping it.



It's a 5/5 for 5, don't gotta push it or pay 6 later (for a "huge upside"), and it involves a 4-point life swing when you drop it and every one of your turns afterward (if you choose to exile it). Which means just being being in play it's killing your opponent. You CAN block with it, if you wish, but Phasing it out is even better in some circumstances.


How does anything you said have anything to do with my post you quoted?



OK, I'm gonna walk you through this step by step, so pardon me for my slightly patronizing tone, because I'm gonna lecture on how i reached my conclusion:

1. You stated "are kind of too much because those stats on an <strong>easier to cast</strong> creature that <strong>costs 1 less</strong> and has a <strong>huge upside</strong>".

2. Forgiving the horrible grammar, I agreed that Deadbridge Goliath was an "easier to cast" creature that "costs 1 less," but I made a specific point about the "huge upside" you spoke of, that being apparently the effect you can get on another creature down the road or already in play. As I said "pay 6 later (for a 'huge upside')" is NOT necessarily a big bonus. You're paying TEN mana, and staggered between three turns (turn 4 play the bug, turn 5 swing with it or into something that kills it, turn 6 scavenge it), meaning it's eating up your mana for two of three turns.

3. As noted in the original article this thing can race Thragtusk; there's no reason it cannot really race a Goliath, unless one feels Goliath should sit back and block, and in that case you have a Mexican standoff. Each of these will simply sneer at each other over the battlefield; and if I chose to keep Obzedat in play, I am going to be betting you will try to swing into it to scavenge the bug for parts later. Otherwise, I will be blinking the thing and forcing you to swing at me rather than give you an opportunity to kill the Obzedat in combat: your creature won't get bigger, mine will force you to essentially only deal 3 to me a hit while I am hitting you for 2 each turn or 7 if you won't block it, and so forth. And if either of us have Restoration Angel, my use of it would overshadow yours because your "huge upside" never comes into play. This lead to me saying: "Which means just being being in play it's killing your opponent."

4. You write: "We get it that it's very powerful (I hope most do), but when you exaggerate it looks as if you're overhyping it."

I'm finding it difficult to understand your actual evaluation of the card: you either think it's worse than Deadbridge, or suddenly it's "very powerful," but alternate with him "overhyping" it. I'm not sure he's hyping it much at all: At least according to one source, the whole point of Selesnya Charm's middle ability was to deal with THIS thing, that it was such a problem tools had to be constructed to fight it.

At no point is the Goliath more powerful than the Obzedat.


Reading comprehension. You don't have it.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
And...watch prices for Alchemist's Refuge spike. 

I'll probably end up running this guy in my Esper deck for the same reason I wound up running Thragtusk in a few other decks: Because everybody else was and the only way to compete was to suck it up and run the Tusk as well.

Imagine a game with two of these on the board for opposing players. The ETB effects will cancel each other out, but it would be pretty interesting to see how the gameplay developed.
Thank you, yes: I will make this into my new EDH deck. No, you're welcome.



Well, my EDH deck is a Ghost Dad deck already, so yeah... I'll be going Obzedat too.
~ Current Decks I'm Playing or Building ~ (Click a deck's name to see list) [] CorpseJunk Menace/Township Counters (Standard) [] Reanimation/Clerics Theme Deck - Commander: Ghost Dad [] Devouring Tokens (Planechase, Multiplayer) [] Krark-Clan Ironworks: 2012 Edition (Modern) [] Azorious Turbo Fog (Modern)
Does this card even work?  The rules text says "... may exile Obzedat."  The card's precise name is not Obzedat.  Is there some obscure rule about cards not refering to cards by their exact name?  Can I play spoils of the vault and name Garruk, and then decide which specific card I meant after I search?  Or play pithing needle and name 'you know, that legendary creature in your deck'?

From the Comprehensive Rules:

201.4c Text printed on some legendary cards refers to that card by a shortened version of its name. This occurs only on a second reference or later; first references always use the card’s full name. Instances of a card’s shortened name used in this manner are treated as though they used the card’s full name.
Sign In to post comments