Community

Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:13PM, PhyrexianRogue wrote:

I'd be almost amused by the 'we make power cards for the feeling' part, if it wasn't so depressing. Having a card you can feel good about is important, but that should not be reason to print these kind of powerlevels. Power cards like this might be fun to play for some, but they are not fun to face from the other side of the table. Printing them does not make the game exciting, it makes the entire game irrelevant. Whatever you do, you know card X will smash up your game if it is drawn. The only thing that matters is wether your opponent draws it, and if (when) he does you lose. 

Having a good card to feel confident behind is okay, but not when you are forced to play that card only to stand a chance of survival. At that point deckbuilding does revert to being all math: All you need to do is play card X and counter card Y, and the rest of the format is irrelevant to you. It almost 'reduces' games to chess, but with a small twist: Instead of a pure skill-based game with a balanced board, now there is a random guy standing to side with a hammer that randomly hits players, knocking them out instantly. Is there any satisfaction in losing on the board, but then winning just because hammerman knocked your opponent out for you? 

Printing trump cards to stop certain strategies could be useful, if only you'd stop using raw power as the main method to counter something. Having tools to fight the Great Evil is important, but not when those tools are simply more powerful than the Great Evil, as they just become the Great Evil themselves. How is this card supposed to help against aggro, when aggro decks will be more than happy to run 4 themselves? 

How is this previewed card the powerhouse you describe? The card can be answered in many ways, including by the cards people are playing in their main decks anyway. And its presence on the table is not the same like Baneslayer, which usually won the game unless the opponent had an answer in their hand or on top of the deck.

Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:23PM, TobyornotToby wrote:

Sep 6, 2012 -- 9:21PM, beank091787 wrote:

i can understand where the uncounter part is coming from, but even if it was vanilla isnt 4/4 for 3 really powerful?

Almost every other 4/4 for 3 requires you to sacrifice it at the end of turn.... or has other draw backs....

This is a 4/4 for 3 with not only without drawbacks, but protection of sorts....

Not really meta warping, but it seems like creatures are racing back to Urza power level....

 

Woolly Thoctar  

The draw back (hindrance) for that was the 3 different mana symbols....

I didnt play when that card was out so i dont know how much mana fixing was in standard at the time, but having access to all three colors is not the easiest thing to do by turn three....

Things that have more than two colors have almost always had better stats/effects than their 1 or 2 color counter parts because it was harder to pay the three colors....

And now with all the mana fixing that is available it makes it easier to get this out....

Forest then Avacyn's pilgrim then another land gets this out on turn 2.... if that other land is a Cathedral of War then you have a possible 5/5 on turn 3.... add a Bond Beetle for a 6/6...

Thats not to say you couldn't bounce the thing, but then it only cost 3 mana so dropping it again isnt too back breaking....

Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:58PM, beank091787 wrote:

The draw back (hindrance) for that was the 3 different mana symbols....

I didnt play when that card was out so i dont know how much mana fixing was in standard at the time, but having access to all three colors is not the easiest thing to do by turn three....

Things that have more than two colors have almost always had better stats/effects than their 1 or 2 color counter parts because it was harder to pay the three colors....

Yes just like 2 color cards have better stats/effects than their monocolor counterparts because it's harder to pay the two colors, or rather, it restricts the range of decks it can go in.

If you count 3 colors as a drawback, which it is, do the same for 2.

Also:

Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:58PM, beank091787 wrote:

Forest then Avacyn's pilgrim then another land gets this out on turn 2.... if that other land is a Cathedral of War then you have a possible 5/5 on turn 3....

Sep 7, 2012 -- 3:16AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

If you count 3 colors as a drawback, which it is, do the same for 2.

Two colours is a relevant drawback ?

Feel free to compound this point with the considerable Mana-fixing RtR will be bringing to the table, designed precisely to make two(and arguably even three) colours a completely trivial affair to play with.

Sep 7, 2012 -- 4:06AM, AvDemeisen wrote:

Two colours is a relevant drawback ?

Feel free to compound this point with the considerable Mana-fixing RtR will be bringing to the table, designed precisely to make two(and arguably even three) colours a completely trivial affair to play with.

It is only trivial if you play Magic on a surface level. 

This cards puts you in 2 colors already. That means it will be harder to play other colors.
What Wizards strives for, is not a flat powerlevel, but rather a balanced playing field. Meaning a bunch of color combinations will get powerful pushed cards. If you play this one, you can't play the others. Meaning all the decks will have a few pushed cards, balancing each other out.

There are 2 ways in which this can go wrong.
1. All the pushed cards appear in a few colors (see Jund)
2. 3+ colors is indeed trivial (see Vivids + Reflecting Pool)

As long as they make sure those things do not happen, this card has a drawback. Yes it will be trivial to cast it in a G/W deck. What will not be trivial is what you can't cast in that deck. As long as there are powerful aggro decks in the format, shocklands will not be trivial.


As an aside, there is also Leatherback Baloth .