I agree 100% with the people saying that scavenge sucks because it is boring more than because it is bad. Still, scavenge isn't exactly a constructed powerhouse, either. There's only one constructed-worthy scavenge card (Dreg Mangler ), and that is constructed playable more because it is a 3/3 zombie with haste for 3 than because the scavenge part is good. On top of that, scavenge can't even shine in the one place it was meant to (limited), because Golgari is pretty universally regarded as the worst color combination in RTR draft. Contrast this with, say, overload, which has two constructed-playable cards (Mizzium Mortars and Cyclonic Rift ), much more interesting flavor, and a bunch of cards that just end games in limited (the two cards already mentioned + Teleportal and Blustersquall ).
Deadbridge Goliath is a strong Magic: The Gathering card- It's an undercosted threat that has the capacity to make a later threat too large to deal with. The thing of it though, is that most players aren't going to recognize it's capability until somebody proves it's worth, and honestly until players aren't spoiled by long complex text walls on their creature cards. Players often forget that creatures as a card type are particularly strong already because they are a lasting threat and do work for as long as they survive. The game's best creatures are often simplistic beatsticks with some simple clause that makes them obnoxiously large for their mana cost (like Nimble Mongoose )- but players have been conditioned to think that the level of complexity presented by creature cards like Grimgrin, Corpse-Born or Angel of Serenity should come standard for "good" creatures.
The problem, I think is that development takes awareness of small intricacies and places too much hope in the playerbase at large. Development team members are usually found on the pro-tour, where players are trained to scrutinize every value and min/max marginal differences. I think Goliath is a fine card, but it is far too subtle to expect the audience at large to fall head over heels for.
I think a part of the reason Golgari didn't get anything too clever this time is because Dredge.
But I think what they needed to do was give Golgari a Snapcaster Elf.
"When this card enters the battlefield target creature card in your graveyard gains Scavenge X, where X is it's converted mana cost."
Or something similar but once a turn and an enchantment. Or an enchantment along the lines of-
"At the beginning of your upkeep remove a creature card in your graveyard from the game, and discard cards from the top of your deck equal to that creatures strength" for example.
Or a rare creature -
"When this creature dies, any 1/1 counters it had on it stay on it as long as it is in a graveyard. Scavenge."
Then again, I'm a standard player, so I can't say if any of those ideas would break any of the other formats...
Lies. Electrickery is most certainly a playable card, even if it isn't the most useful option in the current metagame. It still does a lot of work at picking off Snaps, Spirit tokens, Blartists, or Gravecrawlers. The incredibly cheap overload cost means that you'll frequently be overloading it too. Vandalblast is likewise a solid card that just doesn't have a use in standard right now.
Heck, most of the Overload cards are constructed-playable given the right deck and meta. Scavenge cards can't really say the same.
Deadbridge Goliath is a strong Magic: The Gathering card- It's an undercosted threat that has the capacity to make a later threat too large to deal with. The thing of it though, is that most players aren't going to recognize it's capability until somebody proves it's worth, and honestly until players aren't spoiled by long complex text walls on their creature cards.
The problem, I think is that development takes awareness of small intricacies and places too much hope in the playerbase at large. Development team members are usually found on the pro-tour, where players are trained to scrutinize every value and min/max marginal differences. I think Goliath is a fine card, but it is far too subtle to expect the audience at large to fall head over heels for.
Here's the problem with that theory: Those cards that appear mediocre but are actually awesome are only of real interest to tournament players, who tend to run only the best options. This means that said cards have to actually be the best options. Deadbridge Goliath just isn't at that point of power. It's a card that looks mediocre and ends up being a little ways above the average playability of a rare. That's not very exciting.
Scavenge doesn't just look mediocre. It is mediocre. Nobody's writing about how amazing it is because it really isn't. Deadbridge Goliath has potential to turn a threat into a more dangerous one, but you're better off just running more dangerous threats in the first place.
As for needing massive text boxes for a card to be good: Vampire Nighthawk has three actual words in its rules text and is widely considered to be one of the best vampires. Thundermaw Hellkite isn't exactly a wall-o-text, and it's a powerhosue. The list continues.
But I think what they needed to do was give Golgari a Snapcaster Elf.
"When this card enters the battlefield target creature card in your graveyard gains Scavenge X, where X is it's converted mana cost."
Or something similar but once a turn and an enchantment.
They did try something similar in Death Denied which is effectively 'Whenever a creature you control dies, immediately scavenge it'. The reason they did Death Denied instead of just 'give something Scavenge' is that presumably if you were running a Golgari deck you were supposed to already be running creature with Scavenge so giving them Scavenge again is counterproductive.
On top of that, scavenge can't even shine in the one place it was meant to (limited), because Golgari is pretty universally regarded as the worst color combination in RTR draft. Contrast this with, say, overload, which has two constructed-playable cards (Mizzium Mortars and Cyclonic Rift ), much more interesting flavor, and a bunch of cards that just end games in limited (the two cards already mentioned + Teleportal and Blustersquall ).
I'm not sure what universe that is, but certainly not this one.
Also, with your Izzet example, you do not talk about how it's regarded but its actual results, and those 2 can vary wildly for the guilds (especially Izzet, although less now than a while ago).
Deadbridge Goliath is a strong Magic: The Gathering card- It's an undercosted threat that has the capacity to make a later threat too large to deal with. The thing of it though, is that most players aren't going to recognize it's capability until somebody proves it's worth, and honestly until players aren't spoiled by long complex text walls on their creature cards. Players often forget that creatures as a card type are particularly strong already because they are a lasting threat and do work for as long as they survive. The game's best creatures are often simplistic beatsticks with some simple clause that makes them obnoxiously large for their mana cost (like Nimble Mongoose )- but players have been conditioned to think that the level of complexity presented by creature cards like Grimgrin, Corpse-Born or Angel of Serenity should come standard for "good" creatures.
The problem, I think is that development takes awareness of small intricacies and places too much hope in the playerbase at large. Development team members are usually found on the pro-tour, where players are trained to scrutinize every value and min/max marginal differences. I think Goliath is a fine card, but it is far too subtle to expect the audience at large to fall head over heels for.
People aren't saying that goliath isn't strong. They are saying it is boring, and they'd rather play more interesting cards.
A card doesn't have to have a wall of text to not be boring. It just has to do something. I'll pay 4 for Nekretaal because it does something. Goliath doesn't do anything. I wouldn't play it even if its scavenge cost was 0. If I am recycling cards in my graveyard, I am using praetor's counsel or living death to do it so the value comes from a card being in my graveyard, not exiled. It comes from the card doing something when it enters the battlefield or doing something other than attacking for just 5.
All goliath has going for it are the numbers. Either they are better than numbers on other cards or not. The card appeals to people that are OK with their cards not doing anything other than being more efficient than other cards, and then the card has to actually be more efficient than other cards that are also supposed to be efficient.
I'm not sure what the point of this article was, seemingly trying to help the casual (which consists mostly of various constructed varieties) crowd understand Scavenge's power level, when I feel that Scavenge is pretty obviously a limited mechanic. I like the idea of Scavenge creatures filling my graveyard in a Skullbriar Commander deck, but 60 card-casual? No I dont see that coming together well either. But I draft. A lot. These cards may be boring to some people, but they are absolute 40-card powerhouses. I've been on the receiving end of a Goliath. Its hard to deal with. I didnt have a Doom Blade. I probably wasnt even playing black. Or if I was, I probably had a board full of Unleashed Cacklers and whatnot, and you just look at their big guy and think "Wtf am I going to do?" I've also played my fair share of Korozda Monitor s and Drudge Beetle s, Sewer Shambler s, and Slitherhead s. They're all fine bodies for their CMCs, if not particularly interesting cards, but then they tack on Scavenge... So yeah, its boring, but those +1/+1 counters dont even cost a card! Just mana. Mana thats tacked on to a dude that you've already smashed with! There is tremendous value there.
Lies. Electrickery is most certainly a playable card, even if it isn't the most useful option in the current metagame. It still does a lot of work at picking off Snaps, Spirit tokens, Blartists, or Gravecrawlers. The incredibly cheap overload cost means that you'll frequently be overloading it too. Vandalblast is likewise a solid card that just doesn't have a use in standard right now.
Heck, most of the Overload cards are constructed-playable given the right deck and meta. Scavenge cards can't really say the same.
True, good points. I guess what I meant (and worded badly) was that there were two overload cards that I could imagine showing up in standard decks tomorrow, compared to scavenge's one, and that overload's immediate playability, among other factors, makes overload seem more exciting. There are indeed other overload cards that are powerful enough that they could show up in constructed in a different metagame. And I agree that scavenge can't really say the same.
On top of that, scavenge can't even shine in the one place it was meant to (limited), because Golgari is pretty universally regarded as the worst color combination in RTR draft. Contrast this with, say, overload, which has two constructed-playable cards (Mizzium Mortars and Cyclonic Rift ), much more interesting flavor, and a bunch of cards that just end games in limited (the two cards already mentioned + Teleportal and Blustersquall ).
I'm not sure what universe that is, but certainly not this one.
OK OK, maybe "universally" was an exaggeration. But Golgari--and the scavenge deck, in particular--does not seem to be highly regarded among pros, with the exception of Brad Nelson. And even he admits that a large part of its playability comes from the fact that no one else drafts it.
Also, with your Izzet example, you do not talk about how it's regarded but its actual results, and those 2 can vary wildly for the guilds (especially Izzet, although less now than a while ago).
Are you saying that Izzet is more highly regarded or less highly regarded than its results should indicate? Anyways, I was trying to make the argument that scavenge is boring, which makes people dislike it, and that that is compounded by the fact that none of the scavenge cards are very good, which makes people dislike it more. I contrasted that with Izzet, which has an exciting mechanic and good cards using that mechanic. I was talking about Izzet's "results" to demonstrate that the power level of the overload cards makes overload as a mechanic seem more exciting.
OK OK, maybe "universally" was an exaggeration. But Golgari--and the scavenge deck, in particular--does not seem to be highly regarded among pros, with the exception of Brad Nelson. And even he admits that a large part of its playability comes from the fact that no one else drafts it.
But yeah, the Golgari deck isn't a Scavenge deck, just like the Izzet deck isn't an Overload deck. In contrast to Populate or Unleash decks.
Also where are these talks about Golgari being avoided? I've never heard such things, but I don't read everything, so I would like to catch up with what I've missed.
Are you saying that Izzet is more highly regarded or less highly regarded than its results should indicate? Anyways, I was trying to make the argument that scavenge is boring, which makes people dislike it, and that that is compounded by the fact that none of the scavenge cards are very good, which makes people dislike it more. I contrasted that with Izzet, which has an exciting mechanic and good cards using that mechanic. I was talking about Izzet's "results" to demonstrate that the power level of the overload cards makes overload as a mechanic seem more exciting.
Izzet's results are better than its popularity. At least a while ago, it is possible that its popularity has risen since then.
Another consideration is that, in the grand scheme of things, bigger creatures just don't make for better games. The idea of big creatures is cool. Certainly players have been buildng their own fatties long before there were Wombats to justify it. And yes, if one spell ends the game I'd rather it's a dragon than a Tendrils.
But the effect a huge creature has is that it dies just the same (making the size irrelevant) or ends the game (making everything irrelevant). Let's talk about those late game stalls when we're both living from the top of the deck. If my opp draws a 3/3 and I get a land, I may have time to recover with my next draw or two. If he plays a 9/9 and I get a land, the game is pretty much over. It's inherently less interactive. Again the thought of getting that fattie is cool, but the ultimate result is a lesser game.
The people who defend scavenge talk about the cool ability-enabled creatures you can beef up. Sure, because those cards are fun. They're better with Scavenge, but also better with reinforce, or totem armor, or a Serra's Embrace, or anything that's more interesting than "lots of mana for counters."
Dragon_Nut has it right. Scavenge is too boring for casuals and a touch too weak for tournament players. It's Fusion Elemental as a mechanic. We see what you did there, but ultimately just don't care.
Free MTGO Tournaments you should be playing: Pauper (all commons) - Tuesday Nights, prizes by MTGOTraders Peasant (Pauper + 5 uncommons, with paper rarity) - Sunday Nights, prizes by MTGOTraders Silverblack (Modern-era Commons and Uncommons - Most Wednesday nights, prizes by MTGO Bazaar Heirloom ("Cheap" cards only, e.g. rares under 20 cents) - Sunday afternoons, sponsored by MTGOTraders Check the superbly-made Gatherling site for more.
Other games you should try: Spectromancer - Online card game by Richard Garfield, available cheap on Steam. DC Universe Online - action-based MMO. Free to play. Surprised me how well designed it is. Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.
