I like this card. It is somewhere around Sea Gate Oracle power level. It usually trades with a low drop and loots twice. Sometimes you will play her seven mana mode, and sometimes you will loot her away into that mode. Eventually a filler, but a filler most blue decks around here want.
Man, are you guys often play the UW Llark decks? This dude is like real, real good in there. So much more than boring, but just fine, Sea Gate Oracle. We can testify this in a sworn statement. It's a 2 power creature with a good ETB triggered ability that has synergy with the deck and that has a late game application that creates CA. Can't really ask for more. It's fine in the UX Tempo deck as well, but lord, give it a spin with the Llark.
Man, are you guys often play the UW Llark decks? This dude is like real, real good in there. So much more than boring, but just fine, Sea Gate Oracle. We can testify this in a sworn statement. It's a 2 power creature with a good ETB triggered ability that has synergy with the deck and that has a late game application that creates CA. Can't really ask for more. It's fine in the UX Tempo deck as well, but lord, give it a spin with the Llark.
I value Sea Gate Oracle quite highly, and I do not think a highly playable life saving card is boring. I dislike when people use that word to describe cards.
I dislike when people use that word to describe cards.
That's just how it goes, though, and it's not a negative just a fact. It's a subjective descriptor to a degree, but cards like 2/1s for W or whatever aren't doing anything crazy or exciting, they're just guys necessary to supporting different aspects of cube. The same way filing your taxes is a boring part of life, there are plenty of cards that are a boring but necessary/acceptable part of cube.
Except it adds nothing to the discussion. People who use it mean different things, and I've seen it describe almost anything in various times and forums. Aggro cards are boring, midrange dorks are boring, planeswalkers are boring, fixing lands are boring... Tell me why you don't like it and add information.
I don't think the example you gave is good - cube is not supposed to be the boring part of life, else you would not play it. If you find cube cards invoke a similar feeling to filling tax papers, you are doing it wrong.
Also, playing a 2/1 is of the more exciting plays possible for the first turn in my opinion.
Except it adds nothing to the discussion. People who use it mean different things, and I've seen it describe almost anything in various times and forums. Aggro cards are boring, midrange dorks are boring, planeswalkers are boring, fixing lands are boring... Tell me why you don't like it and add information.
I don't think the example you gave is good - cube is not supposed to be the boring part of life, else you would not play it. If you find cube cards invoke a similar feeling to filling tax papers, you are doing it wrong.
Also, playing a 2/1 is of the more exciting plays possible for the first turn in my opinion.
I mean, there's the heart of it--it's all subjective.
Someone uses the term 'boring' and I don't think it adds nothing, but I think it explains that the card is more meat-and-potatoes than oo-and-ahhh. So while you're saying it adds nothing, there's at least one person (me) getting something out of it when someone describes the card as such, and I doubt I'm the only one.
When I sit down to cube, playing t1 Elite Vanguard isn't this exciting creature that gives me all sorts of lines of play--I'm going to attack with it, I want to attack with it, and that's all there is to it. There's no question of how I'm going to use the card between me and my opponent, the games with Elite Vanguard will often play the same with deviations between 'choosing to attack this turn' and 'choosing not to attack this turn.' I get the exciting aspect of putting pressure on my opponent, but that's just magic, really, Elite Vanguard isn't really doing anything crazily different than a lot of creatures do except for doing it a turn or two earlier than most. Yes, that is a thing to get excited about, but vanilla creatures have been turning sideways since the early 90s--it's nothing new.
But, compared to Mother of Runes which adds all sorts of lines of play each turn after the first, Elite Vanguard is SUPER boring. Mom can be used offensively, defensively, I have to decide if I want to tap every time that becomes relevant, if I want to force through damage vs trying to goad my opponents into blocking...and then there's Elite Vanguard, a good card that literally does one thing which is attack. (Yes it blocks, but we clearly aren't including 2/1s for W for that reason.)
So when I use 'boring' it comes to that context. Cube is a place with some of the most dynamic cards and creatures, spells with multiple options, combo decks, intricate synergy decks, grindy decks about finding complicated lines through recursive engines, different strategies that overlap because of specific cards and what they bring to the table. Cube is also a place with Elite Vanguard, efficient removal spells, kinda 'boring' cards that do what they do well but aren't the lynchpins to strategies or archetypes. There are even boring archetypes in that sense; the other night I drafted boros aggro and while the deck was good at what it was doing, it didn't really lead to interesting games of magic that were back and forth with a lot of decisions: either I killed my opponent, or I didn't and they stabilized. Were there important decisions? Sure, but compared to a LOT of other cube games, my lines of play were pretty straightforward and the deck almost played itself, and my opponent either got out of it or they didn't and that often didn't involve a lot of decisions either. One can argue the boros deck winning fast is exciting; the other can argue that quick games where aggro either wins or it doesn't as boring (there's a reason people refer to it as 'the fun police'); both are fairly legit analyses depending on your view point.
I mean, what this really comes to is semantics, which everyone knows is a silly thing to argue, but that's also kinda my point: we inherently disagree because of what we view 'boring' as and how we think of the term 'boring' as negative or positive. Like, looking at zetsu's post I 100% understand what he's saying based on his 'so much more than boring, but fine' comment: the card is going to contribute to archetypes, it's going to enable a lot of stuff based on it's abilities, it will feel useful even if it never attacks or blocks...but it's also not blowing anyone away by what it does, it's not the best at what it does, it feels replaceable.
So I dunno, I get your frustrations if you don't think the word means anything that brings substance to the table, but I think there's more to it than it just being a short cut and I think, for the most part, you can deduce why someone is using the word boring either by the context of the post or the nature of the card in the cube environment.
It's like "fun". People say they cut cards for "un-fun" reasons ...and all they cards they talk about removing are the cards I have the most fun playing with.
Similarly, one man's "boring" might be another guy's "exciting". It's all subjective.
A great response. I liked reading it. There is definitely a difference in how we interpret the word. You've explained what it means to your understanding. However, in your post you have referred to several distinct aspects and not to one consistent definition. I don't think it is a good measure to judge cards by. People cut "interesting" cards for "boring cards" all the time.
When I sit down to cube, playing t1 Elite Vanguard isn't this exciting creature that gives me all sorts of lines of play--I'm going to attack with it, I want to attack with it, and that's all there is to it. There's no question of how I'm going to use the card between me and my opponent, the games with Elite Vanguard will often play the same with deviations between 'choosing to attack this turn' and 'choosing not to attack this turn.'
If we look at boring as "offers more lines of play", Mother of Runes is clearly more interesting. However I'd argue that her lines of play usually lead to less interesting games. A large part of the time she just sits there untapped, where my opponent has a dead card (or more) in hand. She can attack, but that is less common than Elite Vanguard blocking. Mom reduces interaction while Elite Vanguard encourages it. When a game starts with Elite Vanguard you know you are in for a tight race and some blood. With mom you are there for a game of stare in the common case, or a game of "can't block me" in the slightly less common case.
I mean, what this really comes to is semantics, which everyone knows is a silly thing to argue, but that's also kinda my point: we inherently disagree because of what we view 'boring' as and how we think of the term 'boring' as negative or positive. Like, looking at zetsu's post I 100% understand what he's saying based on his 'so much more than boring, but fine' comment: the card is going to contribute to archetypes, it's going to enable a lot of stuff based on it's abilities, it will feel useful even if it never attacks or blocks...but it's also not blowing anyone away by what it does, it's not the best at what it does, it feels replaceable.
Boring as "replaceable", or as "having many cards that are similar": Elite Vanguard is more boring than Mother of Runes and Champion of Wits is slightly less boring but is not Sneak Attack. I agree 100%. I'd have no problems at all if people communicated that, and many people do.
I get the exciting aspect of putting pressure on my opponent, but that's just magic, really, Elite Vanguard isn't really doing anything crazily different than a lot of creatures do except for doing it a turn or two earlier than most. Yes, that is a thing to get excited about, but vanilla creatures have been turning sideways since the early 90s--it's nothing new.
Defining boring as "not new". I think this is a large part of what people mean when they say boring. In that sense every card and every effect will eventually be boring. The first time I cast a Tinker is exciting. After one hundred casts it is already a part of the norm, it is old and it is boring. In any way, cards from the early 90s still see play in cubes, despite being boring. Very rarely can you see a person cutting a card saying "it is not new anymore" or "it has been here for too long". So what useful information does that term convey?
There are even boring archetypes in that sense; the other night I drafted boros aggro and while the deck was good at what it was doing, it didn't really lead to interesting games of magic that were back and forth with a lot of decisions: either I killed my opponent, or I didn't and they stabilized. Were there important decisions? Sure, but compared to a LOT of other cube games, my lines of play were pretty straightforward and the deck almost played itself, and my opponent either got out of it or they didn't and that often didn't involve a lot of decisions either. One can argue the boros deck winning fast is exciting; the other can argue that quick games where aggro either wins or it doesn't as boring (there's a reason people refer to it as 'the fun police'); both are fairly legit analyses depending on your view point.
I also played a boros deck last Saturday and feel exactly the opposite. With aggro decks a lot more of my decisions are meaningful. My play has to be tight and I will lose for most mistakes. The same is true for my opponent. Will the mass removal arrive next turn? Should I alpha strike now? Should I spend my removal on that blocker?
With midrange or control decks a lot of plays are interchangeable. I can make a lot of mistakes and still not feel it that much. I terrored this guy and countered the other, while the opposite should have been better? I will often get way from that mistake with minimal to no consequences. The most common major situation when that is not true is early game against aggro. I feel like a lot of my decisions are ultimately less important.
As for games not going back and forth, well, I think it is rarer here. Comebacks happen quite often. With that boros deck I had a game where I played a Palace Jailer targeting a Wall of Omens, my attacks were stopped for three turns, monarch was taken away from me and I still won a few turns later, after grabbing the crown back. I won an opponent who played a third turn Terrastodon on all my lands.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When I bake a cake and ask my friend to taste it, I have little use of the response "I dislike it". Was it too sweet? Was it overcooked? You wanted an apple cake and I made you a cheesecake? There can be many reasons why you dislike it. If you do not tell me the reason(s), I will not be able to improve and bake better cakes. I feel the same about the use of the word boring. As a cube designer and fellow forum member, the fact that you don't like a card definitely has value. If you could tell me why, it would have a lot more.
I don't think I've seen one post on here that literally just says 'it's boring' though, and if there is one there's probably not more than five. So where you find issue in someone saying it's just boring--which I agree would be a problem for all the reasons you state--it doesn't seem to work that way. Most of the time, people go 'it's boring' or 'it's unexciting' and then explain why, and sometimes that's in detail and sometimes that's not, but if someone called 'Elite Vanguard' boring I don't really need an interpretation of that statement--it's pretty clear to me at least what they are referring to, and if it isn't to you then you have to work on seeing both sides of the word better as I've tried to illustrate the possibilities of through the post I made above.
Frankly I don't see any problem with leaving it broad and requiring the reader to use some deduction tools to figure out why something is boring based on the understanding of why a certain card could be boring. Not everyone wants to write pages like I do which makes a lot of sense (lol) so these short cuts can be used to convey a thought, and it's up to the reader to use their intuition about whether or not that brand of 'boring' is OK for them/makes sense/etc and then go forward from there. IMO saying it's boring does say *why*, so we're going to have to walk away from this one agreeing to disagree herre
I appreciate you responding to all my points individually, but my point was less to have a point-by-point debate and more to say that your point of saying 'boring' brings nothing to the discussions speaks for yourself but not for everyone; like wtwlf said, what's boring for one person is exciting for another, and vice versa, and when people expand on this to any degree which it seems like most users do, then it's a word that means something and the context of their usage makes sense. People do cut 'interesting' cards for 'boring' ones all the time, because 'boring' isn't a bad thing, it's just a description.
--------------------
If you bake a cake and I call it boring, sometimes I'll need an explanation why and sometimes I won't. If I baked you a pound cake and you called it 'boring', well then no ***** it's probably about the fact that it's a pound cake and ignoring that maybe I think the pound cake's flavor is intricate or that I like to do special things with my sides on a pound cake or etc. This is the elite vanguard of this discussion.
If I make you a wedding cake with all the bells and whistles and you call it 'boring', then I'm going to need more of an explanation there. Is it because you're comparing it to other wedding cakes? Is it generically like all other versions of the cake? Or am I confused about your usage of the word boring? This is the Champion of Wits of this discussion (even though no one technically called it boring in this discussion, which is kinda funny lol)
Did someone notice the 3 for 1 your opponent can make you suffer from it? In respond to the ETB trigger, your opponent can get rid of it and then you still end up discarding two cards and drawing none. It's the only downside our playgroup have to report so far. Otherwise, it's still pretty great.
Did someone notice the 3 for 1 your opponent can make you suffer from it? In respond to the ETB trigger, your opponent can get rid of it and then you still end up discarding two cards and drawing none. It's the only downside our playgroup have to report so far. Otherwise, it's still pretty great.
It doesn't work that way, if it leaves play you use its last known power. This is why your opponent still has to sacrifice to Smokestack with counters on it even if they Disenchant on their upkeep.
It does work that way with -X/-X effects, notably with Grasp of Darkness in standard... but it's also still a "may" ability, so you can choose whether or not you want to "draw 0, discard 2" as the ability resolves.
I've been testing this, and so far it's showing a little promise...
It should be seen as roleplayer card, not a generic playable card. Something went very wrong if you are playing this in a generic good stuff deck, or a midrange deck.
But in reanimator and combo ramp I've been enjoying it as a solid playable.
In a deck like artifact ramp that has tinker/welder, or a GU channel deck, you have a lot of cards that don't generate value other than ramp. Therefore, having a combination of filter effect (to get you to your combo peices, or discard dead cards late game) as well as a mana sink is nice.
Initial impressions are I like it more than sea gate oracle, because it serves a more specific purpose. I'm not ever cutting this from a UB reanimator deck, or a tinker/welder deck, but sea gate ends up as a 23-25th playable in every deck. (in a cube as tight as mine)
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
The list on cube cobra
Read my blog on cube - Latest post June 2nd 2022
Zetsu's Cube on CubeTutor.com
Zetsu's Ebay MTG Online Store
Zetsu's Poker Draft Method
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
I value Sea Gate Oracle quite highly, and I do not think a highly playable life saving card is boring. I dislike when people use that word to describe cards.
The list on cube cobra
Read my blog on cube - Latest post June 2nd 2022
That's just how it goes, though, and it's not a negative just a fact. It's a subjective descriptor to a degree, but cards like 2/1s for W or whatever aren't doing anything crazy or exciting, they're just guys necessary to supporting different aspects of cube. The same way filing your taxes is a boring part of life, there are plenty of cards that are a boring but necessary/acceptable part of cube.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
I don't think the example you gave is good - cube is not supposed to be the boring part of life, else you would not play it. If you find cube cards invoke a similar feeling to filling tax papers, you are doing it wrong.
Also, playing a 2/1 is of the more exciting plays possible for the first turn in my opinion.
The list on cube cobra
Read my blog on cube - Latest post June 2nd 2022
I mean, there's the heart of it--it's all subjective.
Someone uses the term 'boring' and I don't think it adds nothing, but I think it explains that the card is more meat-and-potatoes than oo-and-ahhh. So while you're saying it adds nothing, there's at least one person (me) getting something out of it when someone describes the card as such, and I doubt I'm the only one.
When I sit down to cube, playing t1 Elite Vanguard isn't this exciting creature that gives me all sorts of lines of play--I'm going to attack with it, I want to attack with it, and that's all there is to it. There's no question of how I'm going to use the card between me and my opponent, the games with Elite Vanguard will often play the same with deviations between 'choosing to attack this turn' and 'choosing not to attack this turn.' I get the exciting aspect of putting pressure on my opponent, but that's just magic, really, Elite Vanguard isn't really doing anything crazily different than a lot of creatures do except for doing it a turn or two earlier than most. Yes, that is a thing to get excited about, but vanilla creatures have been turning sideways since the early 90s--it's nothing new.
But, compared to Mother of Runes which adds all sorts of lines of play each turn after the first, Elite Vanguard is SUPER boring. Mom can be used offensively, defensively, I have to decide if I want to tap every time that becomes relevant, if I want to force through damage vs trying to goad my opponents into blocking...and then there's Elite Vanguard, a good card that literally does one thing which is attack. (Yes it blocks, but we clearly aren't including 2/1s for W for that reason.)
So when I use 'boring' it comes to that context. Cube is a place with some of the most dynamic cards and creatures, spells with multiple options, combo decks, intricate synergy decks, grindy decks about finding complicated lines through recursive engines, different strategies that overlap because of specific cards and what they bring to the table. Cube is also a place with Elite Vanguard, efficient removal spells, kinda 'boring' cards that do what they do well but aren't the lynchpins to strategies or archetypes. There are even boring archetypes in that sense; the other night I drafted boros aggro and while the deck was good at what it was doing, it didn't really lead to interesting games of magic that were back and forth with a lot of decisions: either I killed my opponent, or I didn't and they stabilized. Were there important decisions? Sure, but compared to a LOT of other cube games, my lines of play were pretty straightforward and the deck almost played itself, and my opponent either got out of it or they didn't and that often didn't involve a lot of decisions either. One can argue the boros deck winning fast is exciting; the other can argue that quick games where aggro either wins or it doesn't as boring (there's a reason people refer to it as 'the fun police'); both are fairly legit analyses depending on your view point.
I mean, what this really comes to is semantics, which everyone knows is a silly thing to argue, but that's also kinda my point: we inherently disagree because of what we view 'boring' as and how we think of the term 'boring' as negative or positive. Like, looking at zetsu's post I 100% understand what he's saying based on his 'so much more than boring, but fine' comment: the card is going to contribute to archetypes, it's going to enable a lot of stuff based on it's abilities, it will feel useful even if it never attacks or blocks...but it's also not blowing anyone away by what it does, it's not the best at what it does, it feels replaceable.
So I dunno, I get your frustrations if you don't think the word means anything that brings substance to the table, but I think there's more to it than it just being a short cut and I think, for the most part, you can deduce why someone is using the word boring either by the context of the post or the nature of the card in the cube environment.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
Similarly, one man's "boring" might be another guy's "exciting". It's all subjective.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
If we look at boring as "offers more lines of play", Mother of Runes is clearly more interesting. However I'd argue that her lines of play usually lead to less interesting games. A large part of the time she just sits there untapped, where my opponent has a dead card (or more) in hand. She can attack, but that is less common than Elite Vanguard blocking. Mom reduces interaction while Elite Vanguard encourages it. When a game starts with Elite Vanguard you know you are in for a tight race and some blood. With mom you are there for a game of stare in the common case, or a game of "can't block me" in the slightly less common case.
Boring as "replaceable", or as "having many cards that are similar": Elite Vanguard is more boring than Mother of Runes and Champion of Wits is slightly less boring but is not Sneak Attack. I agree 100%. I'd have no problems at all if people communicated that, and many people do.
Defining boring as "not new". I think this is a large part of what people mean when they say boring. In that sense every card and every effect will eventually be boring. The first time I cast a Tinker is exciting. After one hundred casts it is already a part of the norm, it is old and it is boring. In any way, cards from the early 90s still see play in cubes, despite being boring. Very rarely can you see a person cutting a card saying "it is not new anymore" or "it has been here for too long". So what useful information does that term convey?
I also played a boros deck last Saturday and feel exactly the opposite. With aggro decks a lot more of my decisions are meaningful. My play has to be tight and I will lose for most mistakes. The same is true for my opponent. Will the mass removal arrive next turn? Should I alpha strike now? Should I spend my removal on that blocker?
With midrange or control decks a lot of plays are interchangeable. I can make a lot of mistakes and still not feel it that much. I terrored this guy and countered the other, while the opposite should have been better? I will often get way from that mistake with minimal to no consequences. The most common major situation when that is not true is early game against aggro. I feel like a lot of my decisions are ultimately less important.
As for games not going back and forth, well, I think it is rarer here. Comebacks happen quite often. With that boros deck I had a game where I played a Palace Jailer targeting a Wall of Omens, my attacks were stopped for three turns, monarch was taken away from me and I still won a few turns later, after grabbing the crown back. I won an opponent who played a third turn Terrastodon on all my lands.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When I bake a cake and ask my friend to taste it, I have little use of the response "I dislike it". Was it too sweet? Was it overcooked? You wanted an apple cake and I made you a cheesecake? There can be many reasons why you dislike it. If you do not tell me the reason(s), I will not be able to improve and bake better cakes. I feel the same about the use of the word boring. As a cube designer and fellow forum member, the fact that you don't like a card definitely has value. If you could tell me why, it would have a lot more.
The list on cube cobra
Read my blog on cube - Latest post June 2nd 2022
Frankly I don't see any problem with leaving it broad and requiring the reader to use some deduction tools to figure out why something is boring based on the understanding of why a certain card could be boring. Not everyone wants to write pages like I do which makes a lot of sense (lol) so these short cuts can be used to convey a thought, and it's up to the reader to use their intuition about whether or not that brand of 'boring' is OK for them/makes sense/etc and then go forward from there. IMO saying it's boring does say *why*, so we're going to have to walk away from this one agreeing to disagree herre
I appreciate you responding to all my points individually, but my point was less to have a point-by-point debate and more to say that your point of saying 'boring' brings nothing to the discussions speaks for yourself but not for everyone; like wtwlf said, what's boring for one person is exciting for another, and vice versa, and when people expand on this to any degree which it seems like most users do, then it's a word that means something and the context of their usage makes sense. People do cut 'interesting' cards for 'boring' ones all the time, because 'boring' isn't a bad thing, it's just a description.
--------------------
If you bake a cake and I call it boring, sometimes I'll need an explanation why and sometimes I won't. If I baked you a pound cake and you called it 'boring', well then no ***** it's probably about the fact that it's a pound cake and ignoring that maybe I think the pound cake's flavor is intricate or that I like to do special things with my sides on a pound cake or etc. This is the elite vanguard of this discussion.
If I make you a wedding cake with all the bells and whistles and you call it 'boring', then I'm going to need more of an explanation there. Is it because you're comparing it to other wedding cakes? Is it generically like all other versions of the cake? Or am I confused about your usage of the word boring? This is the Champion of Wits of this discussion (even though no one technically called it boring in this discussion, which is kinda funny lol)
tl;dr semantics aren't worth bringing up lol
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
Zetsu's Cube on CubeTutor.com
Zetsu's Ebay MTG Online Store
Zetsu's Poker Draft Method
It doesn't work that way, if it leaves play you use its last known power. This is why your opponent still has to sacrifice to Smokestack with counters on it even if they Disenchant on their upkeep.
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
Zetsu's Cube on CubeTutor.com
Zetsu's Ebay MTG Online Store
Zetsu's Poker Draft Method
It should be seen as roleplayer card, not a generic playable card. Something went very wrong if you are playing this in a generic good stuff deck, or a midrange deck.
But in reanimator and combo ramp I've been enjoying it as a solid playable.
In a deck like artifact ramp that has tinker/welder, or a GU channel deck, you have a lot of cards that don't generate value other than ramp. Therefore, having a combination of filter effect (to get you to your combo peices, or discard dead cards late game) as well as a mana sink is nice.
Initial impressions are I like it more than sea gate oracle, because it serves a more specific purpose. I'm not ever cutting this from a UB reanimator deck, or a tinker/welder deck, but sea gate ends up as a 23-25th playable in every deck. (in a cube as tight as mine)
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg