I don't think people have commented the art. I love the way Mr. Cavotta used a blue beautiful sky on the art, without taking away the "oohhh, scary" feeeling that Dread is supposed to communicate.
Nice job on the art. the card itself is a real bomb in limited, as stated, good in multiplayer. but people saying it may see tournament play with smokeroller are getting it a bit over the top. vedalken enginner never saw play. black already has all the spot and mass removal it ever needed. (tendrils, terror, deathmark, pact damnation and so on) the thing about dread is: it is not needed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking." Alfred Korzybski
Whats funny is how people who make these harsh comments on these type of cards fail to remember that Ravnica is leaving. Its always funny when ppl make judgement on cards forgetting how the format will shape up in the future, but then again they nor do I know how future standard will be. In order words dont be so quick to assume a card is garbage or useless until you know all the entire set. We all can look at the current meta game and then judge these cards and assume they will never see play. But that type of mentality fails 9/10.
Exactly.
People saw Gaddock and said 'Oh, G/W won't work as a deck'.
I think they forget that G/W is going to be PUSHED HEAVILY with the help of Kithkin. Not to mention the other tribes that dip into those colors.
We can't base standard on 30 cards of 280. 280, sure.
I like this card, but I honestly wouldn't play it in constructed.
That said, for limited, this is a rare cycle to be VERY afraid of. Just like the beacons in 10th.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I personally love the art on this card. It embodies "dread" in physical form and I think the art is very smart. As stated the blue sky that promises safety and security looms behind the this awful manifestation, ready to sting you to death with its dual stinger as you stare up at it in "dread"
That being said I agree with several previous posts, this card is good in casual and multiplayer but maybe not so much in constructed. It could be a possible finisher in MBC but I think the cost is just too high for what you get in competitive play, there are better options.
I think this guy is a strong possibility for inclusion in MBC. What with Teeg saying "NO" to damnation and all, this is a great answer to weenie decks. In the mirror, he's bigger than other black finishers, so blocking doesn't help, and he wins races cause they can only hit you once. Although, if by some chance G/W weenie isn't viable, then there may be better choices.
Maybe elemental decks will have a shot. If there are enough accellerator guys, maybe a mana washer who lets you turn two elemental mana into one mana for anything, plus wild pair and a slew of these maniacs, I'd play that.
I don't think people have commented the art. I love the way Mr. Cavotta used a blue beautiful sky on the art, without taking away the "oohhh, scary" feeeling that Dread is supposed to communicate.
Nice job on the art. the card itself is a real bomb in limited, as stated, good in multiplayer. but people saying it may see tournament play with smokeroller are getting it a bit over the top. vedalken enginner never saw play. black already has all the spot and mass removal it ever needed. (tendrils, terror, deathmark, pact damnation and so on) the thing about dread is: it is not needed.
Man, I studied that creature long and hard and it freaks me out! Seriously.. it's creepy. *shiver*
I think this cycle is great. Everyone plays different types of magic. I love this card. one of the best parts is that if spikes dont like it, it will be 99 cents and we can get playsets!
In case no one else has mentioned it, we shouldn't forget that a coalition relic can provide 2 color mana on a given turn. So in a dual color deck that runs relics, it would be quite reasonable to put this nasty into play. With red/black, it's also easy because graven cairns can make that mountain act like a swap. Urborg, Tomb of Yagmoth also makes the 3 solid BBB casting cost no problem.
He's one more mana than spectral force and 2 less power/toughness, however, I would pick this over spectral force because it's less prone to removal and evasion > trample, in most cases. His ability can fend off weenies and other such threats with out much worry. Running four damnations + tendrils of corruption will make it reasonable enough to out-last most aggressive match ups.
He's certainly playable, like most creatures. However, it will *gasp* require a little creativity to make him work really well. Spectral force was considered a piece of trash until some talking head jumped up and down about using scryb ranger to untap him - now everyone is hyped about the uber 5cc 8/8 trampling powerhouse.
It's troublesome because very few people actually do make good decks, so 90% or more of the magic playing world rely on Net Decks and Pro's opinions as rule and law. It's not hard to make a solid deck - pick out a strategy, make sure that every card compliments that strategy along with some consideration for your metagame and boom - solid deck! Sure, it's a fair guideline to listen to the talking heads and review net deck lists, but come on, get creative and have fun with it!! People who call Dread trash are going to be surprised when mr.Dread comes out of some random rogue deck and owns them. Then when that deck gets popular and some pro jumps up and down of how good this 'over looked card' is (See tarmogoyf as recent example), then everyone will be like OMGWTFBBQ THIS GUY ROX!!.
I think this cycle is great. Everyone plays different types of magic. I love this card. one of the best parts is that if spikes dont like it, it will be 99 cents and we can get playsets!
I looooove me some 99 cent rares!! *rofl* Playset's of 'junk' ftw!
In case no one else has mentioned it, we shouldn't forget that a coalition relic can provide 2 color mana on a given turn. So in a dual color deck that runs relics, it would be quite reasonable to put this nasty into play. With red/black, it's also easy because graven cairns can make that mountain act like a swap. Urborg, Tomb of Yagmoth also makes the 3 solid BBB casting cost no problem.
He's one more mana than spectral force and 2 less power/toughness, however, I would pick this over spectral force because it's less prone to removal and evasion > trample, in most cases. His ability can fend off weenies and other such threats with out much worry. Running four damnations + tendrils of corruption will make it reasonable enough to out-last most aggressive match ups.
He's certainly playable, like most creatures. However, it will *gasp* require a little creativity to make him work really well. Spectral force was considered a piece of trash until some talking head jumped up and down about using scryb ranger to untap him - now everyone is hyped about the uber 5cc 8/8 trampling powerhouse.
It's troublesome because very few people actually do make good decks, so 90% or more of the magic playing world rely on Net Decks and Pro's opinions as rule and law. It's not hard to make a solid deck - pick out a strategy, make sure that every card compliments that strategy along with some consideration for your metagame and boom - solid deck! Sure, it's a fair guideline to listen to the talking heads and review net deck lists, but come on, get creative and have fun with it!! People who call Dread trash are going to be surprised when mr.Dread comes out of some random rogue deck and owns them. Then when that deck gets popular and some pro jumps up and down of how good this 'over looked card' is (See tarmogoyf as recent example), then everyone will be like OMGWTFBBQ THIS GUY ROX!!.
/end rant.
This is said about every rare in a set. It's true of maybe 10% of them.
Exactly.
People saw Gaddock and said 'Oh, G/W won't work as a deck'.
I think they forget that G/W is going to be PUSHED HEAVILY with the help of Kithkin. Not to mention the other tribes that dip into those colors.
We can't base standard on 30 cards of 280. 280, sure.
I like this card, but I honestly wouldn't play it in constructed.
That said, for limited, this is a rare cycle to be VERY afraid of. Just like the beacons in 10th.
Hell I remember when people said Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir would never see play... "Oh he cost to much mana!" "You can char him!" "Omg it cost 3 blue mana thats to much bla bla". Oh well its expected to happen every set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have facts for your emotions, I have truths for your lies, I have words for the wise, To open up your third eye
its great in limited but other then that... booo, bad preview card.
I hate this sort of card in limited. The player who has it will be playing an exciting game of 'manascrewed or not', while for the opponent it's 'find destroy target creature' or die. Yeah. What fun.
Any card that is fairly costed at 3CCC is always going to *** up limited.
Overengineered, unfun, too swingy in limited, annoying casting cost for limited, no role in constructed.
It might be powerful in limited. It is by no means a good card for creating a fun and interesting limited environment.
He's certainly playable, like most creatures. However, it will *gasp* require a little creativity to make him work really well. Spectral force was considered a piece of trash until some talking head jumped up and down about using scryb ranger to untap him - now everyone is hyped about the uber 5cc 8/8 trampling powerhouse.
I agree. I wonder how many new archtypes get missed with each expansion. I'm fairly convinced that a rather small percentage of the player base dares to come up with the new archtypes. I suspect a majority plays someone else's creation.
I am of the belief that most cards are playable. Some of them truly arrive in an environment that truly doesn't maximize their potential. Yes, I know "each card should stand on its own merits", but that isn't the end all be all, or else cards like Coalition Relic and Aethermage's Touch would be "bad".
Other cards are simply overlooked. I remember reading about the internal R&D league where they commented how great decks they thought would prosper never even showed up. They simply had not been thought up outside of the walls of WOTC.
Not saying that the people that are the creative force behind the metagame are somehow superior to the Spikes that can unerringly wield those creations to victory. Takes a lot of smarts to be a Spike (and I routinely play less well than an spike.)
But... It is a good for the game to encourage exploration rather than dismiss cards and dampen creativity when we only know so few of the metagame components.
In case no one else has mentioned it, we shouldn't forget that a coalition relic can provide 2 color mana on a given turn. So in a dual color deck that runs relics, it would be quite reasonable to put this nasty into play. With red/black, it's also easy because graven cairns can make that mountain act like a swap. Urborg, Tomb of Yagmoth also makes the 3 solid BBB casting cost no problem.
He's one more mana than spectral force and 2 less power/toughness, however, I would pick this over spectral force because it's less prone to removal and evasion > trample, in most cases. His ability can fend off weenies and other such threats with out much worry. Running four damnations + tendrils of corruption will make it reasonable enough to out-last most aggressive match ups.
He's certainly playable, like most creatures. However, it will *gasp* require a little creativity to make him work really well. Spectral force was considered a piece of trash until some talking head jumped up and down about using scryb ranger to untap him - now everyone is hyped about the uber 5cc 8/8 trampling powerhouse.
It's troublesome because very few people actually do make good decks, so 90% or more of the magic playing world rely on Net Decks and Pro's opinions as rule and law. It's not hard to make a solid deck - pick out a strategy, make sure that every card compliments that strategy along with some consideration for your metagame and boom - solid deck! Sure, it's a fair guideline to listen to the talking heads and review net deck lists, but come on, get creative and have fun with it!! People who call Dread trash are going to be surprised when mr.Dread comes out of some random rogue deck and owns them. Then when that deck gets popular and some pro jumps up and down of how good this 'over looked card' is (See tarmogoyf as recent example), then everyone will be like OMGWTFBBQ THIS GUY ROX!!.
/end rant.
As you said there have been innumerable cards that were called worthless up until they win and then suddenly they are fantastic cards. The real question is, why are most so quick to call a card junk rather than try to actually see if it is good? Part of it is that people (especially on message boards) love to feel that they are right. It just happens to be that calling a card junk is easier than seeing if it really is no good. The sole purpose of writing a post saying that such-and-such card is worthless/boring is to allow for this feeling of being right. Now on the other hand it would be far more productive to take said card and try to really see if it could be of use in a deck. This doesn't just mean "Can I slide it into an existing deck?" but also "Can I build a deck that can utilize this card?". This is how we come to the 'Tarmogoyf-realizations' of the world. Once again calling a card bad is not productive in any way, shape or form.
As for the card Dread itself, i think that in the right deck and environment it could be quite good. Visara the Dreadful saw play and she is somewhat similar to Dread, although Dread cannot deal with utility creatures. The fact is that Dread makes combat a nightmare for the opponent. Dropping Dread after Damnationing or casting a Terror/Tendrils of Corruption or two means that until the opponent deals with Dread, all of their subsequent creatures become one shot burn spells if they do manage to hit you which usually isn't going to be enough for them to kill you. And you're swinging for six. Obviously Dread doesn't want to be in a deck that cannot otherwise deal with creatures very well because one shot burn spell creatures will likely be able to finish you off after the earlier creature damage. But if you preserve your life total until Dread comes down attacking becomes a very bad proposition for the opponent. I realize that if you've preserved your life total til turn 6 against an aggro deck then odds are you'll win, and then you win. But if you're playing against a midrange deck, dropping Dread stops the opponent dead in their tracks. I think it's a decent card (has it's uses), but obviously not insanely spectacular (most aren't).
As you said there have been innumerable cards that were called worthless up until they win and then suddenly they are fantastic cards. The real question is, why are most so quick to call a card junk rather than try to actually see if it is good? Part of it is that people (especially on message boards) love to feel that they are right. It just happens to be that calling a card junk is easier than seeing if it really is no good.
No, it's much easier to say "Everything has a use, just wait and see!" than it is to outline specifically why something has no use in competitive constructed. The merits the card has are self-evident. It's 6/6 for 6 mana, so it has a good power/toughness:mana cost ratio. It has pseudo-evasion (I don't really personally care for fear as evasion, but whatever). It has an all upside ability, in that if this were your only creature it does provide some measure of protection, and it can be shuffled back into your deck once it dies.
But as people have pointed out, there have been plenty of creatures in Magic's history that could fit the same bill, pretty much. Gleancrawler is probably the best example, ability for ability, and that was far easier to cast than this is due to its hybrid cost. Its evasion meant it could take out a creature and still hit the opponent for damage, and its ability helped you both on offense and defense. And still no play.
So sometimes it's a lot more important to listen to why some cards, which have very good analogs, won't see play rather than putting your head in the clouds and waiting for someone to break it. For every Protean Hulk that's busted wide open way after its release, there's two or three Sky swallowers that remain junk.
The sole purpose of writing a post saying that such-and-such card is worthless/boring is to allow for this feeling of being right.
I take offense to this. If you like the card, and advocate for it, you're doing it out of some sense of altruism? Get over yourself.
Now on the other hand it would be far more productive to take said card and try to really see if it could be of use in a deck. This doesn't just mean "Can I slide it into an existing deck?" but also "Can I build a deck that can utilize this card?". This is how we come to the 'Tarmogoyf-realizations' of the world. Once again calling a card bad is not productive in any way, shape or form.
If people weren't asking "What is a good card" and "What is a bad card?", the game never would have advanced. If your initial reaction (like many new players') to Battlefield Forge is "Eww, why would I want to use a land that hurts ME?" and you never actually take the time to learn what makes a card good and what makes a card bad, you'll never advance as a player.
As for Tarmogoyf, some cards just have to be played with. What card does what Tarmogoyf does? What cards do what Dread does? We know what a 6/6 with Fear does. We know what No Mercy does. We know what Beacons do. It's not rocket science to imagine what them all together would be. It's much different to imagine the various scenarios that a card can shape into during play. Cards like Tarmogoyf (or, say, Tombstalker) have variable utility that depends on certain game states. If it's likely the game states are going to be viable for the card, then they can become more consistent and thus, more useful to constructed. If it's not likely that the state is going to be common, they don't (like how many decks are running Nix?).
As for the card Dread itself, i think that in the right deck and environment it could be quite good. Visara the Dreadful saw play and she is somewhat similar to Dread, although Dread cannot deal with utility creatures. The fact is that Dread makes combat a nightmare for the opponent. Dropping Dread after Damnationing or casting a Terror/Tendrils of Corruption or two means that until the opponent deals with Dread, all of their subsequent creatures become one shot burn spells if they do manage to hit you which usually isn't going to be enough for them to kill you. And you're swinging for six. Obviously Dread doesn't want to be in a deck that cannot otherwise deal with creatures very well because one shot burn spell creatures will likely be able to finish you off after the earlier creature damage. But if you preserve your life total until Dread comes down attacking becomes a very bad proposition for the opponent. I realize that if you've preserved your life total til turn 6 against an aggro deck then odds are you'll win, and then you win. But if you're playing against a midrange deck, dropping Dread stops the opponent dead in their tracks. I think it's a decent card (has it's uses), but obviously not insanely spectacular (most aren't).
It seems to me like you're able to evaluate the card, given what we currently know and admit yourself that it's not terribly great. So what's the big deal when others say it?
As for the card Dread itself, i think that in the right deck and environment it could be quite good. Visara the Dreadful saw play and she is somewhat similar to Dread, although Dread cannot deal with utility creatures.
Not true. Visara saw play just because of the terminate ability (mainly in reanimator and big mana decks) much like the role Avatar of woe had in its time. Dread is nothing similar. Dread will not get rid of opposing creatures that do their thing without actually attacking. Not trying to thrash Dread here, but Visara is way out of this guy's league.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Banner and avatar by the one and only Craven at Epic graphics. Check them out.
In reply to Enslaught - I was not refering to posts that give real reasons as to why a card may be bad, but to the posts that simply say "yawnnnn." or "this card is crap." My post was predominently made to point out that real use and testing of a card is warranted before claiming that a card is good or bad. Not "This card has a use just wait and see!". Yes saying that and saying a card is trash are equally easy, but putting in the effort and thought to try and utilize a card is what matters.
I understand that this card is somewhat easy to evaluate based on the fact that we've seen it all before and what we saw before would lead one to believe that this card will be no better, but we're not dealing in absolutes. Sometimes it can be right to main-deck enchantment hate (masques block) and sometimes creature-kill is next to useless (academy/vicious combo days). Cards can go from great to bad depending on the environment. Notice i never said Dread was a good card in and of itself, but that it could be decent given the right environment.
Asking if cards are good or bad is something we must do for sure. What achieves nothing is judging a card simply based on past-cards' success' or unknown factors. Without actually testing a card that may or may not be good (meaning not Cinder Crawler :p) you cannot definitively say if the card can be played effectively or not. You really shouldn't take offense as I was just commenting on the people that call cards bad without laying out valid reasons/testing as to why this is the case. I should've been more clear on this, sorry bout that. You made excellent points as to why Dread may not be good (aside from Gleancrawler being comparable in body but very dissimilar in ability). Both may be controlling in a way (getting creatures back/destroying opponent's attackers) but the end result is entirely different. That and you don't need any more creatures on your side for Dread's ability to be useful.
It is perfectly fine for people to have their opinions obviously, all i wanted to say is that borderline cards that could prove useful should not be stomped on without testing. Lazy judgements are just that.
Zombiemachine - I agree all the way that Visara is far better than Dread. The comparison was probablly not all that warranted. I was just trying to give an example of, as i said, a somewhat comparable creature. But I failed.....*runs off crying his eyes out*
Rules question: If Yixlid Jailer is in play and this guy goes to the yard, does he get shuffled back anyway? I'm not sure what order those things would go on the stack.
It might be obvious that Vigor and Dread are going to be a cycle. Question is: are we able to find the name of the cycle? Vigor Mortis and Dread Return are both return target creature card etc. for basically 2bb.. Are there more of these cards?
Umm... the Greater Elemental cycle is the name or am I missing something?
Nice job on the art. the card itself is a real bomb in limited, as stated, good in multiplayer. but people saying it may see tournament play with smokeroller are getting it a bit over the top. vedalken enginner never saw play. black already has all the spot and mass removal it ever needed. (tendrils, terror, deathmark, pact damnation and so on) the thing about dread is: it is not needed.
Eh, Consume some Spirit and use your Tendrils. And there's of course the unholy power of the Demon's Horn!
Exactly.
People saw Gaddock and said 'Oh, G/W won't work as a deck'.
I think they forget that G/W is going to be PUSHED HEAVILY with the help of Kithkin. Not to mention the other tribes that dip into those colors.
We can't base standard on 30 cards of 280. 280, sure.
I like this card, but I honestly wouldn't play it in constructed.
That said, for limited, this is a rare cycle to be VERY afraid of. Just like the beacons in 10th.
Twitter
That being said I agree with several previous posts, this card is good in casual and multiplayer but maybe not so much in constructed. It could be a possible finisher in MBC but I think the cost is just too high for what you get in competitive play, there are better options.
Maybe elemental decks will have a shot. If there are enough accellerator guys, maybe a mana washer who lets you turn two elemental mana into one mana for anything, plus wild pair and a slew of these maniacs, I'd play that.
Life's end, isn't it beautiful... its almost tragic.
Creature - Elemental Incarnation
Flying
Whenever a creature becomes tapped, return it to its owners hand at end of turn.
When Tumult in grave, shuffle blabla
6/6
Man, I studied that creature long and hard and it freaks me out! Seriously.. it's creepy. *shiver*
I love the way this set is looking!!
He's one more mana than spectral force and 2 less power/toughness, however, I would pick this over spectral force because it's less prone to removal and evasion > trample, in most cases. His ability can fend off weenies and other such threats with out much worry. Running four damnations + tendrils of corruption will make it reasonable enough to out-last most aggressive match ups.
He's certainly playable, like most creatures. However, it will *gasp* require a little creativity to make him work really well. Spectral force was considered a piece of trash until some talking head jumped up and down about using scryb ranger to untap him - now everyone is hyped about the uber 5cc 8/8 trampling powerhouse.
It's troublesome because very few people actually do make good decks, so 90% or more of the magic playing world rely on Net Decks and Pro's opinions as rule and law. It's not hard to make a solid deck - pick out a strategy, make sure that every card compliments that strategy along with some consideration for your metagame and boom - solid deck! Sure, it's a fair guideline to listen to the talking heads and review net deck lists, but come on, get creative and have fun with it!! People who call Dread trash are going to be surprised when mr.Dread comes out of some random rogue deck and owns them. Then when that deck gets popular and some pro jumps up and down of how good this 'over looked card' is (See tarmogoyf as recent example), then everyone will be like OMGWTFBBQ THIS GUY ROX!!.
/end rant.
I looooove me some 99 cent rares!! *rofl* Playset's of 'junk' ftw!
This is said about every rare in a set. It's true of maybe 10% of them.
-E
Hell I remember when people said Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir would never see play... "Oh he cost to much mana!" "You can char him!" "Omg it cost 3 blue mana thats to much bla bla". Oh well its expected to happen every set.
I have truths for your lies,
I have words for the wise,
To open up your third eye
I hate this sort of card in limited. The player who has it will be playing an exciting game of 'manascrewed or not', while for the opponent it's 'find destroy target creature' or die. Yeah. What fun.
Any card that is fairly costed at 3CCC is always going to *** up limited.
Overengineered, unfun, too swingy in limited, annoying casting cost for limited, no role in constructed.
It might be powerful in limited. It is by no means a good card for creating a fun and interesting limited environment.
http://alteredartmagic.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicolarre
or in my Humble Alter Gallery at DeviantArt: http://nicolarre.deviantart.com/gallery/
I agree. I wonder how many new archtypes get missed with each expansion. I'm fairly convinced that a rather small percentage of the player base dares to come up with the new archtypes. I suspect a majority plays someone else's creation.
I am of the belief that most cards are playable. Some of them truly arrive in an environment that truly doesn't maximize their potential. Yes, I know "each card should stand on its own merits", but that isn't the end all be all, or else cards like Coalition Relic and Aethermage's Touch would be "bad".
Other cards are simply overlooked. I remember reading about the internal R&D league where they commented how great decks they thought would prosper never even showed up. They simply had not been thought up outside of the walls of WOTC.
Not saying that the people that are the creative force behind the metagame are somehow superior to the Spikes that can unerringly wield those creations to victory. Takes a lot of smarts to be a Spike (and I routinely play less well than an spike.)
But... It is a good for the game to encourage exploration rather than dismiss cards and dampen creativity when we only know so few of the metagame components.
As you said there have been innumerable cards that were called worthless up until they win and then suddenly they are fantastic cards. The real question is, why are most so quick to call a card junk rather than try to actually see if it is good? Part of it is that people (especially on message boards) love to feel that they are right. It just happens to be that calling a card junk is easier than seeing if it really is no good. The sole purpose of writing a post saying that such-and-such card is worthless/boring is to allow for this feeling of being right. Now on the other hand it would be far more productive to take said card and try to really see if it could be of use in a deck. This doesn't just mean "Can I slide it into an existing deck?" but also "Can I build a deck that can utilize this card?". This is how we come to the 'Tarmogoyf-realizations' of the world. Once again calling a card bad is not productive in any way, shape or form.
As for the card Dread itself, i think that in the right deck and environment it could be quite good. Visara the Dreadful saw play and she is somewhat similar to Dread, although Dread cannot deal with utility creatures. The fact is that Dread makes combat a nightmare for the opponent. Dropping Dread after Damnationing or casting a Terror/Tendrils of Corruption or two means that until the opponent deals with Dread, all of their subsequent creatures become one shot burn spells if they do manage to hit you which usually isn't going to be enough for them to kill you. And you're swinging for six. Obviously Dread doesn't want to be in a deck that cannot otherwise deal with creatures very well because one shot burn spell creatures will likely be able to finish you off after the earlier creature damage. But if you preserve your life total until Dread comes down attacking becomes a very bad proposition for the opponent. I realize that if you've preserved your life total til turn 6 against an aggro deck then odds are you'll win, and then you win. But if you're playing against a midrange deck, dropping Dread stops the opponent dead in their tracks. I think it's a decent card (has it's uses), but obviously not insanely spectacular (most aren't).
No, it's much easier to say "Everything has a use, just wait and see!" than it is to outline specifically why something has no use in competitive constructed. The merits the card has are self-evident. It's 6/6 for 6 mana, so it has a good power/toughness:mana cost ratio. It has pseudo-evasion (I don't really personally care for fear as evasion, but whatever). It has an all upside ability, in that if this were your only creature it does provide some measure of protection, and it can be shuffled back into your deck once it dies.
But as people have pointed out, there have been plenty of creatures in Magic's history that could fit the same bill, pretty much. Gleancrawler is probably the best example, ability for ability, and that was far easier to cast than this is due to its hybrid cost. Its evasion meant it could take out a creature and still hit the opponent for damage, and its ability helped you both on offense and defense. And still no play.
So sometimes it's a lot more important to listen to why some cards, which have very good analogs, won't see play rather than putting your head in the clouds and waiting for someone to break it. For every Protean Hulk that's busted wide open way after its release, there's two or three Sky swallowers that remain junk.
I take offense to this. If you like the card, and advocate for it, you're doing it out of some sense of altruism? Get over yourself.
If people weren't asking "What is a good card" and "What is a bad card?", the game never would have advanced. If your initial reaction (like many new players') to Battlefield Forge is "Eww, why would I want to use a land that hurts ME?" and you never actually take the time to learn what makes a card good and what makes a card bad, you'll never advance as a player.
As for Tarmogoyf, some cards just have to be played with. What card does what Tarmogoyf does? What cards do what Dread does? We know what a 6/6 with Fear does. We know what No Mercy does. We know what Beacons do. It's not rocket science to imagine what them all together would be. It's much different to imagine the various scenarios that a card can shape into during play. Cards like Tarmogoyf (or, say, Tombstalker) have variable utility that depends on certain game states. If it's likely the game states are going to be viable for the card, then they can become more consistent and thus, more useful to constructed. If it's not likely that the state is going to be common, they don't (like how many decks are running Nix?).
It seems to me like you're able to evaluate the card, given what we currently know and admit yourself that it's not terribly great. So what's the big deal when others say it?
Must be the altruism.
-E
Not true. Visara saw play just because of the terminate ability (mainly in reanimator and big mana decks) much like the role Avatar of woe had in its time. Dread is nothing similar. Dread will not get rid of opposing creatures that do their thing without actually attacking. Not trying to thrash Dread here, but Visara is way out of this guy's league.
Banner and avatar by the one and only Craven at Epic graphics. Check them out.
Offical High Priest of Reign of Blood
I understand that this card is somewhat easy to evaluate based on the fact that we've seen it all before and what we saw before would lead one to believe that this card will be no better, but we're not dealing in absolutes. Sometimes it can be right to main-deck enchantment hate (masques block) and sometimes creature-kill is next to useless (academy/vicious combo days). Cards can go from great to bad depending on the environment. Notice i never said Dread was a good card in and of itself, but that it could be decent given the right environment.
Asking if cards are good or bad is something we must do for sure. What achieves nothing is judging a card simply based on past-cards' success' or unknown factors. Without actually testing a card that may or may not be good (meaning not Cinder Crawler :p) you cannot definitively say if the card can be played effectively or not. You really shouldn't take offense as I was just commenting on the people that call cards bad without laying out valid reasons/testing as to why this is the case. I should've been more clear on this, sorry bout that. You made excellent points as to why Dread may not be good (aside from Gleancrawler being comparable in body but very dissimilar in ability). Both may be controlling in a way (getting creatures back/destroying opponent's attackers) but the end result is entirely different. That and you don't need any more creatures on your side for Dread's ability to be useful.
It is perfectly fine for people to have their opinions obviously, all i wanted to say is that borderline cards that could prove useful should not be stomped on without testing. Lazy judgements are just that.
Zombiemachine - I agree all the way that Visara is far better than Dread. The comparison was probablly not all that warranted. I was just trying to give an example of, as i said, a somewhat comparable creature. But I failed.....*runs off crying his eyes out*
Umm... the Greater Elemental cycle is the name or am I missing something?
WUBRGWBGURW
UBRGWURWBGU
BRGWUBGURWB
RGWUBRWBGUR
GWUBRGURWBG
i have to disagree.... it plays offense and defense. plus u wont take much damage considering the creatures only get one attack on u. im liking dread
- My stupid friend
The greatest card in all of magic: HERE