Saying that a card is bad is just as silly as saying a card is good at this point because we haven't seen it in play or in action yet. After that then arguments favouring either side are acceptable and more valid.
'buster
I don't disagree with this in principal, but it's also not absolute. We've been playing with a lot of these cards for a long time and understand how they interact. I would say--understanding there's more M20 to be spoiled that could change this--we can look at the meta and cards spoiled so far and can at least make an educated guess about a new card's power level.
The current meta is an important qualifier here. Lost of cards in this meta will be gone come rotation, and this card has a full ~15 months to fill in somewhere. So, unless you have a crystal ball, you cannot speak in absolutes, one way or the other. Then combine that with -
i mean this in the nicest way possible but the majority of you are quite terrible at evaluating cards.
and your left with where we’re at now. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter how good or bad a card is, people will still play it. Nobody is passing out medals to people who guess right about “trash tier” labels. It’s just nonsense and literally adds nothing to the discussion.
Saying that a card is bad is just as silly as saying a card is good at this point because we haven't seen it in play or in action yet. After that then arguments favouring either side are acceptable and more valid.
'buster
I don't disagree with this in principal, but it's also not absolute. We've been playing with a lot of these cards for a long time and understand how they interact. I would say--understanding there's more M20 to be spoiled that could change this--we can look at the meta and cards spoiled so far and can at least make an educated guess about a new card's power level.
The current meta is an important qualifier here. Lost of cards in this meta will be gone come rotation, and this card has a full ~15 months to fill in somewhere. So, unless you have a crystal ball, you cannot speak in absolutes, one way or the other. Then combine that with -
i mean this in the nicest way possible but the majority of you are quite terrible at evaluating cards.
and your left with where we’re at now. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter how good or bad a card is, people will still play it. Nobody is passing out medals to people who guess right about “trash tier” labels. It’s just nonsense and literally adds nothing to the discussion.
I forgot this forum will close, but others will pop up and i'll show up there. I am not afraid of eating crow if I'm wrong, but i'm 100% sure I'm not.
A lot of folks like to live in magical Christmas land and that's fine. But to argue that this card is good is only to delude one-self. Hell, spend your hard earned dollars on playable stuff. This card fits in zero archetypes. Creatures are too good these days that giving one -2 power really doesn't do anything.
The difference with Sarkhan is staggering.
1) Sarkhan makes your other planeswalkers into threats immediately
2) The 4/4 dragon actually kind of has text because if you attack the walkers, it will deal one damage to your guys. It's not great, but it's something
3) Sarkhan will essentially win you the game over 2 turns. This card, does not.
Tapping your lands to draw card is good, but if you get to a point where you can do that AND cast spells, you've already won the game.
My point is that folks tend to over evaluate cards at the onset without thinking of how they can be applied in existing archetypes. Sure, there'll be rotation in October (4 months from now), but you got a LOT of magic to play between then and now. And at this stage, the card is unplayable.
Additionally, I'm not sure why it's an issue to express an opinion to what appears to be the popular opinion? I provide reasons why i think this card is bad and what to be shown scenarios (applicable ones) where it is good and no one has done this. No one has shown me an existing deck that wants to play this that is better than anything else they can play in that spot.
Is this a site where we can have meaningful discussions or just be fan boys that can't handle constructive criticism?
Saying that a card is bad is just as silly as saying a card is good at this point because we haven't seen it in play or in action yet. After that then arguments favouring either side are acceptable and more valid.
'buster
I don't disagree with this in principal, but it's also not absolute. We've been playing with a lot of these cards for a long time and understand how they interact. I would say--understanding there's more M20 to be spoiled that could change this--we can look at the meta and cards spoiled so far and can at least make an educated guess about a new card's power level.
The current meta is an important qualifier here. Lost of cards in this meta will be gone come rotation, and this card has a full ~15 months to fill in somewhere. So, unless you have a crystal ball, you cannot speak in absolutes, one way or the other. Then combine that with -
i mean this in the nicest way possible but the majority of you are quite terrible at evaluating cards.
and your left with where we’re at now. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter how good or bad a card is, people will still play it. Nobody is passing out medals to people who guess right about “trash tier” labels. It’s just nonsense and literally adds nothing to the discussion.
I forgot this forum will close, but others will pop up and i'll show up there. I am not afraid of eating crow if I'm wrong, but i'm 100% sure I'm not.
A lot of folks like to live in magical Christmas land and that's fine. But to argue that this card is good is only to delude one-self. Hell, spend your hard earned dollars on playable stuff. This card fits in zero archetypes. Creatures are too good these days that giving one -2 power really doesn't do anything.
The difference with Sarkhan is staggering.
1) Sarkhan makes your other planeswalkers into threats immediately
2) The 4/4 dragon actually kind of has text because if you attack the walkers, it will deal one damage to your guys. It's not great, but it's something
3) Sarkhan will essentially win you the game over 2 turns. This card, does not.
Tapping your lands to draw card is good, but if you get to a point where you can do that AND cast spells, you've already won the game.
My point is that folks tend to over evaluate cards at the onset without thinking of how they can be applied in existing archetypes. Sure, there'll be rotation in October (4 months from now), but you got a LOT of magic to play between then and now. And at this stage, the card is unplayable.
Additionally, I'm not sure why it's an issue to express an opinion to what appears to be the popular opinion? I provide reasons why i think this card is bad and what to be shown scenarios (applicable ones) where it is good and no one has done this. No one has shown me an existing deck that wants to play this that is better than anything else they can play in that spot.
Is this a site where we can have meaningful discussions or just be fan boys that can't handle constructive criticism?
One thing you're missing (or ignoring) is that it's pretty damn obvious that no one before your initial post in this thread was talking about this card in a competitive light. No one even mentioned the word until your post #35, and really only one post before that hinted at any sort of competitive viewpoint.
Not everyone is going to like or rate cards because they play well competitively.
Wait, someone thinks this is NOT competitive?! This is definitely competitive. You have to think of it as a 4/4 flier on turn 3 kind of like what the current Djinn in standard is like. You can literally just play her turn 3, +2 her, and drop a 4/4 flier on turn 4. The only reason she wont see play right away this season is because Mono-blue has the three drop djinn. She's basically an aggro walker and isn't trying to do something like Liliana, The Last Hope, where she is killing creatures and trying to reanimate something in a mid-game strategy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Actually the last thing I'd see her in is aggro. She buys you time when she hits the field, makes big birds when you need them and has a gamewinning ult if you let her stick for 3 turns. At 3cmc, this screams slow blue midrange or control.
To everyone who says she's not competitive, how many 3cmc walkers have ever been printed who can close to win the game with their ult AND get to activate it relatively early? Liliana, the Last Hope comes close, but Mu is better at it.
Blue tempo you are dropping her along with pterramander and other dangerous threats. To put it bluntly, the point you made on her making birds is interesting since the math makes her very bad as a token generator. Her second ability is literally the payoff, and people will want to kill her before she gets that flier online as it will probably swing for lethal.
Control token generating walkers are things like Tezzeret, where it boosts their loyalty and throws a chump blocker on the field, or the six drop fat walkers that can just end the game on their own. Mu just cant tango with the big boys and live.
Could someone use her in a control build? Yeah, but control shells are the most wide open buggers when it comes to win cons. If someone wanted to win off mill, they could take a control deck and chuck some jank thing in at the end just to watch the opponent go into table flip mode.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Wait, someone thinks this is NOT competitive?! This is definitely competitive. You have to think of it as a 4/4 flier on turn 3 kind of like what the current Djinn in standard is like. You can literally just play her turn 3, +2 her, and drop a 4/4 flier on turn 4.
So which one is it?
Because a 4/4 flier on turn 3 would be pretty good, but hardly game-breaking (Tempest Djinn being the obvious example, and you can even get what's effectively a 5/4 flier on turn 3 with upside using Spawn of Mayhem).
But spending your turn 3 to get a 4/4 flier on turn 4? That in itself is not playable, and if that's what you're going to do with her, you're not going to ultimate her.
The ultimate is tempting, because it can concievably be done on turn 6. But you can't both see this card as an an early flier and a race to the ultimate. It's either or.
Actually the last thing I'd see her in is aggro. She buys you time when she hits the field, makes big birds when you need them and has a gamewinning ult if you let her stick for 3 turns. At 3cmc, this screams slow blue midrange or control.
To everyone who says she's not competitive, how many 3cmc walkers have ever been printed who can close to win the game with their ult AND get to activate it relatively early? Liliana, the Last Hope comes close, but Mu is better at it.
A couple of things. First, lots of Walkers have had the "nerf a single creature until your next turn," some good, some bad. Whether the ability is good or not is mostly contextual. Right now, giving a single creature -2/-0 is just not that good. Someone mentioned Thief of Sanity earlier, and while that's a juicy target, guess what? Thief is seeing almost no play now, after months of being the boogeyman of the format. Why? Because the tempo loss from playing a 3CMC creature only to have it eat a Shock or get bounced by Teferi is backbreaking. Control decks are playing close to 0 counterspells because Teferi is that much of a thing.
Second, as good as her ultimate is, it's NOT actually game-ending the way Liliana, the Last Hope is. You'll still need to find an additional win condition, and unless you're mono-blue, only a few of your lands will draw cards. Besides, Liliana actually KILLED stuff with her plus, and could immediately use her minus if the situation called for it.
Again, I can imagine Mu is ok against the slowest of slow decks, but against those decks Teferi and Narset are usually going to be better. It will be interesting to see if people try her out in the early days of the format, but unless something that really enables her is spoiled she's not going to do much early on. I can't speak to future formats with cards I've not seen.
Insanely strong planeswalker. This on turn 3 is a major threat for most decks. The only "problem" is that there is an arguably better card - Teferi, Time Raveler - at the same CMC, and which conveniently is a great answer to a turn 3 Yianling.
Ok please help me understand what i'm missing that makes you think that this is a powerful walker??? I even forgot about teferi which is leagues better than this card.
Obviously I think Mu is good because that's my username
On a more serious note, I think she is good because she has game against all types of decks:
-she's usually at least 6 life gain against aggro, buying you 1-2 turns if not more
-she's a cheap win con against control
-she's probably a major hassle for midrange, unless they have removal in hand
Additionally, I'm not sure why it's an issue to express an opinion to what appears to be the popular opinion? I provide reasons why i think this card is bad and what to be shown scenarios (applicable ones) where it is good and no one has done this. No one has shown me an existing deck that wants to play this that is better than anything else they can play in that spot.
Is this a site where we can have meaningful discussions or just be fan boys that can't handle constructive criticism?
What discussions can be had when the card is labeled “literally unplayable”? Because at that point it is not a discussion, you just want people to agree with you because there is nowhere to go with the discussion.
And “constructive criticism”? Lol that’s what this-
i mean this in the nicest way possible but the majority of you are quite terrible at evaluating cards.
-is? First off, you may need to brush up on what constructive criticism actually is, because that is certainly not what you’ve demonstrated through this thread. What’s wrong with fanboys? They can like the card. They’ll play the card, maybe even have it in a FNM winning deck, at that point it makes all that “unplayable” nonsense you’ve been spewing look pretty stupid.
I mean this the nicest way possible, but you come off as an arrogant dick that probably prefers the sound of their own voice over anything else.
Additionally, I'm not sure why it's an issue to express an opinion to what appears to be the popular opinion? I provide reasons why i think this card is bad and what to be shown scenarios (applicable ones) where it is good and no one has done this. No one has shown me an existing deck that wants to play this that is better than anything else they can play in that spot.
Is this a site where we can have meaningful discussions or just be fan boys that can't handle constructive criticism?
What discussions can be had when the card is labeled “literally unplayable”? Because at that point it is not a discussion, you just want people to agree with you because there is nowhere to go with the discussion.
And “constructive criticism”? Lol that’s what this-
i mean this in the nicest way possible but the majority of you are quite terrible at evaluating cards.
-is? First off, you may need to brush up on what constructive criticism actually is, because that is certainly not what you’ve demonstrated through this thread. What’s wrong with fanboys? They can like the card. They’ll play the card, maybe even have it in a FNM winning deck, at that point it makes all that “unplayable” nonsense you’ve been spewing look pretty stupid.
I mean this the nicest way possible, but you come off as an arrogant dick that probably prefers the sound of their own voice over anything else.
magic players are generally bad at evaluating cards. this is not an insult, it's simply true. this is why there's always cards that slip everyone's radar.
i gave plenty of reasons why this card is unplayable in the current format. it just is. mono red is not even the boogeyman anymore.
if you think I'm being a dick about my point of view... well maybe you need to get your panties out of that knot i tied.
Additionally, I'm not sure why it's an issue to express an opinion to what appears to be the popular opinion? I provide reasons why i think this card is bad and what to be shown scenarios (applicable ones) where it is good and no one has done this. No one has shown me an existing deck that wants to play this that is better than anything else they can play in that spot.
Is this a site where we can have meaningful discussions or just be fan boys that can't handle constructive criticism?
What discussions can be had when the card is labeled “literally unplayable”? Because at that point it is not a discussion, you just want people to agree with you because there is nowhere to go with the discussion.
And “constructive criticism”? Lol that’s what this-
i mean this in the nicest way possible but the majority of you are quite terrible at evaluating cards.
-is? First off, you may need to brush up on what constructive criticism actually is, because that is certainly not what you’ve demonstrated through this thread. What’s wrong with fanboys? They can like the card. They’ll play the card, maybe even have it in a FNM winning deck, at that point it makes all that “unplayable” nonsense you’ve been spewing look pretty stupid.
I mean this the nicest way possible, but you come off as an arrogant dick that probably prefers the sound of their own voice over anything else.
magic players are generally bad at evaluating cards. this is not an insult, it's simply true. this is why there's always cards that slip everyone's radar.
i gave plenty of reasons why this card is unplayable in the current format. it just is. mono red is not even the boogeyman anymore.
if you think I'm being a dick about my point of view... well maybe you need to get your panties out of that knot i tied.
but ok.
There is always cards that slips everyone's radars and cards that people hype that don't see any play. It's always like this because cards can only be evaluated in a vacuum but whether or not they see play depends on what will be released in the future and how the environment shapes up. It even depends on out-of-the-game factors like how much people are spending in the game.
You can't use playability to measure quality because playability depends on many factors other then quality. Your claim that this card does not see any play in any of the current meta decks is futile for many, many reasons: (i) the current meta is not solved; (ii) this card is not part of this format; (iii) no one can predict how the meta shifts with a new set with any degree of certainty, this is hard fact of reality; (iv) even if you could, M20 is not fully spoiled; (v) there are local variation of meta, even in high level competition, and you can't possibly account for all this.
It's not people that are bad at evaluating cards, it's just that they don't use your evaluation criteria because it is useless.
There is always cards that slips everyone's radars and cards that people hype that don't see any play. It's always like this because cards can only be evaluated in a vacuum but whether or not they see play depends on what will be released in the future and how the environment shapes up. It even depends on out-of-the-game factors like how much people are spending in the game.
You can't use playability to measure quality because playability depends on many factors other then quality. Your claim that this card does not see any play in any of the current meta decks is futile for many, many reasons: (i) the current meta is not solved; (ii) this card is not part of this format; (iii) no one can predict how the meta shifts with a new set with any degree of certainty, this is hard fact of reality; (iv) even if you could, M20 is not fully spoiled; (v) there are local variation of meta, even in high level competition, and you can't possibly account for all this.
It's not people that are bad at evaluating cards, it's just that they don't use your evaluation criteria because it is useless.
Saying evaluating a card in the context of the existing meta is useless when we have 2/3rds of the next set doesn't make any sense to me. As volatile as this format has been, it's still mostly "solved" insofar as the pillars of the format have been pretty much established. This Standard format is about Teferi, Time Raveler decks, Nissa, Who Shakes the World decks, and the various forms of aggro. To a lesser extent we have Arclight Phoenix decks. I guess Nexus of Fate is still around somewhere.
We've seen a huge chunk of M20 already, and nothing looks like it will result in format upheaval like the release of WAR. Again, I can't speak to future formats with additional sets, but as far as evaluation goes RIGHT NOW, this card just isn't as good as Teferi or Narset, and thus I think it will see little to no immediate play. This is not to say the card is a bad card by any measure, it's just not well-supported currently. I would never argue that quality equates to playability. Tons of great cards see no play (look at Tezzeret, Artifice Master). Also, I've played many "bad" cards because they were well-positioned at a specific point in time (there was a time where I wrecked people with sideboard Woodlot Crawlers, for example). But saying no one can predict how a new set will impact the current metagame is untrue. If a new card competes with existing cards that are more generically powerful, something else has to happen to make the new card viable. I don't see anything in the current spoilers that would indicate Mu slots well into any existing deck, nor do I see any indication that she would be the basis of some new archetype.
However, by several posters' logic, there's no point in evaluating cards AT ALL before a set releases. If that were the case, what? Everyone just puts random good stuff in their decks with literally no consideration to the existing metagame? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Whether I'm right or wrong remains to be seen, but saying the exercise of trying to predict a new card's viability is fruitless is a disservice to MtG players. To a great extent, it's the entire reason there's a spoiler season.
Wait, someone thinks this is NOT competitive?! This is definitely competitive. You have to think of it as a 4/4 flier on turn 3 kind of like what the current Djinn in standard is like. You can literally just play her turn 3, +2 her, and drop a 4/4 flier on turn 4.
So which one is it?
Because a 4/4 flier on turn 3 would be pretty good, but hardly game-breaking (Tempest Djinn being the obvious example, and you can even get what's effectively a 5/4 flier on turn 3 with upside using Spawn of Mayhem).
But spending your turn 3 to get a 4/4 flier on turn 4? That in itself is not playable, and if that's what you're going to do with her, you're not going to ultimate her.
The ultimate is tempting, because it can concievably be done on turn 6. But you can't both see this card as an an early flier and a race to the ultimate. It's either or.
The answer is both. We have to look at the floor and the ceiling with the card and I feel it can replace a djinn turn 3 or 4 depending on what you are doing. Personally, I like her in simic because she benefits a lot from the proliferate mechanic, hence why she has the two loyalty.
Is it a 15 dollar tier 1 Walker in standard this summer before rotation? No, go put money down on leylines you crazy person. That price is from FOMO and preorder hype. But if someone played this on the field on curve I have to deal with it and it can tick up to four, meaning you are burning at least a fight with fire. Turn 4 kefnet afterwards? Ouch.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
However, by several posters' logic, there's no point in evaluating cards AT ALL before a set releases.
That’s not exactly the case here, not in the slightest, really. There are people here from all walks of MtG life, be it casuals, EDH buffs, modern players, standard die-hards, and just general enthusiasts that see these cards however they deem fit. Not one person said “OMG, THIS WILL BREAK STANDARD” so, to me, that doesn’t warrant a “WTf, you guys suck at evaluating cards, it’s unplayable trash”.
IMHO, at no point should the words “unplayable” pop up during spoiler season, unless the card is mechanically broken. You make yourself look like quite a fool when, in fact, all cards get played to some degree. Nobody is hurt by somebody saying “cards good, could be played with X,Y,Z, I’ll play it”, etc. However, by throwing the “trash” label into cards, people will become defensive, and rightfully so. You don’t know any better than I do whether the card is good or bad, so why even say something baseless like that? It halts all relevant discussion and turns into the BS that was flagged with red text. For what? A tire pump? A feeling of superiority? “Good” is a pretty subjective term, bad/garbage/unplayable really aren’t.
As for your meta example, they are constantly evolving. Besides that, a very small sliver of the MtG populace actually compete at high levels and “net deck” their strategies. For Joe Blow, this could very well be the card to make his deck win at his LGS. Or maybe it makes its way into a sideboard somewhere.
I get it, people only want to play with the most proven strategies, but those aren’t the only strategies. We’ve seen it countless times, where a jank homebrew succeeds at dethroning the “known” meta.
TL;DR: I just don’t see the point in negative comments during spoiler season. If the cards not for you, great, move along. No reason to try and “flex” your MtG acumen in an online forum. Because really, nobody values your opinion more than you will, and that goes for everybody. But saying “Hey, I’ll play this card” does nothing more than make it known that it will, in fact, be played.
That’s not exactly the case here, not in the slightest, really. There are people here from all walks of MtG life, be it casuals, EDH buffs, modern players, standard die-hards, and just general enthusiasts that see these cards however they deem fit. Not one person said “OMG, THIS WILL BREAK STANDARD” so, to me, that doesn’t warrant a “WTf, you guys suck at evaluating cards, it’s unplayable trash”.
IMHO, at no point should the words “unplayable” pop up during spoiler season, unless the card is mechanically broken. You make yourself look like quite a fool when, in fact, all cards get played to some degree. Nobody is hurt by somebody saying “cards good, could be played with X,Y,Z, I’ll play it”, etc. However, by throwing the “trash” label into cards, people will become defensive, and rightfully so. You don’t know any better than I do whether the card is good or bad, so why even say something baseless like that? It halts all relevant discussion and turns into the BS that was flagged with red text. For what? A tire pump? A feeling of superiority? “Good” is a pretty subjective term, bad/garbage/unplayable really aren’t.
As for your meta example, they are constantly evolving. Besides that, a very small sliver of the MtG populace actually compete at high levels and “net deck” their strategies. For Joe Blow, this could very well be the card to make his deck win at his LGS. Or maybe it makes its way into a sideboard somewhere.
I get it, people only want to play with the most proven strategies, but those aren’t the only strategies. We’ve seen it countless times, where a jank homebrew succeeds at dethroning the “known” meta.
TL;DR: I just don’t see the point in negative comments during spoiler season. If the cards not for you, great, move along. No reason to try and “flex” your MtG acumen in an online forum. Because really, nobody values your opinion more than you will, and that goes for everybody. But saying “Hey, I’ll play this card” does nothing more than make it known that it will, in fact, be played.
The part of my quote you mentioned was a direct response to a previous poster saying that determining a card's playability in the current meta is futile. My only point is that it's not. Also, I'm not trying to "flex MtG acumen"--a lot of the previous posts have been about whether or not this card will see play in Standard specifically. As I reiterated SEVERAL times in all of my posts, I LOVE that this is a card and will play it so hard in my UW Birds EDH deck. Never once have I said the card is trash or bad in and of itself. I actually think the card is quite good "in a vacuum" to use the popular term. But we don't play in a vacuum, and when a particular format's metagame is either solved or at least understood, I think it's only natural to try and work out for oneself whether a card will be good or bad in that metagame.
And no, I don't know any better than anyone else with similar experience whether the card will be good or bad IN THIS SPECIFIC STANDARD FORMAT (trying to make everyone understand where I'm coming from here); we have opinions based on the information we have at hand, and that doesn't mean we can't come to different conclusions. I just personally don't think the card will do anything in Standard right now. People may disagree, but no one is necessarily being "negative."
All that being said, I'm pretty sure a lot of your post is responding to another poster who used a bit more aggressive language when discussing the card. All I'm saying is that based on the information I have right now and my experience playing, Mu's not great in Standard at the moment. If someone decides to be defensive about that, there's really nothing I can do. I'm not here to start a shouting match about new cards, because that's not productive, but respectfully debating whether or not they'll be good in Standard is something I enjoy, not to mention that it makes me a better player. I don't think there's anything wrong about taking that position.
There is always cards that slips everyone's radars and cards that people hype that don't see any play. It's always like this because cards can only be evaluated in a vacuum but whether or not they see play depends on what will be released in the future and how the environment shapes up. It even depends on out-of-the-game factors like how much people are spending in the game.
You can't use playability to measure quality because playability depends on many factors other then quality. Your claim that this card does not see any play in any of the current meta decks is futile for many, many reasons: (i) the current meta is not solved; (ii) this card is not part of this format; (iii) no one can predict how the meta shifts with a new set with any degree of certainty, this is hard fact of reality; (iv) even if you could, M20 is not fully spoiled; (v) there are local variation of meta, even in high level competition, and you can't possibly account for all this.
It's not people that are bad at evaluating cards, it's just that they don't use your evaluation criteria because it is useless.
Saying evaluating a card in the context of the existing meta is useless when we have 2/3rds of the next set doesn't make any sense to me. As volatile as this format has been, it's still mostly "solved" insofar as the pillars of the format have been pretty much established. This Standard format is about Teferi, Time Raveler decks, Nissa, Who Shakes the World decks, and the various forms of aggro. To a lesser extent we have Arclight Phoenix decks. I guess Nexus of Fate is still around somewhere.
I don't think it has been "mostly solved". For example, it has been a matter of weeks that Bant started to show serious results and is now a tier 1 deck. Someone could claim Shalai, Voice of Plenty saw literally no high competitive play 2-3 weeks ago but claiming she is unplayable would still be wrong.
We've seen a huge chunk of M20 already, and nothing looks like it will result in format upheaval like the release of WAR. Again, I can't speak to future formats with additional sets, but as far as evaluation goes RIGHT NOW, this card just isn't as good as Teferi or Narset, and thus I think it will see little to no immediate play. This is not to say the card is a bad card by any measure, it's just not well-supported currently. I would never argue that quality equates to playability. Tons of great cards see no play (look at Tezzeret, Artifice Master). Also, I've played many "bad" cards because they were well-positioned at a specific point in time (there was a time where I wrecked people with sideboard Woodlot Crawlers, for example). But saying no one can predict how a new set will impact the current metagame is untrue. If a new card competes with existing cards that are more generically powerful, something else has to happen to make the new card viable. I don't see anything in the current spoilers that would indicate Mu slots well into any existing deck, nor do I see any indication that she would be the basis of some new archetype.
However, by several posters' logic, there's no point in evaluating cards AT ALL before a set releases. If that were the case, what? Everyone just puts random good stuff in their decks with literally no consideration to the existing metagame? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Whether I'm right or wrong remains to be seen, but saying the exercise of trying to predict a new card's viability is fruitless is a disservice to MtG players. To a great extent, it's the entire reason there's a spoiler season.
Nobody disputes she is not as good as Teferi, Time Raveler but there's a huge gap between the best card in standard and "unplayable" or "junk".
I agree with most of your assessment except that Narset is more "generally powerful" then Mu. Narset is mostly a SB card who is seem lot's of play because everyone is playing the thing she is hating. Plus she is only really good in non-creature decks. Esper Hero still plays her because of the cheer amount of card draw in the format but she is a liability there.
And people are unable to predict the meta otherwise prices would be stable before and after launch. We still have to guess but no one can guess right. At least not enough to make money consistently.
I don't know what's the point of judging cards by the current meta is. The meta will shake for sure and "playability right now" will only matter in the few weeks after release. It's much more productive to judge a card by whether it's worth at least being tested and Mu certainly is.
@italofoca I think I'm mostly on board with what you're saying. Like I mentioned before, "mostly solved" is sort of a weird term to use right now insofar as this is the most volatile Standard environment I can remember since I started playing. That being said, there are still a few known quantities, and the Bant decks are still primarily Nissa decks. This format is crazy with regards to flex slots, with people going back and forth on individual card choices almost constantly. Can I imagine a decklist showing up with a singleton Mu in the main or board? Absolutely. Would I bet on it? Nope.
You're totally right, people don't always (a/k/a never) accurately predict the meta, which is how major price spikes happen in Standard. My musings are simply that. But we still have some information we can be pretty sure about, and I think that helps us make informed decisions about what we play in the early days of the format. Heck, that's why mono-red tends to do well early--people are dicking about with new cards to see whether or not they're good. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it.
I guess if I had to boil down my point it would be that I don't see why you shouldn't be able to make an educated guess about something even if you ultimately turn out to be incorrect. Frankly, I like it when people tell me I'm wrong and give me reasons. If someone's argument is persuasive enough, I might change my mind. That's how I grow as a player.
TL;DR: Mu is most certainly NOT trash; regardless, I don't foresee her seeing much if any play in this current Standard format; talking about new cards' utility in new formats is fun and is, I think, productive; and, this game is awesome and we all have our love of it in common. Good talk.
@italofoca I think I'm mostly on board with what you're saying. Like I mentioned before, "mostly solved" is sort of a weird term to use right now insofar as this is the most volatile Standard environment I can remember since I started playing. That being said, there are still a few known quantities, and the Bant decks are still primarily Nissa decks. This format is crazy with regards to flex slots, with people going back and forth on individual card choices almost constantly. Can I imagine a decklist showing up with a singleton Mu in the main or board? Absolutely. Would I bet on it? Nope.
You're totally right, people don't always (a/k/a never) accurately predict the meta, which is how major price spikes happen in Standard. My musings are simply that. But we still have some information we can be pretty sure about, and I think that helps us make informed decisions about what we play in the early days of the format. Heck, that's why mono-red tends to do well early--people are dicking about with new cards to see whether or not they're good. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it.
I guess if I had to boil down my point it would be that I don't see why you shouldn't be able to make an educated guess about something even if you ultimately turn out to be incorrect. Frankly, I like it when people tell me I'm wrong and give me reasons. If someone's argument is persuasive enough, I might change my mind. That's how I grow as a player.
TL;DR: Mu is most certainly NOT trash; regardless, I don't foresee her seeing much if any play in this current Standard format; talking about new cards' utility in new formats is fun and is, I think, productive; and, this game is awesome and we all have our love of it in common. Good talk.
Well, everyone has it's educated guesses and it's fun to talk about it. I believe we agree on that. But judging the card playability by those guesses alone ? I would rather judge it "in a vacuum".
Btw I think Mu is worth testing in Jeskai (replacing Dovin) and in mono-U.
I truly believe this card is unplayable if your intentions are to be a competitive standard player. As someone else mentioned, lots of good cards are unplayable in the current format.
- I don't believe that proliferate is good enough in Standard (even though there are great enablers)
- Standard is not a format about durdling in the slightest. When you have T3 Nissas, 6-7 power on red creatures or a a walker+ranger, a 3 mana "basically" do nothing is not where you want to be
- I can't think of a scenario where you'd rather drop this over Narset. Either way, if there's pressure on the board, you'll lose the walker. The difference with narset vs Mu is that with one, you're not down a card.
Now with that said, i'm not the most diplomatic person in the world. I got a little aggressive because time and time again folks reiterate magical christmas land scenarios for competitive formats. Is this card awesome in your 4 color bird deck in EDH? Ok, sure. Great. But you can't get all up in arms when I provide basis for my argument to refute your belief that this card is competitively playable.
Making a 4/4 flier on T4 is simply not good enough right now. If it was, Phoenix would see a LOT more play.
I'm only making my observations based on the current standard format. Like someone mentioned previously, there doesn't appear to be anything that's been revealed that would throw the format on its head.
The thing is, I completely disagree with the statement 'we can't evaluate this in the current standard format because we haven't played with the cards yet'. I think that's just plain wrong.
My friend has already adopted her alongside Tamiyo for waifu status, plus bird EDH loves her. She's some neat design, I love Islands-matters and the art is amazing. She does look a bit too similar to Tamiyo though, who I personally prefer, but I like her in EDH in general, especially in Ephara for drawing off the token and being a Sun Titan target. That said, my decks are too devoted to Jace to make room for other walkers.
Making a 4/4 flier on T4 is simply not good enough right now. If it was, Phoenix would see a LOT more play.
What a silly thing to say. By the same logic you could argue that Nissa, Who Shakes the World is bad, because "making a 3/3 on turn 5 is not good enough". Clearly, there is great value in making a creature while leaving a planeswalker behind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The current meta is an important qualifier here. Lost of cards in this meta will be gone come rotation, and this card has a full ~15 months to fill in somewhere. So, unless you have a crystal ball, you cannot speak in absolutes, one way or the other. Then combine that with -
and your left with where we’re at now. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter how good or bad a card is, people will still play it. Nobody is passing out medals to people who guess right about “trash tier” labels. It’s just nonsense and literally adds nothing to the discussion.
DracoBall: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/casual-related-formats/homebrew-variant-formats/598529-dracoball-updated-3-24-15
Fantastic Fours: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/casual-related-formats/homebrew-variant-formats/603605-fantastic-fours
I forgot this forum will close, but others will pop up and i'll show up there. I am not afraid of eating crow if I'm wrong, but i'm 100% sure I'm not.
A lot of folks like to live in magical Christmas land and that's fine. But to argue that this card is good is only to delude one-self. Hell, spend your hard earned dollars on playable stuff. This card fits in zero archetypes. Creatures are too good these days that giving one -2 power really doesn't do anything.
The difference with Sarkhan is staggering.
1) Sarkhan makes your other planeswalkers into threats immediately
2) The 4/4 dragon actually kind of has text because if you attack the walkers, it will deal one damage to your guys. It's not great, but it's something
3) Sarkhan will essentially win you the game over 2 turns. This card, does not.
Tapping your lands to draw card is good, but if you get to a point where you can do that AND cast spells, you've already won the game.
My point is that folks tend to over evaluate cards at the onset without thinking of how they can be applied in existing archetypes. Sure, there'll be rotation in October (4 months from now), but you got a LOT of magic to play between then and now. And at this stage, the card is unplayable.
Additionally, I'm not sure why it's an issue to express an opinion to what appears to be the popular opinion? I provide reasons why i think this card is bad and what to be shown scenarios (applicable ones) where it is good and no one has done this. No one has shown me an existing deck that wants to play this that is better than anything else they can play in that spot.
Is this a site where we can have meaningful discussions or just be fan boys that can't handle constructive criticism?
One thing you're missing (or ignoring) is that it's pretty damn obvious that no one before your initial post in this thread was talking about this card in a competitive light. No one even mentioned the word until your post #35, and really only one post before that hinted at any sort of competitive viewpoint.
Not everyone is going to like or rate cards because they play well competitively.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
To everyone who says she's not competitive, how many 3cmc walkers have ever been printed who can close to win the game with their ult AND get to activate it relatively early? Liliana, the Last Hope comes close, but Mu is better at it.
Control token generating walkers are things like Tezzeret, where it boosts their loyalty and throws a chump blocker on the field, or the six drop fat walkers that can just end the game on their own. Mu just cant tango with the big boys and live.
Could someone use her in a control build? Yeah, but control shells are the most wide open buggers when it comes to win cons. If someone wanted to win off mill, they could take a control deck and chuck some jank thing in at the end just to watch the opponent go into table flip mode.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
So which one is it?
Because a 4/4 flier on turn 3 would be pretty good, but hardly game-breaking (Tempest Djinn being the obvious example, and you can even get what's effectively a 5/4 flier on turn 3 with upside using Spawn of Mayhem).
But spending your turn 3 to get a 4/4 flier on turn 4? That in itself is not playable, and if that's what you're going to do with her, you're not going to ultimate her.
The ultimate is tempting, because it can concievably be done on turn 6. But you can't both see this card as an an early flier and a race to the ultimate. It's either or.
A couple of things. First, lots of Walkers have had the "nerf a single creature until your next turn," some good, some bad. Whether the ability is good or not is mostly contextual. Right now, giving a single creature -2/-0 is just not that good. Someone mentioned Thief of Sanity earlier, and while that's a juicy target, guess what? Thief is seeing almost no play now, after months of being the boogeyman of the format. Why? Because the tempo loss from playing a 3CMC creature only to have it eat a Shock or get bounced by Teferi is backbreaking. Control decks are playing close to 0 counterspells because Teferi is that much of a thing.
Second, as good as her ultimate is, it's NOT actually game-ending the way Liliana, the Last Hope is. You'll still need to find an additional win condition, and unless you're mono-blue, only a few of your lands will draw cards. Besides, Liliana actually KILLED stuff with her plus, and could immediately use her minus if the situation called for it.
Again, I can imagine Mu is ok against the slowest of slow decks, but against those decks Teferi and Narset are usually going to be better. It will be interesting to see if people try her out in the early days of the format, but unless something that really enables her is spoiled she's not going to do much early on. I can't speak to future formats with cards I've not seen.
Obviously I think Mu is good because that's my username
On a more serious note, I think she is good because she has game against all types of decks:
-she's usually at least 6 life gain against aggro, buying you 1-2 turns if not more
-she's a cheap win con against control
-she's probably a major hassle for midrange, unless they have removal in hand
What discussions can be had when the card is labeled “literally unplayable”? Because at that point it is not a discussion, you just want people to agree with you because there is nowhere to go with the discussion.
And “constructive criticism”? Lol that’s what this- -is? First off, you may need to brush up on what constructive criticism actually is, because that is certainly not what you’ve demonstrated through this thread. What’s wrong with fanboys? They can like the card. They’ll play the card, maybe even have it in a FNM winning deck, at that point it makes all that “unplayable” nonsense you’ve been spewing look pretty stupid.
I mean this the nicest way possible, but you come off as an arrogant dick that probably prefers the sound of their own voice over anything else.
magic players are generally bad at evaluating cards. this is not an insult, it's simply true. this is why there's always cards that slip everyone's radar.
i gave plenty of reasons why this card is unplayable in the current format. it just is. mono red is not even the boogeyman anymore.
if you think I'm being a dick about my point of view... well maybe you need to get your panties out of that knot i tied.
but ok.
There is always cards that slips everyone's radars and cards that people hype that don't see any play. It's always like this because cards can only be evaluated in a vacuum but whether or not they see play depends on what will be released in the future and how the environment shapes up. It even depends on out-of-the-game factors like how much people are spending in the game.
You can't use playability to measure quality because playability depends on many factors other then quality. Your claim that this card does not see any play in any of the current meta decks is futile for many, many reasons: (i) the current meta is not solved; (ii) this card is not part of this format; (iii) no one can predict how the meta shifts with a new set with any degree of certainty, this is hard fact of reality; (iv) even if you could, M20 is not fully spoiled; (v) there are local variation of meta, even in high level competition, and you can't possibly account for all this.
It's not people that are bad at evaluating cards, it's just that they don't use your evaluation criteria because it is useless.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Saying evaluating a card in the context of the existing meta is useless when we have 2/3rds of the next set doesn't make any sense to me. As volatile as this format has been, it's still mostly "solved" insofar as the pillars of the format have been pretty much established. This Standard format is about Teferi, Time Raveler decks, Nissa, Who Shakes the World decks, and the various forms of aggro. To a lesser extent we have Arclight Phoenix decks. I guess Nexus of Fate is still around somewhere.
We've seen a huge chunk of M20 already, and nothing looks like it will result in format upheaval like the release of WAR. Again, I can't speak to future formats with additional sets, but as far as evaluation goes RIGHT NOW, this card just isn't as good as Teferi or Narset, and thus I think it will see little to no immediate play. This is not to say the card is a bad card by any measure, it's just not well-supported currently. I would never argue that quality equates to playability. Tons of great cards see no play (look at Tezzeret, Artifice Master). Also, I've played many "bad" cards because they were well-positioned at a specific point in time (there was a time where I wrecked people with sideboard Woodlot Crawlers, for example). But saying no one can predict how a new set will impact the current metagame is untrue. If a new card competes with existing cards that are more generically powerful, something else has to happen to make the new card viable. I don't see anything in the current spoilers that would indicate Mu slots well into any existing deck, nor do I see any indication that she would be the basis of some new archetype.
However, by several posters' logic, there's no point in evaluating cards AT ALL before a set releases. If that were the case, what? Everyone just puts random good stuff in their decks with literally no consideration to the existing metagame? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Whether I'm right or wrong remains to be seen, but saying the exercise of trying to predict a new card's viability is fruitless is a disservice to MtG players. To a great extent, it's the entire reason there's a spoiler season.
The answer is both. We have to look at the floor and the ceiling with the card and I feel it can replace a djinn turn 3 or 4 depending on what you are doing. Personally, I like her in simic because she benefits a lot from the proliferate mechanic, hence why she has the two loyalty.
Is it a 15 dollar tier 1 Walker in standard this summer before rotation? No, go put money down on leylines you crazy person. That price is from FOMO and preorder hype. But if someone played this on the field on curve I have to deal with it and it can tick up to four, meaning you are burning at least a fight with fire. Turn 4 kefnet afterwards? Ouch.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
That’s not exactly the case here, not in the slightest, really. There are people here from all walks of MtG life, be it casuals, EDH buffs, modern players, standard die-hards, and just general enthusiasts that see these cards however they deem fit. Not one person said “OMG, THIS WILL BREAK STANDARD” so, to me, that doesn’t warrant a “WTf, you guys suck at evaluating cards, it’s unplayable trash”.
IMHO, at no point should the words “unplayable” pop up during spoiler season, unless the card is mechanically broken. You make yourself look like quite a fool when, in fact, all cards get played to some degree. Nobody is hurt by somebody saying “cards good, could be played with X,Y,Z, I’ll play it”, etc. However, by throwing the “trash” label into cards, people will become defensive, and rightfully so. You don’t know any better than I do whether the card is good or bad, so why even say something baseless like that? It halts all relevant discussion and turns into the BS that was flagged with red text. For what? A tire pump? A feeling of superiority? “Good” is a pretty subjective term, bad/garbage/unplayable really aren’t.
As for your meta example, they are constantly evolving. Besides that, a very small sliver of the MtG populace actually compete at high levels and “net deck” their strategies. For Joe Blow, this could very well be the card to make his deck win at his LGS. Or maybe it makes its way into a sideboard somewhere.
I get it, people only want to play with the most proven strategies, but those aren’t the only strategies. We’ve seen it countless times, where a jank homebrew succeeds at dethroning the “known” meta.
TL;DR: I just don’t see the point in negative comments during spoiler season. If the cards not for you, great, move along. No reason to try and “flex” your MtG acumen in an online forum. Because really, nobody values your opinion more than you will, and that goes for everybody. But saying “Hey, I’ll play this card” does nothing more than make it known that it will, in fact, be played.
The part of my quote you mentioned was a direct response to a previous poster saying that determining a card's playability in the current meta is futile. My only point is that it's not. Also, I'm not trying to "flex MtG acumen"--a lot of the previous posts have been about whether or not this card will see play in Standard specifically. As I reiterated SEVERAL times in all of my posts, I LOVE that this is a card and will play it so hard in my UW Birds EDH deck. Never once have I said the card is trash or bad in and of itself. I actually think the card is quite good "in a vacuum" to use the popular term. But we don't play in a vacuum, and when a particular format's metagame is either solved or at least understood, I think it's only natural to try and work out for oneself whether a card will be good or bad in that metagame.
And no, I don't know any better than anyone else with similar experience whether the card will be good or bad IN THIS SPECIFIC STANDARD FORMAT (trying to make everyone understand where I'm coming from here); we have opinions based on the information we have at hand, and that doesn't mean we can't come to different conclusions. I just personally don't think the card will do anything in Standard right now. People may disagree, but no one is necessarily being "negative."
All that being said, I'm pretty sure a lot of your post is responding to another poster who used a bit more aggressive language when discussing the card. All I'm saying is that based on the information I have right now and my experience playing, Mu's not great in Standard at the moment. If someone decides to be defensive about that, there's really nothing I can do. I'm not here to start a shouting match about new cards, because that's not productive, but respectfully debating whether or not they'll be good in Standard is something I enjoy, not to mention that it makes me a better player. I don't think there's anything wrong about taking that position.
I don't think it has been "mostly solved". For example, it has been a matter of weeks that Bant started to show serious results and is now a tier 1 deck. Someone could claim Shalai, Voice of Plenty saw literally no high competitive play 2-3 weeks ago but claiming she is unplayable would still be wrong.
Nobody disputes she is not as good as Teferi, Time Raveler but there's a huge gap between the best card in standard and "unplayable" or "junk".
I agree with most of your assessment except that Narset is more "generally powerful" then Mu. Narset is mostly a SB card who is seem lot's of play because everyone is playing the thing she is hating. Plus she is only really good in non-creature decks. Esper Hero still plays her because of the cheer amount of card draw in the format but she is a liability there.
And people are unable to predict the meta otherwise prices would be stable before and after launch. We still have to guess but no one can guess right. At least not enough to make money consistently.
I don't know what's the point of judging cards by the current meta is. The meta will shake for sure and "playability right now" will only matter in the few weeks after release. It's much more productive to judge a card by whether it's worth at least being tested and Mu certainly is.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
You're totally right, people don't always (a/k/a never) accurately predict the meta, which is how major price spikes happen in Standard. My musings are simply that. But we still have some information we can be pretty sure about, and I think that helps us make informed decisions about what we play in the early days of the format. Heck, that's why mono-red tends to do well early--people are dicking about with new cards to see whether or not they're good. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it.
I guess if I had to boil down my point it would be that I don't see why you shouldn't be able to make an educated guess about something even if you ultimately turn out to be incorrect. Frankly, I like it when people tell me I'm wrong and give me reasons. If someone's argument is persuasive enough, I might change my mind. That's how I grow as a player.
TL;DR: Mu is most certainly NOT trash; regardless, I don't foresee her seeing much if any play in this current Standard format; talking about new cards' utility in new formats is fun and is, I think, productive; and, this game is awesome and we all have our love of it in common. Good talk.
Well, everyone has it's educated guesses and it's fun to talk about it. I believe we agree on that. But judging the card playability by those guesses alone ? I would rather judge it "in a vacuum".
Btw I think Mu is worth testing in Jeskai (replacing Dovin) and in mono-U.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I truly believe this card is unplayable if your intentions are to be a competitive standard player. As someone else mentioned, lots of good cards are unplayable in the current format.
- I don't believe that proliferate is good enough in Standard (even though there are great enablers)
- Standard is not a format about durdling in the slightest. When you have T3 Nissas, 6-7 power on red creatures or a a walker+ranger, a 3 mana "basically" do nothing is not where you want to be
- I can't think of a scenario where you'd rather drop this over Narset. Either way, if there's pressure on the board, you'll lose the walker. The difference with narset vs Mu is that with one, you're not down a card.
Now with that said, i'm not the most diplomatic person in the world. I got a little aggressive because time and time again folks reiterate magical christmas land scenarios for competitive formats. Is this card awesome in your 4 color bird deck in EDH? Ok, sure. Great. But you can't get all up in arms when I provide basis for my argument to refute your belief that this card is competitively playable.
Making a 4/4 flier on T4 is simply not good enough right now. If it was, Phoenix would see a LOT more play.
I'm only making my observations based on the current standard format. Like someone mentioned previously, there doesn't appear to be anything that's been revealed that would throw the format on its head.
The thing is, I completely disagree with the statement 'we can't evaluate this in the current standard format because we haven't played with the cards yet'. I think that's just plain wrong.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
What a silly thing to say. By the same logic you could argue that Nissa, Who Shakes the World is bad, because "making a 3/3 on turn 5 is not good enough". Clearly, there is great value in making a creature while leaving a planeswalker behind.