Compared to Verge Rangers this isn't all that great. With this you have two hoops to jump through (1. Someone having more lands and 2. connecting with them) compared to just the one hoop of Rangers.
Compared to Verge Rangers this isn't all that great. With this you have two hoops to jump through (1. Someone having more lands and 2. connecting with them) compared to just the one hoop of Rangers.
Verge Rangers isn’t actually tamp though.
The comparison to Rampant Growth that people keep making is really inaccurate to me. Growth you cast it and immediately get the land in play. This you have to cast it, hope it sticks a round of the table, hope it can get through And then you get the land into play. And then you have to use up some of that mana to continue doing it. And let’s not forget that Rampant Growth isn’t a dead card if you happened to win the dice roll. I think this is an easy cut when improving the precons and probably shouldn’t get added to other decks.
Compared to Verge Rangers this isn't all that great. With this you have two hoops to jump through (1. Someone having more lands and 2. connecting with them) compared to just the one hoop of Rangers.
Verge Rangers isn’t actually tamp though.
I'd take a side grade Courser of Kruphix that blocks quite well and draws me cards occasionally and has a relevant creature type over something like this that I would need Rogue's Passage to get to work all the time.
That’s what doesn’t sit well with me. The fact that for it to be a Rampant Growth every turn, someone else must be ramping. So, at best, you’re just maintaining parity. Why is that too strong?
Because even the Green player is using multiple cards to ramp - as said itt, Farseek into Kodama's Reach into Skyshroud Claim and so forth.
And you're keeping up with all that ramp with only a single two-drop.
You're not keeping up with all that ramp with only a single two-drop. You're almost keeping up with that ramp IF you can manage to continuously hit them.
I'm not saying that white should be able to ramp just as well as green. But one card that almost lets white keep up should be allowed.
Smothering Tithe was a step in the right direction, Cartographer's Hawk is not because keep in mind, everything you and I just noted above is what this card could have been without the return to hand clause. The actual card is a lot worse. It'll probably get put into monowhite or flying-focused decks but that's all. And that's just because monowhite has so few options.
White deck: plains
Green deck: forest
White deck: plains, hawk
Green deck: forest, rampant
White deck: trigger hawk, plsy hawk, plains (still caught up with lands and available mana)
Green deck: forest, cultivate
White deck: Trigger hawk, play hawk, plains (still caught up with lands and available mana).
This card slows down relative to green ramp only when that ramp starts throwing multiple lands into play at once but this card can keep up for a few turns and getting even two lands out of this for 4 mana is a decent value.
That’s what doesn’t sit well with me. The fact that for it to be a Rampant Growth every turn, someone else must be ramping. So, at best, you’re just maintaining parity. Why is that too strong?
Because even the Green player is using multiple cards to ramp - as said itt, Farseek into Kodama's Reach into Skyshroud Claim and so forth.
And you're keeping up with all that ramp with only a single two-drop.
You're not keeping up with all that ramp with only a single two-drop. You're almost keeping up with that ramp IF you can manage to continuously hit them.
I'm not saying that white should be able to ramp just as well as green. But one card that almost lets white keep up should be allowed.
Considering the hypothetical world where Hawk does not return to hand:
1) Without enemy ramp, this is a delayed Farseek if you're not Player 1. You will have 4 lands in Turn 3, one of them will be tapped.
2) If a Green opponent casts, say, Cultivate or Kodama's Reach on Turn 3, they also will have 4 lands. You will be able to keep up with their 4 lands, but your lands will be untapped.
3) However, if that opponent also had Farseek/Rampant Growth on Turn 2 to go along with Cultivate, they will be up to 5 lands on Turn 3 with 1 land untapped. In that case, you will then be able to safely hit them again on Turn 4. You will be up to 6 lands on Turn 4, 5 of them which are untapped, matching the 6 lands they will have during their Turn 4.
4) The one way for an opponent to be ahead in lands is Farseek/Rampant Growth into T3 Skyshroud Claim/Explosive Vegetation. That way, they will have 7 lands on Turn 4, all of them untapped. However, even if he is ahead in mana production, he used two cards to get said 7 lands, while you used one to get your 6. He's one land ahead but you still have parity in cards.
5) Another way for an opponent to get ahead is by following up by a mega-ramp spell like the aforementioned Boundless Realms. Considering EDHREC lists Realms as 3% presence in EDH decks compared to 51% of Cultivate, 42% of Reach, 32% of Growth, 29% of Farseek and 19% of Vegetation, I'll go ahead and list this as a complete non-issue.
Note that in every case mentioned ahead, sans the Farseek into Skyshroud Claim one, the Green player is tapping out to cast his ramp. Therefore, it is unlikely he has a blocker for a Flier. Either way, if the only way of a Green player to get ahead is by curving out two of its best spells, I'm completely fine with that.
That’s what doesn’t sit well with me. The fact that for it to be a Rampant Growth every turn, someone else must be ramping. So, at best, you’re just maintaining parity. Why is that too strong?
Because even the Green player is using multiple cards to ramp - as said itt, Farseek into Kodama's Reach into Skyshroud Claim and so forth.
And you're keeping up with all that ramp with only a single two-drop.
You're not keeping up with all that ramp with only a single two-drop. You're almost keeping up with that ramp IF you can manage to continuously hit them.
I'm not saying that white should be able to ramp just as well as green. But one card that almost lets white keep up should be allowed.
Considering the hypothetical world where Hawk does not return to hand:
1) Without enemy ramp, this is a delayed Farseek if you're not Player 1. You will have 4 lands in Turn 3, one of them will be tapped.
2) If a Green opponent casts, say, Cultivate or Kodama's Reach on Turn 3, they also will have 4 lands. You will be able to keep up with their 4 lands, but your lands will be untapped.
3) However, if that opponent also had Farseek/Rampant Growth on Turn 2 to go along with Cultivate, they will be up to 5 lands on Turn 3 with 1 land untapped. In that case, you will then be able to safely hit them again on Turn 4. You will be up to 6 lands on Turn 4, 5 of them which are untapped, matching the 6 lands they will have during their Turn 4.
4) The one way for an opponent to be ahead in lands is Farseek/Rampant Growth into T3 Skyshroud Claim/Explosive Vegetation. That way, they will have 7 lands on Turn 4, all of them untapped. However, even if he is ahead in mana production, he used two cards to get said 7 lands, while you used one to get your 6. He's one land ahead but you still have parity in cards.
5) Another way for an opponent to get ahead is by following up by a mega-ramp spell like the aforementioned Boundless Realms. Considering EDHREC lists Realms as 3% presence in EDH decks compared to 51% of Cultivate, 42% of Reach, 32% of Growth, 29% of Farseek and 19% of Vegetation, I'll go ahead and list this as a complete non-issue.
Note that in every case mentioned ahead, sans the Farseek into Skyshroud Claim one, the Green player is tapping out to cast his ramp. Therefore, it is unlikely he has a blocker for a Flier. Either way, if the only way of a Green player to get ahead is by curving out two of its best spells, I'm completely fine with that.
So I will reiterate my point. Why is that deemed too powerful? Again, in the scenarios you have written out the Hawk keeps you at parity with ramp for just the first 3 turns. Why is that too much? It's one card out of your 99. If you use any other sort of white ramp such as Knight of the White Orchid then you lose the opportunity to further ramp. Meanwhile, the green player has no restrictions from casting Rampant Growth followed by a Skyshroud Claim or any combination of ramp spells - they don't have to be playing one at a time like the person playing white. Furthermore, you can say that Cultivate and Kodama's Reach are costing them a card but they are putting a land into hand as well with those spells and that counts for something.
There is also the whole concept that the green player has sooooo many options at their disposal. So many that they can count on hitting their ramp. White having 1 powerful form of repeatable ramp (okay 2 because of Smothering Tithe) is not going to break anything...
Finally, yes, the green player is using cards to ramp while the theoretical white player is going "ham" with his little bird by possibly laying an extra land per turn without spending a card. But that green player also has strong access to card draw to fill that hand and since they've been ramping, unrestricted, they can draw the cards and potentially play them the same turn.
White doesn't have the card draw option to back up their ramp. So what they are ramping into is more reliant on what is already in hand. What this all means is that it's absolutely ridiculous to think that a single card, let alone a 1/2 flyer with extremely conditional ramp is TOO POWERFUL in a color pie that is so far behind on ramp and card draw already. They needed a bone thrown their way and this aint it. Is it one of white's best options? Outside of artifacts, yeah. But that doesn't mean anything when white as far behind as it is.
Without the return to hand text, it would serviceable given the scenarios you drew up. But as is, it's almost entirely worthless. So worthless that if you have ANY other color in the deck, the hawk probably isn't worth it.
Give it a few years for white to play catch-up. Green's main strength is it was mostly uncontested for over two decades which led to redundancy and a smattering of smash hits.
So I will reiterate my point. Why is that deemed too powerful? Again, in the scenarios you have written out the Hawk keeps you at parity with ramp for just the first 3 turns. Why is that too much? It's one card out of your 99.
Because it's one card of your 99 beating two cards of their 99. And said two cards are some of the most often-played cards in the entire Commander format. What part of "an off-color card that singlehandedly bests some of the statistically best EDH cards ever printed" sounds weak?
Also, "for just the first 3 turns"? Nobody plays Farseek to be able to get a shockland by turn 8. People play ramp in EDH for the massive early-game advantage it provides.
Meanwhile, the green player has no restrictions from casting Rampant Growth followed by a Skyshroud Claim or any combination of ramp spells - they don't have to be playing one at a time like the person playing white.
They don't have to play it one at a time and don't have restrictions because they have multiple cards that do that. Because THEY ARE GREEN. THE COLOR OF RAMP. Stop asking for a single card to best an entire color.
Furthermore, you can say that Cultivate and Kodama's Reach are costing them a card but they are putting a land into hand as well with those spells and that counts for something.
...so? Hawk, as of right now, is a delayed Farseek that also puts another delayed Farseek into its owner hand. And apparently, with all the *****ing about it being a bad card, that's still not good enough.
There is also the whole concept that the green player has sooooo many options at their disposal. So many that they can count on hitting their ramp. White having 1 powerful form of repeatable ramp (okay 2 because of Smothering Tithe) is not going to break anything...
Finally, yes, the green player is using cards to ramp while the theoretical white player is going "ham" with his little bird by possibly laying an extra land per turn without spending a card. But that green player also has strong access to card draw to fill that hand and since they've been ramping, unrestricted, they can draw the cards and potentially play them the same turn.
Stop complaining about color balance when evaluating a card. This is the backwards, outdated design philosophy that created cards like Gaea's Cradle and Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary. Colors should have more tools to provide color balance and an even power level between the colors, not singular broken cards. And, as WotC has stated multiple times, they are aware of the problem and cards like Hawk and Smothering Tithe are the first steps into fixing it. Hell, the white color pie representative even stated that WotC is aware and that they are working on solutions on how to provide White with real card draw in a way that feels right for White, just like they did with Red and impulsive draw.
Without the return to hand text, it would serviceable given the scenarios you drew up. But as is, it's almost entirely worthless. So worthless that if you have ANY other color in the deck, the hawk probably isn't worth it.
Wrong. Azorius decks would still play Farseek if given the opportunity, reason why mana rocks are always extremely valuable cards in Commander even if Artifacts are always far more vulnerable than Lands. You seem to be under the illusion that Hawk has to hit any player at least twice to be anything but worthless trash, when it's a well-known fact that using 1 card to ramping even by 1 mana - something that, as we already estabilished, is not difficult with Hawk by any means - at an accessible mana cost is good.
The comparison to Rampant Growth that people keep making is really inaccurate to me. Growth you cast it and immediately get the land in play. This you have to cast it, hope it sticks a round of the table, hope it can get through And then you get the land into play. And then you have to use up some of that mana to continue doing it. And let’s not forget that Rampant Growth isn’t a dead card if you happened to win the dice roll. I think this is an easy cut when improving the precons and probably shouldn’t get added to other decks.
Say it louder for the people in the back, apparently.
A hasteless creature that has to connect combat damage is not a valid comparison to an instant with the same effect. The creature is much slower and universally easier to stop in every color than the instant.
Now, it could still be the case that a drawback of some kind is still appropriate for this cost and effect in white. Maybe "Return it to your hand unless you discard a card or pay 1W." But the drawback as printed is going to push deckbuilding to more competitive options.
I think they should focus on the Smothering Tithe design for White ramp. Have it generate artifact token mana rocks at an efficient rate so that it gets the benefit of the ramp but more vulnerability to removal and no deck thinning. That way Green gets to stay king of ramp while White gets ramp that's at least playable if not as much value as options in Green.
I mean, this probably passes in budget mono white, but in any other color combination it gets cut pretty quickly for something much better. For example, Azorius has Azorius Signet, Talisman of Progress, Arcane Signet, Fellwar Stone, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, and Knight of the White Orchid that beat this for the slot just off the top of my head. Hell, Wayfarer's Bauble is better and I already don't play that in anything.
Hawk is like... 10th string at best, and you're not super happy about it when it makes the cut.
So I will reiterate my point. Why is that deemed too powerful? Again, in the scenarios you have written out the Hawk keeps you at parity with ramp for just the first 3 turns. Why is that too much? It's one card out of your 99.
Because it's one card of your 99 beating two cards of their 99. And said two cards are some of the most often-played cards in the entire Commander format. What part of "an off-color card that singlehandedly bests some of the statistically best EDH cards ever printed" sounds weak?
Also, "for just the first 3 turns"? Nobody plays Farseek to be able to get a shockland by turn 8. People play ramp in EDH for the massive early-game advantage it provides.
Meanwhile, the green player has no restrictions from casting Rampant Growth followed by a Skyshroud Claim or any combination of ramp spells - they don't have to be playing one at a time like the person playing white.
They don't have to play it one at a time and don't have restrictions because they have multiple cards that do that. Because THEY ARE GREEN. THE COLOR OF RAMP. Stop asking for a single card to best an entire color.
Furthermore, you can say that Cultivate and Kodama's Reach are costing them a card but they are putting a land into hand as well with those spells and that counts for something.
...so? Hawk, as of right now, is a delayed Farseek that also puts another delayed Farseek into its owner hand. And apparently, with all the *****ing about it being a bad card, that's still not good enough.
There is also the whole concept that the green player has sooooo many options at their disposal. So many that they can count on hitting their ramp. White having 1 powerful form of repeatable ramp (okay 2 because of Smothering Tithe) is not going to break anything...
Finally, yes, the green player is using cards to ramp while the theoretical white player is going "ham" with his little bird by possibly laying an extra land per turn without spending a card. But that green player also has strong access to card draw to fill that hand and since they've been ramping, unrestricted, they can draw the cards and potentially play them the same turn.
Stop complaining about color balance when evaluating a card. This is the backwards, outdated design philosophy that created cards like Gaea's Cradle and Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary. Colors should have more tools to provide color balance and an even power level between the colors, not singular broken cards. And, as WotC has stated multiple times, they are aware of the problem and cards like Hawk and Smothering Tithe are the first steps into fixing it. Hell, the white color pie representative even stated that WotC is aware and that they are working on solutions on how to provide White with real card draw in a way that feels right for White, just like they did with Red and impulsive draw.
Without the return to hand text, it would serviceable given the scenarios you drew up. But as is, it's almost entirely worthless. So worthless that if you have ANY other color in the deck, the hawk probably isn't worth it.
Wrong. Azorius decks would still play Farseek if given the opportunity, reason why mana rocks are always extremely valuable cards in Commander even if Artifacts are always far more vulnerable than Lands. You seem to be under the illusion that Hawk has to hit any player at least twice to be anything but worthless trash, when it's a well-known fact that using 1 card to ramping even by 1 mana - something that, as we already estabilished, is not difficult with Hawk by any means - at an accessible mana cost is good.
Yeah, you're just completely missing the point which makes me think you're not fully reading the post or your comprehension just isn't there. The fact that you're just grabbing sentences and breaking them up to respond to individually, instead of responding to the overall concept is the biggest red flag. The secondary fact that a bunch of what you're saying is just downright silly is another red flag.
So, we will just have to agree to disagree. The return-to-hand aspect of this card is entirely unecessary.
Yeah, you're just completely missing the point which makes me think you're not fully reading the post or your comprehension just isn't there. The fact that you're just grabbing sentences and breaking them up to respond to individually, instead of responding to the overall concept is the biggest red flag.
So, we will just have to agree to disagree. The return-to-hand aspect of this card is entirely unecessary.
Your point basically amounts to "this card is bad because it's White and White is bad, therefore it should be better", which is the worst mindset you could have to evaluate and discuss any card in any Eternal format. Meanwhile, diluting 10+ lines of text into smaller, easily digestible arguments is not a "red flag", it's a way to criticize literally anything since criticism became a thing. If that's not the basis of your argument, feel free to correct me, but yes, agree to disagree sounds right.
Your point basically amounts to "this card is bad because it's White and White is bad, therefore it should be better", which is the worst mindset you could have to evaluate and discuss any card in any Eternal format. Meanwhile, diluting 10+ lines of text into smaller, easily digestible arguments is not a "red flag", it's a way to criticize literally anything since criticism became a thing. If that's not the basis of your argument, feel free to correct me, but yes, agree to disagree sounds right.
No. The point, as put very clearly in the last sentence of the post you just quoted, is that the return to hand clause is unnecessary. That they said they tested it and the card was too strong without the return to hand clause doesn’t seem right - because while good without the clause, it still has plenty of restrictions.
It’s not a good card if it’s red, it’s not a good card if it’s blue. It doesn’t matter what color it is - it’s not good the way it was printed. HOWEVER, and this is where the context of the color IS important, this bad card will see play in mono white because there are too few even decent options available. I already stated that it doesn’t need to be as good as green - and it still wouldn’t be in a real game with real variables.
To address your other point; you do not peel apart arguments line by line if you’re going to bastardize the context around each of those sentences. Which is exactly what you did. The only time someone does that is when they want to create a new narrative in order to hide from what was really said. Ya know, like click bait media.
No. The point, as put very clearly in the last sentence of the post you just quoted, is that the return to hand clause is unnecessary. That they said they tested it and the card was too strong without the return to hand clause doesn’t seem right - because while good without the clause, it still has plenty of restrictions.
It’s not a good card if it’s red, it’s not a good card if it’s blue. It doesn’t matter what color it is - it’s not good the way it was printed. HOWEVER, and this is where the context of the color IS important, this bad card will see play in mono white because there are too few even decent options available. I already stated that it doesn’t need to be as good as green - and it still wouldn’t be in a real game with real variables.
So no, except yes? Okay then.
For starters, you devoted three out of five paragraphs in your post dedicated to telling me how Green is much better in card draw and ramp to White and now you're really trying to spin an argument that your post's main point isn't about how White could use some help with a stronger card than Hawk? Okay. Then you are really bad at writing.
You're trying to spin your argument is that WotC stated that the card was too good doing X, then toned it down, but you can't understand why it doesn't do X and wish it was printed still doing X. While X clearly makes the card better than its current installment. Therefore you are saying the card should be better than it currently is.
So once again, what part of what I've got from your post is wrong?
But okay, let's evaluate this on a vacuum, to understand why you say "it's not about the color": Farseek and its kin is amongst the most played cards in the entire format. This card is not as strong as Farseek, reason being that it's an off-color effect and off-color effects should be weaker than their on-color counterparts by default, but it fulfills a similar niche of "a card that you play on Turn 2 and grants you a land". As I already stated multiple times, when compared to other two-mana ramp spells, this comes with two drawbacks (one-turn delay, far more situational if you're Player 1), two upsides (evasive body in the lategame when you don't need ramp, reuseable tutoring) and one non-issue (opponent with no Flying/Reach blockers at Turn 3). Two good, two bad - this comes as a neutral tradeoff, which makes this card good, because two-mana ramp is good. Repeating myself, sure, but it's important to estabilish why I think it's good to contrast with why you think it's bad.
In a vacuum, first thing you gave me here "it has plenty of restrictions". So? Undercosted cards needs restrictions or drawbacks - even the closest alternative to a reuseable ramp card in Green with no CA cost would be Oracle of Mul Daya, and that's CMC of 4. Since suggesting a Hawk with zero restrictions is madness and would be like suggesting Bob minus the life loss (and if you are suggesting that, reconsider your life choices), let's focus on removing only one of those restrictions, in this case the "return to hand" restriction that you seem to discuss the most. In the five scenarios that I estabilished in my early post, the Green player would use two of the most popular Green ramp spells Rampant Growth and Cultivate (according to EDHREC statistics) on Turn 2 and 3 respectively. That would leave him with 6 lands on Turn 4, having tapped out on both Turn 2 and 3 to accomplish that, and would leave him with one additional land in his hand due to Cultivate. Your line of play as a White player would be casting the Hawk on Turn 2, attacking to get an extra land on Turn 3, then recasting Hawk to attack on Turn 4. If you do succeed to do this, the results are the same - you still have 6 lands on Turn 4, but a Hawk in hand instead of a land, and you tapped out on both Turns 2 and 3 to accomplish that. The only difference between the previously mentioned scenario and this one is that the White player isn't ahead on mana compared to the Green player in Turn 3.
So since the "restrictions" talk is a bust, let's talk about the other argument, that being "real game with real variables". What variables? Well, you mentioned very little aside from one Knight of the White Orchid nonsequitur (Why are you saying you can't use card A if you play card B if both have the same requirement and you are making an argument that card B is bad? By simple logic you shouldn't be playing card A in the first place). In this point here, I'll take Gutterstorm's post as a basis which is more cut and dry: "you have to cast it, hope it sticks a round of the table, hope it can get through. And then you get the land into play. And then you have to use up some of that mana to continue doing it. And let’s not forget that Rampant Growth isn’t a dead card if you happened to win the dice roll".
Since the "hope it sticks" argument leads directly to "dies to removal" arguments, I'll completely ignore that for reasons that don't need to be stated, and if you DO want to die on that hill, don't worry, I'll sure we'll find a consensus on wether cheap creatures dying to removal makes them bad at the year 2006. As for the "can get through", as previously stated, not an issue in the earlygame where ramp is the most valuable - the only often-played creature that trades favorably with Hawk before Turn 3 in EDH is Baleful Strix. On the lategame, the ramp is also meaningless because a 2/1 flier body is more valuable than Rampant Growth's single tapped basic land. So, "getting through" is only an issue for Hawk at the midgame (provided that you don't want to use White's efficient removal to get through which would be reasonable if you're getting a land out of the deal), with the tradeoff of being better in the lategame, which seems somewhat fair. Finally there's the "win the roll dice", which is the biggest one IMO but also a reasonable drawback for a card to have - in EDH Player 1 is always one turn ahead, and numbers and statistics compiled do reflect that fact, with Player 1 having a clear advantage over Player 2-4 in win ratio. However, Hawk is not dead if you're Player 1, cuz Green do loves to ramp, and ramp is 5 of the 10 top Green cards in EDH. Hawk won't work in Turn 3 as advertised, but with 3 opponents and 51% chance they are running Cultivate, there's still a decent chance you'll get at least one land.
To address your other point; you do not peel apart arguments line by line if you’re going to bastardize the context around each of those sentences. Which is exactly what you did. The only time someone does that is when they want to create a new narrative in order to hide from what was really said. Ya know, like click bait media.
I did something clickbait media does. Therefore I'm as bad as clickbait media. Hitler ate sugar. Therefore I'm as bad as Hitler. Guilt by association is stupid, and context is only changed if I omit something (which even if I wanted to, I literally can't, since the original post is right above it), so unless you can tell me what important meaning I dropped from your post by cutting your argument to smaller parts, this is entirely meaningless and you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
So no, except yes? Okay then.
For starters, you devoted three out of five paragraphs in your post dedicated to telling me how Green is much better in card draw and ramp to White and now you're really trying to spin an argument that your post's main point isn't about how White could use some help with a stronger card than Hawk? Okay. Then you are really bad at writing.
You're trying to spin your argument is that WotC stated that the card was too good doing X, then toned it down, but you can't understand why it doesn't do X and wish it was printed still doing X. While X clearly makes the card better than its current installment. Therefore you are saying the card should be better than it currently is.
So once again, what part of what I've got from your post is wrong?
I think his general point is that, even without the return-to-hand clause, Glacier Hawk still wouldn't be as strong as anything green has in its wheelhouse (you still have to attack, and can never exceed land parity), which would make it both fair and a good step in the right direction for a white ramp card.
Personally, I think losing flying would be a fair compromise for staying on the battlefield.
So no, except yes? Okay then.
For starters, you devoted three out of five paragraphs in your post dedicated to telling me how Green is much better in card draw and ramp to White and now you're really trying to spin an argument that your post's main point isn't about how White could use some help with a stronger card than Hawk? Okay. Then you are really bad at writing.
You're trying to spin your argument is that WotC stated that the card was too good doing X, then toned it down, but you can't understand why it doesn't do X and wish it was printed still doing X. While X clearly makes the card better than its current installment. Therefore you are saying the card should be better than it currently is.
So once again, what part of what I've got from your post is wrong?
I think his general point is that, even without the return-to-hand clause, Glacier Hawk still wouldn't be as strong as anything green has in its wheelhouse (you still have to attack, and can never exceed land parity), which would make it both fair and a good step in the right direction for a white ramp card.
Personally, I think losing flying would be a fair compromise for staying on the battlefield.
Amusingly, I would greatly prefer the current version to one that stays on the battlefield but doesn't have evasion. The 2 mana cost to recast the card, if wanted, is negligible compared to the additional cost of having to completely clear an opponent out of creatures.
Amusingly, I would greatly prefer the current version to one that stays on the battlefield but doesn't have evasion. The 2 mana cost to recast the card, if wanted, is negligible compared to the additional cost of having to completely clear an opponent out of creatures.
Agreed. Losing Flying would make this absolutely unplayable. Not every deck can produce a flier early on but most of them can get a grounded one out.
The Hawk is a fine card. It's also not just Rampant Growth. It's Rampant Growth plus 2 or more damage. Green's best ramp creatures for 2 are Gatecreeper Vine, Sylvan Ranger, Borderland Explorer. Expecting one single card to be excessively powerful just because white doesn't have tons of options is kind of silly. A 2/1 flier for 1W is on curve to begin with. Now it has to ramp nonbasic lands onto the battlefield every hit? Even green gets a single nonbasic land for 1G. Regardless of whether it's an overpowered card in a vacuum, it's probably the strongest repeatable ramp card in the game without the return to hand clause. It sounds even more absurd when you consider it's pounding away for 2 a turn while keeping up with top flight green ramp spells.
So no, except yes? Okay then.
For starters, you devoted three out of five paragraphs in your post dedicated to telling me how Green is much better in card draw and ramp to White and now you're really trying to spin an argument that your post's main point isn't about how White could use some help with a stronger card than Hawk? Okay. Then you are really bad at writing.
You're trying to spin your argument is that WotC stated that the card was too good doing X, then toned it down, but you can't understand why it doesn't do X and wish it was printed still doing X. While X clearly makes the card better than its current installment. Therefore you are saying the card should be better than it currently is.
So once again, what part of what I've got from your post is wrong?
I think his general point is that, even without the return-to-hand clause, Glacier Hawk still wouldn't be as strong as anything green has in its wheelhouse (you still have to attack, and can never exceed land parity), which would make it both fair and a good step in the right direction for a white ramp card.
Evasion helps a lot in attacking safely in the earlygame which is when ramp is at its best (and, once again, being weak at the lategame is something all ramp cards have in common and we still play them), bouncing back to the hand balances the fact that it's a 2 CMC card providing an effect you can't get below 4 CMC and the inability to exceed land parity as is the main balancing factor to being White because "not as strong as Green" is exactly as good as White ramp should be. There's a reason why Harmonize is one of Green's best cards and Concentrate... isn't.
That's my point here - people are blowing its drawbacks way out of proportions and want this card to be better than it currently is, not because this card is terrible compared to similar cards in a vacuum or because it's not what White needs, but because White overall can't compete with the other colors without something better than this. And wanting pushed cards to promote weak strategies is how we get mistakes, ones that could affect how White EDH cards are designed for years to come.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Verge Rangers isn’t actually tamp though.
The comparison to Rampant Growth that people keep making is really inaccurate to me. Growth you cast it and immediately get the land in play. This you have to cast it, hope it sticks a round of the table, hope it can get through And then you get the land into play. And then you have to use up some of that mana to continue doing it. And let’s not forget that Rampant Growth isn’t a dead card if you happened to win the dice roll. I think this is an easy cut when improving the precons and probably shouldn’t get added to other decks.
I'd take a side grade Courser of Kruphix that blocks quite well and draws me cards occasionally and has a relevant creature type over something like this that I would need Rogue's Passage to get to work all the time.
You're not keeping up with all that ramp with only a single two-drop. You're almost keeping up with that ramp IF you can manage to continuously hit them.
I'm not saying that white should be able to ramp just as well as green. But one card that almost lets white keep up should be allowed.
Smothering Tithe was a step in the right direction, Cartographer's Hawk is not because keep in mind, everything you and I just noted above is what this card could have been without the return to hand clause. The actual card is a lot worse. It'll probably get put into monowhite or flying-focused decks but that's all. And that's just because monowhite has so few options.
White deck: plains
Green deck: forest
White deck: plains, hawk
Green deck: forest, rampant
White deck: trigger hawk, plsy hawk, plains (still caught up with lands and available mana)
Green deck: forest, cultivate
White deck: Trigger hawk, play hawk, plains (still caught up with lands and available mana).
This card slows down relative to green ramp only when that ramp starts throwing multiple lands into play at once but this card can keep up for a few turns and getting even two lands out of this for 4 mana is a decent value.
Considering the hypothetical world where Hawk does not return to hand:
1) Without enemy ramp, this is a delayed Farseek if you're not Player 1. You will have 4 lands in Turn 3, one of them will be tapped.
2) If a Green opponent casts, say, Cultivate or Kodama's Reach on Turn 3, they also will have 4 lands. You will be able to keep up with their 4 lands, but your lands will be untapped.
3) However, if that opponent also had Farseek/Rampant Growth on Turn 2 to go along with Cultivate, they will be up to 5 lands on Turn 3 with 1 land untapped. In that case, you will then be able to safely hit them again on Turn 4. You will be up to 6 lands on Turn 4, 5 of them which are untapped, matching the 6 lands they will have during their Turn 4.
4) The one way for an opponent to be ahead in lands is Farseek/Rampant Growth into T3 Skyshroud Claim/Explosive Vegetation. That way, they will have 7 lands on Turn 4, all of them untapped. However, even if he is ahead in mana production, he used two cards to get said 7 lands, while you used one to get your 6. He's one land ahead but you still have parity in cards.
5) Another way for an opponent to get ahead is by following up by a mega-ramp spell like the aforementioned Boundless Realms. Considering EDHREC lists Realms as 3% presence in EDH decks compared to 51% of Cultivate, 42% of Reach, 32% of Growth, 29% of Farseek and 19% of Vegetation, I'll go ahead and list this as a complete non-issue.
Note that in every case mentioned ahead, sans the Farseek into Skyshroud Claim one, the Green player is tapping out to cast his ramp. Therefore, it is unlikely he has a blocker for a Flier. Either way, if the only way of a Green player to get ahead is by curving out two of its best spells, I'm completely fine with that.
So I will reiterate my point. Why is that deemed too powerful? Again, in the scenarios you have written out the Hawk keeps you at parity with ramp for just the first 3 turns. Why is that too much? It's one card out of your 99. If you use any other sort of white ramp such as Knight of the White Orchid then you lose the opportunity to further ramp. Meanwhile, the green player has no restrictions from casting Rampant Growth followed by a Skyshroud Claim or any combination of ramp spells - they don't have to be playing one at a time like the person playing white. Furthermore, you can say that Cultivate and Kodama's Reach are costing them a card but they are putting a land into hand as well with those spells and that counts for something.
There is also the whole concept that the green player has sooooo many options at their disposal. So many that they can count on hitting their ramp. White having 1 powerful form of repeatable ramp (okay 2 because of Smothering Tithe) is not going to break anything...
Finally, yes, the green player is using cards to ramp while the theoretical white player is going "ham" with his little bird by possibly laying an extra land per turn without spending a card. But that green player also has strong access to card draw to fill that hand and since they've been ramping, unrestricted, they can draw the cards and potentially play them the same turn.
White doesn't have the card draw option to back up their ramp. So what they are ramping into is more reliant on what is already in hand. What this all means is that it's absolutely ridiculous to think that a single card, let alone a 1/2 flyer with extremely conditional ramp is TOO POWERFUL in a color pie that is so far behind on ramp and card draw already. They needed a bone thrown their way and this aint it. Is it one of white's best options? Outside of artifacts, yeah. But that doesn't mean anything when white as far behind as it is.
Without the return to hand text, it would serviceable given the scenarios you drew up. But as is, it's almost entirely worthless. So worthless that if you have ANY other color in the deck, the hawk probably isn't worth it.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Also, "for just the first 3 turns"? Nobody plays Farseek to be able to get a shockland by turn 8. People play ramp in EDH for the massive early-game advantage it provides.
So... Hawk > Knight confirmed?
They don't have to play it one at a time and don't have restrictions because they have multiple cards that do that. Because THEY ARE GREEN. THE COLOR OF RAMP. Stop asking for a single card to best an entire color.
...so? Hawk, as of right now, is a delayed Farseek that also puts another delayed Farseek into its owner hand. And apparently, with all the *****ing about it being a bad card, that's still not good enough.
Stop complaining about color balance when evaluating a card. This is the backwards, outdated design philosophy that created cards like Gaea's Cradle and Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary. Colors should have more tools to provide color balance and an even power level between the colors, not singular broken cards. And, as WotC has stated multiple times, they are aware of the problem and cards like Hawk and Smothering Tithe are the first steps into fixing it. Hell, the white color pie representative even stated that WotC is aware and that they are working on solutions on how to provide White with real card draw in a way that feels right for White, just like they did with Red and impulsive draw.
Wrong. Azorius decks would still play Farseek if given the opportunity, reason why mana rocks are always extremely valuable cards in Commander even if Artifacts are always far more vulnerable than Lands. You seem to be under the illusion that Hawk has to hit any player at least twice to be anything but worthless trash, when it's a well-known fact that using 1 card to ramping even by 1 mana - something that, as we already estabilished, is not difficult with Hawk by any means - at an accessible mana cost is good.
https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=type:plains
Say it louder for the people in the back, apparently.
A hasteless creature that has to connect combat damage is not a valid comparison to an instant with the same effect. The creature is much slower and universally easier to stop in every color than the instant.
Now, it could still be the case that a drawback of some kind is still appropriate for this cost and effect in white. Maybe "Return it to your hand unless you discard a card or pay 1W." But the drawback as printed is going to push deckbuilding to more competitive options.
I think they should focus on the Smothering Tithe design for White ramp. Have it generate artifact token mana rocks at an efficient rate so that it gets the benefit of the ramp but more vulnerability to removal and no deck thinning. That way Green gets to stay king of ramp while White gets ramp that's at least playable if not as much value as options in Green.
Hawk is like... 10th string at best, and you're not super happy about it when it makes the cut.
Flash would've made this playable.
Yeah, you're just completely missing the point which makes me think you're not fully reading the post or your comprehension just isn't there. The fact that you're just grabbing sentences and breaking them up to respond to individually, instead of responding to the overall concept is the biggest red flag. The secondary fact that a bunch of what you're saying is just downright silly is another red flag.
So, we will just have to agree to disagree. The return-to-hand aspect of this card is entirely unecessary.
No. The point, as put very clearly in the last sentence of the post you just quoted, is that the return to hand clause is unnecessary. That they said they tested it and the card was too strong without the return to hand clause doesn’t seem right - because while good without the clause, it still has plenty of restrictions.
It’s not a good card if it’s red, it’s not a good card if it’s blue. It doesn’t matter what color it is - it’s not good the way it was printed. HOWEVER, and this is where the context of the color IS important, this bad card will see play in mono white because there are too few even decent options available. I already stated that it doesn’t need to be as good as green - and it still wouldn’t be in a real game with real variables.
To address your other point; you do not peel apart arguments line by line if you’re going to bastardize the context around each of those sentences. Which is exactly what you did. The only time someone does that is when they want to create a new narrative in order to hide from what was really said. Ya know, like click bait media.
For starters, you devoted three out of five paragraphs in your post dedicated to telling me how Green is much better in card draw and ramp to White and now you're really trying to spin an argument that your post's main point isn't about how White could use some help with a stronger card than Hawk? Okay. Then you are really bad at writing.
You're trying to spin your argument is that WotC stated that the card was too good doing X, then toned it down, but you can't understand why it doesn't do X and wish it was printed still doing X. While X clearly makes the card better than its current installment. Therefore you are saying the card should be better than it currently is.
So once again, what part of what I've got from your post is wrong?
But okay, let's evaluate this on a vacuum, to understand why you say "it's not about the color": Farseek and its kin is amongst the most played cards in the entire format. This card is not as strong as Farseek, reason being that it's an off-color effect and off-color effects should be weaker than their on-color counterparts by default, but it fulfills a similar niche of "a card that you play on Turn 2 and grants you a land". As I already stated multiple times, when compared to other two-mana ramp spells, this comes with two drawbacks (one-turn delay, far more situational if you're Player 1), two upsides (evasive body in the lategame when you don't need ramp, reuseable tutoring) and one non-issue (opponent with no Flying/Reach blockers at Turn 3). Two good, two bad - this comes as a neutral tradeoff, which makes this card good, because two-mana ramp is good. Repeating myself, sure, but it's important to estabilish why I think it's good to contrast with why you think it's bad.
In a vacuum, first thing you gave me here "it has plenty of restrictions". So? Undercosted cards needs restrictions or drawbacks - even the closest alternative to a reuseable ramp card in Green with no CA cost would be Oracle of Mul Daya, and that's CMC of 4. Since suggesting a Hawk with zero restrictions is madness and would be like suggesting Bob minus the life loss (and if you are suggesting that, reconsider your life choices), let's focus on removing only one of those restrictions, in this case the "return to hand" restriction that you seem to discuss the most. In the five scenarios that I estabilished in my early post, the Green player would use two of the most popular Green ramp spells Rampant Growth and Cultivate (according to EDHREC statistics) on Turn 2 and 3 respectively. That would leave him with 6 lands on Turn 4, having tapped out on both Turn 2 and 3 to accomplish that, and would leave him with one additional land in his hand due to Cultivate. Your line of play as a White player would be casting the Hawk on Turn 2, attacking to get an extra land on Turn 3, then recasting Hawk to attack on Turn 4. If you do succeed to do this, the results are the same - you still have 6 lands on Turn 4, but a Hawk in hand instead of a land, and you tapped out on both Turns 2 and 3 to accomplish that. The only difference between the previously mentioned scenario and this one is that the White player isn't ahead on mana compared to the Green player in Turn 3.
So since the "restrictions" talk is a bust, let's talk about the other argument, that being "real game with real variables". What variables? Well, you mentioned very little aside from one Knight of the White Orchid nonsequitur (Why are you saying you can't use card A if you play card B if both have the same requirement and you are making an argument that card B is bad? By simple logic you shouldn't be playing card A in the first place). In this point here, I'll take Gutterstorm's post as a basis which is more cut and dry: "you have to cast it, hope it sticks a round of the table, hope it can get through. And then you get the land into play. And then you have to use up some of that mana to continue doing it. And let’s not forget that Rampant Growth isn’t a dead card if you happened to win the dice roll".
Since the "hope it sticks" argument leads directly to "dies to removal" arguments, I'll completely ignore that for reasons that don't need to be stated, and if you DO want to die on that hill, don't worry, I'll sure we'll find a consensus on wether cheap creatures dying to removal makes them bad at the year 2006. As for the "can get through", as previously stated, not an issue in the earlygame where ramp is the most valuable - the only often-played creature that trades favorably with Hawk before Turn 3 in EDH is Baleful Strix. On the lategame, the ramp is also meaningless because a 2/1 flier body is more valuable than Rampant Growth's single tapped basic land. So, "getting through" is only an issue for Hawk at the midgame (provided that you don't want to use White's efficient removal to get through which would be reasonable if you're getting a land out of the deal), with the tradeoff of being better in the lategame, which seems somewhat fair. Finally there's the "win the roll dice", which is the biggest one IMO but also a reasonable drawback for a card to have - in EDH Player 1 is always one turn ahead, and numbers and statistics compiled do reflect that fact, with Player 1 having a clear advantage over Player 2-4 in win ratio. However, Hawk is not dead if you're Player 1, cuz Green do loves to ramp, and ramp is 5 of the 10 top Green cards in EDH. Hawk won't work in Turn 3 as advertised, but with 3 opponents and 51% chance they are running Cultivate, there's still a decent chance you'll get at least one land.
I did something clickbait media does. Therefore I'm as bad as clickbait media. Hitler ate sugar. Therefore I'm as bad as Hitler. Guilt by association is stupid, and context is only changed if I omit something (which even if I wanted to, I literally can't, since the original post is right above it), so unless you can tell me what important meaning I dropped from your post by cutting your argument to smaller parts, this is entirely meaningless and you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I think his general point is that, even without the return-to-hand clause, Glacier Hawk still wouldn't be as strong as anything green has in its wheelhouse (you still have to attack, and can never exceed land parity), which would make it both fair and a good step in the right direction for a white ramp card.
Personally, I think losing flying would be a fair compromise for staying on the battlefield.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Agreed. Losing Flying would make this absolutely unplayable. Not every deck can produce a flier early on but most of them can get a grounded one out.
That's my point here - people are blowing its drawbacks way out of proportions and want this card to be better than it currently is, not because this card is terrible compared to similar cards in a vacuum or because it's not what White needs, but because White overall can't compete with the other colors without something better than this. And wanting pushed cards to promote weak strategies is how we get mistakes, ones that could affect how White EDH cards are designed for years to come.