I'm really disappointed by this stupid cash grab, this card should have been an uncommon especially considering it's meant for budget players who won't break the bank buying actual fetches, but hey, now everybody who doesn't own a lot of fetches is going to chase after this card to plug missing fetch slots. I guess we can count on a cycle of common/uncommon mana fixing in the set.
Except that this will never reach the actual fetch lands prices
That's some consolation right there,considering Scalding Tarnis pushing 100 bucks...personally, I would have liked an uncommon fetch cycle, kinda like:
Affordable Tarn:
Pay 1 life, sac: fetch a basic Island or Mountain.
Established players will stick to their fetches, and people getting into Modern (which is the supposed aim of the set) will rush to get as many of these as they can and start brewing half-decent decks at least.
why would you ever need a cycle when this card does everything you need, the only reason you put the search for mountain, island is to fetch non basic lands. Prismatic Vista does what you are looking for minus making an entire cycle. If they wanted a budget fetch they would print the mirage fetches.
A, he was requesting an uncommon cycle ... budgetary and draft reasons can explain why an uncommon fixer cycle is useful. And B, even if this is strictly better than that, the fact is one could only have four of these in any single deck. If there was a cycle of ten dual-versions, then one deck could have 3 playsets of fixers and not be limited to the one playset of this.
The recurring theme seems to be players who refuse to recognize that some players are budget conscious. Some players don’t have the full 40 fetches and only care about things they can add to that. Some don’t have the full 40 and are looking for useful affordable substitutes.
This does not change monocolour decks, since fetches can also get you the one basic you need
A lot of people like to deny that other players actually consider budget in their deckbuilding, but they do. People who were inclined to play fetches as simple basic forest fetchers ... will be happy if they can get a playset of this for the cost of a single wooded foothills.
You really need 3 colors or more to require a fetch, and at that point you already got the true fetchlands. This card is basically "hey guys, I'm a callback to fetches that fetches stuff!" buy me bait.
Some decks run fetches even on one or two colors. Monogreen stompy likes fetches because it’s a revolt trigger (narnam renegade) as well as a discount on Hooting Mandrills. Anything with delerium or its precursor (tarmogoyf) gets real value out of adding a card type to grave.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A, he was requesting an uncommon cycle ... budgetary and draft reasons can explain why an uncommon fixer cycle is useful. And B, even if this is strictly better than that, the fact is one could only have four of these in any single deck. If there was a cycle of ten dual-versions, then one deck could have 3 playsets of fixers and not be limited to the one playset of this.
The recurring theme seems to be players who refuse to recognize that some players are budget conscious. Some players don’t have the full 40 fetches and only care about things they can add to that. Some don’t have the full 40 and are looking for useful affordable substitutes.
A lot of people like to deny that other players actually consider budget in their deckbuilding, but they do. People who were inclined to play fetches as simple basic forest fetchers ... will be happy if they can get a playset of this for the cost of a single wooded foothills.
Some decks run fetches even on one or two colors. Monogreen stompy likes fetches because it’s a revolt trigger (narnam renegade) as well as a discount on Hooting Mandrills. Anything with delerium or its precursor (tarmogoyf) gets real value out of adding a card type to grave.