I built a deck around Aura Barbs and Sky Swallower back in the day, defensive, draw and ramp enchants, donate them all to your opponent floating barbs mana, kill them.
Affinity is a lot of fun, I played it a bit in the pre-ban format. 16 land felt pretty good to me, but I always wondered if lotus petal might be a fun addition, possibly dropping a hoverguard for it from my previous list.
I have a post-apocalyptic time commitment on Saturdays, doubling the length of the event isn't really viable. I look forward to seeing your last round deck vs me in next week's article. ;)
I'll comment on the length of time for repeat topics. I think, generally, anything that hasn't been discussed in over a year is fair game, as beyond that would strain almost everyone's memory. Six months would likely be the shortest time that would not be noticed by a decent number of players since that amount of time fits the now current block cycles.
That was a fun tribal champs event, and thanks to kuma for all his hard work throughout the season.
I wish the champs had more rounds (even though I was lucky enough to play all of them; well, kind of, thanks to AJ! (wink)). Maybe we could try double elim next year? For example, here's a link to a bracket for a 16-player field: http://www.printyourbrackets.com/16teamdoubleelimination.html. It looks like that would essentially be a 7-round event with an optional 8th round, if necessary. It would yield clear 1st-4th winners, a 5th-6th tie, 7th-8th tie, 9th-12th tie, and 13th-16th tie. Obviously, it's a bigger time commitment, but once a year with enough planning should mitigate against that. On the plus side, it prolongs suspense and playing time, and it mitigates against random bad luck due to bad draws and/or matchups. Some round formats, like Underdog, could be recycled for a second round in this scenario to relieve deckbuilding burdens. I, for one, would have even more fun.
Taking a cue from the NFL (American football) playoffs, reducing the field to 12 players might be cool too, as it really rewards those who placed well in the regular season with a first-round bye. It would likely increase the competition and deck quality as people try to get those byes, especially late season if close. As it is, the regular season is kind of devalued as lots of people make it relative to the number of frequently-playing seasonal participants. In the current format, some very strong mostly-inactive players may sneak in, giving some unfair early exits to the best seasonal players. Getting 20th (with some no-shows) may as well be as good as getting 1st.
On a different note, is it my understanding that Giant may be legal next week in Underdog? I'm not planning to play it either way (yet) but just curious. BoB
I would like to hear some more about being a mtg judge. You mentioned that you had some rules puzzles for players to see how well they knew the rules ie for wannabe judges. Can you list a few of these examples. Also what is it like being a judge at a paper tournament. Have you learned anything you could utilize in mtgo? Are there any issues in not having a judge online but rather a rules engine?
I would like to hear about bribery and collusion in paper, and what you are allowed/not allowed to say (together/not together, same sentences - when seated).
Thanks Paul, yea it was a light news week :) But I think AJ and I will be able to get some better banter in next week now that we have a cast under out belt together.
1) Yes even though the site is aimed at MODO, we are still part of the Magic community at large, and I would guess that most of the readers also play paper.
2) Also yes, with the recent changes to the MOCS granting pro players automatic invites, these events are more relevant than ever to the online platform
3) Yes again. A lot as changed in the past 15, 10, or even 2 years. If you think a topic seems worthy of revisiting, it probably is.
4) On thing that's been on my mind for a while is returning to previous planes, and more specifically Shadows Over Innistrad. In the past 3 years, we've gone back to Ravnica and Zendikar. While the original blocks were well received and generally liked, the revisitations have been met with a lot more criticism and have not gone over as well. What lessons do you think WotC can take away from this and what do they need to do to make SoI as beloved by the players as the original Innistrad?
I appreciate your dedication to writing about Magic: the Gathering. While I haven't followed you until I joined MTGO in August, I look forward to your weekly articles. Honestly, about 75% of your content does not immediately interest me; I don't have a need to understand price fluxes of the Power Nine because I struggle with Standard Pauper at the moment.
However, I value your introductory paragraphs. I've grown to learn a lot about the overall temperature of the general gaming environment. You cite other authors' work, and seem to have a weathered experience about uproarious changes. This level-headed approach allows me to digest news, and you often provide a backdrop against which to judge for ourselves.
Regarding your inquiry about what to cover in future writings, I feel like Picasso just asked us what he should paint. Your experience trumps a lot of what other people may want to see, but I think enough other writers may cover Topic X,, while you write about what you deem important (because it probably is). I would appreciate takes on reprints and their impact, as well as how the NWO may be influencing card value- especially at common rarity.
Please take time to sharpen your saw, reinvest in yourself, and do whatever it is you do to keep great content flowing.
As this was Erik's corner stone weekly post at one time, now it is yours. It is also your soap box. I think in that spirit you should be writing about whatever it is that you have strong opinions in the week you are writing this or weeks before if you get a little lagged behind the news.
Your opinion section is one of my favorite sections of the article. As far as I am concerned, you can write about anything that grips your attention at the time. Even things not directly MtGP or MtGO items that can be related to MtG (Which pretty much includes anything).
As for repeating things, that's fine by me, as history often repeats itself and the same issues recur again.
Thanks, gwyned. I really appreciate your responses with candor and sportsmanship. I see you as the public face of Standard Pauper, so it's a little humbling to see you reply.
I agree that so many cards don't automatically seem to fit into any established archtype, yet still SEEM playable.
With smaller sets, AND the NWO castration of effective common-rarity cards, maybe you won't have to do complete set reviews.
I would elevate reviews that focused less on 'borderline' cards and more about 1) Best Creature in [Color], 2) Best Non-Creature Spell (or Land) in [Color], and 3) Sideboard Star in [Color]. Readers could evaluate their own choices in light of your proclamations. Readers can improve their evaluations before sleeve-up cards.
You've always provided lots of great rationale in your card descriptions, gwyned, so I wouldn't want the paragraph-length evaluations to stop. What I may ask to see is where - exactly - you see this card thriving. If Goblin Freerunner doesn't easily fit into Izzet Prowess, that doesn't help me, really, unless I strongly disagree. What would be more helpful is to suggest how a Mono-Red Aggro deck may emerge with some combination of (read: NOT A FREE DECKLIST TO CUT/PASTE):
GOBLIN FREERUNNER DECK:
Aggressive decks typically want to finish their game by Turn 5. Knowing this route, playing hasted creatures with evasion and support cards may help achieve this strategy. Goblin Freerunner - a new card listed as the 'Best Creature In Red' - can help, too. Here's what I think may also work in a Goblin Freerunner deck...
Kolaghan Stormsinger has haste, but its morph mechanic seems too slow. A great Turn 1 play also helps the deck avoid Celestial Flares, and at worst provides another target for buffering spells or chump-block defense.
Mage-Ring Bully grows large with non-creature spells cast. Any cantrips refill our hands, but any 'creature(s) cannot block' spells may be better than a cheap cantrip. I'm taking Sparkmage's Gambit more seriously, because it may both kill two early x/1 creatures of stop flyers from blocking. While I think it may be the best non-creature spell in red for this set, I also think some maindeck/sideboard combination of Magmatic Chasm and Barrage of Boulders may compete with this card for space.
Spidersilk Net/Bone Saw costs nothing to cast, but provides very little support because of the mana needed to equip them. I doubt I will want a full playset of either card, and maybe not even four total copies of both cards in any ratio. However, Spidersilk Net boosts toughness and adds reach, but I salivate over the idea of feeding Mage-Ring Bully's prowess, equip only as needed, and triggering surge to drop...
Goblin Freerunner as early as Turn 2 (Turn 1, anything but preferably Kolaghan Stormsinger; Turn 2, 0cmc equipment and Goblin Freerunner with menace). Again, Spidersilk Net may keep this menacing goblin ally alive longer, especially if I'm forced into a longer game beyond Turn 5.
Titan's Strength's scry mechanic should not be ignored. Beyond this non-creature spell buff, I expect I may want half-a-dozen buffing spells, with which red runs rampant.
Infectious Bloodlust provides haste, a small buff, and replaces itself upon death. For a deck looking to quickly field threats and draw more cards, this seems like an automatic 4x inclusion. Further testing will tell.
Looming Spires are good enough for a mono-red deck, especially since it can provide +1/+1 and 1st strike. Our menacing Goblin Freerunner becomes so much more dangerous. I prefer Looming Spires over Kindled Fury because of the mana generation, but I will try either it or Sure Strike if I seek dedicated first strike abilities.
Cinder Hellion get the nod as the Sideboard Star for this deck. It deal damage with a considerable body with trample. It provides both damage and solid defense when cast, and applies more trample pressure in the mid-to-late games. I'd prefer having two damage done quickly, rather than force the ally cohort route with too many fragile (alebit easier to cast) creatures. Knowing that I can do two damage without having to attack and stabilize my defense/later attacks is an attractive option...but suggest that I play past Turn 5, most likely.
The rest of the deck should address card drawing, which likely includes Tormenting Voice, and a few more creatures. Valley Dashers and dash-mechanic creatures apply pressure, but we may need to consider the mid-range game against some control or token decks. Other casual considerations for the mid-to-late game may include options like Hardened Berserker or Arrow Storm, especially considering the expressed intent of attacking often and quickly (and knowing we already have Mage-Ring Bully and Infectious Bloodlust requirements of attacking each turn if able).
This has been my Standard Pauper Review of Red in Oath of the Gatewatch. I've covered several cards that merit your serious consideration. Does Goblin Freerunner deserve a home in Izzet Prowess or Aggro Rakdos? Will Sparkmage's Gambit be as effective as I suggested? What sideboard options will mono-red aggro need against flying opponents' creatures? Am I right to largely ignore direct damage spells in the new set as functional copies of existing cards? Join us at PDCMagic.com, register, and play in Standard Pauper events regularly held on Sundays and Mondays, and prove you are NOT A COMMON PLAYER!
Does this make sense? I never needed to use 'hit' or 'myth' or any new variable. I showed some cards I think MIGHT be good, and defended those ideas by building a shell in which are housed my cards' strengths. Am I wrong? Hey, I probably am far off base. This is why *I* don't write Standard Pauper reviews, though ;)
It seems like you're not the only one finding this set won't fit into your grading system easily; Sheldon Menery on SCG graded 29 cards on the Definitely Play list, but then only used 16 in his EDH decks.
Logically you should be using a larger proportion of Oath since standard pool is smaller, so it may really be this is a bad set.
I know you put a lot of effort into these comprehensive reviews, so you probably are disappointed if I tell you I normally do a search on "Verdict: Hit" and just skim the rest. Sorry. Like you though I'm focused on 'playables'. Perhaps you should try only mentioning the hits next set, but do more theorizing / metacrafting on those cards?
Again, thanks for the feedback. I guess I need to clarify my ratings (and come up with two middle terms instead of just the non-descript "borderline"). A hit is a card that you will always play in that particular color or is a card worth building an entire deck around. A myth is a card that you should never play.
And therein lies the problem, I suppose. Almost none of the cards in the set fit into either of those categories.
Goblin Freerunner is the best Red Common. It has good stats for its cost. But the two major archetypes that are running Red are Izzet and Rakdos. It almost certainly doesn't make the cut in Izzet. And in Rakdos and RDW, it might be good enough, but it also might not - testing will be required.
Hence, while it is good, I wouldn't say it's good enough to build around or be played in every Red deck. So I note that its strengths and weaknesses, and then gave it the grade I did because I don't think it's amazing, but it's better than average.
Goblin Freerunner gets tapped as the best red common in the set, per your own blog.
In this article, you reference FIVE DIFFERENT good things about the card, including valuing surge and ally mechanics, possible archtype homes, and the importance of menace.
...and this card gets a 'borderline' evaluation?!?!
Sure, you also suggest how this card is not screaming to build around it, but with the NWO, what cards fit this bill in common?
What got a 'hit' from you? A LAND that produces colorless mana, while you (and seemingly, everyone else) bemoan colorless/devoid as a nice try but not really viable as hoped. You hype Goblin Freerunner and 'borderline' it, while dissing colorless and giving a colorless-producing land as a 'hit.' Can you see why I may be confused?
Honestly, I don't care about how accurate you might be. At this point, my confusion stems from incongruency.
Example:
I like pastries.
I like fruit.
I guess some people may like blueberry crepes, but I do not like them.
WHAT?!?!
Appreciate the comments and feedback. This set in particular is fairly bland. Most of the cards aren't terrible, but they aren't great either. One of the reasons I discuss the cards and don't just give a rating is so that you can get some sense of which ones are better than the others. So I definitely encourage you to read the rationale, not just look at the rating.
But perhaps it would be better for me to try to distinguish a bit more in the 'borderline' cases. Either that, or stop doing a card-by-card analysis. Something to consider.
It's also very difficult to tell before you actually test cards exactly what their role will be in the metagame. That's why I spend so much time looking at previous cards. If a card was good in the past, it's likely to be good in the present, all other things being equal. If a card was terrible before, or isn't as good as an existing card, chances are it won't make much impact.
Finally, I don't see any of these cards having a big impact on any of the current archetypes or are automatic includes. As I mentioned, I think the Green and White are both good enough that we might see a resurgence of mono-colored versions of those decks (perhaps with the easy splash for Colorless). Again, these are things that I discussed both in the individual ratings and in the summaries.
Thanks, gwyned, for your analysis of all the new common-rarity cards from Oath of the Gatewatch!
I'm having some difficulty understanding your rating system; in particular, the 'borderline' category confuses me. I appreciate the historical perspective of new cards, either by cmc value or re-prints. However, those cards did not exist in a vacuum, and their metagame may be quite different than that same re-print/similar card in the current metagame. I fear your reviews may exist in a vacuum.
As a casual, newer player familiar with Standard Pauper, I look to guides like yours for insights I may not initially grasp. I don't think anyone predicted how Izzet Prowess would dominate for a time with 60%+ win ratios. Therefore, I can accept and expect how some predictions may be way off base in the real metagame, and that's a tradeoff for being brave to speculate.
However, sometimes you list a lot of favorable traits for a card, and castrate it with a 'borderline' rating. For White, you listed NO Hits (and none for Red, either), with 83% of white cards listed as 'borderline.' At that ratio, I cannot find much utility of the evaluations; couldn't almost anyone say that 75%+ of the cards MIGHT be playable in the right deck? Blue, Green, and Red all had 75% of new cards listed as 'borderline.'
Instead, may I ask what primary archtype gained the MOST with Oath of the Gatewatch? Which archtypes, that we haven't seen (much) in Standard Pauper, got a shot in the arm with the new cards? How do you classify colorless cards- are they best suited for an aggro build, or would it be combo, or...aggro-combo? I appreciate the effort spent in reviewing the cards, but with a wide-open 'borderline' ranking, I feel these reviews exist in a vacuum with no impact on the metagame.
I built a deck around Aura Barbs and Sky Swallower back in the day, defensive, draw and ramp enchants, donate them all to your opponent floating barbs mana, kill them.
Ive done that. Lots of fun :D
Cheat Magister Sphinx into play and cast Hidetsugu's Second Rite.
Affinity is a lot of fun, I played it a bit in the pre-ban format. 16 land felt pretty good to me, but I always wondered if lotus petal might be a fun addition, possibly dropping a hoverguard for it from my previous list.
I have a post-apocalyptic time commitment on Saturdays, doubling the length of the event isn't really viable. I look forward to seeing your last round deck vs me in next week's article. ;)
I'll comment on the length of time for repeat topics. I think, generally, anything that hasn't been discussed in over a year is fair game, as beyond that would strain almost everyone's memory. Six months would likely be the shortest time that would not be noticed by a decent number of players since that amount of time fits the now current block cycles.
That was a fun tribal champs event, and thanks to kuma for all his hard work throughout the season.
I wish the champs had more rounds (even though I was lucky enough to play all of them; well, kind of, thanks to AJ! (wink)). Maybe we could try double elim next year? For example, here's a link to a bracket for a 16-player field: http://www.printyourbrackets.com/16teamdoubleelimination.html. It looks like that would essentially be a 7-round event with an optional 8th round, if necessary. It would yield clear 1st-4th winners, a 5th-6th tie, 7th-8th tie, 9th-12th tie, and 13th-16th tie. Obviously, it's a bigger time commitment, but once a year with enough planning should mitigate against that. On the plus side, it prolongs suspense and playing time, and it mitigates against random bad luck due to bad draws and/or matchups. Some round formats, like Underdog, could be recycled for a second round in this scenario to relieve deckbuilding burdens. I, for one, would have even more fun.
Taking a cue from the NFL (American football) playoffs, reducing the field to 12 players might be cool too, as it really rewards those who placed well in the regular season with a first-round bye. It would likely increase the competition and deck quality as people try to get those byes, especially late season if close. As it is, the regular season is kind of devalued as lots of people make it relative to the number of frequently-playing seasonal participants. In the current format, some very strong mostly-inactive players may sneak in, giving some unfair early exits to the best seasonal players. Getting 20th (with some no-shows) may as well be as good as getting 1st.
On a different note, is it my understanding that Giant may be legal next week in Underdog? I'm not planning to play it either way (yet) but just curious. BoB
I would like to hear some more about being a mtg judge. You mentioned that you had some rules puzzles for players to see how well they knew the rules ie for wannabe judges. Can you list a few of these examples. Also what is it like being a judge at a paper tournament. Have you learned anything you could utilize in mtgo? Are there any issues in not having a judge online but rather a rules engine?
4) What topics would you like me to address?
I would like to hear about bribery and collusion in paper, and what you are allowed/not allowed to say (together/not together, same sentences - when seated).
From what I understand they were broken for the entire client last week and have not been fixed since.
Write about whatever you want Pete. Even things offline can affect MTGO.
Unrelated, does anyone know if replays for multiplayer games work yet? Just curious.
Thanks Paul, yea it was a light news week :) But I think AJ and I will be able to get some better banter in next week now that we have a cast under out belt together.
Yeah I noticed F8 being broken yesterday. I will listen to the cast later. Twas a short episode. Welcome aboard Marcus!
1) Yes even though the site is aimed at MODO, we are still part of the Magic community at large, and I would guess that most of the readers also play paper.
2) Also yes, with the recent changes to the MOCS granting pro players automatic invites, these events are more relevant than ever to the online platform
3) Yes again. A lot as changed in the past 15, 10, or even 2 years. If you think a topic seems worthy of revisiting, it probably is.
4) On thing that's been on my mind for a while is returning to previous planes, and more specifically Shadows Over Innistrad. In the past 3 years, we've gone back to Ravnica and Zendikar. While the original blocks were well received and generally liked, the revisitations have been met with a lot more criticism and have not gone over as well. What lessons do you think WotC can take away from this and what do they need to do to make SoI as beloved by the players as the original Innistrad?
Dear Mr. Jahn:
I appreciate your dedication to writing about Magic: the Gathering. While I haven't followed you until I joined MTGO in August, I look forward to your weekly articles. Honestly, about 75% of your content does not immediately interest me; I don't have a need to understand price fluxes of the Power Nine because I struggle with Standard Pauper at the moment.
However, I value your introductory paragraphs. I've grown to learn a lot about the overall temperature of the general gaming environment. You cite other authors' work, and seem to have a weathered experience about uproarious changes. This level-headed approach allows me to digest news, and you often provide a backdrop against which to judge for ourselves.
Regarding your inquiry about what to cover in future writings, I feel like Picasso just asked us what he should paint. Your experience trumps a lot of what other people may want to see, but I think enough other writers may cover Topic X,, while you write about what you deem important (because it probably is). I would appreciate takes on reprints and their impact, as well as how the NWO may be influencing card value- especially at common rarity.
Please take time to sharpen your saw, reinvest in yourself, and do whatever it is you do to keep great content flowing.
Thanks, and be well-
Dave
As this was Erik's corner stone weekly post at one time, now it is yours. It is also your soap box. I think in that spirit you should be writing about whatever it is that you have strong opinions in the week you are writing this or weeks before if you get a little lagged behind the news.
Your opinion section is one of my favorite sections of the article. As far as I am concerned, you can write about anything that grips your attention at the time. Even things not directly MtGP or MtGO items that can be related to MtG (Which pretty much includes anything).
As for repeating things, that's fine by me, as history often repeats itself and the same issues recur again.
Thanks, gwyned. I really appreciate your responses with candor and sportsmanship. I see you as the public face of Standard Pauper, so it's a little humbling to see you reply.
I agree that so many cards don't automatically seem to fit into any established archtype, yet still SEEM playable.
With smaller sets, AND the NWO castration of effective common-rarity cards, maybe you won't have to do complete set reviews.
I would elevate reviews that focused less on 'borderline' cards and more about 1) Best Creature in [Color], 2) Best Non-Creature Spell (or Land) in [Color], and 3) Sideboard Star in [Color]. Readers could evaluate their own choices in light of your proclamations. Readers can improve their evaluations before sleeve-up cards.
You've always provided lots of great rationale in your card descriptions, gwyned, so I wouldn't want the paragraph-length evaluations to stop. What I may ask to see is where - exactly - you see this card thriving. If Goblin Freerunner doesn't easily fit into Izzet Prowess, that doesn't help me, really, unless I strongly disagree. What would be more helpful is to suggest how a Mono-Red Aggro deck may emerge with some combination of (read: NOT A FREE DECKLIST TO CUT/PASTE):
GOBLIN FREERUNNER DECK:
Aggressive decks typically want to finish their game by Turn 5. Knowing this route, playing hasted creatures with evasion and support cards may help achieve this strategy. Goblin Freerunner - a new card listed as the 'Best Creature In Red' - can help, too. Here's what I think may also work in a Goblin Freerunner deck...
Kolaghan Stormsinger has haste, but its morph mechanic seems too slow. A great Turn 1 play also helps the deck avoid Celestial Flares, and at worst provides another target for buffering spells or chump-block defense.
Mage-Ring Bully grows large with non-creature spells cast. Any cantrips refill our hands, but any 'creature(s) cannot block' spells may be better than a cheap cantrip. I'm taking Sparkmage's Gambit more seriously, because it may both kill two early x/1 creatures of stop flyers from blocking. While I think it may be the best non-creature spell in red for this set, I also think some maindeck/sideboard combination of Magmatic Chasm and Barrage of Boulders may compete with this card for space.
Spidersilk Net/Bone Saw costs nothing to cast, but provides very little support because of the mana needed to equip them. I doubt I will want a full playset of either card, and maybe not even four total copies of both cards in any ratio. However, Spidersilk Net boosts toughness and adds reach, but I salivate over the idea of feeding Mage-Ring Bully's prowess, equip only as needed, and triggering surge to drop...
Goblin Freerunner as early as Turn 2 (Turn 1, anything but preferably Kolaghan Stormsinger; Turn 2, 0cmc equipment and Goblin Freerunner with menace). Again, Spidersilk Net may keep this menacing goblin ally alive longer, especially if I'm forced into a longer game beyond Turn 5.
Titan's Strength's scry mechanic should not be ignored. Beyond this non-creature spell buff, I expect I may want half-a-dozen buffing spells, with which red runs rampant.
Infectious Bloodlust provides haste, a small buff, and replaces itself upon death. For a deck looking to quickly field threats and draw more cards, this seems like an automatic 4x inclusion. Further testing will tell.
Looming Spires are good enough for a mono-red deck, especially since it can provide +1/+1 and 1st strike. Our menacing Goblin Freerunner becomes so much more dangerous. I prefer Looming Spires over Kindled Fury because of the mana generation, but I will try either it or Sure Strike if I seek dedicated first strike abilities.
Cinder Hellion get the nod as the Sideboard Star for this deck. It deal damage with a considerable body with trample. It provides both damage and solid defense when cast, and applies more trample pressure in the mid-to-late games. I'd prefer having two damage done quickly, rather than force the ally cohort route with too many fragile (alebit easier to cast) creatures. Knowing that I can do two damage without having to attack and stabilize my defense/later attacks is an attractive option...but suggest that I play past Turn 5, most likely.
The rest of the deck should address card drawing, which likely includes Tormenting Voice, and a few more creatures. Valley Dashers and dash-mechanic creatures apply pressure, but we may need to consider the mid-range game against some control or token decks. Other casual considerations for the mid-to-late game may include options like Hardened Berserker or Arrow Storm, especially considering the expressed intent of attacking often and quickly (and knowing we already have Mage-Ring Bully and Infectious Bloodlust requirements of attacking each turn if able).
This has been my Standard Pauper Review of Red in Oath of the Gatewatch. I've covered several cards that merit your serious consideration. Does Goblin Freerunner deserve a home in Izzet Prowess or Aggro Rakdos? Will Sparkmage's Gambit be as effective as I suggested? What sideboard options will mono-red aggro need against flying opponents' creatures? Am I right to largely ignore direct damage spells in the new set as functional copies of existing cards? Join us at PDCMagic.com, register, and play in Standard Pauper events regularly held on Sundays and Mondays, and prove you are NOT A COMMON PLAYER!
Does this make sense? I never needed to use 'hit' or 'myth' or any new variable. I showed some cards I think MIGHT be good, and defended those ideas by building a shell in which are housed my cards' strengths. Am I wrong? Hey, I probably am far off base. This is why *I* don't write Standard Pauper reviews, though ;)
It seems like you're not the only one finding this set won't fit into your grading system easily; Sheldon Menery on SCG graded 29 cards on the Definitely Play list, but then only used 16 in his EDH decks.
Logically you should be using a larger proportion of Oath since standard pool is smaller, so it may really be this is a bad set.
I know you put a lot of effort into these comprehensive reviews, so you probably are disappointed if I tell you I normally do a search on "Verdict: Hit" and just skim the rest. Sorry. Like you though I'm focused on 'playables'. Perhaps you should try only mentioning the hits next set, but do more theorizing / metacrafting on those cards?
Again, thanks for the feedback. I guess I need to clarify my ratings (and come up with two middle terms instead of just the non-descript "borderline"). A hit is a card that you will always play in that particular color or is a card worth building an entire deck around. A myth is a card that you should never play.
And therein lies the problem, I suppose. Almost none of the cards in the set fit into either of those categories.
Goblin Freerunner is the best Red Common. It has good stats for its cost. But the two major archetypes that are running Red are Izzet and Rakdos. It almost certainly doesn't make the cut in Izzet. And in Rakdos and RDW, it might be good enough, but it also might not - testing will be required.
Hence, while it is good, I wouldn't say it's good enough to build around or be played in every Red deck. So I note that its strengths and weaknesses, and then gave it the grade I did because I don't think it's amazing, but it's better than average.
I guess I am confused as a newer player.
Goblin Freerunner gets tapped as the best red common in the set, per your own blog.
In this article, you reference FIVE DIFFERENT good things about the card, including valuing surge and ally mechanics, possible archtype homes, and the importance of menace.
...and this card gets a 'borderline' evaluation?!?!
Sure, you also suggest how this card is not screaming to build around it, but with the NWO, what cards fit this bill in common?
What got a 'hit' from you? A LAND that produces colorless mana, while you (and seemingly, everyone else) bemoan colorless/devoid as a nice try but not really viable as hoped. You hype Goblin Freerunner and 'borderline' it, while dissing colorless and giving a colorless-producing land as a 'hit.' Can you see why I may be confused?
Honestly, I don't care about how accurate you might be. At this point, my confusion stems from incongruency.
Example:
I like pastries.
I like fruit.
I guess some people may like blueberry crepes, but I do not like them.
WHAT?!?!
Appreciate the comments and feedback. This set in particular is fairly bland. Most of the cards aren't terrible, but they aren't great either. One of the reasons I discuss the cards and don't just give a rating is so that you can get some sense of which ones are better than the others. So I definitely encourage you to read the rationale, not just look at the rating.
But perhaps it would be better for me to try to distinguish a bit more in the 'borderline' cases. Either that, or stop doing a card-by-card analysis. Something to consider.
It's also very difficult to tell before you actually test cards exactly what their role will be in the metagame. That's why I spend so much time looking at previous cards. If a card was good in the past, it's likely to be good in the present, all other things being equal. If a card was terrible before, or isn't as good as an existing card, chances are it won't make much impact.
Finally, I don't see any of these cards having a big impact on any of the current archetypes or are automatic includes. As I mentioned, I think the Green and White are both good enough that we might see a resurgence of mono-colored versions of those decks (perhaps with the easy splash for Colorless). Again, these are things that I discussed both in the individual ratings and in the summaries.
Thanks, gwyned, for your analysis of all the new common-rarity cards from Oath of the Gatewatch!
I'm having some difficulty understanding your rating system; in particular, the 'borderline' category confuses me. I appreciate the historical perspective of new cards, either by cmc value or re-prints. However, those cards did not exist in a vacuum, and their metagame may be quite different than that same re-print/similar card in the current metagame. I fear your reviews may exist in a vacuum.
As a casual, newer player familiar with Standard Pauper, I look to guides like yours for insights I may not initially grasp. I don't think anyone predicted how Izzet Prowess would dominate for a time with 60%+ win ratios. Therefore, I can accept and expect how some predictions may be way off base in the real metagame, and that's a tradeoff for being brave to speculate.
However, sometimes you list a lot of favorable traits for a card, and castrate it with a 'borderline' rating. For White, you listed NO Hits (and none for Red, either), with 83% of white cards listed as 'borderline.' At that ratio, I cannot find much utility of the evaluations; couldn't almost anyone say that 75%+ of the cards MIGHT be playable in the right deck? Blue, Green, and Red all had 75% of new cards listed as 'borderline.'
Instead, may I ask what primary archtype gained the MOST with Oath of the Gatewatch? Which archtypes, that we haven't seen (much) in Standard Pauper, got a shot in the arm with the new cards? How do you classify colorless cards- are they best suited for an aggro build, or would it be combo, or...aggro-combo? I appreciate the effort spent in reviewing the cards, but with a wide-open 'borderline' ranking, I feel these reviews exist in a vacuum with no impact on the metagame.
I like your articles, but aren't there way too many Borderline rated cards?
Well crap, That did get released after saviors didn't it?
That was when core sets were every other year still right?
My mistake there.