Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade
Serracollector last edited by Serracollector
Just the simple fact that the player who has this in play first gets to play thier Fow/Gush/MM for free while the other cannot is so powerful an effect. Even if your opponent has all the removals, if you get to fire off MMs while they are tapped out with multiples in hand, ugh? I honestly like the "can't play spells with cc>lands in play" clause, but the no free spells, one sided nonetheless, insane.
There goes any chance of my bounty of the hunt deck to work
ChubbyRain last edited by
@fsecco depends on the deck but I would run one of each in my Kaya control list. People get too caught up in arguing about which card is better that I think they forget about diminishing returns and the advantage of card diversity when decks run tutors.
Also on cell so might have missed context. If so, mea culpa.
fsecco last edited by
@chubbyrain If you have 2 slots I totally agree. But my point is: suppose you have 1 SB slot for either Kambal or Lavinia. Which would you play? I'm not saying it's Lavinia, but it's not a given which answer is right. I don't think the same is true for Lavinia x Stony. You'd probably play Stony in that SB slot before Lavinia, in the current meta.
wfain last edited by
All the more reason to keep Goblin Cratermaker around!
Guest last edited by
Isn't Phyrexian mana still mana whether you pay a blue or pay 2 life?
fsecco last edited by fsecco
@countdabubba said in Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade:
Isn't Phyrexian mana still mana whether you pay a blue or pay 2 life?
No it isn't. If you play Dismember over Trinisphere, you either play 1BB, 2B + 2 life or 3 + 4 life.
Brass Man last edited by
I think it actually wants the Kambal slot rather than Stony's. Am I wrong?
I wasn't really thinking of any deck that has both Kambal and Stony Silence, I just meant "a card that you run just for the Outcome matchup. All I was trying to say is that the card makes sense as a dedicated anti-Outcome card, just as Stony Silence and Kambal do.
However, I suppose if you actually were playing both Kambal and Stony and wanted to replace one of them, it would be better to draw both Lavinia and Kambal than it would be to draw both Lavinia and Stony (as they get the most of their mileage out of shutting off the same set of Moxes).
If you're using Stony/Kambal for matchups other than Outcome then of course the question gets more complicated.
vaughnbros last edited by vaughnbros
Dredge cant play dread return, and gets its cabal therapies/hollow ones countered. If it decides to remove it, they lose their bridges. This is definitely not a card you want to see.
Survival hands that are focused on Bazaar, similarly, do not work well against this card. Survival is also fully powered and usually reliant on that mana for its speed.
Shops cares about this if you get turn 1 on the play. It loses all its moxen/crypt/chalice 0 until it manages to get 2 lands to play a Spheres/Thorn. This also slows Rod and Chalice 1.
So every single one of these decks is slowed, significantly depending on the hand and who wins the die role.
NBA84 last edited by
Also planeswalkers will be quite adversely effected. Rarely does one see Dack or Jace cast strictly off lands. Let alone Teferi.
The significant impact will be on counterspells however, as others have pointed out.
Within the scenario of this creature being in play:
Mental Misstep wars become decidedly uneven.
Force of Will is essentially uncastable.
Mindbreak Trap costs it's CMC.
Mana Drain mana only casts creatures.
Fluster and Spell Pierce uneffected
Interesting times ahead.
Brass Man last edited by Brass Man
@vaughnbros I think I didn't clarify my position well enough before. I agree that the card should have some impact against most decks ... I just think that impact isn't particularly exciting for the cost of a card. When I said that a deck would be happy to see it, I meant that I would be glad if my opponent had this instead of some other, unknown card ... like how if my opponent used a Swords to Plowshares on a Monk token, I would be happy - my board position is objectively worse, but I'm happy because a second ago, I assumed that card was something scarier. Similarly, a Dredge player might be happy to see a Deathrite Shaman.
I may be undervaluing the card against the field, because my default perspective is Xerox first, and then Workshops, and I suspect those are the two matchups where this card is at its worst. If I were playing more Outcome and Survival player then maybe my reaction would be different.
And of course, even a card with weak applications across a number of matchups can still be valuable if its broad scope frees up space elsewhere in a deck.
fsecco last edited by
@brass-man The thing that makes it hard to evaluate is that this card is easily maindeckable. Just like Deathrite rendered GY strategies much worse in Legacy not because it was the best hoser, but because it was a 4-of everywhere G1.
Against Shops and Xerox this is at it's worst, but even against them it has applications, specially if you land it very early. As I said before, you'll probably side them out on the draw against Shops, for example, but there are good reasons to leave them in on the play - just being able to get to your turn 2 knowing there is not going to be a Sphere or Rod in play is awesome.
Protoaddct last edited by
Curious, thinking about all the cards this prevents or counters, how many of thoes are cards you would name with meddling mage in the course of a regular game?
We know MM sees play maindeck, and if the crossover is there I think it becomes pretty obvious that this is maindeckable.
This absolutley ruins a few modern and legacy decks too. As a living end player I weep.
John Cox last edited by
I think this is on par with blood moon. I'm not too worried about it.
evouga last edited by evouga
Even against Xerox, Lavinia significantly weakens Force of Will, Mental Misstep, Gush, Treasure Cruise, Dig Through Time, and all the artifact mana. That's 25% of the deck---that's not nothing.
JosefK last edited by
@evouga It also makes dack fayden unable to come down before turn 3, and harder to protect with misstep.
I think this card will be huge in control mirrors. And obviously vs combo.
baishuu last edited by baishuu
I can't think of a single deck that she doesn't do something against. If Ravager Shops on the draw is her worst showing, landing her against a first turn Foundry Inspector still removes the line of turn two Inspector into a pile of free Ravagers and Revokers. It's not backbreaking, sure, but the beauty in this card is this incremental usage against the entire Vintage spectrum...
...and she pitches to Force of Will.
evouga last edited by
She does very little (except block) against humans/white eldrazi.
Stormanimagus last edited by
@fsecco Wrong. Phyrexian mana IS real mana. Mental Misstep will be castable through this card as long as you have at least 1 land in play as the opponent.
Juice Mane last edited by
If they continue to print maindeckable cards like these that prohibit specific prominent strategies, we'll eventually arrive at a point where the meta can't be anything but rock-paper-scissors with extra steps, except there will be more than just three archetypes in this awkwardly uninteractive relationship; the meta will be a boring mess.
It's bad enough now that we are expected to dedicate 4-6 sideboard cards against dredge, 3-4 cards against Shops (depending on your maindeck choices), and a bunch more to address the weaknesses of your specific deck.
Luckily for now, many of such sideboard cards can address multiple archetypes, allowing relatively frugal use of sideboard slots. But with each viable newly printed card that lops off a specific strategy from a match, affected decks would need to cram more sideboard cards into the already tight sideboard to compensate. If the invalidated cards are powerful cards that require and reward building around outside of such matchups, the affected decks would need to rely on 1-of or 2-of silver bullet sideboard cards, or give up sideboard cards for other bad matchups that are bound to exist.
Decks becoming obsolete is a common occurrence. But when strategies that are employed by a significant portion of the meta becomes heavily hindered or turned off by not just a few sideboard cards, but 10's and 20's of maindeck, possibly uncounterable, one-sided non-artifact creatures (for which there is no Hurkyl's Recall equivalent) like Kambal, Leovold, Thalia 2, and so on, in addition to the usual spells, enchantments and artifacts, how many negatively affected players will feel compelled to continue playing Vintage?
Even the decks that play these cards themselves will lose to coin toss, rather than skill, too many times in mirror matches. And how many pointless Karakas ping pong games will be played before people decide this game isn't worth their time anymore?
If printing cards like this were a unique or uncommon instance, it would be fine. But this card is the result of an ongoing trend of overpowered creatures that is set on turning every format into slow, creature-centric bore, where 'interaction' means hosing noncreature spells for as long as these cheap, one-sided permanents are in play, and turning them sideways.
Maybe this trend is a good thing for some players. But I can imagine a lot of people leaving the format if the trend continues and every fallout from Standard is allowed as a four-of for months after they are released. Restricting potentially broken new cards and determining if they should be unrestricted over a period of time doesn't seem like such a bad idea anymore.