Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Cabal Therapy also costs mana, except when it got into your yard from some other purpose; only Unmask is totally free.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

I'm not high on this card at all. "Sometimes" counter a spell? "Sometimes" kill a dork? And the opponent can control when the condition is satisfied?

In the early game, when cheap, targeted removal or countermagic is at its most powerful, this card is most likely to miss. And, if your opponent knows you have this, they can plan around it. As the game goes long, this is a decent enough spell, but then it starts to have competition.

Ultimately, this feels like another card kind of like Dimir Charm or similar effects. On the edge, not there.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

alt text

I didn't see a thread for this card, and I wasn't quite sure why. This seems like a good contender for targeted discard after Thoughtseize, along side Inquisition, Duress and Therapy. Like Therapy, you get to see the opponent's hand for B and typically have to sacrifice additional resources to actually hit the cards you need with it. Unlike Therapy, you can't be in a situation where you are unable to remove the other side's card.

In a world with Unmask, perhaps B is too much to spend for this effect. Yet, unlike Unmask, if you whiff with this card you dont actually have to commit any more resources. What are your thoughts? Is Vintage still too concerned about interaction on the stack to care much about more targeted discard?

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

It strikes me that this little dork is almost certainly going to generate 1 mana and 1 artifact, probably more like 2 or 3 in most matchups. Given that, does this have combo potential? That is, is there a reliable way to blink this thing while accomplishing something else worthwhile?

Another thought: since he spams out permanents, does he also have applications with Tangle Wire or Smokestack?

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

There was a period of time when @Smmenen was maintaining and updating a list of Vintage playables. I wonder if he's still doing that?

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Nature's Claim / Naturalize + Disenchant?
Naturenchant?
Nature's Chant?

PRINT.

Well, I guess the distinction between White and Green on removing artifacts and enchantments has been eroding for some time. This is the next logical step.

Interestingly, though, doing this after War of the Spark was means that we now have a bunch of enchantment/artifact-like effects on Walkers. So, while this card makes disenchanting easier than ever, we also have a new card type to pay more attention to.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

I was thinking about how the ping protects this creature, and I actually decided it doesn't really because Vintage has so many decks with big-butt creatures like Eldrazi and Shops. I feel like this girl (girls?) protects herself (themselves?) about as well as Dack Fayden, maybe a little better. It's conditional.

Ironically, I think the protection is better in Legacy where small creatures tend to more consistently rule the roost in the first few turns of the game.

But, since this card only costs 2 mana and probably at worst gives you a rampant growth if it dies immediately, it may be that being somewhat fragile is irrelevant. It's such a small investment that the removal probably was more expensive (in mana or time) than this card was.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Coming to post this, too. Two mana wasteland/strip mine lock seems pretty brutal. Even the ping is relevant as a way to wipe utility creatures away or grind out the opponent. The ultimate is also pretty insane in Vintage.

The one down side is that this walker doesn't protect itself. But, at 2 mana, does it really need to?

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

It's a crime and a shame not to print the entire Horizon cycle in Modern Horizons.

I guess WOTC heard Modern players clamouring for enemy fetch lands and caught the "enemy" part.