As such, I decided not to write a review. Instead, I will be providing a critique. There is a difference. And my goal is to make this "review" the most unique and entertaining among those currently clogging up the Internet. I firmly believe this will present my readers with more style and substance than can possibly be consumed anywhere else.
First, I will be criticizing these cards from the perspective of one who plays only Rarity-Restricted Casual/Competitive formats. I will therefor be ignoring the rares and mythic rares that Wizards chooses to leak in the weeks before the full set is spoiled. This is an irritating tease to us Paupers and Peasants and I'm critical of the practice because I insist that commons and uncommons are just as exciting and useful - in fact, even more so - than chase cards for spoiled little rich boys and girls.
Second, I will employ a simple three-tiered rating system, explained below:
WIN: If I like a card and have only good things to say about it, I will present it with a simple WIN and some additional kinds words about the piece, praising its play-ability and the thoughtful professionals who designed and developed a wonderful new addition to the game.
FAIL: Should I have sufficient reason to determine that Wizards has made yet another mistake in design that my British comrades might refer to as "rubbish," then I will use a uniquely modern American phrase to define the card as FAIL before literally skewering the card and the ill-advised members of WotC R&D who have clearly screwed things up. On purpose. Again.
PASS/PITCH/SCOOP/CHUMP/FETCH/MILL/MULL/ETC.: If at last I cannot settle on whether a card is good or bad or if its design simultaneously pleases and disappoints me, then I'll designate some other single-syllable verdict. I just haven't quite figured out which of these phrases to settle on yet, so I'll just pitch a bunch of them out there and custom tailor them to the individual card. Because, after all, like, whatever, y'know, right?
In the future I will be presenting set reviews here that take other Rarity-Restricted Casual/Competitive formats into account. But as the only one I currently play is Standard Pauper (which is the best of all formats, period) I will forgo critiquing the uncommons and focus exclusively on those cards with black expansion symbols.
Got all that? Then let's begin!
Actually, let's not. One final note: as there are a total of 101 commons in this large set to criticize, to do so all at once would make for an arduously long blog post, indeed! So I'll begin the praising and razing after the weekend in five future posts, one for each color and its clan.
For today, I'll go over the minuscule amount of colorless commons suitable for decks of any color(s) as an introduction to my unique process of critique.
OK, then. Now we'll get started after that brief mulligan.
ARTIFACTS & LAND
Let's start with a winner! Ever since Kor Skyfisher took over the format years ago, any creature that bounces another upon entering the battlefield has been compared to her. Now you don't even have to select a color to get value out of bouncing your other EtB dudes or enchantments. Sure, you can't bounce your lifetap lands, but why would you want the tempo loss? Plus, this guy's got a quadruple-grade-A shiny metal ass to bite. So for the design, the art, and providing the excuse to invoke my favorite animated situation comedy, this robot gets my first positive critique.
Cabel's Critique: WIN
Custodian of the Trove
Um, no. This is bad on its face. This will likely be turned sideways more times on the floor by actual custodians once big gaming conventions close their doors than it will on the tables. I wouldn't even recommend this dustbin fodder for kitchen tables. And definitely not for Standard Pauper. This one has earned my first negative criticism.
Cabel's Critique: FAIL
Keeper of the Lens
I'm sorry. A 1/2 for one seems nice, but without some kind of Golem tribal synergy, this isn't going
to get there in Standard Pauper. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Honestly, the best players in the format are going to know what your Morph card is without having to look anyway. Don't run this in your competitive or casual Standard Pauper deck.
Cabel's Critique: FAIL
Spikersilk Net
Comes now our first reprint and also the first selection that I cannot make up my mind about. This returns from Zendikar block and I cannot recall it being played that often, so it's hard to say anything good about it. On the other hand, it was a fine and elegant design then and remains now. So I cannot say anything too snarky about it being awful any more than I can cast praise upon it. This selection gets my first non-win, non-fail verdict.
Cabel's Critique: PASS
Vial of Dragonfire
Alright. This one makes me question my categories. What is worse than fail? Because this is actually infuriatingly bad. I loved my Aeolipiles from Fallen Empires when I first started playing Magic back in the day and was delighted to see Wizards reduce it from rare all the way down to common in an online Masters Edition release. I also enjoyed the flavor and utility of Moonglove Extract in Lorwyn block and still employ these in my Lorwyn-Shadowmoor Block Pauper decks to this day.
But this. This!?
What's with the extra mana, Wizards? Honestly. I don't only get to criticize this as indicative of Mr. Rosewater's New World Order being every bit as non-existent as the real-world conspiracy theories that reactionaries and ultra-lefts are deluded about: I get to complain about how what an excremental failure in design this piece of crap card is. It's no vial of "dragonfire". It's a vial of piss. Like the one a prospective employer makes you fill up in order to get a "real" job or to test yourself for a nasty venereal disease. Fie on this awful, terrible, no-good, very bad card and whosoever approved it for the printing press.
Cabel's Critique: FAIL!
Evolving Wilds
Ah, fetchlands! I do love these. I was pleased when this piece debuted back in Rise of the Eldrazi as Terramorphic Expanse was the card that inspired me to actually play Standard Pauper in the first place. Being able to run eight copies once this dropped enabled the most successful Standard Pauper deck of all time (Cleomar's Four Color Control) and every time it has been reprinted, I've been happy.
But this time is a little different because its appearance in Dragons of Tarkir actually changes absolutely nothing in the Standard Pauper metagame since Evolving Wilds is already a common in Magic 2015. It's a good card, but it's sadly redundant. Not only that, but I have a criticism of the artwork: it doesn't evoke an any-color-you-like flavor like the stylish previous printings of Expanse and Wilds. This looks too Temur at best and just plain Gruul at worst. It may not be as bland as its Dark Ascension incarnation (the worst example, which looked just black) yet I'm still disappointed enough to not grant this a win even though it remains as playable a card in the format as ever. This is a prime example of how this is a set critique, based as much on aesthetics as in-game application, and not merely a review. This printing of Evolving Wilds therefor receives an appropriately customized criticism.
Cabel's Critique: FETCH
So concludes the introduction and first part to the first ever Cabel's Critique of a New Release. All the rest of the commons will be reviewed before the set is officially legal for Standard Pauper play on paper.
In closing, just to be even more different than all the other guys, I shall work backwards. Since this is a gold set and each Clan has a central color, I'll be critiquing the wedge-based common gold cards as we-
-oh. There are none. There are none? There are none!
FAIL!
Stay tuned for the rest of Cabel's Critique of a New Release: Dragons of Tarkir. Until then, enjoy the rest of the set reviews being published. As always, thanks for reading, and good luck & have fun! Peace,
- C
No comments:
Post a Comment