mtg, mtg cards, magic the gathering, gaming, geeks
Cost of killing a non-black creature: 1B - Doom Blade
Cost of putting a 1/1 black Faerie rogue into play: B - Nightshade Stinger
Cost of doing absolutely nothing, apparently: 2
Look, Wizards from 2003, we need to talk, ok? You guys need to start thinking about inching up that power level before it gets a little ridiculous. This is a 3/3 for 3 that makes me lose 3 life. While I appreciate the DEDICATION to the number 3 being shown here, you have to realize that in under a decade you're going to be printing a creature that costs one more than this, is a 5/5, has trample, and makes anyone that damages it in any way sacrifice that many permanents. We need to start stepping things up so that we don't shock people too badly by increasing the power level all at ONCE, you know?
I'm glad it only costs THREE and a tap. If it cost four, it would just be useless.
Let's see. I have four mana out....what to cast....what to cast.
Kitesail , and then hook it up. NOW THIS CREATURE FLIES.
DEAL WITH THAT.
Has anyone ever even put this in a draft deck? Has anyone ever even put this in any deck, ever? Also, why is it an uncommon?
One day, if you study, and work VERY hard, you might be able to be a 3/2 for 2!
Ok, so this would still be pretty bad even if it were an instant. But you know what? "Instant" sounds so cold and non-magical. In a game where the name is "MAGIC," wouldn't you rather cast a spell that is a SORCERY than an instant? I mean, SORCERY. Sorcerous. That sounds so mystical, you know? "Instant." What does that even mean?
I will give this to Amugaba - it provided a great chant for my cult when we're sacrificing things. Just yesterday when we killed that goat, we A-MU-GA-BA'd up a storm. Great name. It deserves a reprint for that name alone. I think I would actually buy a From the Vault: Terrible Cards that had a foil Razor Boomerang, an alternate art Squire , the full set of "(Some color) legends band with other legends," and so on. That would be an awesome from the vault.
I was so pissed when I saw what this card was. I was so AMPED about that art. Seriously, this card has some of the best art that has ever been put on a Magic card, and they WASTED it. WASTED it on a 5 CMC dual-casting-cost 4/3 that you can make unblockable if you're willing to hit for 2 and pay 2 mana for the privilege.
It is really difficult to be a worse counterspell than Cancel . Good job, Convolute . I don't even remember Ravnica limited; did anyone run this? I'm going to do a Daily Draft Debate with Ravnica just to see if anyone ends up mainboarding Convolute. And then if they do, I will punch them. And if Tappedout runs it, I will find all the users of Tappedout, and punch them. Except for you reading this. You're cool.
Because I have always looked at Healing Salve and thought "If only I could double the effects of this card while quadrupling the cost."
Let's talk flavor text for a minute. Usually you want to use flavor text to hype up the card. Unless it's goblins, who usually get made fun of, you want to pump the player up about this card. Like here are some examples I just thought of:
"Totally Sweet Lightning, R - Instant - Deal 4 damage to target player."
Flavor text - Those who don't beware the totally sweet lightning get totally BURNED.
Awesome. See what I did there? There's a whole parallel use of the word "totally" there that makes it TOTALLY SWEET. (I did it AGAIN!) It's like poetry; it's sort of, they rhyme.That's for a spell. Let's try a creature, and mix in a quote from an in-universe character.
"Australian Electric Sea Spider - 2UG - Creature - Spider 2/4. Reach, deathtouch, haste."
Flavor text -
"What happened to Frail Bill?"
"He got eaten."
"By the deadly Australian Electric Sea Spider, with its powerful beak."
See, and in that one, we took part in a little story. We shared in the tragedy of Frail Bill, and we also even learned something about the creature that we didn't know before. Namely, it has a powerful beak. PUT ME IN, WIZARDS, I AM READY TO WRITE FLAVOR TEXT. Although, my girlfriend did think of the powerful beak part. It seemed like something some terrifying abomination spider from Australia was likely to have.
But going back to Azimaet Drake , the flavor text is a recipe for the creature. Awesome. I will totally trade you my Liliana Vess for that helpless flying animal that tastes delicious with honey, as the multiverse well knows.
Always splash white in any artifact deck so you can run this.
Speaking of banding. Also, I think this card has a pretty unique thing going on. It's got flavor text and rules text mixed up on the SAME LINE. Crazy. For a second you freak out and think "Ow! Ow" is part of the rules text before you realize what's up.
Here's how I would have played reprinting this card, if I were Wizards.
Just before M2010 came out, I would have started talking about "reprinting a legendary blue instant....that we haven't seen for a long time." I'd really hype it up. I'd talk about how players have been begging for this incredible card to make a comeback for years, but that we've always been concerned about its power level. But now, with a reprint of Lightning Bolt
, we've decided that we're going to reprint some of those more powerful old cards, and we're going to do it RIGHT, with awesome new art and everything.
Then I would have rented a bunch of ad space on the internet, like Wizards does now, only instead of the "COMMAND THE NIGHT" or whatever random crap they have going on for whatever set is out, I would have shown the new card art for Jump , and clicking on the ad would always lead you here instead of the Wizards website.
Another fine entry from the "Oh come on, this wasn't even good BACK THEN" category.
Seriously, what's the deal with these artifact creatures that Wizards prints in core sets?
"Well, we should probably have at least one generic artifact creature in the core set."
"Ok, just make sure that it's underpowered and complicated just to use."
I have no idea what this card is for.
@squire1 - just limited uses lol.
I applaud your efforts Caley. I think you may have missed a couple that I'm personally a fan of deeming as the worst cards ever
Ikiral Outrider comes to mind. For an investment of 6 mana you can get a 2/6 creature with vigilance. For an investment of 18 mana you can have a 3/10 vigilant creature! oh and let's not forget that for 2 mana... you get a Squire
Did i mention Rust Elemental was an uncommon? Wtf
With the release of Dark Ascension, Graveyard Shovel is actually a viable (but budget) answer to Undying. You just eat the creature in response to the Undying trigger. That is on top of it's already defined use to stop annoying flashback as well.
Sure Nihil Spellbomb is infinitely better in most cases, but the shovel is in-block as well as repeated.
There ARE a lot of terrible cards that were not in the article, though some did get a shout-out.
This article happened because I was hitting random on Gatherer and I was shocked by how many terrible cards were coming up. I was overcome with the overwhelming urge to make fun of them in a public forum.
Ok... if were just a 3/2 on its night side, it would suck, but the lure effect is hugely underrated. A fortnight ago in draft my board was 2 hermit, on it. My opp finally runs out of spells and they flip.
Suddenly it looks a mite hard to block the pyreheart and the vorapede... he scoops.
That's why Hermit doesn't belong on the list. The lure effect can just skew games out of nowhere and I don't mind paying 1 mana for a luring reckless waif.
Honestly, most of these cards aren't that bad. Bad cards are Wood Elemental and Sorrow's Path and Scorching Spear. Most of these are viable in limited and even justifiable in a weird casual constructed deck.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of making cards "for" limited. I hate it. It's bad marketing, it's waste of cards in the card file, and it's a waste of money for players who don't play limited. But whenever I look at a card and gauge its power level, I try to understand that it could potentially be a powerhouse in limited.
The_Murderauder it doesn't make sense to hate on cards that are good in limited, as they are needed, as limited is a HUGE portion of how these cards are played with. FNM/ draft in all major tournaments plus one season exclusively dedicated to sealed in the pro tour rotation means that limited is a pretty darn big deal, and that there is no wasted design space.
Plus they typically represent a baseline for power so that the true constructed playables can seem stronger in comparison. Wizards has stated that they have to have bad cards in every set, so that we have a way to compare them, (the life gain artifacts in core sets are typically given as an example) but having these bad cards serve a purpose in limited makes a whole lot more sense than just putting actual junk in there with out a purpose. Think about it if all cards were good there wouldn't be anything separating the good deck makers from the bad.
I think squire1 has the right idea. Really no card is "bad" in all situations and formats. Everything, even One with Nothing, has its place, and can be the most efficient card for a situation in the right deck or the right format. It's all quite relative. If Wizards printed a zero-cost instant that said "You lose the game," I bet someone would find a way to break it.
Plus, I absolutely agree that bad cards are necessary to maintain a baseline of power, and to allow the existence of good cards. Even if a card is only "good in limited" and other cards are better, even in limited, that at least lets us HAVE "good cards."
But still, no reason that I can see not to make fun of these "bad" cards. Azimaet Drake is making fun of ITSELF, and I am just joining in the fun.
There is another problem with saying that designing weaker cards for limited is a bad thing.
In that situation, we'd be moaning about the low power level of Lingering Souls because it would be the weakest card we know. Equally, they could have made the baseline for creatures a vanilla 1/1 for 3. In that scenario, Azimaet Drake would suddenly look quite appealing and Serra Ascendant would look absolutely insane.
Without the weak cards we don't have perspective on the strong cards.
I think people misunderstood my point. I have nothing wrong with printing "bad" cards. I love "bad" cards. I have a pretty sick Obstinate Familiar deck. I think there's something wrong with printing "bad" cards specifically for limited.
The example of One with Nothing was given. Let's look at that. One with Nothing is, on the surface, bad. It can only be put to use in an extremely specific deck type, and it is actively harmful to any other strategy. Yet people still use it. People use it outside of limited. It sucks when you open one as your rare, but there is still somebody, somewhere, who wants to play that card.
Now consider a mediocre card like Armored Cancrix. Not bad. Not awful, anyway. I played it in limited, and it didn't cost me any games. But nobody seeks out Armored Cancrixes. Outside of limited, they will see virtually no play. And so, when somebody opens a pack of M11 and sees an Armored Cancrix, there is an overwhelmingly huge chance that it is absolutely, completely useless to everybody around them, forever. They might as well throw it out, or turn it into one of those cool Magic coasters.
I don't hate limited. I play limited pretty often. I just don't like the idea of designing cards that can only ever be good in limited, because I think it's a waste of potentially good design space. I've noticed that wizards has been getting better about this in recent sets; I'm very satisfied with the Innistrad and Dark Ascension commons and uncommons. They are interesting, and potentially useful outside of limited, and yet not overpowerd in the scheme of things.
I point everyone in the direction of this article. It responds to WHY WotC prints "bad" cards in the first place.
On the topic of this article, it's hilarious, and I agree with pretty much every card.
That card is really bad.
Unlike the best card every printed...
They oughta' make a From the Vault: Crap deck with goofy alternate art for each card. Some people collect bad cards, I think it could be a winner. And shouldn't that Squire feel like a winner for once?
The only card that's on your list I don't agree with is Merchant Ship. My mom always said you should kill someone with kindness and I think that card sums that adage up pretty nicely.
It's the reason why a 2/1 for two is better than a 1/2 for two, because I'd rather hit you for two than block a 2/2.
See Ball Lightning for further examples.
I hate this card with a passion and we should all talk about how horrible it is.