Why Do Recent Sacrifice Effects Specify "Non-Token" Permanents?
General forum
Posted on Dec. 23, 2023, 9:21 a.m. by DemonDragonJ
I have noticed that some recent effects that force players to sacrifice permanents, such as Sheoldred Flip or Rakdos, Patron of Chaos specifically mention non-token permanents, which bothers me very much, because one of the main reasons for which some players like to play decks that generate large numbers of tokens is to have an army of disposable cannon fodder that they can expend without suffering any real losses.
Thus, I really hope that the "non-token" clause on forced sacrifice effects is used only on rare occasion, and that the default for such effects will remain all permanents, token or non-token.
What does everyone else say about this? Why do recent sacrifice effects specify non-token permanents?
FormOverFunction says... #3
I imagine something of a three-tiered system, where named creatures are ranked above nameless token creatures but below actual legendary creatures. Icatian Javelineers are more plot-sensitive than a generic soldier, as shown by their abilities, but aren’t an actual character. Maybe a better way to describe it is the difference between “Soldier #4” and “Communications Officer” in the end credits.
December 23, 2023 10:07 a.m.
seshiro_of_the_orochi says... #4
It's a lever to increase or decrease the power of a card. Classic Edict effects have the downside of your opponents chosing what to have killed to balance out the upside of getting around protection abilities such as Indestructible, Hexproof or whatever.
The "nontoken" clause is a way to power up the edict effect on the cards you mentioned. Once we need a lower power level on such bomb cards, we'll not have that. And if we get to a point where it's necessary again, we'll have it again.
December 23, 2023 11:28 a.m. Edited.
wallisface says... #5
I believe the "nontoken" clause is due to the large increase in tokens being added on-masse to the game. When a board is more-likely to be filled with inconsequential tokens, sacrifice becomes much worse. The "nontoken" clause is the to let it maintain relevancy.
December 23, 2023 12:47 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #6
wallisface, seshiro_of_the_orochi, that makes sense, but, at the same time, amassing an army of tokens to use as fodder for sacrificing is what I consider to be good strategy, so why punish players for having good strategy?
December 23, 2023 4:22 p.m.
wallisface says... #7
DemonDragonJ In the current age of magic, its too easy to amass an amount of tokens (Treasure, Clue, Food Map, Blood, Creatures, etc) incidentally. In that regard, there's no "strategy" to gaining these tokens, they just happen, as players play the game with generically strong cards like Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer, Fable of the Mirror-Breaker Flip, Orcish Bowmasters etc.
In this world, having a card that forces an opponent to just sacrifice any nonland permanent becomes useless, and there'd be no reason to run such cards (even before these cards were printed, forced sacrifice was an overwhelming-rarity in the game, just because the effect is soo average).
Added to this, the inherent "strategy"/payoff of running a go-wide tokens deck is that you render the opponents killspells pointless, because you're not running any strong single-card-creatures worth targeting. If you're running any nontoken creatures in such a deck, you're doing it wrong anyway (speaking from a 60-card format standpoint).
I wouldn't consider "amassing an army of tokens" to be "good strategy", as there's no inherent strategy to this - it's just an option for deckbuilding, which comes with its own list of pros and cons, the same as any other deckbuilding choice.
December 23, 2023 4:34 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #8
wallisface, again, you have a good point, but it seems to me that you and I have radically different philosophies regarding this game, judging from our recent interactions.
December 23, 2023 8:23 p.m.
wallisface says... #9
DemonDragonJ How else would you suggest Wotc balance/strengthen the effects making the opponent sacrifice, after introducing soo many largely-incidental token generators (and keeping in mind these sacrifice effects were already quite weak in terms of play-rate)??
December 23, 2023 11 p.m.
seshiro_of_the_orochi says... #10
I'll answer with the same question as wallisface:
How else would you suggest Wotc balance/strengthen the effects making the opponent sacrifice, after introducing soo many largely-incidental token generators (and keeping in mind these sacrifice effects were already quite weak in terms of play-rate)??
December 24, 2023 12:20 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #11
wallisface, seshiro_of_the_orochi, I do not see why it is necessary to do that, since having an army of tokens to sacrifice is what I regard as being prepared; that is akin to a player with a red deck complaining about how a player with a blue deck is constantly countering their burn spells; the blue player was simply better prepared.
December 24, 2023 9:14 a.m.
seshiro_of_the_orochi says... #12
By that logic, what you're doing is like the blue player complaining why the red player has enough mana to fire of an uncounterable Banefire. Why wouldn't red do that? They were better prepared.
December 24, 2023 9:49 a.m.
wallisface says... #13
DemonDragonJ the game has to work around balance - if one mechanic/playstyle is superior to all others, then the game will lack diversity as there’s no other reasonable strategy to use. Similarly, if one mechanic is too weak to be viable, it won’t see play and will reduce the card/deck diversity available to the game, meaning less viable strategies and a more-stale game.
It is in Wotc to have as many mechanics be competitively viable as possible, so that they can keep printing a wide range of cards and keep formats diverse & fresh.
By Wotc not working to improve forced sacrifice, they’d be effectively retiring it entirely, as it wouldn’t be used at all without some form of buff to catch it up to other mechanics (as is, it’s still barely used in most formats).
I feel like you’ve got ”your head in the sand” just because you really favour playing a certain way. That doesn’t mean that should be the only viable way to play.
What specific situation hurt you that’s making you loath forced-sacrifice so much??
December 24, 2023 2:12 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #14
wallisface, last weekend, I was using my Ghired, Conclave Exile deck, and another player summoned Sheoldred Flip, which forced me to sacrifice a non-token creature, despite the fact that I had numerous tokens at that time, which is the entire purpose for having tokens, to protect creatures that cannot be replaced as easily, which is also a valid tactic in real-world warfare; to have large numbers of easily disposable troops to protect the important people.
I feel that, by specifying "non-token" creatures in forced sacrifice effects, WotC is entirely nullifying the strategy of producing tokens; why would a player want to produce tokens if they cannot use them as cannon fodder?
December 25, 2023 10:04 a.m.
wallisface says... #15
DemonDragonJ Sounds like your opponent was "better prepared" ;)
Some thoughts on that interaction:
-
This could have been played around by having another expendable nontoken creature in play. "Disposable troops" don't have to come in the form of tokens.
-
Sheoldred Flips effect is supposed to be removing a creature of value, not just some useless lacky. If the cards etb were worse, your opponent could conceivably just be running something like Ravenous Chupacabra instead.
-
Note that as Sheoldred Flip lets the opponent choose what is being sacrificed (as opposed to targeting something), the effect is still incredibly weak/niche compared to most other forms of destruction. There's no reason to make the effect weaker.
-
Every strategy should have counterplay to it. The fact that your opponent had counterplay to what you were doing is just a sign of the format being interactive.
In this scenario your tokens are still as-valid as they were previously - you haven't lost any of them. Producing tokens is still a strong effect for chump-blocking, or go-wide attacks. They are still perfectly serviceable as " cannon fodder" - just not in every conceivable situation... there's going to be times like this one where the opponent can circumvent the token horde.
December 25, 2023 4 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #16
I think it's probably my favorite "super edict" variant they've used so far, actually. Soul Shatter and it's ilk have always been a feel bad when I get hit with them, it's like getting your True-Name Nemesis getting Council's Judgmented in legacy of yesteryear. It's not like they've moved away from printing traditional sacrifice effects, but watching Standard and hearing someone say "I can get a Portal to Phyrexia here, but it doesn't even do anything on this board" makes me appreciate 'sacrifice a good creature' effects.
December 25, 2023 6:13 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #17
Another way to look at this, though, could be that a mono-White Soldier deck is -/immune/- to these sacrifice cards. Could be funny to take that out to an extreme. “Sorry, I don’t have any non-token creatures...”
December 25, 2023 6:44 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #18
wallisface, yes, that is very true, but, to repeat my words from another thread, I really hope that WotC does not make "non-token" the default for forced sacrifice effects, from this point forward, and that the "non-token" clause is used only sparingly.
December 27, 2023 9:27 a.m.
I love those effects. Balor has become a big pet-card for me. Chain Devil is fun.
A less-discussed aspect of this is how it enables strategies that are reliant on using cards out of opponent's graveyards. If sac-dependent decks only allowed for opponents to cherrypick their least important tokens all the time, then you would never see any cards (tokens not being cards & all) of importance going to opponent's graveyards & you would not be able to synergize with decks that like to resurrect out of opponent's graveyards (not without having to make a mill deck). Not that I advocate for cEDH Tergrid... but there are much more casual & interesting cards & decks that do this.
It also presents a good balancing option against death-by-Voltron, where a few voltron decks will swing tall with an important (hexproof/indestruct) card, then incidentally spit out some token-fodder.
WoTC has been HEAVY on the rapid token-pooping decks with low versatility lately as well, so I think it is nice to have options to balance that. Or make players have to add some versatility to token decks. Also, token decks can still "token it up" with this type of removal, it just may remove a piece of a token engine.
December 27, 2023 2:12 p.m.
FormOverFunction That is right, this can also be a corner case restriction. I recently played against a saga/enchantress deck where tokens were being produced & basically, all I could do was remove an unimportant commander with this effect instead of the growing weenies.
DemonDragonJ says... #2
Also, what is the flavor explanation behind that specificity? I cannot imagine that there is a major difference between token and nontoken permanents in the story.
December 23, 2023 9:23 a.m.