[mtgnexus] Random Card of the Day - Rishkar, Peema Renegade

[yeti1069]

Saturday, December 16th, 2023; Uyo, Silent Prophet and similarish enough "reprint", Echo Mage.

Uyo can be silly. I built a wizard tribal deck with Uyo as the commander and Eternal Dominion as the secret commander. The idea was to cast ED with the ability to copy it 2+times while it was on the stack (the Epic effect gets copied off the initial cast, but not the copies generated each turn) to get 3+ copies every upkeep. The wizards were there to facilitate this plan, and to provide onboard control elements to slow the game down, then also give me something to do each turn, since I could no longer cast spells. It worked a few times, but I had a few games where I managed to accomplish to "mission", but then found 0 value among my opponents' decks--spellslinger, super-friends, or ramp built around a big commander were the pickings for one game.

Monday, December 18th. 2023; Glen Elendra Archmage

GEA is a fantastic, stupid card.

I'm a bit lower on this card, face up counter spell's, especially conditional ones, lose a lot of value as she can be played around. She's still good if you have some synergies with her (bounce, +1/+1 counters, reanimation, etc.), but if possible, I prefer Mystic Snake and whatever the name of that functional reprint is if I want to pull some creature-counters shenanigans. That way, even if I don't have any loop set up, it can still clip a game-ending spell by surprise.

There is much to be said for the rattlesnake effect of not only an onboard counter, but an onboard counter that can be used twice, for only each. You have to hold up less mana, and it does a ton of work just sitting there. Sure, players can play around it, but then you're forcing everyone into that play pattern, which itself can be beneficial. On top of that, there's the mind game of what your opponents think you think will be worth countering, and then getting frustrated when you let it go by. besides that, if you have other counters in hand, you can let them contort themselves into getting through GEA only to then run into a counter they weren't aware of.

All of that, and you can get even more mileage out of GEA with +1/+1 counter, blink, or recursion synergies. I run this in Marchesa the Black Rose, and it's often trivial having Glen available constantly (sometimes that's too oppressive). I also run this in Sefris, where it being a creature dying when needed helps trigger the commander, while also being a reanimation target, sometimes at instant speed.

I would only run Mystic Snake over GEA if you specifically have synergies with flicker effects to instant-speed trigger the ETB, and even then it's a pretty close call between the two until you start getting into Deadeye Navigator territory.

[Dunadain]

There is much to be said for the rattlesnake effect of not only an onboard counter

A counter that can be kept a secret is always better than or equal to a counter that needs to be face up to work (all else being equal), because in a situation where the advantages of having the table know your are holding up a counter outweighs the disadvantages, you can simply reveal the counter.

[yeti1069]

There is much to be said for the rattlesnake effect of not only an onboard counter

A counter that can be kept a secret is always better than or equal to a counter that needs to be face up to work (all else being equal), because in a situation where the advantages of having the table know your are holding up a counter outweighs the disadvantages, you can simply reveal the counter in your hand.

That's not even remotely true.

An unknown counter sits in your hand until the first spell you feel like you need to stop, but a known counter can stop multiple spells from being cast for multiple turns. It can hold back big spells until your opponents can line up an answer or multiple threatening spells to force your hand. GEA being 2 counters makes that even more difficult.

[Moxnix]

I mean he means you can reveal it. Which is true I've flashed mana drain to slow the pace of game before. But I think in this case the it has two counters and can be abused is quite relevant and makes that "always" part seem shaky. So unless the Conter in hand can be used two times I don't think its a very good comparison here. Plus blue mages run lots of counters now you have to ponder is that archimage the only counter have to get through? I will say to play devils advocate revealing the mana drain off say a merchant scroll can be even better. If I just flash the drain it might become obvious I have no big mana play to feed it yet etc so its a bit more murky than that

[Dunadain]

There is much to be said for the rattlesnake effect of not only an onboard counter

A counter that can be kept a secret is always better than or equal to a counter that needs to be face up to work (all else being equal), because in a situation where the advantages of having the table know your are holding up a counter outweighs the disadvantages, you can simply reveal the counter in your hand.

That's not even remotely true.

An unknown counter sits in your hand until the first spell you feel like you need to stop, but a known counter can stop multiple spells from being cast for multiple turns. It can hold back big spells until your opponents can line up an answer or multiple threatening spells to force your hand. GEA being 2 counters makes that even more difficult.

Then I'll just reveal the unknown counter and then it's not unknown any more...

@Moxnix thus the "assuming all else is equal" caveat. Glen's ability to counter two spells is a plus, the fact that you have to have it face up is not.


Edit: though you do bring up an interesting point, revealing a counter in your hand not only tells the table you have a counter, it also tells the table that you believe it's advantageous in this position for the table to know you have it. I struggle to come up with a compelling example where this would be a significant difference, even the Mana Drain example you provided seems a bit weak, but it is, technically a difference, so I will rescind my statement and instead say:

A counter that can be kept a secret is almost always better than or equal to a counter that needs to be face up to work (all else being equal).

I certainly wouldn't consider this theoretical potential advantage as enough to justify calling GEA's requirement to be face up a good thing, however.

[Mookie]

Evaluating rattlesnakes like Glen Elendra Archmage is tricky. It creates a prisoner's dilemma situation for your opponents - if they work together, the 'net value' may be higher for them... but whichever opponent gets their spell countered is going to have a rough time. That means your opponents are generally incentivized to not cast anything worth countering and let the next player deal with it instead. That means you effectively you have a janky asymmetric Gaddock Teeg effect that stops your opponents from casting big spells. It is possible for a single opponent to force their way through (such as by slinging multiple removal spells at it), but that tends to be costly and time-consuming to set up. If you have something like Denry Klin, Editor in Chief or Marchesa, the Black Rose throwing more +1/+1 counters on Glen Elendra to offset the persist, some opponents may even be locked out entirely.

...on the other hand, it's also possible for some opponents to ignore it if they aren't playing many noncreature spells, or at least not any worth countering. The net value is 3uuu for two Negates, which is high in value but weak on rate. It's also vulnerable to grave hate and opponents doing stuff at instant-speed with the persist trigger on the stack - Glen Elendra is certainly annoying to deal with, but plenty of counterplay is available.

I've been meaning to pick up a copy for my Animar, Soul of Elements deck for a while, which I've been shifting to be more of a 'creature-based control' deck. Stratus Dancer and Willbender are great, but there aren't that many strong counterspell creatures available (or at least not many without heavy color costs that don't work well with Animar).

[umtiger]

I love Glen Elendra so much.

I have a little wizard package of:
Snapcaster Mage
Glen Elendra Archmage
Sower of Temptation
Venser, Shaper Savant
Riptide Laboratory

that I try to play in every deck with blue.

[DirkGently]

@Dunadain I do think there's some psychological value in GEA needing to be face-up. If you reveal a counterspell I've met a lot of people that will go "that dude is messing with us, get him!" and punch through your counter wall even if it screws them over. Whereas GEA you just play it, and people can do what they will - people tend not to take such great offense to that ime.

But obviously that's all completely subjective. Logically I agree with you.

[Dunadain]

@Dunadain I do think there's some psychological value in GEA needing to be face-up. If you reveal a counterspell I've met a lot of people that will go "that dude is messing with us, get him!" and punch through your counter wall even if it screws them over. Whereas GEA you just play it, and people can do what they will - people tend not to take such great offense to that ime.

But obviously that's all completely subjective. Logically I agree with you.

True, as time goes on a find myself revealing my answers as a deterrent less and less often, partially because of this.

Is there some conspiracy against me, why is everyone disagreeing with my opinions based on the assumption that I, or my opponents, are going to play poorly? XD do I need to put a caveat in my sig saying that all cards are bad if you try hard enough? /s


I will say though, what sort of player gets pissed off at you revealing a counter more than an active GEA? GEA is infamous for it's ability to create board locks.

[tstorm823]

I will say though, what sort of player gets pissed off at you revealing a counter more than an active GEA?

It's not being "pissed off" to respond in kind to a threat, it's reasonable strategy. You are extending your threat profile beyond what you are playing to the board, and shifting focus to yourself that would not otherwise be there.

[DirkGently]

@Dunadain There is a sort of logic to it - the sort of player who is likely to think about maneuvers like "I should reveal a card (normally a bad thing) because it will be more powerful as a known deterrent than as an immediate answer" is likely to be a skilled player. If you're a scrub and some guy seems like he's operating several levels above you, throwing logic to the wind and blindly gunning for him might be your best shot. Wouldn't know, not a scrub. But playing GAE doesn't imply any of that. The scrub player may not even realize it's an on-board counterspell in the first place.

Sometimes with multiplayer politics I don't think there's really a "right" answer. Maybe the simplest example is with Door to Nothingness - say someone has it out and armed, and says "first person to attack me or attempt to disrupt DtN loses the game." If you go along with this (barring some sneaky way to break the dilemma with Krosan Grip, Stifle, killing them in response etc), you've already lost the game. Is the guy who just attacks them anyway and dies being stupid? Or are they just accepting that their only out is to call the bluff and accept the results? I think it's interesting to consider. I know that when I'm in the shoes of the door-to-nothingness player (or some similar hostage situation) it's the blind rushers that I fear the most, and make me carefully consider how much I'm willing to commit with my threats.

Practically-speaking, I think the most common fail-case when I try to pull off a "I have a nasty answer for whoever tries to mess with me" is that a scrub will immediately force my hand, and then the next guy will combo out when my shields are down. So I rarely reveal answers anymore unless it's a particularly stacked situation, i.e. I think the threat will very likely target me unless I reveal, the threat is a big problem for me, and I think the threat is important enough that the other player won't want to risk it dying. Just revealing an answer, apropos of nothing, I basically never do - and with a counterspell that's usually the only way you could reveal it.

Ultimately I'm not a big fan of DAE because it's on-board - the smart players will play around it, and the scrubs might force your hand depending on the phase of the moon or whatever. So I definitely prefer a concealed answer for obvious reasons. But I do think the psychology around revealed answers is...interesting, at least. Someone from a more cEDH background probably has a pretty different perspective than those playing regular commander.

[tstorm823]

@Dunadain There is a sort of logic to it - the sort of player who is likely to think about maneuvers like "I should reveal a card (normally a bad thing) because it will be more powerful as a known deterrent than as an immediate answer" is likely to be a skilled player.

I don't think this is accurate. It may have something to it in your case, where you are the one taking such actions and playing with people who know you are competent.

At any given table, if a random revealed a counterspell to threaten its use, I would typically read that as someone feeling vulnerable. If you reveal the counterspell to try to deter actions, it says to me that you lack the resources to handle multiple actions. If you had a grip full of answers, you wouldn't need to dissuade all threats, you could answer multiple. If your best play is to use one answer to try to stop people from playing anything that threatens you, I interpret that as you only having that one answer, and bait it out the moment it inconveniences me, i.e. target you with something you'll want to counterspell personally before making a play that can win me the game outright now that your one answer is spent.

Hence, deliberately target the person threatening to counter, that's how to unlock your own threats.

[DirkGently]

@tstorm823

What you've said is true - potentially. It's a logical deduction of their motivations, but players aren't necessarily so logical. And there are other reasons why they might do the same thing. But the psychological read isn't particularly important because the best way to handle is, imo, the same regardless. You hope that someone else decides to force out the answer - a win/win for you - but if no one else does and you reach the point where it's crucial that you get past it, then you bite the bullet and force it out yourself - essentially what you've laid out. Personally I'd prefer more assurance than a psychological read that there isn't a second answer, but if it's your best window then it's your best window and you take your shot.

But none of that contradicts what I actually said. Yes, what you've said is a reasonable response from a skilled player, but the whole point of my paragraph was viewing the maneuver from the perspective of an unskilled player - which would have been quite clear if you hadn't cropped the paragraph halfway through. An unskilled player isn't trying to get a psychological read, because they aren't capable of thinking at that level yet. And a skilled player isn't going to be intimidated by the skill level implied by someone else revealing a counterspell, so my paragraph clearly wasn't talking about them. We're talking about the logical response from completely disjoint groups of people.

Building off our previous conversation, do you see why I might feel that you invent reasons to disagree with me? You could have said the same stuff by appending it to what I said - yes-and-ing it - rather than misleadingly cropping my statement so you could find something to disagree with.

[yeti1069]

True, as time goes on a find myself revealing my answers as a deterrent less and less often, partially because of this.

I will say though, what sort of player gets pissed off at you revealing a counter more than an active GEA? GEA is infamous for it's ability to create board locks.

I rarely reveal information, because I don't often find that doing so is beneficial. Players will force that interaction a lot of the time. Similarly, holding up mana as a blue player may threaten interaction, but better players know that you have to make them have the answer, otherwise a single counterspell, or a bluff of one, holds too much weight, and time left alone will lead to more answers in hand, potentially. I find that GEA is somewhat different. Yes, players will try to force activations, but they rarely will risk the spells they actually want to get through, and are often surprised when I don't respond. One card not only serves as an answer to two spells, which itself is valuable (and provides deferred payment, as an option as well), but alters how others are playing, sometimes dramatically. Rattlesnakes are valuable for just that effect, even without getting into the card's actual text.

Do you mean GEA creates board locks by getting around the 2-use limitation (be negating the -1/-1 counter, for instance), or due to its forcing players to hold up plays?

If you're running few counterspells in your deck, then having a single card answer multiple spells is a big boon, even at the base rate of 2-for-1. If it delays additional spells being cast as your opponents try to work around it, then its even more valuable.

If you're running many counterspells in your deck, then having a card that forces your opponents to focus on that piece of known information, and work around it, means they are even more vulnerable to a counterspell in hand.

[Dunadain]

I rarely reveal information, because I don't often find that doing so is beneficial. Players will force that interaction a lot of the time. Similarly, holding up mana as a blue player may threaten interaction, but better players know that you have to make them have the answer, otherwise a single counterspell, or a bluff of one, holds too much weight, and time left alone will lead to more answers in hand, potentially. I find that GEA is somewhat different. Yes, players will try to force activations, but they rarely will risk the spells they actually want to get through, and are often surprised when I don't respond. One card not only serves as an answer to two spells, which itself is valuable (and provides deferred payment, as an option as well), but alters how others are playing, sometimes dramatically. Rattlesnakes are valuable for just that effect, even without getting into the card's actual text.

You said you find Gea different, and then everything you described could also apply to revealing to the table that you're holding a counter spell in hand.

Do you mean GEA creates board locks by getting around the 2-use limitation (be negating the -1/-1 counter, for instance), or due to its forcing players to hold up plays?

By getting around the two use limitations, if you aren't getting additional synergies out of gea, she's a pretty abysmal rate. Compare her to Scatter Arc, a card I've never played and doubt I ever will. Two negates is probably better than one negate and one card draw, but not UU better

If you're running few counterspells in your deck, then having a single card answer multiple spells is a big boon, even at the base rate of 2-for-1. If it delays additional spells being cast as your opponents try to work around it, then its even more valuable.

Sure, but still probably not worth six Mana, and if I don't have very many counter spells the fact that I have to reveal the few that I do hurts even more.

If you're running many counterspells in your deck, then having a card that forces your opponents to focus on that piece of known information, and work around it, means they are even more vulnerable to a counterspell in hand.

Once again, that's not unique to gea. You could reveal a Negate in your hand, but keep the Mana Drain in your hand hidden and have the same effect.

[yeti1069]

I rarely reveal information, because I don't often find that doing so is beneficial. Players will force that interaction a lot of the time. Similarly, holding up mana as a blue player may threaten interaction, but better players know that you have to make them have the answer, otherwise a single counterspell, or a bluff of one, holds too much weight, and time left alone will lead to more answers in hand, potentially. I find that GEA is somewhat different. Yes, players will try to force activations, but they rarely will risk the spells they actually want to get through, and are often surprised when I don't respond. One card not only serves as an answer to two spells, which itself is valuable (and provides deferred payment, as an option as well), but alters how others are playing, sometimes dramatically. Rattlesnakes are valuable for just that effect, even without getting into the card's actual text.

You said you find Gea different, and then everything you described could also apply to revealing to the table that you're holding a counter spell in hand.

Do you mean GEA creates board locks by getting around the 2-use limitation (be negating the -1/-1 counter, for instance), or due to its forcing players to hold up plays?

By getting around the two use limitations, if you aren't getting additional synergies out of gea, she's a pretty abysmal rate. Compare her to Scatter Arc, a card I've never played and doubt I ever will.

If you're running few counterspells in your deck, then having a single card answer multiple spells is a big boon, even at the base rate of 2-for-1. If it delays additional spells being cast as your opponents try to work around it, then its even more valuable.

Sure, but still probably not worth six Mana, and if I don't have very many counter spells the fact that I have to reveal the few that I do hurts even more.

If you're running many counterspells in your deck, then having a card that forces your opponents to focus on that piece of known information, and work around it, means they are even more vulnerable to a counterspell in hand.

Once again, that's not unique to gea. You could reveal a Negate in your hand, but keep the Mana Drain in your hand hidden and have the same effect.

There's a fundamental psychological difference between playing a permanent that has an interaction activated ability and revealing that interaction from your hand, and players react to those differently much of the time.

GEA's rate looks poor when you compare it to another counterspell. You could look at the cost as 2 Cancels that come with a sort of Shock attached, but that still falls short of a decent comparison. Sure, a 4-mana investment upfront is steep, but then having 2 negates available for each, that largely dodge further interaction--no counter wars here--and it shows its worth. You said earlier you'd rather run Mystic Snake. For 1 more mana, and easier color requirements, you get a better body, and the option for a second counterspell. After the initial deployment, it's a lot easier to hold up or than the cost for any but the top echelon of counterspells at 1-mana.

With GEA, it's not equivalent to revealing a counterspell in hand, because it represents two counters. You could reveal 2 in hand, but then you're giving away much more information, because your hand is of a limited size. Revealing a counter in hand is both tipping your hand on a hidden piece of interaction, and also conveying some information about what else you have in your hand. At 7 cards, 1 reveal may not be too meaningful, but at 1-3 cards, that's a lot of information you're giving away. At anything less than 6 cards, I'd say that revealing 2 counterspells is a ton of info to provide a savvy opponent. I'd rather have the 1 card on the field and leave my entire hand a mystery.

Speaking of hands, GEA also plays nicely with wheels, since you can get your counter out of your hand and have it available after discarding.

Anyway, my point is that, even if GEA was 2 counters on a do-nothing permanent with the same abilities, it would be a solid card. That it also provides an evasive body with 2 relevant creature types, AND has multiple avenues to extend its use makes it very strong, in my opinion.

[materpillar]

Practically-speaking, I think the most common fail-case when I try to pull off a "I have a nasty answer for whoever tries to mess with me" is that a scrub will immediately force my hand, and then the next guy will combo out when my shields are down.

Nevinyrral's Disk is another good example of this. People are smart and everyone will just gang up on you until you crack it.

I'm personally still a big fan of Glen Elantra Archmage. I don't really look at her as a Counterspell on a stick. I find that it does a really great job being Heroic Intervention/Mother of Runes combined with Thalia, Guardian of Thraben for bomb spells. People really don't like throwing Swords to Plowshares your way while she's sitting around.

You said you find Gea different, and then everything you described could also apply to revealing to the table that you're holding a counter spell in hand.

…

Once again, that's not unique to gea. You could reveal a Negate in your hand, but keep the Mana Drain in your hand hidden and have the same effect.

I don't agree with this. Glen Elendra Archmage is more mana total but you can upfront the 3U on a less pivotal turn. Then, by holding up UU you're threatening two Negates that can't be counterspelled (although they can be Doom Bladed). Having to hold up 1UUU for two counterspells can end up costing you significantly more mana if you don't have the proper mana sinks. Also, on board GEA is harder for some stack based decks to interact with than a couple of Negates in hand.

I've also found it's fairly easy to politic to keep her around. Don't just randomly counterspell things willy nilly and make sure someone else is the current archenemy. She'll throw a massive wrench in the plans of whoever is winning and keep your board safe.

[Dunadain]

There's a fundamental psychological difference between playing a permanent that has an interaction activated ability and revealing that interaction from your hand, and players react to those differently much of the time.

Do I need a flaming sign that says I don't care a rats ass about the power level of cards when opponents are playing suboptimal, or putting them in underpowered decks? I'm sorry if that comes off as aggressive, but I've repeated this multiple times and you haven't even addressed it.

For some players their might by a psychological difference, for others, their might not be, but that doesn't change the fact that there isn't a TACTICAL difference (barring the apt observation @Moxnix brought up, though, again, I think that's pretty minor).

I've had to cut Thragtusk from my Emiel the Blessed list because it garners too much hate, not because it's too powerful of a card, but because my playgroup is scarred from Thragtusk in standard and devote excessive resources to killing it whenever they see it. Yet I wouldn't say that makes Thragtusk a worse card because that's just a quirk of the players I play against.

GEA's rate looks poor when you compare it to another counterspell. You could look at the cost as 2 Cancels that come with a sort of Shock attached, but that still falls short of a decent comparison. Sure, a 4-mana investment upfront is steep, but then having 2 negates available for each, that largely dodge further interaction--no counter wars here--and it shows its worth. You said earlier you'd rather run Mystic Snake. For 1 more mana, and easier color requirements, you get a better body, and the option for a second counterspell. After the initial deployment, it's a lot easier to hold up or than the cost for any but the top echelon of counterspells at 1-mana.

Too be clear, I wouldn't run either unless I was planning on getting additional synergies out of them. That's how these "spells on a stick" are designed: well behind on rate, but if you can get additional value out of the "stick" then they can become potent.

My preference is for Mystic Snake because, when you don't have your synergy engine set up, mystic snake is still an overpriced Counterspell, where Glen Elendra Archmage is an over priced Negate that also has to be face up to work. However, I am VERY risk averse when it comes to mtg, and I think you provided a pretty strong analysis of reasons why Glen Elendra Archmage might be preferable. Ultimately, it wasn't even that good of a comparison to begin with on my part, as most engines only work with one of the two options, or clearly works better with one of the two options.

With GEA, it's not equivalent to revealing a counterspell in hand, because it represents two counters. You could reveal 2 in hand, but then you're giving away much more information, because your hand is of a limited size. Revealing a counter in hand is both tipping your hand on a hidden piece of interaction, and also conveying some information about what else you have in your hand. At 7 cards, 1 reveal may not be too meaningful, but at 1-3 cards, that's a lot of information you're giving away. At anything less than 6 cards, I'd say that revealing 2 counterspells is a ton of info to provide a savvy opponent. I'd rather have the 1 card on the field and leave my entire hand a mystery.

I think a card magically materialized in your hand in the previous example, if you have a 4 card hand and reveal a counter spell, you have 3 unknowns in hand, if you have a 4 card hand and cast Glen Elendra Archmage, you still have 3 unknowns in hand.

Sure, I would rather have a face-up glen and four cards in hand then just four cards in hand, one of which is a counterspell, but that's just CA.

Speaking of hands, GEA also plays nicely with wheels, since you can get your counter out of your hand and have it available after discarding.

Good point, I had her in my Sauron, the Dark Lord list. That's another way to get additional synergy out of the card.

Anyway, my point is that, even if GEA was 2 counters on a do-nothing permanent with the same abilities, it would be a solid card. That it also provides an evasive body with 2 relevant creature types, AND has multiple avenues to extend its use makes it very strong, in my opinion.

I certainly don't think it would be. But yes, if you are getting real value out of that body (eg. Azami, Lady of Scrolls) that is another way to get additional synergy. Although, you can't really have your cake and eat it too, if you use Glen Elendra Archmage twice, she's gone and you don't get to keep the body (once again, assuming no additional synergies).

I don't agree with this. Glen Elendra Archmage is more mana total but you can upfront the 3U on a less pivotal turn. Then, by holding up UU you're threatening two Negates that can't be counterspelled (although they can be Doom Bladed). Having to hold up 1UUU for two counterspells can end up costing you significantly more mana if you don't have the proper mana sinks. Also, on board GEA is harder for some stack based decks to interact with than a couple of Negates in hand.

I've also found it's fairly easy to politic to keep her around. Don't just randomly counterspell things willy nilly and make sure someone else is the current archenemy. She'll throw a massive wrench in the plans of whoever is winning and keep your board safe.

That's a fair distinction between my example and Glen Elendra Archmage, the truth is there's is no card out there that is identical to gea in everyway, but not a creature.

What I'm trying to argue is that Glen Elendra Archmage's need to be face up to work is a downside.

Imagine the scenario where I have Glen Elendra Archmage out with no available synergies, then imagine an identical situation, except I have a 2/2 with flying and persist out on the field, and an additional two cards in hand, both of with are 1-mana Negates, except I can only use them if I didn't spend 4 mana at any point during the game. You'll also have to assume my maximum hand size has been increased by 2 somehow.

Obviously, there is no card in the game that can do all that, but assuming you had a choice between the two scenarios, I think the second scenario is pretty clearly stronger. Therefore, whatever advantages Glen Elendra Archmage has over alternatives (and there are many) the fact that she must be face up to work is clearly not one of them.

[3drinks]

Tuesday, December 19th, 2023; Losheel, Clockwork Scholar

[Serenade]

I always draw it RIGHT when it would be a win-more card in Pia Nalaar, Consul of Revival. I am going to keep trying it because I think it has a place there.

[DirkGently]

It's a new card with the old frame therefore it sucks

Okay but actually, looking at the image compared to an actual old card, say Jareth, Leonine Titan|ONS, it looks clearly different. In particular the text box is significantly brighter on Losheel, and I swear the text looks different though I can't quite put my finger on it. I find it jarring to look at tbh. It's like the uncanny valley for cards.

Oh yeah the actual card is...fine? Not sure how broadly useful Dolmen Gate is in a format where people tend to alpha strike, and a conditional Phyrexian Arena isn't that exciting but put them together and he's a C+ card for a narrow archetype.

[Hawk]

Currently running this in Lurrus of the Dream-Den Tempered Steel, where as one might surmise it's fine - the deck does like to rumble and can trigger this every turn although it's quite awkward that Lurrus can't recur Losheel itself. It's a narrow band of decks that are Wx aggressive lists with a heavy artifact creature presence but we've had a few released in recent years like Zabaz, the Glimmerwasp where this card is rock-solid for sure though.

That being said, it's a narrow niche this fills - if you want to attack with impunity Dolmen Gate is cheaper nevermind just making your army impossible to block with an Akroma's Will or whatever, and if you want to draw cards when you cast creature spells this has stiff competition against cards like Rumor Gatherer, Tocasia's Welcome, Welcoming Vampire, etc. that are either stronger, broader, more resilient, or have better typelines for deck building.

[Guardman]

He's pretty good as a psuedo draw engine in Pia Nalaar, Consul of Revival (though the combat damage prevention isn't as relevant there). In my Armix, Filigree Thrasher // Rebbec, Architect of Ascension he is a beast being a combination draw engine/back-up Rebbec.

[tstorm823]

Building off our previous conversation, do you see why I might feel that you invent reasons to disagree with me? You could have said the same stuff by appending it to what I said - yes-and-ing it - rather than misleadingly cropping my statement so you could find something to disagree with.

You analyzed a play pattern that I would personally pursue with the explanation of that play pattern being "a scrub". I volunteered my own thoughts on the situation, an alternative to just being "a scrub", that you might consider maybe people are more clever than you were giving them credit for.

Does this convince you that I disagreed with the content of the post, rather than attempting to attack you personally?

[duducrash]

I run it in General Ferrous Rokiric always pretty good to protect golens and draw some cards