Casual Card Hall of Fame Discussion
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
I don't know. I probably would have gone with Dark Depths myself had I been on the committee, but it does seem like we're getting a lot of flashy rares as winners. The nominees themselves are somewhat diverse, but it seems like the cards that actually win are always cast from the same mold...
Mana cost: 5-8, enough for a powerful card, but not too much to hard-cast
Rarity: Rare--no contest
Card type: Creature!
Power/Toughness: At least 3/3, but probably 4/4 to 6/6. Stuff like 4/5 or 6/4 is good, but 5/1 or 0/8 makes it less potent for either blocking or attacking. And once you get bigger than 6/6 or 7/7, you're dealing with stuff that's strictly designed to beat people's heads in, which isn't very interesting...
Abilities: Flying or something is a nice bonus, but it should definitely have some sort of activated ability, very probably with tapping as the cost, and the more unique the better...
Mana cost: 5-8, enough for a powerful card, but not too much to hard-cast
Rarity: Rare--no contest
Card type: Creature!
Power/Toughness: At least 3/3, but probably 4/4 to 6/6. Stuff like 4/5 or 6/4 is good, but 5/1 or 0/8 makes it less potent for either blocking or attacking. And once you get bigger than 6/6 or 7/7, you're dealing with stuff that's strictly designed to beat people's heads in, which isn't very interesting...
Abilities: Flying or something is a nice bonus, but it should definitely have some sort of activated ability, very probably with tapping as the cost, and the more unique the better...
E
Ephraim
Guest
One of my criteria in selecting a card for the Hall of Fame is that the card does not lend itself solely to singular and obvious strategies. In the most recent vote, I felt that Adarkar Valkyrie, in addition to having very attractive numbers, also has an ability with diverse utility.
In Dark Depths, I saw a card that plain-and-simple requires a deck to be built around it. If the deck is not built around Dark Depths, then it will almost certainly have something better to do with 3 mana every turn and can typically win long before Dark Depths has accumulated enough counters to matter.
Contrast this with a past selection that I supported: Evolution Vat. It plays best in a deck designed to abuse it. On the other hand, it does not play poorly anywhere that you might consider playing with Dragon Blood. It has a lot of low-level utility combined with a flashy ability that makes it very exciting to play.
In Dark Depths, I saw a card that plain-and-simple requires a deck to be built around it. If the deck is not built around Dark Depths, then it will almost certainly have something better to do with 3 mana every turn and can typically win long before Dark Depths has accumulated enough counters to matter.
Contrast this with a past selection that I supported: Evolution Vat. It plays best in a deck designed to abuse it. On the other hand, it does not play poorly anywhere that you might consider playing with Dragon Blood. It has a lot of low-level utility combined with a flashy ability that makes it very exciting to play.
Okay, I can respect that rationale, though I disagree with your concept of Dark Depths being "plain-and-simple" and with your idea that something "plain-and-simple" requires a deck to be built around it (along with Adarkar's ability being diverse. I find it's rather restrictive, considering that you have to target the creature while it's still in play).
However, I understand your reasoning behind the selection.
On Evolution Vat: Why would considering to play it over Dragon Blood make it casual?
Ransac, cpa trash man
However, I understand your reasoning behind the selection.
On Evolution Vat: Why would considering to play it over Dragon Blood make it casual?
Ransac, cpa trash man
E
Ephraim
Guest
I was just trying to say that it is at least as versatile as Dragon Blood. One +1/+1 counter at a time is still useful, even though people tend to look at it and think, "But what if I never have enough mana to use the bonus ability?"
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
Dark Depths didn't win. I'm talking about the cards that tend to win. The nominations seem more diverse.Mooseman said:
Since I'm talking about my perception of the winners, I'd better also take a look at the numbers. Since Legions (a rather arbitrary cutoff, but the earlier sets seemed pretty diverse in their winners from what I remember), what percentage have been creatures and how does it compare to before Legions?
Well, it's not as bad as I thought, but there's a marked difference. Before Legions: 12 out of the 28 winners were creatures. After Legions, 8 out of the 12 winners were creatures. Roughly 40% vs. roughly 60%. My complaint about them having tap-activated abilities was probably inspired by the very recent ones. All three of the last winners (two of which have been creatures) have tap-activated abilities. But a lot of the other stuff since Legions has not.
The trend with creatures winning is there, although it's not as bad as I thought, and I forgot that some of the recent winners are pretty low-power creatures, rather than the generic "I can attack for a lot of damage, block a lot of damage, maybe use some sort of evasive ability to get past blockers, and I have a cool activated ability too!" legendary creatures I had in mind.
But the rare thing is actually worse than I'd imagined. Since Legions, our winners have been 0 commons, 2 uncommons, and 10 rares. Before Legions it was 2 commons, 6 uncommons, and 20 rares. That's like 17% non-rare vs. 40%. Obviously the nature of print runs is going to affect this and create a strong bias toward rares. But I'd like to think that there are still interesting commons and uncommons being printed...
I think the very nature of commons and uncommons (really, the rarity system) works against them in this kind of thing.
To me, the "Casual Hall of Fame" means a card that stands out in terms of mechanics and playability among non-tournament players. A common card is usually one that you will open/see lots of times, so the mechanics are either shared/spread among the colors or at some point in the expansions, rehashed. It may make it still a good card for the casual scene, but not one that's Hall of Fame worthy.
To me, the "Casual Hall of Fame" means a card that stands out in terms of mechanics and playability among non-tournament players. A common card is usually one that you will open/see lots of times, so the mechanics are either shared/spread among the colors or at some point in the expansions, rehashed. It may make it still a good card for the casual scene, but not one that's Hall of Fame worthy.
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
I agree that usually the winners would be expected to be rares. I think I could have predicted that this would generally be the case (more than half of the winners being rares). In fact, I'd probably have the same thing if I were generating the list entirely on my own (as would most of us, I'd imagine). But a drop from 40% to 17% is significant. It might say more about the way recent sets were made than anything about the CPA (our methods haven't changed), but it's significant nevertheless. And I am slightly disappointed by the trend (whatever its source). I think the commons (Atog and Innocent Blood) are some of the most interesting cards in the whole group...Spiderman said:
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
Not really. Well, the number of people nominating might be something to look at, but specifically who has been nominating which cards isn't what I'm talking about--I meant the group as a whole. I'm not sure how much the number of participants would factor into this because if the drop in participation has somehow led to an increase in rare winners, it would still mean that we as a group have been putting fewer commons/uncommons into the hall of fame. Also, even if the two seem to correlate, it's a pretty small sample and could very easily be a coincidence, so even if the drop in participation is the cause, it would be rather difficult to determine...Spiderman said:
Me too, but that would take a little digging. I'm not up for it just yet, but maybe some time in the near future...Mooseman said:
Oversoul: The "who" has been nominating what may matter slightly because different people nominate different types of cards. For instance, up until recently (maybe the past 3 expansions), I believe you have been nominating more "tourney" cards rather than casual cards (IMO). Someone may have been nominating non-rares but when they get on the committee, they have to stop (and then perhaps they disappear for a while). So noting who has been nominating what may aid in spotting trends or certain types of cards.
Or maybe not
Or maybe not
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
Really? I have no idea. I haven't played in a tourney for years and I have no idea what cards were Standard for any sets past probably Fifth Dawn or so. Even before that, it's a bit sketchy for me until it goes back to the Mercadian block. But most of the cards I've been nominating haven't been that powerful, so I hadn't expected them to be that great in tournaments...Spiderman said: