Oversoul
The Tentacled One
Coldsnap
Nomination thread: http://www.casualplayers.org/forums/threads/nominations-for-coldsnap-casual-card.14752/
Winner: Adarkar Valkyrie
Nominees
Ransac: Dark Depths
Oversoul: Braid of Fire
BigBlue: Adarkar Valkyrie
Spiderman: Allosaurus Rider
Committee: Mooseman, Ephraim, Killer Joe
Highlights
Well, we weren’t down to a record low count on nominations, as we’d already been down to three nominations for Apocalypse, but this was the lowest we’d had in a while, and came right on the heels of the trouble with Guildpact and Dissension.
Melkor and Ransac were both a bit disappointed with the choice of Adarkar Valkyrie. “Dark Depths was robbed.” My own reaction was a bit more of a generalized malaise with some of the winners I’d been seeing lately. I tried to describe it. We’ll come to that. But first, I should note that Ephraim shed some insight on why Adarkar Valkyrie was more appealing to him for the Hall of Fame than Dark Depths.
My thoughts now
Huh. There are a few elephants in this room. Well, let’s try to address them all. Firstly, there’s the obvious point that Dark Depths is notorious as a tournament card and was championed by multiple people here as a casual card, while those same people were also the ones critical of nominations perceived to be tournament cards. In fact, Spiderman commented that I had a tendency to nominate “tourney cards.” I pled ignorance at the time. Looking back and attempting to assess the extent to which my nominations were too competitively oriented, I do have to say that I find the whole idea a bit overblown. A few of my nominations were definitely potent tournament cards, but most were not, and pretty much everyone who was critical of cards on this basis turned out to also nominate tournament-worthy cards, sometimes more frequently than I did. Besides that, it’s not a contest. There’s no real distinction in being the person who nominated the most obscure junk or something. I mean, if you’re a total hipster, then I guess there is. But if that’s your goal, then whatever? This is all a bit of a mess, but I have to give credit where credit is due. And as far as I can tell, the Dark Depths issue is anachronistic. It took me by surprise to see it as a well-regarded nomination, especially by Ransac. Then I remembered that this was all still 2007. I do not think the card had a significant tournament presence prior to the printing of Vampire Hexmage. In theory, other combos could have been used to exploit Dark Depths before 2009. But I am not aware of any that saw tournament play. So I think that everyone who supported the Dark Depths nomination is off the hook on this one. They had no way of knowing, in 2007, that this was a card that would later be banned in a major tournament format.
Another elephant in the room is that I nominated Braid of Fire in a world that still had mana burn. This is one of those cards for which the removal of mana burn from the game rules fundamentally changes the card. I still think that Braid of Fire is cool, but I do think that part of what made me nominate it was the danger of self-inflicted life loss, which could be managed by a clever deckbuilder/player.
So, we might say that Dark Depths was a reasonable nomination at the time, but has since become a broken card due to printings like Vampire Hexmage and Thespian’s Stage. We might say that Braid of Fire was a reasonable nomination at the time, but lost some of its luster with the elimination of mana burn. Oddly enough, there’s a third elephant in this room: Allosaurus Rider has also become strongly associated with tournament play. And again, I believe that this was a development that only took place after our discussions in 2007. So it might be a tournament card now, but if it didn’t really have that role in 2007, then does it count? Our members cannot see into the future. Allosaurus Rider became prominent in the Modern format in 2019 following the printing of Neoform. Prior to that, it had seen a little Modern play, but I think that was marginal, and I am unaware of Allosaurus Rider taking on a major tournament role in any format as far back as 2007. Again, we might imagine that there would have been some use for it, but nothing like what Neoform did for this card.
Amusingly, if those three nominations are tainted, the only one left is the card that ultimately won. This brings me to the funniest elephant in this room, which is that Adarkar Valkyrie was the only card among the nominations to already be a successful tournament card prior to our discussion, and yet it was also the unanimous winner in the committee.
We never settled on criteria for what makes a good nomination, nor was that ever really the idea. But the “tourney card” issue came up repeatedly, and I think the discussion on it with this set really illustrates how muddled the issue can get. No one even said that my nomination of Braid of Fire was too tournament-tainted. One of the only reasons it was discussed at all with Coldsnap was because when I brought up my complaint that the winners tended to “fit a mold” too much, Spiderman brought up the confounding variable of who the people are that are doing the nominating in the first place.
The issue of how to treat “tourney cards” in the Casual Card Hall of Fame and the issue of me finding generic beefy midrange creatures with a combat-oriented ability and an activated utility ability boring are totally separate issues, but they got kind of mixed together in this discussion. Well, neither issue was ever fully resolved. And both are pretty nuanced. I’m already running pretty long on this one. I try to be charitable with these retrospective analyses and I’d feel guilty if I were just bludgeoning a bunch of mostly-gone CPA members with all my years of hindsight. But it’s hard to help it here! I was self-admittedly not one of the people who took tournament performance into consideration with these nominations, so when the issue of tournament cards being suitable for nomination came up again for this set, I look back and see that my own nomination was the only card among the four not to have a significant tournament presence.
You know what? I don’t have to always be nice with these takes. My nomination was the only good one here and everyone else’s nominations were bad. They suck. No one is going to actually sit around and pay thirty mana to remove counters from Dark Depths. They’re going to cheat on that cost somehow, which, by the way, was possible even back then. And what if they don’t? What then? Is the sort of game in which your control deck shuts your opponent down for a long time and eventually grinds out a 20/20 and swings for the win really your idea of casual fun? As for Allosaurus Rider, the tools to exploit it weren’t as great back then as they are now, but if you weren’t going to Metamorphosis it or Food Chain it or whatever, then why were you even pitching two cards from your hand for a creature that would be small if you didn’t have a lot of lands? And if you had a lot of lands, then you could just hardcast Allosaurus Rider, which means you could also just hardcast a better creature anyway. So this one doesn’t make sense to me either. Adarkar Valkyrie is a perfect example of the sort of card I was complaining about, so I don’t like that one either. Braid of Fire was a way better choice. This set also has Wall of Shards, Herald of Leshrac, Thermopod, Tamanoa, Panglacial Wurm, Thrumming Stone, and Arcum Dagsson. Despite my misgivings, if I picked a card today, I’d still go with Braid of Fire.
Nomination thread: http://www.casualplayers.org/forums/threads/nominations-for-coldsnap-casual-card.14752/
Winner: Adarkar Valkyrie
Nominees
Ransac: Dark Depths
Oversoul: Braid of Fire
BigBlue: Adarkar Valkyrie
Spiderman: Allosaurus Rider
Committee: Mooseman, Ephraim, Killer Joe
Highlights
Well, we weren’t down to a record low count on nominations, as we’d already been down to three nominations for Apocalypse, but this was the lowest we’d had in a while, and came right on the heels of the trouble with Guildpact and Dissension.
Melkor and Ransac were both a bit disappointed with the choice of Adarkar Valkyrie. “Dark Depths was robbed.” My own reaction was a bit more of a generalized malaise with some of the winners I’d been seeing lately. I tried to describe it. We’ll come to that. But first, I should note that Ephraim shed some insight on why Adarkar Valkyrie was more appealing to him for the Hall of Fame than Dark Depths.
Ephraim said: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.
I don’t think I explained myself very well there, but it’s interesting to think that I could have been explaining the thought process WotC had for making legendary creatures in the era when creature design started being informed by EDH considerations, for several years up until the “Philosophy of F.I.R.E.” took over and everything went crazy. Anyway, Mooseman pointed out that Dark Depths made a much bigger creature than the size ranges I specified and was “designed to beat people’s heads in.” He was right, but…Oversoul said: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…
This led to an interesting discussion regarding the role of card rarities and their connection to the factors that make a casual cards great. I won’t quote the whole thing. But you can go back and read it if you want.Oversoul said:Dark Depths didn't win. I'm talking about the cards that tend to win. The nominations seem more diverse.
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…
My thoughts now
Huh. There are a few elephants in this room. Well, let’s try to address them all. Firstly, there’s the obvious point that Dark Depths is notorious as a tournament card and was championed by multiple people here as a casual card, while those same people were also the ones critical of nominations perceived to be tournament cards. In fact, Spiderman commented that I had a tendency to nominate “tourney cards.” I pled ignorance at the time. Looking back and attempting to assess the extent to which my nominations were too competitively oriented, I do have to say that I find the whole idea a bit overblown. A few of my nominations were definitely potent tournament cards, but most were not, and pretty much everyone who was critical of cards on this basis turned out to also nominate tournament-worthy cards, sometimes more frequently than I did. Besides that, it’s not a contest. There’s no real distinction in being the person who nominated the most obscure junk or something. I mean, if you’re a total hipster, then I guess there is. But if that’s your goal, then whatever? This is all a bit of a mess, but I have to give credit where credit is due. And as far as I can tell, the Dark Depths issue is anachronistic. It took me by surprise to see it as a well-regarded nomination, especially by Ransac. Then I remembered that this was all still 2007. I do not think the card had a significant tournament presence prior to the printing of Vampire Hexmage. In theory, other combos could have been used to exploit Dark Depths before 2009. But I am not aware of any that saw tournament play. So I think that everyone who supported the Dark Depths nomination is off the hook on this one. They had no way of knowing, in 2007, that this was a card that would later be banned in a major tournament format.
Another elephant in the room is that I nominated Braid of Fire in a world that still had mana burn. This is one of those cards for which the removal of mana burn from the game rules fundamentally changes the card. I still think that Braid of Fire is cool, but I do think that part of what made me nominate it was the danger of self-inflicted life loss, which could be managed by a clever deckbuilder/player.
So, we might say that Dark Depths was a reasonable nomination at the time, but has since become a broken card due to printings like Vampire Hexmage and Thespian’s Stage. We might say that Braid of Fire was a reasonable nomination at the time, but lost some of its luster with the elimination of mana burn. Oddly enough, there’s a third elephant in this room: Allosaurus Rider has also become strongly associated with tournament play. And again, I believe that this was a development that only took place after our discussions in 2007. So it might be a tournament card now, but if it didn’t really have that role in 2007, then does it count? Our members cannot see into the future. Allosaurus Rider became prominent in the Modern format in 2019 following the printing of Neoform. Prior to that, it had seen a little Modern play, but I think that was marginal, and I am unaware of Allosaurus Rider taking on a major tournament role in any format as far back as 2007. Again, we might imagine that there would have been some use for it, but nothing like what Neoform did for this card.
Amusingly, if those three nominations are tainted, the only one left is the card that ultimately won. This brings me to the funniest elephant in this room, which is that Adarkar Valkyrie was the only card among the nominations to already be a successful tournament card prior to our discussion, and yet it was also the unanimous winner in the committee.
We never settled on criteria for what makes a good nomination, nor was that ever really the idea. But the “tourney card” issue came up repeatedly, and I think the discussion on it with this set really illustrates how muddled the issue can get. No one even said that my nomination of Braid of Fire was too tournament-tainted. One of the only reasons it was discussed at all with Coldsnap was because when I brought up my complaint that the winners tended to “fit a mold” too much, Spiderman brought up the confounding variable of who the people are that are doing the nominating in the first place.
Reading it now and trying to put it in context, this seems generally pretty fair. But the first time I saw this text again while reviewing these old threads, my initial reaction was something like, “That’s pretty rich, saying I’m the guy who nominates tourney cards when you nominated Allosaurus Rider and someone else nominated Dark Depths, while my own nomination was Braid of Fire. My card isn’t played in tourney decks, but those two are tournament powerhouses.” Like I said though, these cards didn’t really see tournament play in 2007, and I can’t expect CPA members to be able to predict the future. Here’s the thing though: the cards that I think were my perceived “tourney card” nominations had some variety and character to them, which was why I nominated them. And that goes back to my original complaint. I was trying to pick cards that didn’t all fit the same old mold! Sakura-Tribe Elder and Ninja of the Deep Hours might have seen considerable tournament play, but I find them to be good and interesting cards. Isochron Scepter was definitely a tournament staple, but I thought that it was also just a really fun card. Adarkar Valkyrie is a beefy midrange creature with a combat-oriented ability and an activated utility ability. I got tired of seeing those cards win. Not just get nominated, but win.Spiderman said: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
The issue of how to treat “tourney cards” in the Casual Card Hall of Fame and the issue of me finding generic beefy midrange creatures with a combat-oriented ability and an activated utility ability boring are totally separate issues, but they got kind of mixed together in this discussion. Well, neither issue was ever fully resolved. And both are pretty nuanced. I’m already running pretty long on this one. I try to be charitable with these retrospective analyses and I’d feel guilty if I were just bludgeoning a bunch of mostly-gone CPA members with all my years of hindsight. But it’s hard to help it here! I was self-admittedly not one of the people who took tournament performance into consideration with these nominations, so when the issue of tournament cards being suitable for nomination came up again for this set, I look back and see that my own nomination was the only card among the four not to have a significant tournament presence.
You know what? I don’t have to always be nice with these takes. My nomination was the only good one here and everyone else’s nominations were bad. They suck. No one is going to actually sit around and pay thirty mana to remove counters from Dark Depths. They’re going to cheat on that cost somehow, which, by the way, was possible even back then. And what if they don’t? What then? Is the sort of game in which your control deck shuts your opponent down for a long time and eventually grinds out a 20/20 and swings for the win really your idea of casual fun? As for Allosaurus Rider, the tools to exploit it weren’t as great back then as they are now, but if you weren’t going to Metamorphosis it or Food Chain it or whatever, then why were you even pitching two cards from your hand for a creature that would be small if you didn’t have a lot of lands? And if you had a lot of lands, then you could just hardcast Allosaurus Rider, which means you could also just hardcast a better creature anyway. So this one doesn’t make sense to me either. Adarkar Valkyrie is a perfect example of the sort of card I was complaining about, so I don’t like that one either. Braid of Fire was a way better choice. This set also has Wall of Shards, Herald of Leshrac, Thermopod, Tamanoa, Panglacial Wurm, Thrumming Stone, and Arcum Dagsson. Despite my misgivings, if I picked a card today, I’d still go with Braid of Fire.