Ooh, it's engagement! Now I'll say what I think about what you think about what I think about what the CPA thought about these cards all those years ago. Um, or something...
Hall of Fame: No mention of KILNMOUTH DRAGON is SHAMEFUL! I love that card so much and it offers so much more than any other card from Legions, solid stats and mana cost plus the Amplify ability makes it really sweet.
On the one hand, there are like 100 big red dragon cards in Magic, and WotC will keep making more of them because they've established that it's some kind of enduring theme in the game. Different red dragons are going to appeal to different people, and you've got an overwhelming array of choices when it comes to which one you want to run in a casual deck. Kilnmouth Dragon has never really piqued my interest, so I wasn't going to be the one to nominate it. Also, my stance that
Legions is just a lousy set anyway hasn't really shifted that much. I'm baffled that WotC went forward with this whole set design, especially considering how bold and innovative
Onslaught and
Scourge were.
On the other hand, I had a couple of friends who really loved this card and put it to good use. Kilnmouth Dragon was pretty powerful for its time and does have a cool name. Also, I have to admit that it is the most iconic Amplify card and that mechanic did a good job of presenting a new take on the tribal themes of Onslaught Block. My recollection is that Kilnmouth Dragon was quite popular in the mid 00's. If the CPA membership had included some of the guys from my high school when we did the Hall of Fame stuff, I'm sure Kilnmouth Dragon would have been nominated.
Not one of my favorite cards, but I know the card had its fans, for sure.
Hall of Shame: Pyramids is pretty close to the worst card of all time but it's not actively bad when you cast it since just being an artifact in play is still useful.
Utility artifacts simply costing too much mana was a common problem in the early sets. Pyramids should have been way cheaper than 6. But I do not think that Pyramids is even close to being the worst card of all time. I think my paragraph defending the card explains my position well enough. I can't pretend that it's great, but I'm apparently more sold on it than most people are.
Also, Island of Wak-Wak is bad, worse than Maze of Ith, but not nearly the worst card in the set. I could even see playing it in some EDH decks.
Yeah, that's fair. In the right environment, it's probably an acceptable utility land. I dislike how situational it is, but I guess I wouldn't be too shocked to see it in some oddball EDH deck.
Urza lands are not nearly the worst card in the set, not even close. Not just because of the Standard/Extended/Modern decks but because those cards are also very playable in Old School. What is the floor on something like Urza's Mine? Tapping for a colorless but with the upside of tapping for more? No way that's the worst card in the set, not even close. Just tapping for mana to cast Triskelion, Juggernaut, Su-chi, etc. is good enough. I have a hard time believing any land that taps for a colorless mana is the worst card in any set, ever.
My thoughts exactly. I know that
Ferret still posts here and was one of the haters when it came to these cards. I wonder if his position has changed...
Wood Elemental, I'm very convinced, is the worst card of all time. Not only is the rate so fucking bad it would make Uwe Boll blush but it actively hurts you when you cast it. Unbelievable.
It's kind of uncanny, how bad Wood Elemental is. I'd really like to observe what the thought process was in design when they tacked on the bit about the forests having to be untapped.
Sorrows Path is a close second. It's garbage and a half. But at least it does something with cards like Stuffy Doll and is much cheaper to cast (nothing) and free to activate.
I can see why people hate the card, but I think the combos involving damage redirection and such as well as the combos that saddle an opponent with it and then tap it repeatedly are enough, taken together, that it really shouldn't be a candidate for one of the worst cards of all time. I've used it in EDH to do some unique stuff. Uniquely stupid? Maybe. But I could never say the same about, for instance, Wood Elemental. A bad card that is just useless is more frustrating to me than a bad card that has some gimmicky ways to exploit it.
Erosion is bad but at least it has synergy with Devotion or taxes them on life or mana.
It's not even good at taxing them! But yes, it does offer Devotion to blue.
No way can deep water be bad because I play it in my sea creature deck.
OK, I'm being a bit facetious but there are some uses for it.
I forgot that Deep Water existed, so when I pondered whether it was the worst card in the set, I ran a few searches for decks that use it, and came to the conclusion that some casual players are running it just because it has a hammerhead shark in its art. That's some dubious redeeming value.
Ring of Renewal is nowhere near the worst card in that set. I could imagine playing it in some artifact based deck.
The random discard can be less of a dealbreaker than it used to be, but I can't think of anything else nice to say about Ring of Renewal, other than in comparison to Delif's Cube or something.
Dystopia is insane. This card was so good against cards like Moat back in the day when I played Suicide Black. It's still one of the few really good, answers to powerful white or green cards.
Yeah, if you go back to the thread where we actually discussed
Alliances,
Shabbaman did call out the Dystopia nomination along the same lines that you have now, but there was almost no other commentary on the card even though
Melkor and
Mooseman both nominated it. I guess we could ask them if they still think it's the worst.
Malignant Growth is awesome. I'd play that in a Group Hug deck like Pheldagriff or something similar. Yes, its garbage in regular Magic atm.
I love Phelddagrif and I would never run Malignant Growth in it. I can't tell how tongue-in-cheek your response is with this card, but I sometimes find myself surprised how often people disagree with me that it's the worst card in Magic. And that isn't because I'm so egotistical or self-assured, I think. Obviously, it's fine and the whole thing is subjective anyway, but Malignant Growth seems so over-the-top in how bad it is that I can scarcely imagine picking anything else. Other people clearly see it differently, so I'm left a bit puzzled.
On EDHrec, the most prevalent niche for Malignant Growth is in Xyris, the Writhing Storm decks. Now, Malignant Growth is only in a tiny fraction of Xyris decks. But I think about it and find myself picturing all the other options Xyris players have to make opponents draw cards that are just far superior to Malignant Growth. And the only damage that Malignant Growth does is for the cards that it makes your opponents draw, so it doesn't even get synergy with the other forced draw effects Xyris is using, while tying up more mana than those other cards and building up at a sluggish pace.
Even when used in a deck that ostensibly wants to do what Malignant Growth does, Malignant Growth is
still bad.
Emberwilde Caliph would easily be playable in an aggro control deck in certain formats. The stats and abilities aren't bad at all.
Yeah, Emberwilde Caliph was judged too harshly here. It's not great, but I've played in environments where a 4/4 flying trampler for four mana could just kill people without the drawbacks ever mattering.
That's my 2 cents! Cool stuff here!
Thanks!
