Card/Deck Single Card Spotlight
- Thread starter Dom Harvey
- Start date
thinking about this (e: and lucre's post!) further:
interaction loosely happens when someone gets to point at two cards for the other person
interaction more restrictively happens when you take an action that disrupts the opponent's line of play
-supboint: the casual nature of cube means we can use fuzzy(definable) triggers for this vague(refinable) notion
it doesn't matter who they belong to! spell your dude, pod my guy, stun sniper your wurm token
blocking is loosely interaction but i'm not sure if it's interaction under the more restrictive definition unless reach or deathtouch is involved somehow
a way to encourage this is to promote strategies (examples below!) that rely on gestalt/synergy between your own cards
-in this way you way increase the percentage of cards that are "interactive", i actually think my kinda succinct description of the whole process
-give aggro decks pump spells, and an environment where you can play them (this does not neccces. need to be VOLCANIC HAMMER all the time you can just play burn, shrink and pump and they sorta balance each other out)
-the sort of consensus RipLab one-drops (both champions/gravecrawler, e1/nacatl, uhhh maybe tayswift and enclave cryptologist) let you take very rich decision trees that start on turn one and help define your early game
-pod as a midrange shell gives a second use to every card with the type Creature and a few that don't
-likewise getting to balance damage-based removal with +counters and beef is a real strategy that if it shows up prob. deserves to be respected
removal does this inherently, and so does moving creatures between zones and using activated abilities with targets
(this isn't the post for it but please note the implicit point about the power of a format, the viability of synergy decks, and the format's quantity of interaction)
Well, I'm trying to cull some of the 2 for 1 guys for starters (especially slow-ass ones like Master and Polukranos). Master in particular basically sucks unless you sit around turn after turn churning out tokens and sniping stuff (he has hill giant stats for crying out loud). That dude has won the durdle-of-the-month award more times than I can count. My hope is that if I can make more of the 3/4/5 drops point towards either an aggressive (do something now to get max value) or control game plan (plan for turn 7+ to maximize), it will help move decks more in one direction or the other instead of floundering around in the middle.
You can argue Masked Admirers just sucks period (I wouldn't fault you for that thinking). And I would agree he completely blows in the early/mid game. His stats are crap (dies to shock and elite vanguard as a 4 drop) and his recursion isn't cheap. But if you get to 7 or 8 mana, he's a potential CA engine. Combo him with Genesis. Buy back a dude with Genesis, play dude, pay GG and get admirer in hand. Discard for an effect or play it to draw a card (assuming you have enough mana). Add some removal and you've got yourself a green control shell.
Not sure if it's actually going to work out like that. I might just be de-powering green and making it suck (more). I don't know.
At the end of the day, I want to move power from being self contained in individual cards to requiring you to unlock that power via synergy. I'm fine with some number of first pick "bomb" type cards since they help anchor people in color and deck choices. I just don't want everything being value city where goodstuff.dec drafts itself. I feel like that is where the higher power environments have gone. I've been against the arms race in cube for awhile now.
Answer me honestly, is cube more fun now that we have gotten to a point where you can argue that a 4/4 flying for 2RR that bolts your opponent if targeted by anything is not good enough anymore? I don't think there's a wrong answer to this question BTW. It's just preference. A lot of it for me is wanting to play older cards. And I can't do that when we are at a place where Karmic Guide isn't doing enough anymore.
Dom Harvey
Contributor
Karmic Guide is still excellent IMO. Masked Admirers isn't and hasn't ever been impressive outside of a low-powered (and now Peasant/Pauper) context.
I'm probably under shooting with Masked Admirers. That's fair (it's very much a work in progress).
And I have no doubt that the majority of the people on this forum still have love for the guide, but power max lists are now dropping it. That's the reality of where we are at power-wise if you want to redline things.
More than ever before, I think you have to consider throttling power across the board otherwise you could end up obsoleting half your cube (especially if you are tying to run fringe themes). I have an entire box of cards not part of my main cube that I could put into another cube and it would be more powerful than my main cube (which does plenty of degenerate things). That's literally how many cards we have at this point that are over the curve.
Honestly, we probably need a new delineation between peasant cubes and top end rare cubes (middle class cubes or something). Because the chasm between what I'm trying to run and what even unpowered power-max lists run is honestly becoming night and day.
And I have no doubt that the majority of the people on this forum still have love for the guide, but power max lists are now dropping it. That's the reality of where we are at power-wise if you want to redline things.
More than ever before, I think you have to consider throttling power across the board otherwise you could end up obsoleting half your cube (especially if you are tying to run fringe themes). I have an entire box of cards not part of my main cube that I could put into another cube and it would be more powerful than my main cube (which does plenty of degenerate things). That's literally how many cards we have at this point that are over the curve.
Honestly, we probably need a new delineation between peasant cubes and top end rare cubes (middle class cubes or something). Because the chasm between what I'm trying to run and what even unpowered power-max lists run is honestly becoming night and day.
Are we playing NBA Jam on Sega Genesis right now because ahadabans you're on fire!
This is a good point. Even in cubes where power-max isn't the philosophy, the power level can creep up on you. Every time I add a card that is "strong enough to be in my cube," I'm contributing to it. I think there's a natural gravitation toward increasing the power level of a cube, even when it's unintended.
To tenuously relate this back to the interaction discussion, I have to say that I worry less about the degree of interaction between players than I do the interaction of the cards themselves. In other words, as an example, some people get a lot of enjoyment out of weird lock-out decks that deprive your opponent of resources. Sounds like "unfun," but I think it can be done right.
In vintage a few years ago, the stax archetype was far less aggressive and much more focused on squeezing the life out of your opponent by incrementally restricting their resources. I actually thought this was interesting to play against, because you had to very carefully allocate your resources to break out of it. Though, once you did, it was a nightmare for stax; the deck was actually quite fragile. What are these Sphere of Resistances and Smokestacks going to do about my 5/5 creature that I managed to land? It's like the mountain and Oberyn...when you finally get to land a punch, it is brutal and satisfying (and gruesome).
Anyway, I've always thought that these sort of diabolical nightmare-machines (aka combo and prison) are very fun to build and pilot. It explains the obsession with storm in VMA. And I think it's OK, as long as:
This is a good point. Even in cubes where power-max isn't the philosophy, the power level can creep up on you. Every time I add a card that is "strong enough to be in my cube," I'm contributing to it. I think there's a natural gravitation toward increasing the power level of a cube, even when it's unintended.
I know that this is already an important facet of riptide cubes but it's something that can never be said too often. Anytime I cut deeper into this concept I always find myself looking back and seeing that it was an improvement. Between that and the last couple years of new printings I find myself cutting straight-up value cards at an ever-accelerating rate. Cards which are contextually powerful that ask you to craft a certain situation to gain value are far more fun and interesting.
Amen.
To tenuously relate this back to the interaction discussion, I have to say that I worry less about the degree of interaction between players than I do the interaction of the cards themselves. In other words, as an example, some people get a lot of enjoyment out of weird lock-out decks that deprive your opponent of resources. Sounds like "unfun," but I think it can be done right.
In vintage a few years ago, the stax archetype was far less aggressive and much more focused on squeezing the life out of your opponent by incrementally restricting their resources. I actually thought this was interesting to play against, because you had to very carefully allocate your resources to break out of it. Though, once you did, it was a nightmare for stax; the deck was actually quite fragile. What are these Sphere of Resistances and Smokestacks going to do about my 5/5 creature that I managed to land? It's like the mountain and Oberyn...when you finally get to land a punch, it is brutal and satisfying (and gruesome).
Anyway, I've always thought that these sort of diabolical nightmare-machines (aka combo and prison) are very fun to build and pilot. It explains the obsession with storm in VMA. And I think it's OK, as long as:
- it takes a lot of thought, creativity, and interdependent pieces to make it work (not CHANNEL)
- your opponent can feasibly disrupt you if they play smart
- it doesn't take forever to die
LOL. Love the old school Sega Genesis reference.
I agree with your post 100%.
I get annoyed when I read set reviews or listen to a pod cast for cube and there is a black and white discussion about a strict upgrade. Oh, another 2/1 for 1 with upside, easy upgrade for Jackal Pup or Savannah Lions. Or even more annoying to me... Go for the Throat hits more creatures in cube. You should totally replace doom blade with this (or run both!). As if just increasing removal density and/or making existing removal better automatically makes your cube better. This kind of thinking shows a lack of understanding about how the game actually works. And many of these reviewers (and cube managers) just somehow assume I guess that because you are running all the "most powerful cards ever" that this must equate to a balanced and fun environment because the average converted mana cost in your cube is 3. WTF kind of logic is that?
Not to beat this horse even more dead than it is, but I see a lot of criticism for the MODO cube and that's cool (some of it is deserved). But then I see more criticism for changes that are made based on all the piles of data Wizards is collecting for all the people playing said cube, and it seems pretty disingenuous to me since "A" we don't have access to that data ourselves so really can't make any kind of sound argument about it and "B" we are making changes to our own cubes without anything close to that level of quality data and often acting like we are doing it better. Even if you have your own Magic store and run your cube there every week (or multiple times a week), there is no way you or anyone else is collecting a meaningful amount of data on how your cube plays (not to the degree that Wizards is). Most of us run a session or two and make changes based on what appeared to work and didn't work in a very small scenario. And that's really all we can do, but people read into some of that way more than you should be reading into it. There's a lot of variance in this game. I've built casual decks and played them over a span of months even years, and I've flip flopped many times over cards in those decks. I had this land destruction deck that my friend actually refused to play against because he thought it was unbeatable. And then one day I broke it out and got smashed by everything I went against. It occurred to me that the deck was actually clunky and it's success was really limited to only specific match-ups that just happened to be what I was playing it against when my friend banned it. This is again why you see a lot of wildly differing opinions on many cards in cube. Play experiences are going to be very different between groups and even between sessions in those very groups.
Sorry for the side tracking...
I love the stax archetype and put it into my cube as soon as I saw others doing it and reporting success with it. I'm all about encouraging different ways of interacting with your opponent that doesn't necessarily involve playing more dudes and turning them sideways. If there's anything about walkers that entices me to run them, it would be the additional gameplay and win cons they offer to the game. But alas, I'm too old to accept them and so that is just not going to ever happen. My loss I guess.
The best part about Magic to me is with interactions between cards. I think this is one thing that has bothered me about some of the more pushed cards in the last few years. They are self-contained win cons that require zero deck building (other than understanding the basics of land density and mana curve). Things like Hero of Bladehold. It has 4 toughness, so is hard to remove. It builds an army for you when it attacks. It buffs that army. I mean, my 4 year hold niece could win a game of magic with Hero of Bladehold and some removal. I fully support guys who want to play a straight forward beat-your-face-in deck. I get that not everyone wants to pilot a complex deck. But you need to at least trigger battalion or something to get those kinds of effects. Hellrider for example I think is a great design. He's rubbish on his own, but if you build a deck with a lot of aggressive dudes, he is a sweet face beater top of curve guy. I can get behind cards like that.
I'm happy about all the power creep even if it sounds like I'm not a fan. Creatures in pre-NWO Magic are sort of an embarrassment. We needed better dudes. But shit like Brimaz, King of Oreskos. I just don't understand what Wizards was thinking there. I'm really picking on white right now, but you can do this with any color really.
I agree with your post 100%.
I get annoyed when I read set reviews or listen to a pod cast for cube and there is a black and white discussion about a strict upgrade. Oh, another 2/1 for 1 with upside, easy upgrade for Jackal Pup or Savannah Lions. Or even more annoying to me... Go for the Throat hits more creatures in cube. You should totally replace doom blade with this (or run both!). As if just increasing removal density and/or making existing removal better automatically makes your cube better. This kind of thinking shows a lack of understanding about how the game actually works. And many of these reviewers (and cube managers) just somehow assume I guess that because you are running all the "most powerful cards ever" that this must equate to a balanced and fun environment because the average converted mana cost in your cube is 3. WTF kind of logic is that?
Not to beat this horse even more dead than it is, but I see a lot of criticism for the MODO cube and that's cool (some of it is deserved). But then I see more criticism for changes that are made based on all the piles of data Wizards is collecting for all the people playing said cube, and it seems pretty disingenuous to me since "A" we don't have access to that data ourselves so really can't make any kind of sound argument about it and "B" we are making changes to our own cubes without anything close to that level of quality data and often acting like we are doing it better. Even if you have your own Magic store and run your cube there every week (or multiple times a week), there is no way you or anyone else is collecting a meaningful amount of data on how your cube plays (not to the degree that Wizards is). Most of us run a session or two and make changes based on what appeared to work and didn't work in a very small scenario. And that's really all we can do, but people read into some of that way more than you should be reading into it. There's a lot of variance in this game. I've built casual decks and played them over a span of months even years, and I've flip flopped many times over cards in those decks. I had this land destruction deck that my friend actually refused to play against because he thought it was unbeatable. And then one day I broke it out and got smashed by everything I went against. It occurred to me that the deck was actually clunky and it's success was really limited to only specific match-ups that just happened to be what I was playing it against when my friend banned it. This is again why you see a lot of wildly differing opinions on many cards in cube. Play experiences are going to be very different between groups and even between sessions in those very groups.
Sorry for the side tracking...
I love the stax archetype and put it into my cube as soon as I saw others doing it and reporting success with it. I'm all about encouraging different ways of interacting with your opponent that doesn't necessarily involve playing more dudes and turning them sideways. If there's anything about walkers that entices me to run them, it would be the additional gameplay and win cons they offer to the game. But alas, I'm too old to accept them and so that is just not going to ever happen. My loss I guess.
The best part about Magic to me is with interactions between cards. I think this is one thing that has bothered me about some of the more pushed cards in the last few years. They are self-contained win cons that require zero deck building (other than understanding the basics of land density and mana curve). Things like Hero of Bladehold. It has 4 toughness, so is hard to remove. It builds an army for you when it attacks. It buffs that army. I mean, my 4 year hold niece could win a game of magic with Hero of Bladehold and some removal. I fully support guys who want to play a straight forward beat-your-face-in deck. I get that not everyone wants to pilot a complex deck. But you need to at least trigger battalion or something to get those kinds of effects. Hellrider for example I think is a great design. He's rubbish on his own, but if you build a deck with a lot of aggressive dudes, he is a sweet face beater top of curve guy. I can get behind cards like that.
I'm happy about all the power creep even if it sounds like I'm not a fan. Creatures in pre-NWO Magic are sort of an embarrassment. We needed better dudes. But shit like Brimaz, King of Oreskos. I just don't understand what Wizards was thinking there. I'm really picking on white right now, but you can do this with any color really.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Hmm... I'm wondering, say you want to play the ridiculous cards like Brimaz and Hero of Bladehold simply because playing with powerful cards is exhilarating. How do you build an interesting environment around that?
Dom Harvey
Contributor
A. Our not having access to that data ourselves is deliberate: we only see the data when it supports (or when someone thinks it supports) the changes being made. It's important to call out the misuse of data when it occurs, because too often people fall back on "well, that's just what the numbers say" without applying any further thought.
B. Most conclusions about Magic design - Cube, Constructed, whatever - are going to be based more on learned intuitions than on data. There simply isn't enough time in the day to get enough repetitions with a card/deck to draw any statistically significant conclusions, so we have to make judgements without that information. You don't need however many thousands of drafts the Magic Online Cube has undergone to know that Vampires would be bad in it.
B. Most conclusions about Magic design - Cube, Constructed, whatever - are going to be based more on learned intuitions than on data. There simply isn't enough time in the day to get enough repetitions with a card/deck to draw any statistically significant conclusions, so we have to make judgements without that information. You don't need however many thousands of drafts the Magic Online Cube has undergone to know that Vampires would be bad in it.
You can do it, you just have to cut a lot of fringe archetypes. Cubes built around power have to be very efficient and to some extent a bit polarized. By that I mean you have to push aggro to the moon and you have to give control all their broken play things (Titans, 2 for 1's, et all). Side boarding becomes more critical and you have to accept that some match-ups will be un-winnable. In short, you make a more competitive environment I think with less room for creativity (IMO anyway). If you have a really competitive group with strong players, I think this is a perfectly acceptable way to go about cube design. It's just not compatible with my group or with what I'm looking to get out of cube personally.
I just wanted to chime in on Masked Admirers because its a pet card for me too, and it represents a lot of things I want out of magic. I've played a lot of masked admirers lategame decks in peasant cube and they are so fucking tedious bro. I really want a cantrip guy that has endgame value and trades with 3-4 cost dudes to be good but I have been consistently underwhelmed by this version of eternal dragon. I think it can be done, but I think it takes some real work about what your rewards are and what decks are gonna be finding the most use in them. Figuring out how to make the body feel relevant is also a something I would wana look into because I've played a lot of GB midranged with that guy and I wana say he's left a better impression.
Karmic Guide is another card I wana caution people about, I think switching to more "tempered" cards for the sake of reducing outclassing is a swell idea but mainly when it's implemented in a holistic sorta way lol. In my experiences you can't just jam karmic guide into cubes and expect her to be a super sweet value play. Many white decks don't really take advantage of that ability and many cubes don't afford proper crossover to make it an accessible combo card or a just generally sweet value card without finding yourself in a particular place. Karmic Guide is a great puzzle piece to me, but it doesn't have the broader appeal, say, a lark does. I'd actually really like to see a cube where the white 5s are pretty much just lark and guide, that sounds like fun, but of course we'd also be looking for a lot of deliberate choices in the blue, red and black sections too.
Lastly I think it's important to remember FSR's comments about interaction and lines of play. I think outclassing is an important part of magic but one we should probably be keeping more of an eye on. Things like creating or eliminating advantageous attacking situations are harder to observe and note than things like trades or tempo and synergy but I think how much you let people go under or over the top shouldn't just be looked at from a negative perspective, its definitely something I feel like is important to keeping interest up.
How can you do that though if you don't actually have the data? All we get is the high level summary of said data and the action they took based on it. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't criticize or question, I just think it's sort of the hip thing to do these days and it's not always entirely warranted. IMO anyway.
Some decisions are likely just to appease casuals. For all we know, there was a huge outcry for some kind of tribal theme and vampires are very popular in pop culture these days, so maybe they threw it in there knowing full well that it was probably going to be bogus. The people working on the online cube are not dumb. I'm not suggesting every decision made by Wizards is good. If anything, I have been a big critic as I believe they have been drinking way too much of their own kool-aid for awhile now.
As far as learned intuitions go... I think they are a lot less reliable in Magic than people think. How many cards have you looked at and said were great/crap and then when they actually got played they ended up being completely the opposite? Every Magic player and reviewer alike has done this and continues to do it even after 10, 15, 20 years playing the game. It's not because they are incompetent. Magic is complicated. You can't always theory craft your way to a conclusion which in turn will pan out in reality. I've put together countless deck lists I thought would be great and they ended up just not working very well - I'm sure we all have. No amount of past experience can replace actually playing the deck.
I've played admirer's before and he wasn't great. So I'm not optimistic that will change with this second coming. But I think my list is as low powered as I've ever had it, so we'll see (he's also a Shaman and like I said in this thread or maybe another, I'm trying to push this super janky Rage Forger interaction).
Love this mindset here. I'm sure this is because I'm just getting old, but I feel like cube hit a sweet spot for me shortly after I started dialing in my curve but before we had so many power cards that there was really any kind of debate over running clearly powerful and synergistic effects like Karmic Guide. There are a handful of cube cards that represent exactly what I feel is great about Magic (that's one of them, Genesis is another, Avalanche Riders is another) and I want to keep them not only relevant but desirable in my cube. And that means I have to cap my power level to some extent (which means doing fewer "upgrades" and more swaps of equal power cards). It's much harder managing cube now I'm finding because there is an inclination to want to run more and more power, but that is not making the experience better for me or my group. It's obsoleting old school favorites and it's pushing my meta more and more competitive.
There's a large nostalgic appeal to cube since most of my players are old school. In a purely power driven list, I'm guessing at this point 75% of all the cards would be from the lat 5 years. That's just not where I want this whole experience taking me. I think I'm very much in the minority on what cube represents, and it's coming to a point where I feel pretty disconnected with the community at large because this format is evolving so much and I'm not really onboard with the destination. This forum is the last bastion of similar thinking people and not because it's full of a bunch of nostalgic dinosaurs like me but more because there's a recognition that greater power doesn't necessarily mean a better cube. I hope that type of thinking catches on and becomes the dominant design philosophy. I really do.
I'm glad we see eye to glowing cavernous socket!
This thread actually inspired me to look at a modernish cube list I started putting together this winter (I left it sitting at like 320 for some reason) and it sorta makes me sad I've invested so many creature slots into token generating spells for the spells matter theme. I'd rather like to try a modern feeling cube with karmic guide as a centerpiece of a white mid-ranged deck. Honestly though this list has double compulsive research, strategic planning, faithless looting, tormenting voice and jeskai ascendancy in it so I probably shouldn't be too worried about having something to get back, but more how often it'll be worth the effort.
Waiting for another round of good cyclers and evokers lol.
This thread actually inspired me to look at a modernish cube list I started putting together this winter (I left it sitting at like 320 for some reason) and it sorta makes me sad I've invested so many creature slots into token generating spells for the spells matter theme. I'd rather like to try a modern feeling cube with karmic guide as a centerpiece of a white mid-ranged deck. Honestly though this list has double compulsive research, strategic planning, faithless looting, tormenting voice and jeskai ascendancy in it so I probably shouldn't be too worried about having something to get back, but more how often it'll be worth the effort.
Waiting for another round of good cyclers and evokers lol.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
This piqued my interest! Last 5 years is M11 and Scars of Mirrodin and up. I took a look at the 360 avarage cube over on cubetutor... Surprising results!
"Only" 115 cards of the last five years (32%, which is still much, considering this game is over 20 years old), 245 older than five years. Of those 39 are six years old (i.e. from M2010, Zendikar, Worldwake or Rise of the Eldrazi). If we look at very broad subsections though the picture changes drastically! A full 48% of the creatures is no older than five years, with another 13% six years old. Planeswalkers are even more lopsided, which is to be expected honestly, 57% is five years or younger. So, where are the old cards hiding? Well... only 22% of the noncreature, nonplaneswalker spells is younger than six years, that's 33 out of 149 cards. Zendikar and M10 add only 8 cards, for a grand total of 28%. Still not there you say? Well... Of the 43 lands the average 360 cube sports, exactly zero are younger than six years! The last good batch of lands was back in Zendikar block, which delivers a whopping nine (!) cards to the cube, the enemy fetches and the four good manlands.
So, powermax cubers? Yeah, still pretty much running on old cards for a large part. Only the creatures have really gotten better under NWO, and it shows big time.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
I mean doom blade is better than terror most of the time, is it not?
While it's a less round number, doesn't NWO start officially in lorwyn, so more 6-7 years ago?
While it's a less round number, doesn't NWO start officially in lorwyn, so more 6-7 years ago?
Doom Blade is absolutely better than Terror most of the time. And Go For The Throat is better than Doom Blade as it has more targets (outside a super heavy artifact theme). I guess I just meant that the upgrade isn't necessarily going to have a positive impact on your meta. Doom Blade made artifact creatures more vulnerable. Go for the Throat made black creatures more vulnerable. Dismember made it so all color decks can kill a 5 toughness creature for 1 mana and 4 life. Is all that good? Depends on what you want.
I sort of liked the design where black removal (outside really expensive options) couldn't kill black creatures or artifact creatures (the removal version of reverse fear!). Part of how you evaluate a creature is based on it's resistance to removal. Black and Artifact creatures were always a little more resilient because of the terror clause. That also made cards like terminate, mortify, putrefy special and highly sought after in that they were unconditional creature removal (but cost two different colors - and 3 mana for the additional utility in the case of the latter two). To me that was a cool design.
I think a lot of newer more efficient removal is throwing a lot of that out the window. It's fine I guess, I just don't think the original parameters were broken is all. And so I'd prefer to run terror and/or edict type effects in black because they feel closer to the original design of the game to me. Again though, I'm sort of stuck in 2005 as far as where I think Magic peaked (for me at least). And that is what I want my cube to feel more like.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I suppose there's even less modern cards in powered cubes, because the average 360 doesn't even include moxen, black lotus, etc.
This guy is awesome! I've run him for the last couple months and he's done serious work in any deck that's run him.
With half the cube being creatures, I can see him being solid. Especially some kind of Jeskai spells matter thing with some token support. UU in the cost is the only thing giving me pause, though that may be moot if this is more a late game card. What decks are you seeing it in? Tempo or more control/midrange strategies? Nailing a 6 drop off that must feel pretty awesome.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
I'm just saying that 5 years is a bad metric for "New Cards", especially when you're talking about gold old spells vs good new creatures
Like, Jace the Mind Sculptor doesn't fit your definition of "new", and he's certainly a good spell.
Like, Jace the Mind Sculptor doesn't fit your definition of "new", and he's certainly a good spell.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
That's why I split out M10 and Zendikar block, I think everything before that can be considered old by today's standard. There's something to be said for Lorwyn as well though, it is after all the set that introduced planeswalkers. Anyway, as you can see in my original post, 61% of the creatures is from M10 or a newer set, but only only 28% of the spells. The lopsidedness is there.
Here's a bad bae I haven't heard anyone ever seriously consider for their Rakdos section. But I tell you what, I had a cool foil and tried her in my peasant cube, and homies she straight SMOKED life totals and pesky blockers. I like to think of her as virtual card advantage for an aggro deck, because you can slam her and use her actives to do what aggro decks wanna do instead of committing to the board. But I haven't tested her at all yet in my environment. Thoughts?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
That thing was super annoying to play against in the RTR and GTC prereleases. That first ability is real.