We’ve wisen up, colored artifacts shouldn’t be restricted to a shard, neither does an unkeyworded version of bad Ferocity. Each faction needs a proper keyword.
This must be a very familiar concept to some digital card games. Because there, you can put a giant layer over the whole card instead of just having a dot on the card. Your creature has a shield on it that can protects for one strike of any amount of damage or just a straight up destroy clause to it. Which means your opponent should try to find a source of exactly 1 damage to make that shield worth the least. Which in those games are often far easier since maybe creatures can just directly choose their targets.
| Set | G | W | U | M | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNC-M | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| SNC-R | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| SNC-U | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| SNC-C | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| NCC-M | 2 | 2 | |||
| NCC-R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Total | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 20 |
Back in the day, Magic used to use Regeneration for this one-time savior ability. Thing is, that didn’t use a counter and also the whole “instead tap it” clause that, for one, leaves you asking “Does it save my creature if it’s already tapped? What a waste of mana.” So it’s frankly a headache that we should be glad to not have to deal with anymore. A counter just makes more sense.
Going back to the 1 damage point, considering Magic’s context, where damage isn’t as direct, shield counters suddenly become a lot better, which certainly helps this being the strongest color combination of the limited format. Also have the counters from the next mechanic and you’re set.
These two things are alike in the fact that it can get your hand a card, it can get your graveyard a card and it can get a creature a +1/+1 counter. The difference is that explore can get two of those things or the other, with the choice only being possible through external means, while connive can do it all innate to itself, you get the choice (until you topdeck I guess).
| Set | W | U | B | M | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNC-M | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| SNC-R | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| SNC-U | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| SNC-C | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | |
| NCC-M | 1 | 1 | |||
| NCC-R | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| Total | 2 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 19 |
Well, the flavor are very different. One is the creature seeing the unknown, the other is the creature being part of the spy group planning things out what to do and what doesn’t need to be done. One is more focused on Golgari or Simic cards, the other is a warm welcome for White to the concept of a card draw mechanic (actually the first one was Learn, but that’s just something everyone does).
For those not remembering, Conspire is a one shot replicate that asks you to convoke two creatures. This time, you need to straight up kill one creature like in exploit’s case. Not just any creature, one with at least an amount of power the spell asks for.
| Set | U | B | R | M | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNC-M | 1 | 1 | |||
| SNC-R | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| SNC-U | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| SNC-C | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | |
| NCC-M | 1 | 1 | |||
| NCC-R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| Total | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 16 |
In retrospect, it’s certainly a meaningful cost compared to something like just convoking the creatures. For that, we haven’t been seeing a sacrifice mechanic for quite a while, even though that will continue to be the Rakdos archetype of choice for a bunch of sets.
Not to be confused with a certain card game’s “small deck” format, Blitz is like dash in the sense that you get one chance to attack with the creature, but it’s like cycling in the fact that you don’t keep the card in the end, you redraw a new one instead. Actually, is that actually like cycling, considering the cost is obviously much higher? Actually, there’s a few really expensive cyclers that have those big bonuses that also can’t be countered as easily as normal spells.
| Set | B | R | G | M | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNC-R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| SNC-U | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| SNC-C | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| NCC-M | 1 | 1 | |||
| NCC-R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| Total | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 16 |
Drawing up the cost matrix between the top row being the casting cost and the left column being the blitz cost, it’s clear that the cards are pretty split on whether a creature sticking around or getting that sweet haste and draw is worth more. It’s certainly the abilities on each card that will have the final verdict.
Ultimately, that high cost probably assumed that the creature actually get in damage through the one chance it got. What if it can’t, whether because of a shield counter, or because of a silly removal? Would I pay 4 mana for a 2/2 and draw a card, for instance. Turns out, no. And it gets even sadder when you think about the ones that need that attack trigger, suddenly what used to be their strength in an engine over time because a horrible weakness.
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | C | R | ||
| 3 | U | U | 2 | D |
| 4 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 5 | 2 | |||
| 6 | R |
An idea as obvious as seeing Landfall, Constellation (enchantment-fall) and eventually also Magecraft. Ultimately, this obvious nature makes it kinda whatever to the players’ eyes. Especially when so many value engines want to include itself or want to specify for nontoken creatures or any other subsections of creatures, it’s just kinda a given that you should be vigilant about these things and suddenly this default version doesn’t quite land the default mark.
| Set | R | G | W | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNC-R | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| SNC-U | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| SNC-C | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| NCC-R | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Total | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 |
Also, fact of the matter is that we’re talking about a Naya creature combat deck. I’ve wrote my fair share of opinions about Naya in the past, and I’m just saying now that the feelings about this specific mechanic is pretty indicative of Naya as a whole really.
Why are they so bad in limited? We need to take a look at what rewards these cards actually give us.
To be fair, this is a very underused mechanic so there’s a lot more bad cards that made the archetype as weak as it is. Not like the Riveteers were much better.