[RNA] Cinder Lash



  • @juice-mane

    The point is the original hate cards were actually mostly designed to be asymmetrical. Including the still played, Tormod's crypt, but also you could factor in all the color hate cards that wouldn't affect the user, like Karma and others.

    There have also pretty much always been symmetrical hate cards too, and still are.

    So no new trend is happening. This is what has always been. The "trend" you are viewing is selection bias.



  • I'll move the following post to the Lavinia thread if other users find it distracting:
    @vaughnbros I'm willing to accept that no new trend is happening if someone has the time to come up with statistics comparing the percentage of asymmetrical 'hate' cards in older sets to that in newer sets.

    But I wouldn't say there is selection bias underlying my perception when I can and have looked at the entirety of the more popular sets, both old and new, that are available to view on Scryfall. That's all insignificant semantics though. I get what you mean.

    My impression is that, before this perceived trend started taking place, hate cards often (not always) had counterparts or cards that nullified their effects. For example, Tormod's Crypt has Feldon's Cane, Acid Rain has Tsunami, and so on. The point is that these counterpart cards were made consistently enough that you could expect to see answers for newly printed hate cards with good reason.

    Considering the previous few sets, would you expect WotC to print a counterpart to Lavinia, that maybe costed UB, that said: "Each opponent can’t cast non-sorcery and non-instant spells with converted mana cost greater than the number of lands that player controls"?

    Had they printed a card like Lavinia before this perceived trend started taking place, I think they would've printed a counterpart to Lavinia worded similarly to above. I don't expect to see such a card being printed in current sets, considering the cards they've been printing recently. There would be an 'outrage' on reddit every day.

    So, based on those (unsubstantiated) impressions, I find it difficult to believe that WotC hasn't been incentivizing having permanents in play, at the cost of discouraging holding cards in hand. What I perceive as the problem with the newer cards is that the asymmetrical hate cards are backed by an asymmetrical design approach.



  • @juice-mane said in [RNA] Cinder Lash:

    I'll move the following post to the Lavinia thread if other users find it distracting:
    @vaughnbros I'm willing to accept that no new trend is happening if someone has the time to come up with statistics comparing the percentage of asymmetrical 'hate' cards in older sets to that in newer sets.

    But I wouldn't say there is selection bias underlying my perception when I can and have looked at the entirety of the more popular sets, both old and new, that are available to view on Scryfall. That's all insignificant semantics though. I get what you mean.

    My impression is that, before this perceived trend started taking place, hate cards often (not always) had counterparts or cards that nullified their effects. For example, Tormod's Crypt has Feldon's Cane, Acid Rain has Tsunami, and so on. The point is that these counterpart cards were made consistently enough that you could expect to see answers for newly printed hate cards with good reason.

    Considering the previous few sets, would you expect WotC to print a counterpart to Lavinia, that maybe costed UB, that said: "Each opponent can’t cast non-sorcery and non-instant spells with converted mana cost greater than the number of lands that player controls"?

    Had they printed a card like Lavinia before this perceived trend started taking place, I think they would've printed a counterpart to Lavinia worded similarly to above. I don't expect to see such a card being printed in current sets, considering the cards they've been printing recently. There would be an 'outrage' on reddit every day.

    So, based on those (unsubstantiated) impressions, I find it difficult to believe that WotC hasn't been incentivizing having permanents in play, at the cost of discouraging holding cards in hand. What I perceive as the problem with the newer cards is that the asymmetrical hate cards are backed by an asymmetrical design approach.

    Except you totally miss the point of Lavinia if you think your proposed counterpart would do anything other than be relegated to the junk rare binder. Lavinia is good because non-creature based decks are CONSTANTLY trying to cheat on mana with moxen. Creature based decks rarely do this as much and would, thus, probably play right through a piece of garbage card like the one you proposed.



  • OMFG let's please stop this nonsense complaining? For real, just deal with it. We can't let every discussion on New cards or restrictions be like this. Come on.

    Wizards is doing a great job keeping a game alive for 26 years. Things change. New cards are released all the time and they need to be new. We can't be wining "this shouldn't have been printed" all the time. It did get printed, do your best to break it and have fun.

    Don't like it? A lot of other people don't like it too. They play Old School. It's awesome.



  • This post is deleted!


  • These hatebear and hatebear-like discussions are really just becoming tedious displays of selection bias.

    What is a hatebear like discussion?

    We have Leovold, Kambhal now Lavinia. While I recognize they pale in comparison to eternal powerhouse Tacotli Honor Guard they are examples of cards I'd rather have seen symmetric. Since around Thalia 1.0 it's been trending this way with some exceptions like SotL, Containment Priest and Red Eidolon.

    I would prefer cards that make the deck builder create the shell of the deck around a taxing / punishing constraint rather than just shuffle them into the same tired 4xforce, 4xskillstep, 4xPreordain, Nx Blue Restricted 45 card stack. My preference is selection bias I guess.



  • @nedleeds said in [RNA] Cinder Lash:

    My preference is selection bias I guess.

    I'm glad we're finally understanding each other.



  • @fsecco said in [RNA] Cinder Lash:

    @nedleeds said in [RNA] Cinder Lash:

    My preference is selection bias I guess.

    I'm glad we're finally understanding each other.

    Sure but to say players have preferences and get salty about it and call it selection bias is almost as big a waste of text as my reply here. No shit.



  • This card seems Vintage-unplayable to me. It's true that it does have a non-zero effect in a variety of matchups, and that weak but versatile cards are frequently underestimated. But I can't get too excited about this card:

    • against Shops, this card is mainly useful for its artifact destruction ability (since most Shops threats these days are creatures). However RG is an awkward Vintage casting cost even in the best of circumstances, never mind when you're under pressure from Wastelands and spheres.
    • as has mentioned earlier in the thread, a single copy of Cinder Lash is a speed bump, but not fully effective, at stopping Tendrils-based combo. You need to get multiple copies into play to match the security of Kembal, Eidolon of the Great Revel, et al, and the upside of Cinder Lash (sniping an artifact with PO on the stack, for instance) does not make up for the lower damage rate.
    • likewise, against a Xerox deck, Cinder Lash applies slow but steady life pressure. That's not a terrible effect, but as with PO, playing Cinder Lash feels much weaker than playing and attacking with Kembal et al.
    • Cinder Lash does very little against creature-based aggro decks like humans, eldrazi, or Survival (you do get to pick off Survival of the Fittest, if they expose it without immediately putting themselves in a winning position) and stone nothing against Dredge.

    So as I said, I'm not too excited about Cinder Lash. It doesn't feel strong enough against a wide enough slice of the metagame to be worth playing maindeck. In the sideboard, I'd rather have strong anti-Shops tools, and strong anti-combo tools, rather than Cinder Lash which combats both, but not very effectively.



  • @evouga The issue with Kambal is that while his drain effect is more powerful, the colors that he is in lack reach. I was literally running OG Kaya in a Kambal control list (metagamed against PO and Blue Cantrips) in part because I found the drain effect to be synergistic and won several games with Kambal holding back Pyromancer tokens while Kaya drained the opponent.

    Cinderlash is a less powerful drain effect but it is a harder to remove permanent for most decks and in the same colors as Lightning Bolt. I honestly don't think the card is insane against PO, but against previous versions of Blue Cantrips, I've run Snapcaster + Fiery Confluence as a win condition. I think you are underestimating how drawn out those games can be and how the life loss from Phyrexian Mana, Force of Wills, and Fetchlands can add up.

    I don't like the card against Shops, Eldrazi, or Survival, but it's not dead there. I think you forgot to mention that you can pick off Hollow Ones out of survival. But while you are listing reasons why you consider the card to be unplayable, to me it's mostly just what I would consider metagaming. I would only play this in a heavy blue metagame. Probably one with Oath as well.

    Card evaluation and brewing is mostly about identifying decks in which a card's potential is maximized and a metagame in which a card a card's effect is desirable. That might not be none of the current decks or the current metagame. So it goes.


 

WAF/WHF