@juice-mane I disagree. Ancient Grudge sees a lot of play.
This needs r/g at the same time. Grudge sees play because its R now and G later and its card efficient as well.
Still, with as prominent as shops is, RUG could certainly make use of this enchantment. Certainly seems worthy of testing out.
@protoaddct it sure isn't. That's the whole Kambal vs this debate. But against PO for example, it makes them more aware of their plays AND you can also sacrifice this to destroy one of their artifacts if you think it's the best approach.
I guess my point is making them think about their plays with damage is not relevant if your not planning to back it up with finishers and putting them to 0. This card seems to me like it would be far better in a deck with lightning bolts than one that plans on winning with key/vault or off a walker is all.
Echoing the sentiment on Lavinia is WotC just done with symmetric hate effects? Not that it's likely with this card but the Blue Stew (tm) just co-opts the cards into their sideboards. Like Kambahl which would be a great core creature in a "new" deck it just becomes a boring hoser in a PO mirror.
RIP Gaddock Teeg and Thalia
I wouldn't be surprised if WotC wants players to dump their entire hand and just play with permanents and their activated abilities. I guess they think stack interactions and complicated board states (that symmetrical effects contribute to) don't look good for potential casual players.
It's not enough on it's own, which is why you need to put it in an aggressive shell like Delver that forces the opponent to worry about their life total. It's an enchantment, which pumps Tarmogoyf. I think there is potential here in a RUG shell with the usual metagame caveats applying. I know given the fact I played the same Survival player 7 out of 9 times in the MTGO leagues, I wouldn't mind having main deck enchantment/artifact removal that doubles as burn.against Xerox and PO
@Juice-Mane They printed arclight phoenix, thousand year storm, a 2 mana rune-snag...
@nedleeds Tocatli Honar Guard isn't symmetrical...
These hatebear and hatebear-like discussions are really just becoming tedious displays of selection bias.
@chubbyrain Obviously there was some exaggeration in my last post. However, I don't think you can in good faith argue that WotC hasn't been tending towards printing asymmetrical 'hate' cards. Mentioning just a few newer cards that incentivize the use of non-creature spells hardly undermines what people have been saying here at all, when a majority of the more powerful 'hate' cards printed recently have been asymmetrical. It's a little ironic that you mention selection bias in this context.
If players don't consistently discuss what they like and dislike about cards, how is WotC going to get meaningful feedback? The Vintage player base is marginal, but at least here the people involved in making cards can see a relatively more thoughtful discussion about their decisions than in other places of discussion.
@vaughnbros Nobody is denying that. People, including myself, are saying that they don't like WotC's increased tendency to print such cards in the past few years. I won't belabor my point further. We're just repeating the same pattern of miscommunication at this point.
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.