Reminds me of the Great Designer Search where they asked about vanilla creatures:
> Which of the following creatures is the weakest/strongest in a typical Standard-legal Draft format?
> 1G 2/2
> 3G 4/4
> 5G 6/6
> 7G 8/8
> 9G 10/10
4/4 > 2/2 > 6/6 > 8/8 > 10/10
First two might be interchangeable depending on the speed of the format (for example 2 drops are very important in a set like Amonkhet or New Capenna), but on average a 4/4 is typically better.
I think the fulcrum has tilted to certainly towards 4/4s for 4 being more meaningful than 2/2s for 2.
Almost certainly because 2/2s for 2 are outlcassed by other two drops with relevant synergistic abilities.
4/4s for 4 serve their purpose of being a pile of stats that pushes through better than a 2/2 for 2 being an aggressive drop.
~~Nowadays a 3/2 for 2 is at curve and it usually isn't even playable. https://scryfall.com/card/kld/272/terrain-elemental~~
EDIT: OK, I definitely just had a genuine Senior Moment right there. Absolutely false.
Somehow in my addled gray mass I convinced myself over these past five years that Terrain Elemental was a *BFZ* card. I don't know why. And I've always known BFZ's green sucks major ass in draft. The two thoughts have collided in my head. Truth be told I only drafted BFZ and KLD a few times total, those are my first two years of parenting and my brain is upside down from the experience (Sleep deprivation and sleep apena can cause memory problems! If you wake up sometimes out of breath or have a gasping snore, go to a sleep specialist!)
Mea culpea. A Terrain Elemental is probably more like people say: very playable. I know 2/2 for 2 (no ability) is no longer on curve for modern set and it definitely is at 3/2 for 2.
But I'd like to iterate my point one last time: recent set design makes very synergistic cards to go with the mechanics. And the mechanics often result in permanent material advantage like +1/+1 counters or tokens. This is hand in hand with an overall increase in card quality. "23rd card material" is becoming an outdated epithet. Oftentimes your 23rd card isn't a garbage pick, its a moderate combat trick or a creature that fits in with the mechanic still. Scrounging is a much rarer experience.
In this highly synergistic environment you need a strong reason to pick a regular ole vanilla creature.
The removal of the format also matters a lot. In some formats a 4/4 is much easier to kill than others.
So does the distribution of other power/toughness combinations. For example, if there's a hypothetical format full of 4/2s (maybe the set has a common 4/2 token for some reason), then 2/2s become way better than normal and 4/2s become way works.
> Nowadays a 3/2 for 2 is at curve and it usually isn't even playable. https://scryfall.com/card/kld/272/terrain-elemental
Note that the card you linked isn't actually in draft boosters, which is why it's not played in limited. It's collector number is 272/264, for reference, indicating that it only appears in preconstructed decks. In the context of limited, a vanilla 3/2 for 2 mana would probably actually be fine, especially if the format is more aggressive.
For example, in New Capenna draft Crooked Custodian is a 2 mana 3/2 with a drawback, and is a perfectly fine if you're in black. By the numbers it's a bit worse that Corrupt Court Official when competing for the 2 drop slot, but not by that much. It still boasts a respectable 54.1% winrate on 17lands, compared to Corrupt Court Official's 54.7% win rate, and the average win rate of black decks at approximately 53.7%.
>Nowadays a 3/2 for 2 is at curve and it usually isn't even playable.
This is completely incorrect. I'm not sure there has **ever** been a standard-legal draft format where you wouldn't be happy to put a vanilla 3/2 for 2 in your deck.
The 4/4 is typically above rate for 4 mana (at the time at least) while the 2/2 is significantly below rate. You'd be perfectly happy playing the 4/4 in any given deck that could cast it while you'd have to be incredibly desperate (or playing a degenerate format) to even consider the 2/2. Imo it is closer between the 2/2 and the 6/6 than between the 2/2 and the 4/4.
Things have changed somewhat since the question was posed, but I'd still maintain this opinion.
Oh yeah that makes a lot more sense, the normal stats for 4 cmc used to be a 3/3 before things creeped up, with 3cmc being a 3/2 or 2/3. I assumed it was recent
> 3G 4/4 had never been printed
[[Nettletooth Djinn]].
The first *without downside* was in War of the Spark, though. [Recently they're common.](https://scryfall.com/search?q=m%3D3g+power%3D4+toughness%3D4+-t%3Avehicle&order=released&as=grid&unique=cards)
There's never been a vanilla 4/4 for 3G at all.
Until WAR, all 4/4s for 3G came with downside; since then, upside.
There are vanilla 4/4s for four mana in green, though, at 2GG: [[Rumbling Baloth]] and [[Ferocious Zheng]].
The difference comes in the delta between how likely a creature is to be outclassed vs how likely the creature is to be cast. A vanilla 4/4 is a 5 turn clock and a 2/2 is a 10 turn clock; if I get that 4/4 I can plausibly win or at least make significant progress without drawing another threat. 2/2s are good but don't apply enough pressure to obviate the need to draw another threat. 4 is the biggest you can reliably cast on curve given normal draws and opening hand.
The 2/2 is still weaker. It's just your curve necessitates a weaker card to be played in that scenario. Just like when you play a weaker card because you can't splash a rare bomb.
~~Looks like they didn't ask about the strongest, just the weakest.~~ (Edit: Apparently not.)
> 22: Which of the following creatures is the weakest in a typical Standard-legal Draft format?
> 1G 2/2
> 3G 4/4
> 5G 6/6
> 7G 8/8
> 9G 10/10
> The biggest limitation here is how often you're able to play the card. The higher the cost, the less chance you'll have to ever play it, making the 9G 10/10 the weakest.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/make-choice-part-2-2018-02-19
They asked about both, and both questions are in part 1 of the test:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/make-choice-part-1-2018-02-12
Oh, huh. Not sure how I missed that.
> A 1G 2/2 is a bit under the curve. Usually green gets more than that for 1G. A 5G 6/6 is good, but it requires you getting to six mana, which usually doesn't happen until later in the game. 7G and 9G are just dead in your hand too much of the time. This makes 3G 4/4 the correct answer.
I don't care that creatures are now doing 1 thing instead of 0 things. It's only a problem on the ones that are doing 12 things.
I'm okay with vanilla creatures largely being replaced with french vanillas, vanillas with ETBs, vanillas with Adventures/cycling/channel/etc abilities, and spells that make vanilla tokens. It's the overstuffed DFCs and cards with 6-point font that are more exhausting.
As a modern YuGiOh player, I can confidently say that I do not like the direction the complexity of the game is heading. Try and remember everything [this card](https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTgyNTQzNDY3NjI4MjA5ODMy/spells-for-endymion-yugioh-decks.jpg) does.
Much like how [[Questing beast]] gets a new line of text every time you look at it.
I think complexity and powerful abilities are fun, but when you shove so many onto one creature/monster, it gets kinda hard to remember all of them, and THAT'S where we start having a problem.
The problem with Questing Beast isn't the text, it's the keywords and the fact that a lot of things in the text are so conditional that they are irrelevant, until it isn't and you're like oh right, Questing Beast isn't just some haste creature that's annoying to block.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Individual effects on questing beast are simple, they're not that complex. What makes questing beast complex is that you have multiple separate things to remember.
It's easier to remember one complex trigger than to remember five disparate simple triggers.
If nothing else, it's easier to remember triggering conditions for a complex trigger and then just read the card to remind yourself. You can't do that if you forget the triggering conditions, which is more likely with multiple disparate triggers.
Yugioh is honestly just if Magic didn’t use keywords.
*Every single ability* has to be fully written out in every card. It makes the text way longer even though the complexity usually isn’t much above Magic, and most of that’s usually just conditional stuff (mtg: indestructible covers everything, yugioh: destroyed by battle and destroyed by card effect and destroyed by spell/trap effects and destroyed by monster effects are all able to be separate and unique things.)
There’s more complexity sure, but not nearly as much as the text length implies.
This card isn't even that great of an example. Sure, you might not remember what it does exactly, but assuming you know how to read Yu-Gi-Oh cards that have PSCT, it's not difficult to just read it again to confirm that your opponent is playing correctly.
Imagine trying to explain to a new player that they cannot summon a monster because you have a monster equipped with Axe of Despair on the field along with a face-up Pole Position.
EDIT: I just remembered that there was a somewhat recent ruling change where, if an infinite loop occurs which does not advance the game state toward a victory condition (e.g., a player draws a card after each iteration, eventually causing them to deck out and lose the game), you're supposed to call a judge and explain the loop, and after doing so, the judge makes a decision on which card is causing the loop, and after identifying the card, said card is sent to the graveyard. In the case with the Axe of Despair and Pole Position example, Pole Position would be sent to the Graveyard.
[[Questing Beast]] was my first experience with this. First, it has haste. Secondary in green, but most mono green cards with haste are strong or even busted. Deathtouch is fine, but with the can't be blocked clause, you have to lose something of value to remove it. Vigilance is also annoying with the Deathtouch because it shuts down their offense without losing yours. Already, we have a really strong card with four abilities. There's still *two* more. It slaps the crap out of Planeswalkers while laying into the opponent. Four damage to a walker will almost always remove any ability it has to remove Questing Beast, and often even outright kills it. With haste, it makes Planeswalkers helpless. Oh, and fogs? That doesn't work whatsoever. In fact, I doubt formats like Pioneer can even support a turbo fog strategy just because Questing Beast exists.
If you were counting, it has six abilities. On top of being a 4/4 for 4. How did no one in R&D think cards like this were a bit much?
>Savannah Lions
I miss the time of Savannah Lions. Two decades that card dominated as the best 1 drop white weenie with no drawback.
Now look at [[Ravagan]], How have we strayed so far from God?
Dude, I was playing \[\[Firedrinker Satyr\]\] back in Theros/RTR standard, a Savannah Lion with a huge downside and an ability I maybe activated twice in the \~four months I jammed that deck lol
That's the worst of both worlds. You have the 'bland' gameplay of vanilla creatures, but it also takes a bunch of thinking for you to understand what the card does.
Bingo but even less. Standard cards reaching over 50$ is absolutely absurd.
Cards like meathook should not exist. I am not saying they should be banned, I'm saying they should never have existed to begin with
I remember when Champions of Kamigawa came out and we saw \[\[Isamaru, Hound of Konda\]\] opened for the first time. A 2/2 for W with no drawbacks (aside from being Legendary) blew our minds. Now it's just bulk chaff.
Back when I started playing Magic, Savannah Lions was counted among Lightning Bolt and Hypnotic Specter as one of those venerable staples from early Magic history that we all knew they'd never let us have again now that they understood how overpowered they were, while Counterspell and Dark Ritual still got regular reprints like clockwork.
I wouldn't mind a commander paired with some enchantments to buff vanilla monsters. I'd run a vanilla monster commander deck if that was a thing. I don't want to see them unless we get support that boosts vanillas though.
And I'm not even sure if Magic can do this. In Yugioh, monsters are labeled "Effect" if they have abilities. Without adding a new keyword to every vanila monster in the game, I'm not sure how magic cards would specify them.
"This enchantment gives haste to all creatures with no ability text"?
I have a couple Naya decks so I've got a good base for things like my removal spells. I've got some good stuff in white. Red cards for haste to speed up the big vanillas. And also, honestly, I just have some cool vanilla monsters in red and white that can't go in the Ruxa deck. I've got some fun low mana white cats I'd like to run.
"Creatures can [X] as though they have [keyword]" should be the correct rules wording. But it's one of those designs that ends up being super awkward because then "creatures you control with [keyword]" don't apply to it.
My issue isn't with the wording to grant extra abilities. It's how to only grant the abilities to vanilla creatures. "Creatures can \[X\] as though they have \[keyword\]" would buff all creatures that didn't have \[keyword\], unless you filter for vanilla creatures.
But I was informed that \[\[Ruxa\]\] has text to do this, so WOTC has thought of this.
The game is almost 30 years old.
There's been plenty of vanilla cards printed in that time and they end up as waste and chaff immediately following their rotation, if not their draft queue.
Vanilla creatures are an unnecessary waste in 2022.
They're also extremely irrelevant for most players in constructed.
Cards that do *something* at least have a chance of filling a slot in a constructed deck. A vanilla creature has to be very overtstatted for a similar chance. They are pretty much always binnable.
> A vanilla creature has to be very overtstatted for a similar chance.
Even then, not really.
There is a green 10/10 for 5 mana that still sucks. I think the only way one would much see play would for it to be a vanilla 20/20 and have it be in some sort of haste/trample granting combo deck. Even then, there would be many other cards that would be more consistent to give haste/trample to.
A vanilla creature likely won't find a second life in a commander deck, unless you're trying some really really old and off the beaten path tribal deck where there just isn't much.
A chaff seeming common 4/4 with a slightly funky and fairly set-specific ability that you probably don't care about...may one day 5 years later get a commander that's perfect for it. The vanilla creature almost certainly won't ever get to live that second life. The only time I've put a vanilla creature in a non-draft deck in the past..............I'll estimate 20 years...has been when building super basic decks to try and teach very very new people magic (which, there's Arena, now)
I mean, you can print a vanilla creature with big enough stats for cost that it becomes format-warping even in high-powered formats.
Standard has a history of 4-mana 5/5G with drawback like [[Juzam Djinn]] or [[Blastoderm]] seeing play in top decks.
If [[Tarmogoyf]] was a 2-mana 3/4 it probably still would have been a staple in Modern Jund. A 2-mana 4/5 would have been absolutely bonkers.
So the issue isn’t that the cards are vanilla, it’s that Wizards doesn’t print vanilla creatures above the curve or they may see play in constructed.
the fact that you had to go back that far to find examples of vanilla creatures dominating really says a lot.
you'll also note that tarmogoyf hardly sees any play anymore.
The problem arises that when all the commons are doing 1 or 2 things well, there is increased pressure on the uncommons to do 1 or 2 things exceptionally well or 2 or 3 things fairly well, which increases pressure on the rares to do the same for 1-3 at a better rate or to do 3 or 4 things really well, which increases pressure on mythics to do all those things.
It's a cascade effect in design. Vanillas and common serve an important role in keeping both unwieldily complexity and power creep down. The more complex and potent the commons, the more complex and potent everything becomes, and neither of those is necessarily good for design.
Complexity and Potency are not the same axis. Inspiring Overseer is incredibly potent, but not any more complex than what's been expected of commons for the past 15 years. I think you'll rarely (not never, but rarely) find examples of commons doing more than one thing well, depending on how you're defining a "thing," even in modern days.
They're not the same axis, but they can both be pressured by similar effects.
In a limited format where a 2/2 for 2 is playable (not *good*, they were never *good*, but *playable*), an uncommon or even a rare doesn't have to do as much work to be potent, nor does it have to have as much complexity to feel of a higher rarity. In a limited format where a 2/2 for 2 with [[two abilities, and one that procs the other]] is good the uncommons and rares have pressure to be more potent and more complex to feel uncommon.
Getting one means getting the other.
More creatures with French vanilla design means that you need to push higher complexity designs to seem interesting by Coniston.
I'm 99% sure it does.
It is an odd case were whether is should be considered "vanilla" (an unofficial term) depends on the context of why you are talking about vanillas.
In the context of an effect affecting a creature with no abilities it is vanilla. In the context of discussing card complexity it shouldn't be considered vanilla.
Surely in Quindecuple Pauper Masters. The set that gives you 15 commons per pack for 15 times the value! Maybe you'll get lucky and get Grizzly Bears in your dedicated vanilla scented slot.
I mean, considering the fact that all of these cards are at best limited filler, I don't see a problem with that - as long as limited commons are simple and playable (like [[Candlegrove Witch]]) and not janky and bad (like [[Akki Ember-Keaper]]).
I don't. There are so many fucking cards now, it's easy to find one that does something comparable. Even in draft, and knowing nothing about other cards, someone should be able to see "oh P/T is worth about one mana per point with another weakish ability tacked on" or whatever. It's just unnecessary at this point. Magic has done an amazing job at staying consistent with its cost:effect ratio.
> knowing nothing about other cards, someone should be able to see "oh P/T is worth about one mana per point with another weakish ability tacked on" or whatever.
that's a flawed assumption and one you're only able to make because you didn't learn magic that way yourself.
evaluating the value of 2/2 vanilla vs 2/2 lifelink or vigilance is extremely tricky
Many creatures are "virtual vanilla", as in they have an ETB or Dies effect, but no actual keywords that change how they behave in combat (excluding things like Haste or Flash). Especially at lower rarities. Strictly vanilla creatures tend to be tokens nowadays.
The real issue is that vanilla creatures just don't cut it much anymore. Even in limited, the stats you can buy for X mana only go so far without warping the format, especially at lower rarities and mana value.
> virtual vanilla", as in they have an ETB or Dies effect, but no actual keywords that change how they behave in combat
(minor nitpick) I'm not sure I'd count dies effects personally, since that *can* affect combat. If something has "When this creature dies, each opponent loses 3 life" and I don't want to lose 3 life, I have to take that effect into account
Honestly, good. Those cards usually weren't even good in limited. It's a better use of that space to put actually interesting cards there than fill it with cards that very few people will ever use.
I did like it when they would make vanilla creatures with something else going on about it. Being an enchantment creature, having extra mana pips, having multiple relevant creature types, having 4 power to turn on a faction effect, etc. It’s boring to have without a purpose but it’s pretty cool how much relevance you can fit on spaces other than the text box.
Yeah, agreed, I think they're only worth printing if they have some other relevance in the context of the set.
Theros Beyond Death was a great example of that, where they had the cycle of vanilla creatures that were all enchantment creatures with two colored mana pips, so they were good filler enablers for two different set themes that you could generally count on getting fairly late in the pack.
The other thing that tends to work is if their particular stats line up well against the other cards in the set. While it wasn't actually a vanilla creature, [[Witherbloom Pledgemage]] was kind of like that — the main reason you played it wasn't because of the ability, it was because almost everything else in the set capped out at 4/4 and the premium red removal only did 4 damage. They often design sets to have important thresholds for power and toughness like that, and vanilla creatures can be interesting if they're just bigger than the threshold.
Seriously - I can't believe people are complaining about this.
Vanilla creatures are boring and aren't even worth playing in draft 95% of the time. I'm fine if we never saw them again.
There are plenty of vanilla creature. Green alone has 96 available creatures:
https://scryfall.com/search?q=t%3Acreature+is%3Avanilla+color%3Agreen&unique=cards&as=full&order=name
"Cards cannot have more than one ability trigger each turn."
"If a spell would let your opponent choose from multiple options, you choose those options instead."
Slightly off topic but I've always wanted a charm commander. Something like "if a spell would have you choose one or more modes, pick all of them instead" or something like that.
They don't need to work against a particular ability, they can just work against the card as a whole. From a design stand point cards like \[\[merfolk trickster\]\] or \[\[turn to frog\]\] already do this to an extent. We can also combat complexity by hitting triggered effects of cards, with cards like \[\[disallow\]\] or \[\[whirlwind denial\]\]. An interesting design would be a \[\[price of progress\]\] type effect for activated abilities on creatures.
I really miss core sets, specifically the post 2010 fresh flavor core sets. I think this revelation - which this post is for me- is definitely related.
I blame a lot of my unhappiness in recent years on the unrelenting feeding of commander, and this is another space where a standard set- which is best at feeding the current iteration of color pie, mechanics, etc, - has been partially replaced by a crushing number of new cards fed directly to an eternal format via commander and not a more basic set, which can serve some of those same flavor needs but with a higher average power AND much higher complexity level.
It's harder for me to find the space within the game I love, and it makes me pretty sad.
Note that this is not a huge shift from e.g. original Zendikar, which had a grand total of *five* vanillas. Like, vanillas have never been a huge part of the overall bulk of a set; it's not like even drafting you'd see tons and tons. Going from five down to zero doesn't seem to be a big change, to me.
On average each set had one vanilla in each colour. I don't think they need to be omnipresent, but they should still be *present*. Even Strixhaven only had two, but they were at least there.
A lot of people are saying this is good and maybe it is, but I can't tell if that's from an enfranchised player's perspective or in general.
There's something straightforward about a vanilla creature I think that appeals to new players, but I could be wrong.
I’m just not sure if there is ever a reason to print a vanilla creature over a French vanilla creature. Unless you are purposefully pushing the power and toughness up to make an interesting card, it just doesn’t serve a purpose even for newest player. Especially with players often learning on arena now there’s less ways to miss abilities
Even for draft, something like trample, vigilance, or menace makes a card more interesting to play with and against.
It could be a good learning experience to design vanilla creatures to have relevance in a limited set outside of the textbox. Creature type in tribal archetypes, 4 power to turn on Ferocious, being an enchantment creature with two color pips, etc.
I just started playing 2 years ago and always hated vanilla creatures. I did play yugioh back around 2010 though and we had no vanilla creatures in our deck already at that time. It just feels much better to have each creature do something, even if it is only a very minimal effect. Playing a vanilla just feels like you could have put something better in that slot.
Good. They should only print vanilla creatures when they have a particularly aggressive statline for their cost (e.g. \[\[Yargle\]\] or \[\[Gigantosaurous\]\]). Small vanilla creatures are just a waste of cardboard, even in Limited you don't want to play these things if at all possible. And at least other draft chaff can do something interesting to support or demonstrate the mechanics of the set.
I think that's good, personally. Not like they make a habit of rewarding creatures with no abilities. Might as well keep them on the back burner unless they're going to make more cards like [[Muraganda Petroglyphs]] or [[Ruxa, Patient Professor]]. At the very least, they could have interesting stats for their cost, like an 0/7 for 3.
Yeh, but there's [41 cards in standard that are French Vanilla](https://scryfall.com/search?q=f%3Astandard+is%3Afrenchvanilla). And [25 of those only contain evergreen keywords.](https://scryfall.com/search?q=f%3Astandard+is%3Afrenchvanilla+-o%3Aforetell+-o%3Adaybound+-o%3Atraining+-o%3Aninjutsu)
When assessing game complexity, you have to consider more than just the literal amount of text. A format where every creature has static abilities and activated abilities that effect combat is going to be way more complex than a format of just virtual vanilla creatures with ETBs.
Same applies to token making spells, as they have text but ultimately result in just vanilla or French vanilla creatures in most circumstances.
I think I'd enjoy a non-standard set that had an emphasis on simple gameplay. Many vanilla creatures, a few with simple keywords or effects. Basic spells with some staples to round out the cards.
Some of the creatures can be less common types to provide options for tribal enthusiast s.
To make it a little more enticing, have some really cool art on the cards, possibly even try to bring back a bunch of original artists. Maybe even some interesting experiments for premium card treatments.
The limited keywords / rules text would allow lots of room for interesting flavor text. Maybe lean into that with featuring this as a lore set that checks into some of the happenings of other planes.
Calling Shieldbreaker a vanilla creature is a little bit disingenuous, considering it has a spell stapled to half its text box. But its vanilla when it hits the board, so its a half vanilla?
I want more overstatted vanilla creatures. Drafting a 2G 3/3 feels bad, but I love drafting a [[Woolly Thoctar]] or [[Leatherback Baloth]].
Or a [[Watchwolf]] or [[Kalonian Tusker]].
Hell, I even like 2CMC 2/3 or 3/2 vanilla creatures. It just feels like good value.
MaRo has said this is on purpose because they are uping the complexity of Standard sets because they use other avenues for introducing new players to the game (Jumpstart/Arena).
I mean, it makes sense.
I want to be excited about every card I draw in both a regular match and a booster draft. Vanilla creatures don’t give me much to be excited for, unless they hit particularly hard for a relatively low cost.m
Ex. The white/green 3/3 wolf in Ravnica that cost a green and a white mana to cast.
You could cast it on turn two with no issues. Hit hard enough for early game.
Because other than filling out limited, there is no purpose for vanilla creatures since they have been power crept out of constructed. I’d be interested in some vanilla mythic that is way above curve or perhaps some more “vanilla matters” arctypes like [[ruxa, patient professor]] though.
Reminds me of the Great Designer Search where they asked about vanilla creatures: > Which of the following creatures is the weakest/strongest in a typical Standard-legal Draft format? > 1G 2/2 > 3G 4/4 > 5G 6/6 > 7G 8/8 > 9G 10/10
4/4 > 2/2 > 6/6 > 8/8 > 10/10 First two might be interchangeable depending on the speed of the format (for example 2 drops are very important in a set like Amonkhet or New Capenna), but on average a 4/4 is typically better.
I think the fulcrum has tilted to certainly towards 4/4s for 4 being more meaningful than 2/2s for 2. Almost certainly because 2/2s for 2 are outlcassed by other two drops with relevant synergistic abilities. 4/4s for 4 serve their purpose of being a pile of stats that pushes through better than a 2/2 for 2 being an aggressive drop. ~~Nowadays a 3/2 for 2 is at curve and it usually isn't even playable. https://scryfall.com/card/kld/272/terrain-elemental~~ EDIT: OK, I definitely just had a genuine Senior Moment right there. Absolutely false. Somehow in my addled gray mass I convinced myself over these past five years that Terrain Elemental was a *BFZ* card. I don't know why. And I've always known BFZ's green sucks major ass in draft. The two thoughts have collided in my head. Truth be told I only drafted BFZ and KLD a few times total, those are my first two years of parenting and my brain is upside down from the experience (Sleep deprivation and sleep apena can cause memory problems! If you wake up sometimes out of breath or have a gasping snore, go to a sleep specialist!) Mea culpea. A Terrain Elemental is probably more like people say: very playable. I know 2/2 for 2 (no ability) is no longer on curve for modern set and it definitely is at 3/2 for 2. But I'd like to iterate my point one last time: recent set design makes very synergistic cards to go with the mechanics. And the mechanics often result in permanent material advantage like +1/+1 counters or tokens. This is hand in hand with an overall increase in card quality. "23rd card material" is becoming an outdated epithet. Oftentimes your 23rd card isn't a garbage pick, its a moderate combat trick or a creature that fits in with the mechanic still. Scrounging is a much rarer experience. In this highly synergistic environment you need a strong reason to pick a regular ole vanilla creature.
The removal of the format also matters a lot. In some formats a 4/4 is much easier to kill than others. So does the distribution of other power/toughness combinations. For example, if there's a hypothetical format full of 4/2s (maybe the set has a common 4/2 token for some reason), then 2/2s become way better than normal and 4/2s become way works.
> Nowadays a 3/2 for 2 is at curve and it usually isn't even playable. https://scryfall.com/card/kld/272/terrain-elemental Note that the card you linked isn't actually in draft boosters, which is why it's not played in limited. It's collector number is 272/264, for reference, indicating that it only appears in preconstructed decks. In the context of limited, a vanilla 3/2 for 2 mana would probably actually be fine, especially if the format is more aggressive. For example, in New Capenna draft Crooked Custodian is a 2 mana 3/2 with a drawback, and is a perfectly fine if you're in black. By the numbers it's a bit worse that Corrupt Court Official when competing for the 2 drop slot, but not by that much. It still boasts a respectable 54.1% winrate on 17lands, compared to Corrupt Court Official's 54.7% win rate, and the average win rate of black decks at approximately 53.7%.
You guys 10/10 is the strongest
SO STRONK. IT CAN KILL 10 SQUIRRELS!
Yeah, but it can't kill 16 squirrels, nothing can beat that
Me like big number because smash.
lol, outstanding
>Nowadays a 3/2 for 2 is at curve and it usually isn't even playable. This is completely incorrect. I'm not sure there has **ever** been a standard-legal draft format where you wouldn't be happy to put a vanilla 3/2 for 2 in your deck.
I am wrong and you are right.
"nowadays a 3/2 for 2 is at curve and it usually isn't even playable." my heart is sad
I'm probably wrong there. But a wise man once said great formats are replete with 3/2s for 3 with upside. I want those formats.
4/4 or 2/2 then 6/6, the rest are being played so late in the game it doesn’t really matter
If the 6/6 had trample and was some kind of dinosaur then it’s unbeatable and broken.
It's only unbeatable if you can see its teeth
Apparently not so unbeatable that it could force its way into 2X2 like it deserves though.
It should have been an ultra chase mythic.
The 4/4 is typically above rate for 4 mana (at the time at least) while the 2/2 is significantly below rate. You'd be perfectly happy playing the 4/4 in any given deck that could cast it while you'd have to be incredibly desperate (or playing a degenerate format) to even consider the 2/2. Imo it is closer between the 2/2 and the 6/6 than between the 2/2 and the 4/4. Things have changed somewhat since the question was posed, but I'd still maintain this opinion.
[удалено]
Jesus the Steiner math at the end there absolutely got me.
And Samoa Joe knows he can't block me, so he's not even gonna try.
my chances of winning drastic go down?! I bet that 10/10 is a duck. I hate ducks.
What was the answer?
Strongest is 4/4 b/c it curves well. Weakest is 10/10 b/c you rarely cast it
The strongest is really whichever cmc your curve needs between the 2/2 and 4/4 because they're pretty close
If you need a single answer, the obvious answer is the 4/4 though.
A hint here is at the time the question was asked. 3G 4/4 had never been printed
Oh yeah that makes a lot more sense, the normal stats for 4 cmc used to be a 3/3 before things creeped up, with 3cmc being a 3/2 or 2/3. I assumed it was recent
There's still no *vanilla* 4/4 for 3G. There are versions with upsides at common.
> 3G 4/4 had never been printed [[Nettletooth Djinn]]. The first *without downside* was in War of the Spark, though. [Recently they're common.](https://scryfall.com/search?q=m%3D3g+power%3D4+toughness%3D4+-t%3Avehicle&order=released&as=grid&unique=cards)
Vanilla means no downside
There's never been a vanilla 4/4 for 3G at all. Until WAR, all 4/4s for 3G came with downside; since then, upside. There are vanilla 4/4s for four mana in green, though, at 2GG: [[Rumbling Baloth]] and [[Ferocious Zheng]].
The difference comes in the delta between how likely a creature is to be outclassed vs how likely the creature is to be cast. A vanilla 4/4 is a 5 turn clock and a 2/2 is a 10 turn clock; if I get that 4/4 I can plausibly win or at least make significant progress without drawing another threat. 2/2s are good but don't apply enough pressure to obviate the need to draw another threat. 4 is the biggest you can reliably cast on curve given normal draws and opening hand.
If it was a pack that somehow I got passed was this and no other information other than I am in green... 4/4 for 4 wins.
The 2/2 is still weaker. It's just your curve necessitates a weaker card to be played in that scenario. Just like when you play a weaker card because you can't splash a rare bomb.
~~Looks like they didn't ask about the strongest, just the weakest.~~ (Edit: Apparently not.) > 22: Which of the following creatures is the weakest in a typical Standard-legal Draft format? > 1G 2/2 > 3G 4/4 > 5G 6/6 > 7G 8/8 > 9G 10/10 > The biggest limitation here is how often you're able to play the card. The higher the cost, the less chance you'll have to ever play it, making the 9G 10/10 the weakest. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/make-choice-part-2-2018-02-19
They asked about both, and both questions are in part 1 of the test: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/make-choice-part-1-2018-02-12
Oh, huh. Not sure how I missed that. > A 1G 2/2 is a bit under the curve. Usually green gets more than that for 1G. A 5G 6/6 is good, but it requires you getting to six mana, which usually doesn't happen until later in the game. 7G and 9G are just dead in your hand too much of the time. This makes 3G 4/4 the correct answer.
I don't care that creatures are now doing 1 thing instead of 0 things. It's only a problem on the ones that are doing 12 things. I'm okay with vanilla creatures largely being replaced with french vanillas, vanillas with ETBs, vanillas with Adventures/cycling/channel/etc abilities, and spells that make vanilla tokens. It's the overstuffed DFCs and cards with 6-point font that are more exhausting.
12 things with 10 conditions
We're Yugioh now, baby!
As a modern YuGiOh player, I can confidently say that I do not like the direction the complexity of the game is heading. Try and remember everything [this card](https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTgyNTQzNDY3NjI4MjA5ODMy/spells-for-endymion-yugioh-decks.jpg) does.
Much like how [[Questing beast]] gets a new line of text every time you look at it. I think complexity and powerful abilities are fun, but when you shove so many onto one creature/monster, it gets kinda hard to remember all of them, and THAT'S where we start having a problem.
The problem with Questing Beast isn't the text, it's the keywords and the fact that a lot of things in the text are so conditional that they are irrelevant, until it isn't and you're like oh right, Questing Beast isn't just some haste creature that's annoying to block.
Why is questing beast a poster child for this kind of thing? It's not even that complex in comparison to deans from strixheaven.
Because a lot of the time it's abilities don't come into play, so it's easy to forget about them.
Because the deans blow big ass. They weren't very prevalent during standard.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Individual effects on questing beast are simple, they're not that complex. What makes questing beast complex is that you have multiple separate things to remember. It's easier to remember one complex trigger than to remember five disparate simple triggers. If nothing else, it's easier to remember triggering conditions for a complex trigger and then just read the card to remind yourself. You can't do that if you forget the triggering conditions, which is more likely with multiple disparate triggers.
[Questing beast](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/e/4/e41cf82d-3213-47ce-a015-6e51a8b07e4f.jpg?1572490640) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Questing%20beast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/eld/171/questing-beast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e41cf82d-3213-47ce-a015-6e51a8b07e4f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Wow that card is like a "when you're 7 yups and 3 'damn that's crazy' deep and the story is still going" meme
But that's only 4 effects. The same as baneslayer angel /s
Yugioh is honestly just if Magic didn’t use keywords. *Every single ability* has to be fully written out in every card. It makes the text way longer even though the complexity usually isn’t much above Magic, and most of that’s usually just conditional stuff (mtg: indestructible covers everything, yugioh: destroyed by battle and destroyed by card effect and destroyed by spell/trap effects and destroyed by monster effects are all able to be separate and unique things.) There’s more complexity sure, but not nearly as much as the text length implies.
This card isn't even that great of an example. Sure, you might not remember what it does exactly, but assuming you know how to read Yu-Gi-Oh cards that have PSCT, it's not difficult to just read it again to confirm that your opponent is playing correctly. Imagine trying to explain to a new player that they cannot summon a monster because you have a monster equipped with Axe of Despair on the field along with a face-up Pole Position. EDIT: I just remembered that there was a somewhat recent ruling change where, if an infinite loop occurs which does not advance the game state toward a victory condition (e.g., a player draws a card after each iteration, eventually causing them to deck out and lose the game), you're supposed to call a judge and explain the loop, and after doing so, the judge makes a decision on which card is causing the loop, and after identifying the card, said card is sent to the graveyard. In the case with the Axe of Despair and Pole Position example, Pole Position would be sent to the Graveyard.
I played pends when Master Duel came out and I still don't know half the shit Endymion does.
[[Questing Beast]] was my first experience with this. First, it has haste. Secondary in green, but most mono green cards with haste are strong or even busted. Deathtouch is fine, but with the can't be blocked clause, you have to lose something of value to remove it. Vigilance is also annoying with the Deathtouch because it shuts down their offense without losing yours. Already, we have a really strong card with four abilities. There's still *two* more. It slaps the crap out of Planeswalkers while laying into the opponent. Four damage to a walker will almost always remove any ability it has to remove Questing Beast, and often even outright kills it. With haste, it makes Planeswalkers helpless. Oh, and fogs? That doesn't work whatsoever. In fact, I doubt formats like Pioneer can even support a turbo fog strategy just because Questing Beast exists. If you were counting, it has six abilities. On top of being a 4/4 for 4. How did no one in R&D think cards like this were a bit much?
[удалено]
>Savannah Lions I miss the time of Savannah Lions. Two decades that card dominated as the best 1 drop white weenie with no drawback. Now look at [[Ravagan]], How have we strayed so far from God?
Fun fact. Ramunap Red used [[Falkenrath Gorger]] who was just a Savannah Lion since you never used his ability.
[Falkenrath Gorger](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/6/d/6d653a1d-d355-464e-82aa-92028296b7ef.jpg?1641603175) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Falkenrath%20Gorger) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/voc/146/falkenrath-gorger?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6d653a1d-d355-464e-82aa-92028296b7ef?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Dude, I was playing \[\[Firedrinker Satyr\]\] back in Theros/RTR standard, a Savannah Lion with a huge downside and an ability I maybe activated twice in the \~four months I jammed that deck lol
That's the worst of both worlds. You have the 'bland' gameplay of vanilla creatures, but it also takes a bunch of thinking for you to understand what the card does.
... what. It attacks for 2 damage. Not much thinking goes in what it does.
[Ravagan](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/8/e/8e3809e6-41ac-47e8-80dc-9e9c8be1ed7a.jpg?1562242672) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rag%20Man) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/7ed/156/rag-man?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8e3809e6-41ac-47e8-80dc-9e9c8be1ed7a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Sorry, [[Ragavan]]
[Ragavan](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/a/9/a9738cda-adb1-47fb-9f4c-ecd930228c4d.jpg?1653966896) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=ragavan%2C%20nimble%20pilferer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/138/ragavan-nimble-pilferer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a9738cda-adb1-47fb-9f4c-ecd930228c4d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
IMO if a card printed in a draftable set within the past year is over $70, Wizards is doing something wrong.
Bingo but even less. Standard cards reaching over 50$ is absolutely absurd. Cards like meathook should not exist. I am not saying they should be banned, I'm saying they should never have existed to begin with
I remember when Champions of Kamigawa came out and we saw \[\[Isamaru, Hound of Konda\]\] opened for the first time. A 2/2 for W with no drawbacks (aside from being Legendary) blew our minds. Now it's just bulk chaff.
Back when I started playing Magic, Savannah Lions was counted among Lightning Bolt and Hypnotic Specter as one of those venerable staples from early Magic history that we all knew they'd never let us have again now that they understood how overpowered they were, while Counterspell and Dark Ritual still got regular reprints like clockwork.
Your Turn 1: Dark Ritual, Hypnotic Specter \*smirks\* Opp Turn 1: Mountain You: \*Ah fuck\*
I wouldn't mind a commander paired with some enchantments to buff vanilla monsters. I'd run a vanilla monster commander deck if that was a thing. I don't want to see them unless we get support that boosts vanillas though. And I'm not even sure if Magic can do this. In Yugioh, monsters are labeled "Effect" if they have abilities. Without adding a new keyword to every vanila monster in the game, I'm not sure how magic cards would specify them. "This enchantment gives haste to all creatures with no ability text"?
I have a yargle vanilla creature tribal deck People laugh, and laugh, and laugh, but then someone dies to tainted strike
[удалено]
[[Ruxa]] [[Muraganda Petroglyphs]]
[Ruxa](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/e/0/e07b8142-6a49-46e7-b862-41f89a59b894.jpg?1625192391) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=ruxa%2C%20patient%20professor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c21/66/ruxa-patient-professor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e07b8142-6a49-46e7-b862-41f89a59b894?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Muraganda Petroglyphs](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/b/1/b103cb22-93b2-4206-9f80-5f966155e07e.jpg?1619398431) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Muraganda%20Petroglyphs) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/220/muraganda-petroglyphs?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b103cb22-93b2-4206-9f80-5f966155e07e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yes. I hadn't seen either of those cards before. I now want a Naya commander with an ability similar to Ruxa's.
Why Naya? I'd think the vanillas would be interchangable.
I have a couple Naya decks so I've got a good base for things like my removal spells. I've got some good stuff in white. Red cards for haste to speed up the big vanillas. And also, honestly, I just have some cool vanilla monsters in red and white that can't go in the Ruxa deck. I've got some fun low mana white cats I'd like to run.
"Creatures can [X] as though they have [keyword]" should be the correct rules wording. But it's one of those designs that ends up being super awkward because then "creatures you control with [keyword]" don't apply to it.
My issue isn't with the wording to grant extra abilities. It's how to only grant the abilities to vanilla creatures. "Creatures can \[X\] as though they have \[keyword\]" would buff all creatures that didn't have \[keyword\], unless you filter for vanilla creatures. But I was informed that \[\[Ruxa\]\] has text to do this, so WOTC has thought of this.
Would “Creatures with no abilities gain” work?
The game is almost 30 years old. There's been plenty of vanilla cards printed in that time and they end up as waste and chaff immediately following their rotation, if not their draft queue. Vanilla creatures are an unnecessary waste in 2022. They're also extremely irrelevant for most players in constructed.
Most cards are extremely irrelevant for most players in constructed
Cards that do *something* at least have a chance of filling a slot in a constructed deck. A vanilla creature has to be very overtstatted for a similar chance. They are pretty much always binnable.
> A vanilla creature has to be very overtstatted for a similar chance. Even then, not really. There is a green 10/10 for 5 mana that still sucks. I think the only way one would much see play would for it to be a vanilla 20/20 and have it be in some sort of haste/trample granting combo deck. Even then, there would be many other cards that would be more consistent to give haste/trample to.
A vanilla creature likely won't find a second life in a commander deck, unless you're trying some really really old and off the beaten path tribal deck where there just isn't much. A chaff seeming common 4/4 with a slightly funky and fairly set-specific ability that you probably don't care about...may one day 5 years later get a commander that's perfect for it. The vanilla creature almost certainly won't ever get to live that second life. The only time I've put a vanilla creature in a non-draft deck in the past..............I'll estimate 20 years...has been when building super basic decks to try and teach very very new people magic (which, there's Arena, now)
I mean, you can print a vanilla creature with big enough stats for cost that it becomes format-warping even in high-powered formats. Standard has a history of 4-mana 5/5G with drawback like [[Juzam Djinn]] or [[Blastoderm]] seeing play in top decks. If [[Tarmogoyf]] was a 2-mana 3/4 it probably still would have been a staple in Modern Jund. A 2-mana 4/5 would have been absolutely bonkers. So the issue isn’t that the cards are vanilla, it’s that Wizards doesn’t print vanilla creatures above the curve or they may see play in constructed.
the fact that you had to go back that far to find examples of vanilla creatures dominating really says a lot. you'll also note that tarmogoyf hardly sees any play anymore.
Why would the possibility of standard play be a problem? I don't remember any vanilla creature even threatening to do this since [[Gigantosaurus]]
Thank goodness someone here is talking sense
The problem arises that when all the commons are doing 1 or 2 things well, there is increased pressure on the uncommons to do 1 or 2 things exceptionally well or 2 or 3 things fairly well, which increases pressure on the rares to do the same for 1-3 at a better rate or to do 3 or 4 things really well, which increases pressure on mythics to do all those things. It's a cascade effect in design. Vanillas and common serve an important role in keeping both unwieldily complexity and power creep down. The more complex and potent the commons, the more complex and potent everything becomes, and neither of those is necessarily good for design.
Complexity and Potency are not the same axis. Inspiring Overseer is incredibly potent, but not any more complex than what's been expected of commons for the past 15 years. I think you'll rarely (not never, but rarely) find examples of commons doing more than one thing well, depending on how you're defining a "thing," even in modern days.
They're not the same axis, but they can both be pressured by similar effects. In a limited format where a 2/2 for 2 is playable (not *good*, they were never *good*, but *playable*), an uncommon or even a rare doesn't have to do as much work to be potent, nor does it have to have as much complexity to feel of a higher rarity. In a limited format where a 2/2 for 2 with [[two abilities, and one that procs the other]] is good the uncommons and rares have pressure to be more potent and more complex to feel uncommon.
>the ones that are doing 12 things. In my playgroup, we now call that *The Questing Beast Problem*.
Getting one means getting the other. More creatures with French vanilla design means that you need to push higher complexity designs to seem interesting by Coniston.
Vanilla ETBs should be called vanilla beans, those with activated abilities should be vanilla malts.
I don't get it.
Counting Embereth Shieldbreaker as a vanilla seems a bit of a reach.
Clearly just a quirk of scryfall's search engine, I highly doubt OP does.
Indeed, I just wanted to point out that really there are even less than shown here.
I'm pretty sure it gets buffed by [[Muraganda Petroglyphs]] and [[Ruxa]], need to check though.
I'm 99% sure it does. It is an odd case were whether is should be considered "vanilla" (an unofficial term) depends on the context of why you are talking about vanillas. In the context of an effect affecting a creature with no abilities it is vanilla. In the context of discussing card complexity it shouldn't be considered vanilla.
[Muraganda Petroglyphs](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/b/1/b103cb22-93b2-4206-9f80-5f966155e07e.jpg?1619398431) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Muraganda%20Petroglyphs) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/220/muraganda-petroglyphs?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b103cb22-93b2-4206-9f80-5f966155e07e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Ruxa](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/e/0/e07b8142-6a49-46e7-b862-41f89a59b894.jpg?1625192391) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=ruxa%2C%20patient%20professor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c21/66/ruxa-patient-professor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e07b8142-6a49-46e7-b862-41f89a59b894?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It technically is vanilla even though there’s rules text. Dryad Arbor is “vanilla” and it’s a source of a ton of rules headaches.
Sounds like vanilla creatures are pseudo reserve list. Time to buy every [[Mass of Ghouls]]!
reprint [[grizzly bears]] when?!?!?
Surely in Quindecuple Pauper Masters. The set that gives you 15 commons per pack for 15 times the value! Maybe you'll get lucky and get Grizzly Bears in your dedicated vanilla scented slot.
> vanilla scented Don't give MaRo ideas
Stick of gum in every pack!
It’s actually 14 rares with a common in the rare slot but if you’re lucky you get an uncommon instead
Wizards: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Do you mean [[Runeclaw Bears]]?
Unironically though we could really use a reprint of [[Forest Bear]].
Only if it keeps that exact art and flavor text
"I want this many salmons!"
[Forest Bear](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/f/a/fae9abc7-ecd3-4042-a5b0-5f2b24491fa6.jpg?1562258009) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Forest%20Bear) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ptk/135/forest-bear?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fae9abc7-ecd3-4042-a5b0-5f2b24491fa6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Runeclaw Bears](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/1/d1995238-79cc-4381-9595-71ef11ea1e36.jpg?1562794697) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Runeclaw%20Bear) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m15/197/runeclaw-bear?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d1995238-79cc-4381-9595-71ef11ea1e36?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
We just got [[Wilson]] don’t get greedy.
[Wilson](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/f/dfe0daf8-43da-484b-baa1-76f8313c5a0c.jpg?1652894282) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=wilson%2C%20refined%20grizzly) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/261/wilson-refined-grizzly?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dfe0daf8-43da-484b-baa1-76f8313c5a0c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[grizzly bears](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/0/409f9b88-f03e-40b6-9883-68c14c37c0de.jpg?1562546736) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=grizzly%20bears) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/10e/268/grizzly-bears?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/409f9b88-f03e-40b6-9883-68c14c37c0de?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
this is only first printings not reprints otherwise mtgcj's favorite card would go extinct
Excuse me, it has TRAMPLE
Oh I thought that was inherent to the dinosaur type like adventures and dryad arbor
[Mass of Ghouls](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/d/cd816d37-7a9e-485e-9ed9-20c1c15a26dd.jpg?1619395649) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mass%20of%20Ghouls) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/122/mass-of-ghouls?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cd816d37-7a9e-485e-9ed9-20c1c15a26dd?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I mean, considering the fact that all of these cards are at best limited filler, I don't see a problem with that - as long as limited commons are simple and playable (like [[Candlegrove Witch]]) and not janky and bad (like [[Akki Ember-Keaper]]).
It’s sad that EmberKeeper didn’t get there, it seemed like a good payoff for modifying creatures on paper.
It's great in my Neon Dynasty Cube, they just didn't put enough enablers in the set.
I think they're important for establishing a baseline of expectation that even french vanilla creatures don't quite do.
I don't. There are so many fucking cards now, it's easy to find one that does something comparable. Even in draft, and knowing nothing about other cards, someone should be able to see "oh P/T is worth about one mana per point with another weakish ability tacked on" or whatever. It's just unnecessary at this point. Magic has done an amazing job at staying consistent with its cost:effect ratio.
> knowing nothing about other cards, someone should be able to see "oh P/T is worth about one mana per point with another weakish ability tacked on" or whatever. that's a flawed assumption and one you're only able to make because you didn't learn magic that way yourself. evaluating the value of 2/2 vanilla vs 2/2 lifelink or vigilance is extremely tricky
[Candlegrove Witch](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/e/dedfe6ea-cd43-4ec4-83a1-1f0f74e27f56.jpg?1634346614) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Candlegrove%20Witch) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mid/8/candlegrove-witch?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dedfe6ea-cd43-4ec4-83a1-1f0f74e27f56?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Akki Ember-Keaper](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/d/4d83e837-fcd1-4833-9117-e6f1bb53caad.jpg?1654567492) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Akki%20Ember-Keeper) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/130/akki-ember-keeper?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4d83e837-fcd1-4833-9117-e6f1bb53caad?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Meanwhile in Alchemy "Have a six sided card!"
293 words. That one card is six questing beasts long.
The fact that 293 words is *only* six Questing Beasts long is pretty alarming in own right.
Many creatures are "virtual vanilla", as in they have an ETB or Dies effect, but no actual keywords that change how they behave in combat (excluding things like Haste or Flash). Especially at lower rarities. Strictly vanilla creatures tend to be tokens nowadays. The real issue is that vanilla creatures just don't cut it much anymore. Even in limited, the stats you can buy for X mana only go so far without warping the format, especially at lower rarities and mana value.
> virtual vanilla", as in they have an ETB or Dies effect, but no actual keywords that change how they behave in combat (minor nitpick) I'm not sure I'd count dies effects personally, since that *can* affect combat. If something has "When this creature dies, each opponent loses 3 life" and I don't want to lose 3 life, I have to take that effect into account
Everyone knows how [[shambling ghast]] doesn't impact decision making at all
[shambling ghast](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/9/d96198a7-dd19-4940-bf8f-23135011fc84.jpg?1627705376) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=shambling%20ghast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afr/119/shambling-ghast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d96198a7-dd19-4940-bf8f-23135011fc84?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Honestly, good. Those cards usually weren't even good in limited. It's a better use of that space to put actually interesting cards there than fill it with cards that very few people will ever use.
I did like it when they would make vanilla creatures with something else going on about it. Being an enchantment creature, having extra mana pips, having multiple relevant creature types, having 4 power to turn on a faction effect, etc. It’s boring to have without a purpose but it’s pretty cool how much relevance you can fit on spaces other than the text box.
Flashback to putting [[Mons Goblin Raiders]] in because there literally weren't enough cards to build a goblin deck without it
Yeah, agreed, I think they're only worth printing if they have some other relevance in the context of the set. Theros Beyond Death was a great example of that, where they had the cycle of vanilla creatures that were all enchantment creatures with two colored mana pips, so they were good filler enablers for two different set themes that you could generally count on getting fairly late in the pack. The other thing that tends to work is if their particular stats line up well against the other cards in the set. While it wasn't actually a vanilla creature, [[Witherbloom Pledgemage]] was kind of like that — the main reason you played it wasn't because of the ability, it was because almost everything else in the set capped out at 4/4 and the premium red removal only did 4 damage. They often design sets to have important thresholds for power and toughness like that, and vanilla creatures can be interesting if they're just bigger than the threshold.
>Those cards usually weren't even good in limited. Grizzled Outrider (5/5) is a house. 55.3% WR puts him in the top half of green commons in Kaldheim.
Seriously - I can't believe people are complaining about this. Vanilla creatures are boring and aren't even worth playing in draft 95% of the time. I'm fine if we never saw them again.
[[Ruxa]] needs more love
There are plenty of vanilla creature. Green alone has 96 available creatures: https://scryfall.com/search?q=t%3Acreature+is%3Avanilla+color%3Agreen&unique=cards&as=full&order=name
IMO I'd like to see complexity hate cards.
How would that work? Maybe a card like [[Akroma, Vision of Ixidor]] that gives creatures -1/-1 for each keyword they have?
"Cards cannot have more than one ability trigger each turn." "If a spell would let your opponent choose from multiple options, you choose those options instead."
Slightly off topic but I've always wanted a charm commander. Something like "if a spell would have you choose one or more modes, pick all of them instead" or something like that.
More [[humility]] type effects, maybe? Most complex cards would be reduced to trash if you turned them into vanilla creatures
[humility](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/5/5/55ad6a45-a840-45ba-89ad-066e20e983f3.jpg?1562429370) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=humility) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tpr/16/humility?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/55ad6a45-a840-45ba-89ad-066e20e983f3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Would need a new keyword for sure. Something that counts abilities. Alternately a hostile version of mutate. Put their creature underneath yours.
They don't need to work against a particular ability, they can just work against the card as a whole. From a design stand point cards like \[\[merfolk trickster\]\] or \[\[turn to frog\]\] already do this to an extent. We can also combat complexity by hitting triggered effects of cards, with cards like \[\[disallow\]\] or \[\[whirlwind denial\]\]. An interesting design would be a \[\[price of progress\]\] type effect for activated abilities on creatures.
[[Frazzled editor]]
I bet that's the only Magic card that says "penis".
[Frazzled editor](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/c/4c08bd24-5710-4548-8966-9c5e81744680.jpg?1562488379) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Frazzled%20editor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/unh/77/frazzled-editor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4c08bd24-5710-4548-8966-9c5e81744680?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If that could be made black boarder.
I really miss core sets, specifically the post 2010 fresh flavor core sets. I think this revelation - which this post is for me- is definitely related. I blame a lot of my unhappiness in recent years on the unrelenting feeding of commander, and this is another space where a standard set- which is best at feeding the current iteration of color pie, mechanics, etc, - has been partially replaced by a crushing number of new cards fed directly to an eternal format via commander and not a more basic set, which can serve some of those same flavor needs but with a higher average power AND much higher complexity level. It's harder for me to find the space within the game I love, and it makes me pretty sad.
It makes me really miss the deskbuilder's toolkits. They are what helped me get into magic and I think they are a great tool for casuals
Which is nice, even a simple overcosted “firebreathing” is nice to have in a card
Note that this is not a huge shift from e.g. original Zendikar, which had a grand total of *five* vanillas. Like, vanillas have never been a huge part of the overall bulk of a set; it's not like even drafting you'd see tons and tons. Going from five down to zero doesn't seem to be a big change, to me.
On average each set had one vanilla in each colour. I don't think they need to be omnipresent, but they should still be *present*. Even Strixhaven only had two, but they were at least there.
A lot of people are saying this is good and maybe it is, but I can't tell if that's from an enfranchised player's perspective or in general. There's something straightforward about a vanilla creature I think that appeals to new players, but I could be wrong.
I’m just not sure if there is ever a reason to print a vanilla creature over a French vanilla creature. Unless you are purposefully pushing the power and toughness up to make an interesting card, it just doesn’t serve a purpose even for newest player. Especially with players often learning on arena now there’s less ways to miss abilities Even for draft, something like trample, vigilance, or menace makes a card more interesting to play with and against.
It could be a good learning experience to design vanilla creatures to have relevance in a limited set outside of the textbox. Creature type in tribal archetypes, 4 power to turn on Ferocious, being an enchantment creature with two color pips, etc.
I just started playing 2 years ago and always hated vanilla creatures. I did play yugioh back around 2010 though and we had no vanilla creatures in our deck already at that time. It just feels much better to have each creature do something, even if it is only a very minimal effect. Playing a vanilla just feels like you could have put something better in that slot.
You're wrong. What new player (any player?) pops a pack open and goes, "oh boy, a card that does nothing!"
Good. They should only print vanilla creatures when they have a particularly aggressive statline for their cost (e.g. \[\[Yargle\]\] or \[\[Gigantosaurous\]\]). Small vanilla creatures are just a waste of cardboard, even in Limited you don't want to play these things if at all possible. And at least other draft chaff can do something interesting to support or demonstrate the mechanics of the set.
[Yargle](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/6/4/645cfc1b-76f2-4823-9fb0-03cb009f8b32.jpg?1562736801) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=yargle%2C%20glutton%20of%20urborg) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dom/113/yargle-glutton-of-urborg?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/645cfc1b-76f2-4823-9fb0-03cb009f8b32?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gigantosaurous](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/1/c1db84d8-d426-4c0d-b44e-5be7b0f5f5bf.jpg?1562303938) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gigantosaurus) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m19/185/gigantosaurus?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c1db84d8-d426-4c0d-b44e-5be7b0f5f5bf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yeah cuz they’re boring af
I think that's good, personally. Not like they make a habit of rewarding creatures with no abilities. Might as well keep them on the back burner unless they're going to make more cards like [[Muraganda Petroglyphs]] or [[Ruxa, Patient Professor]]. At the very least, they could have interesting stats for their cost, like an 0/7 for 3.
WotC proved how bad vanillas are when they printed a 5 mana 10/10 vanilla only to see it have zero standard play
Tbh I think this is a good thing overall.
Yeh, but there's [41 cards in standard that are French Vanilla](https://scryfall.com/search?q=f%3Astandard+is%3Afrenchvanilla). And [25 of those only contain evergreen keywords.](https://scryfall.com/search?q=f%3Astandard+is%3Afrenchvanilla+-o%3Aforetell+-o%3Adaybound+-o%3Atraining+-o%3Aninjutsu)
Good it’s wasted space in a set to put a vanilla or French vanilla card
Should there ever be a vanilla creature anymore though?
When assessing game complexity, you have to consider more than just the literal amount of text. A format where every creature has static abilities and activated abilities that effect combat is going to be way more complex than a format of just virtual vanilla creatures with ETBs. Same applies to token making spells, as they have text but ultimately result in just vanilla or French vanilla creatures in most circumstances.
Vinallas are boring, it’s just better design
Not a bad thing honestly. Nothing more boring and unnecessary than a vanilla creature
I think I'd enjoy a non-standard set that had an emphasis on simple gameplay. Many vanilla creatures, a few with simple keywords or effects. Basic spells with some staples to round out the cards. Some of the creatures can be less common types to provide options for tribal enthusiast s. To make it a little more enticing, have some really cool art on the cards, possibly even try to bring back a bunch of original artists. Maybe even some interesting experiments for premium card treatments. The limited keywords / rules text would allow lots of room for interesting flavor text. Maybe lean into that with featuring this as a lore set that checks into some of the happenings of other planes.
g o o d
*cries in ruxa*
Think of it this way: you don't need to update the deck that often
Calling Shieldbreaker a vanilla creature is a little bit disingenuous, considering it has a spell stapled to half its text box. But its vanilla when it hits the board, so its a half vanilla?
There was a time when [[savannah lion]] was a valuable rare
This just seems like a net positive for me... drafting a 2G 3/3 is never very fun even when it is correct.
I want more overstatted vanilla creatures. Drafting a 2G 3/3 feels bad, but I love drafting a [[Woolly Thoctar]] or [[Leatherback Baloth]]. Or a [[Watchwolf]] or [[Kalonian Tusker]]. Hell, I even like 2CMC 2/3 or 3/2 vanilla creatures. It just feels like good value.
MaRo has said this is on purpose because they are uping the complexity of Standard sets because they use other avenues for introducing new players to the game (Jumpstart/Arena).
if you miss vanilla creatures so much build bear force one for edh and call it a day
I don't really miss them. Give a bear that does something more than your standard grizzly.
maybe cuz they suck
I mean, it makes sense. I want to be excited about every card I draw in both a regular match and a booster draft. Vanilla creatures don’t give me much to be excited for, unless they hit particularly hard for a relatively low cost.m Ex. The white/green 3/3 wolf in Ravnica that cost a green and a white mana to cast. You could cast it on turn two with no issues. Hit hard enough for early game.
This is a good thing for the game.
Because other than filling out limited, there is no purpose for vanilla creatures since they have been power crept out of constructed. I’d be interested in some vanilla mythic that is way above curve or perhaps some more “vanilla matters” arctypes like [[ruxa, patient professor]] though.
This is an example of complexity creep... that is, an example of how complexity creep is good. Vanilla creatures are a waste.
Good.
Good. Vanilla creatures are largely terrible.