I posted very recently regarding the accessible mana in upcoming post-rotation standard Magic. I think when trying to review a card and rate their playability, it's essential to understand how and when you can expect to cast the damn thing.
Rating a card is still pretty subjective. Even though a lot of players when looking at a new card might come to a very quick conclusions abut playability. I'm sure you've read / head "this is awesome", "broken", "amazing in deck X"...buuuuuuuuuuuuut...have you ever tried to dig a little deeper? Either ask yourself or ask another player questions...such as
WHY is this card "good" / "playable" / "amazing", or what does "good" even mean??
How good IS "good"?
I find these kind of questions stump many people. I've been trying to ask and answer these kind of questions to myself when evaluating a card - although not all will always be applicable
- Can I cast this card?
- I've previously examined the mana to help with this question
- What does it cost me?
- Not just mana cost, but the card itself is a cost, alternate costs or payments
- What do I get in return for this cost?
- Meaning what does the card actually do in and of itself, and when does it do it?
- Is it doing something similar / better / worse than a known quantity?
- Can I easily compare to a current or past card to gauge power level?
- Does the card inherently depend on other cards?
- Think mechanics like storm / affinity etc
So I am pretty confident she can be cast on turn 3. I know the mana can support this. I'm investing 3 mana (as well as a complex mana base...this is not a free cost) and a card for a 4/4 creature. Without considering anything else I would say this is very playable. Why? Well, past experience, a feeling for what I expect from a card but I'm trying to move away from subjective analysis so I don't want to use generalised experience as a crutch.
We CAN say, that comparing a 4/4 for 3 - from a complex mana base - to current 3 cost creature that it compares favourably, it's a little more power and toughness than expected from currently available cards. A simple method might be to say she passes the vanilla test in a vacuum, she does a better job than expected for 3 mana and a card. There are several other associated costs and even information as to what me might want to do with Anafeza in her text.
The associated cost I speak of here is the legendary status. She's a 3 mana 4/4. Each extra mana you add to her costs reduces her power level. You're paying more for less. This doesn't have to mean actual mana but also the turn you play her. Clear better earlier as you have more time to use her to attack. The best currently possible - if ambitious) - is turn 2 from a turn 1 Elvish Mythic cast off of a painland. Likely it more realistic a turn 3 play.
This mean you want more of her to maximise your chances of seeing one to cast early. On the surface you 4 in your deck to begin with but the more copies you have, the higher chance you have of drawing multiple redundant copies. You're paying that cost of choosing to add 4 to your deck and risking dead draws to maximise her potential on the battle field. This kind of cost is often overlooked by players but is certainly non-zero.
Finally she gives us information as to the kind of job she might do. She has two abilities; one proactive, one reactive. Her own statistics are very much aggressive, very proactive so the extra bonus of exiling your opponent's creatures is not something to focus on but just gravy. I expect it's not going to be a reason to play her.Her combat bonus ability for another creature is very much in line with her role as an aggressive creature. To help her do her job, we'll want to have a meaningful creature to keep her company in combat so to best use her to maximum potential, you'll want a creature heavy strategy.
As already suggested, turn 3 is her best realistic turn to be cast, meaning she probably best like a 2-drop creature. Looking through Theros block for 1 or 2 cost creatures in GBW, Fleecemane lion is identified pretty quickly as best based on current understanding. But even a 2 power 2 drop works fine as an example. So she might play something like this in her best case scenario to give us an upper limit to how good she can be:
- Turn 1: Tapland
- Turn 2: 2nd land (basic/fetch/pain) into a 2-cost aggressive creature (say Fleecemane Lion)
- Turn 3: Attack with Lion (leaving combat trick / removal mana open), play 3rd land, cast Anafenze. 3 Damage
- Turn 4: Attack with both, triggering Anafenze targetting lion. 8 damage
- Turn 5: Attack with both, triggering Anafenze targetting lion. 9 damage
3+8+9=20
So 11 damage dealt with just 2 cards by turn 4 and lethal on turn 5! Of course this is in an unmolested scenario but it does highlight what Anafenza is capable of doing. This would suggest she could be a very important card in a particular deck. Using the above deduced information, a first take on such a deck might have these qualities:- Be a 3 colour, primarily creature-based attacking deck
- Have a depth of powerful 2-cost creatures to offer Anafenza a relevant target
- Contain a critical mass of spells to help push your attackers past opponents' creatures and removal
She is almost telling us how to build with her
I'll be moving through the rest of the Abzan cards (as spoiled on the mothership site) using a similar process. This may involve glossing over cards which will most likely be for limited play, but before then I'd be very interested to see what any reader might conclude about another Abzan card using the same kind of questioning process in card evaluation that I applied to Anafenza. Try it out and comment if you wish.
Have fun.
- AJ
No comments:
Post a Comment