[ORI] Abbot of Keral Keep

[fsecco]

Abbot of Keral Keep
1R
Creature - Human Monk
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
When Abbot of Keral Keep enters the battlefield, exile the top card of your library. Until end of turn, you may play that card.
2/1

So, I think I like this guy. He's the right creature type and cost (only 1 colored mana). We already talked a lot in this forum on how this effect is a good way for red to gain card advantage, but the cards they printed didn't quite get there. I guess the best one so far was Prophetic Flamespeaker.

This guy's only problem is that he isn't a good 2-drop (since his "draw" effect will likely be unplayable). But having prowess is something that makes his 2/1 body really nice - the problem is that Humans is not a noncreature spells kind of deck...

I know it's not a powerhouse, but it's nice to see Wizards still toying with this effect. We'll eventually get something broken.

(edit: I think "brokeness" here would be to exile 2 cards instead of one. That would be nice)

[Wagner]

This is clearly designed for burn, and I think it fits perfectly in that shell. Most likely not Vintage worthy, but in a deck with Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning and such, you can comfortably cast him turn 3 before playing your land (in case you flip one) and have good odds of finding a burn spell.

As you said, not broken, still miles from Snapcaster Mage, but it will see play in the appropriate decks.

[gkraigher]

if this is a turn 3 card for burn, i don't think it does more damage than ball lightning. 

[rikter]

I don't think its even a good burn card, certainly not for Legacy. No haste, competes with Eidolon, requires at least 3 mana to do anything with. Most of the time you'd be better off just drawing an actual burn spell.

Maybe he's better in the newer formats, but I don't think he's good enough for eternal.

[fsecco]

Maybe I've been playing too much Duel Commander hahaha. I think it's an elegant design, though.

I always think what would be a good "exile top" card for Vintage. If this guy exiled the top 2 instead of 1, would it be good? What about 3?

Or will we only be satisfied if we get something like Sorcery, R, exile top 2, may play until end of turn. Would even that be good?

[Wagner]

Maybe I've been playing too much Duel Commander hahaha. I think it's an elegant design, though.

I always think what would be a good "exile top" card for Vintage. If this guy exiled the top 2 instead of 1, would it be good? What about 3?

Or will we only be satisfied if we get something like Sorcery, R, exile top 2, may play until end of turn. Would even that be good?

Exiling 2-3 might be a bit too good as you could find a card and the land to play it with. Or just run a weird Skullclamp deck and grab a couple of Kobolds!

I think they could have pushed it by revealing 2 and letting you play 1 of those, that way you risk less of fizzling it if you didn't check your top card.

[TheWhiteDragon]

R
5/5
Changeling
When this ETB, exile the top 20 cards and cast all of them without paying their costs.

I think now that we've gotten into Christmasland, this version trumps them all.

Let's look at what the card IS and not what we wished it could be.  I think it is playable in modern burn, and that's all.  It's probably not even good in modern burn.  It is bunk for vintage.  I highly doubt they print any crazy version that has been discussed so far, and it's a bit beyond the point at this juncture, isn't it?

[MTGFan]

Well, the way you should view this card, is, essentially, as a 2/1 cantripping creature with prowess. Not broken, but certainly playable in some aggressive red strategy. The fact that he cantrips makes him strong.

[MaximumCDawg]

Yeah, this guy isn't playable all by his lonesome in the same way that Elvish Visionary does not just go in any ol' green deck.  He's got good stats and could easily be a role player in some kind of red deck with easy bounce or blink just like Elves abuses Visionary.  Now, granted, we don't have such a deck at the moment, but this card works well in it if we ever get it.

[Wagner]

The more I think about it the less I'm impressed with the design. Its 2 abilities don't work at all together. If it had haste or if it was a cantrip, then it would make sense, but as it, the prowess and the exiled have zero synergy.

I don't think it would be playable in Vintage or Legacy if it cantripped, so even less with the exiled card.

[MTGFan]

Mike Flores and Patrick Chapin have talked about this card as the "red Snapcaster mage" on their podcast.

After the Pro Tour the Pros were all gushing about its power level in similar tones. Of course, this was a Standard Pro tour, but I remember Snapcaster Mage being feted in similar circumstances around the time of its first Pro Tour appearance.

That doesn't necessarily mean that this card translates quite to Vintage like Snapcaster did, but the groundwork has been laid - dominance in Standard and comparisons to Snapcaster by top Pro players.

[gkraigher]

This is not a bad card by any stretch, but just because pros comapre it to snapcaster mage doesn't mean it's snapcaster mage. 

for starters, it's red. 

but the more important interation is that you don't know the card on top of your library, while you do know what card you want to recast with snapcaster mage.  So this is not always a card drawer.  Snapcaster mage doesn't always create card advantage either, but often times that is when you need a 2/1 flash creature. 

abbot is interestingly good at holding off a lodestone golem.  Certainly not a bad card, and I do see some parallels with snapcaster, but it is not close to it's power level.

[MTGFan]

No offense, but I think we have to take what people like Patrick Chapin and Mike Flores say in much greater confidence than anything a random poster on a Vintage forum says.

These are people that have played, and done well, on the highest level of competition Magic has to offer - the Pro Tour. Multiple times. That's a level of accomplishment most of us on here could only dream of.

If they say it's a red Snapcaster Mage, then it probably is a red Snapcaster Mage. The only real question here is how do we adapt Abbot to Vintage decks like we did with Snapcaster Mage. It's not necessarily a no-brainer fit like Snapcaster was because red is harder to work into decks than blue is.

[vaughnbros]

No offense, but I think we have to take what people like Patrick Chapin and Mike Flores say in much greater confidence than anything a random poster on a Vintage forum says.

These are people that have played, and done well, on the highest level of competition Magic has to offer - the Pro Tour. Multiple times. That's a level of accomplishment most of us on here could only dream of.

If they say it's a red Snapcaster Mage, then it probably is a red Snapcaster Mage. The only real question here is how do we adapt Abbot to Vintage decks like we did with Snapcaster Mage. It's not necessarily a no-brainer fit like Snapcaster was because red is harder to work into decks than blue is.

Except that they are talking about a completely different format, where the card pool is about 1/20 of that in vintage... There is a big difference between this and Snapcaster in that when I play my Snapcaster I know how much mana I have to spend to get an extra spell.  I don't know how much mana I have to spend with this guy. There are certainly worse things you can play than a 2/1 prowess, but this is vintage and we have far more reliable options.

[MTGFan]

No offense, but I think we have to take what people like Patrick Chapin and Mike Flores say in much greater confidence than anything a random poster on a Vintage forum says.

These are people that have played, and done well, on the highest level of competition Magic has to offer - the Pro Tour. Multiple times. That's a level of accomplishment most of us on here could only dream of.

If they say it's a red Snapcaster Mage, then it probably is a red Snapcaster Mage. The only real question here is how do we adapt Abbot to Vintage decks like we did with Snapcaster Mage. It's not necessarily a no-brainer fit like Snapcaster was because red is harder to work into decks than blue is.

Except that they are talking about a completely different format, where the card pool is about 1/20 of that in vintage... There is a big difference between this and Snapcaster in that when I play my Snapcaster I know how much mana I have to spend to get an extra spell.  I don't know how much mana I have to spend with this guy. There are certainly worse things you can play than a 2/1 prowess, but this is vintage and we have far more reliable options.

Some of these same concerns were raised when Snapcaster was spoiled - "i don't know if something valuable will be in the graveyard, i don't know if my stuff in the graveyard will be applicable to the game state", etc.

I feel that worrying about how much mana you have to spend on the card drawn is a red herring. The mana curve in most Vintage decks is low enough that it should not be an issue to cast that card 90%+ of the time but not always, just like with Snapcaster there is usually something valuable to flashback in the graveyard 90%+ of the time, but *not always*.

And in the deck you're putting this guy in, your curve will probably be purposely lower than most decks. And in Vintage, due to Moxen and other 0-cc artifacts, this guy is probably even better than he is in the other formats where 0cc mana accelerants don't really exist in the same way.

[vaughnbros]

No offense, but I think we have to take what people like Patrick Chapin and Mike Flores say in much greater confidence than anything a random poster on a Vintage forum says.

These are people that have played, and done well, on the highest level of competition Magic has to offer - the Pro Tour. Multiple times. That's a level of accomplishment most of us on here could only dream of.

If they say it's a red Snapcaster Mage, then it probably is a red Snapcaster Mage. The only real question here is how do we adapt Abbot to Vintage decks like we did with Snapcaster Mage. It's not necessarily a no-brainer fit like Snapcaster was because red is harder to work into decks than blue is.

Except that they are talking about a completely different format, where the card pool is about 1/20 of that in vintage... There is a big difference between this and Snapcaster in that when I play my Snapcaster I know how much mana I have to spend to get an extra spell.  I don't know how much mana I have to spend with this guy. There are certainly worse things you can play than a 2/1 prowess, but this is vintage and we have far more reliable options.

Some of these same concerns were raised when Snapcaster was spoiled - "i don't know if something valuable will be in the graveyard, i don't know if my stuff in the graveyard will be applicable to the game state", etc.

I feel that worrying about how much mana you have to spend on the card drawn is a red herring. The mana curve in most Vintage decks is low enough that it should not be an issue to cast that card 90%+ of the time but not always, just like with Snapcaster there is usually something valuable to flashback in the graveyard 90%+ of the time, but *not always*.

And in the deck you're putting this guy in, your curve will probably be purposely lower than most decks. And in Vintage, due to Moxen and other 0-cc artifacts, this guy is probably even better than he is in the other formats where 0cc mana accelerants don't really exist in the same way.

No one was saying that about Snapcaster... Snapcaster was as close to a consensus allstar for Vintage the second it was spoiled.  The comparison is off on multiple levels.  Snapcaster is blue, has flash, is shut off by graveyard hate, and combos well with spells that want rebuys.  The only thing in common is neither is an actual 2 drop.

This exile mechanic is so much worse than draw a card (and draw a card is worse than snapcasters ability).  I can never get a counterspell, or a gush off this guy (these cards don't exist in standard).  If you want a prowess creature that sometimes gives you extra value OK.  But I think Swiftspear, Young Pyromancer, and Monestery Mentor are in a completely different class than this card.

I'm welcome to you proving me wrong and finding a shell for this card that isn't terrible, but this really just seems awful.

[MTGFan]

No one was saying that about Snapcaster... Snapcaster was as close to a consensus allstar for Vintage the second it was spoiled.  The comparison is off on multiple levels.  Snapcaster is blue, has flash, is shut off by graveyard hate, and combos well with spells that want rebuys.  The only thing in common is neither is an actual 2 drop.

If you look at spoiler threads, there was hesitation about how often you'd "hit" on something with Snapcaster.

Of course Snapcaster being blue and having flash is better, but the comparison stands: they are both 2 mana 2/1s that generate +1 card advantage. That's the entire point of the comparison. Rarely does Wizards print efficient creatures that create card advantage - white got theirs in Stoneforge Mystic, blue got Snapcaster, black got Dark Confidant, and now red gets Abbot.

This exile mechanic is so much worse than draw a card.  I can never get a counterspell, or a gush off this guy (these cards don't exist in standard).  If you want a prowess creature that sometimes gives you extra value OK.  But I think Swiftspear, Young Pyromancer, and Monestery Mentor are in a completely different class than this card.

It's worse in a blue control deck, of course. That's why you have to look at this card and ask yourself "how can i maximize this ability"? What kind of deck would he fit best in? Because he's still drawing a card with his ability. If you play mostly sorcery speed stuff in this deck, then he is functionally red Snapcaster in terms of card advantage and stats, and because of prowess he's even a little bit better in that deck.

As far as the deck: I'm thinking maybe blue/red burn? Something with cheap burn spells that also plays Treasure Cruise and blue cantrips? Or even just a Blue/Red Delver deck witih Swiftspears, Abbots, and Delvers that is less heavy on the counters and more heavy on Wastelands, Chain Lightning, Fireblast, etc.

[mmcgeach]

Rarely does Wizards print efficient creatures that create card advantage - white got theirs in Stoneforge Mystic, blue got Snapcaster, black got Dark Confidant, and now red gets Abbot Young Pyromancer.

Fixed that for you.

[vaughnbros]

If you look at spoiler threads, there was hesitation about how often you'd "hit" on something with Snapcaster.

I just reviewed that thread and don't see this.  No one said the card was flat out unplayable.  All of the hesitation had to do with it costing 1U+the spells mana cost in one turn.  The card currently being reviewed has the same issues, but are magnified due to the inability to see the card you are going to be trying to cast.

If you play mostly sorcery speed stuff in this deck, then he is functionally red Snapcaster in terms of card advantage and stats, and because of prowess he's even a little bit better in that deck.

As far as the deck: I'm thinking maybe blue/red burn? Something with cheap burn spells that also plays Treasure Cruise and blue cantrips? Or even just a Blue/Red Delver deck witih Swiftspears, Abbots, and Delvers that is less heavy on the counters and more heavy on Wastelands, Chain Lightning, Fireblast, etc.

Again I'll remind you that this is a Vintage forum...

[brianpk80]

It bears noting that the fizzle rate can be alleviated by running Misthollow Griffin. 

On a more studious note, I can appreciate the potential of this card in a future deck style that doesn't readily compare to decks we see in today's metagame.  It's very far above the curve in terms of straight up economy, ie what-you-get v. what-you-pay.  Prowess is no joke.  Cards with high economy along with tailored hate cards are the most likely candidates for appearing in Eternal formats at some point down the line.   

[gkraigher]

No offense, but I think we have to take what people like Patrick Chapin and Mike Flores say in much greater confidence than anything a random poster on a Vintage forum says.

I get that I don't have the track record those two have in professional magic.  But here is what I said about snapcaster mage in the origional thread on Oct 25, 2011: 

I'm thinking more along the lines of this as the core.  feel free to add colors and expand to this.  Blue counter control, that will always do something at the end of your opponents turn.

4 snapcaster mage
4 mana drain
4 spell pierce
4 force of will
4 fact or fiction
4 accumulated  knowledge
2-4 jace the mindsculptor

While I was wrong about fact or fiction and accumlate knowledge being the route vintage took post snapcaster mage, I would say I feel this statement "...will always do something at the end of your opponents turn " was 100% on point.

I don't see that with Abbot.   

[Chubby Rain]

No offense, but I think we have to take what people like Patrick Chapin and Mike Flores say in much greater confidence than anything a random poster on a Vintage forum says.

If they say it's a red Snapcaster Mage, then it probably is a red Snapcaster Mage. The only real question here is how do we adapt Abbot to Vintage decks like we did with Snapcaster Mage. It's not necessarily a no-brainer fit like Snapcaster was because red is harder to work into decks than blue is.

[diopter]

Abbot is very-small ball-with-some-upside, which is the direction Vintage has trended lately. I imagine flipping over Gush or Preordain is the outer range. This is very good but I wonder how easy it is to set up.

The body left behind is marginally relevant too I'd imagine.

Probably a Vintage fringe card but honestly it's worth throwing 10 seeded games at to get a real gauge of how it plays out.

[The Atog Lord]

No offense, but I think we have to take what people like Patrick Chapin and Mike Flores say in much greater confidence than anything a random poster on a Vintage forum says.

Then stop reading this and go read Star City or TCGPlayer. And while you're at it, try to show a bit more respect to your fellow Vintage player.

[TheBrassMan]

Have you SEEN Chapin's vintage lists? He very obviously has never taken the format seriously. Flores, as far as I know, hasn't touched the format in any capacity. Both are literally paid to make hyperbolic statements about how good new cards are.

Does Abbot look so bad it would be embarrassing to test it? No, of course not.
Would I bet on it ending up played in a top deck? eh...

I doubt this conversation can go much further without test results and lists for context

[Islandswamp]

This card is probably super cheap online. I'll try it out and report back so we have something to go on.
That's if my opinion is worth anything.


Edit: I don't think it's worth the 2.50 a piece to try out. I mean, if you're playing a deck with a decent number of counterspells, like most colored decks in Vintage do, then the chances of exiling a land or a counterspell  that is worthless at that time is pretty high.

This seems like a fantastic Standard or even possible Modern card, but that's as far as I see it.

[MTGFan]

Have you SEEN Chapin's vintage lists? He very obviously has never taken the format seriously. Flores, as far as I know, hasn't touched the format in any capacity. Both are literally paid to make hyperbolic statements about how good new cards are.

Does Abbot look so bad it would be embarrassing to test it? No, of course not.
Would I bet on it ending up played in a top deck? eh...

I doubt this conversation can go much further without test results and lists for context

Maybe Chapin doesn't pay attention to Vintage specifically, but he is an extremely good judge of card power in general, and a good judge of card potential.

[Varal]

Maybe Patrick Chapin doesn't play much Vintage anymore but he has played his fair bunch of Type 1/Vintage in the past and had success doing it.

A card that is crazy in Standard won't necessarily be good in Vintage. I think that comparing both cards is reasonable, they have fairly similar effects and are both tournament playable cards. The comment must be understood in the context of the Standard Pro Tour.

[zimagic]

This card is probably super cheap online. I'll try it out and report back so we have something to go on.
That's if my opinion is worth anything.

Edit: I don't think it's worth the 2.50 a piece to try out. I mean, if you're playing a deck with a decent number of counterspells, like most colored decks in Vintage do, then the chances of exiling a land or a counterspell  that is worthless at that time is pretty high.

The card seems particuliarly unsuited to any sort of counterspells, however, if you do test in a UR shell, look at using BEBs, REBs etc. as your counterspells to allow you to "hit" more often. That's still probably not enough.

This seems unlikely to see any sort of Vintage play outside of Ru Burn, someone hoping 6-land RG Stompy still works, or, I don't know, desperation blockers in a storm shell? No, probably not.

[vaughnbros]

Whether Chapins opinion carries weight in Vintage circles is irrelevant.  His comment is being taken out of context.  He was speaking from a Standard perspective not Vintage.  The framework of the format changes things dramatically.

Let's look at a few cards for examples sake:
Blood braid Elf, Thragtusk, Stoneforge mystic, Ravager, Skull clamp, ect.: These cards were all format defining in standard and some were even banned, but in vintage all of these are fringe playable at best.

Lodestone Golem, Mind's Desire, Gush, ect.: These cards saw almost no standard play, but in vintage these are restricted or format defining.