Kiora, the Crashing Wave

[MaximumCDawg]

t that wasn't my point.  My point was: " The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card.  People who read my set reviews would have ample examples of this."

I feel like you're talking in circles, here, Steve.  You said it yourself here.  Kiora is nearly strictly inferior to Jace.  Now you're making up a new rule that says, "Well, maybe I want FIVE Jace or maybe I want three Jace and another similar Walker that I can get out at the same time."  You're changing the rules a little bit.  If you have an idea for a decklist where Kiora makes sense, by all means spill the beans, but she seems pretty clearly unplayable.

Compare to the Sorta-Bob from Theros.  At least Sorta-Bob does something Bob cannot do -- draw multiple cards in a turn.  That may or may not turn out to be a trivial difference, so Sorta-Bob gets spared a verdict of unplayability, in my mind.  I cannot see something similar for Kiora, and you have not pointed anything like that out.

[Smmenen]

t that wasn't my point.  My point was: " The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card.  People who read my set reviews would have ample examples of this."

I feel like you're talking in circles, here, Steve. 

reread what I said more carefully:

"The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card."

Jace is a playable. 

[WhiteLotus]

t that wasn't my point.  My point was: " The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card.  People who read my set reviews would have ample examples of this."

I feel like you're talking in circles, here, Steve. 

reread what I said more carefully:

"The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card."

Jace is a playable. 

How about all the other planeswalkers that are playable in other formats but don't see play (or so little) in Vintage that are better than Kiora, I'd say that includes a lot of them (although they don't do the same thing). Not that Kiora is bad or anything the +1 ability is better than jace's -1 since it can go on with it for quite some time, but the -1 isn't something you'll likely want if you were able to spend 2UG just to cast her. The main problem is that for 4 ccm i'd rather run Fact or Gifts to supplement Jace.
What build would want that card and what would it cut to make space? Cobra Gush doesn't really need her more than it would need Gifts either.

[zeus-online]

.

[Smmenen]

But that wasn't my point.  My point was: " The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card.  

Well if we start by realizing that Menendian clearly meant "playable card" and not "new card" (Since that makes no sense what so ever), that is an excellent way to examine the playability of a card. Is it the only possible criteria? No, i don't believe it is.

To call the new card playable would be to assume our conclusion.  I meant what I said.  Here's a clarified statement:

The only thing that can establish, a priori, a (new card's) unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly so to that new card.

It's mathematically possible to run 4 Jace and 1 Kiora in a deck without breaking your curve (esp. with Cobra).

Really? Define curve for me and prove it. Seriously, you are overusing the "mathematically possible" statement. It has no meaning unless you can actually prove it or prove that a proof exists.

Proof: 4 Jace + 1 Kiora = 5.  5<60, where 60= minimum card library.  

My reference to "mathematically possible" only referred to the statement specific to the sum of Jace and Kiora.  My point about "breaking the curve" was a qualitative statement, but it is possible to defense quantatively.  I won tournaments with Cobra Gush using a higher curve than 4 Jace and 1 Kiora.  I played that deck with Bargain, Desire, 4 Jace, and Necro before.  

I feel like you're talking in circles, here, Steve.

You really aren't  
You just seem to miss all the good points steve is making in the midst of "too much text". (I don't blame you)

Actually, my statements in this thread have been notably pithy/concise in terms of words per post on average.  

[zeus-online]

.

[MaximumCDawg]

Ok, you are right, I misread Steves initial rule.  As stated, his rule makes sense.  However, I think my misunderstanding of the rule also makes sense.  How often do you see people using Path to Exile?  Generally you do not, because a superior option exisits in Swords to Plowshares.  How often do you see Chandra Pyromaster?  You generally do not because Jace has a good deal of overlap in a better color. 

I would feel less strongly about this if the card in question was a 1 or 2 drop and my deck functioned by needing to jam the effect on turn one without fail.  See: dredge hate.  But, when we are talking about the top of the curve, I can't see it.  What deck out there wants eight Jacish cards?

[vaughnbros]

I would feel less strongly about this if the card in question was a 1 or 2 drop and my deck functioned by needing to jam the effect on turn one without fail.  See: dredge hate.  But, when we are talking about the top of the curve, I can't see it.  What deck out there wants eight Jacish cards?

They only need to want 5+ Jace like cards to make such a card playable.  The answer to your question is decks that primarily want to play the control role, like landstill and UW angels.  The problem is Kiora is only slightly worse than Jace in Gush decks.  The number of gush control decks is few and far between.  Within that population its even rarer to ever see them max out on Jaces, suggesting that in most gush control deck lists the correct number of Jaces in the deck is well below 5.  So this a niche card for a niche deck... as such if this card makes your list of playable cards, it must be substantially longer than mine.

[Smmenen]

Ok, you are right, I misread Steves initial rule.  As stated, his rule makes sense.  However, I think my misunderstanding of the rule also makes sense.  How often do you see people using Path to Exile? 

You are confusing the a priori and posteriori/empirical.

[brianpk80]

but at the end of the day, bad Theros block cards are simply that: bad cards.  End of discussion. 

That's not an argument, and it's a completely pointless statement. That's like saying "Square object is square". Of course that is true, but it has no meaning.

This isn't news to me.  There are some topics that merit genuine debate and others that should be dismissed more casually.  This card falls into the latter category.  No one needs to sit through a formal dissertation on why Bestow creatures, Scry lands, and 2-Loyalty 4 CMC Planeswalkers are undesirable in Vintage. 

Also, you have not established that the card is bad so it is merely your opinion. "End of discussion" sounds very hostile and is not really helping the actual issue.

There's nothing "hostile" about stating an opinion concisely.  This card like most of Theros block merits no better. 

[Smmenen]

There are some topics that merit genuine debate and others that should be dismissed more casually.  This card falls into the latter category.  No one needs to sit through a formal dissertation on why Bestow creatures, Scry lands, and 2-Loyalty 4 CMC Planeswalkers are undesirable in Vintage. 

Again, I Disagree.  Cards that require no explanation are cards that are strictly or nearly strictly inferior to cards that are proven unplayable.  Blue planeswalkers that generate card and mana advantage - a completely novel activation in its simultaneity -- require more than curt dismissals, especially when there are obvious applications like Cobra Gush, which could alleviate all of its deficiencies and maximize its mana advantage.  

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Well since we are all debating and giving opinions, I will give mine.  This card is definitely playable as the 5th planeswalker/4cmc Spell in the right deck. Decks can be designed to operate on a high curve people. UW angels have 7 cards main deck that cost 4 Mana and I even sided a sower vs fish decks making it 8. And the deck ran just fine. So I will go on record saying this is playable in the correct deck...

[Ten-Ten]

t that wasn't my point.  My point was: " The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card.  People who read my set reviews would have ample examples of this."

I feel like you're talking in circles, here, Steve. 

reread what I said more carefully:

"The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card."

Jace is a playable. 

Can you give an example?
If a card is superior to a new card, how is it unplayable?

At first I looked at Sarhkan the Mad, and that guy seems superior to Kiora based on the abilities and loyalty for the current creature infested meta. Then again, Kiora provides an additional land drop and can be pitched to FoW and Bob just comes down quicker than StM.
So, Sarhkan the Mad along with every other planeswalker would be playable based on this rule.
Correct me if I am wrong.

[Smmenen]

t that wasn't my point.  My point was: " The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card.  People who read my set reviews would have ample examples of this."

I feel like you're talking in circles, here, Steve. 

reread what I said more carefully:

"The only thing that can establish a cards unplayability is identifying a card that is unplayable that is strictly superior or nearly strictly superior to a new card."

Jace is a playable. 

Can you give an example?
If a card is superior to a new card, how is it unplayable?

I already gave this example in this thread.  Exclude is not played and therefore empirically unplayable in vintage.  Bone to Ash is inferior, and therefor a priori unplayable.  See my earlier post for more detail and link to set review. 

[MaximumCDawg]

Ok, you are right, I misread Steves initial rule.  As stated, his rule makes sense.  However, I think my misunderstanding of the rule also makes sense.  How often do you see people using Path to Exile?  

You are confusing the a priori and posteriori/empirical.

Ugh, I suppose you're one of those attorneys who actually uses latin in his briefs, too, huh?  I'm very much of the opinion one should speak like a human being in all written work product, including posts to nerdy subculture forums.  

But anyway...

I don't see how your criticism makes sense.  Your rule of thumb -- and my slight tweak of the same -- are both making predictions about whether something will be played in Vintage.  You say that a card will not be played (is unplayable) if it is inferior to another unplayed card.  I'm saying it also will tend not to be played if it is inferior to another played card.  Since we're both talking about predictions, it makes perfect sense to consider the actual results in similar situations.  

As you've said before in dealing with the reserve list, look at the data.  Whatever a priori rule you want to apply should be informed by the data from the past.  Path is an example of a card generally inferior to a played staple (StP) that sees no play.

The only examples I can think of that would back up the rule you are proposing are Brainstorm and Ponder.  They're inferior to A.Recall, but they get played.  When we're talking about a restricted card, the principle you are pushing -- maybe you want to supplement your superior card -- is at its zenith.  I cannot think of any examples of a card inferior to a non-restricted card seeing play.  You might.  Do you have any?

I already gave this example in this thread.  Exclude is not played and therefore empirically unplayable in vintage.  Bone to Ash is inferior, and therefor a priori unplayable.  See my earlier post for more detail and link to set review. 

Look, if you only want to use the word "unplayable" to mean precisely how you choose to define it, then that's fine but it doesn't interact with the rest of us.  I think, to everyone else, unplayable is a PREDICTION about how much play a card will see.  Unplayable means it will see zero play because there is no reason to play it, or it's not good enough for Vintage, or whatever.  If you strip the term of it's predictive role, then you're just talking to yourself.

[Smmenen]

The only examples I can think of that would back up the rule you are proposing are Brainstorm and Ponder.  They're inferior to A.Recall, but they get played.  When we're talking about a restricted card, the principle you are pushing -- maybe you want to supplement your superior card -- is at its zenith.  I cannot think of any examples of a card inferior to a non-restricted card seeing play.  You might.  Do you have any?

Think harder. Countless number of examples: If you are going to count path as a worse STP, Thorn is generally a worse SoR and Misdirection is no Force of Will.  Being inferior to a playable card doesn't render a card unplayable in practice or theory. Not by a long shot.   Look at Ancestral > Brainstorm > Ponder > Preordain.  

Force of Will > Misdirection

Look, if you only want to use the word "unplayable" to mean precisely how you choose to define it, then that's fine but it doesn't interact with the rest of us.  I think, to everyone else, unplayable is a PREDICTION about how much play a card will see.  Unplayable means it will see zero play because there is no reason to play it, or it's not good enough for Vintage, or whatever.  If you strip the term of it's predictive role, then you're just talking to yourself.

Again, you are confusing a priori with a posteriori. Unplayable is not a prediction a posteriori, only a priori.  We have empirical evidence to assess a cards playability a posteriori.  Predictivity plays no role.

[MaximumCDawg]

Think harder. Countless number of examples: If you are going to count path as a worse STP, Thorn is generally a worse SoR and Misdirection is no Force of Will.  Being inferior to a playable card doesn't render a card unplayable in practice or theory. Not by a long shot.   Look at Ancestral > Brainstorm > Ponder > Preordain.  

Force of Will > Misdirection

These are good examples.  Still, Thorn is superior to SoR in a beats deck, where it is asymmetrical, and helps in a deck that wants to jam as many sphere effects as possible.  I don't remember the last time I saw Misdirection get played, but in a world with Abrupt Decay, I don't think it is necessarily inferior to Force anymore.  Both of these are potential early game plays that you want to maximize, though.  Are there any late-game bombs that a deck wants to do the same with? 

[brianpk80]

Again, I Disagree.  Cards that require no explanation are cards that are strictly or nearly strictly inferior to cards that are proven unplayable.  Blue planeswalkers that generate card and mana advantage - a completely novel activation in its simultaneity -- require more than curt dismissals, especially when there are obvious applications like Cobra Gush, which could alleviate all of its deficiencies and maximize its mana advantage.  

I understand the utility of clearly stating the self-evident on a first year exam for instance but I find this card too absurdly underpowered to squander the effort in a different setting.  I'd sooner play Jace, Architect of Thought.  I can appreciate why it's useful to discuss the Pain Seer or Kiora's Follower (she should be following him...) but in this case, a simple "it's bad" should suffice.  On a lighter note, it's mind boggling to wrap one's head around the notion that a forum so dismissive of Gifts Ungiven, Dark Confidant, Jace TMS, Abrupt Decay, and Deathrite Shaman is suddenly entertaining the idea that Kiora, the Crashing Wave is a card we need to take seriously.  *shrug*  Stranger things have happened.   

I'm very much of the opinion one should speak like a human being in all written work product.

I understand that to be a prevailing view.  All in unison now, "Terrible cards are terrible."   

[Smmenen]

iOn a lighter note, it's mind boggling to wrap one's head around the notion that a forum so dismissive of Gifts Ungiven, Dark Confidant, Jace TMS, Abrupt Decay, and Deathrite Shaman

All in unison now, "Terrible cards are terrible."   

The latter quote explains the former.

[MaximumCDawg]

I dunno about anyone else, but I pre-ordered ALL of those cards (except Jace which was already preordering for bananas) because they were pretty clearly playable.  Note, also, that none of those cards you mentioned are clearly inferior to a played card the way Kiora is.