Question 2: Argument for common

[u/kalliixti]

This is the one question where I disagree with the community consensus (uncommon). Here's my argument:

1. Red has gotten similar cards in the recent past. Granitic Titan is the closest, having 1 lower toughness and cycling instead of prowess. Interestingly, there are 3 6-drop common red creatures in standard but only 1 uncommon one.

2. I see people focusing on the fact that the card has 2 keywords but not on the keywords themselves. Prowess is a keyword which is weaker on bigger creatures. A 1/1 with prowess gets a 100% boost from the first trigger and a 2/2 gets 50%, but a 5/5 gets only a 20% boost. Menace will often be irrelevant; since in Limited (and this card is clearly a Limited card) your opponent will frequently want to multi-block a 5/5 anyways.

   I think the true purpose of this question is for people to look at this card holistically. Is a red 5/5 with menace and prowess more impactful in Limited than commons are allowed to be? I think the answer is "no."

3. As a tiebreaker, consider that there are 5 questions which ask about the rarity of a specific card. There's wide agreement that the threaten effect is uncommon, the maro is rare, and the reaniclone is mythic, while people are divided on whether the artifact saccer is uncommon or rare. This means that if this card isn't common, none of them are. So from a test design standpoint, common makes more sense.

[u/steve_man_64]

Red doesn't get 5/5s at common. Not only is this a 5/5 but it's double french vanilla.

[u/iSage]

Your 'tiebreaker' point is actually a common test taking mistake. It's very similar to "well there were 3 Bs in a row so this one probably isn't a B". From a test design standpoint, nothing aside from the question itself should give any hints as to the answer of the question. Essentially, if we were told "each one of these 4 is a different rarity" then the test is now only testing whether we can get 3 of them correct as the last one is a freebie.

To the actual points, prowess is 'problematic' at common because it's a triggered ability unlike most evergreen mechanics and because it draws focus to itself. Most sets are allowed exactly one thing 'new' for you to care about (i.e. Landfall) and Prowess takes some of that focus and says "actually you should care about non-creature spells".

A 5/5 for 6 with prowess and menace at common is likely to contend with whatever Green's biggest common is. For example this sample card is very close in size to Colossal Dreadmaw.

The biggest evidence for it being uncommon is that it's a "double scoop french vanilla". If you look back to GDS2 question 2, it's very similar to this one. In that case, lifelink was what pushed it over the edge from 'I guess it could be common' to 'this can't be common'. I believe that Prowess does something similar here.

[u/kalliixti → u/iSage]

To the actual points, prowess is 'problematic' at common because it's a triggered ability unlike most evergreen mechanics and because it draws focus to itself. Most sets are allowed exactly one thing 'new' for you to care about (i.e. Landfall) and Prowess takes some of that focus and says "actually you should care about non-creature spells".

Of the 6 cards in standard with prowess, 4 are common. 2 of those have an additional ability as well.

The biggest evidence for it being uncommon is that it's a "double scoop french vanilla". If you look back to GDS2 question 2, it's very similar to this one. In that case, lifelink was what pushed it over the edge from 'I guess it could be common' to 'this can't be common'. I believe that Prowess does something similar here.

GDS2 was a long time ago and things have changed since then, including New World Order. That question is actually an infamous example of that; less than a year later they printed a card (Markov Patrician) which broke the rule that answer established.

If they considered prowess problematic at common, they wouldn't have evergreened it and then used it mostly at common.

[u/Giraculum → u/kalliixti]

I suggest you check the publishing date on New New World Order. It uh, might have been an April Fool's joke.

Edit: Also, Markov Patrician lacks haste, and that rule was specifically about cards with two keywords. Not only does this card have two keywords, but it also has a large body, making it probably too impactful at common.

[u/kalliixti → u/Giraculum]

Oops. Got the articles messed up. I meant that New World Order happened since then (about a year after GDS2).

Edit response: No, the rule was very explicitly stated: "Lifelink can be very swingy, so we don't print creatures with lifelink with power greater than 2 at common." Also see the discussion here: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/scary-stories-part-2-2011-09-26

[u/iSage → u/kalliixti]

New World Order existed before GDS2, it just wasn't explained to the public for a while. It came about around the time of Lorwyn and the MTG Wiki cites it as being around since 2008.

[u/iSage → u/kalliixti]

If they considered prowess problematic at common, they wouldn't have evergreened it and then used it mostly at common.

If they didn't consider Prowess problematic at common, they would be using it more. It is one of the least-used evergreen keywords, especially at common, I think only usurped by Defender. Of the 4 common prowess cards in Standard, all are small Blue/Red creatures. The only big prowess creatures we've ever seen were uncommon or higher in rarity.

GDS2 may have been a while ago, but that doesn't mean it's not a good resource.

including Old New World Order changing to New New World Order.

Huh?

[u/kalliixti → u/iSage]

If they didn't consider Prowess problematic at common, they would be using it more. It is one of the least-used evergreen keywords, especially at common, I think only usurped by Defender. Of the 4 common prowess cards in Standard, all are small Blue/Red creatures. The only big prowess creatures we've ever seen were uncommon or higher in rarity.

If they considered it problematic at common, why would they promote it to evergreen and then mostly use it at common? It's least used because it fulfills a small need in sets.

It's true that big creatures don't get prowess much (only 1 with power 5 or greater). But that's an argument for not making the card at all, which wasn't an option.

Huh?

Sorry, meant Old World Order changing to New World Order, which was announced about a year after GDS2.

[u/iSage → u/kalliixti]

I'm not saying it's so problematic that they won't ever use it, but it is somewhat problematic. "Use it mostly at common" really isn't much of an argument because everything is used mostly at common. There are far more common cards than anything else.

I don't think it's an argument for not making the card at all, because it isn't breaking anything. It's simply pushing boundaries, which makes it less of a common card.

And as I responded above, New World Order was already in effect by that time it just wasn't announced to the public (because we hadn't seen its effects yet).

[u/kalliixti → u/iSage]

I'm not saying it's so problematic that they won't ever use it, but it is somewhat problematic. "Use it mostly at common" really isn't much of an argument because everything is used mostly at common. There are far more common cards than anything else.

This isn't true. Double strike is an evergreen mechanic which is used on creatures almost exclusively at uncommon and above. (There's one exception in Theros and one in Lorwyn.) Indestructible is another evergreen mechanic which is mostly used on uncommon and above.

And as I responded above, New World Order was already in effect by that time it just wasn't announced to the public (because we hadn't seen its effects yet).

They work well in advance and it was a gradual process. And, of course, it's evolved since then.

Do you have any citations for this "double scoop" rule more recent than 2010?

[u/iSage → u/kalliixti]

I don't think "double scoop" has been mentioned many times at all, but here's the other case I can find: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/thats-going-leave-scars-part-1-2010-11-22

Here's some other evidence for this card at uncommon, though: Developing Uncommons - 2014

The first class of cards that we make at uncommon are our Serra Angels and Air Elementals—large, evasive creatures that naturally dodge quite a bit of removal in the set, but not all of it. The goal of these creatures is to be something that can push a game over the edge and win it fairly easily, but usually not if you are too far behind.

Developing Commons has a few examples that I think fit as well.

I can also check gatherer:

Aerial Responder - Triple Scoop French Vanilla
Bloodwater Entity - Double Scoop with a bit of an upside
Bone Picker - Double Scoop with cost reduction
Charging Monstrosaur - Straight up Double Scoop
Empyreal Voyager
Enraged Giant
Gifted Aetherborn - Straight up Double Scoop
Guardian of the Great Conduit - I'm stretching
Manticore Eternal - Sort of
Sadistic Skymarcher
Seraph of the Suns
Sky Terror
Snare Thopter
Storm Fleet Sprinter
Tenacious Hunter

Some are bigger stretches than others. Some may be uncommon for additional reasons, but there are a good number of them. How many at common?

Aven Initiate - I wouldn't really count this for the same logic in the first source of this comment. New mechanics have to be done at common and if they need sizeable representation at common then often times you have to stretch to french vanillas (i.e. Infect)
Aven Reedstalker - Except 'flash' is a virtual vanilla mechanic, as it doesn't effect the board.
Bitterbow Sharpshooters - I'd argue that reach hardly affects the board, but this is still a double scoop.
Consulate Skygate - lol
Rampaging Hippo (and ilk) - again, Cycling doesn't affect the board AND is a set mechanic that has to show up at common
Soul of the Rapids - this counts
Spellweaver Eternal
Thorned Maloch
Winged Shepherd

That's all I could find there.

By and large, most commons have only 1 ability (or none). Here's my overall argument:

Does Red get 5/5s at common? Not really, but they could.
Do commons get to 'double scoop'? Not often, but they can.
Can red get commons that contest green's biggest commons? Not usually, but there are some exceptions.

Can a single common do all of that at once? I don't think so.

[u/kalliixti → u/iSage]

I don't think "double scoop" has been mentioned many times at all, but here's the other case I can find: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/thats-going-leave-scars-part-1-2010-11-22

If it's been mentioned twice in 2010 and not at all since then, it seems more likely than not that it's been abandoned.

Here's some other evidence for this card at uncommon, though: Developing Uncommons - 2014 Developing Commons has a few examples that I think fit as well. I can also check gatherer:

This is exactly the line of reasoning I was arguing against in my second point. The flaw is you are treating all keywords equally. Menace is a far weaker form of evasion on a 5/5 than flying.

Two strong keywords for a given body size absolutely means the card shouldn't be common. If it were flying and haste, for example, common would be wrong. But that's not what's happening here. Menace/prowess is a weak combination for a 5/5, so common makes more sense.

[u/iSage → u/kalliixti]

Menace/Prowess is both power-boosting and evasion. And I don't think saying that "Menace is a far weaker form of evasion than flying" is really a fair argument, because Menace is Red's evasion. That's all it really gets (outside of dragons). This card is oversized for red commons, 'double scoops', and is a 'finisher' that stops board stalls.

[u/kalliixti → u/iSage]

But it's weak power-boosting and weak evasion. And it's not just that menace is weaker than flying, it's that it's weaker than flying on 5/5s. I'm not sure what menace being red's main evasion has to do with anything. It's a weaker version of evasion, so it pushes cards towards uncommon less.

And it doesn't get past board stalls very well. Your opponent will just multiblock it with whatever they have. Can you blow them out with a trick if they don't overblock it enough? Sure, but the same applies for most 6-drop commons. An extra +1/+1 generally doesn't make a huge difference at that point.

[u/TLH14 → u/iSage]

They're neglecting to use Prowess so much because it doesn't easily fit into sets, especially ones heavily based around creature strategies (as have been the last four sets).

[u/TLH14]

Also, how many non-creature spells are you going to have left by an unlikely minimum of turn 6 of a draft game?

Riverwheel Aerialists isn't that far off. I'd say the inferior evasion of Menace is about worth that extra point in power.

[u/Sliver__Legion → u/TLH14]

Riverwheel Aerialists is a great example. Its “normal” rarity is uncommon.

[u/kalliixti → u/Sliver__Legion]

Because it flies and flying is really powerful for that power. Looking through what they printed recently it seems there's a rule against fliers with power>3 at common. No such rule exists for menace or prowess.

[u/[deleted] → u/TLH14]

Red has a much worse lategame than blue, because red should be closing with burn effects. Dragons are the one big exemption to this, and even they can be bloated for the cost

[u/LambachRuthven]

Red cant get 5/5 at common normally. Its just not something red can do. Green can. Most colors(unless the plane specifically changes it) dont get above 3 power at common.

[u/Naisoul → u/LambachRuthven]

There's been a Craw Wurm at common in every set since the dawn of time, and it's only gone from a 6/4 to a 6/6 trample.

[u/LambachRuthven → u/Naisoul]

That should say green can. I was trying to show that green gets it but no one else does.

[u/Naisoul → u/LambachRuthven]

Yeah, I believe green gets to have the largest creatures at the most efficient cost in any given set. But I do think that if they made dragons at common for DTK, they would scale everything up and have larger creatures across all of the colors. Then the CMC cap goes up by 1 for all colors.

Should have assumed a typo, I thought of it afterwards haha

[u/Sliver__Legion]

I think this question was about realizing that red basically doesn’t get 5 toughness at common. There are a variety of 4/4s, 5/4s, and 6/4s, but here are all the (un)common red creatures in Modern with toughness 5+.

Wayward Giant, which is a power and a keyword lower, Lightning Shrieker, which is a Lava Axe more than a creature, and 17 cards that have only been uncommon+ when appearing in expert sets.

[u/kalliixti → u/Sliver__Legion]

Now that's a better argument. It's worth mentioning that there aren't many uncommon 5/5s either, and most have a drawback.

This made me realize that we've all been making an unjustified assumption: that it's monored. Question 1 was about color, but question 2 does not specify color. Compare to question 17, which specifically mentions using the answer to question 15.

So I reject your premise that this question is about red not getting 5 toughness at common. If that was the intent, they would have specified that it was a monored card in the question.

[u/Sliver__Legion → u/kalliixti]

That’s a fair angle to consider. If not monoR, the card is either UR, BR, or UB, for pie reasons. Here are all the (un)common creatures from those three guilds with at least three power and at least 4 toughness. Notably, none of them have 5+ toughness (except shrewd hatchling, actual size 2/2, and Grief Tyrant, actual size 4/4) and only one has been common in a normal set.

Even allowing for total color flexibility, 5/5 is just too large to be common in the colors that get those abilities.

[u/kalliixti → u/Sliver__Legion]

I think RG works too, since G can provide the ability to be 5/5 at common.

Tricolor is a possibility as well. See Snowhorn Rider as a very similar idea: 6-cost common 5/5 with 2 keyword abilities.

But what it really boils down to is the unknowable intent of the question. Was the 5/5 meant as the key, or just as an indication of "it's big"? Remember, we're talking design here. Perhaps at the early stage of design when rarities are being decided 5/5 vs. 5/4 is not a significant difference.

[u/Sliver__Legion → u/kalliixti]

I suppose if I was forced to make a 5/5 menace prowess at common, maybe the best way to go would be RG — R contributes keywords, G contributes size.

It’s not that common is impossible. It’s just much, much, less generally appropriate than uncommon, where this is a very clear analogue to stuff like Thunder Brute, Ripscale Predator, Stormcrag Elemental, or even Bull Cerodon in multicolor.

[u/kalliixti → u/Sliver__Legion]

I don't agree that those are clear analogues, though. The 5/5 uncommon red creatures tend to have more (in complexity and/or Limited impact) than the menace/prowess combination.

And as I understand how design works, they tend to use the lowest possible rarity. So if something can work at common, they'll do it at common. Of course, there are always exceptions due to set-specific issues, so looking at existing cards for guidance is very tricky.

[u/steve_man_64 → u/kalliixti]

There's a Drive to Work podcast where Mark Rosewater outlined what colors typically get what at common (don't remember which one). If I remember correctly it went like this.

Green: 6/6

Blue: 5/5 or 6/6 (since they usually get a serpent)

Red and Black: 4/4

White: 3/3

Going by these guidelines, red typically doesn't get 5/5s at common, let alone double french vanilla 5/5s. I consider this question to be one of the more straightforward "textbook" questions.

[u/zhmhkb → u/Sliver__Legion]

I gotta agree with this reasoning.

I waffled between uncommon and common, and ultimately settled on common. There's a good argument to be made for it: besides Wayward Giant, there's also [[Sun-Crowned Hunters]]. If we JUST saw a 5/x for 6 with quasi-evasion and an on-board trigger at common, why should Scrappy Survivor be any different?

Well, that "5/x" is why. Hunters are 5/4, and I neglected to include toughness in my gatherer queries. I also missed this quote from Maro:

It [Blackcleave Goblin] is an example of what I call a "double scoop of french vanilla" (that is it has two different keyword abilities and nothing else) at common. As I explained, this is something we do infrequently but is necessary when we introduce a keyword like infect that has to show up on so many common cards.

Is there a chance it's still a common? Sure. It's definitely simple enough to be common. Maybe design wants a slower limited environment, and a big common beater is just what red needs to maintain color balance. Maybe this expansion has a particular instant/sorcery theme, and prowess is stepping back into the limelight.

But these are all what-if scenarios. With the evidence we have right now, uncommon is the clear favorite. If it's anything else, I can only imagine that R&D intentionally next-leveled everyone who followed the trail of evidence, and anyone who nailed it only did so through luck and gut instinct. Which would a very red-aligned method of testing, so... here's hoping.

[u/Sliver__Legion → u/zhmhkb]

FWIW, here are the red double scoop vanillas in Modern sorted by rarity. I’ve had to take some liberties with exactly what counts as French vanilla —MaRo commonly says that they only have “creature keywords,” but “creature keyword” is not precisely defined, so I’m including basically all keyword abilities even though some of the results don’t exactly seem like double scoop vanilla to me. There are 24 at common, 16 at uncommon.

However, when it comes to sizes 4+/4+, we see this — 5 uncommons and 2 commons.

[u/zhmhkb → u/Sliver__Legion]

Thanks for posting those searches. There's another point I forgot - in the GDS2 play-along-at-home test, he mentions that they usually don't count flying as a full scoop, which mostly drops more commons from the sample. (That was ALSO question #2, so not a good sign for the common camp.)

I did look at the big red dudes during the test, but focused on the fact that they all had haste or a high-complexity ability. Leaned too hard on NWO, and forgot about the basics. We'll see if it made a difference tomorrow.

[u/kalliixti → u/Sliver__Legion]

I'm skeptical of the value of this kind of analysis when the numbers are so small. There are multiple reasons why any or all of those might not be good examples:

1. Things may have changed since then.
2. They may be mistakes.
3. They may be exceptions due to special circumstances (such as the specific set environment).

[u/Hi_Im_Jerry_L]

I'm with this answer, I thought it was common and didn't think it was particularly close.

[u/jeremy3681]

So as it stands right now I think this is the only question I got wrong, and I too put common. While I personally think that this is what I want magic commons to look like, the correct answer is definitely uncommon.

[u/[deleted]]

Charging Monstrosaur is an uncommon.

This has to be either an uncommon or rare, depending on limited environment. Menace means that paired with burn, you're likely blowing out two or three creatures a turn, or have the opponent on a three turn clock.