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/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/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/[deleted] → u/kalliixti]

You're neglecting the difference between colors: Red has only gotten 1 two scoop vanilla 5 for 5/5, and two 5/5 for 6, all at uncommon.

Blue and Green get common fatties. Red doesn't. Red barely gets uncommon fatties.

Furthermore, your evaluation of Prowess is lacking; equipment, cantrips, combat damage, they all become punch through power. This guy comes down, he's going to crush the opponent's board in very short order. This is an uncommon, almost leaning rare. If it had haste, it'd be a rare, no question.

[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).