First up, these aren't as good as the cards they represent. Mainly because a lot of these have tap abilities that can't be used on the first turn like the originals, but also because creatures are more vulnerable than artifacts/enchantments/lands. Second, due to the large size and repeated general comments, I'm just going to make a quick list of pros and cons and mention which cards they apply to.
Pro: Good power/toughness for cost. These cards are good enough as creatures for their costs.
Cards: Abyss, Arena, Candelabra, Coffers, Moon, Scroll, Vineyard
Pro: Costs the same as the original. These cards, while usually being slower than the cards they represent, at least cost the same as the original.
Cards: Abyss, Candelabra, Disk, Future, Jar (sort of), Mirror (sort of), Moon, Scroll, Vineyard
Con: Overcosted. These cards cost more than their originals, sometimes a lot more.
Cards: Arena, Bazaar, Coffers, Library, Tabernacle
Con: It can be affected by its own effect. These cards can be destroyed by using their own effects.
Cards: Abyss, Arena, Tabernacle
Con: Weak. These cards don't have a good power/toughness ratio for their cost.
Cards: Bazaar, Disk, Future, Jar, Library, Mirror, Moat, Tabernacle
Rating: 4/5
Cards: Abyss, Candelabra, Moat, Moon, Scroll
Rating: 3/5
Cards: Arena, Coffers, Disk, Future, Tabernacle, Vineyard
Rating 2/5
Cards: Bazaar, Jar, Library, Mirror
I am going to have to disagree for magus of the moat, the main thing is it is not over costed (costs the same amount as moat). Also moat was an amazing card and giving it 3 toughness makes it still in bolt range however it is still good and imo 4 star worthy
ReplyDeleteYou are entirely right and I shall make the change. For some reason, I thought that Moat was a land...
Delete