rstnme wrote:
Filobel wrote:
rstnme wrote:
6 mana for two damage is not where I want to be.
That's like saying skullcleaver is 3 mana for 0 damage. Triton does significantly more than die for 2 damage.
Those two statements have nothing to do with each other except exhibit your ineptitude for analogy.
You talked as if triton did nothing but deal 2 damage for 6 mana. That's definitely not what triton is about. Triton blocks and attacks, that's pretty damn relevant. You can't just ignore that and say stupidities like "6 mana for 2 damage isn't where I want to be".
Quote:
3-mana 2/3s are OK in limited but not great. The sac-for-shock is underwhelming. If 2 damage was a house in this limited format Lightning Strike and Pharika's Cure would be first pickable, or second, or even third. They're not.
Lightning strike certainly is third pickable. Pharika's cure probably not. Either way though, this isn't 3rd pick. We've been moving further and further away from aggro as picks go on (in large part thanks to you), and now you want to pick a creature that is pure aggro over one that has much more potential utility? I'm really confused as to where you think our deck is going, or if you even understand that just because a card is good in certain archetypes doesn't mean they're good in all archetypes.
If you feel like it's time to move back towards aggro, then yeah, skullcleaver is a fine pick. But the discussion we need to have here is what our deck wants to do, not be dismissive of a pretty solid utility card because you treat it as a straight up burn card.