That was something I almost did on Gathering Magic – the Top 25 dragons in a 75% EDH context. A lot of the dragons would have been the same.

I think Lifeblood Hydra is good enough to push a non-hydra out of the list, so there is something to be said for that, too. The ranking could be interesting because it would be something like Top 25 dragons, Top 5 Hydras, Top 10 angels, Top 3 Demons, etc. Each tribe has their own tipping point where you have to cut a bad one to add a good one. It also means different things to different decks because FRF Atarka is better in dragon tribal but DOT Atarka is better in a Scion of the Ur-Dragon deck, etc.

I think the ranking of the best in the tribes is important, but it’s likely highly subjective. You could fudge and do a “no particular order” disclaimer, but you have to figure out the least acceptable dragon, because that’s the one that gets bumped off the list.

Interesting feedback, I will take until my next article to digest it.

Well, there are some benchmarks. It’s not helpful to say “is this card good in Commander” because that’s kind of an empty statement. What is helpful to say is this:

(1) How does this Dragon’s power and toughness compare to those of similar casting costs? Usually, they are all around the same range, but some like Atarka really break the mold in this regard.

(2) Does this Dragon have secondary utility or a disruptive element? Dragons like Shivan Helkite and Balefire Dragon help you clear away the ground. This kind of thing is very relevant in EDH, because the high life totals allow people to shrug off a dumb beater unless it’s interfereing with their game plan. You know how hatebears are a thing in eternal formats? Well, hatedragons are a thing in EDH.

(3) Does this Dragon have an ability that scales in multiplayer? Assuming it’s doing something else good, this is potentially huge.

(4) Does this Dragon do something useful or combo-enabling and unique or very rare? While not a Dragon exactly, this is where cards like Dragonspeaker Shaman show up.

Applying this filter lets you see the cards in Dragons that have potential, although you’d still have to compare them to the Top 25 Dragons or whatever of all time to see how they stack up in the long term. Check out:

A. Boltwing Marauder – This has a unique variant of the Forcemage ability. It acts as a combo piece with Krenko, some Elves lists that want to pump Viridian Joiner. It gets exceptionally nutty with spells that spawn lots of dudes. Thatcher’s Revolt, Waylay, etc. Power and toughness are also very solid for the cost, and in a pinch, making more creatures means he’s swinging for 7 each turn at a minimum. Long term not bulk.

B. Dragonlord Atarka – Very high stats, a disruptive ability (zap an annoying creature or 5 when it enters) and can be used as a general. Long term not bulk, probably expensive.

C. Enduring Scalelord – Combo piece with clone effects in a Naya EDH deck. Long term not bulk.

D. Harbinger of the Hunt – Disruptive with a fair body. Would be great except that Shivan Hellkite and another Dragon from Time Spiral whose name escapes me right now do it better. Poop.

E. Icefall Regent – Dragon removal with OK status. Not bulk.

F. Ruthless Deathfang – Combo piece with sacrifice outlets. There is a problem, though; those synergies work best in junk colors, and this dude has blue in his cost. Also, this dragon is overcosted for his P/T and effect. Too niche. Poop.

G. Savage Ventmaw – Combo with Charging Hellkite; but stats/cost are awful. Probably still poop, but almost not.

H. Swift Warkite – Combo with Fiend Hunter. Synergizes well with blink effects. In odd colors, but Mardu colored reanimator decks are not impossible in EDH. Not bulk.

Wow, that’s crazy. When it comes to Angels, I generally know which are strong and which are crap. I don’t have that same background in Dragons. To me, they are all big fliers that cost a million mana and have flashy abilities. Obviously, some are better than others, but I’m a terrible judge.

Hearing you say most the dragons are worse than Sigarda or Bruna explains a LOT. Thanks for translating to my language 🙂

Also, that really sucks for dragon lovers to finally get a dragon set only to have the dragons mostly be terrible.

Your point, then, is that Dragons and Hydras in particular compete for demand not just with the entire cardpool, but specifically with other Dragons and Hydras, and so whenever a new, good-outside-of-standard Dragon or Hydra is printed, another good-but-not-as-good Dragon or Hydra is going to get pushed off the list.

Okay, I follow that, but perhaps there could be a more clear way to analyze this. Like, rank the Hydras and Dragons by EDH appearances so you can identify the Top 25; it’s unlikely decks have room for more than that. This gives us a useful tool to refer to when a new Hydra or Dragon comes along. Does this push something off the list?

This also suggests that Dragons of Tarkir should do basically zero to Dragons previously printed because, despite there being many dragons in the set, there is the usual number of Dragons that actually compete for the top 25 slots. (1 or 2).

I think that’s a fine thesis. It used to be simpler – Good hydras and good dragons got there. It’s not as simple anymore. You say it hasn’t been that simple for a while, but we constantly see really good EDH cards worth nothing for years and then approach $10 and we see good-looking cards that impact standard dwindle to nothing. Mistcutter Hydra would be worth more money if there were more room to run more Hydras, but a glut of hydras lately has made people more selective, irrespective of its playability in EDH. Not only that, but “good” and “bad” don’t even matter anymore. You need to evaluate each new hydra in terms of every other hydra, ditto for dragons. Absolute terms like “good” and “bad” make sense in the context of a format like Standard, but not in the grand scheme. It’s getting way harder to evaluate cards and I gave some concrete examples. I can get more in depth next week if you want.

What’s your thesis, then? You identified the price trajectory of a few specific cards, but I didn’t see an overarching strategy for identifying which Hydargons are gonna be good long-term investments other than “Is this card good (outside of standard)? Then hold.”

There is no Dragon in all of Khans block as good as Avacyn or Griselbrand. Hell, most of them aren’t even as good as Sigarda, or Bruna, either.

There were 4 Mythic Angels in the set and 4 regular angels..Of the mythics only 1 was truly terrible and the others immediately become big in EDH (1 as a commander and 2 as giant bombs that could swing a game). Of the regular angels only 2 saw a good amount of tournament play and the others are ok, but not that high off of bulk status…

>Geez, J-Alt, you’ve been really running this Dargon thing into the ground lately. I count three podcasts (MD and BB) and now two articles where you’re lamenting the overprinting of Dragons.

I’d apologize for making a point that’s important for people to understand and one that contradicts accepted doctrine in MTG Finance but that would be ludicrous. How ludicrous?

>Bad cards are bad. Good cards are good

About as ludicrous as this statement.

There are no bad cards in the article. The article was about how to decide what to do with good dragons and good hydras because just being of that creature and just being “good” someone isn’t enough. Mistcutter isn’t a bad hydra; it got played in f’ing standard, something that “good” dragons like Balefire Dragon never did. This isn’t a “bad cards are bad” article, it’s a “here’s how you differentiate between two classifications of good creatures and make the most money off of them”.

Bad cards are bad. Good cards are good. Over time, good cards are in demand and bad cards are not. What makes Dragons and Hydras so special in this regard?

I mean, I get that your thesis is something like “Hydras and Dragons used to be so rare that they always had some non-bulk value because if you liked those creature types your options are limited,” but that hasn’t REALLY been true for years already. Even before Khans you didn’t run all the dragons. Look at Mirage block for some amazingly bulk Dragons, sheesh. And Hydras? When was Balduvian Hydra anything BUT bulk?

Bad cards are bad, news at 11.

But why didn’t people feel the same way about Angels during Avacyn Restored? For that set, everyone was like “this draft set sucks, but ooooooh pretty Avacyn”. What was different about that set vs. this one?