Have you not learned from Auriela's Fury and Narset Transcendent?

>>49206902
>Aurelia's Fury
Apples and Oranges
>Narset
Narset was nice, and did see a fair amount of play in Esper / U/W control lists.
She had a lot going for her, like the very high loyalty, and the fact that you can rebound wraths and untap on an empty board as a control deck. However, as soon as the more traditional control lists died down, and the only real control deck in standard was Esper Dragons, Narset became irrelevant.
The sort of deck that she slots into doesn't exist anymore (except random Shaheen Soorani brews), so she doesn't see play.


Torch of Defiance slots into a lot more decks, mainly because she follows the "how to become a relevant planeswalker in constructed" guidelanes :

+1 creates card advantage, and pressures your opponent / their walkers
- 3 protects her, and works the turn you drop her without depleting all loyalty
- 7 is your typical pressure ulti that forces your opponent to waste all their resources removing her, or losing the game
second +1 is just gravy and works with her main +1 in the way where you can both either draw new cards when your hand is weak, or accelerate your hand when it's strong


She will definitely see ton of standard play, considering how she is better than Flamecaller. Not in powerlevel, but being a 4 drop is way more relevant than being a 6 drop. The simply fact that you can play her on 4, kill a creature, and have a Chandra left is a huge tempo-swing.

I'll most likely try her in various modern decks, see how she plays there.

God I want to smell her sweaty, fiery bush so bad

Both +1's suck turn 4. Her second plus +1 is only a rebate if you have something to cast and actually cast it. Her -3 really sucks turn 4.

>>49207210
Exactly. If I wanted to play a walker on turn 4, I'd stick with Nahiri or Gideon. New Chandra is a hype meme, just like Sarkhan, Narset, and Arlinn before her.

>>49206902
I don't see what's so great about her either, people are just blinded by the whole "4 abilities" thing. But real talk, her first +1 and her -3 are both worse than Nahiri's +2 and -2, and her ult is also worse in most situations. And her other + is situational.

I don't know which is is more likely: /tg/ being filled clinically retarded MTG players who wouldn't know a good card if it bit them on the ass, or shills working on behalf of speculators trying to convince people this card is not that good so retards will sell them quickly while this card's price hasn't yet hit 3 figures.

>>49207210
>Both +1's suck turn 4.

It functionally makes her cheaper in much the same way that original Garruk's +1 does.

>>49207107
>- 3 protects her, and works the turn you drop her without depleting all loyalty
In a format without bolt, that means, in a horrible format

>>49207509

Even in a format with bolt its situationally useful, because you can use it to kill things slightly outside of Bolt's ability to get rid of.

>>49206902
Have you not learned from Sphinx's Revelation and Cavern of Souls?

>>49206902

in a format with planeswalkers everywhere (standard), her first +1 seems very strong

and her other +1 is good in decks with good 7 drops, you can play her, -3 to kill something, then ramp to your 7 drop

seems decent

I think she'll be very powerful in Standard and will settle at $30, and could certainly see some Modern action. Will never see Legacy or Vintage play unless something goes really wrong

>>49208164
it might see play in dragon stompy if anywhere in legacy.
other then that your basically right, who knows though cause perhaps someone might make something seriously synergistic with her in the next set.