If I had to guess they may just be trying to signal to new players that Sink Below is a strong card. I don’t think it’s uncommon for new players to use rarity as at least part of a guide to what cards are “good”.
I see the increase in Sink Below's rarity as LSS singling that Sink was too pushed. James White did state that Sink and Fate were too powerful and make the design space difficult for common defense reactions moving forward. I think the statement was on the Living Legend podcast, but I don't recall. The upshift in rarity shows that the design team recognizes that Sink would be a rare in today's development philosophy. Also, I suspect a even number of Majestic, rare, and common cards are planned per armory deck. Up shifting a really good common allows for Sink to be included without adding either a bad rare in that spot or cutting an OK other common that's a good card. Yes, LSS could have left battlefield blitz as a rare and not shifted the rarities of either card, but that action would not have helped Bolton in commoner. While they might not focus on commoner, I'd bet they're willing to help out where they can.
It was indeed the Living Legends cast, I believe. I listened to that portion. My takeaway from his comments were not that it itself was too powerful, but rather it limited other class designs (aka, if each class were to get a Red 0/4 that did something akin to Flik Flac, etc.). I honestly can't imagine a world where Pummel is legal and Sink/Fate aren't.
James White and Bryan Go also mentioned it in the design Q&A at PTLA which is where I first heard it (I don't remember if that was filmed or not though, so I'm happy they discussed it elsewhere). To add a bit of what they said at PTLA, 0 for 4 d-reacts are a bit too powerful because they allow the defender to negate the advantage an attacker can gain through arsenaling a card. It can lead to games being a stalemate. 5 attacking cards should allow someone with tempo to push through the block of a defender but if the defender can arsenal a card that can block, it's a lot harder to do so. It's one of the reasons they like Block cards. Give classes defensively oriented cards BUT you can't arsenal them.
@@clarkmoore4 Can you imagine a world though in which they didn't exist, but Pummel does? There's a clear balance they've established, and need to proceed with.
@@DiceCommando Definitely not 😆 Blocks also just have such limited applications. I feel like we won't see many block cards in Constructed unless they play heavily into a hero's playstyle or provide overwhelming value a la Trounce.
I also think that the upshift in rarity for Sink Below is a foreshadowing how a reprint of Sink in a future draftable set would be handled. It is too powerful at common but just right as a card in a rare pool. I would go so far and say that if Sink will be reprinted, only the red one will be added.
I think they finally admit that sink below is too powerful to really be a common and maybe they're signaling if they ever do reprint it in later sets that especially for draft, it's going to be a rare
The downgrading of those 3 cards certainly seems like a good move. I don’t understand the increase in sink below… Maybe they plan on errata-ing all the sinks to rare, but that would only affect commoner & I’m honestly not sure they care enough about the format for that big a change… Just odd!
De-rating rarity, or up-scaling it for reprints, happens frequently. This also isn't a FaB-related thing. Typically it only happens on Rares and Commons (or uncommons in other games).
