
I'm a Doctor, Not a . . .
CommentsStandard 0 Eng.FUsr.—
Not legal in this format after release.
Pioneer 0 Eng.FUsr.—
Not legal in this format after release.
Modern 22 Eng.FUsr.—
A one-mana +2/+2 combat swing with a lasting counter is too low-impact and vulnerable to removal without a proven combo or counter shell.
Could be wrong if An efficient untap or Doctor/counter synergy could create a dedicated home.
Legacy 17 Eng.FUsr.—
Legacy generally cannot afford a creature-dependent combat trick that neither protects its target nor generates cards or immediate combo value.
Could be wrong if A niche creature combo could value the one-mana untap and permanent counter.
Pauper 32 Eng.D-Usr.—
Elves can use a cheap combat blowout and permanent counter, but a target-dependent trick is unlikely to displace more proactive cards broadly.
Could be wrong if Common-level Doctor or +1/+1-counter support could make its type-changing clause relevant.
Commander 31 Eng.D-Usr.—
It can untap a useful creature while adding a lasting counter, but one-shot combat growth is a low-impact, replaceable effect in optimized multiplayer.
Could be wrong if A commander that specifically rewards Doctors, counters, or repeated untapping could make it a stronger synergy piece.
Limited 60 Eng.B-Usr.—
A one-mana instant that leaves a +1/+1 counter and creates a +2/+2 combat swing is a solid trick, though still exposed to removal.
Could be wrong if Unknown archetypes, removal density, and Doctor synergies could move it substantially.
“A cheap but narrow combat trick whose permanent counter and untap matter most in creature-heavy Limited decks.”
AI prediction made before release — not a measured result. Real performance data replaces this once the set is legal and tournament results come in.
Your rating, on the same 0–100 scale the engine uses.
5 ratings are needed on a format before its community average is shown publicly beside the engine's.
Comments 0