Magic: The Gathering,GO TEAM MS!

[Thestatusquo]

UW Delver is on the decline sure, but other delver variants are on the upswing. The talrand mono U Wizards variants in particular have been doing well in dailies and ptqs.

Iunno.

[Thestatusquo]

Thats a sweet sealed pool.

[Thestatusquo]

http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers ... a_id/68/=3

[Thestatusquo]

Yes, because mono white control was called "Wrath of god and decree of justice.dec."

[Thestatusquo]

Furthermore, we were arguing specifically about temporal mastery. But thats ok, you can just ignore that salient detail in the interest of pursuing your favorite hobby of pretending you're right when you're not.

[Thestatusquo]

The haste looter guy is better and you should be playing desperate ravings and faithless looting

[Thestatusquo]

Won an 8-4 with mill

3 vedalken entrancer
2 mindsculpt
2 unsummon
1 switcheroo
1 sleep
1 encrust
1 essense scatter
1 flames of the firebrand
1 searing spear
1 magmaquake
1 talrands invocation
2 scroll theif
1 auger of bolas
1 kraken hatchling
1 wind drake (ew)
1 wall of fire
1 faerie invaders
1 card I am forgetting.
10 island
7 mountain.

sweet draft.

[Thestatusquo]

Its mainly nostalgia, I think. The original ravnica was one of the best sets of all time, and certainly RGD was one of the best draft formats of all time. We'll see if this one lives up to the name.

[Thestatusquo]

So, who is planning on playing state champs this weekend? what are you rocking? I will be playing this little number in Illinois.

4 Rakdos Cackler
4 Stromkirk Noble
3 Ash Zealot
4 Rakdos Shred-Freak
2 Gore-House Chainwalker
4 Mogg Flunkies
4 Hellrider
3 fervent cathar
2 Brimstone Volley
4 Searing Spear
4 Pillar of Flame
21 Mountain
1 Bonfire of the Damned

SB: 4 Reckless Waif
SB: 4 Mark of Mutiny
SB: 4 Flames of the Firebrand
SB: 3 Torch Fiend

[Thestatusquo]

WOoooooooooooooooooooo, box day!

EDIT: They were sold out when I got there at opening. Bought a fatpack and all the single boosters they had left. Equivalent to about half a box, and cost about $65 instead of $110, but I still got 4 shocks and a Rakdos.

Buying unopened product is just so inefficient. For that money you could have had at least 6 shocks.

[Thestatusquo]

I took Reck's RDW to a standard thing yesterday:

4 Vexing Devil
4 Stromkirk Noble
3 Ash Zealot
4 Gore-House Chainwalker
3 Splatter Thug
2 Hellrider
4 Pillar of Flame
4 Searing Spear
4 Flames of the Firebrand
3 Brimstone Volley
2 Thunderous Wrath
1 Bonfire of the Damned
3 Rootbound Crag
2 Kessig Wolf Run
17 Mountain

SB:
2x Zealous Conscripts
2x Eletrickery
3x Mizzium Mortars
2x Smelt
2x Faithless Looting
1x Reforge the Soul

Don't like Splatter Thug... we were thinking of adding Guttersnipes (I like Kruin Outlaw myself). Chainwalkers are good but might drop them for Shred-Freaks. Vexing Devil is a bad topdeck but Vexing-sac -> Brimstone on t4 is hilarious.

Sideboard also needs work but it was thrown together last-minute so we didn't get proper numbers of cards together.

Also, Shea, may I suggest Traitorous Instinct over Mark of Mutiny?

Vexing devil is pretty terrible in a creature deck. In a burn spell its great as a one mana 4 damage spell. You pretty much always want to draw it. In a creature deck, even turn 1 its not great. They can take damage in the early game and they can usually deal with a 4/3 in the late game. It just never does what you want it to do, really.

I don't know why you would want any less than 4 hellrider at the top of the curve. That card just ends the game when you have an aggressive curve and burn, plus, it works just fine in multiples.

You absolutely need 4 Cacklers. Your deck has 4 one drop creatures and 8 1 drop burn spells. You need to spend your turn 1 putting repeatable damage on the board, not shooting at their face, so you can do the math on your own. I do not know why a red deck would not play a 1 drop 2/2.

I'm not a huge fan of thunderous wrath. Its a completely dead card in your opening hand, and as an aggressive red deck you want to be curving out with repeatable damage on the first few turns so miracle-ing it then is not very efficient either. Couple this with the fact that you really dont WANT the game to go long, I think the window of times when you can draw this card and be happy with it is just too narrow to justify its inclusion.

Don't really like the green splash. I'd just rather run more burn and cut down to 21 lands.

Have you liked bonfire in the deck? I've been testing it in mine and I just don't really like it that much. I feel similar about it that I feel about reforge. It's just like... Dead in my hand a large majority of the time.

Don't really like guttersnipe unless you're going straight burn, pretty much.

I would highly suggest Reckless Waif in the board. That card is an all star in control match ups. It flips reliably and gives you 3 repeatable damage on the first turn. Now, granted, it is utter poop against the other 60% of the field, but, that's what the sideboard is for!

You can suggest traitorous blood, but I'll ignore you. :-p The key to playing a successful red deck is mana efficiency. You are doing way more things than they are in the early game, spending way more mana, and putting yourself in a position that gives your burn spells inevitability. Mana cost matters in an aggro deck quite a bit. That means that given the choice between two spells that do roughly the same thing, I will be for sure taking the cheaper one, and not even thinking about it too much.

To cap that all off, the only reason one might play traitorous blood is because of marks supposed draw back but uhhh....thats not a drawback for my deck? Forcing through one more damage is not irrelevant, and it is one less point of burn I have to do. On the flipside, if they're playing a creature that I have to mark in the first place, its not like that +1 +1 will matter for them. I will 9 times out of 10 just straight up not care.

[Thestatusquo]

I will continue to make the case against vexing devil. If it's good only on turn 4, it isnt good enough. On the fourth turn you should be hitting the top of your curve with hellrider (which NEEDS to be a 4 of), not casting a 4 damage spell. If its just a burn spell its redundant, and all the other burn in your deck is much more versatile.

Waif is a card that comes in against control decks. Against control decks it is a 3/2 for R. That is insane. You're right that you never want to take a turn off, which is why you don't play it in matchups where your opponent doesnt flip it for you. After turn one its just a 1/1 for one, but the value of ALL one drops goes down in the late game.

[Thestatusquo]

I dont particularly like conscripts. I think you either run conscripts or you run traitorous blood. You don't need two of those effects in the board. Remember, when you're creating a sideboard strategy, space is at a premium, both in the board itself, but also in your deck. If you're bringing in 8 cards against a matchup, what are you bringing out? The only slot in the deck that it makes sense to bring conscripts in for is hellrider, and I just literally can't think of a matchup where I would prefer the former.

[Thestatusquo]

Hellkite is fine. Honestly, if I were tweaking your list it would look a little like this:

Creatures
4x Stromkirk Noble
4x Rakdos Cackler
4x Ash Zealot
4x Rakdos Shred-Freak
2x Gore-house Chainwalker
3x Fervant cathar
4x Hellrider
2x Thundermaw Hellkite

Instants & Sorceries
4x Pillar of Flame
4x Searing Spear
4x Brimstone Volley

Lands
21 x Mountain


Sideboard
4x reckless waif
4x Flames of the Firebrand
4x mark of mutiny
3x torch fiend.

I don't think you need to run sweepers in the board. Your deck is fast enough that you shouldn't get into board stalls too much, and you should be able to spot remove the key creature. Shrug.

[Thestatusquo]

It is common only. But the card just needs to have been printed as a common at some point, most recent printing doesn't matter (Assuming you are talking about rancor).

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup

But yeah, there's a handful of cards that have this. Rancor's the only important one that comes to mind.

Also, there's a format called Peasant where you get 6 uncommons. This was where I found out that Force of Will was an uncommon.

tons of them, actually. For instance, serrated arrows.

[Thestatusquo]

I went 3-2 with GW midrange tonight. Missed top 8 on tie breakers.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm gunna be at GP chicago this weekend. Not playing the main event. Who has money for modern? But I will be playing the 5k standard event with this decklist.

1 island
1 forest
4 sunpetal grove
4 temple garden
4 Hinterland Harbor
4 Hallowed Fountain
4 Glacial Fortress
1 Alchemist's Refuge
4 Terminus
3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
1 Tamiyo, the Moon Sage
4 Thragtusk
3 Sphinx's Revelation
2 think twice
4 farseek
2 Supreme Verdict
2 Angel of Serenity
2 Detention Sphere
4 Azorius Charm
4 restoration angel
2 dissipate

thoughts?

[Thestatusquo]

I think you both knew which one I meant.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm thinking about cutting 1 terminus and 1 other thing for 2 syncopate.

[Thestatusquo]

If by good you mean really boring. Like all of standard right now. I'm keeping to limited.

[Thestatusquo]

So, I'm beginning to feel like Zombies just isn't good enough to get there. I think I'm going to build the Rock.

Youre just starting to think this? Hasn't this been obvious for like 2 months now? Since states when it made up 40% of the field and like 5% of the top 8s?

[Thestatusquo]

Your store is at least a month and a half behind magic as a whole. If you paid attention to results from big tournaments, you could dominate it. I mean, really, still playing RDW? It became pretty clear pretty quickly that RDW is barely a deck post rotation, and selesnya is just far outclassed by bant control, although its the best of the decks you listed.

[Thestatusquo]

then you're fairly ignorant, as its still one of (if not) the most popular card games in existence.

Reck, the deck seems fine, but I think that I would never want to play more than 1-2 populate cards that don't directly effect the board state (Druids Deliverance, sundering growth) main, as they seem like they have a very low floor. I.E. It's a terrible top deck some awful percentage of the time, with growth even having situations where it is a 100% dead card. Also, blustersquall seems meh in your deck where you should already be winning with flyers and large amounts of 3/3s. That card is best in aggressive decks that need help to push through the last few points of damage. In your deck it seems like it would be a glorified (and expensive) fog a vast majority of the time, and you already have the two deliverences. Can you afford that many possibly dead cards? It seems like an awful draw some large percentage of the time, and even worse in the opening grip.

[Thestatusquo]

no but, that pack is clearly shopped.

[Thestatusquo]

The flavor of that mechanic is pretty awful for multiple reasons. Can't say I know how it will play, though.

[Thestatusquo]

I really hate the Bant/Thragtusk archetype. Any suggestions for other shit to play in Standard? My RDW isn't cutting it right now and I want to invest in something that'll be a good backbone for the GC scene.

Omnidoor thragfire.

[Thestatusquo]

Is thragtusk even that big of a deal in the format right now? I mean, its still obviously a good card, but the best decks in the format right now all seem to be some kind of red aggro, and the card that they scoop to more than thragtusk is sphinx's. (which this also helps against.)

I see very little reason not to be playing red right now.

[Thestatusquo]

Thats what I mean. I mean, at the last invitational I think there were only like 12 copies in the top 8, and 4 of those were in SBs. There were, however, something like 22 copies of SR, all main.

[Thestatusquo]

Mostly finished with omni door. Just need a few things. Probably gunna grab them next week and sleeve it up at FNM.

[Thestatusquo]

FOR THE LOLZ

[Thestatusquo]

I'm still going?

[Thestatusquo]

g1?

[Thestatusquo]

YOLO

[Thestatusquo]

[Thestatusquo]

Reck and I doing it again. I was serious this time.

[Thestatusquo]

lol reck got stomped by packrat.

[Thestatusquo]

In the finals. I played against two izzet decks. And reck played izzet. Izzet is probably the most shallow guild, which probably explains why none of those decks were very good.

[Thestatusquo]

Pack Rat is very, very good in Limited. If you open a Pack Rat, you're in black now.

I don't think there is a magic player in existence who does not know this.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, well done, pie.

Since opening a sphinx's in my draft with reck last night I've freerolled three drafts and still have 4 tix and 5 packs sitting in my account. Sweeeeet.

[Thestatusquo]

Yeah, pack rat is bonkers. You basically have a one turn window to answer it or you lose.

[Thestatusquo]

He never played it.

[Thestatusquo]

that is a question that is almost 100% of the time better answered after we already know what new standard IS.

[Thestatusquo]

That Jace is like a 20 dollar card atm, isn't it?

[Thestatusquo]

Card sets have been spoiled before pre-releases since i've been playing magic. and yeah, there basically aren't even combo's in constructed anymore, let alone limited.

Also also, I find that magic is best when everyone knows what they're doing. If I'm playing for fun (aka not at a big important tourney which I will lose anyway) I want to play against the best players I can find, knowing the most about the format, with the best decks that are performing optimally. Then its a skill game. And that's why its fun.

[Thestatusquo]

Fate, you can build competitive decks, be a good player, and have good knowledge about the cards and the format without dropping tons of money. It's actually not even that hard. The deck building part is the hardest, but it can be done. But you certainly don't need to be a millionaire to a) know the rules and b) know the cards and c) know the intersection of those two areas.

Think of it this way: Would you rather play lol with/against a team that had no idea what all the various characters are and what their abilities were, and had no idea what the general strategies are that make up the back bone of that game? (would you want to play against me, essentially) I'm guessing the answer is probably no, but you could surprise me by saying yes.

[Thestatusquo]

I mean, I just don't think that's true fate. I just top 4'd a GPT the other day with a deck that plays, at most, not counting the land, 10 cards that people that were constructed playable when they first came out.

List of cards in the deck that people thought would never get played in constructed:
Nicol Bolas
Gristlebrand
Increasing Ambition
Fog
Rangers Path
Gilded Lotus
Omniscience
door to nothingness
chromatic lantern
alchemists refuge

There's tons of re-evaluation and innovation in constructed magic. It's not like you have to play certain cards to be allowed to play. The issue is that its a competitive event, and to do well you have to BEAT the cards that people currently think are good. That's the difference. It's not a matter of cards being forced out just because, its the inherency that you if you can't beat what is currently considered to be the best deck, or the second, or the third, then why show up at all? No one's saying don't bring weird cards to FNM. People are saying that unless you have some possible way to win with them, why bother to leave the kitchen table?

[Thestatusquo]

I mean... The deck wins by casting omnicience, then casting increasing ambition for temporal mastery. Casting that. Untapping and taking your second turn, flashing back increasing ambition for door to nothingness and a second temporal mastery, then casting them both, untapping and winning by door to nothingnessing your opponent ater taking three turns in a row. Fun cards and interesting combos. Nah. The deck is not about those things at all....

Also of note, I would say that the idea that somehow "fun" and "powerful" are different things is just a strange one to me. To me, fun is winning. I have a preference for winning in a certain way (I am well known for my love of really bad combo) but at the end of the day it is more fun to win than it is to lose. The two things are inseperable. Therefore the statement "I played this deck just to have fun, I wasn't expecting to win" doesn't make sense to me. If you're not trying to win, GTFO out of tournaments and play at home with your friends, for fun.

Reck is completely wrong about that statement. Not every card can be good. This should be obvious. In a pool of 100 different actions, obviously there are going to be some good actions some middling actions and some terrible actions. That doesn't mean a) That you have to always make the actions others think are best. You just have to be able to beat them. That doesn't mean others are always right about what actions are good and which ones are bad. Travis Woo's dominance with Living End.dec in extended is a perfect example of that. It's not like you're being hated out specifically. It's just that its a truism that if there is a competitive environment, people are going to try to win, and they are going to try to do so by playing what is best. If you don't know what that is and you don't know how to beat it, then that is your fault, not theirs.

[Thestatusquo]

I just wouldn't try to beat four knights game with "moving pawns at random" is all I am saying

[Thestatusquo]

When has anyone played Cathar's Crusade?

[Thestatusquo]

The guildmage seems pretty good with the right support. Poop otherwise.

[Thestatusquo]

it's worth noting that Disciple of the vault would have been an entirely fair card if printed in LITERALLY ANY OTHER ENVIRONMENT.

Basically the whole block was Borked.

[Thestatusquo]

Good. Hexproof is like the biggest design flaw of magic as it is currently printed, and it certainly the most non-interactive and unfun mechanic.

[Thestatusquo]

You could interact with that ability pretty easily, though, and the cards you couldn't really interact with that well cost 3000000 mana.

[Thestatusquo]

For anyone who plays online and is fairly serious, MTGO PTQ is tomorrow morning at 7am Pacific.

RTR Sealed, 30 tix.

[Thestatusquo]

The prize support is fantastic. Shrug. Winner gets a PT invite and 1000$, essentially and a complete foil set. Second gets a complete non-foil set. Then prizes down to 200th place or so. Shrug.

It's not more expensive than any other important paper sealed event.

[Thestatusquo]

http://www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/articl ... onsmaze/13

[Thestatusquo]

Who was your teammate? I watched a lot of that top 8.

[Thestatusquo]

I agree with chamber. People name door with slaughter games all the time, and it's 100% of the time the wrong name, unless you know I have it in my hand and I have 9 lands and a chromatic lantern in play. The deck needs to be attacked by taking away its card advantage. It runs 3-4 singleton win conditions for a reason.

That being said, I kinda hate the name, and at the GPT I top 4'd with the deck I titled mine "Science!", which I like way more.

[Thestatusquo]

Lotus is the wrong name too. The deck does, after all, only run two of them, and they're somewhat replaceable with rangers path and lantern/farseek. The deck is gunna get to a critical mass of mana regardless.

The best ways to beat door actually don't involve slaughter games at all. They involve turning creatures sideways very fast, or packing counterspells. A midrange deck is basically a bye for the deck, even if they take away my sphinx's, because theres really no way for them to stop me from just ramping into a turn 5 bolas and killing them,.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm not sure I'll be playing the list post GTC. I think skullcrack just wrecks our answer to red decks far too much. It's a bad matchup, sure, but its winable. I don't think we can ever ever beat that card.

[Thestatusquo]

then you're siding in dispell for 1 card, and 8-10 of our SB slots are already dedicated to the matchup. I just don't know how viable it will be,

[Thestatusquo]

Honestly I think healer is the number one most important card to draw for the red match. All the other answers we have in the board are more powerful, yes, but many times turn 4 is just too late.

[Thestatusquo]

If you draw a thragtusk and play that turn 5, what percentage of those games do you win? I'd wager its not high.

[Thestatusquo]

Rule 405.3e
"If a player asks a needlessly complex and stupid rules question in a thread on a forum where most of the commenters contained therein are newer players, that persons cards shall be confiscated by the head judge and burned immediately."

[Thestatusquo]

when he randomly bought cards to attempt to make money off of them.

This is just about the worst idea of all time.

FUCK Thragtusk

If you're losing to thragtusk than you're not building your RDW correctly.

[Thestatusquo]

Then you drop thundermaw and swing for game. Or you drop conscripts and swing for game. RDW has tons of answers to tusk.

[Thestatusquo]

Not really, Mutilate boardwipe T4 is bad news when I have out 2x Ash Zealot + Cackler + Stromkirk

Sounds like you over extended. Theres no reason to play out the fourth, and probably even the third creature if you know hes running board sweepers (and even if you dont, maybe)

[Thestatusquo]

Why didnt you take tusk and swing at his face? if you had 4 creatures out, 2 of them being hasters, I can't imagine he was at high life.... Furthermore, this makes no sense. He board wiped turn 4 but then he had a garruk in play and a thragtusk? What turn was this?

[Thestatusquo]

If you had started a week ago and spent your whole roll on exquisite blood then you would have already won. How does that make you feel?

[Thestatusquo]

I don't know what point you think you're trying to make, and for certain I have no idea because I've never played the match up, but in general mirror matches are among the most skill intensive matches in the whole game. Knowing which cards are important, when to "go for it" as opposed to holding back, and by extension mulliganing decisions are critical and tough things to figure out. The person who knows what cards to care about, when to mulligan and for what kind of hand, and who has the better SB plan is typically the person who wins a mirror match.

For perspective, when Tog was the deck of choice and almost everyone was playing it, most tog decks were focusing on countering each others draw spells in the mirror to get an advantage. One player, whos name escapes me at the moment, decided that this was foolish and that in the mirror only one spell mattered- mana short to cast your upheaval - so he stopped countering anything but his opponents mana shorts or their counters on his mana shorts. He ended up winning the event through about 5 mirrors.

In the future, when you want to ask a question like this, where you're sarcastically trying to make a point that magic is not a skill game just because you are unaware of the particular skill that it takes because you are new, ask yourself "Do I have any clue what I am talking about here?" If the answer is no, as it almost certainly is, you should instead ask HOW the match is skill intensive, not try to prove your completely and utterly wrong point that it isn't.

Just saying.

[Thestatusquo]

Stalling isn't a petty annoyance. It is cheating. If your opponent is cheating, call the judge over.

If you don't want to say anything in front of your opponent because you feel like its rude, it is totally within your rights to ask the judge to speak to you away from the match, and ask him to watch for slow play. That way, the opponent, if they are not playing slowly on purpose, will not receive any penalty, because the judge can judge whether they should be told to speed up or not. That's probably the best way to handle a slow playing opponent.

[Thestatusquo]

It just seems to me like you're not playing those cards just to not play those cards. The shell of the deck seems to be the exact same, but with worse cards substituted. I dunno. What advantages do you get from running that version as opposed to the 4 color gifts deck thats popular right now?

[Thestatusquo]

I think both these bannings are crap.

[Thestatusquo]

Yeah. The rational given for BBE was that it was "a card unique to Jund." The problem with that is that it means it wasn't strong enough to be played in any other deck, which means it probably doesn't pass the power threshold for a banning. In addition to that, is the card really all that much better than other value creatures in that slot? Like, huntmaster probably fills the slot just fine. So does Olivia. If the idea was to nerf Jund a little then I think it's gunna be a huge failure.

As for storm, sure, it can win on turn 3. So can burn. So can eggs. So can twin. So can infect. None of the decks can consistently do so. Not through removal or disruption. The fact that storm was not even a dominant meta choice shows that this is true. If it consistently killed on turn 3, then pretty clearly more people would be playing it. Wizards just hates storm combo and regrets printing it and keeps nerfing it for no reason. Meanwhile, it absolutely kills my enduring ideal deck with splashover, for no tangible gain to the format.

It's fucked.

[Thestatusquo]

BBE seems like a fairish ban that accomplishs what they want it to. Seething Song is a bullshit ban.

Do you even play modern? I just devoted a fairly long post explaining why those things weren't true. At least BV attempted to make an argument. You just stated the opposite with no reasoning whatsoever. Modern is a format of explosive and powerful cards. BBE is an explosive and powerful card, for sure, but it is not overpowered compared to the format (as evidenced by the fact that it is literally only played in jund), and this banning does not hurt jund significantly, which was its stated purpose.

[Thestatusquo]

I can't believe I'm finding myself agreeing with greyice. This is a distinction that people are missing. Fair and powerful. Tarmogoyf and BBE both find themselves in that camp. Just because a card is good doesn't make it broken. Broken has a very specific meaning in the game of magic.

The only argument I can somewhat agree with for a goyf banning has to do with removing a barrier for entry into modern due to cost, but that doesn't really work, since wizards isn't creating the cost. There will always be cards that are expensive in a format of older cards that is played competitively. Getting rid of goyf only would make some other card that much more expensive as the meta shifted around the banning, and, frankly, the fetch lands are a bigger barrier to entry anyway.

[Thestatusquo]

I think the curve is too high in general. The deck seems to be confused.

[Thestatusquo]

You could always just play white?

[Thestatusquo]

I assume its because red just has way better options available at the three drop slot.

[Thestatusquo]

I assume its because red just has way better options available at the three drop slot.

reds 3 drops are actually kind of shit right now. (which is the only reason the card fate mentioned is even close to being maybe playable outside of combo)

Interestingly enough, that doesn't change my argument.

[Thestatusquo]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles ... o-7-drops/

Holy shit I want to try this.

As much as I like TWoo, I think this deck is just a bad version of the junk reanimator deck that was popular right after return came out. How exactly is red better than thragtusk/mulch/trackers instincts/mana dorks/craterhoof?

I don't think it is.

[Thestatusquo]

Is it even necessary for me to chime in here and mention that the power level disparity between mayor and hamlet is so big that I am shocked that I have even, just now, uttered them in the same sentence?

[Thestatusquo]

Also, on a completely different line of discussion, I am pleased with the revisions to the trigger rules.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, heres an example of what chamber is talking about re: vanilla. Loxodon Smiter is a 4/4 for 3 with a not completely irrelevant ability. It doesn't see really all that much play. Deadbridge Goliath is a 5/5 for 4 with an ok ability that sees literally no play at all. 2/2 for 2 just is not good enough.

[Thestatusquo]

Nope. That is in fact exactly what they just changed away. A trigger only becomes missed at the point a player is forced to make a decision. That means if you attack with exalted triggers and they block forgetting about the triggers, they still happen.

[Thestatusquo]

Yep. Like 95% of rules issues would be eliminated if real world just worked like mtgo. Unfortunately, that's an unrealistic expectation. XD

Also, fate, this is you: "DON'T TRY TO MAKE MY DECK GOOD TELL ME ABOUT CARDS THAT AREN'T AS GOOD AS THE ONES THAT YOU COULD SUGGEST BECAUSE I THINK I AM A UNIQUE AND SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE"

[Thestatusquo]

You: Hey, I'm playing magic and I'd like some help.
Us: Awesome! Here are some suggestions. New players are awesome.
You: Fuck that, everything you said has been done and you are not creative and stupid and all magic is luck
Us: ...
You: HERE IS A DECKLIST WHAT DO YOU THINK
Us: Fuck You.
You: OMG STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT BAD CARDS YOU THINK I SHOULD PLAY.

[Thestatusquo]

to build on something chamber said, if you are only interested in doing fun things casually in magic against friends, why the hell are you playing a red based aggro deck? It's like the least interactive and most boring thing to do with magic cards.

If that's your desired level of magic (again, as chamber said, something that wasn't communicated very well until this exact moment) then I suggest you try commander. It is a format based around doing cool things playing magic with your friends, basically. 100 card deck comprised entirely of one-ofs. If I recall correctly, sudo plays that format with some level of regularity. Maybe he can give you a good entry point?

[Thestatusquo]

I'm not a huge fan of Saito, if only because I think he's a pretty dirty player. Shrug.

I would play a tournament.

[Thestatusquo]

The way I've always played it, you can play a land each turn, that land produces any color, then you each draw from a stack of shuffled magic cards. The best part is that it really doesn't matter what they are, so long as the casting costs are at least somewhat mixed. Then you play a normal game of magic where any card can be played as any magic card in the game with the same casting cost (Boomerang can be counterspell, but not mana leak.) Usually we played with the legacy banned list. Sometimes we felt like playing time walks so we didn't.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, in commander no one really cares. Like, theres always that one asshole in the group who has sol ring in his deck and beta duel lands, but you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want in commander.

[Thestatusquo]

What format for the tournament? I would be most interested in playing modern or legacy. Not a huge fan of standard. And type one is sweet but no one wants to play it but me.

[Thestatusquo]

Well... One of the best things about an online tournament is you're not restricted to cards you own in real life?

[Thestatusquo]

Type one is the king of cheese bag combo.

[Thestatusquo]

Given the fact that no one appears interested in t1 or 1.5, my preference would be for modern, then TBMs "Random MYOS" format, where two blocks and a core set are randomly chosen and then everyone builds from that pool of cards, then standard. Standard is p. boring imo.

[Thestatusquo]

Wait, how did I get roped into running this shebang?

[Thestatusquo]

the third advantage is that it is not absolutely busted like real MYOS.

[Thestatusquo]

Definitely 1 format. Otherwise Mr. Kamigawa-masques gets paired against Mr. Urzas-Mirrodin and it's just wrong.

Just assign each block a number, and generate 2 random integers on random.org within that range. Do the same thing with core sets.

[Thestatusquo]

That actually sounds moderately awesome.

[Thestatusquo]

Has anyone made a real thread for this?

[Thestatusquo]

Cheers, agar.

[Thestatusquo]

I would agree with sudo in the sense that I don't think that "aggro mill" is viable. If I were to build a deck with mill as its win con I'd devote like 90% of my slots to controlling the board. Once you've done that, it shouldn't be too hard to win with whichever repeatable mill effect you choose.

[Thestatusquo]

Mutilate could be an option, depending on how you make your mana base. Liliana. Since you're not caring about life anywa the new 1B target player sacrifices a creature is quite good in your deck and gives you strong game against the hexproof deck as well. I would probably want something with which to generate card advantage. Think twice might not be a bad option.

[Thestatusquo]

Are you playing experiment one? It's very good in that deck.

[Thestatusquo]

Theres no reason you cant make your mana base work to do both, although most of them are not running ash zealot. (or noble I think)

[Thestatusquo]

Because you can make a sickly fast RG deck? Faster than RR.

[Thestatusquo]

Then they cheated.

[Thestatusquo]

Yes. Playing a 3 drop for 2 mana is cheating.

[Thestatusquo]

Sudo, I've tried really hard to build that guttersnipe and vengence deck. The issue is that throughout all of my playtesting, every single time I had vengence in my hand, I found myself wishing it was like... pretty much anything else. I mean every single damn time. The card just doesn't do enough and isn't fast enough to be good in constructed magic.

[Thestatusquo]

I mean, another advantage of swiss is you don't have to worry about the number of people once its over 8? Just run 4-5 rounds (probably only need 4 with 13, but I'm not sure) cut to top 4. Seems fine.

[Thestatusquo]

I was gunna stream tonight, but then I realized that my net blows, so that will have to wait for another time.

Out of curiosity, who would be interested in watching such a thing?

[Thestatusquo]

Very. Four Vraska is miserable, as planeswalkers are obviously terrible in multiples, and Vraska isn't good enough to justify drawing her dead a large amount of time.

Second, if you're running a token deck, why would you not run the anthem? I forget what its called, but 2/2 tokens seems better than 1/1 tokens.

Third, I think your mana is awful, but thats probably just a function of not having shocks. If thats the case, make one of the three colors a splash and cut the gates and pick up a few of the buddy lands. The W/G is like 2$

Fourth, no pack rat? you misplayed.

Lastly, I don't think you need that much of the druids deliverance/rootborn/growing ranks effect. I think I would play like 3 rootborn 3 deliverance 2 growing ranks, which gives you room for removal like fiend hunter or oblivion ring.

[Thestatusquo]

the best way to win games of limited is to

play

topdeck massive flyers after your board has been wiped your opponents superior play

FTFY

[Thestatusquo]

its just you. O.O

[Thestatusquo]

One of the things thats very important to playing magic well is the question "why is my opponent doing this?" which leads you to think about what cards might be in his hand and which of them you can successfully play around. In this case, depending on the deck, and the game situation, there is not a lot of reason for your opponent to attack (unless the life gain was super relevant) except to bait you into blocking, and there are tons of things that absolutely blow you out for doing so. If you had thought through this line of play it leads you to thinking about what bloodrush he could have, what burn he could have, izzet staticaster, etc, which would make me personally think that single blocking is probably not an option here. Taking it and double or triple blocking were probably your best options.

[Thestatusquo]

Yeah. I think shanbas point is well taken. This is the kind of thing that just comes with experience.

At the pre-release I got blown out by several cards that I would definitely be playing around if I had played the format a couple of times. Aetherize is an example. However, I also got blown out by a hydroform, which I would still get blown out by right now simply because I think the card is actively bad and I wouldn't be expecting an opponent to have it.

[Thestatusquo]

Thats fair. If your opponent has given you reason to believe that he doesn't have anything then perhaps you make that block there. However, I can't know if I think it was correct without knowing more of the gamestate. It's possible that the risk of him drawing something is higher than the utility you get out of saving that damage, and therefore it is still incorrect to block.

[Thestatusquo]

netdraft.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, take 60 basic lands. Here, take a sharpie. Write on them. Viola. Proxies. Perfect for testing out decks. Also, google image search. Print. Sleeves. Viola. Proxies.

Or, just draft to build your collection. I don't spend much money on magic. I just win a lot of drafts and trade.

[Thestatusquo]

MWS has existed for like literally 15 years. Also, I disagree with your assertion that most players play because of cockatrice. In general, most casual players don't know that such a program even exists. The world of magic doesn't really exist for them outside of their kitchen table environment, and, in general, these are the players that buy the most sealed magic product (competitive players tend to buy singles)

Lastly, mtgo, if you play constructed, is much cheaper. MUCH cheaper. Like, commons and uncommons that are worth 50cents to a dollar irl are worth like 5 cents online. Rares that are worth 5 are 1. Blind obediance, for instance, is a 8$ card irl. It's 1.50 online. Shocklands are 10$ in real life, they're 3-4$ online. This is because the market is constantly being flooded by the number of drafts firing every hour which is way higher than irl.

The only exception to this rule used to be mythics, because they were highly sought after because they were necessary for set redemption, which in general is how the bots on mtgo make their money. However, they just raised the set redemption fee online from 5$ to 25$, so I wouldn't be surprised if the market on mtgo crashed even further, allowing us to play constructed on there for dirt cheap.

I would say the reason MWS hasnt been shut down is that its not owned by anyone. No one is making money off of it. The project hasn't been active for a very long time. All that remains are the servers and the program itself. Cockatrice had an active owner who was actively making money in advertising revenue. I assume thats why they got the CnD.

[Thestatusquo]

Wack it?

[Thestatusquo]

going to a PTQ tomorrow with this list:

4 Geist of St. Traft
4 Snapcaster Mage
3 Restoration Angel

4 lightning bolt
4 remand
3 path to exile
3 lightning helix
3 mana leak
3 electrolyze
2 cryptic command
2 izzet charm

4 arid mesa
4 scalding tarn
4 celestial colonnade
2 Hallowed Fountain
2 Steam Vents
2 island
2 Tectonic Edge
1 plains
1 mountain
1 Eiganjo Castle
1 Sacred Foundry
1 Sulfur Falls

SB:
2 Sowing Salt
3 Molten Rain
2 Pithing needle
2 Counterflux
2 Censore Mentale Aviano (Aven Mindscensor)
2 Stony Silence
1 pyroclasm
1 Supreme Verdict

Wish me luck.

[Thestatusquo]

I have very little interest in standard currently, but for anyone who is willing to reciprocate by jamming matches of Modern net decks against mine, I will be willing to do the same for yours.

Currently running the UWR list that was posted earlier.

[Thestatusquo]

I don't think those losses have anything to do with not knowing the format. Sometimes, variance. You lost to the nuts boros deck (the best deck in the format) and an insane bomb rare. This does not mean you drafted poorly.

[Thestatusquo]

You could just give it to me. Seems fine.

[Thestatusquo]

Your rumors appear to have gotten truncated in the telling. Perhaps you are referring to this?

http://www.examiner.com/article/wizards ... gic-online

[Thestatusquo]

Hey, while yo guys are arguing about the logistics, you could read the link I just posted to the actual already established logistics of the recently established program that spawned these rumors.

Or not. Arguing is fun, I guess.

[Thestatusquo]

Snapcasters are not 20. They're 25. 23 if you find someone willing to give you TCG mid, which is unlikely because its an eternal card that will never be less than 25. Look at Bob for comp. People have been quoting me like 8-9 on shocks, which seems unreasonable to me just because they're also an eternal card ostensibly, but people, looking at the short term, see them being repeatedly cracked, and more coming in gatecrash, so they're dropping.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone wanted more like 3 shocks for a caster, if they were willing to trade those cards for each other at all.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, went 7-3 in the online sealed ptq yesterday. It's disappointing, since my pool was probably good enough to top 8 with, I just punted a game here and there, couldn't deal with an obzedat, and got flooded once or twice. All in all I didn't deserve to top 8 because of my play mistakes, but I was still disappointed I couldn't do more with a pool that good.

I ended up 88th out of 805.

[Thestatusquo]

I think the 1.5ing for 1 that Chamber is referring to is if your opponent uses removal on the creature that is being counterparted in response (in this case, guttersnipe, since that is specifically what you were talking about.) causing you lose that card (1) and half of counterpart (.5)

[Thestatusquo]

I would like to note that it is not always incorrect to cast instants (even removal) on your turn.

[Thestatusquo]

I don't think I've ever disagreed with magic analysis quite as much as I disagree with what Nabnab just said. Strategies such as the one he is describing only have utility at a very base level. If I am taking such a deck to a tournament, and my decks power relies on my opponents not understanding the interactions well enough to play correctly, then I will beat bad opponents some large percentage of the time and I will lose to good opponents some large percentage of the time. However, if I am playing tight, with a deck with a reasonable power level without any absolutely horrendously bad matchups and a solid side board plan for those matchups which are unfavorable, I will also beat the bad players some large percentage of the time, without having to resort to smoke and mirrors, and, I will by the same token have vastly improved my matchups against the good players.

Since I am, I think, pretty good at magic, I would much rather the barrier for beating me be "Play magic better than I do" instead of "see through my gimmicks."

[Thestatusquo]

That might be what I just said.

[Thestatusquo]

Is that why you're so bad at magic?

[Thestatusquo]

small sample size.

[Thestatusquo]

If that's why you're playing magic, why don't you just play tick tack toe instead. It's much quicker.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, I would agree with the commentary that "fun" and "winning" are not somehow exclusive, but are completely linked. Do you really have fun when you get outplayed at magic? I don't. It's an abysmal feeling to lose, and anyone who says it doesn't impact their fun negatively? Well, that's outside of my frame of reference I guess.

I play lots of things that I am not great at, but the urge to win is still the basic driving force behind any game play, right? Like, if we're not playing to win then why bother playing a competitive game at all? Why don't we play dominion to see if we can get one player to get all the provinces? Why don't we just all try to get one player the longest road we possibly can in Settlers? It's because those practices inherently do not provide the basic tension that makes game play interesting. I like interesting interactions and complex decks better than most people, and in fact if I had my druthers I'd run storm combo every single tournament I am in. (the decision trees! oh, the decision trees!) But losing with an interesting and outlandish deck just is not more fun than winning with a boring normal one. It's just not.

[Thestatusquo]

You're making a false comparison. I too prefer good magic to bad magic. But when you're comparing losing a game with complex interactions to winning a game that wasn't really a game of magic, you're comparing apples to oranges. A much more illustrative question is do you prefer to win a game where one player doesn't actually get to play magic, or lose such a game?

[Thestatusquo]

You sir, are a strange person.

[Thestatusquo]

Anyone who won their first round at a big tournament? You were tied with 268 other people.

[Thestatusquo]

The pick is kingpin's pet, and its not even particularly close.

[Thestatusquo]

Isn't mill sort of a trap in Limited? It feels like it's really hard to pull off when you're just kind of taking what comes.

This is true of literally any archetype or strategy if you put the name of the format before limited in your first sentence. Mill is totally viable in certain formats, and it's not even close in some others. I haven't lost to a mill deck yet in this format in about 30 drafts, if that is what you're asking. However, in m13 I routinely forced mill and had something like an 70% win percentage in 8-4s with it.

[Thestatusquo]

It's possibly because in the color pie each color is distinct, so thinking of it in terms of color combinations makes no sense. Why is vigilance make sense for blue? Why does reach make sense for white? Unless soldiers can jump really high, I don't see how it does.

[Thestatusquo]

I can't recall the last time I saw a white creature with reach. White typically just gets flying, I thought.

[Thestatusquo]

Obzedat is ok. Thragtusk is ok. Neither of those cards is insane.

Aurelia isn't really even good.

[Thestatusquo]

Messing around with a deck a little bit. Thinking of taking it for a whirl tomorrow night. Thoughts would be appreciated.

4 cloudfin raptor
4 experiment one
4 shambleshark
4 snapcaster mage
2 wolfir avenger
3 geist of st. traft
2 restoration angel

4 simic charm
3 spell rupture
4 unsummon
4 azorious charm

4 breeding pool
4 temple garden
4 hallowed fountain
2 hinterland harbor
2 glacial fortress
2 sunpetal grove
2 forest
1 island
1 plains

[Thestatusquo]

Re: Wolfir avenger. He's in there because he has flash. That's it. This deck doesn't want to tap out on its turn ever after turn 2 unless its for something as game swinging as geist. Medic and Smiter just aren't impactful enough to overcome the fact that wolfir is instant speed. In a tempo deck like this one, that is really important. There's also the fact that he's ridiculously good against aggro, which is a large part of the format right now. Flash in a blocker, leave up regen. Seems good.

If this deck gets to the late game it has lost. It's a tempo deck through and through. My plan is develop my board and keep them from developing theirs, and win that way relatively quickly. The reason the late game plan isn't great is because the decks late game plan is to tempo them out before it gets to the late game. Any change that dilutes the decks fundamental plan to hedge pretty much can only make the deck worse imo. Auger was a card I considered, but ended up deciding against because I'm pretty sure that turn two I almost never want to tap out, same with guildmage, though I considered it less seriously than auger.

By the same token, this deck needs to mulligan almost every hand that doesn't contain a one drop. You can't win without one. I actually wish I could add 2 more, if I could find some that had a good enough power level.

I haven't gotten that far yet, agar.

Things I've thought about for the board are: Ground Seal, Centaur Healer (swaps 1 for 1 with geist in the aggro match), more counters for the control match-up. (flashing in dudes eot and leaving counters up seems like a good way to beat esper et al.) havent thought so much about it yet.

[Thestatusquo]

Thats a fair point about snapcaster. But its worthwhile to note that tapping out is less of a big deal against the decks you'd want seal against. Though I think you're right crypt is just better.

[Thestatusquo]

...

[Thestatusquo]

DQ. Cheating.

It's really that simple.

Also, what the hell format were you playing?

[Thestatusquo]

Also, I knew the players of MS were not a very competitive bunch in general, but I didn't expect that I would make a post asking for suggestions on a tempo-aggro deck, and those suggestions would be "cut your fast starts" and "add an 0/4 do nothing card so you can block hellriders and let them continually trigger against you."

I think MS has reached new magic lows.

[Thestatusquo]

That's a valid criticism, fate. I don't think I'll know how big of a problem that is until I play with the deck, but mulliganing is your friend. You'll in general find that most people don't mulligan nearly as much as they should. The difference is that I think this style of deck mulligans way better than a given aggro deck.

Take the extreme example: a burn deck. You almost never mulligan with a burn deck unless the hand is pretty much doing nothing. That is because each card is actually worth about 3 points of damage. With a deck like this it's less of an issue, and the power and tempo of the spells I'm playing could make up for being down a card. I don't know if they do yet, because I haven't played the deck yet, but Delver, the deck that inspired this one for me, mulliganed very well, because its tempo was enough to compensate for having to ship 1/4 openers.

It's a thing to keep in mind, though. Also of note: if I cut any more spells snapcaster becomes pretty bad.

[Thestatusquo]

Played tonight. Went 3-2. Wasn't happy with the performance, but thought the shell had potential. I'm thinking of doing this:

4 cloudfin raptor
4 experiment one
4 strangleroot geist
4 shambleshark
4 wolfir avenger
3 geist of st. traft
3 restoration angel

4 simic charm
3 spell rupture
4 unsummon
2 azorious charm

4 breeding pool
4 temple garden
2 hallowed fountain
4 hinterland harbor
1 glacial fortress
2 sunpetal grove
2 forest
1 island
1 plains

The biggest problem with the deck (aside from the fact that I drew 10+ lands multiple times, and really I only want to get up to 4.) was not drawing creatures. I was hemorrhaging value with turns where I basically did nothing. I really liked Wolfir Avenger, and I was happy literally every time I drew it. Ditto resto. I was pretty much unhappy every time I drew a snapcaster. I was already on the cusp with him, and cutting 2 spells I think pushes him into the realm of unplayability.

The SB I ended up running is

4 crypt
3 negate
4 centaur healers
2 pithing needles
2 oblivion ring.

It was a little slapdash. I don't think any of those numbers are correct besides healers. 4 crypt is too many because you almost never want to side that many in. I think 2 is the correct number. I never wanted pithing needle. I never wanted oblivion ring. The negates should maybe stay at 3. Needs more testing. I didn't bring them in against anything, but I was close a couple times. I just don't know if the format is too creature based right now.

[Thestatusquo]

"so I am not very versed on the countermagic game that is clearly going on with your deck."

All three cards worth???

[Thestatusquo]

The negates are just there because they're the best answer to planeswalkers/sphinx's revelations/terminus etc. Basically they come in against esper control.

I wouldn't call this deck a counterspell deck.

[Thestatusquo]

well, they're not literally.

[Thestatusquo]

Think twice is just straight value

[Thestatusquo]

I mean, some tormods crypts might not be a bad thing. The problem with the "in vogue" graveyard decks is that they don't really care about the graveyard hate. Junk Rites is just playing Rites for value, and can definitely win pretty easily without it. Humanimator folds to a crypt or RiP but that deck has fallen out of favor quite a bit.

[Thestatusquo]

Its not even that. It's just that its inherent card advantage. Its not amazing, but its always a 2 for 1 that gives you something to do with excess mana.

[Thestatusquo]

It flashes back. Hence 1 becomes 2.

[Thestatusquo]

these sorts of things actually matter, agar.

[Thestatusquo]

So, I scrapped the deck. The problem with linear strategies like that is that in order to be good they have to make up for the fact that they're playing inherently less powerful cards than non-linear strategies with synergy. The synergy of the evolve deck just wasn't enough to overcome the power level of the decks that are running around in this meta, so it's a lost cause.

Messing around with omniscience again. I think it has pretty good matchups against everything but naya blitz, which becomes much better post board.

[Thestatusquo]

If you find out you can't beat a good chess player by moving your pawns randomly, you learn how to play chess, you don't try to figure out how to move your pawns more randomly.

[Thestatusquo]

Sure. My comment isn't saying that non-standard strategies are inherently bad, just that I do not think the one that I was playing was good. My comment still applies. Your deck is based on synergy. Whether or not that synergy is strong enough to overcome the fact that you have to play inherently less powerful cards that are being played by less linear decks is not something I can possibly know without playing your deck, though if you asked me my uninformed opinion I'd say that "toe to toe" is probably a bit of an overstatement of its EV.

[Thestatusquo]

I give up on decks that I do not think can win consistently. In my opinion, this is such a deck. Therefore the only logical thing to do is stop playing it.

And its not a bad analogy. if a strategy is bad, a strategy is bad. Trying to make a bad strategy more efficient will not change that fact.

[Thestatusquo]

I didn't say I thought the deck was suboptimally built. I said I think the strategy is not viable. Those are massively different things.

[Thestatusquo]

Drownyard is espers primary win con.

[Thestatusquo]

It really is that mindless.

The issue with aggro from the standpoint of "is it strategically interesting" is that there is really only one decision tree: How do I maximize damage. You are never really pulled into other strategically intense areas of the game (like how do I block so that X good thing happens or how do I respond to my opponents game plan so that his cards interact with my game plan in less strategic ways.) This isn't to say that damage maximization is always easy. It's not, and there are plenty of tough choices aggro players have to make in this area, but to claim that piloting a straight up aggro deck is as strategically interesting or requires as much (or even close to the amount of) thinking that is required to play a control deck or a combo deck is just absurd.

At the point where you're making decisions on other levels of the game besides damage maximization, it means that your opponent has stabilized and you've already lost. Or, you're in an aggro-aggro mirror and you're playing the part of the control deck.

[Thestatusquo]

Yes, because claiming a certain subset of strategies in a game is less strategically intense than other subsets of strategies is the same as talking about the amount of skill needed to play the game well....

There's a reason most bad magic players and most new players play aggressive decks. It's because they introduce the most draw based variance into the game. A bad player playing an aggro deck wins more often then a bad player playing a real deck. Go play a real deck. Get out of your comfort zone. I dare you.

[Thestatusquo]

Saito GR isn't even a good deck.

[Thestatusquo]

Fate is fun to troll. I clearly don't think that aggro is actually mindless to play. I do think that it is much less strategically interesting than control or combo. I think that is a truism.

In other news, this is what I'm sleeving up tomorrow:

3 Snapcaster Mage
1 borborgymos enraged

4 Urban Evolution
4 Sphinx's revelation
4 farseek
4 chromatic lantern
3 fog
3 Increasing ambition
1 enter the infinite
1 omniscience
1 nicol bolas, planeswalker
1 door to nothingness
1 negate
1 terminus
1 detention sphere

2 glacial fortess
2 hallowed fountain
1 watery grave
1 blood crypt
4 sunpetal grove
3 temple garden
4 breeding pool
1 godless shrine
1 overgrown tomb
1 woodland cemetary
4 hinterland harbor
1 steam vents
1 alchemists refuge
1 kessig wolf run

SB to be determined by what cards I can borrow from friends at the store, but hopefully

2 terminus
1 fog
3 thragtusk
1 bramblecrush
2 negate
1 dispel
4 supreme verdict
1 rakdos return

[Thestatusquo]

I don't think I'm wrong. I don't think talking about it is productive, though.

[Thestatusquo]

I'd probably much rather play guildgates over evolving wilds.

[Thestatusquo]

All the new split cards seem fine, if not amazing.

The new planeswalker is very strong. Good defensive ability. +1 is kinda meh, and the ultimate is very strong, although one rarely ultimates planeswalkers.

[Thestatusquo]

Yeah, pretty sure I was talking about the second.

I dunno, I tend to only follow spoiler season very lightly, mainly because everyone always hyperventilates about cards which end up being bad and dismisses cards that are actually amazing. If magic players have proved anything with each iteration of spoiler season it is that we are all fantastically terrible at card evaluation until we can actually play with the cards in context. I can see any of the cards that I've seen here (read: the only ones I've looked at) being amazing under the right circumstances, and all of them also being virtually unplayable. Its just important to take spoiler season with a grain of salt, and that grain of salt is that we suck.

[Thestatusquo]

I think the best card in that set by a long shot is the wurm. Reminds me of beast attack from back in the day, and that card was a windmill slam first pick. Whether or not this is better is debatable. The card advantage inherent to flashback is a big deal, but, so is trample and a CMC -1

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Im ... &type=card

[Thestatusquo]

If by pauper shit to ship you you mean any common from the last couple of sets, (like AVR onward) I can ship you pretty much anything. Things like cloud of faeries or gush or daze? Spend your own 50 tix. lol

[Thestatusquo]

I think 100 is a stretch, but 50-75 tix should get you anything but the most ridiculously overcosted stuff. Like mono U delver probably would run you about 90 tix.

Also, what other format is going to run you 100? Standard right now you're looking at that on mana base alone, and modern you're looking at that just from one set of fetches.

[Thestatusquo]

There are momir daily's.

[Thestatusquo]

it's not that you will "get stomped by more expensive decks," it's just that WW is very very bad. There are plenty of decks you could have made that are quite good in the same price range. You just happened to choose a shitty one.

[Thestatusquo]

Stompy and affinity both seem like solid choices to me, and they wouldn't break the bank. I don't think you're going to find a deck for under 10 tix that is competitive, but if you're willing to jump up to like 30-40 tix which isn't really a lot, there are a whole lot of good options. Mono Black control is also viable and not that expensive.

[Thestatusquo]

Well, you can build cheap anything, provided you don't want any of the good cards...

The thing is that a budget (read: without blast) affinity deck is perfectly capable of 4-0ing a daily event. A budget mono red standard deck is probably not.

I forgot about the nettle sentinals... Poop.

[Thestatusquo]

Shanba, I've encountered those pauper bots before, and they're miserable. Actually, finding a good place to find pauper stuff is pretty miserable in general. Can you recommend some bots?

[Thestatusquo]

That is the smartest thing that has been said in the entirety of the thread. Pretty sure. The reason why affinity is a good budget deck is that all the expensive cards are just tangential to its main strategy. they're sb cards that you can find matchup specific replacements to.

[Thestatusquo]

O.o

Man, if I ever visit I will pay for you guys to have some boxes for your cards.

[Thestatusquo]

Alright. Well, then, I'm moving in at the end of the month. K?

[Thestatusquo]

When 19 years playing this game you have, 2900 cards a lot will not seem.

I probably have like 1000 lands alone. :-/ Boxes upon boxes upon boxes back in NY. Most of it is crap.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, it's too bad EDH is a terrible boring format.

[Thestatusquo]

Yeah, I think its a terrible boring format for all the reasons that a lot of people probably enjoy it.

The issue with edh imo is that its either too competitive or not competitive enough. Only one of two things happens in EDH games. Either someone combos out and kills the entire table on the second turn, or everyone sits around durdling til turn 9 and nothing gets accomplished and then the game goes on for like 30 more turns while they continue to durdle, but actually casting powerful spells seemingly at random that bounce off of each other.

It's fine if it's what you're looking for in a game of magic. It's not for me. I don't think anything in what I said implied that I enjoyed it, just that you might. A lot of people do.

[Thestatusquo]

Playing this at the SCG open on sunday. Wish me luck.

4 Delver of Secrets
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Ponder
3 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
4 Stifle
1 Sylvan Library
4 Misty Rainforest
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland

[Thestatusquo]

You should go. we could chill.

[Thestatusquo]

psh. Find someone who is going.

[Thestatusquo]

Aristocrats was quite good at the open this weekend.

[Thestatusquo]

Fate, as hesitant as I am to argue with you because it is almost always pointless to do so, that just isn't true. I don't know a rats fart about what the standard meta is right now, and thats mostly because standard is pretty abysmal to play atm, but one of the ways you can use to determine whether something is a viable deck is look at the percentages played overall and then look at the number that did well. (i.e. top 16 or so is usually a good barometer) in this instance, I'm reasonably sure more than 12.5% of the tournament played aggro. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the number of people who played aggro was waaaaay higher. Probably in the range of like 35-40%, because thats the amount that typically plays aggro. 35-40% of the field leading to 12.5% of the top performing decks being those archtypes? thats a pretty damn good indication that its not really viable and kdowns is absolutely correct in his assessment of the current meta.

But now you will of course scream and shout and ignore reason because the big bad blue players disrespected your GRUUL SMASH. Whatever bro.

[Thestatusquo]

The next time a doctor tells me that I need surgery for something I'll make sure to tell him that the specialist referral is unnecessary. I have my own opinions on surgery and I will just perform it myself.

[Thestatusquo]

I don't scream and yell at people who approach poker as a straight gamble. Indeed, they are the people who I make money off of. However, if they asked me advice on how to play poker, I would tell them that the way they are playing is not conducive to winning, and that it will lose them money in the long run. I would be very frustrated if their response to those comments was to attack the ideas of how to be a winning poker player and say that basically pro poker players have no idea what they are talking about.

Fate has not been content to say "I approach this game such and such a way and therefore I play such and such ways and use such and such decks." His position has been much closer to "You ignorant fucks with your blue cards and your 'net decks' don't know how to do it. Gruul is good at a high level despite all the evidence to the contrary and none of you clownfucks have any clue what you're talking about. I, fate, am the savior of magic the gathering and in my roughly 30 seconds of play experience know more than each of you who has been playing 15+ years, as well as the entire pro community. You're stagnating innovation because you don't think my crap deck is any good."

Now your analogy actually takes into account what has happened in this thread repeatedly. If fate (or you, for that matter) want to come in here and talk about your decks, thats fine. If you're less competitive players, that's fine. But don't pretend you have any fucking clue how the game is played at higher levels. Don't ask advice and then ridicule those who give it simply because they don't agree with your narrow view points.

[Thestatusquo]

As disappointing as it is that wizards made another completely unnecessary banning, even more disappointing is the lack of unbans.

[Thestatusquo]

Jaces value is almost entirely legacy and vintage driven...

[Thestatusquo]

You're asking the wrong crowd. Most people in this thread have been only playing for like the last year or so. They certainly don't have 10 year old bulk cards that are now suddenly worth $20. :-p

[Thestatusquo]

Sure. The issue with shallow graves is they're all in shoeboxes somewhere.