Magic: The Gathering,GO TEAM MS!

[AGar]

The temple gardens are great, do you have experience with the deck at all AGar?

No, I was going off of what I saw in deck composition vs mana base.

[Fate]

well with only 8 green lands there are more games than id like with dead rampagers and flinthoof boars in hand. Temple smooths that out more

[Natirasha]

Well, then would Madcap just be a good sideboard card then?

Temple Garden is a forest that taps for Boros Reckoner, 'nuff said.

[AGar]

well with only 8 green lands there are more games than id like with dead rampagers and flinthoof boars in hand. Temple smooths that out more

Fair enough then.

[Thestatusquo]

Well, then would Madcap just be a good sideboard card then?

Temple Garden is a forest that taps for Boros Reckoner, 'nuff said.

uh, no? Have you seen what the meta is like lately? Also saying "everyone has answers to it" is probably the dumbest reason to not include a card ever, since every tier 1 deck has answers to basically any card.

[Natirasha]

I know, "dies to removal" is typically not a good argument. In the case of auras, though, I feel that making it exceedingly easy to get 2-for-1'd in a deck that typically will end up getting 2-for-1'd is a losing battle. With Rg being one of the bigger decks in the format, everyone has spot removal of some sort, and I just can't really see the justification for that kind of soul-crushing card disadvantage.

[Thestatusquo]

You don't get 2 for one'd if you play correctly. Saying "it has the potential to be blown out" is true of pretty much anything. The question is "is the effect I'm getting from this worth the risk of blowouts if I play correctly" In the case of madcap skills, forcing through x damage (usually 5 or more) that you otherwise would not have been able to get because of a blocker or flash creature is just worth it. especially game one, most decks don't have a ton of instant speed targeted removal anyway. If you get in 5 damage and then you get mortersed, its probably still good enough.

[Sudo_Nym]

Madcap is interesting, mathematically. It les you get a guy through and gives +3 damage, which means it's better value than Searing Spear if you land once. Really, the only real drawback to playing Madcap instead of Spear is that you need a creature in play to use Madcap, and Madcap only aims at the dome. For a Gruul Deck Wins, those drawbacks are minor.

[Sudo_Nym]

I would say you probably don't need Pyrehearts in the board if you're running Madcaps, though. I'd be tempted to run Thundermaws for the midrange match, but it's an expensive card, and costs five to play, so I'm unsure.

[chamber]

And its blanked by 2 blockers and its blanked by removal spells.

[Fate]

um.

I wouldn't say its "blanked" by 2 blockers, not even kind of.

Shea has the right idea here. I know everyones looking at it on paper and going "ZOMG ENCHANTMENT BAD TRAP TRP 2-1 EASY" but the way the deck plays it doesn't mind 2-1s if youre dead, and its not like you lack threats to play into "removal" mana for either.

[chamber]

I wasn't saying its bad or good. I honestly haven't been following standard enough to say, it seems plausible that its fine, especially if Shea thinks so, I just think Sudo was underselling the value of a card like searing spear in his comparison.

[Fate]

I know you weren't. I was saying you're wrong that its "blanked" by two blockers, especially in a deck that runs Rampager.

The second part was to anyone that was saying it was "bad"

[Natirasha]

Perhaps I am a bit biased--I don't even play Madcap Skills in draft unless i'm playing the Trained Caracal/Ethereal Armor deck.

[Thestatusquo]

if you dont play MCS in limited you're a fish. The raw power level of that card is absolutely absurd, especially in the hands of someone who has any idea what they're doing. It can just steal games in the hands of someone who is just haphazardly turning things sideways, and in the hand of someone who simply knows how to play around removal it can just be legitimately dominant.

You're doing it wrong.

[Thestatusquo]

Like, I don't want to sound rude here, but if you don't play MCS in any limited deck with red in it then you are not a very good limited player.

[InflatablePie]

I have a soft spot for Madcap ever since the GTC prerelease (Orzhov splashing red solely for a Madcap and Arrows): T1 land, T2 Syndic, T3 Madcap extort swing: 14, T4 Holy Mantle swing: 7, opponent scooped.

But yeah, Madcap can be worth it if it connects twice. Shea and Fate hit it right on the nose (Fate especially; I was gonna respond with "it may be a 2-for-1, but... so?" <_<)

[Alabaska J]

Like, I don't want to sound rude here, but if you don't play MCS in any limited deck with red in it then you are not a very good limited player.

QFT

[Natirasha]

I don't feel we're going to come a consensus here, but I have never really felt good about Madcap Skills. It's just so easy to play around, even if they have it. Feel free to disagree, but, like, I know my stats and skill level, and I think the card is near-unplayable. Like I said, there is a place for it--if you can draft the all-in Boros(or WBR) with E-Armor and Trained Caracal(a card I'm sure most of you would tell me is unplayable) and I'd say it's the perfect two drop, because that deck wants to go all-in.

BTW, you definitely don't play Madcap Skills in Grixis Control in draft. That's a deck that wins based off card advantage, and Madcap Skills doesn't do anything you want it to.

In any case, I guess I'll refrain from talking about RG aggro in standard. It's fine anyways--I play Jund.

[xRECKONERx]

I don't think in Aggro you really care about people "playing around" your cards. You want to land the Madcap Skills and smash in for damage. If it gets removed, it gets removed.

[Sudo_Nym]

Basically. You aren't dancing around, being subtle. You're dropping threats and making the opponent respond. Aggro wins by having more problems than the enemy can answer.

[Fate]

I think we've come to the consensus that you are pretty solidly not an aggro player, Natirasha. Didn't blink an eye when you said you were Jund

[Natirasha]

I can get behind that, never liked aggro decks that weren't legacy merfolk.

[Thestatusquo]

Legacy merfolk is not an aggro deck.

[Natirasha]

That's the joke.