|
Myriad Truths posted:Saying you're shooting a walker is just a shorthand. You always target the controller first, MTGO or not. MTGO isn't cool with shorthand. It's all good. I was just worried that the prompt may be easy to miss, I want to avoid losing because I hit a player with a burn spell instead of their walker.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Emrakul talk: Yeah, I think MtG managed to shake things up there. To great success. Planeswalker talk: Are planeswalkers legal in all formats? Because tbh I was never into the novels or the planeswalkers and I don't really feel like dealing with some of the abilities I've seen in those cards. suicidesteve posted:Edit: also, hurting yourself can be good. Dark Confidant might not look like anything special after 15 years off but it's one of the best cards ever printed. Dungeon Ecology posted:You would do well to disabuse yourself of this notion. Life is just another resource at your disposal. Some of the most backbreaking cards around abuse this idea. I actually don't understand this, sorry. It just feels unnecessary? If Dark Confidant lets me draw one extra card per turn at the cost of my life, surely Blue can do that better? I've seen so many Black and Red cards who sacrifice this permanent or themselves, or make you pay life for this effect that this other colour can do without resorting to that. White has a ton of removal that doesn't require you to also remove your own things in the process, but it seems nobody told Red and Black that you could do that. My problem with B and R doing this sort of thing is that most of the cards that counteract this (the ones that give life or lifelink) are G and W, from what I can tell. If you were building a deck with tons of life gain, I can see how you could comfortably afford to pay life for things, but that's usually not how R and B do things. They just pay the costs without having a reliable way to get those things back (other than sometimes Black's "come back from the graveyard" thing that mitigates their love for sacrificing creatures). EDIT: Why does this card exist. Just why. xeose4 fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Planeswalkers are legal all the way down to Vintage, though not all of them are "playable" in all formats, obviously. And obviously you can only use Standard legal Planeswalkers in Standard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:I actually don't understand this, sorry. It just feels unnecessary? If Dark Confidant lets me draw one extra card per turn at the cost of my life, surely Blue can do that better? I've seen so many Black and Red cards who sacrifice this permanent or themselves, or make you pay life for this effect that this other colour can do without resorting to that. White has a ton of removal that doesn't require you to also remove your own things in the process, but it seems nobody told Red and Black that you could do that. I think the difference is mainly down to cost vs. effect. Yeah, blue is great at drawing cards, and has way more options for card draw than black. Dark Confidant however, is a 2 drop, which nets you an extra card every turn he's in play, and he is also able to swing for damage or block incoming attacks if need be. To my knowledge there is no blue permanent that can net you an extra card per turn at 2 mana and not make you tap for it or pay more mana every turn for the effect. Even if there is a blue alternative for 3 or more likely 4 mana, the difference in cost is huge, especially in eternal formats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Emrakul talk: Yeah, I think MtG managed to shake things up there. To great success. Walkers are legal in all formats that include cards printed in Lorywyn or later, certainly. They're not especially broken though, and I don't think it's really reasonable to just say that you don't want to play with them. Would you say 'No artifacts please, I don't really feel like dealing with some of the abilities I've seen in those cards'? Even though that statement is technically much more reasonable, as many of the most powerful and broken cards ever printed are artifacts. Also blue can draw you more cards, but black is the most efficient at doing it. Black has a lot of cards that cost life to do things other colors can do, but are just way more efficient than what you could do otherwise. That's one of the main strengths of the color. Descent into Madness is a homage to Smokestack, which is inexplicably a really popular card.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Planeswalker talk: Are planeswalkers legal in all formats? Because tbh I was never into the novels or the planeswalkers and I don't really feel like dealing with some of the abilities I've seen in those cards. Planeswalkers are indeed legal in every format now. You really can't avoid them outside of a kitchen table "no planeswalkers" sort of rule. They're legal in standard and, by definition, legal in the more eternal formats as well. Some of them are banned in some formats, but there is no format where all of them are banned. Edit: I forgot about block constructed, which is barely a format anyway, but in theory you can play block constructed from a pre-planeswalker era and they would not be legal. So yeah. The life/cards as a resource thing is often about doing more with less, not doing it better. Yes, blue draws you cards better than black might, but you often pay more mana for it or have to spend cards to do it instead of just having it happen. Black excels at using one card to draw you lots of cards over many turns in exchange for some other resource, most often life, see Phyrexian Arena, Underworld Connections, various demons, and some other cards that I'm sure I'm forgetting. Also the prime offender of all time in this category is Yawgmoth's Bargain, it is so busted, and to a lesser extent necropotence, which powered lots of combos but didn't get banned like bargain did. Seriously, bargain is stupid. Sacrificing permanents often gets you similar effects, ie you get something without having to pay as much as you otherwise would. You can also use sacrifice effects for synergy with cards that care about other cards going to the graveyard, like Disciple of the Vault. I'll sacrifice a ton of artifacts when I have that guy out because not only do I get the benefits of the sacrifice effect but it also kills my opponent. Red uses life in a similar vein, as a resource to get effects that would otherwise cost more mana or cards, but usually trades the life for damage to your opponent rather than for card drawing. Red decks will happily play a card that causes both players to lose life because the point of the red deck is to do more damage to you than you do to it, and the extra damage just means you die faster since you run out of life first. Olothreutes fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:I actually don't understand this, sorry. It just feels unnecessary? If Dark Confidant lets me draw one extra card per turn at the cost of my life, surely Blue can do that better? I've seen so many Black and Red cards who sacrifice this permanent or themselves, or make you pay life for this effect that this other colour can do without resorting to that. The black (and to a lesser extent red) options, in exchange for costing you in other ways, are more mana-efficient than the blue way of drawing cards. For example, compare Divination with Read the Bones - the black version costs you additional life, but in exchange you get to dig a little deeper to find the cards you want. Or compare it with Sign in Blood, which costs less mana to draw the same number of cards. You probably already spend life points for advantage - for example, you probably don't block a 3/3 with your 2/2 when you're still on 20 life. By not blocking, you're spending your life total in order to get a better board position. Being able to spend your life total to get other advantages gives you an edge over someone who doesn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:
Well, let me put it this way. If you kill your opponent on 1 life, he's dead. You win. If you kill your opponent on 20 life, he's dead. you win. There's no appreciable difference between 1 life and 20 life, except how likely you are to die in between. While you can claim that other colours do it without drawbacks, they also cost more mana. You can't draw two cards in blue for less than three mana. In Black? it'll cost you 2 life, but that's +1 card advantage. The barrier between 3 and 2 mana is a big deal. It's the difference between doing it this turn, and having to wait a turn. And one turn can be the difference between losing or winning. To put it this way, it's cheaper to give up 2 life than it is to give up a turn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:EDIT: Why does this card exist. Just why. Descent into Madness isn't a particularly good card but it's a powerful symmetrical effect that you could theoretically build around. There are people who look at a card like that and just want to figure out how they can maximize its potential, and Wizards likes to design some cards that cater to that particular group of magic players. Often it comes to nothing (as with Descent into Madness) but as the person playing the symmetric card you can design your deck top be heavily advantaged (or at least far less disadvantaged) by the circumstances it creates. Historically these effects have often been incredibly strong- consider Wrath of God, Armageddon, Balance, Pox, Braids, Obliterate, Jokulhaups which have all had major impacts on competitive play at one time or another. Some of these are easier to incorporate into a deck and/or see the advantages to, but they all function in a fundamentally similar way- they give you an incredibly powerful effect that, due to the fact it affects both players, becomes effectively hugely undercosted if you design your deck to take advantage of it. edit: Torchlighter posted:Well, let me put it this way. If you kill your opponent on 1 life, he's dead. You win. If you kill your opponent on 20 life, he's dead. you win. There's no appreciable difference between 1 life and 20 life, except how likely you are to die in between. LGD fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I was somewhat irrationally a bit opposed to Planeswalker cards at first, but they're pretty neat once you see them in play. They usually interact w/ the board state in interesting, fairly complex ways. My most anticipated card of the upcoming sets is probably whatever blue planeswalker(s) they include. Planeswalkers are (usually) just cool, powerful cards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Emrakul talk: Yeah, I think MtG managed to shake things up there. To great success. e: I know this is probably a bad idea showing you, but these videos show how powerful those enchantments are. Dark Confidant is used in Midrange decks where you grind out the opponents resources while getting ahead of them in certain areas, like card advantage. neetengie fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I was somewhat irrationally a bit opposed to Planeswalker cards at first, but they're pretty neat once you see them in play. They usually interact w/ the board state in interesting, fairly complex ways. I'm just waiting for the inevitable Red/Blue Chandra. Come on wizards. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:I actually don't understand this, sorry. It just feels unnecessary? If Dark Confidant lets me draw one extra card per turn at the cost of my life, surely Blue can do that better? I've seen so many Black and Red cards who sacrifice this permanent or themselves, or make you pay life for this effect that this other colour can do without resorting to that. White has a ton of removal that doesn't require you to also remove your own things in the process, but it seems nobody told Red and Black that you could do that. Let's say there was a sorcery that cost one black mana and read Pay X life: This card deals X+1 damage to target opponent. Would you play it? Of course you would because it really reads B: you win the game. Dark Confidant et al are the same way. If you win at 5 life because you used Necropotence to draw 15 cards, you still won. If you (somehow) take 12 damage from your Jackal Pup but did 20 to your opponent, you still won. Myriad Truths posted:Descent into Madness is a homage to Smokestack, which is inexplicably a really popular card. Clearly you've never cube drafted it with any permanent source of tokens. It's especially
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:I'm just waiting for the inevitable Red/Blue Chandra. Or grumpy Blue/Red bearded Jace. (their branding crap works)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I was somewhat irrationally a bit opposed to Planeswalker cards at first, but they're pretty neat once you see them in play. They usually interact w/ the board state in interesting, fairly complex ways. Yeah, same here. I played until Apocalypse and then came back to the game sometime around Shadowmoor and my initial reaction was something like, "What the gently caress is this bullshit?" I came around though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
I stopped playing around the original Ravnica block and Emrakul was also the first card I saw when I came back, strangely enough. It didn't shock me too much; for some reason I remember looking at the cost and thinking "Oh well this is basically the most powerful creature ever printed in terms of cost. No idea if it's actually playable, though." I thought it was cool that they had been willing to scale a creature up so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Manatalk: Okay, wow, didn't expect so many answers. Okay, so Black and Red are more mana efficient, I can accept that, but why would you play so recklessly? Is getting an advantage really worth the odds of helping your opponent win the game? My friend just told me about the Abyssal Persecutor and my initial reaction was "why does this card exist in the game???" and then he was like "so I can later sacrifice it with Rite of Consumption." And then I realised that the logic behind playing a card that stops you from winning so that you can later sacrifice it for life only makes sense when you're playing Black. suicidesteve posted:Let's say there was a sorcery that cost one black mana and read Pay X life: This card deals X+1 damage to target opponent. Would you play it? Of course you would because it really reads B: you win the game. Dark Confidant et al are the same way. If you win at 5 life because you used Necropotence to draw 15 cards, you still won. If you (somehow) take 12 damage from your Jackal Pup but did 20 to your opponent, you still won. Yeah but that is extremely risky. If you're playing against a spell-heavy Red deck, you are going to eat Lava Axe after Lightning Bolt and you will actually help your opponent win the game, because he'll kill you before your plans come to fruition. LGD posted:Some of these are easier to incorporate into a deck and/or see the advantages to, but they all function in a fundamentally similar way- they give you an incredibly powerful effect that, due to the fact it affects both players, becomes effectively hugely undercosted if you design your deck to take advantage of it. It must be my years away from MtG, but I have absolutely no idea how you can use that card as a good thing. Myriad Truths posted:Would you say 'No artifacts please, I don't really feel like dealing with some of the abilities I've seen in those cards'? Even though that statement is technically much more reasonable, as many of the most powerful and broken cards ever printed are artifacts. Rinkles posted:I was somewhat irrationally a bit opposed to Planeswalker cards at first, but they're pretty neat once you see them in play. They usually interact w/ the board state in interesting, fairly complex ways. Yeah that was a kneejerk reaction at seeing some of the -7 and -10 abilities. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I stopped playing around the original Ravnica block and Emrakul was also the first card I saw when I came back, strangely enough. It didn't shock me too much; for some reason I remember looking at the cost and thinking "Oh well this is basically the most powerful creature ever printed in terms of cost. No idea if it's actually playable, though." I thought it was cool that they had been willing to scale a creature up so much. I would have bothered to look at the cost of Emrakul, but I stopped playing in an era where Show and Tell was printed, so the idea of cheating things into play was nothing new. I don't think anyone actually hard casts Emrakul, do they? I guess maybe elves or tron of some variety generates enough mana but I think the former just plays craterhoof and the latter plays Karn and then mindslaver locks you or something. xeose4 posted:Yeah but that is extremely risky. If you're playing against a spell-heavy Red deck, you are going to eat Lava Axe after Lightning Bolt and you will actually help your opponent win the game, because he'll kill you before your plans come to fruition. The spell heavy red deck is the one that plays the cards like eidolon of the great revel, in order to kill other decks. In the scenario you are looking at either there is a mono-red mirror match being played, or the suicide black player knows to respect the 2-3 mountains and 2-3 cards in your hand, so they don't necro below X+1 life, where X is the amount of damage they expect the red deck to vomit at them. Also I don't think anyone plays lava axe in constructed, and lightning bolt has been out of standard for a while. Now you have cards like lightning strike, which is lightning bolt that cost 1R instead of just R. As for the use of symmetric effects to your benefit, look for the decklists for modern restore balance. The short version of it is that because restore balance doesn't hit artifacts they just power out a ton of artifact mana while playing no creatures or lands (using flagstones I believe to return the lands) and then casting balance to blow up your side of the table and wreck your hand without hurting themselves much, if any. Olothreutes fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I stopped playing around the original Ravnica block and Emrakul was also the first card I saw when I came back, strangely enough. It didn't shock me too much; for some reason I remember looking at the cost and thinking "Oh well this is basically the most powerful creature ever printed in terms of cost. No idea if it's actually playable, though." I thought it was cool that they had been willing to scale a creature up so much. When I came back right before M11 Emrakul was neat, but vampire nighthawk was quite the shock to someone used to mirage block creatures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:I would have bothered to look at the cost of Emrakul, but I stopped playing in an era where Show and Tell was printed, so the idea of cheating things into play was nothing new. I don't think anyone actually hard casts Emrakul, do they? I guess maybe elves or tron of some variety generates enough mana but I think the former just plays craterhoof and the later plays Karn and then mindslaver locks you or something. Oh I was aware of stuff like Tron and Show and Tell, I just had no idea about what competitive Magic would think of a card like that. Bugsy posted:When I came back right before M11 Emrakul was neat, but vampire nighthawk was quite the shock to someone used to mirage block creatures. Yeah, Planeswalkers were easy enough to understand after awhile but incredibly efficient creatures still blows my mind. Hell, I started playing during Urza's Saga as a more casual player and didn't realize how conservative the power level relative to that block was during Masque and Invasion block. Seeing a Thragtusk immediately made me want to pick up green and start playing again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Manatalk: Okay, wow, didn't expect so many answers. Okay, so Black and Red are more mana efficient, I can accept that, but why would you play so recklessly? Is getting an advantage really worth the odds of helping your opponent win the game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:I would have bothered to look at the cost of Emrakul, but I stopped playing in an era where Show and Tell was printed, so the idea of cheating things into play was nothing new. I don't think anyone actually hard casts Emrakul, do they? I guess maybe elves or tron of some variety generates enough mana but I think the former just plays craterhoof and the later plays Karn and then mindslaver locks you or something. When Polymorph was still a thing in Standard, hardcasting Emrakul off Awakening Zone tokens and Garruk +1 wasn't that uncommon vs U/W control decks who wouldn't let you resolve a Polymorph otherwise. In modern, U/W Tron hardcasts him the most.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:I actually don't understand this, sorry. It just feels unnecessary? If Dark Confidant lets me draw one extra card per turn at the cost of my life, surely Blue can do that better? I've seen so many Black and Red cards who sacrifice this permanent or themselves, or make you pay life for this effect that this other colour can do without resorting to that. White has a ton of removal that doesn't require you to also remove your own things in the process, but it seems nobody told Red and Black that you could do that. Also, gotta restate: your life is just another resource. Newer players in particular mis-value cards that involve paying life, but any time you can pay life instead of mana or a card, it's incredibly powerful because it lets you do "extra" things with those resources. You may think, "this puts me closer to my opponent killing me," when really it means you are putting yourself so far ahead of your opponent they won't get a chance to kill you. Olothreutes posted:I would have bothered to look at the cost of Emrakul, but I stopped playing in an era where Show and Tell was printed, so the idea of cheating things into play was nothing new. I don't think anyone actually hard casts Emrakul, do they? I guess maybe elves or tron of some variety generates enough mana but I think the former just plays craterhoof and the latter plays Karn and then mindslaver locks you or something. mango sentinel fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:It must be my years away from MtG, but I have absolutely no idea how you can use that card as a good thing. Well its pretty good if, for example, you have permanents that generate other permanents at a rate your opponents cant match- i.e. you could see it becoming pretty savage with something like Elspeth, or Breeding Pit or Awakening Zone, or just lots of token generating creatures, especially in a multiplayer game. You don't keep it in play forever (it removes itself), just long enough to ensure your opponents have no permanents or cards in hand while you beat down or assemble your winning combo. The card isn't nearly good enough to be competitive, but I don't doubt that some kid has trolled the hell out of his casual multiplayer play group with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Seeing a Thragtusk immediately made me want to pick up green and start playing again. Not that I'm going anywhere, but I have the exact opposite reaction to Thragtusks and Siege Rhinos. In unrelated news, as someone w/ minimal interest in eternal formats, the Super Vintage League has been surprisingly fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
neetengie posted:I can't speak much for Red since I don't play Red much but for Black yes, you will always do anything to win, no matter the cost, anything to gain more resources than your opponent, and it is always worth it. Put another way: There are no immoral victories in a legally-executed game of Magic. A win with 20 life counts just as much as one with only one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Also keep in mind that most decks that play Dark Confidant have most of their spells cost very little mana. You wouldn't play it in something like Commander because that is too much life loss. What's interesting is that making Dark Confidant cost 1 more mana and making it an enchantment makes it completely unplayable in any format.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Equilibrium posted:When Polymorph was still a thing in Standard, hardcasting Emrakul off Awakening Zone tokens and Garruk +1 wasn't that uncommon vs U/W control decks who wouldn't let you resolve a Polymorph otherwise. In modern, U/W Tron hardcasts him the most. I don't follow the eternal formats at all, so that's neat to know that someone does actually hard cast that dude. I would follow modern but they banned eggs so I don't have a deck I want to play anymore. I'm good at math and I don't care if other people know I hate them, so I figured it was the deck for me. I guess I should build breakfast burrito or stax and play legacy. Olothreutes fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Can we somehow cheat an Emrakul on top of a Bob user's deck? This is an important task and one that should occupy our thread's brightest minds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Manatalk: Okay, wow, didn't expect so many answers. Okay, so Black and Red are more mana efficient, I can accept that, but why would you play so recklessly? Is getting an advantage really worth the odds of helping your opponent win the game? It's all about calculated risk. If you're playing an opponent who's been throwing burn spells at your face all game, has cards in his hand and untapped red mana, you don't put yourself at low life. If you're playing a blue player who's been slowly developing card advantage, you can safely pay the life, since he's unlikely to be able to capitalize on it. Yes, the advantage you get is huge. Yes, Dark Confidant looks bad. He's not. Imagine this: On your turn two, you cast a Dark Confidant. On your turn three, you draw an extra card. You play a land. You have: a 2/1 creature and 3 untapped mana. Or: you are playing blue. On your turn three, you play a Divination. You have: no creature, no untapped mana, and one more card than your opponent. Yes, Blue has card draw. But because Confidant simply does its thing without requiring further investment of a card or mana-- it just draws you cards ever turn-- that's huge. Often the best scenario for you is you draw a land from Confidant, because then you take no damage. Yes, it's just a land, but then your draw for the turn might be a real spell, when without the Confidant it would have just been that land. Confidant gives you a huge amount of gas. Decks that play Confidant and other similar draw engines often have a ton of very, very efficient removal spells. They can generally remove one thing at a time from your side of the board-- a card from your hand with Thoughtseize, a creature with Doom Blade, an artifact with Abrupt Decay etc. They are spending cards one at a time to cost you cards one at a time. That means you should run out of cards at the same time, but Dark Confidant means that they'll still have tons of cards in their hand while you're playing off the top of your deck, hoping to draw an answer. Every turn you draw a land they basically got a free Time Walk. Finally, consider the following: I play Dark Confidant. On my next turn he reveals a Liliana of the Veil, costing me three life, and I draw the card under the Liliana, an Abrupt Decay. I immediately use this Decay to destroy your Knight of the Reliquary which was threatening to bash in for 6 damage. I just "gained" six life by having that Decay a turn earlier, and all it cost me was 3 life. I came out ahead. Card advantage is huge, and the development of card advantage theory is one of the most important innovations in Magic history. Definitely read up on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:I know everyone is dogpiling on this but it's really something you should try to understand. Life is just another resource like cards or mana. Drawing extra cards every turn is an incredibly powerful effect, especially when it starts early in the game. Blue doesn't get a similar creature until 5 mana. Compare to all of blue's 2 mana draw, it's either filtering+draw 1, or draw 2 with a drawback, like sacrifice a permanent or opponents draw cards. White's best removal does stuff like give the opponent a land, gain them life, or kills all your dudes too. Most aggressively costed, powerful cards tend to have drawbacks. More of this, it's kind of like if you had the choice to start at 18 life with 8 cards in hand, or you start 19 life but get to draw exactly the land you need turn 1. Your opponent is a little bit closer to killing you, but you're more in control, and more able to trade with them one for one while staying ahead. Also see: Channel, being an amazingly powerful card for letting you make a 10 drop on turn 2-3 at the super cheap cost of half your life total. Gensuki fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:Can we somehow cheat an Emrakul on top of a Bob user's deck? This is an important task and one that should occupy our thread's brightest minds. Just ask Trevor Humphries, I bet he can figure out a way 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:Can we somehow cheat an Emrakul on top of a Bob user's deck? This is an important task and one that should occupy our thread's brightest minds. In Vintage, there's a deck that plays Blightsteel Colossus alongside Dark Confidant, because Tinker is so absurdly good when it wins in one turn that it doesn't matter if you occasionally blow up half your life total.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:Can we somehow cheat an Emrakul on top of a Bob user's deck? This is an important task and one that should occupy our thread's brightest minds. There are vintage games where a Bob player will flip Blightsteel and give 0 fucks whatsoever. And then win. E: so this is the power of breakfast burrito
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:I don't follow the eternal formats at all, so that's neat to know that someone does actually hard cast that dude. I would follow modern but they banned eggs so I don't have a deck I want to play anymore. I'm good at math and I don't care if other people know I hate them, so I figured it was the deck for me. Emrakul and buddies also get hardcast a fair bit in Legacy as well (though that deck also plays Show and Tell) You can also still play Eggs!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
xeose4 posted:Manatalk: Okay, wow, didn't expect so many answers. Okay, so Black and Red are more mana efficient, I can accept that, but why would you play so recklessly? Is getting an advantage really worth the odds of helping your opponent win the game? You don't really seem to get things like managing resources, valuing things based on their cost/place on the curve, tempo, and so on. It's hard to come back to something you remember being fun and creative as a kid and realizing its actually competitive maths, so I think your best bet is to just jump in and get playing again. You might be surprised how much your sensibilities have changed since being younger. E: if you want to avoid planeswalkers, pauper is a popular format online!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Deofuta posted:Can we somehow cheat an Emrakul on top of a Bob user's deck? This is an important task and one that should occupy our thread's brightest minds. There's no way to get a card into an opponent's deck, but in addition to the Bob/Blightsteel Vintage decks, there's also this: http://www.channelfireball.com/videos/channel-lsv-cube-draft-12/#5
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Anyway, who cares about that crap? They're finally fixing Mindslaver! Specifically, •Fixed: Mindslaver now allows floating mana to pay for spells and abilities when controlling a player. You must use the mana symbols in the left-center prompt box to make these payments. And I hope this also applies to it: •Fixed: Issue that prevented triggered abilities from appearing in some situations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Speaking of red hitting itself to hit someone else; is there a good one drop option to replace goblin guide in modern mono-red burn? I was considering swiftspears as a budget option or maybe stromkirk nobles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Deofuta posted:Can we somehow cheat an Emrakul on top of a Bob user's deck? This is an important task and one that should occupy our thread's brightest minds. Fateseal is probably your best bet...Outside of that, there is exceedingly little that lets you control what your opponent draws... Maybe Donate something/cast something that makes them play with the top card of their library revealed and then some kind of "Target Player shuffles their library" artifact? (That has to exist right? There're thousands of artifacts...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 06:58
|
|