Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => CCGs => Topic started by: Lord_of_Me on October 14, 2002, 09:30:14 AM
-
well it's been out for a week, has anyone got any of the cards yet? What do you think of them?
I'm getting some at the weekend, two theme decks and a booster or two
-
I don't have any of the cards yet, but I've been looking through the spoiler, and have noted some things I like and some other things I didn't. We'll start with mechanics:
Morph: Overall, I'm not in favor of this thing. It will probably be discussed at length elsewhere so I won't go into detail yet. I'm not saying that it's worthless, but the Morphing cards I saw were generally unimpressive in their Morphing abilities, and I'm just not scared of the hordes of 2/2 colorless typeless creatures you'll see floating around.
Tribal: only barely a mechanic anyway...more a theme for the block. There are some very cool things you can do with it, particularly if you have some of the 5-tap rares, but given that the average tribal creature (Wizards, Clerics, Goblins) isn't all that hard to kill, an aggressive stance with bigger creatures could overcome most of these and keep the tribal effect to a minimum.
Chain Spells: I don't think I'd ever use these unless I was also in the mood to play Primordial Ooze and Takklemaggot. They're just too weird.
Cycling: I'm all over this, particularly the cycling lands and the cycling spells that still do something when you cycle them. They also are heavily involved in my pick for Onslaught strategies. The main cards for the deck are Astral Slide, Lightning Rift, and Invigorating Boon. With multiple copies of each of these enchantments out you can remove multiple creatures the enemy possesses from the game for a turn, get a blast of direct damage (2-8), and get 1-4 +1/+1 counters every time you cycle a card. Even a mediocre creature setup can break through enemy lines in this scenario, and all you have to do to signal the attack is cycle a card, something that is often useful in and of itself anyway.
Gustcloak: a minor white-only mechanic that we've seen here and there before now, the small set of creatures that possess this are frightening. Able to harass the enemy with impunity, they would be an excellent way to chop down the tribal or face-down reserves of your opponent.
Single Cards:
Daru Cavalier -- most who play with me would already know this card has me written all over it.
Exalted Angel -- one of the very few cards that can actually come out faster due to Morphing.
Butcher Orgg -- another excellent way to chop down tribal reserves (or face-down cards...or anything else really) swiftly. Finally a decent Orgg.
Dragon Roost -- 5RR isn't that expensive for a 5/5 dragon token.
Quicksilver Dragon -- where did I put that flagbearer enchantment?
Fade from Memory -- a great way to deal with pesky graveyard utility cards hanging around from Odyssey. Cycles if you don't need it.
Entrails Feaster -- I need one of these. This just flat-out sounds fun. The more you kill the enemy...the more you kill the enemy.
-
i agree with almost all of that, except i don't like cycling and really like tribal. The only cycling cards that i think are actually useful are the ones which have effects when you cycle them.
I'm already planning a big elf deck with a splash of white for loads of lifegain, wellwisher is genuinely scary.
-
You have to remember, Isimir, that Prometheus has never liked a set very much when it's released, at least in my memory. He thought the mechanics of Odyssey were pretty lame compared to Invasion, but now he likes them. You just have to give him time.
-
but morph is pretty lame, sure some of the cards are useful but i just don't think that they're as good as everyone thinks
-
You can't look at morph the same way you look at Cycling or Madness or something like that, because speed and power and whatnot are beside the point. Morph is about the unknown, which includes surprise, bluffing, second guessing, and all kinds of head games. I don't think anyone can properly judge morph until they've been faced with two mysterious attackers and have to decide which one to block with which creatures--something I admit I haven't done, so I could be way off base. But you can't just dismiss a card because it doesn't have the raw power of another or becuse it doesn't fit an ideal mana curve. Sometimes a card is good simply because it makes the game more interesting to play.
-
I've played a few games with morph cards now, and although they are interesting i'm still not finding them that useful or fun, although this might be because i don't have that many morph cards. I've also changed my mind about cycling and am finding that very useful.
There are also several incredibly broken cards in the set, Cryptic Gateway allows me to put beasts from the devastation deck into play for free!
-
Hehe. Remember that I have a strong bias against wimpy (1/1 or weak 2/2) creatures, and tribal involves a lot of them. Outside of the vastly overpowered 'tap 5 X card' monsters, most of the things tribal cards can do for you are easily obtainable elsewhere as well. I do like creature theme decks---I have a very strong (see mostly untested) angel/dragon + cleric/barbarian deck right now, but it doesn't rely on some of the weird stuff they have tribal doing in Onslaught. (Side note: I was really disappointed to see that Onslaught didn't have barbarians. I was looking forward to getting something better than Halberdiers to be the cheap basic barbarian card for my deck.) Overall tribal relies too heavily I think on the player being able to get out a large number of creatures of the same type, and I'm skeptical of how easy that will be to accomplish. The big thing it does do is provide a way for small weenie creatures to compete with the giants of Dominaria if they're allowed to grow in numbers.
As far as justifying my skepticism of Morphing goes, it has a lot to do with how I envision Morph deck games proceeding. The scariest Morphers are those which do something special if not blocked. Forcing the damaged opponent to discard two cards for instance. The problem I see is that unless your Morphers outnumber his creature force, (I'm assuming this force is composed of fairly normal creatures most of us would have used previous to Onslaught, or creatures similar to them. My favored Daru Lancer is a great Morph blocker.) an assault still isn't worthwhile. The average Morph card is either weak or expensive to Morph. Unless the game has gone on a long time (giving your opponent time to build defenses) you won't be able to fork out the Morph cost for more than one strong or two weak creatures. Thus, you may kill one of your opponent's blockers or get a sneaky blow in, but if your opponent has a defense like the ones I make, your Morphed creature is probably very close to the only one you have left. Even if your opponent has to discard, he's still in the superior position. I see a different scenario if you have tons of extra mana or if you outnumber your opponent with your Morphers, but I choose not to rely on such fickle factors. A well designed Morph deck with some selected non-Morphing cards to draw your opponent's attention could avoid this problem I suspect, but if played against an average defense from an average position with an average mana supply, I see a Morph deck losing due to mana scarcity. The Cyclo-Deck I discussed above could easily handle a Morph attack if it was at all set up. If the Cyclo Enchantments I had out were mostly Astral Slide or Lightning Rift, I'd cycle a card (keeping one always in my hand for that purpose) I'd Slide or Rift a few of his attackers before I blocked, spoiling the surprise factor and taking the heart out of the enemy assault. Alternatively, if Invigorating Boon was my dominating Cyclo-Enchantment, I could simply add +1/+1 counters to the creatures I expected to come under heavy assault, hoping it would be enough to put the beat-down on whatever it was those creatures blocked. While it wouldn't be a perfect solution to the Morphing enigma (don't get me wrong, I think Morphing has some strong points to it...I'm only expressing some of my reservations) I expect the (nonexistent) Cyclo-Deck to work well against a Morph deck.
Like Fell said, though...it's all just theory at this point.
-
the best morph card that i've seen so far was disruptive pitmage which had a "counter target spell" ability, this would be a useful surprise in a control deck but other thatn that a lot of them are pretty dull
-
I think Prometheus is envisioning a very different use for Morph than I am--it's not hte kind of thing I would build a deck around, the way I would build one around Threshold or Cycling tricks. It's purpose is not to be a game-winning mechanic, but to make the opponent have to guess instead of plan. That said, you would have to have a lot of Morph creatures to really make them work, so a certain element of "Morph deck"ness would have to be present.
As for Isimir, I'm not sure how to address his point because I'm not sure what it is. Morph creatures aren't fun and have no interesting abilities? Sure, if you say so.
-
well, the ones i have aren't that good, they'r all just boring beasts that would be better played without bothering with morph, but this is probably just the ones i have
-
I'n not one to talk anyway, since they haven't even sent me any cards yet. They gave me some MLB cards and some Harry Potter cards, but nothing for Magic. I guess Magic doesn't really need the hype--thousands of people on the internet review it for free, so why bother with review product?
-
i actually think that morph is o.k now, it's fun when you morph a card into a 7/6 towering baloth!
-
The reason I focused on Morph's value as a deck focus is somewhat along the lines of what Fell pointed out. If you only have a few Morph cards, the surprise factor goes way way down and your opponent can begin to plan for how to deal with the Morpher all over again. This problem is aggrivated in repeated play situations, where the opposing player can begin to know what creature to expect you to pull out of the Morphling. If they're scared of it, they'll kill the Morphling as soon as possible. If not...well they won't have to divert many resources to counter your waste of a card. Outside of a 'Morph Deck' the mechanic actually gets worse, as opposed to things like Flashback, Incarnation, or Domain, which can be used effectively even as single cards with little to no support. Threshold was somewhat the same in this respect. If your deck didn't throw stuff into the graveyard at a somewhat reliable rate, your thresholding Dragon Hatchling, for instance, could end up being a 2/2 red flyer for the entire game, or Khamal's Desire would lack the +3/+0 effect in needs to be worthwhile. Boring.
So...is there room for casual use of Morph? It's hard to say without trying it out. Having a few weaker Morphlings mixed in with one or two Towering Baloth could potentially be quite useful, as Isimir pointed out. One or two Morphlings gaining an advantage from their Morph mechanic probably won't be all that devastating however, especially given the inordinate mana costs most of the better Morph cards suffer from. I'd rather have Gustcloak, a Butcher Orgg, (who incidentally does automatically what most red Morphers try to trick out of the enemy) a nasty 5-tap tribal, or a quad of Daru Cavalier. Or even an Entrails Feaster, although I can't claim to know why on that count.
-
how many gustcloak creatures are there? I've got two, gustcloak runner and (i think) gustcloak harrier
-
There aren't a whole ton...probably 5-6, and they're all white. The big backbreaker is the Gustcloak Savior, that makes all of your creatures able to gustcloak.
-
i like them, i'll probably try and get a few
-
I was up by the mall today running a far more important errand, so I dropped by Games People Play to see what I could scrounge out of the commons box. I had intended to only spend the change in my pocket from said errand, but wound up walking out with somewhat more than that...all commons, but $2 worth instead of $.41 (Suddenly I'm annoyed by the lack of a 'cents' symbol on my keyboard. I should have known better after the release of a new expansion.
Almost all of what I picked up was from Onslaught...I got 1 each of the new cycling lands, 4 Screaming Seahawks, 3 Daru Cavalier, (None need look at Games People Play for more of those. They're out now.) 3 Nantuko Husks, and some other miscellany. (sp?)
At any rate, I've got two almost completely unblooded decks ready to rumble now, and I'm itching for a brawl. Does anyone else want to set up something? This Saturday maybe? If we get bored of Magic, we could take another run at that Rifts CCG too...we still have those decks, right?
-
I thought Prometheus might be interested in this--teh first true Onslaught deck to emerge on the tournament scene is, in fact, a dedicated cycling deck. Sounds pretty cool: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=3956
-
Flex. I would have included Invigorating Boon myself, but at the same time, I wouldn't be building my deck with only what, 5-6 enemy deck strategies in mind? High level tourney play borders on the bizarre. While I was scrounging through the Games People Play commons box, I met a local gamer that seemed of that sort. The only decks he seemed able to talk about were things like infinite-mana-Ambassador Laquattas combos and such things. In the end, all I could do is laugh and explain that he and I play for *entirely* different reasons. The decks some people play sound thoroughly boring to me. So what if you destroy your opponent in 5 rounds every single game? If I wanted a predictable result, I'd pick some crappy computer game and skip making someone else suffer.
Which brings me back to local play. Are you interested in getting together with EUOL maybe sometime and playing Magic with me, Fell? My untested deck count is up to three now. I don't expect the newcomer to do all that well, but with the commons I picked up, I've managed to throw together a Zombie/Bird/Soldier deck that should feel at least a little bit tribal-ish. (They might not work together the way tribal cards are meant to, but every creature in the deck is either a Zombie, a Bird, or a Soldier. Invasion actually works really well with tribal if you pick the right cards...most of which I don't have.) None of this deck building stuff is very satisfying, however, if I don't get to play.
Some of the other Magic players we know in the area have expressed reservations about playing with the two of you due to your huge card reserves, but it'd be cool if we could convince them to join in as well. If not, we could even take our game to one of the gaming stores in town and play there. Maybe someone there would be adventurous enough to jump in and try our house rules out.
-
We actually invented a new variant of Magic during our trip to WFC, and it's loads of fun: you play as if every alternate win condition were always in play for every player, and if you aren't dead at the beginning of your turn your life automatically resets to 20. There's some other weird rules, but that's the gist. I know it sounds weird, but it's very cool. We'll have to play some time.
Of all the locals, Prometheus, it seems like you're the one people should be afraid of playing, because you play to win. I don't, in general, and my decks are more to amuse myself than to destroy my foes. I do think we should play sometime, though, both 100/3 and Onslaught draft (since new set drafts have become something of a tradition).
-
I wasn't trying to comment on who the scariest people to play were...only on what I understand some of our friends think. I'm not sure what you meant by me 'playing to win' but it seems like that phrase applies to pretty much everyone except maybe you around here. I haven't noticed your decks becoming hideously overpowered, but it isn't me that has the concern.
An Onslaught Draft assumes that we have cards to draft with...last I heard we hadn't received any from Wizards.
So are you interested in trying to set a game time up, Fell? I could I guess, but either way we need to start planning by choosing a time some of you busy people are free to do it. We should probably move this discussion (not the overall Onslaught one) to a new thread under News or something as well. It's getting pretty irrelevant to our distant friends.
-
When did our decklists cross over from the realm of the wacky to the boring? Nothing is worse than decks built entirely around infinite combinations. Snore. What's the fun in that? Hoping that your cards fall just right so you can kill your opponent in one go? Big deal. I may build my decks to be strong, but they're never that cheesy. The Insurrection-based deck two weeks ago was the same way. It didn't even need an infinite combo to win in a hideously dull manner. Where's the competition?
I don't know. Maybe these decks seem wacky and exciting to some people, but I prefer not to know how I'm going to win. Get a solid series of creatures out on the table to slug it out in a furious deathmatch with the other side, while maintaining some tricky moves up your sleeve. The odd burn spell or creature buff instant to turn the tables in your favor is certainly a good thing, but I never know which one will make the difference for me.
Thinking about it more, maybe the thing about these decks that is bothering me most is that they're one-trick horses. Sure, reanimating everything in sight might be a cool way to win, but only *once* in a while. I put combos in my decks, but I rarely expect to see them show up, because there's only one instance of the cards needed to make it work. To me, this accomplishes two things. First, when the combo does come up, I can feel excited about it because, "Wow look! It actually happened!" Second, when I attempt to do the trick, there's a much greater chance that it can counter or backfire, since I don't have the redundancy of three other cards that could make the whole thing go if one gets countered. My Invasion-heavy 5 color deck that I used for so long had a really cool combo in it, but I think I only pulled it off once. That creates underused potential perhaps, but there's at least always the trill of trying to pull it off all over again.
I guess the reason I got started on this is that I recently browsed over a few decklists online that were designed with the big-name tournaments in mind, and the decks we've been seeing recently reminded me greatly of those. Fell didn't go over how the decks matched up against Sligh or somesuch, but it still felt the same.
So...what do I think makes fun, interesting decks? First, pick a theme. My largely untested planeshifting deck is like this. Most of the cards I put in there are designed to planeshift heavily, bouncing creatures in and out of play faster than you can keep up with them, and doing cool effects at the same time. Other themes could be creature types. Or something--perhaps even Fell's old Nightmare deck. This serves to make the deck interesting and reliable. It gives you something to do if your cool tricks don't show up.
After that, you get to start adding tricks such as the Artificial Evolution/Rotlung Reanimator combo Fell outlined for us. The difference here is that there aren't 4 of each in the deck, but one instead. Then you get to look for other wacky ways to win. I'd rather have multiple tricks, hopefully that use overlapping cards so some of them actually happen on a semi-regular basis. More tricks = more fun. The tricks should also interact well with the theme of the deck just to make it cooler. A good example of cool tricks in the Planeshifting deck I described above is my Caldera Kavu/Pledge of Loyalty combination. Pledge of Loyalty gives the creature it enchants protection from every color of pernaments you control. The first impulse is to place this on a creature with lots of colors or that has a high power/toughness. The Caldera Kavu is a better choice however. It pumps on 1B for starters, but that's not the point. This little 2/2 Kavu also changes color for one green mana. This means that any attempts to block/get by/destroy the Kavu have to deal with the Pledge of Loyalty on it. If you don't have a black pernament in play, spend G and make the kavu black when the black destruction spells come down. Blue creature bouncing? The same trick works. The little guy would also be very hard to block as well, and even harder to kill or get by on an attack. The coolest part of this combo is that the separate parts are both highly useful separately. The Caldera Kavu can become any color you need to make Planeshifting work or pump up huge if you need it to. Pledge of Loyalty is just plain useful no matter where you put it in a 5-color deck. Add in a full set of familiars and my almost full set of Sanctuary enchantments, (full set meaning one of each color) and you have a full array of 'trick-or-treats' to play on someone, not just a single goofy infinite combo that will make your deck boring or predictable after a couple plays, not to mention losing you playing partners as people become tired of being trounced repeatedly by 5,000 zombie tokens.
After all, no one would like Halloween if it was every day.
-
You're missing the point.
The kind of deck you're talking about is the kind of deck we all play (at least those of us here in Utah)--a large, multi-colored deck with lots of solid creatures and useful spells, that can hold its own against multiple opponents and anything that gets thrown at it. We play these kinds of decks because it's the style of Magic we've grown to love, and because they're just plain fun to play. You'll get no arguments there.
We do not, however, post decklists of these types of decks, and for a multitude of reasons. First, I simply can't come up with a new 100 card deck every week. Second, because that kind of deck is just plain uninteresting outside of an actual game--they're fun to play, but there's rarely any kind of flashy hook that stands out while you're reading the decklist. It's just a list of cards with no obvious synergy or flair.
The third reason is probably the biggest--I don't have the time or the will to come up with a decklist that doesn't inspire me in any way. Like I said in last week's column, I tried to make a solid zombie deck without any weird stuff in it and I just couldn't--there was no catchy little theme that I could sink my teeth into, and it was just too bland. Such a deck would probably be a hoot to play, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm writing articles about card combos that I find to be amusing and tricks that I find to be clever. They're one-trick ponies because they're designed to be one-trick ponies; I don't have the time to do more than one trick per week.
I suppose I could build a combo or two and then fluff up the deck with all kinds of other cards, to make it look more like a 100/3 deck, but I don't think that's necessary. If someone likes my combo they'll incorporate it into their own deck--I hold no delusions that my decklists will ever be played in the form I present them. I have to find a medium between presenting an enormous deck (which would be too much work for a weekly article) and presenting a simple combo (which wouldn't fill an entire article) so I chose to do 60-card decklists.
Now, I'm not saying that I'm opposed to posting articles of larger, more varied decks. I'm just opposed to writing all those articles. If you, Prometheus, or anyone else would like to submit a decklist and an article of their own, please do. You've gone on at length (and surprising rudeness) about how my articles are boring. Step up to the plate and show that you can do better.
-
I figured some of that was going to get me in trouble. While I didn't truly mean to offend, I'm not going to apologize for my opinions. The language maybe, but not the essence of what I said.
I guess part of the the reason I went off is that I've heard much about making wacky decks that aren't too serious about winning, but saw little other than instant-kill combos. While I understand that it wouldn't be easy to kick out a truly good decklist each week yourself, the decks I saw didn't seem to go with what I thought our Magic columns were about. If you needed help you could've said something.
-
I think you're both half right, decklists for 100/3 would be dull and boring but combo decks are much the same.(I don't like decklists in general because i never have the right cards). THings like the Thallid deck from ages ago were my favourite types of article.
-
Prometheus' answer to my old decklists is posted, and it seems like a fun deck to play (it's also well-written, which is a plus).
I want to make sure that we give you the kinds of CCG articles you want to read, so give me your feedback. Is this more of what you're looking for? The style of the article is essentially identical to what I was writing before, though the style of deck is vastly different. Is changing the types of decks we write about enough, or do we need to change the articles themselves? Tell me what you want to read and we'll do our best to get it to you.
-
i liked the article, it sounds like a fun deck to use. Interestingly i think it would be really good at overkill
-
I really like Overkill. Of course, I love coming up with new magic varients. Onslaught looks fun, from the few cards I've seen. We'll have to playtest it more. Hey Fell, any luck at getting us some boosters?
-
hmmm... maybe i should set up a review site just to get free stuff
-
Ha. If we do get them, it wouldn't come from the site. We're trying to trade in some of the books we got in our World Fantasy gift totes. A lot of them are lame, and we're hopign to be able to get some bookstore to give us credit for them.
-
No luck trading books (well, because I haven't tried yet) but I did manage to get us some boosters. We need to organize another draft.
-
So we do have cards for the draft? Or is it you just found a way to get them and they're not here yet? Just trying to clarify. While it's not set in stone yet I think I'm going to end up going to Canada for Thanksgiving. My brother's girlfriend lives up there and we got invited apparently. Weird.
What does everyone think would be good picks for the next expansion of tribal races? We've already gone through soldiers, clerics, zombies, elves, goblins, birds, and beasts...there was an article on wizards.com recently that revealed that Wizards might be adding Humans as a creature type and going with a race/class model for civilized creatures, giving all of them both, which is pushing the question of whether to add humans. I'm not sure I like it, but it might be cool to have some black spells that kill humans in particular or something. As it stands, they're insolated from penalties and separated from potential benefits.
I'd like to see Barbarians make a comeback. We got a lot of them during the Odessey block, but it'd be a shame to see them disappear in a swarm of goblins. I'm having trouble of thinking of viable creature types for tribal for most of the other colors. Nantukos are insects, but the ease of getting insect counters (and lots, in a hurry) could cause problems if Insects get a 5-tap rare or something. Minions or Horrors could work for black, and white could get Knights. The more I think about it, however, I'm not sure that tribal will change much in the next Onslaught expansion. Any truly major shift in the creature types used would be a pain for the storyline folks, although things like Soldiers to Knights or Goblins to Barbarians wouldn't mess things up too bad. It's just hard to see clerics or zombies going away with the power of the Cabal behind them, or wizards disappearing when Ixidor is gaining strength.
As long as I get tribal kavu I'll be happy. Kavu are funny.
-
I doubt we'll see any new creature types given the tribal treatment in future Onslaught sets, since I imagine they'll spend their time buffing up the ones we have. Some of the secondary ones (like insects) might get more, but not much else. They have to keep the environment pretty stable in order for draft games to work, and if you're drafting different creature types in each pack it kind of defeats the point.
Speaking of drafts, I have our packs sitting on my bookshelf at home I don't know when we're planning to do it, but I suspect it will be in December sometime. When would be good for everyone?
-
You're probably right about not getting any new Tribal creature types, although I find that a little depressing. I'm missing all those Barbarians we were seeing for a while.
As far as the time of the booster draft, I am...very available. Just Wednesday nights are bad.
-
I've been working on a great new deck. 8 wins out of 8. THe real powerhouses are wellwisher and Silvos, Rogue Elemental. Last game i finished on 50 life!
Here's the decklist:
20 Forest
3 Elvish Pioneer
1 Llanowar Elves
1 Taunting Elf
1 Wellwisher
3 Wirewood Elf
3 Wirewood Savage
1 Everglove courier
1 Krosan Archer
1 Elvish Pathcutter
1 Silvos, Rogue Elemental
1 Thorn Elemental
1 Thriss, Nantuko Primus
1 Krosan Groundshaker
1 Venomspout Brackus
2 Towering Baloth
1 Fog
2 Vitality Charm
1 Naturalize
1 Monstrous Growth
1 Rampant Growth
2 Deep Reconnaissance
1 Seton's Desire
1 Primal Boost
2 Elvish Guidance
2 Sudden Strength
3 Explosive Vegetation
1 Cryptic Gateway
-
two big problems with you deck:
1) no Force of Natures. what's up with that. the only reason to play green it to get one out and buff it up to a 40/40 trample/flying/firststrike creature.
2) no giant carrots. their useless in current decks but a great nolstalga to days gone by.
-
Heh. Nice Sprig.
The only cards I don't understand right off are the Wirewood Savages. You've only got about 4 Beasts in the deck, I think, and a different kind of elf would likely be much more beneficial. Of course, their presence might be due to the fact that you don't have every Magic card ever made at your command. Sounds a bit familiar to me.
If, however, you're interested in finding another Elemental type creature to boost your already impressive stack of those, the Chlorophant & Ivy Elemental are available if you can get them. An elemental deck would be quite interesting. Use Voice of the Woods too...that's a lot of rares though. It'd take some trading.
-
Oh, if anyone is interested, I picked up some Krosan Tuskers out of a commons box recently and in playtests versus my brother etc. they work as well or better than expected. That 5GG casting cost isn't all that big after you cycle a few.
-
that is every elf i own (mostly from the devastation theme deck) and i don't have any of those other cards. I'm asking everyone i know who plays if they have any other elf tribal cards:
Voice of the woods e.t.c
-
Yeah, I was kind of guessing that. The Wirewood Savages do, however, at least help you out when you hardcast your beasts, so I guess it isn't so bad. Nice deck.
-
it is, 9 wins out of nine so far. The groans when i play wellwisher are music to my ears.... ;D
-
Are these people you're playing not running any sort of creature removal? Even Shock should do the trick to get rid of Wellwisher. Not trying to knock your deck or anything...it's good, but I don't see how Wellwisher can be a consistent problem for so many people unless their decks aren't built to handle a little 1/1 killing.
Hey Fell, is there a problem with the Legionnaires deck I sent you? You mentioned that you were going to post them both today, and I don't know whether you didn't because you decided to save it for later or whether I need to fix something. No rush on posting it. I just thought I'd check.
As far as your comments on Wrath of the Snidd, you're right about some of the card choices being a little bit off, especially the Barbarian Outcasts. I noted after the actual cardlist that I took sort of a 31-flavors approach to designing the non-critical section, and I guess I should've been more careful. (I think the Outcast made the cut because he's a Barbarian, which I like, a Beast, which goes well with the Wirewood Savages, and looks cool. You're right though. There are better cards.) I didn't even bump into the Terravore while I was designing the deck, although I'm not sure I would've replaced red cards with green anyway. You can run into mana problems like that, especially with Terravore's 1GG casting cost. You're right that it would be great for the deck though. The Battlemage I'd try to keep around for the simple reason that in a Gating deck, Battlemages are far more powerful than they look, and the Thunderscape Battlemage in particular can supply you with needed enchantment removal.
You should show me how to do that Autocard thingy sometime.
-
I sent you an email about the other deck.
As for the card comments, this deck is already too inconsistent for extra green creatures to be a problem. That seems to be what you're going for, though, so I don't see it as a problem. I also have trouble classifying this as a gating deck, though it does have some gating creatures. Still, to each his own interpretation.
-
You're right about it not being a true gating deck. Maybe I have gating too much on the brain due to my real-life gating deck. The Battlemages and Flametongue Kavu are there mostly to support the extra Razing Snidd you'll have though. (if they pop up) That's what I was trying to get at.
-
A pretty decent rules article about Damage on the Stack and other related items, in case anyone is interested. To me this has long been the trickiest part of the MTG rules, so it was nice to get some clarifications.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/bb50
-
hehe i'm building a elf/beast desk and i bought a few boosters gess what i got. A foil Silvos, Rouge Elemental! 8/5 rample regenerating legend. hahahaha.
but here's a question for you, can you have both versions of Kamahl out at once? sence he's a legend you shouldn't be able to. But they are different cards so maybe you can.
-
Yes. I've seen distinct rules clarifications which state that two legends of the same people can be in play, so long as the full names of the cards don't match. In the case we're looking at, Kamahl, Fist of Krosa, and Kamahl, Pit Fighter are totally different legends and a single copy of each can be in play regardless of the other.
-
yeah it's the same with the two versions of Balthor
in other news two of the wirewood savages have had mysterious "accidents" and have been replaced by Greener Pastures and Eldamri, Lord of Leaves
Oh, and, Is there a green tutor?
and, yes, Silvos is amazing
-
I don't know about the rest of you, but I thought that draft game was a blast. Onslaught seems like a much better draft set than Odyssey (or maybe we're just better at it). Anyway, I'd like to do it again sometime, but under slightly different rules: you buy three packs, bring them to the game, and then keep what you draft. Three packs is about 8 or 9 bucks, Anybody interested?
-
Black is the only color that has any strict tutors. There are a few green (or at least greenish) cards that tutor for creatures, Eladamri's Call for instance. (multicolor white/green) A quick search revealed little beyond Pack Hunt and Weird Harvest this side of Urza's Saga that were straight green and had any flexibility to them.
I'd be interested in trying another draft after my financial situation gets a little more secure. (Might happen soon. I'm working hard on it.) Until then, I'm interested in playing some normal games and trading some cards around, if anyone wants to get together to do so.
I'm not sure that keeping the cards you build a deck with is the way to go, though, since people would draft the cards they wanted to keep, rather than what they needed for the draft itself. Maybe (it'd take longer but it'd maintain the structure of the draft better) we could write down what shows up in each pack after opening each one and keep what we bought.
-
Just for fun.
http://personality.blackborder.com/
I got:
Marauder (EAFG)
Enjoyment Aggressive Flexible Game-player
You are a dangerous person to have anywhere near a Magic game. When you get your deck out, everybody knows they're in for some serious trouble. Some people like nothing better than a long hot soak in the bath - but you bathe nightly in a bloodbath. You prime your deck so you've got every killer blow at your disposal. You go out there to walk or preferably stomp all over your opponents - massacring, maiming and mutilating as you go. If you meet with resistance you want to chop it down. If your opponent comes back at you hard, you love battling it out. That's how games should be played. You're not so keen on people who keep using counterspells. If they can't fight properly with creatures and Lightning Bolts, what are they doing playing Magic anyway?
You love big powerful creatures. You love building decks and trying new things with combinations of cards. Some people call them weird but these wiseguys usually end up with their entrails dripping from the blade of your Serra Angel's sword.
You also like to try things out when you're playing. You'll probably have a go with different decks and colours and you're not averse to experimenting with your strategy during a game. You like to play for fun rather than enter competitions. For sure you enjoy the thrill of winning just the same as anyone else but you get more than enough enjoyment from games with your friends.
You're happy to discuss the twists and turns of the game with your opponent. You're quite interested to hear how things seemed from his point of view - especially if he was staring unhappily into the eyes of your Craw Wurm for most of the game. Since you spend a lot of time trying out different card combinations you're quite a fount of knowledge on the game, and you're happy to share that expertise with your friends.
-
i don't agree with what it said about me :P
-
Heh. After posting Slugfest Central, I can hardly argue with mine. You aren't even going to tell us what you got Isimir?
-
i think it was samurai whish said i copied decks of the internet,i am angry because i have never done that. And never will (i have never seen a deck on the net that i have the cards to make anyway)
-
I wouldn't get too offended. It took me a bit to fudge the answers around to get Samurai, but the analysis focuses much more on that you like to compete and win rather than that you get all your ideas off the net. There was only a sentence or two about that anyway.
In your case you could consider it to have said something more along the lines that you haven't taken your green deck apart because it keeps winning. (9-0 was the last I heard. Not a bad record.)
-
10 - 2 now, and it lost another played by a friend of mine
-
I can't be bothered to read about how i should go about starting so could someone give a brief summary please ???
-
I'm assuming you mean that you don't have any Magic cards yet, but would like to start collecting them to play the game. In that case, I'd actually, (despite my fondness of the Invasion block) recommend you go find a tournament pack from the recent Onslaught expansion. This will give you a fair amount of basic land (you need those to play) and a random assortment of cards from all five colors to begin your collection with. This alone likely won't enable you to build a good deck, but it's my own preferred method of starting out.
Another good option is to get a precon deck. There are fewer cards in them and it is consequently a bit cheaper, but these card packs are built to be able to play right out of the box. The same cards are packaged in them each time, which means you probably won't get any spectacular rares, but they are ready to go without any extra work. There are four for the Onslaught expansion:
Celestial Assault: an aggressive blue and white deck that focuses on harrying your enemy to death. Unique since blue and white aren't usually aggressive colors. One really good rare (Gustcloak Savior), and another rare I can't convince myself to like.
Bait and Switch: a trickster black and blue deck designed to allow you to steal your opponent's creatures. Of the four, it uses the hardest concepts and requires the most careful play style.
Devastation: a fairly straightforward red and green deck that focuses on big creatures...Beasts mostly. I believe Isimir, one of our other forum members started out with one of these, and it has seemed to work well for him as he has developed his collection from there.
Ivory Doom: a black and white deck that focuses on getting good and evil Clerics to work together to destroy their opposition. Its rares are fairly decent, and it wouldn't be a bad way to start out.
One more note for forum discussions...the one thing you'll have to understand to participate well is what the five colors of spells in Magic generally do well, since none of us will stop in the middle of a normal discussion to explain what we mean.
White is composed of the good guys...soldiers, angels, clerics, and lots of protection effects. Good for keeping stuff alive with a few high level attacks.
Blue is very sneaky and for many of us (including me) hard to get a handle on. Blue has lots of ways to prevent your opponents from accomplishing what they want to do and helping you to get things you want to do done. Its strong creatures are usually flyers...birds, air elementals, and such.
Green is big...the forces of natures. They have really huge creatures and ways to get lots of mana to cast them quickly. Its creatures are usually managed easily with nasty tricks and solid defenses, but if the tricks don't work for a little while, green can run over you quick.
Red is full of goblins and fire and volcanos and dragons and stuff. Lots of ways to deal out pain in the form of straight damage, but like green, little in the way of tricks.
Black is death. Zombies and ghosts and rats and crawly things. Black tries to get its enemies to wither to death, and has very effective ways to get rid of big scary green creatures. (and others like it) It can do almost anything you need it to, but often at a high price of your own life points. (If you run out of life you die)
Hope some of this has been useful ShadowHawk.
-
i own devastation, bait and switch and painflow(from judgement) aswell as the starter and 5 boosters. These have given me a good start for the game i i currently have 5 decks made from these, especially "The big scary elf deck"
-
Show of Isimir :P
And thanks for the advice i'll keep it in mind Prometheus ;D
-
Have you guys looked into the MTG articles on wizard's site about the Legions evolution in Morph? It seems rather than make it a 'comes into play' lookalike, they're going for a less repeatable but also less predictable approach for Morph. They aren't supporting rapid succession as Planeshift and others did for comes into play, but the Morph 'at flip-over' abilities are intended to work more like landmines. I'm not entirely certain that's enough to make it feel a lot different yet, myself. It'll be interesting to play against.
-
i think they're a big improvement but very mana-intensive
-
I'm glad that they clarified the rules to state that a flip-trigger morph creature doesn't automatically trigger its ability on going to the graveyard or leaving the game. While it makes flip-triggers less powerful, (and me less likely to use them) it'd be depressing to know that you couldn't stop a Morphling from using its ability any way other than a counterspell.
If you haven't read the rules clarification article yet, it's at:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/119
-
Is anyone local thinking of going to the Legions prerelease? It's nominally scheduled for the weekend of January 25 at University of Utah somewhere. I'd like to go, but as is common for me, I have transportation issues.
-
I don't know if he'll see this, but welcome back EUOL.
-
Undead Gladiator did actually make it into consideration in my Coffin Leapers deck. As Fell pointed out in the article, the Gladiator would work well in the deck. Eventually I decided against it, however. The reasons why were fairly simple. With Oversold Cemetery running the deck's cycling engine, I simply didn't need the built-in recursion the Gladiator provides. Additionally, I decided that I would rather be cycling Gempalm Avenger or Krosan Tusker anyway.
Despite those factors, would Undead Gladiator have been a good choice for the deck? Yes. I ended going up with additional black birds for flying defense and Aven Warhawking instead though. Sometimes I make some weird choices for my decks. It helps to keep it fun.
-
Fell, do you want me to start putting in the autocard code on my MTG reviews before I send them to you? We've missed the last two now. I'm lazy and would rather have you do it, but without autocard, the reviews are much harder to read.
Aside from that, one thing I noticed today about the recent block formats is that the heavily themed blocks we've had lately: Odyssey and Onslaught in particular and Invasion to a lesser extent, create a problem when trying to design a deck across the blocks, particularly when it's with cards you actually own. The problem is that it's difficult to include very good cards from one set...let's say a Wirewood Channeler, at the same time as cards from other sets, such as a Chlorophant. The problem sounds pretty minor at the outset, but it creates real difficulties in the long run. Time after time I found myself throwing out Crookclaw and Shieldmage Elders because what I was doing with the deck (I was trying out a domain spell deck) didn't allow for sufficient Clerics, Wizards, or Birds to have any confidence in using their impressive abilities. It's also difficult to convince myself to include Power Armor in a two or three color Onslaught deck, as its ability would be seriously underutilized.
In some ways this is a good thing. The vast variety of deck types available with the increasing count of deck mechanics allows for the breadth and depth of strategies that make Magic the Gathering such a good game. When it comes to the realities of a person's actual card collection (particularly if it is not a very expansive collection), however, the opposite can happen as a large number of cards can become obsolete by requiring too much support from their own block. Catapault Master just isn't going to work in a gating deck. The result *can* be that only generically useful mechanics (kicker, flashback, morph, ect.) end up being used in a person's card collection.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that this is really serious or that MTG is driving itself into the grave. It's an interesting issue though, and I was wondering if anyone else had noticed the same thing.
-
So mechanics that don't have any synergy are hard to use together? I'm glad we have you around to point this out :)
-
I've noticed this sa well, new cards often completely destroy old deck types from previous blocks - i.e withered wretch vs. flashback and threshold
-
That's hardly all there is to say about the subject, Fell.
Withered Wretch isn't actually a good example of the effect I was talking about. Withered Wretch is a counter to flashback and threshhold decks from a different block, and it also counters more standard mechanics such as reanimator decks. The Odyssey block also had counters to itself such as Morningtide and Guiltfeeder.
I was actually guessing that you wouldn't be able to see the effect that well, Isimir, since you just started playing in the Onslaught block. If you buy Mirrodin after that releases, you'll understand better I expect. While the basic fact of domain and tribal not working well together is obvious, as Fell pointed out, the effect it has on a player's card collection isn't quite so blatant.
That is what I was pointing out. The semi-incompatibility of MTG blocks directly links to how a player builds their collection and the dynamics of casual play.
-
I know there's more to it, but I can't bear to pass up the opportunity for a trenchant comment.
-
Fair enough. :)
I'm not out of ideas for articles yet or anything like that, but is there a type of deck or a MTG research topic someone would like me to hit?
-
fun Multiplayer Variants
-
I'm actually going to pass that one up Isimir. I've bumped into a few rules variations on the web meant for multiplayer formats, but quite often the rules aren't well explained and it'd take me forever to research and explain the ones on the web. You might be able to get Fell to take a crack at it, however. He and EUOL are far better at making rules variants than I am. Most of all, I don't really find rules variants all that interesting. (100/3 isn't really a variant. We didn't change any rules except the deck parameters.)
TWG already has an old article up on 100/3, we've played 10-card Magic here before, and Fell and EUOL came up with a strange win-condition variant of the game. I thought we had an article on that last one, but I can't find it, so probably not.
-
yeah i've read those - 10 card looks fun
-
Yeah it was. During our mini-tournament I won one of my matches with an audacious little deck I called Final Hope. I used a couple of mana elves to race to a 7 mana base, then I threw down an Angel of Retribution and the Legacy Weapon. If even 1 mana elf was killed in the process it was game over, (thus the name Last Hope) but I managed to pull it off.
2 Forests
Plains
Mountain
2 Quirion Elves
Urborg Elf
Moment's Peace
Legacy Weapon
Angel of Retribution
Turn one: Land (I don't have Llanowar Elves. Very sad.)
Turn two: Forest + urborg elf
Turn three: Land + 2 quirion elves
Turn four: Land + Angel of Retribution
Turn five: Legacy Weapon
Turn six-end: Remove all enemy pernaments.
This order was expected to be broken up by the need to Moment's Peace twice, but this was the idea. A cheaper creature than the Angel of Retribution might have been a better choice, but it worked out fine.
-
cool, imagine a crush of wurms deck, is that even possible?
-
Sorry. I didn't see this for a while. Let's see...12 mana in 10 cards is definitely possible & we won't need a discarding method since it's better to hardcast Crush of Wurms. (unlike Roar of the Wurm) Defending yourself until the 12 mana threshold might be tricky, but let's not worry about that right now.
Standard 10-card Sylvan Crush
3 Forests
3 Llanowar Elf
Elvish Guidance
Wirewood Channeler
2 Crush of Wurms
Turn 1: Forest, Llanowar Elf, 2 mana
Turn 2: Forest, Elvish Guidance, 4 mana
Turn 3: Forest, 2 Llanowar Elves, Wirewood Channeler, 14 mana
Turn 4: Crush of Wurms
Turn 5: Crush of Wurms Flashback
Turn 6: Crush of Wurms
Turn 7: Crush of Wurms Flashback
It's pretty slow for 10-card Magic, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. A Wellwisher or Moment's Peace might help survivability. I intentionally sacrificed everything I could for solid hand reliability (a concept that doesn't really make sense in other MTG formats) and speed in getting the Wurms out. Replacing the some of the Llanowar Elves or Elvish Guidance with Wellwishers or Wirewood Channelers would get the Wurms out slower, but you might have a better chance of surviving long enough to Crush. A Wirewood Lodge would be a good choice for land replacement as well if you choose to sacrifice hand reliability.
-
In my mind, 10-card decks are inherently combo decks, and in that sense your plan above is wasting turns 5, 6, and 7. Once you've cast 3 elves and 3 wurms, why do you need to spend three more turns to get more wurms? You've already got 21 points of potential creature damage on the table. Find a way to bypass blockers and you can shoot for the win on turn 5.
-
I didn't include combat maneuvers of any sort. You're right that attacking would be the natural-seeming thing to do in this situation. With the build I gave for the deck, though, there also isn't anything else left to do with the mana, so I just continued to facetiously make wurms for a few more turns, assuming that my theoretical player would attack with all the wurms I was making if that was the smart thing to do. If a single other spell comes to mind for turn 5, it's Overrun.
It should also be noted that both of the decks we've presented here are insanely slow for 10-card Magic. Waiting until turn 4 to put down a defense (elves don't count, as losing them cuts into your mana pool and messes up the combo) isn't necessarily a good idea. I got away with it when I tried Last Hope, but it easily could have gone the other way. The Flame Burst deck I recall Fell running during our 10-card tournament, for instance, would have gotten in 10+ burn damage and a significant creature attack by turn 4 with more on the way.
-
there must be thousands of ten card decks, but it seems morw about luck and getting the right opponent
3 plains
3 suntail hawk
4 cloudreach cavalry
fun flying beatdown
-
Yeah, a lot of 10-card is luck and opponent. Too much, probably, which is why it's more of a novelty than a real format. My question is this: how much destruction should be allowed in the format? Realistically, all you need to utterly destroy a person's strategy is a single discard spell, land destruction spell, or creature kill spell. Two or even one LD spell will undermine most 10-card decks to the point of unplayability. How much of this should be allowed, and how much shouldn't?
-
My initial feeling is that land destruction should definitely be disallowed by rule, but not by card restriction (thus allowing Chain of Acid ect). 10-card decks are too limited to support what may be the most disliked tactic in all of Magic.
Any other form of destruction I see as having its natural drawback. Creatures might not be played to terror, Enchantments may not be around to naturalize, or artifacts to Shatterstorm, but there will always be land to kill. There just isn't any other way to get a deck going. (stupid Basking Rootwallas)
Also, from what I see, even 10-card decks should have sufficient capacity to deal with the loss of a creature or enchantment and still have an outside shot at winning. If the deck isn't built that way, then that's the builder's choice.
With such a limited card supply, however, the exact count of lands is a critical feature of a deck. People can't afford to throw in one extra land just in case someone does Stone Rain and they shouldn't have to.
Something like Petravark however, that disables but doesn't destroy a land, is a trickier question. I'm not sure about that one. I suppose I'd probably have to stick with voting to disallow it though as too disruptive.
-
even the cheapest ld spell costs about 3 mana. that gives your opponent plenty of time to start atacking/get their combo working. e.t.c
-
Unless they go first and your combo requires more than two land. LD is the bane of 10-card decks.
Regarding discard and creature removal, I would say that disallowing them would make the games more fun--it would eliminate a couple of decks, but make a lot more decks possible. I suppose the question is this: should a 10-card deck win by destroying the other person's strategy or by creating it's own? It's very easy to just toss out a Wrath of God on turn four and make any opponent's deck obsolete, but it's much more challenging (and interesting) to make 6 flying 6/6 wurm tokens.
What it all comes down to, for me at least, is this: if you play a 10-card deck you want to see your cool idea work. Discard, LD, and removal aren't cool ideas, they're just tools to ruin the other guy's cool idea. I say ban them...but I'm still open to discussion.
-
Under the 'cool idea' model you're certainly right, and the Wrath of God effects don't help that sort of thing. Counterspells would be another category to consider banning. Terror maybe, but that would fit in as a general-use card.
I'm not sure whether I feel comfortable going entirely with the 'cool idea' model, since it implies to some degree that you're just out to do your cool thing and also that, to some extent, you're not allowed to defend yourself. (Terror would be an attempt at defense. Wrath of God would not.) That doesn't quite explain it though, because you could include Wall of Faith instead. If decks are *only* based on your cool idea though, it becomes a matter of who can pull their idea off first, and that's nothing more than a mana efficiency race---not a terribly exciting way to describe a format.
One thing I've noticed as we've gone along in this discussion is that nearly everything we've described are effects belonging largely to instants and sorceries. I wouldn't want to put in a no-instants rule to deal with destruction methods since I think that Flame Burst deck you designed was a great example of 10-card, but it does describe the problem somewhat. (Bane of the Living would be one example of another problem such a rule would have.)
The problem is with the lack of ability to have extensive redundancy in a 10-deck. Losing a forest isn't as big a problem if you could potentially draw one next turn. Lands I don't see it as reasonable to expect a good 10-card player to include a redundant land, but what about a mana elf? Or a Crush of Wurms?
Maybe one way to solve the problem is to allow an automatic ability along the lines of:
'At the beginning of your upkeep, tap all your lands and empty your mana pool: return one card from your graveyard to your hand.'
Allowing automatic (and expensive) graveyard recursion would allow players to potentially survive destruction tactics, turning terror into a delaying spell instead of a complete game-buster. The cost I described above doesn't prevent mana elves or Krosan Restorer from adding mana to the pool anyway, but I felt too uncomfortable about forcing the player to tap their blockers. My automatically available recursion idea probably comes with more problems than it solves, but I'm interested to hear what you guys think.
-
You know, that's actually not bad; it seems balanced and would allow you to survive a lot of destructive tactics. On the other hand, at some level it's still doing the same thing that a ban would do: it negates LD, removal, and discard while allowing people to set up combos. If we're just going to replace card destruction with delays, why not just ban the destruction and let you add in your own delays if you want them?
You're right about counters, though--they're just as bad as the other removal spells. and you may be right (maybe) about local terror effects being okay. What would you say to a ban of discard, counters, LD, and mass removal?
-
I'm not sure I'd say that the automatic recursion negates LD ect, especially since the LD can be recovered just as quickly as the land that was destroyed. Banning I'm just not sure about. Wizards allows some hideously unfair combos to go on without even restricting them simply because banning is a bad thing to do. I'd want to try exploring other options first. Maybe we could even set up a time to playtest both the banning and recursion options. The simple process of trying to make decks under the ban would tell us a lot more than we could guess just by discussing it.
-
We're working with a ridiculously goofy, incredibly fragile format here--I have no problems with banning whatsoever. And I like the idea better than making such a drastic change to the basic rules of the game.
-
I don't know. We're talking about changes to the 'official' rules of 10-card Magic, right? I'd be hesitant to make a change either way without trying it.
-
Don't be coy--you just want to trick me into actually playing Magic again, don't you? I can see through your hollow requests for a "playtest."
-
That too. Had that been my actual goal, however, you would have heard a direct request for Magic games followed by a long insanely annoying tone.