In my testing, Grixis Control seems to be a real deck. Lots of draw power, Sidisi can find Harmless Offering, Silumgar's Command/Disperse can bounce it, Dark Petition can find Pact or Languish/Murder/etc. The list I tested was:
The reasoning behind Mindwrack Demon is that it is big enough to fight through Gisela or Avacyn, helps your fill your graveyard for Dark Petition/Take Inventory, and in multiples it can be used as another Harmless Offering target. This deck is fairly good at triggering Delirium, and the Pacts are good for keeping your life total high. Take Inventory, Oath of Jace, Jace, and Ob Nixilis draw a significant number of cards, and in a pinch Dark Petition finds either Pact or Offering. Basically its a control deck whose win condition gives around 9 CMC of value if it doesn't go all the way.
why is Harmless Offering in this deck at all?
you want to donate Demonic Pact (of which you're only running a single copy) or in a REALLY REALLY big stretch a Mindwrack Demon if your opponent has no Delirium and less than 4 life...
It just seems to me if you simply take Demonic Pact and Harmless Offering from the deck and add 3 random good cards you'd end up with a better deck.
The deck you quoted has 4 demonic pacts, not one. And while offering is a crappy card on its own, pact is a 5 for 1 that helps you stay alive. If pact doesn't win the game, it is a value generator in much the way coco is, though coco is also a tempo generator.
Though that list was probably posted before spell queller was spoiled, which would completely erase its effectiveness and make it very weak to the best deck in the format.
They've shown a million times that the things that Maro and their other mouthpieces say can be changed at any time, especially when said changes are going to make money.
Everyone remembers the initial definition of mythic rare, and how long it took for them to start putting random 2 drop value bears at MR. I remember Maro making a comment about how they hated fetchlands because of the ridiculous amount of shuffling they added to the game: we got allied fetches in KtK not too long after.
Those are a couple examples that jump out to me, but there have been plenty of others pointed out on this thread.
Wizards will do what they think will help the game and make the most money. The affirmation of the reserve list 8 years ago (or whenever it was) pretty much had to have been driven by very conservative lawyers. I'm a corporate lawyer by trade, and I don't they have cause to be worried about violating hte reserve list at all, but that's a debate for another place. What I'm quite positive of is that any legal argument saying WOTC violated the "spirit of their reserve list policy" would be laughed out of court. Meaning that "policy" can and will be changed when it's expedient to WOTC to do so, and we've just seen one instance where it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
why is Harmless Offering in this deck at all?
you want to donate Demonic Pact (of which you're only running a single copy) or in a REALLY REALLY big stretch a Mindwrack Demon if your opponent has no Delirium and less than 4 life...
It just seems to me if you simply take Demonic Pact and Harmless Offering from the deck and add 3 random good cards you'd end up with a better deck.
Though that list was probably posted before spell queller was spoiled, which would completely erase its effectiveness and make it very weak to the best deck in the format.
Everyone remembers the initial definition of mythic rare, and how long it took for them to start putting random 2 drop value bears at MR. I remember Maro making a comment about how they hated fetchlands because of the ridiculous amount of shuffling they added to the game: we got allied fetches in KtK not too long after.
Those are a couple examples that jump out to me, but there have been plenty of others pointed out on this thread.
Wizards will do what they think will help the game and make the most money. The affirmation of the reserve list 8 years ago (or whenever it was) pretty much had to have been driven by very conservative lawyers. I'm a corporate lawyer by trade, and I don't they have cause to be worried about violating hte reserve list at all, but that's a debate for another place. What I'm quite positive of is that any legal argument saying WOTC violated the "spirit of their reserve list policy" would be laughed out of court. Meaning that "policy" can and will be changed when it's expedient to WOTC to do so, and we've just seen one instance where it is.