what about sapphire charm? Seems good to me, because it can act as a pseudo-removal, can un-flip delver or remove any counter from permanents.
The fly ability seems also good for pushing some more damages.
Replies?
the deck is already very tight for space.
• replacing itself is useless
• most creatures already have flying, and it's begging to get 2-for-1'd
• phasing out an opponent's creatures is really situational, and will most often be dead
try it out and see how it goes, but i don't see this adding a whole lot of utility.
-Lets make some really powerfull new slivers some of then that will make slivers decks in others formats become more and more powerfull lets make some of then really dumb broken
None of them are broken; none of them will see play in eternal formats.
Are there any formats that restrict cards on financial bases?
Reason I ask is because I usually limit my supercasual deckbuilding to a format and cost (among other things), because I find it an interesting limitation, it produces things I might actually be interested in investing in, I get a sense of superiority for beating someone with a "subpar" deck, and I have a couple outs if accused of being "cheap" or etc.
How about Type 0.25 - no individual cards >$0.25 using TCGplayer's lows as of 2013-05-16.
or decks can't cost more than $20 total (excluding basic lands).
These are hardly slivers. They don't look like slivers and they don't act like slivers.
And all the ones that've been spoiled so far are unplayable.
They need to do something that Merfolk can't in order to be viable.
Some reasons why people don't like it:
• It's not fun to play against, as it's entirely non-interactive.
• It tends to abuse "unfair" mechanics (not derogatory, simply descriptive).
• It tends to win on T2-4.
I'm not saying people should stop playing it, as it's important in the checks and balances of things (especially in tournament settings, where sideboarding comes into play), but it's obv inappropriate to play a degenerate combo deck that involves 15 minutes of masturbation in a one-game casual setting.
Red. Even though Goblins are my favorite creatures/deck, the color has nothing going for it except cheap, fast creatures, which tends to be linear, limited, and completely non interactive (i.e., boring).
It's nearly impossible to be competitive and not netdeck, since the best decks will generally be netdecks. A lot of the lists have been tuned to near-perfection, with only a few flex slots, and only a few viable cards that can fit into those slots. Unless you're a true innovator and found something new that will push the metagame (spoiler: not happening), your "original" ideas are likely awful and probably an inferior version of preexisting archetypes.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone feeling a sense of accomplishment when a deck they conceived without outside influence is able to hold up against the best, and if that makes up for having a worse win record because you play subpar decks, then go for it. Personally, I can sympathize - I think it's boring when people simply copy+paste decks, I think it's neat when people try new things / things they like even though they may not be competitive, and tuning for the meta is my least favorite part about deck selection/building.
Another pro for Memory Lapse is it allows you to play Quicksand and cast it off a single island and a quicksand.
Except we don't play Quicksand. Quicksand is for MUC. Delver plays 16-17 Islands. The low number is okay due to the low curve and card selection, but running non-basics, taplands, non-U producers, etc - basically anything but Islands - is suboptimal because it compromises the consistency of opening hands and Spire Golems way too much.
From a roughly traditional list I made these changes to add the lapse...
-1 deprive
-1 exclude
-2 counter spell
+4 memory lapse
Leaving me with the build i posted alittle bit earlier. And a well timed fog can win you the game :p. I can totally see where your coming from and its probably the reason people werent playing them earlier but its interesting to me. I really really want to see it work it hasn't disappointed yet. And i use the counterspells to counter their big stuff permanantly and i use the lapses to set back their draw and pull ahead in tempo. It does kinda feel aggressive when playing it.
I don't know but it just feels fun to play with.
2 hard counters is nowhere near consistent enough to be able to counter the things you need when you need. Sometimes a Fog can win games. Most of the time, you're better of running a card that actually does something. If you think tempo > hard counters and want to test it out, fine, but "really wanting to see it work" and "feeling fun to play" aren't valid reasons to be running a card in a competitive environment.
Ponder doesn't have any way of getting rid of the bad cards (shuffling and drawing isn't that great - when you do that, it's just a random cantrip). Just to reiterate: Ponder is better if you're looking for specific cards. Preordain is better if you want to improve the overall quality of your draws.
With Memory Lapse, you're giving up a draw (card) for one of theirs. It's about as much of a Time Walk as Fog or Boomerang are. They're also not "forced" to replay it next turn - they get a land drop, and can play anything else. Sure, it's tempo, but it's narrow in that it only helps you if you're already winning, and won't stop you from losing in the way a hard counter can. And I think someone was correct in saying that you're "countering a random card from their deck", but I see this as a con; hard counters give you the opportunity to counter the best card in their deck when they play it.
Also since someone mentioned it - Snap, by contrast, is free and has a lot of other uses: getting a Ninja through, recycling SSS, countering removal, etc.
Traditional Delver (i.e. the ones that go 4-0 in dailies) is more of a control-aggro deck (which is also why Accumulated Knowledge works, given our great card selection.) So like I said, maybe Memory Lapse would be better in a more aggressive, tempo-oriented deck, but at that point, why not just ditch counters altogether and fill the deck with bounce?
T1 Delver, T2 flip and protect it is our ideal plan, of course, but doesn't always happen and hard counters provide the most versatility and strongest "no".
The last concern is: what would you be cutting for it? I also wouldn't remove any hard counters for it, especially not Counterspell.
Memory Lapse doesn't actually do anything. When they replay it next turn, you still need to have an answer, and it'll be a 2-for-1. Not to mention it's an awful topdeck. I'd rather run more actual counters that aren't so situational.
Brainstorm's good at flipping Delvers (something the deck doesn't have a whole lot of trouble doing anyway), and finding an answer at instant speed, but not much else. It's only really shines in fast formats that have shuffle effects (fetches) and necessitate immediate answers to game-breaking plays.
Preordaining/Pondering just to get rid of Brainstorm junk seems wasteful - 2 mana and 2 cards just for filtering/random cantrips.
In terms of smoothing out / setting up favorable draws, Preordain > Ponder >> Brainstorm. I think Brainstorm might have a place in the more aggressive builds that would trade future card quality for immediate gains, but otherwise, I think it compromises the quality of the rest of the deck too much. If you test it out, please share results.
The 2 power and first strike kills/deters blocking from most things in the format, but there's not a whole lot of room in the deck, especially at 2cc. The drawback is also pretty huge (can't block), and it dies to pings, Electrickery, etc.
Umm, forgive me but I am a little confused as to why we would need a list of cards printed at the common level on paper but not common online?
Any card printed at common level on paper is usable unless your playgroup has special rules regarding the C1 rarity. Cards such as Hymn to Tourach is usable in paper unless your playgroup chooses to call the C1 rarity uncommon under today's rarity rules which is why I updated the thread regarding that.
Maybe I just completely missed the point of what you meant or something lol.
It'd just be interesting to see a definitive list of (notable) cards that comprise the potential differences between online and paper pauper (it was looking for such a list that brought me here - what exactly makes paper different from online?). Especially since some of these cards can be quite powerful, if a paper metagame were ever to develop, it's very possible/probable that paper and online metas would look very different. I don't mean to put the burden on you though, just saying it'd be neat to see
the deck is already very tight for space.
• replacing itself is useless
• most creatures already have flying, and it's begging to get 2-for-1'd
• phasing out an opponent's creatures is really situational, and will most often be dead
try it out and see how it goes, but i don't see this adding a whole lot of utility.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
This sentence makes 0 sense.
None of them are broken; none of them will see play in eternal formats.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
Reason I ask is because I usually limit my supercasual deckbuilding to a format and cost (among other things), because I find it an interesting limitation, it produces things I might actually be interested in investing in, I get a sense of superiority for beating someone with a "subpar" deck, and I have a couple outs if accused of being "cheap" or etc.
How about Type 0.25 - no individual cards >$0.25 using TCGplayer's lows as of 2013-05-16.
or decks can't cost more than $20 total (excluding basic lands).
I'm curious what the meta would look like.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
imo, it's 4 each of Cloud, Delver, Ninja, SSS, Golem;
4 Counterspell, 1 Deprive, 2-3 Snap, 1-2 Gush, 4 Preordain, 4 Ponder, 2 Daze, 4 AK;
17 Islands.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
And all the ones that've been spoiled so far are unplayable.
They need to do something that Merfolk can't in order to be viable.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
• It's not fun to play against, as it's entirely non-interactive.
• It tends to abuse "unfair" mechanics (not derogatory, simply descriptive).
• It tends to win on T2-4.
I'm not saying people should stop playing it, as it's important in the checks and balances of things (especially in tournament settings, where sideboarding comes into play), but it's obv inappropriate to play a degenerate combo deck that involves 15 minutes of masturbation in a one-game casual setting.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
It's nearly impossible to be competitive and not netdeck, since the best decks will generally be netdecks. A lot of the lists have been tuned to near-perfection, with only a few flex slots, and only a few viable cards that can fit into those slots. Unless you're a true innovator and found something new that will push the metagame (spoiler: not happening), your "original" ideas are likely awful and probably an inferior version of preexisting archetypes.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone feeling a sense of accomplishment when a deck they conceived without outside influence is able to hold up against the best, and if that makes up for having a worse win record because you play subpar decks, then go for it. Personally, I can sympathize - I think it's boring when people simply copy+paste decks, I think it's neat when people try new things / things they like even though they may not be competitive, and tuning for the meta is my least favorite part about deck selection/building.
btw, I thought this was a decent recent article by Conley Woods on deck selection.
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=11058
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
Except we don't play Quicksand. Quicksand is for MUC. Delver plays 16-17 Islands. The low number is okay due to the low curve and card selection, but running non-basics, taplands, non-U producers, etc - basically anything but Islands - is suboptimal because it compromises the consistency of opening hands and Spire Golems way too much.
2 hard counters is nowhere near consistent enough to be able to counter the things you need when you need. Sometimes a Fog can win games. Most of the time, you're better of running a card that actually does something. If you think tempo > hard counters and want to test it out, fine, but "really wanting to see it work" and "feeling fun to play" aren't valid reasons to be running a card in a competitive environment.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
With Memory Lapse, you're giving up a draw (card) for one of theirs. It's about as much of a Time Walk as Fog or Boomerang are. They're also not "forced" to replay it next turn - they get a land drop, and can play anything else. Sure, it's tempo, but it's narrow in that it only helps you if you're already winning, and won't stop you from losing in the way a hard counter can. And I think someone was correct in saying that you're "countering a random card from their deck", but I see this as a con; hard counters give you the opportunity to counter the best card in their deck when they play it.
Also since someone mentioned it - Snap, by contrast, is free and has a lot of other uses: getting a Ninja through, recycling SSS, countering removal, etc.
Traditional Delver (i.e. the ones that go 4-0 in dailies) is more of a control-aggro deck (which is also why Accumulated Knowledge works, given our great card selection.) So like I said, maybe Memory Lapse would be better in a more aggressive, tempo-oriented deck, but at that point, why not just ditch counters altogether and fill the deck with bounce?
T1 Delver, T2 flip and protect it is our ideal plan, of course, but doesn't always happen and hard counters provide the most versatility and strongest "no".
The last concern is: what would you be cutting for it? I also wouldn't remove any hard counters for it, especially not Counterspell.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
Memory Lapse doesn't actually do anything. When they replay it next turn, you still need to have an answer, and it'll be a 2-for-1. Not to mention it's an awful topdeck. I'd rather run more actual counters that aren't so situational.
Brainstorm's good at flipping Delvers (something the deck doesn't have a whole lot of trouble doing anyway), and finding an answer at instant speed, but not much else. It's only really shines in fast formats that have shuffle effects (fetches) and necessitate immediate answers to game-breaking plays.
Preordaining/Pondering just to get rid of Brainstorm junk seems wasteful - 2 mana and 2 cards just for filtering/random cantrips.
In terms of smoothing out / setting up favorable draws, Preordain > Ponder >> Brainstorm. I think Brainstorm might have a place in the more aggressive builds that would trade future card quality for immediate gains, but otherwise, I think it compromises the quality of the rest of the deck too much. If you test it out, please share results.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
The 2 power and first strike kills/deters blocking from most things in the format, but there's not a whole lot of room in the deck, especially at 2cc. The drawback is also pretty huge (can't block), and it dies to pings, Electrickery, etc.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
It'd just be interesting to see a definitive list of (notable) cards that comprise the potential differences between online and paper pauper (it was looking for such a list that brought me here - what exactly makes paper different from online?). Especially since some of these cards can be quite powerful, if a paper metagame were ever to develop, it's very possible/probable that paper and online metas would look very different. I don't mean to put the burden on you though, just saying it'd be neat to see
Legacy Gobbyboogers R