This is an utterly terrible standard to judge cards by. Almost every card doesn't live up to this standard. You must think Aetherling is trash since he has no immediate effect.
There are many other reasons why cards are playable. I'm pretty sure people are miming each others' sentiments and can't objectively see how good a card is.
I run Deathrite as a two-of maindeck in Junk Aristocrats, and it's been working out pretty well.
Personally, I think I've gotten value out of it if I get to activate it twice just to eat stuff, or once to snipe an undying creature, flashback spell, or reanimation target.
It is doing nothing, because what a deck is "doing" does not define what type of deck it is. We are going around in circles. This isn't constructive. How hard is it for someone to stop and think: "WHY was the term midrange coined?" "WHAT is the reason for that to exist?" "WHAT did we gain from having a separate category?"
I would put this in the present tense: "What do we currently gain from using the term midrange?"
-> I <- don't need to argue that. EVERYONE SHOULD. It is why the concept of the archetypes came to be, to group decks based on their strategy, not their execution. To group decks so we can see how to attack their strategy, not their execution. To understand the flow of similar decks and what they have in common in their plan, whether or not they implement it.
What I think doesn't matter, when we have a decade and a half of work done on deck types in a certain way. You can't simply redefine it based on semantics or philosophical questions without invalidating all the work, articles and studies done on this!
Using obsolete terminology isn't going to invalidate anything. This is like arguing that the NAACP is racist because we don't use the term 'colored people' anymore.
There is a well-established well-defined representative model and there are new people trying to redefine the concepts to use them in another totally different model.
Well, yes, that's what you do if you want to be something other than an angry old man who thinks that rock and roll ended with the Beach Boys.
If your conceptual framework takes a diverse and popular format and makes it look like something homogenous and stale, then your concepts need to evolve.
No, not really. "insurmountable" is the wrong expression. The original expression was "resilient". Is a blastoderm resilient? Yes and no. It kills itself. All an opponent has to do is have blockers and a blastoderm does nothing. It is no thragtusk, no olivia, no ravenous baloth, no plaguelord. It is not defensive.
Same for saproling burst. It is everything but defensive. It's an all-out aggressive card. It is there to kill by the 4th or 5th turn! It does not delay, as that is wasteful.
I didn't didn't play competitively during the Fires era, but this looks right to me. Blastoderm and Saproling Burst seem more analogous to Hellrider and Thundermaw than to Thragtusk or any other midrange card.
...
Personally, I see midrange as a composite strategy, melding an early aggressive element and a slower grindy element.
The aggressive element is similar to what you'd expect from an aggro deck, but with a greater focus on card efficiency. Where aggro looks to land a roundhouse kick, midrange's attack is more of a jab. If you look at fast openings for pre-Gatecrash Selesnya midrange and Mythic Conscription, they achieve remarkably similar results for similar investments.
T1: Mana dork
T2: Loxodon Smiter
T3: Silverblade Paladin, Rancor, swing for 12.
T1: Mana dork
T2: Lotus Cobra, uncracked fetchland
T3: Soveriegn of Lost Alara, swing with cobra for 13-14.
Each deck is capable of a T4 kill with an investment of only three creatures to the board. If the opponent doesn't have an answer, you win. If they do, then the decks shift gears to the grindy plan, Elspeth and Jace for Mythic, Resto and Thrag for Selesnya Midrange.
It isn't Wizards' responsibility to dictate what can and can't be played, and likewise, they shouldn't attempt to design the game based around subjective merits such as 'fun'.
Cards with Black in their costs: 33 (4 in top 20)
White: 34 (8 in top 20)
Green: 32 (7 in top 20)
Red: 29 (10 in top 20)
Blue: 19 (1 in top 20)
Black is pretty bad too but at least you can make a tier 2 deck with it.
Keep in mind this is right after Esper's "resurgence".
Thoughts?
That list is absolutely worthless. If you added a trillion classic delver decks to the meta, the number of blue cards in the top 25 of that list would actually go down.
for those claiming huge card advantage, i would imagine there comes a time where you don't have enough mana to deal with the amount of cards garruk will likely dump in your hands...
so yeah, huge card advantage, so much that you can't cast it all.
So keep the best seven.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
4 Nightveil Specter
4 Gray Merchant of Asphodel
4 Pack Rat
1 Erebos, God of the Dead
4 Thoughtseize
4 Underworld Connections
4 Hero's Downfall
2 Cyclonic Rift
1 Far // Away
1 Devour Flesh
1 Ultimate Price
1 Whip of Erebos
2 Island
4 Mutavault
4 Watery Grave
4 Temple of Deceit
3 Doom Blade
3 Pharika's Cure
2 Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
2 LIfebane Zombie
2 Notion Thief
1 Dark Betrayal
1 Dimir Charm
1 Illness in the Ranks
Ran this list last weekend at my LGS. Absolutely loved Rift and Far // Away.
Switch a rat for a Thoughtseize, and you've got it.
He's like Prophetic Prism, except instead of cantriping, he dies.
Creature blocking is a thing.
Personally, I think I've gotten value out of it if I get to activate it twice just to eat stuff, or once to snipe an undying creature, flashback spell, or reanimation target.
This is why:
Gruul can't reliably cast it on T1.
I would put this in the present tense: "What do we currently gain from using the term midrange?"
Using obsolete terminology isn't going to invalidate anything. This is like arguing that the NAACP is racist because we don't use the term 'colored people' anymore.
Well, yes, that's what you do if you want to be something other than an angry old man who thinks that rock and roll ended with the Beach Boys.
If your conceptual framework takes a diverse and popular format and makes it look like something homogenous and stale, then your concepts need to evolve.
I didn't didn't play competitively during the Fires era, but this looks right to me. Blastoderm and Saproling Burst seem more analogous to Hellrider and Thundermaw than to Thragtusk or any other midrange card.
...
Personally, I see midrange as a composite strategy, melding an early aggressive element and a slower grindy element.
The aggressive element is similar to what you'd expect from an aggro deck, but with a greater focus on card efficiency. Where aggro looks to land a roundhouse kick, midrange's attack is more of a jab. If you look at fast openings for pre-Gatecrash Selesnya midrange and Mythic Conscription, they achieve remarkably similar results for similar investments.
T1: Mana dork
T2: Loxodon Smiter
T3: Silverblade Paladin, Rancor, swing for 12.
T1: Mana dork
T2: Lotus Cobra, uncracked fetchland
T3: Soveriegn of Lost Alara, swing with cobra for 13-14.
Each deck is capable of a T4 kill with an investment of only three creatures to the board. If the opponent doesn't have an answer, you win. If they do, then the decks shift gears to the grindy plan, Elspeth and Jace for Mythic, Resto and Thrag for Selesnya Midrange.
Good luck convincing them of that.
That list is absolutely worthless. If you added a trillion classic delver decks to the meta, the number of blue cards in the top 25 of that list would actually go down.
White:
Archangel of Thune
Path of Bravery
Black:
Dark Prophecy
Gnawing Zombie
Lifebane Zombie
Xathrid Necromancer
Red:
Barrage of Expendables
Dragon Egg
Green:
Scavenging Ooze
Also, Vexing Devil shouldn't even be mentioned when he's from the same set as Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded.
So keep the best seven.