Was just throwing it out there because I see options like Chieftain and Instigator and I'm not impressed, particularly for how they match up against Zoo. With the banning of Mystical Tutor, you can probably assume the meta will shift towards aggro decks like Zoo, no? Zoo being the worst matchup by far, it makes sense to prepare for more.
If you look, he's pretty much burn-proof vs Zoo. He can't be nuked by even lavamancer + bolt. If you shift lightning bolt into the goblin deck, you easily take out kird ape, wild nacatl or grim lavamancer and the goon can probably beat through the goyf or knight for a bit. Does Goblins really have problem keeping up with Zoo in terms of #?
Hey all, just dusted off my cards after many years. I used to run Goblin Goon hard in my old vial/goblin deck when I played it around the Mirrodin/Ravnica days.
Would he be a good choice? I remember always having more creatures than my opponent and the goon/piledriver always worked great at putting people on the clock. He was always great off the Lackey too.
This is so disappointing. This is the kind of decision that makes Yu-Gi-Oh such a terrible game. They release a new set that completely smokes past sets making old cards useless. It's really too bad and it shows such a lack of creativity on their part.
You're basically gonna have to get 4 of these to have a competitive deck w/ black in it. IMO, that's a sign of poor development.
In mono green or heavily green decks it is strictly better than Wood Elves. In decks that are 50/50 green or less... Wood Elves is probably a better choice.
This whole test just proves that innovation and thinking-out-of-the-box is not required and in fact is not desired when it comes to designing magic cards.
Agree with everything Mark Rosewater thinks or you're not getting a job in R&D.
The democrats and republicans nowadays are the same party. They don't really stand for anything different. One wants to run off a cliff at 80mph and the other at 100mph. It's a shame there are no real alternatives to these theives.
I don't understand the comparision with Bob. a) Bob is always good, and you always want to kill. If there are no permanents (example - only lands) to remove - Mangara is bad. b) Mangara costs one more mana. c) Bob swings for 2. d) Bob is card advantage if he survives more than one turn. Mangara - just 1 for 1. And if you want Mangara to be better (remove more permanents for the same cost), you have to play bad cards (Blink).
Mortify (or some other card) can do the same at Instant speed without the summoning sickness. You want to deal with the card now - not a turn later. And you want to deal with it - not make your opponent spend a removal spell, while he's beating you down with Akroma.
You want removal - you play a removal spell. You want a discard-a-burn-card spell - you play Persecute (not a 1/1 that not always makes your opponent play a burn spell). You want a creature - you play a 2/1 for W. You want a finisher - you play Akroma. Mangara is too random to be good. You don't have control of what's going to happen. You don't want to play it in aggro - too small. You don't want to play it control - no sinergy with ***, 1-turn waiting until the effect will happen - not something control decks want.
I got 2xMangara in the prerelease. I traded those away for a Giant Solifuge. Then I traded that Giant Solifuge and some RG unc/com for an Overgrown Tomb. Sell your Mangaras, while those are still worth something. You heard it here.
You're obviously not too swift. The comparison to Dark Confidant was made to show just because a card dies to removal doesn't mean it is bad.
Mortify cannot kill artifacts, lands and protection from black creatures last time I checked. Your scenario with Akroma is laughable. And last time I checked Mortify can't kill Akroma.
I don't think you honestly know Magic very well. If you want removal play a removal spell!!??! LOL, Ok bud. The fact is, creatures with added removal effects are a premium. This is why cards like Grim Lavamancer, Magus of the Scroll/Disk, etc etc are good cards. Mangara dies when you use it but it takes out any permanent on the table. I fail to see how it's "random". You target a permanent and it is RFG. It's a perfect aggro control creature. Even if you target a mana land the opponent is struggling with, it is useful.
You gotta love when someone says because a card dies to removal it isn't good. I guess the same can be said for Dark Confidant. It dies to every removal so it must be a bad card. Who would play it? LOL
If they're killing your Mangara they're not using a kill spell on your win conditions. That is another reason why creatures like Mangara are good. Their effect is so strong the opponent is forced to react to it. Mangara gives white the ability to deal with any trouble permanent in the game minus a few odd ones like SSS.
The fact that is CAN be abused with flicker effects, bounce, etc makes it even better. I'd say this is almost an auto-include in control/controlaggro decks that play white.
Get your playsets while they're cheap. You heard it here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you look, he's pretty much burn-proof vs Zoo. He can't be nuked by even lavamancer + bolt. If you shift lightning bolt into the goblin deck, you easily take out kird ape, wild nacatl or grim lavamancer and the goon can probably beat through the goyf or knight for a bit. Does Goblins really have problem keeping up with Zoo in terms of #?
Thanks for replies.
Would he be a good choice? I remember always having more creatures than my opponent and the goon/piledriver always worked great at putting people on the clock. He was always great off the Lackey too.
You're basically gonna have to get 4 of these to have a competitive deck w/ black in it. IMO, that's a sign of poor development.
Clone Sliver
All Slivers get "When this creature comes into play it becomes a copy of a creature in play and also counts as a sliver".
There's still a lot of fun yet to be seen with slivers.
Agree with everything Mark Rosewater thinks or you're not getting a job in R&D.
You're obviously not too swift. The comparison to Dark Confidant was made to show just because a card dies to removal doesn't mean it is bad.
Mortify cannot kill artifacts, lands and protection from black creatures last time I checked. Your scenario with Akroma is laughable. And last time I checked Mortify can't kill Akroma.
I don't think you honestly know Magic very well. If you want removal play a removal spell!!??! LOL, Ok bud. The fact is, creatures with added removal effects are a premium. This is why cards like Grim Lavamancer, Magus of the Scroll/Disk, etc etc are good cards. Mangara dies when you use it but it takes out any permanent on the table. I fail to see how it's "random". You target a permanent and it is RFG. It's a perfect aggro control creature. Even if you target a mana land the opponent is struggling with, it is useful.
If they're killing your Mangara they're not using a kill spell on your win conditions. That is another reason why creatures like Mangara are good. Their effect is so strong the opponent is forced to react to it. Mangara gives white the ability to deal with any trouble permanent in the game minus a few odd ones like SSS.
The fact that is CAN be abused with flicker effects, bounce, etc makes it even better. I'd say this is almost an auto-include in control/controlaggro decks that play white.
Get your playsets while they're cheap. You heard it here.