MTG Salvation

Quote from sandsoft_blue

Seeing as there's a blazing sign of Naruto Rocks!, I'm not quite so sure that this is a real "animu" clan. That, and has this really been approved? It seems o-so very similar to the Brigade...

Want to join? You seem to like anime.
Everyone is welcome here!

ROCK OUT!
Dude, see any good animus lately?

aw hell yeah boi. You're in. Do you want a title?

Quote from Vaclav

The other problem is that the Laffer Curve is only subscribed to by a subset of economists - of which a large number are falling flat on their faces recently showing the results of their misplaced faith.

Not to mention the fact that you have to assess the TRUE taxation rate when talking about the Laffer Curve anyhow even if you believe in it - which for a reasonably number of large companies is already at 0% for the discussed topic of Federal taxes.

You do realize that there's a Nobel given out for Economist's yearly and the last time one that subscribed to the Laffer Curve theory won was before the milennium, right?

There is very little, possibly no dissention in the field of economics about the existance of a Laffer curve. The concept is near universially agreed upon. And most macroeconomic text books will derive the Laffer curve from base principles in their discussion of government spending and taxation. (There is a nice discussion of it in Robert Barro's text book. Milton Friedman also talks about it in his Price Theory text book as I recall).
The argument in the field of economics comes from attempts to find out what the laffer curve actually is. We could be on the left of it, on the right, near the top. The point is this debate isn't being had on a conceptual level. It is very possible for a lowering of taxes to raise revenue. End of story.

Your last comment is also very funny to me. yes indeed, nobel prize winners, who knew.

Quote from msun641

I've no idea about the current empirical research on the US's position on the Laffer Curve, but here is a little something:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/business/yourmoney/01view.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Even assuming the assumptions are too strict, we have maybe a 40% recoup of the straightforward tax revenue decline from a 10% decrease in taxes.

In other words, quit dreaming.

Pay attention my friend. Reread my post and see that I pointed out already that we may be at the top of the laffer curve. Open your eyes.

I like how you guys attempt to argue about this.
Well girls and boys lets talk about something called the Laffer Curve.

Everyone here is working off of some assumption that taxation and revenue are just a straight line when graphed. More taxes equals more revenue. But that can't be true, it has to be a curve. A tax rate of 0 means no revenue, and nobody would work at all if that tax rate was 100%. If you took home 0% of your income after taxes, there would be no incentive to work. So connecting the dots we can see that the relationship isn't linear.
That is by the laffer curve there are points when decreasing taxes INCREASES revenue. This all stems from the fact that more people are going to work when taxes are lower. This was a big thing during the Regan administration, as Laffer suggested that a lowering of taxes would increase revenue. This is called dynamic tax adjustment, and is a well founded idea in macroeconomics. There is a **** load of emperical evidence supporting this.
Exactly where we are on the laffer curve isn't clear, and doing this involves a great deal of research to try and derive consumers utility functions. At a conceptual level there is no debate. In a practical sense there is figuring out to do, but certainly no economists are seriously suggesting "1. Decrease Taxes. 2 ??? 3. Profit"

You're not a very good neoclassical economist. Any introductory textbook on neoclassical microeconomics has examples of welfare-enhancing taxes. To say that every other school monotonically prefers less taxes as well is just silly; that's only true of (among schools taught at accredited institutions) Austrianism. Pay more attention in class.

This isn't price theory, this is a conversation about income taxes and government spending. Take some macro courses and get back to me. It is clear emperically that taxation lowers hours worked. There is a strong negative relationship between social spending as % of GNP and hours worked. This observation has long been deemed a success of the neoclassical model, as theory strongly suggests this relationship.

You'll have to forgive me for saying that this sounds pretty much like you just learned the theory in school, so therefore it is true.

Why yes, it makes sense on one level to say that if an activity is "taxed" then people will "substitute away" from that activity, that also seems like a gross simplification. Especially when the "activity" we are talking about taxing here, is working to earn a living. Not quite so easy to simply "substitute away" from one's job.

This is a nice idea, but economically not sound. Taxation is exactly that, a tax on income. There is clearly a rate of taxation for which you would not work, maybe it is 100% maybe lower. When dealing with an entire population of people your statement becomes inaccurate. While what you said may be true for you, because you live pay check to pay check. Over an entire nation people will generally substitute away from labor when taxation increases. That is they substitute for activities in the household, leisure etc. I'm not saying a 1% change will cause people to go out and quit their jobs. But over the whole economy, hours worked will fall.

edit: I would also like to point out that the criticism on the wikipedia page is not a condemnation of the idea. All it is saying is that we may be near the top of the curve, where it is nearly flat. Like I said it's not clear how effective a tax lowering is in a practical sense. There needs to be research and study done for that. But we very well could be at a point near the peak of the curve where changing the tax rate would not have a large effect. So don't even try to pull that out.

Quote from pokerbob1

I think the argument goes like this

1) Reduce Taxes
2) ???
3) Profit!

Hey guys, actual economist here, just thought I'd chime in for you, let you know how wrong everyone is.

Taxes are bad. They hurt the economy. Regardless of what the tax is for. In neoclassical economics we don't like taxes. In fact in all schools of economics taxes have a agreed upon negative effect. This is simply because people substitute away from the behavior which is taxed. Simple to understand, right? This discussion doesn't need to be had, because taxing is a very complicated issue. An income tax causes people to work less. We obviously need some taxing for things like national defense. But how much taxing is required to accomplish certain things. It's all a balancing act.

But in general guess what Poker Bob, lowering taxes is going to grow the economy. People will work more, GDP will grow as a result. So there.

Whenever I feel like playing some magic I usually come to places like the casual forum throughout the web, looking for cool ideas. However the problem is, people just throw out ideas, and newer players go through the "I'm going to build a reanimator/megrim/underworld dreams/sliver deck" phase with no intention of ever building the deck.
That's why I thought we could have a thread where people actually post the casual/multiplayer decks they actual have built/tested/own/play and it would be a good resource to browse through. Feel free to post commentary, or ask questions about others decks.



This deck is a pretty fun combo/control deck. Basically the idea is to make some tokens with the viper or summons, you can use these to convoke out a chord of calling for various creatures. When you get out a crypic gateway a viper and a curio you can go infinite. In the meantime you are a nice token aggro deck, and you can living wish for any niche creatures to deal with specific threats.

So go ahead and post your decks.

Quote from loop

Haha. Even in a deck with a decent amount of card draw and packing all 8 fetches, the thinning effect is very small (+1 card, 2 max?) at best over 15-20 turns. See the links provided by kirbysdl for more information on that.

Now, running fetches for this very thinning effect in a deck with no draw, packing fetch hate (root maze), and aiming to win by turn 4-5 seems like the biggest lack of synergy ever. But I guess that's what good deckbuilding is.
Oh, and yeah, Stifle.

There is just so much bitterness in this post I don't really know how to respond. I typed out a brief "I can be a jerk too" type response, but I really didn't want to sink to your trolling. Your being snarky, so what, it's doing nothing but preventing helpful discussion.
We can sit here and argue, but you've never touched this deck, you've never played it, you've never took it to a top 8.
This should be playtested, it's proven stronger than the classic build that has existed for the last 10 years, shooting it down because it doesn't match with what is popular isn't really helping.

My general point is that the fetches do provide a benefit. the quoted articles question land thinning. But in all honesty if this gives me a 5% chance of preforming better, it's worth a shot. There are many things, in many decks which cause the loss of life, the discarding of a card, or the sacrifice of a creature, decks play these things because they have the possibility to help more than they do to hurt.
Stifle does exist, but how prevalant is it really? How many games come down to a single life? This should be playtested, for this reason.

Also please drop the "ha, ha", "But I guess that's what good deckbuilding is." in the future. Show a little respect please.

Quote from kirbysdl

Really?







To summarize, fetches help the following:

Fix your mana, but you're mono-green.
Build Thresh, but you have no thresh cards.
Help Goyf, but you don't run them.
Shuffle your library, but you don't run Top, Mirri's Guile, etc.

Fetches hurt:

Stifle exists (even if not in great numbers)
Blood Moon exists (it would likely be too slow to hurt you, but it's a downside)
Literally, they damage you

Now I've intentionally left out the reason why I think you're using fetches: deck thinning. Yes, fetches thin your deck an insignificant amount. More about meaningful deck thinning:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10898.html
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096

If you might be tempted into darkness by the recent starcity article about fetches, I've got your back:



Whoops, we just derailed this huh? Back on track, fetches don't meaningfully thin the deck, so they can be considered normal land in this case. And therefore: just use Forests if not Land Grants, and you'll have absolutely no problems with Root Maze, Stifle on fetch, Blood Moon, or wishing you had just one more life.

Let's say you draw a forest and a fetchland in the opening hand. You play the fetch, get a forest and pass. Your land count goes from 11 to 10. Meaning your chance of drawing a land second turn lowers 2% (11/53 - 10/53).
Now 2% may not seem like a lot. But playing without fetches puts you at a disadvantage by turn two 1 of every 50 games. And playing additional fetches lowers the chances even more. With each one used lowering the chances of drawing a land the next turn roughly 2%.
Frankly, this is better than nothing. The only question is whether the possible bad things happen frequently enough to negate the positive effect. That's what should be on debate here. How many games would you win if you only had 1 more life, 1/50? How often does Stifle turn up? 1/50 games? It's hard to say. But friday night not one stifle turned up, nor one blood moon. And no game came down to that one life.

The benefit may not be gigantic, but that's what good deckbuilding is. If I can plaster together a bunch of effects that win me 1 out of 50 games I might otherwise lose...
Every little bit helps.

Quote from kirbysdl

I think we can agree that Land Grant doesn't help your build much, but IMHO the fetches help it less.

I haven't heard any argument why Land Grant is good or the Fetches are bad. And if neither are good, what should be used instead. Frankly keeping the land count down in this deck is important. You need to be drawing threats, three lands is the upper limit of what you want to see. And you will be happy with just one, and in great shape with a second one. I think the land thinning is nessecary in the deck. And I can't see how you would disagree, as that's exactly the point of Land Grant. Both do the same thing. The interaction between them and Root Maze could be bad, but honestly if you play a rootmaze turn one and then draw a fetch next turn you're still fine. Sitting at one land for a turn is fine, especially when you have hate like Root Maze hurting an opponent.

And in how many of those times did the countertop player have a 5-drop in the top 3 cards of his library? If they didn't, whether top was out or not for Bounty is irrelevant. If they had the mana, why not just use Top or Brainstorm to put a 1-drop on the library and keep the Top? That your friend pulled this off 3 times in one night surprises me.

Who knows? That was kind of the point, Growth would also draw out a force of will. I don't know if your arguing for Giant Growth, against Bounty of the Hunt or what. My point is simply that having Growth never mattered a huge amount. It was simply a 1cc spell that drew out a counter or something.

Probably because of root maze. No offense, but I really do see quite a bit of inner conflict in this list.

Like I said, Root Maze only was drawn once the whole night. The Ranger wasn't very helpful ever. As a creature you always had something bigger and better to play as a threat. As utility, with two or three lands out you could play half of your hand, so the extra mana offered didn't amount to very much. The untapping could have been nice, but there wasn't many times when he wanted to attack with everything and keep guys back to block.

Two of those are merely cantrips, to which I'd suggest Manamorphose or Street Wraith. The others seem a bit unimpressive to me. We're low enough on mana that the one mana to cast Wisp is actually quite high, compared to its effects. Additionally, Insist is unlikely to get through Chalice or Countertop anyway. You might balk at the cost of Manamorphose, but if you only have one mana at your disposal, Wisp or Insist as your only play in a turn are really underwhelming. I'm currently using and loving Keen Sense though. =)

I think Wraith would be good. Just in general though I feel as if this deck could use a little more steam. Being able to draw a card or two extra would give you the pump spell you need to push in for the win a lot of the times.

Quote from kirbysdl

The Windswept Heaths confuse me. First, they have pretty horrible interaction with your Root Mazes. Secondly, why are they there at all? You don't need shuffling effects, you're not building thresh, you're not running Goyfs, you become more vulnerable to Stifle, and they don't really thin your deck to any useful degree.

Speaking of Root Maze, have you considered Winter Orb? Quirion Rangers love 'em, whereas Root Maze and Quirion Rangers don't really get along.

You mention using Giant Growth to get around Counterbalance, but you've enough 1-drops that it doesn't seem like it would help much. Llanowar Augur with Leyline of Lifeforce in the side seems like it would be nice for defeating Countertop, but otherwise Seal of Strength/Briar Shield seem superior.

Do you have enough Mana? The build I run uses 21 mana-related cards: 10 land, 4 Grant, 4 ESG, 3 Rangers. You've only got 17. That could be fine for a deck full of 1-drops, but you've 8 2-drops. That's pretty impressive if it works!

Hope that's useful. =)

The fetches serve the same purpose as Land Grant, except they are better in most ways. I don't understand the devotion to grant.
A fetch can be stifled, yes, but Grant can be countered outright. Few decks were running stifle that I saw, but most were running FoW at least. Revealing a no land hand to an opponent, and then having the Grant countered is devestating. It also can't be used if there are lands in your hand. And in a deck that relies around combat tricks and bluffs, revealing your hand is a bad call. I also forgot, the last four cards in the deck are ESG. Root Maze doesn't go well with the fetch, but really, it's not going to come up much.
You will never be without one mana. If all you have in your hand is a fetch and root maze, you can fetch then cast root maze first turn. Even if you draw a fetch on turn two with no other lands available, you've slowed them down as well, so it's not too big of a problem. But like I said, it rarely comes up. Drawing a fetch turn two with a root maze out isn't the worst thing that could happen.

Like I said, Giant Growth wasn't ever that good. But during at least three games where counter top was out, he swung, went to pump with Growth, forced top to be put onto their deck, then Bounty of the Hunted for the win.

I see Winter Orb and Root Maze as doing two different things. Root Maze really hurts decks that spend a lot of time replaying lands, like Aggro Loam and Angel Stax. It also shuts down a lot of potent artifacts, and the ability to hinder counter top by keeping the top tapped is really useful. Winter Orb is more useful against decks like MuC or Thres. But both in general serve the purpose of slowing down your opponent enough for you to get lethal damage in. Root Maze drops first turn, and is more useful against harder matchups than Winter Orb. I mean Winter Orb really cuts off Mono Blue Control, but really, that's already a good matchup for you. Yes Root Maze doesn't play well with fetches or Ranger (which sucks anyway), but it's faster and more efficient than Winter Orb.

Ranger just isn't very good. It was always the last elf to be played. And many games it sat in his hand doing nothing. It doesn't have any power, it doesn't do anything on the offense. Sometimes if would allow an elf to untap to block something the next turn, and even rarer was it allowing you to generate an extra mana. I think this ability mattered once in 7 rounds. I would just run another land and cut these for something else.

I also think this deck needs some card draw, cutting one of the pump spells and running some card drawing spells. Insist, Keen Sense and Viridescent Wisp are the three that would work, and I think that they should all be tried.

Overall this deck could use some tuning. I think another root maze maindeck would have been good, could have cut a wolf shaman for it. Quirion Ranger was good at times, but often times was pretty worthless. Giant Growth wasn't that good ever, except as a way to play around counter top, might try berserk instead. Bounty of the Hunt is amazing though, nearly every game was won on the back of a BotH.
An easy time was had against both Threshold and Goblins. Merfolk/Fish showed up, and was a pain, though a solid matchup. Aggro Loam could have been won very easily, a root maze first turn on the play would have won I feel, however the maze only showed up once in all 7 rounds somehow. His opponent laid out a turn 2 chalice set to 1 in both games, and he never drew more than a single forest both games. But in general I feel as if it was a good matchup.

This deck came in 4th at the open legacy event at the first day of nationals. It was first going into round 7 but lost to aggro loam off of two turn two chalices for 1.
However there was no Jungle Lion, no River Boa, no Elephant, no Berserk. It was all elf based, 11 forests and 2 fetches (no land grant). Bounty of the Hunt is incredible and won several games, especially over counter tops.
The deck wasn't playtested at all, so I feel that some minor improvements could have put it over the top. But it took both Thres and Goblin out pretty easily. It was fun seeing all the people gathered around in match 7, marveling at how stompy was in first in the last round. I think this deck is more competitive than people think.