I know that your are quite a reference and that you know this is a multiplayer thread, I have seen some of your guides and found great ideas in them. I am not saying that your advice isnt good, I was pointing out that, to me, your comment applied more to a duel environment than to a multiplayer game. I am sorry if my comment angered you, it was not intended.
------------------
You have to worry about the mid game or the end game if people break your combo (Force of Will) or if you dont draw the cards you need to reach your combo quickly.
I have a friend who used to play crazy fast decks all the time...he was running the power nine in every deck he was playing and his decks were always lightning-fast to try to win the game. In my playgroup, what happenned is that every game he was in, everyone else was always banding together against him until he would win the game or run out of fuel than we would just kill him outright if he didnt win already...to prevent him from winning the game on turn 4 or something similar. What happenned is that he eventually changed his kind of decks and went for decks with a slower start but that were more long-lasting.
----------------
The feedback I am giving is based on things I have observed within my playgroup and other players i've played with in a "Casual" and "Multiplayer" environement...so, yes, you might very well call them opinions and these observations apply to my playgroup...it might not apply to yours, since every playgroup must be unique in it's experience (some people in my group have been playing together for more than 20 years). I am tossing my comments here (call them opinions) because I feel that some of these comments might help someone in that situation or give them useful ideas if their playgroup is similar to mine. If your playgroup is a group of players all playing decks that are trying to win the game on turn 2, well you obviously should be adapting to that fact and thinking more about the early game than about the late game since the odds of seing the turn 5 are obviously lower than in other playgroups.
I have seen a playgroup where the players were all piling up a wall of creatures in front of them and werent attacking until something like turn 10...and they have been playing that way for years...they had an unwritten rule saying that they dont attack until turn 10 and they dont try to win until turn 10...it was weird to me but each group has their own way of seing the game and we must all remember that the goal is not really to win...the goal is to have fun.
We all builds decks to win...but the deeper goal is to have fun.If we could build a deck that would be unstoppable and that would win 100% of the games on turn 1 100% of the time...that deck would be the most boring deck out there and people would quickly learn not to play it in a casual environment.
I have a friend who used to play crazy fast decks all the time...he was running the power nine in every deck he was playing and his decks were always lightning-fast to try to win the game...
I bet he had the highest overall win % by a substantial margin. Looking purely at results, not "aggregate fun per game" or any other subjective factor, I'd wager just about anything that what he was doing was "totally insane and work[ed] very very very well" relative to his expected win % of 1/N% when N is the number of players.
I don't disagree with anything that you've said, I'm purposely being argumentative, I just dislike it when people say things like "Planewalkers decks are totally insane." It's not true. That statement only becomes true when you start to add a ton of qualifications to it. "Planewalkers decks are totally insane when your opponents are playing fair, budget, underpowered, creature-based strategies" is more accurate. The reality is that turn 1 Waste Not turn 2 Windfall is insane. Turn 1 Dark RitualEntomb on Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur + Animate Dead is insane. Turn 1 Carpet of Flowers turn 2 Basalt Monolith turn 3 Sylvan Primordial is insane. Turn 1 Limited Resources turn 2 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben is insane. That's what legitimately insane MP decks/strategies/archetypes look like. The game is over or virtually over by turn 2-4.
Casting PWers isn't insane but they're solid if people are playing casual decks. That's fine. It's ok for that to be a thing. That being said I don't see the value is stating "PWers are insane" if it's not true. If you have to ban an entire archetype and include the disclaimer "people can't be playing real decks" then what you're doing isn't powerful. Period. I agree with you that turn 2 win decks are garbage and shouldn't be played. I agree with you that MP is about more than overall win %. That being said there's no value is saying "Strategy X is amazing" when it isn't. Call a spade a spade.
Yes, my friend was winning games quite often mainly because he was the only player with the power nine cards, it gave him an undeniable advantage. Also, we rarely play free-for-all games and we play more team games so he didnt have that much opposition. However, he wasnt the one having the most fun and he was the first one to quit the game. He quit about 10 years ago and sold all his cards now while all of us are still playing. In my mind, he was too much focused on winning and not enough on trying to have fun.
Yeah, I agree that when you compare to a deck that wins on turn 2, planewalkers arent that sick...but I'm saying that a well-built planewalker deck can quickly and repeatedly activate the ultimate ability of their planeswalkers and it's an impressive deck to play against. The way I answered was mainly based on the fact that I was surprised to see planeswalkers listed as a card that was hard to play in a succesful deck.
The way I answered was mainly based on the fact that I was surprised to see planeswalkers listed as a card that was hard to play in a succesful deck.
Because they are.
They're value engines that die to creatures. You're sitting down in a MP match, everyone is at 20. Someone Black Lotuses out a JTMS. What do you swing your Grizzly Bears at? Do you hit someone for 2 or Jace? 100% of players hit Jace 100% of the time. All things being equal you target PWers over players because hitting players for trivial amounts of damage doesn't accomplish anything. So many actions taken in MP are made "all things being equal" and once you break that parity you separate yourself from the pack. Hitting a PWer is way better than hitting a player so you give people a strong incentive to make a nonrandom decision. Hitting your PWer is better than hitting a player the vast majority of the time and that "bulls-eye" is a monumental drawback. You become the center of attention for no significant benefit and that's a horrendous place to be.
They're bad value. Is pumping out a 3/3 or drawing a card or tapping some permanents value? Compared to Rhystic Study, Gray Merchant of Asphodel, Lurking Predators, Consecrated Sphinx, Sylvan Primordial, etc. do those effects matter in the slightest? Not really no. Very few PWers have scaling effects that thrive in MP scenarios. They have crappy +/- abilities and unobtainable ultimates. They activate once (max twice) and perish without having accomplished anything meaningful.
They're are scary. Virtually all PWers have an Ult that reads "target player loses the game" (or better) and that will make the entire table uncomfortable. That is, not only are the cards weaker than scaling alternatives but they're also scarier. People feel forced to remove PWers to avoid losing to their emblems down the road. As such they'll jump through hoops and expend additional resources to remove them. That's the crippling flaw of slow, marginal value engines that have "Suspend 5: you win the game" written on them. People see that and go "Hell no" and put a stop to it. it's the only logical + rational reaction because the alternative is to die a horrible death. Screw that.
Playing mass removal isn't good enough. It's still multiplayer. Playing 6x Wrath of God doesn't obsolete creatures. It's still Hella hard to control the board and keep it stable for PWers. People will still be able to pressure them the vast majority of the time.
In free-for-all multiplayer games, they would be, I agree...you'd need a way to abuse them as you play them otherwise they will do exactly as you stated.
We havent had that much problem playing planeswalkers in my playgroup because we rarely play free for all...we usually either play team games or we have players that we cannot end up in team with so they are our natural ennemies...so the creatures dont live long...even if you dont kill them, that player's natural ennemies will most likely kill the creatures or that player wont have any real interest in killing your planeswalker if you're not one of it's designated ennemies...so you have a lower amount of players to protect your planeswalkers against (2-3 players instead of 5 or 6)...it's why the planeswalkers usually get to stay a while on the table even if the deck isnt focused around them.
However, I tried to run some Koth of the Hammer in my mono-red deck when the card was printed but I found out the hard way that red has a hard-hard time at protecting it's planeswalkers and it wasnt a succesful experiment.
We havent had that much problem playing planeswalkers in my playgroup because we rarely play free for all...we usually either play team games or we have players that we cannot end up in team with so they are our natural ennemies...
In duel formats the ratio of allies:enemies is 1:1. In 2HG it's also 1:1. That's why they translate decently well in 2HG or 3HG or whatever. It's still a 1:1 ratio of allies:enemies.
Always remember that we are talking multiplayer here....not duel...
Funny, because when you describe your group, turns out you are playing glorified duels, which is why PWs work well for you. Those of us who play actual FFA multiplayer are the ones saying PWs are difficult to jam in successful decks.
My playgroup generally agree to stay as far as possible from the "free for all" game situation...no because it cannot be fun, but because it has a tendency to cause players to just sit and watch the others play instead of actively trying to win the game. What usually happens is that if you attack one opponent, you leave yourself open for retaliation by the other 4 or 5 opponents. In the end, the people who attack more quickly end up being the first to die. Also, if that person is trying to run a combo deck or to control the board or the game, they will end up with 5 opponents united against that person until the person dies. Dying early really isnt fun because you have to wait for the game to finish before you start another...and playing the waiting game isnt more fun either because it takes forever to finish a game.
The main two types of game we play is:
1) 5 players, when someone dies, the other 4 are in teams of 2 vs 2 with combined life totals. The teams are formed so each person attacks on the left. So, in the initial game, you cannot end up in team with the people left and right of you but you can end up in team with the other 2...so any life they lose might be life that you will lose in the end game.
2) Any even number of players, we play team games, different kinds.
That way there are less people looking to kill you or your creatures and people are bolder in their moves...there is more action and the games are more fun.
There wasnt any "glorified duels" section in these forums (dont bother creating one, I dont consider them glorified duels either :P) so you'll have to bear with me, I'm afraid ;P
Yup, we're running all kinds of cards...most decks are killing with creatures but some decks kill in other ways, it's just rarer. We've been playing together for quite a while and our way of building deck changed with time.
At first, between the start and maybe Alliance, people would play a lot of Counterspells...any blue deck was automatically filled with them and when someone played something strong, there was automatically a counterspell poping up usually countered by another counterspell and so on. Direct damage or land destruction were seen as bad ways of winning games....I had a mono white weenie deck running some Consecrate Land, Cleansing and Armageddon and people didnt like it...I rarely played it at all.
Then people got sick of counterspells...around the time that Tempest was released...and you could go weeks before seing any counterspell being played.
Counterspells eventually came back more often in our games recently...maybe 4 years ago.
As for "walls of creatures"...I'm sure you saw me mention a few times that there is quite a bit of creature removal and that things like Lightning Greaves end up making a big difference since most strong creatures dont have time to lose summon sickness and giving them shroud is an added bonus to the haste part.
I even run Steely Resolve over Lightning Greaves in some deck because of the amount of instant speed removals that get cast in response to the greaves getting equipped. So we dont have that many creatures in play at any given time.
Rakdos is a weird dude, he asks for a cheap deck so you can damage your opponent and cast him, but his second ability plays against the first one, making it really hard to actually benefit from the cost reduction mechanic...
Building around a trio of 4 drops is kinda of rough. You want a bell-curve, not a bell-tower :P. That being said there's a ton of ways to build BW. You could always go for something like:
And you can obviously make the manabase as affordable or expensive as you want it to be. I chose budget options but feel free to spring for more expensive ones.
Hi, thanks for your replay, this looks quite good in my book! What makes Benevolent Offering good though? Isn't something that benefits only me better? Especially in the infamous 4cc slot, which seems to be pretty stacket in BW. If not Congregate, the Gray Merchant of Asphodel seems to be popular around here. Maybe I'm just underestimating the offering, though...
Most "Offering" cards are significantly better than they look. In fact, Sylvan Offering is one of the most underrated token cards in the game IMO. First of all BO puts 6 creatures into play which is 6 triggers per Soul Warden. That is a lot of life. Moreover, it acts as a pseudo Congregate in that it gains a bunch of life but since raw lifegain doesn't actually win games (barring cards like Test of Endurance and Felidar Sovereign) this card legitimately adds to your board. W.r.t. to giving someone else fliers, why would that be a bad thing? It's not as though he'll have any incentive to mess with you (you'll have way too much life) and 6 flying power for 4 mana is solid. Even if you have to face them down again at the end end, who cares? Why is a 2-horse race a bad thing in a MP setting? Assuming a 4 player game you only have base 25% probability of winning and so you should be more than willing to team up with someone for a showdown in the finals. A 50% probability of winning is still a Hell of a lot better than 25%.
You don't have to run the card, jam whatever you want, but I do think that "2-horse race" cards are criminally undervalued in multiplayer. Working with someone to take out the remaining players is a fantastic way to maximize your overall win % since your base probability is extremely low. This is why is makes sense to cast cards like Trade Secrets since even though it significantly helps someone else a 50% probability of winning is a dramatic shift from 25%.
Most "Offering" cards are significantly better than they look. In fact, Sylvan Offering is one of the most underrated token cards in the game IMO. First of all BO puts 6 creatures into play which is 6 triggers per Soul Warden. That is a lot of life. Moreover, it acts as a pseudo Congregate in that it gains a bunch of life but since raw lifegain doesn't actually win games (barring cards like Test of Endurance and Felidar Sovereign) this card legitimately adds to your board. W.r.t. to giving someone else fliers, why would that be a bad thing? It's not as though he'll have any incentive to mess with you (you'll have way too much life) and 6 flying power for 4 mana is solid. Even if you have to face them down again at the end end, who cares? Why is a 2-horse race a bad thing in a MP setting? Assuming a 4 player game you only have base 25% probability of winning and so you should be more than willing to team up with someone for a showdown in the finals. A 50% probability of winning is still a Hell of a lot better than 25%.
Long time lurker and been getting back into magic after playing it casually as a kid. Got myself a mono blue prison deck that centered around Jace's Sanctum. I love the way the deck works in regular 1 v 1. But it doesn't seem to have enough steam or start fast enough in multiplayer. Anyone got a multiplayer deck that utilizes Jace's Sanctum?
Start a new thread with your question and a relevant subject in the titel.
That way people will be triggered to respond.
(Because of "new and shiny thread"...)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In magic there's Harry Dresden, Fizban, Sethra Lavode, Dorotea Senjak and me...
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
And if you're worried about creatures you can always toss in a mass removal spell such as Toxic Deluge or Whelming Wave. Note that Remand/Unsubstantiate is basically just there to bounce your own Storm spells to double their value. Otherwise it's too difficult to burn the table out in one go. Counter spells if you need to but their average use-case is bouncing your Tendrils/Desires.
------------------
You have to worry about the mid game or the end game if people break your combo (Force of Will) or if you dont draw the cards you need to reach your combo quickly.
I have a friend who used to play crazy fast decks all the time...he was running the power nine in every deck he was playing and his decks were always lightning-fast to try to win the game. In my playgroup, what happenned is that every game he was in, everyone else was always banding together against him until he would win the game or run out of fuel than we would just kill him outright if he didnt win already...to prevent him from winning the game on turn 4 or something similar. What happenned is that he eventually changed his kind of decks and went for decks with a slower start but that were more long-lasting.
----------------
The feedback I am giving is based on things I have observed within my playgroup and other players i've played with in a "Casual" and "Multiplayer" environement...so, yes, you might very well call them opinions and these observations apply to my playgroup...it might not apply to yours, since every playgroup must be unique in it's experience (some people in my group have been playing together for more than 20 years). I am tossing my comments here (call them opinions) because I feel that some of these comments might help someone in that situation or give them useful ideas if their playgroup is similar to mine. If your playgroup is a group of players all playing decks that are trying to win the game on turn 2, well you obviously should be adapting to that fact and thinking more about the early game than about the late game since the odds of seing the turn 5 are obviously lower than in other playgroups.
I have seen a playgroup where the players were all piling up a wall of creatures in front of them and werent attacking until something like turn 10...and they have been playing that way for years...they had an unwritten rule saying that they dont attack until turn 10 and they dont try to win until turn 10...it was weird to me but each group has their own way of seing the game and we must all remember that the goal is not really to win...the goal is to have fun.
We all builds decks to win...but the deeper goal is to have fun.If we could build a deck that would be unstoppable and that would win 100% of the games on turn 1 100% of the time...that deck would be the most boring deck out there and people would quickly learn not to play it in a casual environment.
I bet he had the highest overall win % by a substantial margin. Looking purely at results, not "aggregate fun per game" or any other subjective factor, I'd wager just about anything that what he was doing was "totally insane and work[ed] very very very well" relative to his expected win % of 1/N% when N is the number of players.
I don't disagree with anything that you've said, I'm purposely being argumentative, I just dislike it when people say things like "Planewalkers decks are totally insane." It's not true. That statement only becomes true when you start to add a ton of qualifications to it. "Planewalkers decks are totally insane when your opponents are playing fair, budget, underpowered, creature-based strategies" is more accurate. The reality is that turn 1 Waste Not turn 2 Windfall is insane. Turn 1 Dark Ritual Entomb on Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur + Animate Dead is insane. Turn 1 Carpet of Flowers turn 2 Basalt Monolith turn 3 Sylvan Primordial is insane. Turn 1 Limited Resources turn 2 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben is insane. That's what legitimately insane MP decks/strategies/archetypes look like. The game is over or virtually over by turn 2-4.
Casting PWers isn't insane but they're solid if people are playing casual decks. That's fine. It's ok for that to be a thing. That being said I don't see the value is stating "PWers are insane" if it's not true. If you have to ban an entire archetype and include the disclaimer "people can't be playing real decks" then what you're doing isn't powerful. Period. I agree with you that turn 2 win decks are garbage and shouldn't be played. I agree with you that MP is about more than overall win %. That being said there's no value is saying "Strategy X is amazing" when it isn't. Call a spade a spade.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Yeah, I agree that when you compare to a deck that wins on turn 2, planewalkers arent that sick...but I'm saying that a well-built planewalker deck can quickly and repeatedly activate the ultimate ability of their planeswalkers and it's an impressive deck to play against. The way I answered was mainly based on the fact that I was surprised to see planeswalkers listed as a card that was hard to play in a succesful deck.
Because they are.
They're value engines that die to creatures. You're sitting down in a MP match, everyone is at 20. Someone Black Lotuses out a JTMS. What do you swing your Grizzly Bears at? Do you hit someone for 2 or Jace? 100% of players hit Jace 100% of the time. All things being equal you target PWers over players because hitting players for trivial amounts of damage doesn't accomplish anything. So many actions taken in MP are made "all things being equal" and once you break that parity you separate yourself from the pack. Hitting a PWer is way better than hitting a player so you give people a strong incentive to make a nonrandom decision. Hitting your PWer is better than hitting a player the vast majority of the time and that "bulls-eye" is a monumental drawback. You become the center of attention for no significant benefit and that's a horrendous place to be.
They're bad value. Is pumping out a 3/3 or drawing a card or tapping some permanents value? Compared to Rhystic Study, Gray Merchant of Asphodel, Lurking Predators, Consecrated Sphinx, Sylvan Primordial, etc. do those effects matter in the slightest? Not really no. Very few PWers have scaling effects that thrive in MP scenarios. They have crappy +/- abilities and unobtainable ultimates. They activate once (max twice) and perish without having accomplished anything meaningful.
They're are scary. Virtually all PWers have an Ult that reads "target player loses the game" (or better) and that will make the entire table uncomfortable. That is, not only are the cards weaker than scaling alternatives but they're also scarier. People feel forced to remove PWers to avoid losing to their emblems down the road. As such they'll jump through hoops and expend additional resources to remove them. That's the crippling flaw of slow, marginal value engines that have "Suspend 5: you win the game" written on them. People see that and go "Hell no" and put a stop to it. it's the only logical + rational reaction because the alternative is to die a horrible death. Screw that.
Playing mass removal isn't good enough. It's still multiplayer. Playing 6x Wrath of God doesn't obsolete creatures. It's still Hella hard to control the board and keep it stable for PWers. People will still be able to pressure them the vast majority of the time.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
We havent had that much problem playing planeswalkers in my playgroup because we rarely play free for all...we usually either play team games or we have players that we cannot end up in team with so they are our natural ennemies...so the creatures dont live long...even if you dont kill them, that player's natural ennemies will most likely kill the creatures or that player wont have any real interest in killing your planeswalker if you're not one of it's designated ennemies...so you have a lower amount of players to protect your planeswalkers against (2-3 players instead of 5 or 6)...it's why the planeswalkers usually get to stay a while on the table even if the deck isnt focused around them.
However, I tried to run some Koth of the Hammer in my mono-red deck when the card was printed but I found out the hard way that red has a hard-hard time at protecting it's planeswalkers and it wasnt a succesful experiment.
In duel formats the ratio of allies:enemies is 1:1. In 2HG it's also 1:1. That's why they translate decently well in 2HG or 3HG or whatever. It's still a 1:1 ratio of allies:enemies.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Funny, because when you describe your group, turns out you are playing glorified duels, which is why PWs work well for you. Those of us who play actual FFA multiplayer are the ones saying PWs are difficult to jam in successful decks.
My Powered 630 card Vintage Multiplayer Cube
cEDH: WUBR Blue Farm WUBR, UG Kinnan Flips UG, U Urza Scepter U
The main two types of game we play is:
1) 5 players, when someone dies, the other 4 are in teams of 2 vs 2 with combined life totals. The teams are formed so each person attacks on the left. So, in the initial game, you cannot end up in team with the people left and right of you but you can end up in team with the other 2...so any life they lose might be life that you will lose in the end game.
2) Any even number of players, we play team games, different kinds.
That way there are less people looking to kill you or your creatures and people are bolder in their moves...there is more action and the games are more fun.
There wasnt any "glorified duels" section in these forums (dont bother creating one, I dont consider them glorified duels either :P) so you'll have to bear with me, I'm afraid ;P
At first, between the start and maybe Alliance, people would play a lot of Counterspells...any blue deck was automatically filled with them and when someone played something strong, there was automatically a counterspell poping up usually countered by another counterspell and so on. Direct damage or land destruction were seen as bad ways of winning games....I had a mono white weenie deck running some Consecrate Land, Cleansing and Armageddon and people didnt like it...I rarely played it at all.
Then people got sick of counterspells...around the time that Tempest was released...and you could go weeks before seing any counterspell being played.
We've seen all kinds of decks with all kinds of way people could die (Underworld Dreams, Megrim, Traumatize+Haunting Echoes, Jester's Cap your whole deck, Stuffy Doll, Prosperity for 80 cards, Battle of Wits, etc etc....). Of course, most of us dont do tournaments and dont take any interest in specific formats since we follow the Vintage banlist (the reason why we'd run only 1 Brainstorm in a deck).
Counterspells eventually came back more often in our games recently...maybe 4 years ago.
As for "walls of creatures"...I'm sure you saw me mention a few times that there is quite a bit of creature removal and that things like Lightning Greaves end up making a big difference since most strong creatures dont have time to lose summon sickness and giving them shroud is an added bonus to the haste part.
I even run Steely Resolve over Lightning Greaves in some deck because of the amount of instant speed removals that get cast in response to the greaves getting equipped. So we dont have that many creatures in play at any given time.
Each playgroup is different I guess.
Death Cloud control.
9x Forest
7x Swamp
4x Golgari Guildgate
4x Jungle Hollow
Creatures (6)
4x Sakura-Tribe Elder
2x Abyssal Gatekeeper
4x Search for Tomorrow
4x Innocent Blood
4x Explore
4x Smallpox
4x Death Cloud
4x Explosive Vegetation
2x Massacre
3x Vraska the Unseen
1x Liliana Vess
Something close to this. The best way to prevent people from killing Vraska is to remove all of their creatures, lands and cards in hand
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
But it certainly did not rule each game.
My mono black: big mana, life gain, card draw, do whatever I want deck plus some GY toys is way more dangerous.
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
Looks interesting, I will have to give it a go. Are there any non budget options that would make the deck better, besides the mana base?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Staffthis one: http://deckstats.net/decks/19632/288605-rakdos-midrange-riot/en
seems to be the one I've liked the most
4 Rakdos, Lord of Riots
2 Knollspine Dragon
2 Sheoldred, Whispering One
2 Balefire Dragon
Burn
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Incinerate
4 Rift Bolt
4 Volcanic Fallout
4 Smash to Smithereens
4 Staggershock
4 Dark Ritual
6 Mountain
4 Swamp
4 Graven Cairns
4 Blood Crypt
4 Dragonskull Summit
doesn't seem good enough.
really cluncky.
Rakdos is a weird dude, he asks for a cheap deck so you can damage your opponent and cast him, but his second ability plays against the first one, making it really hard to actually benefit from the cost reduction mechanic...
any ideas?
That Eldrazi flinger or Bosh?
Some (repetitive) forms of direct damage, serious card draw and colorless bad asses.
Should be fun.
(Siege-Gang Commander, Goblin Sharpshooter, Crypt Rats etceterat, etceterat, etceterat.)
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
But yes, they're very vulnerable.
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
Building around a trio of 4 drops is kinda of rough. You want a bell-curve, not a bell-tower :P. That being said there's a ton of ways to build BW. You could always go for something like:
7x Plains
6x Swamp
4x Orzhov Basilica
4x Scoured Barrens
2x Orzhov Guildgate
1x Vault of the Archangel
4x Soul Warden
4x Soul's Attendant
4x Tithe Drinker
4x Ajani's Pridemate
1x Vizkopa Guildmage
1x Athreos, God of Passage
4x Divinity of Pride
2x Exsanguinate
4x Lingering Souls
4x Syphon Mind
2x Kaya, Ghost Assassin
2x Benevolent Offering
And you can obviously make the manabase as affordable or expensive as you want it to be. I chose budget options but feel free to spring for more expensive ones.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Most "Offering" cards are significantly better than they look. In fact, Sylvan Offering is one of the most underrated token cards in the game IMO. First of all BO puts 6 creatures into play which is 6 triggers per Soul Warden. That is a lot of life. Moreover, it acts as a pseudo Congregate in that it gains a bunch of life but since raw lifegain doesn't actually win games (barring cards like Test of Endurance and Felidar Sovereign) this card legitimately adds to your board. W.r.t. to giving someone else fliers, why would that be a bad thing? It's not as though he'll have any incentive to mess with you (you'll have way too much life) and 6 flying power for 4 mana is solid. Even if you have to face them down again at the end end, who cares? Why is a 2-horse race a bad thing in a MP setting? Assuming a 4 player game you only have base 25% probability of winning and so you should be more than willing to team up with someone for a showdown in the finals. A 50% probability of winning is still a Hell of a lot better than 25%.
You don't have to run the card, jam whatever you want, but I do think that "2-horse race" cards are criminally undervalued in multiplayer. Working with someone to take out the remaining players is a fantastic way to maximize your overall win % since your base probability is extremely low. This is why is makes sense to cast cards like Trade Secrets since even though it significantly helps someone else a 50% probability of winning is a dramatic shift from 25%.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Seconding this. Sylvan Offering/Benevolent Offering are silly, especially in multiples, and they get even sillier with even minimal support (Soul Sisters, Shamanic Revelation, Ezuri's Predation, Beastmaster Ascension).
That way people will be triggered to respond.
(Because of "new and shiny thread"...)
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
Storm or Prison should both work decently well.
8x Island
4x Polluted Delta
4x Drowned Catacomb
4x Watery Grave
4x Preordain
4x High Tide
4x Impulse
4x Merchant Scroll
4x Remand
4x Frantic Search
4x Turnabout
4x Jace's Sanctum
4x Tendrils of Agony
4x Mind's Desire
And if you're worried about creatures you can always toss in a mass removal spell such as Toxic Deluge or Whelming Wave. Note that Remand/Unsubstantiate is basically just there to bounce your own Storm spells to double their value. Otherwise it's too difficult to burn the table out in one go. Counter spells if you need to but their average use-case is bouncing your Tendrils/Desires.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold