Why do you care about your opponent getting past land clumps and drawing "gas?"
because I like to win games and one of the worst ways to do that is by giving your opponent more cards. There's a reason Library of Alexandria is on the restricted list in vintage: if you draw twice as many cards as your opponent, it becomes very hard for them to beat you.
If you have a creature that makes me draw 50% more cards than you do, and you paid your own mana and a card for it, and I only lose 2 for the gamble to go up a card, it's a very good day for me.
For one, it's not 50%, it's more like 33%. The other 67% of the time, I know your next topdeck and can play around it accordingly (unless you crack a fetch, but then I don't mind you going down a life and taking a land out of your deck so that my Guide's next attack is less likely to hit a land). That, or you have to use library manipulation right then, and not at a time when your deck would normally prefer to use it. Plus, against a lot of decks, that land is usually a dual or a fetch (which will get a dual), so that makes Price of Progress better.
A turn one Guide really is the best play a Burn deck can make. The majority of the time his drawback is actually a benefit, since I get to see what deck you're on (even if I give you a land, that combined with your next play, or your previous play if I was on the draw, can often tell me what deck you're on). There's not much that draws a turn-one Force of Will like a Goblin Guide on the play does.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rules Advisor (as of the last time they offered that certification).
Quote from "William Lyon Mackenzie King" »
There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.
I don't play decks. I solve optimization problems.
Currently solving:
Standard: Too poor for this format.
Modern: GW Auras, Living End, WB TurboFog, UB Mill, UR Storm
Legacy: R Burn, GU Infect, RG Lands, B Contamination
If you have a creature that makes me draw 50% more cards than you do, and you paid your own mana and a card for it, and I only lose 2 for the gamble to go up a card, it's a very good day for me.
I'm asking you specifically what those cards you're drawing are and what they're doing against your opponent playing "Deal 3 Damage: The Deck." Lands aren't doing a whole lot for you when you can only play one a turn, so your point is that a Goblin Guide player is drawing you to the cards that you are going to use to beat them. Specifically, what sorts of cards are you playing in your deck that a Burn player should fear helping you draw to, and why should they fear making you draw those cards more than they should fear letting you reach the later turns of the game?
As an izzet mage, I'm going to translate goblin guide from red-speak to blue-speak for you:
U
Merfolk Guide
Haste
Whenever Merfolk Guide attacks, defending player reveals the top card of his or her library. If it's a land card, that player puts it into his or her hand.
When Merfolk Guide deals combat damage to a player, prevent that damage and draw a card.
2/2
I'm not sure how "This card is 4-6 damage for 1 mana" isn't enough for Jugglervr to understand.
Oh, I understand it alright, but you're forgetting to mention the "give your opponent a free dark confidant on your dime" downside in your little write-up.
Goblin guide is BAD for the same reasons Dark Confidant is GOOD. Both give card advantage in exchange for life. The only difference is that my opponent had to pay for and lose a card for the goblin guide, but I still get near-dark-confidant-level benefits from it.
Why dont you just go find a Legacy Jund player and ask them about how much they must love their Burn matchup?
Goblin Guide is giving you 2/3 of a Bolt every time he attacks. That means he's effectively generating card advantage for you even if half of your opponents deck were land (which its not, seriously, not even close)
Why do you care about your opponent getting past land clumps and drawing "gas?"
because I like to win games and one of the worst ways to do that is by giving your opponent more cards. There's a reason Library of Alexandria is on the restricted list in vintage: if you draw twice as many cards as your opponent, it becomes very hard for them to beat you.
If you have a creature that makes me draw 50% more cards than you do, and you paid your own mana and a card for it, and I only lose 2 for the gamble to go up a card, it's a very good day for me.
It's an equally good day for me, if my opponent is ignorant enough to ignore other axis of the game just to draw more cards, especially when they are constantly losing life (the equivalent of allowing the opponent to draw a card) and/or using Brainstorms at inopportune times to guarantee the extra land, especially in a format where 90% of the lands cost 1 life to use and/or will increase the power of Price of Progress.
Goblin Guide is the best aggressive red one-drop, with a drawback that has had years of testing behind it to fully understand how other decks interact with its drawback. If you think that the axis of damage to cards is irrelevant and can be fully countermanded with more cards, then I find it hard to believe that you have years of experience playing MTG. This is entire premise of what Sligh was built on, and why it became successful - if you want a modern day example with Goblin Guide of this, watch Patrick Sullivan's win of SCG Open Edison in 2011 vs a field of Caw-Blade.
As an izzet mage, I'm going to translate goblin guide from red-speak to blue-speak for you:
U
Merfolk Guide
Haste
Whenever Merfolk Guide attacks, defending player reveals the top card of his or her library. If it's a land card, that player puts it into his or her hand.
When Merfolk Guide deals combat damage to a player, prevent that damage and draw a card.
2/2
This card seems pretty good, right?
I have a better idea, find me another 2/2 with haste for 1 mana... (there is no such creature)
Why do you care about your opponent getting past land clumps and drawing "gas?"
because I like to win games and one of the worst ways to do that is by giving your opponent more cards. There's a reason Library of Alexandria is on the restricted list in vintage: if you draw twice as many cards as your opponent, it becomes very hard for them to beat you.
If you have a creature that makes me draw 50% more cards than you do, and you paid your own mana and a card for it, and I only lose 2 for the gamble to go up a card, it's a very good day for me.
First off, there is only a 1/3 of a chance the opponent will draw a land.
Second, most opponents feel the same and allow the Goblin Guide to attack for the first two turns...
Back to the Dark Confidant comparison. Imagine if Dark Confidant read:
-At the beginning of your upkeep reveal the top card of your library and lose 2 life. If it's a land card put it into your hand.
No one would play that. Why? It's a Phyrexian Arena that is 6x worse. (2x worse because of double lifeloss, 3x worse because it only draws a card every three turns.)
unless you crack a fetch, but then I don't mind you going down a life and taking a land out of your deck so that my Guide's next attack is less likely to hit a land).
now THIS is the best argument I've heard yet. The current fetchland fetish (combined with the near-crazy-norwegian style of low land counts) definitely reduces the chances of hitting the land. I don't necessarily agree with the current prevalence of fetchlands, either but that's neither here nor there.
Back to the Dark Confidant comparison. Imagine if Dark Confidant read:
-At the beginning of your upkeep reveal the top card of your library and lose 2 life. If it's a land card put it into your hand.
And tangle wire your opponent for one, and they discard a card. And you draw a card when you play it. And its mana cost is zero. You have to examine all the effects of your hypothetical card.
I'm asking you specifically what those cards you're drawing are and what they're doing against your opponent playing "Deal 3 Damage: The Deck."
and I'm specifically ignoring you because it's a *snip* question. The answer is "whatever in the deck can help". If your argument is that no cards in anyone's decks can help against burn, then we're pretty much done.
I'm really just curious what he's replacing Goblin Guide with that's so much better.
well, obviously if I had something in mind, I'd have mentioned it by now. There are a number of options, yes, including jackal pup because it's only bad against 4 cards in most peoples' decks. I'm just evaluating the card on its own merits and I find it severely lacking.
Possibly because I find that decks that try to zerg to 20 with zero midgame to be astoundingly bad, so I guess the answer is, "something that costs 2 and is actually good"
The reason I bring up jackal pup, even though he's been pretty much pushed out of contention, is that he was part of the mid-school sligh decks that were able to kill by turn 4. I'm also very mindful that blind aggro decks can very easily be derailed before they hit the goal by even the most modest of midrange decks. This makes me very cautious to avoid giving my opponent a free chance to dig another card deeper to find their... thragtusk. leyline, whatever is bad for the game plan.
Here are the little self-imposed guidelines I'm working with for the multiplayer decks I've been building:
• Must be cheap. Total price tag < $100, preferably < $50. Ideally ~$30. No one card greater than about ~$6
• Format: Modern (makes getting the cards somewhat easier for the play group, and almost all my cards are Modern-legal)
• Must be relatively interesting in 1:1 games. I don't need to win against Splinter Twin, but I should be able to play duels now and then
• Avoid instant-win combos; they only serve to make me target #1, and then the deck is worse than useless because I get killed first, every time
• Must have a funny name!
This makes me very cautious to avoid giving my opponent a free chance to dig another card deeper to find their... thragtusk. leyline, whatever is bad for the game plan.
Again, here's the issue -- you can dig to find those cards all you want, but you'll be dead before you can cast them. (and what competitive deck is playing Thragtusk or trying to hardcast a Leyline?)
Again, here's the issue -- you can dig to find those cards all you want, but you'll be dead before you can cast them.
ok, you play burn and I play any deck I choose, and I start with half my deck in my hand and have no max hand size. If you think you're still going to win even a fraction of the time, I'll thank you for the excellent belly laugh.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Here are the little self-imposed guidelines I'm working with for the multiplayer decks I've been building:
• Must be cheap. Total price tag < $100, preferably < $50. Ideally ~$30. No one card greater than about ~$6
• Format: Modern (makes getting the cards somewhat easier for the play group, and almost all my cards are Modern-legal)
• Must be relatively interesting in 1:1 games. I don't need to win against Splinter Twin, but I should be able to play duels now and then
• Avoid instant-win combos; they only serve to make me target #1, and then the deck is worse than useless because I get killed first, every time
• Must have a funny name!
Again, here's the issue -- you can dig to find those cards all you want, but you'll be dead before you can cast them.
ok, you play burn and I play any deck I choose, and I start with half my deck in my hand and have no max hand size. If you think you're still going to win even a fraction of the time, I'll thank you for the excellent belly laugh.
What...there is so much wrong with this statement, that this can't be anything other than a blatant attempt to rile everyone up.
There was a character from a different TCG that had a similar argument. It was able to give itself +1/+0 by discarding the top 2 cards of your deck (and the deck size was 40 at the time). It could do this up to 3 times per turn. People at first said "it's not worth it you'll deck yourself out" or "you're just helping your opponent by getting rid of your own cards".
After the first round of tournament results after he was printed, people started to realize - the cost doesn't matter. You're gaining an advantage and not actually paying anything for it (because those cards come from your deck, and not a finite resource such as your hand).
Goblin Guide is the same thing. You deal a lot of damage, and it does not cost you anything from a finite pool of resources. Sure, the opponent gets things which is a "cost" of sorts, but when considering that the golden standard for red is 1 card/1 mana = 3 damage and goblin guide often gets in for 4+, you'll understand that goblin guide is ahead of the curve in terms of card/cost efficiency. Red doesn't care if you have lands. Red only cares if you have Life. And with a Goblin Guide on turn 1, when you're on the play, you won't for very long.
But you seem pretty convinced it's a terrible card and people who play it just "don't get it" so there's really no point in arguing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire." - Jaya Ballard
But you seem pretty convinced it's a terrible card and people who play it just "don't get it" so there's really no point in arguing it.
+1, no matter how many times Goblin Guide is in decks that have done well or won tournaments no one is changing his mind so there is no point trying to convince the guy. As others have mentioned trolling and riling up people that seems more likely with the replies. His hatred of the card has been well documented and no matter how many people disagree with him it wont change. So this thread should just end and no one else should waste their time arguing for why they like it.
unless you crack a fetch, but then I don't mind you going down a life and taking a land out of your deck so that my Guide's next attack is less likely to hit a land).
now THIS is the best argument I've heard yet. The current fetchland fetish (combined with the near-crazy-norwegian style of low land counts) definitely reduces the chances of hitting the land. I don't necessarily agree with the current prevalence of fetchlands, either but that's neither here nor there.
Back to the Dark Confidant comparison. Imagine if Dark Confidant read:
-At the beginning of your upkeep reveal the top card of your library and lose 2 life. If it's a land card put it into your hand.
And tangle wire your opponent for one, and they discard a card. And you draw a card when you play it. And its mana cost is zero. You have to examine all the effects of your hypothetical card.
I'm asking you specifically what those cards you're drawing are and what they're doing against your opponent playing "Deal 3 Damage: The Deck."
and I'm specifically ignoring you because it's a retarded question. The answer is "whatever in the deck can help". If your argument is that no cards in anyone's decks can help against burn, then we're pretty much done.
I'm really just curious what he's replacing Goblin Guide with that's so much better.
well, obviously if I had something in mind, I'd have mentioned it by now. There are a number of options, yes, including jackal pup because it's only bad against 4 cards in most peoples' decks. I'm just evaluating the card on its own merits and I find it severely lacking.
Possibly because I find that decks that try to zerg to 20 with zero midgame to be astoundingly bad, so I guess the answer is, "something that costs 2 and is actually good"
The reason I bring up jackal pup, even though he's been pretty much pushed out of contention, is that he was part of the mid-school sligh decks that were able to kill by turn 4. I'm also very mindful that blind aggro decks can very easily be derailed before they hit the goal by even the most modest of midrange decks. This makes me very cautious to avoid giving my opponent a free chance to dig another card deeper to find their... thragtusk. leyline, whatever is bad for the game plan.
You seem to be completely missing the point on numerous counts.
For starters, you can disagree with the fact that many competitive decks play lots of fetchlands and low land counts if you'd like to, but you are simply wrong. And even if you werent wrong, its still the way things are, and cards are evaluated within the metagame that exists.
Secondly what are these cards you are afraid of? Who the heck is casting Thragtusk or a Leyline? Burn takes advantage of the fact that people cant afford sideboard slots for one fringe match-up. How many people seriously carry around silver bullets for Burn that they are going to draw into?
In the Jackal Pup comparison you are completely overlooking the fact that Jackal Pup gives your opponent an entire free turn when you cast him. Goblin Guide just sometimes gives them a card if they get lucky. If Jackal Pup had haste this would be a completely different conversation.
And lastly, you are just completely failing to even understand Burn as a concept. Of course Burn doesnt have a mid-game. Thats the friggin point. Goblin Guide is the best card for doing what it does. Burn is the deck that wants to do it.
Possibly because I find that decks that try to zerg to 20 with zero midgame to be astoundingly bad, so I guess the answer is, "something that costs 2 and is actually good"
This statement tells me that you will never understand why Goblin Guide is good, and you don't really have any interest in learning it, because you just inherently dislike an aggressive strategy. So what is the point here?
Goblin Guide's return on investment is incredible. That's why he's run. As others mention, you're often looking at 4+ damage for R mana. He is a recurring threat. Unless he's countered on turn 1, you're usually looking at killing their 1 drop or already dealing 2 to them. In burn decks, he often gives the pilot a tremendous ROI. For UR delver, they can use guide or delver to just race you plain and simple.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
This is almost obviously a troll post. If you dont understand the value of a 1 drop 2 power haste man in a sligh deck, then either you are trolling or you are lying about how long you have been playing.
Not a troll; I legitimately don't understand why such a bad card is considered playable, but, then, the first sligh deck used plenty of *****ty cards, too.
I just prefer the sligh decks that used cards that had drawbacks that it didn't care about. Jackal pup; i don't care about my life total. Mogg fanatic (back when he could kill a 2/x). NOT a 2/2 dork that gets my opponent past a land clump and into the gas that kills me or achieves board control.
If you're better than the people running Goblin Guide, who are clearly good enough to win major events, why aren't you winning GPs and PTs with your superior, Guide-free burn deck? Should be easy.
I'm asking you specifically what those cards you're drawing are and what they're doing against your opponent playing "Deal 3 Damage: The Deck."
and I'm specifically ignoring you because it's a retarded question. The answer is "whatever in the deck can help". If your argument is that no cards in anyone's decks can help against burn, then we're pretty much done.
Here's what I'm getting at: We all understand that having more cards is a good thing. What I feel that you're failing to grasp is that the reason more cards are good is because they represent more options, and playing against a deck with a bunch of basically redundant pieces that aims to kill you by turn four reduces your options to the point that I see no reason at all to care that you're drawing extra cards because you cannot use most of them effectively. Most Legacy decks are playing: lands that don't really do much since you're limited to one land a turn and bottlenecked on mana in the turns where Burn is usually operating; cheap threats that don't beat a race against burn; disruption that isn't effective because a Burn player's cards are so redundant that you aren't really punching major holes into their strategy when you trade your cards with theirs, and cantrips that let you spin your wheels to find any of the aforementioned ineffective types of cards while also doing nothing about the person across from you bolting your face off. If you think this premise is foolish, I'm asking you what cards you think burn players should care about so much that they shouldn't be trading damage for giving the opponents cards. I'm literally asking you what cards are being played that are actually good enough against the Burn deck's gameplan that a Burn player should be more afraid to help their opponent draw it than afraid that their own cards won't get the opponent to 0 life; I'm contending that if there are any, the list is small enough for it to be a non-issue.
If your deck was filled with cards that all cost 99 mana and your hand was full of them, then you're not winning because your cards are too expensive to do anything to prevent your opponent from winning. In effect, I'm saying that most of an average deck's cards may as well be a pile of 99 mana do-nothings when you're playing against Legacy Burn with a decent draw. If you win a game against Legacy Burn, it has little to do with how many extra cards you were able to see in your game since I feel that basically all cards any decent deck could be playing suddenly turn into "Tap out: Win the game" if you can reach turn four with a good amount of life against a Burn deck--and I think that this event occurring is more often the fault of the Burn deck having no card manipulation more than it is actually that people playing against Burn deck are capable of doing anything in the early game.
Basically, against decks like this, time is more important than your cards; Goblin Guide is important because it deprives opponents of time.
If you're better than the people running Goblin Guide, who are clearly good enough to win major events, why aren't you winning GPs and PTs with your superior, Guide-free burn deck? Should be easy.
the troll is strong in this one. way to use the stupidest argument that anyone has ever used in shutting down theory questions.
There was a character from a different TCG that had a similar argument. It was able to give itself +1/+0 by discarding the top 2 cards of your deck (and the deck size was 40 at the time). It could do this up to 3 times per turn. People at first said "it's not worth it you'll deck yourself out" or "you're just helping your opponent by getting rid of your own cards".
After the first round of tournament results after he was printed, people started to realize - the cost doesn't matter. You're gaining an advantage and not actually paying anything for it (because those cards come from your deck, and not a finite resource such as your hand).
Goblin Guide is the same thing.
I don't really agree. Arc-Slogger is the closest analogy to the card you're bringing up. My whole argument is that you ARE paying for it with GG because giving people cards gives them a HUGE advantage. What's the only one of the original boons to be banned? The one that gives you cards; Ancestral Recall.
This statement tells me that you will never understand why Goblin Guide is good, and you don't really have any interest in learning it, because you just inherently dislike an aggressive strategy. So what is the point here?
I was trying to understand,. but most of what I'm hearing is, "GG is amazing in this terrible deck" which isn't really doing much to sing its praises.
You seem to be completely missing the point on numerous counts.
For starters, you can disagree with the fact that many competitive decks play lots of fetchlands and low land counts if you'd like to, but you are simply wrong. And even if you werent wrong, its still the way things are, and cards are evaluated within the metagame that exists.
Secondly what are these cards you are afraid of? Who the heck is casting Thragtusk or a Leyline? Burn takes advantage of the fact that people cant afford sideboard slots for one fringe match-up. How many people seriously carry around silver bullets for Burn that they are going to draw into?
In the Jackal Pup comparison you are completely overlooking the fact that Jackal Pup gives your opponent an entire free turn when you cast him. Goblin Guide just sometimes gives them a card if they get lucky. If Jackal Pup had haste this would be a completely different conversation.
And lastly, you are just completely failing to even understand Burn as a concept. Of course Burn doesnt have a mid-game. Thats the friggin point. Goblin Guide is the best card for doing what it does. Burn is the deck that wants to do it.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that competitive decks play lots of fetch, because they clearly do. I was ceding that point in GG's favor. I was just commenting that the amount of fetch is a little greater than it perhaps should be (9 fetch in a deck with 5 fetchable land is a little ridiculous).
Nic Fit is casting thragtusk. I pulled leyline out of my ass. Replace with Batterskull if you want. or jitte. Both of those require the burn to be diverted to creatures or the life gain becomes too great to overcome. Diverting the burn to creatures means more time to stabilize. How bout the show & tell they're looking for?
ok, ignoring the fact that having only 4 creatures opens you up to every piece of creature hate the opponent has to give, GG is played in izzet delver, as well as zoo (effectively defunct). I asked for a link to effective GG playing and didn't see a response, so I'm still unsure of why it's good in a more mid-range deck.
What...there is so much wrong with this statement, that this can't be anything other than a blatant attempt to rile everyone up.
You said that giving your opponent extra cards doesn't matter. I said that if I have half my deck, i would rarely lose. (in mathematics theory, it's useful to examine what happens at the extremes of examples, so that you can clearly determine what the trends indicate) Clearly having extra cards DOES matter, unless you'd like to assert that burn would beat any deck in the field if they started with 23 extra cards. What about 15 extra cards? What about 7? what about 2? Any of these scenarios results in a (varying) greater chance to win.
Seriously, I'd like to know which would be better replacement? And more importantly, which deck are you playing? Because if you think it's 50% chance to draw a land from Guide
I don't think that. I was glibly throwing out a number. I posit that it's going to be higher than 33% in a deck with 20 lands. The reason is that if I draw a land for free, I'm slightly more likely to draw a non-land as my draw for the turn. I am in turn slightly more likely to reveal a land for the next GG attack. A proper shuffle will result in a relatively even distribution of lands and while there will be some clumping, it's likely that if I reveal a land to GG, i'm more likely to reveal another land to the next attack or the one after. This means i've drawn 2 extra cards, putting me 2 cards deeper into my deck, and 2 cards closer to the answer I'm waiting for. That's 2 extra cards for 4-6 life, which is better than sylvan library and on par with dark confidant on a bad day. (it's rather humorous to note that gg vs dark confidant is bad news for the black player, since if the confidant hits the land, the guide is less likely to, so the odds of the "best" outcome are low)
And to those who smugly assume i'd cast DC or Sylvan against a burn deck, I wouldn't; you already cast it for me by laying down Goblin Guide.
Here are the little self-imposed guidelines I'm working with for the multiplayer decks I've been building:
• Must be cheap. Total price tag < $100, preferably < $50. Ideally ~$30. No one card greater than about ~$6
• Format: Modern (makes getting the cards somewhat easier for the play group, and almost all my cards are Modern-legal)
• Must be relatively interesting in 1:1 games. I don't need to win against Splinter Twin, but I should be able to play duels now and then
• Avoid instant-win combos; they only serve to make me target #1, and then the deck is worse than useless because I get killed first, every time
• Must have a funny name!
Here are the little self-imposed guidelines I'm working with for the multiplayer decks I've been building:
• Must be cheap. Total price tag < $100, preferably < $50. Ideally ~$30. No one card greater than about ~$6
• Format: Modern (makes getting the cards somewhat easier for the play group, and almost all my cards are Modern-legal)
• Must be relatively interesting in 1:1 games. I don't need to win against Splinter Twin, but I should be able to play duels now and then
• Avoid instant-win combos; they only serve to make me target #1, and then the deck is worse than useless because I get killed first, every time
• Must have a funny name!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For one, it's not 50%, it's more like 33%. The other 67% of the time, I know your next topdeck and can play around it accordingly (unless you crack a fetch, but then I don't mind you going down a life and taking a land out of your deck so that my Guide's next attack is less likely to hit a land). That, or you have to use library manipulation right then, and not at a time when your deck would normally prefer to use it. Plus, against a lot of decks, that land is usually a dual or a fetch (which will get a dual), so that makes Price of Progress better.
A turn one Guide really is the best play a Burn deck can make. The majority of the time his drawback is actually a benefit, since I get to see what deck you're on (even if I give you a land, that combined with your next play, or your previous play if I was on the draw, can often tell me what deck you're on). There's not much that draws a turn-one Force of Will like a Goblin Guide on the play does.
I don't play decks. I solve optimization problems.
Currently solving:
Standard: Too poor for this format.
Modern: GW Auras, Living End, WB TurboFog, UB Mill, UR Storm
Legacy: R Burn, GU Infect, RG Lands, B Contamination
I'm asking you specifically what those cards you're drawing are and what they're doing against your opponent playing "Deal 3 Damage: The Deck." Lands aren't doing a whole lot for you when you can only play one a turn, so your point is that a Goblin Guide player is drawing you to the cards that you are going to use to beat them. Specifically, what sorts of cards are you playing in your deck that a Burn player should fear helping you draw to, and why should they fear making you draw those cards more than they should fear letting you reach the later turns of the game?
U
Merfolk Guide
Haste
Whenever Merfolk Guide attacks, defending player reveals the top card of his or her library. If it's a land card, that player puts it into his or her hand.
When Merfolk Guide deals combat damage to a player, prevent that damage and draw a card.
2/2
This card seems pretty good, right?
Twitch channel
Why dont you just go find a Legacy Jund player and ask them about how much they must love their Burn matchup?
Goblin Guide is giving you 2/3 of a Bolt every time he attacks. That means he's effectively generating card advantage for you even if half of your opponents deck were land (which its not, seriously, not even close)
It's an equally good day for me, if my opponent is ignorant enough to ignore other axis of the game just to draw more cards, especially when they are constantly losing life (the equivalent of allowing the opponent to draw a card) and/or using Brainstorms at inopportune times to guarantee the extra land, especially in a format where 90% of the lands cost 1 life to use and/or will increase the power of Price of Progress.
Goblin Guide is the best aggressive red one-drop, with a drawback that has had years of testing behind it to fully understand how other decks interact with its drawback. If you think that the axis of damage to cards is irrelevant and can be fully countermanded with more cards, then I find it hard to believe that you have years of experience playing MTG. This is entire premise of what Sligh was built on, and why it became successful - if you want a modern day example with Goblin Guide of this, watch Patrick Sullivan's win of SCG Open Edison in 2011 vs a field of Caw-Blade.
I have a better idea, find me another 2/2 with haste for 1 mana... (there is no such creature)
So, I'm happy with my 2 playsets
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
First off, there is only a 1/3 of a chance the opponent will draw a land.
Second, most opponents feel the same and allow the Goblin Guide to attack for the first two turns...
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
He keeps dodging that question, unless his answer was Jackal Pup, which is hilarious.
-At the beginning of your upkeep reveal the top card of your library and lose 2 life. If it's a land card put it into your hand.
No one would play that. Why? It's a Phyrexian Arena that is 6x worse. (2x worse because of double lifeloss, 3x worse because it only draws a card every three turns.)
Look, Fetch, Draw, Look
Draw
Fetch
Look
It can't be that difficult to get, can it?
And tangle wire your opponent for one, and they discard a card. And you draw a card when you play it. And its mana cost is zero. You have to examine all the effects of your hypothetical card.
and I'm specifically ignoring you because it's a *snip* question. The answer is "whatever in the deck can help". If your argument is that no cards in anyone's decks can help against burn, then we're pretty much done.
well, obviously if I had something in mind, I'd have mentioned it by now. There are a number of options, yes, including jackal pup because it's only bad against 4 cards in most peoples' decks. I'm just evaluating the card on its own merits and I find it severely lacking.
Possibly because I find that decks that try to zerg to 20 with zero midgame to be astoundingly bad, so I guess the answer is, "something that costs 2 and is actually good"
The reason I bring up jackal pup, even though he's been pretty much pushed out of contention, is that he was part of the mid-school sligh decks that were able to kill by turn 4. I'm also very mindful that blind aggro decks can very easily be derailed before they hit the goal by even the most modest of midrange decks. This makes me very cautious to avoid giving my opponent a free chance to dig another card deeper to find their... thragtusk. leyline, whatever is bad for the game plan.
• Must be cheap. Total price tag < $100, preferably < $50. Ideally ~$30. No one card greater than about ~$6
• Format: Modern (makes getting the cards somewhat easier for the play group, and almost all my cards are Modern-legal)
• Must be relatively interesting in 1:1 games. I don't need to win against Splinter Twin, but I should be able to play duels now and then
• Avoid instant-win combos; they only serve to make me target #1, and then the deck is worse than useless because I get killed first, every time
• Must have a funny name!
Again, here's the issue -- you can dig to find those cards all you want, but you'll be dead before you can cast them. (and what competitive deck is playing Thragtusk or trying to hardcast a Leyline?)
ok, you play burn and I play any deck I choose, and I start with half my deck in my hand and have no max hand size. If you think you're still going to win even a fraction of the time, I'll thank you for the excellent belly laugh.
• Must be cheap. Total price tag < $100, preferably < $50. Ideally ~$30. No one card greater than about ~$6
• Format: Modern (makes getting the cards somewhat easier for the play group, and almost all my cards are Modern-legal)
• Must be relatively interesting in 1:1 games. I don't need to win against Splinter Twin, but I should be able to play duels now and then
• Avoid instant-win combos; they only serve to make me target #1, and then the deck is worse than useless because I get killed first, every time
• Must have a funny name!
What...there is so much wrong with this statement, that this can't be anything other than a blatant attempt to rile everyone up.
After the first round of tournament results after he was printed, people started to realize - the cost doesn't matter. You're gaining an advantage and not actually paying anything for it (because those cards come from your deck, and not a finite resource such as your hand).
Goblin Guide is the same thing. You deal a lot of damage, and it does not cost you anything from a finite pool of resources. Sure, the opponent gets things which is a "cost" of sorts, but when considering that the golden standard for red is 1 card/1 mana = 3 damage and goblin guide often gets in for 4+, you'll understand that goblin guide is ahead of the curve in terms of card/cost efficiency. Red doesn't care if you have lands. Red only cares if you have Life. And with a Goblin Guide on turn 1, when you're on the play, you won't for very long.
But you seem pretty convinced it's a terrible card and people who play it just "don't get it" so there's really no point in arguing it.
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire." - Jaya Ballard
+1, no matter how many times Goblin Guide is in decks that have done well or won tournaments no one is changing his mind so there is no point trying to convince the guy. As others have mentioned trolling and riling up people that seems more likely with the replies. His hatred of the card has been well documented and no matter how many people disagree with him it wont change. So this thread should just end and no one else should waste their time arguing for why they like it.
You seem to be completely missing the point on numerous counts.
For starters, you can disagree with the fact that many competitive decks play lots of fetchlands and low land counts if you'd like to, but you are simply wrong. And even if you werent wrong, its still the way things are, and cards are evaluated within the metagame that exists.
Secondly what are these cards you are afraid of? Who the heck is casting Thragtusk or a Leyline? Burn takes advantage of the fact that people cant afford sideboard slots for one fringe match-up. How many people seriously carry around silver bullets for Burn that they are going to draw into?
In the Jackal Pup comparison you are completely overlooking the fact that Jackal Pup gives your opponent an entire free turn when you cast him. Goblin Guide just sometimes gives them a card if they get lucky. If Jackal Pup had haste this would be a completely different conversation.
And lastly, you are just completely failing to even understand Burn as a concept. Of course Burn doesnt have a mid-game. Thats the friggin point. Goblin Guide is the best card for doing what it does. Burn is the deck that wants to do it.
This statement tells me that you will never understand why Goblin Guide is good, and you don't really have any interest in learning it, because you just inherently dislike an aggressive strategy. So what is the point here?
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
If you're better than the people running Goblin Guide, who are clearly good enough to win major events, why aren't you winning GPs and PTs with your superior, Guide-free burn deck? Should be easy.
Here's what I'm getting at: We all understand that having more cards is a good thing. What I feel that you're failing to grasp is that the reason more cards are good is because they represent more options, and playing against a deck with a bunch of basically redundant pieces that aims to kill you by turn four reduces your options to the point that I see no reason at all to care that you're drawing extra cards because you cannot use most of them effectively. Most Legacy decks are playing: lands that don't really do much since you're limited to one land a turn and bottlenecked on mana in the turns where Burn is usually operating; cheap threats that don't beat a race against burn; disruption that isn't effective because a Burn player's cards are so redundant that you aren't really punching major holes into their strategy when you trade your cards with theirs, and cantrips that let you spin your wheels to find any of the aforementioned ineffective types of cards while also doing nothing about the person across from you bolting your face off. If you think this premise is foolish, I'm asking you what cards you think burn players should care about so much that they shouldn't be trading damage for giving the opponents cards. I'm literally asking you what cards are being played that are actually good enough against the Burn deck's gameplan that a Burn player should be more afraid to help their opponent draw it than afraid that their own cards won't get the opponent to 0 life; I'm contending that if there are any, the list is small enough for it to be a non-issue.
If your deck was filled with cards that all cost 99 mana and your hand was full of them, then you're not winning because your cards are too expensive to do anything to prevent your opponent from winning. In effect, I'm saying that most of an average deck's cards may as well be a pile of 99 mana do-nothings when you're playing against Legacy Burn with a decent draw. If you win a game against Legacy Burn, it has little to do with how many extra cards you were able to see in your game since I feel that basically all cards any decent deck could be playing suddenly turn into "Tap out: Win the game" if you can reach turn four with a good amount of life against a Burn deck--and I think that this event occurring is more often the fault of the Burn deck having no card manipulation more than it is actually that people playing against Burn deck are capable of doing anything in the early game.
Basically, against decks like this, time is more important than your cards; Goblin Guide is important because it deprives opponents of time.
Nic Fit is casting thragtusk. I pulled leyline out of my ass. Replace with Batterskull if you want. or jitte. Both of those require the burn to be diverted to creatures or the life gain becomes too great to overcome. Diverting the burn to creatures means more time to stabilize. How bout the show & tell they're looking for?
ok, ignoring the fact that having only 4 creatures opens you up to every piece of creature hate the opponent has to give, GG is played in izzet delver, as well as zoo (effectively defunct). I asked for a link to effective GG playing and didn't see a response, so I'm still unsure of why it's good in a more mid-range deck. You said that giving your opponent extra cards doesn't matter. I said that if I have half my deck, i would rarely lose. (in mathematics theory, it's useful to examine what happens at the extremes of examples, so that you can clearly determine what the trends indicate) Clearly having extra cards DOES matter, unless you'd like to assert that burn would beat any deck in the field if they started with 23 extra cards. What about 15 extra cards? What about 7? what about 2? Any of these scenarios results in a (varying) greater chance to win. I don't think that. I was glibly throwing out a number. I posit that it's going to be higher than 33% in a deck with 20 lands. The reason is that if I draw a land for free, I'm slightly more likely to draw a non-land as my draw for the turn. I am in turn slightly more likely to reveal a land for the next GG attack. A proper shuffle will result in a relatively even distribution of lands and while there will be some clumping, it's likely that if I reveal a land to GG, i'm more likely to reveal another land to the next attack or the one after. This means i've drawn 2 extra cards, putting me 2 cards deeper into my deck, and 2 cards closer to the answer I'm waiting for. That's 2 extra cards for 4-6 life, which is better than sylvan library and on par with dark confidant on a bad day. (it's rather humorous to note that gg vs dark confidant is bad news for the black player, since if the confidant hits the land, the guide is less likely to, so the odds of the "best" outcome are low)
And to those who smugly assume i'd cast DC or Sylvan against a burn deck, I wouldn't; you already cast it for me by laying down Goblin Guide.
• Must be cheap. Total price tag < $100, preferably < $50. Ideally ~$30. No one card greater than about ~$6
• Format: Modern (makes getting the cards somewhat easier for the play group, and almost all my cards are Modern-legal)
• Must be relatively interesting in 1:1 games. I don't need to win against Splinter Twin, but I should be able to play duels now and then
• Avoid instant-win combos; they only serve to make me target #1, and then the deck is worse than useless because I get killed first, every time
• Must have a funny name!
• Must be cheap. Total price tag < $100, preferably < $50. Ideally ~$30. No one card greater than about ~$6
• Format: Modern (makes getting the cards somewhat easier for the play group, and almost all my cards are Modern-legal)
• Must be relatively interesting in 1:1 games. I don't need to win against Splinter Twin, but I should be able to play duels now and then
• Avoid instant-win combos; they only serve to make me target #1, and then the deck is worse than useless because I get killed first, every time
• Must have a funny name!