Yes, but it is easy to see that no Huntmasters, no farseeks, and three Thragtusks is a bad idea, period, end of discussion. We need not have a discussion on that so theres no need for him to waste our time here. Put some thought behind your innovation, like migacz, who doesnt mess with the obvious core and backs up his changes with actual reasoning. Don't just change to do it, thats stupid. And then "I don't like it" is an awful reason to cut one of the best cards in the deck, and there's no reason to entertain posts like that.
Seriously, I'm tired of people just theorycrafting all day, test new ideas instead of poohpoohing them.
I hate when idiots post bad decks, get shot down because their decks are bad and then post this ****. No Farseeks is bad, you fix mana, you ramp. No Huntmasters is bad, Huntmaster is one of the best cards. Three Thragtusk is bad, hes's one of the best cards you need four. Varolz is bad, he does very little for the deck. So, your deck is bad.
Flaming is not allowed according to MTGS rules. -DarkRitual
When Elesh Norn's Prediction is put in the graveyard from your hand, you can pay 4UU. If you paid it, take an extra turn after this one then exile Elesh Norn's Prediction instead of put it in the graveyard.
If Elesh Norn's Prediction is countered, revealed the five top cards of your library. You may cast these cards without paying their mana costs. If a cost is X, X equal the number of cards in the opponent's hand.
Blue hasn't gotten a mythic spell/enchantment yet, which is something that we should be expecting in a core set. I have a feeling thats what will be coming. Something to do with playing things for free, drawing a ton of cards, or taking extra turns.
I would much rather play Boros Charm T2 than hit myself up for a couple cards, and then nail them for 5 T3.
Good enough for you?
No.
Nailing them with Boros Charm is awful on turn two. Against Esper, or Bant I want to keep them up Charm to prect from a wrath. Against Aggro or midrage I want to use the indestrutablity of Double Strike ot force through favorable blocks and gain an advantage that war. Grabbing two cards for two life in infinatly better than wasting a Boros Charm for four damage in an aggressive midrange deck. Period.
Trouble catches you up against aggro, and punishes control. And, hey, you can still get your two cards for two life if you want!
I highly doubt you've tested the card, at all.
You don't race against aggro. You can't race Burning-Tree Emmissary decks. They hit you too hard, and we are dropping thee mana two power guys. If you try for your Stromkirk Noble plan you are just going to die.
Trouble will NOT even do what you are proposing. Unless you burn it on Turn Three, they will have so few cards in their hand they wont even care. Turn three against Blitz or Gruul you don't even wnat to do that. You want to play another Tithe Drinker, Vampire Night Hawk, Stromkirck Captiain who can block well. You want to play removal to try an stablize. You want to do something that effects the doard. If you just Trouble their faces their not going to care and just kill you, since you haven't done anything to stop them. Drawing cards is better in every possible way because then you can get to soemthing stablizes. And if you can draw the cards a turn earlier, by playing Sign in Blood, you can possible play something like a Vampire Nighthawk on turn three before they run you over. When you stablize, Trouble is three mana for 1 damage, or something similar. Trouble is a bad card versus aggro.
Trouble is better, still not good, against control. Since wasting a card on an effect that can just be undone by Sphinx's Revelation or Thragtusk is bad, unless you're using it to kill them off. Instead why not draw extra cards to have them waste cards dealing with threats and losing if they can't deal with those threats?
The point is that Sign in Blood is a million times better than Toil/Trouble because Trouble is so niche, marginal and generally useless, so that the extra utility provided by being able to use that card is not worth all the advantages that are inherently in Sign in Blood's lower casting cost.
Do you post on the forums, or play Magic?
Because I have won more games using the Trouble side to finish. Its silly to say:
Just silly.
Early game, draw or hit them for 5-7. Late game, draw or finish.
You are silly.
wut
You actually don't address a thing I said. This is a joke.
You can't refute my arguments about how Sign in Blood is better by simply groundlessly, telling me I'm silly and bad. >_< My arguments about Sign in Blood's better CMC and negligible color cost still stand. My arguments about how drawing into two more cards is more valuable than ~5 damage (Realistically that's the most you're going to hit them for on turn three) also still stand. If you want to be taken seriously go actually address a point I made, instead of just saying: "This card did good sometimes, dummy."
How? Its easier to cast (although a turn slower) and in the right circumstances is a win condition.
Double black is easy to get on turn two. You have 17 black sources. Two mana is huge acctually. It gives oyu something to do on turn two, so instead of having to conflict with your eight three drops, you can curve properly with Sign in Blood, much more so than with Toil // Trouble. Also I would never, ever, ever want to use the Trouble half. Against aggro its dead. And against control I'd rather use the draw to get a hold of my creature threats that are just better, and have the potential deal way more than just four or five damage. And it's usually a dead card against decks with lifegain. They just drop Thragtusk next turn and its like we never did anything.
I'm gonna start this out by saying I don't think Turtleman's list is ay good. Toil /Trouble seems bad. Shadow Alley Denizen seems poor also, and Stromkirk Noble seems counter prodcutive to the decks game plan. You aren't running Godless Shrines. You have no removal. Spot removal is key in this deck to slow down aggro in time to get enough defensive two and three drops to slow them down as well as deal with the potent midrange threats like Olivia Voldaren and Angel of Serenity, etc.
Wrong. Lands are all colorless; they tap for mana, but they have no color cost in the upper-right corner, thus they have no color. Thus, in reality, roughly 40% of the cards in a Standard deck do not activate Nocturnus when they are up. None of these decks are running anything to manipulate the top card (e.g., Sign In Blood), thus variance and statistics are going to hose the Nocturnus pump nearly as often as not.
Sign in Blood, in my opinion should be a staple in this deck. The easiest way to lose to control and midrange is to get out carded by them and Sign in Blood helps fix that, alsong with fixing Nocturnus.
And trying to play such a list without removal in the current Standard is utterly ludicrous. Any of the current aggro decks will run you over, period. You're too slow to take on Reanimator, who is going to chump you with Souls tokens, run up lifegain, then get out Angel of Serenity to yank whatever relevant creatures you have left.
I agree not running removal is bad. But your situation has given the Reanimator player a magical christmas land. Of course Reanimator is gonna win when it just curves perfectly and we just play one or two duce and swing durdily into a pile on souls. The match, while far from good, rarely works out like that.
If you want to run vampires, your best bet in this metagame is a control build and that's still marginal as there are better options. Tribal vamps simply gets going too slow to survive in Standard.
This only partailly correct.The deck, at leasat the way I've built it, is an agressive midrange deck. Meaning that it can spend the begining turns getting incremental damage or stablizing with Life Linkers, First Strikers and Removal and then proceeds to drop haymakers. Turns 4-7 are where aour games happen and are won really.
I think that this archetype has some serious potential, but I think your build is sub-par. I think an agressive midrange deck that goes about trying maximize Vampire Nocturunus and Stromkirk Captain's value is the best way to go. Rakdos has the best removal and anti-control sideboard options while orzhov goes a long way in beating up aggro strategies. The build that I plan on taking to FNM/I have been playing around with on Cockatrice, and then maybe sleeving it up for an upcomming PTQ.
Another quick thing.
Debt to the Debtless is bad. Ultimate Price is bad. Mutilate is also bad. Blood Baron is Nuts. Control has problems removing him and he stabalizes against aggro. Just ignore the last little part of him.
Blood Artist is bad for this deck also. We aren't Aristocrats or Zombies where we porfit of of things dieing, instead we play a good number of highquality creatures; we don't want them dead.
I think, aslo, Blind Obedience is slow for this match up and I want to keep the non-Black cards to a minimum. Searing Spear is better in my opinion. Also, I'm not too sure on Bloodline Keeper. I really think he is a sideboard card - or if he is a mainboard card its instead of Falkenrath Aristocrat. Turning your deck into a pile of haymakers against control (that will be uncounterable for the most part), should allow us to just overwhelm them.
He said it is very likely that a Rampant Growth-esque card will be in m14, just like it is also very likely Lightning Bolt will not be in M14. It's not hard to figure out.
I feel like I would want to run this in the SB of my Jund Midrange deck just for the Entering side. Assuming junk Rites is a huge player like it is now. Taking my opponent's Craterhoof, Angel of Serenity, Obzedat, whatever seems backbreaking. You're removing the reanimation target AND getting a beat stick at the same time. Or with Craterhoof you might just win.
We have nukes, and we are the only ones who have ever nuked anyone else. Thanks to MAD, our nuclear threat is on all the time, we don't need to say it or posture, because it's an obvious and persistent threat.
The threat we pose to anyone and everyone we don't like is real and saturated. Ever think maybe some of the Anti-Americanism abroad is blowback? We can argue whether or not our causes are righteous, or good, but to think we haven't done anything wrong is just ridiculous.
Ever hear of the PROC?
We love to prop up ****ty dictators, so long as we can make them marionettes.
How does this relate to what he asked about? He said that why, in the face of direct, blatant threat from a volatile antagonistic power, should we stop pressuring this power to stop its unhealthy behavior? Yes, anti-Americanism in North Korea will be great, but I'm willing to allow that in order to prevent nuclear weapons being dropped on the US and her allies.
Realistically, if our Intel so much as thinks the DPRK wants to do anything, it'll be a smoldering crater in a blink. I feel that if they keep blowing smoke, we should go ahead and do it regardless.
This is wrong. Preemptive war is never a good thing, not simply from a moralistic standpoint, but a international diplomacy standpoint as well. We'd be the aggressors. North Korean rhetoric of a warmongering, oppressive United States would be proved correct. Horrible backlash, much more of a probability for foreign intervention, much more difficult to deal with the nation after the war has ended. And more importantly if the diplomatic option is still available why would we discount that?
Banisher Priest
Chained to the Rocks
I hate when idiots post bad decks, get shot down because their decks are bad and then post this ****. No Farseeks is bad, you fix mana, you ramp. No Huntmasters is bad, Huntmaster is one of the best cards. Three Thragtusk is bad, hes's one of the best cards you need four. Varolz is bad, he does very little for the deck. So, your deck is bad.
Flaming is not allowed according to MTGS rules. -DarkRitual
Sounds about right.
I said or, not and, by the way.
No.
Nailing them with Boros Charm is awful on turn two. Against Esper, or Bant I want to keep them up Charm to prect from a wrath. Against Aggro or midrage I want to use the indestrutablity of Double Strike ot force through favorable blocks and gain an advantage that war. Grabbing two cards for two life in infinatly better than wasting a Boros Charm for four damage in an aggressive midrange deck. Period.
You don't race against aggro. You can't race Burning-Tree Emmissary decks. They hit you too hard, and we are dropping thee mana two power guys. If you try for your Stromkirk Noble plan you are just going to die.
Trouble will NOT even do what you are proposing. Unless you burn it on Turn Three, they will have so few cards in their hand they wont even care. Turn three against Blitz or Gruul you don't even wnat to do that. You want to play another Tithe Drinker, Vampire Night Hawk, Stromkirck Captiain who can block well. You want to play removal to try an stablize. You want to do something that effects the doard. If you just Trouble their faces their not going to care and just kill you, since you haven't done anything to stop them. Drawing cards is better in every possible way because then you can get to soemthing stablizes. And if you can draw the cards a turn earlier, by playing Sign in Blood, you can possible play something like a Vampire Nighthawk on turn three before they run you over. When you stablize, Trouble is three mana for 1 damage, or something similar. Trouble is a bad card versus aggro.
Trouble is better, still not good, against control. Since wasting a card on an effect that can just be undone by Sphinx's Revelation or Thragtusk is bad, unless you're using it to kill them off. Instead why not draw extra cards to have them waste cards dealing with threats and losing if they can't deal with those threats?
The point is that Sign in Blood is a million times better than Toil/Trouble because Trouble is so niche, marginal and generally useless, so that the extra utility provided by being able to use that card is not worth all the advantages that are inherently in Sign in Blood's lower casting cost.
wut
You actually don't address a thing I said. This is a joke.
You can't refute my arguments about how Sign in Blood is better by simply groundlessly, telling me I'm silly and bad. >_< My arguments about Sign in Blood's better CMC and negligible color cost still stand. My arguments about how drawing into two more cards is more valuable than ~5 damage (Realistically that's the most you're going to hit them for on turn three) also still stand. If you want to be taken seriously go actually address a point I made, instead of just saying: "This card did good sometimes, dummy."
Double black is easy to get on turn two. You have 17 black sources. Two mana is huge acctually. It gives oyu something to do on turn two, so instead of having to conflict with your eight three drops, you can curve properly with Sign in Blood, much more so than with Toil // Trouble. Also I would never, ever, ever want to use the Trouble half. Against aggro its dead. And against control I'd rather use the draw to get a hold of my creature threats that are just better, and have the potential deal way more than just four or five damage. And it's usually a dead card against decks with lifegain. They just drop Thragtusk next turn and its like we never did anything.
Sign in Blood, in my opinion should be a staple in this deck. The easiest way to lose to control and midrange is to get out carded by them and Sign in Blood helps fix that, alsong with fixing Nocturnus.
I agree not running removal is bad. But your situation has given the Reanimator player a magical christmas land. Of course Reanimator is gonna win when it just curves perfectly and we just play one or two duce and swing durdily into a pile on souls. The match, while far from good, rarely works out like that.
This only partailly correct.The deck, at leasat the way I've built it, is an agressive midrange deck. Meaning that it can spend the begining turns getting incremental damage or stablizing with Life Linkers, First Strikers and Removal and then proceeds to drop haymakers. Turns 4-7 are where aour games happen and are won really.
4 Tithe Drinker
4 Vampire Nighthawk
4 Stromkirk Captain
4 Vampire Nocturnus
2 Falkenrath Aristocrat
4 Blood Baron of Vizkopa
Spells
2 Searing Spear
4 Tragic Slip
2 Dreadbore
1 Orzhov Charm
3 Sign in Blood
2 Sorin, Lord of Innistrad
4 Blood Crypt
4 Godless Shrine
4 Dragonskull Summit
4 Isolated Chapel
3 Sacred Foundry
4 Cavern of Souls
1 Swamp
3 Rhox Faithmender
1 Olivia Voldaren
2 Bloodline Keeper
2 Sin Collector
2 Slaughter Games
1 Rolling Temblor
1 Pillar of Flame
3 Cremate
Another quick thing.
Debt to the Debtless is bad. Ultimate Price is bad. Mutilate is also bad. Blood Baron is Nuts. Control has problems removing him and he stabalizes against aggro. Just ignore the last little part of him.
Blood Artist is bad for this deck also. We aren't Aristocrats or Zombies where we porfit of of things dieing, instead we play a good number of highquality creatures; we don't want them dead.
I think, aslo, Blind Obedience is slow for this match up and I want to keep the non-Black cards to a minimum. Searing Spear is better in my opinion. Also, I'm not too sure on Bloodline Keeper. I really think he is a sideboard card - or if he is a mainboard card its instead of Falkenrath Aristocrat. Turning your deck into a pile of haymakers against control (that will be uncounterable for the most part), should allow us to just overwhelm them.
He said it is very likely that a Rampant Growth-esque card will be in m14, just like it is also very likely Lightning Bolt will not be in M14. It's not hard to figure out.
How does this relate to what he asked about? He said that why, in the face of direct, blatant threat from a volatile antagonistic power, should we stop pressuring this power to stop its unhealthy behavior? Yes, anti-Americanism in North Korea will be great, but I'm willing to allow that in order to prevent nuclear weapons being dropped on the US and her allies.
This is wrong. Preemptive war is never a good thing, not simply from a moralistic standpoint, but a international diplomacy standpoint as well. We'd be the aggressors. North Korean rhetoric of a warmongering, oppressive United States would be proved correct. Horrible backlash, much more of a probability for foreign intervention, much more difficult to deal with the nation after the war has ended. And more importantly if the diplomatic option is still available why would we discount that?