Chained to the Rocks
- Elesh Norn
- Registered User
Member for 4 years, 8 months, and 1 day
Last active Mon, Feb, 3 2014 02:21:09
- 0 Followers
- 51 Total Posts
- 1 Thank
Sep 3, 2013Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from draguzaKoth, Nissa, Tibalt, Tezzeret, Domri and Ral Zarek are all from the planes where they first appeared. Ajani returned to Alara as well, but he didn't appear there.
I beleive Vraska is from Ravnica also, right?
Aug 27, 2013Posted in: SpeculationQuote from ZanetVampires had no good creatures until M13 came along but in general cost more and were harder to use.
That's extemely alse. Oliva Volaren, Stromkirk Noble, Blood Artist and Falkenrath Aristocrats were all standard staples, and there were a few other fringe playables like Bloodline Keeper and Stromkirk Captain. They just had very porr syneergy, their best cards all being 4 drops and very few creatures really cared about other Vampires.
Aug 13, 2013Yes, 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.Posted in: Standard Archives
Aug 12, 2013Posted in: Standard ArchivesQuote from SomadelnochaSeriously, 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
Jul 7, 2013Posted in: SpeculationQuote from PejElesh Norn's Prediction :
Sorcery - Mythic :
Draw twenty cards.
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.
Sounds about right.
I said or, not and, by the way.
Jul 7, 2013Blue 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.Posted in: Speculation
May 2, 2013Posted in: Standard ArchivesQuote from Happy ShamanI 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?
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.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.