What if Xanagos ins't evil? What if he is just upset about the way none of the gods favor the Satyrs? Maybe he just wants to restore balance to his world by eliminating the influence of the gods entirely.
Looks like the reference is lost on everybody else. But I get it!
I happened to win my way this evening to a sweet playmat and a 10-point TCGPlayer MaxPoints card. I have no intention on attending any major TCGPlayer tournaments any time soon though. I was curious, will people trade for MaxPoints cards? If so, what is the rough trade value for them?
In Legacy, I play a jank ass mono-B Clerics list. If the deck has one strength, it's versatility. Maindeck runs 12 discard spells, 4 can recur. I'm told that's control. Then there's a bunch of Clerics that like to turn sideways, die, and become zombies that turn sideways. I'm told that's aggro. Then I've got this little thing where I sacrifice a bunch of clerics for 8-12 life swings, then crank Shepherd of Rot. I'm told this is a combo.
...but the most fun mirror in standard right now is RDW vs RDW. It's very much like a control mirror but without the card draw.
This is a good point, and I agree. In aggro vs. aggro, resources are vital. A good 2 for 1 gives you a tremendous advantage, and flooding out by even one land can be bad news. Preserving card advantage and board advantage is key because he who goes into topdeck mode first is doomed. It's what makes Boros Reckoner a terrifying card against any aggro strategy, because it's a 2 for 1 more often than not. It's almost always a 1 for 1 for one of your better cards. The only way I've not lost card advantage to a Reckoner is suiting up a 5/5 wurm token with Unflinching Courage. (Assuming that taking 3+ burn to the face represents a card on their part.) In the same vein, it's hard for mono red to take out a Loxodon Smiter without losing a creature and a burn spell, or two creatures.
Allocating your resources effectively means little when you can sandbag a Sphinx's Revelation and get them all back with one card.
Aggro, hands down. Play dudes, beat face, crush bones, and mix the bone powder in with a glass of milk after.
I've always found combo incredibly boring after about two games. I feels gimmicky in that once I've won with a turn four Dragonstorm, there's no particular rush to win that way again. I've delegated all my combo needs to commander decks where they only crop up every once in a while.
And control...I just don't like control. I understand people that do, for the most part, but I find it boring and I find playing against it boring. I get it, you have 5 cards in hand and I'm in topdeck mode, win already. For example...
Control because you win the most. With aggro or combo you might win a similar amount of games, but with control each game you win you spend 5+ minutes winning. If I'm winning with an aggro deck the game is soon over, if I'm winning with control I can durdle for 10 minutes.
You sound like the worst person to play against. Nothing personal, just...ugh. Shoot me.
My favorite matchups are aggro vs. aggro, or aggro vs. midrange. Trading creatures, trading spells, waiting for your opponent to stumble so that you can just blow them out and take the game, or beating down and getting their life total low enough that their Stormbreath Dragon can't even save them now. There's a thrill in knowing that you could just lose at any moment.
It's a blast watching control decks stumble, though. Did you miss your fourth land drop? Flash in Advent of the Wurm, swing for lethal?
Also, I don't get the whole creatures vs. spells thing. Why are spells inherently better? A lot of people seem to think this, and I just don't understand. Spells are cool. Creatures are also cool. Yeah, yeah, blah blah Wizards pushing creature strategies, yada yada. So what? When did creatures become some kind of necessary evil that people always complain about?
Ultimate? Why didn't they Zarek-Bolt you? Chandra's ultimate can fizzle, but Ral Zareks bolt rarely misses it's target. Maybe they even had no more spells for the Chandra ulti or only spells which target creatures.
Ral, along with Chandra, had taken out a healthy chunk of my life total already, he was working his way up to one last bolt.
I've run into a couple of interesting situations in the past that I'm a bit curious about where players don't want to use the ultimate abilities on their planeswalkers.
In one game some weeks ago I was playing G/W aggro against a U/R control build that played some number of Ral Zerek, Jace, Architect of Thought and Chandra, Pyromaster. I had maybe one card in hand and was at 3 life, while my opponent had one copy each of those aforementioned planeswalkers and three or four cards in hand. Chandra was ready to use her ultimate, and I urged my opponent to do so so that we could play game 3. Instead, he drew out the game for three turns using her 0 ability, nearly allowing me to win with a topdecked and subsequently monstrified Fleecemane Lion. He topdecked some burn just before I started swinging at his walkers with a game winning Unflinching Courage. He did it with Chandra's 0 instead of using her ult to give himself the maximum chance to close out the game.
Another game just last week, I was playing mono black control against R/G monsters and I was just straight up hosed. She had an insurmountable board presence involving Stormbreath Dragon, Polukranous, the World Eater, Domri Rade, and Xenagos, the Reveler. I encouraged her to ult Xenagos to dump some permanents into play for the lulz before she killed me hilariously dead, going so far as to reveal my hand of two swamps to prove that I had no outs. Instead, she ticked up Domri, to reveal a second Polly-K, and swung out without ulting Xenagos. The assault wasn't lethal, but I drew a land and lost next turn. She could have easily won on the spot by ulting Xenagos.
Is there some unspoken rule somewhere that says players aren't supposed to ultimate their planeswalkers? Is it somehow seen as dirty? I understand fully that you should rarely take a 'walker's ult into account when evaluating them, but if through the course of a game you get there, why not ult them for the sheer spectacle of it? In both cases I've mentioned, there wasn't much reason I could see not to finish the game quickly - it nearly cost the U/R control player his win. Are people so obsessed with board presence and card advantage that they forget to just go ahead and win?
Well, that depends on why you want to run more than 60 cards. In most cases, you want to draw your best spells as often as you can. A deck with great card advantage still requires time and effort (turns and mana) to get that extra advantage. Ask yourself if you'd rather just run the cards you want to draw, instead of adding ways to draw the cards you want to draw. If the card draw is inherently part of your game plan, you may want to analyse which cards you're most happy to draw.
Of course, it you're playing at the kitchen table, do what you want because nobody can stop you.
I hate the thought of buying a product and not playing with it. Why even buy it then? The investment is in the fun you have and the experiences you have and in trading the Jace I never plan on using! I traded what I'm never going to use, put the rest in EDH decks, and I'm not looking back!
Let's take a step back. I don't think this card is universally useful - it has its good and its bad days. Let's ask what this card works against and what it's bad against.
Firedrinker Satyr is almost always good when you're on the play - you get to smash in for 2 at least once, maybe two or three times.
Omenspeaker, should it see any play, is a pretty good answer to the Firedrinker, unless you spend one of your removal spells to get rid of it (which you really should). Otherwise, Omenspeaker trades with Firedrinker if you want to invest your mana to pump him, or just stops him if you have other things to do with your mana that turn (say, any two or three drop). Against UW control, Firedrinker is good. It represents a threat that can just sit around, and you don't take damage if it gets hit by Supreme Verdict.
The deck that really worries me when playing Firedrinker Sayr is GW aggro, because any of that deck's 1-drops trades with it (and hits you with free damage) and any of that deck's 2-drops either stops it cold or makes you take 4 damage to trade with it. GW aggro also has tools to protect it's creatures. If you try to trade with a 3/3 for 2 and they play Brave the Elements, you've taken 4 damage and lost your guy to their spell. Brave the elements is even the best case example; Selesnya Charm in that situation just kicks you in the gut. I think Firedrinkers get boarded out against GW aggro in favor of...something better. Probably Mizzium Mortars if you aren't already main decking those. GW aggro seems pretty good against RDW right now anyway, but no reason to help them out.
It's probably okay against GR monsters or whatever it called, at least on the play. It can go at planeswalkers just fine, and Sylvan Caryatid just steps in front of it without killing it. Once you opponent drops that 4/5 Ember Swallower on turn 3 though, the Firedrinker looks a lot like a liability if you can't close out the game right then and there.
I understand people's comments regarding not blocking with Firedrinker: just don't. There's no point to it. But at some point, attacking with it is the same as giving their creatures vigilance for a turn - they get to both block and hit you with some damage. And while I get the idea that life total doesn't matter, there are few situations where you should just swing in and take 6 damage - that's basically one turn's worth of damage and it signals to your opponent that the race is on, because who isn't going to start swinging in when your opponent domes himself for 5+ damage?
And take Firedrinker out in any matchup against Boros Reckoner, even if it's the mirror. IT's 7 damage to the face just to trade, or 3 to the face and lose another creature.
If you're on the play in the mirror, your opponent Lightning Strikes it or throw a Burning-Tree Emissary in front of it and it's like going on the play. (Just had a thought - Burning-Tree mana can go towards his pump if you don't have any other two-drops. That is a point in the Firedrinker's favor.) I honestly think that boarding out Firedrinker is best in the mirror because it stops your opponent's removal from being free face burn.
There are other archetypes we'll see where Firedrinker isn't the worst card. GB midrange I think is being underrated a bit right now, and Firedrinker is better there than in other matchups because none of the removal is damage based.
So, I'm thinking of making a few cubes to preserve many of the famous draft formats in Magic history. Triple Innistrad is beloved, as well as Rise of the Eldrazi, and quite possibly triple Theros. I'm also interested in maybe making a cube for Invasion, Planeshift, Apocalypse.
My question is what's a good way to properly represent what the draft format was actually like? I know that I'll want to sort out packs beforehand of 10 commons, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare or mythic. I fugure each cube will have a stack of rares/mythics with one of each rare/mythic - but how should I handle the commons/uncommons? A pool of 2 of each uncommon and 3 of each common?
How can I strike a balance that really feels like the draft format I'm trying to preserve without making my cube a massive pile of cards?
Looks like the reference is lost on everybody else. But I get it!
Three Fetch Lands keeps the cadence of the original, which is why I believe why he chose it. Could go either way though.
Won't lie, I'd play it.
This is a good point, and I agree. In aggro vs. aggro, resources are vital. A good 2 for 1 gives you a tremendous advantage, and flooding out by even one land can be bad news. Preserving card advantage and board advantage is key because he who goes into topdeck mode first is doomed. It's what makes Boros Reckoner a terrifying card against any aggro strategy, because it's a 2 for 1 more often than not. It's almost always a 1 for 1 for one of your better cards. The only way I've not lost card advantage to a Reckoner is suiting up a 5/5 wurm token with Unflinching Courage. (Assuming that taking 3+ burn to the face represents a card on their part.) In the same vein, it's hard for mono red to take out a Loxodon Smiter without losing a creature and a burn spell, or two creatures.
Allocating your resources effectively means little when you can sandbag a Sphinx's Revelation and get them all back with one card.
I've always found combo incredibly boring after about two games. I feels gimmicky in that once I've won with a turn four Dragonstorm, there's no particular rush to win that way again. I've delegated all my combo needs to commander decks where they only crop up every once in a while.
And control...I just don't like control. I understand people that do, for the most part, but I find it boring and I find playing against it boring. I get it, you have 5 cards in hand and I'm in topdeck mode, win already. For example...
You sound like the worst person to play against. Nothing personal, just...ugh. Shoot me.
My favorite matchups are aggro vs. aggro, or aggro vs. midrange. Trading creatures, trading spells, waiting for your opponent to stumble so that you can just blow them out and take the game, or beating down and getting their life total low enough that their Stormbreath Dragon can't even save them now. There's a thrill in knowing that you could just lose at any moment.
It's a blast watching control decks stumble, though. Did you miss your fourth land drop? Flash in Advent of the Wurm, swing for lethal?
Also, I don't get the whole creatures vs. spells thing. Why are spells inherently better? A lot of people seem to think this, and I just don't understand. Spells are cool. Creatures are also cool. Yeah, yeah, blah blah Wizards pushing creature strategies, yada yada. So what? When did creatures become some kind of necessary evil that people always complain about?
Ral, along with Chandra, had taken out a healthy chunk of my life total already, he was working his way up to one last bolt.
I made it abundantly clear the each opponent that I had no outs, reasonable or unreasonable.
In one game some weeks ago I was playing G/W aggro against a U/R control build that played some number of Ral Zerek, Jace, Architect of Thought and Chandra, Pyromaster. I had maybe one card in hand and was at 3 life, while my opponent had one copy each of those aforementioned planeswalkers and three or four cards in hand. Chandra was ready to use her ultimate, and I urged my opponent to do so so that we could play game 3. Instead, he drew out the game for three turns using her 0 ability, nearly allowing me to win with a topdecked and subsequently monstrified Fleecemane Lion. He topdecked some burn just before I started swinging at his walkers with a game winning Unflinching Courage. He did it with Chandra's 0 instead of using her ult to give himself the maximum chance to close out the game.
Another game just last week, I was playing mono black control against R/G monsters and I was just straight up hosed. She had an insurmountable board presence involving Stormbreath Dragon, Polukranous, the World Eater, Domri Rade, and Xenagos, the Reveler. I encouraged her to ult Xenagos to dump some permanents into play for the lulz before she killed me hilariously dead, going so far as to reveal my hand of two swamps to prove that I had no outs. Instead, she ticked up Domri, to reveal a second Polly-K, and swung out without ulting Xenagos. The assault wasn't lethal, but I drew a land and lost next turn. She could have easily won on the spot by ulting Xenagos.
Is there some unspoken rule somewhere that says players aren't supposed to ultimate their planeswalkers? Is it somehow seen as dirty? I understand fully that you should rarely take a 'walker's ult into account when evaluating them, but if through the course of a game you get there, why not ult them for the sheer spectacle of it? In both cases I've mentioned, there wasn't much reason I could see not to finish the game quickly - it nearly cost the U/R control player his win. Are people so obsessed with board presence and card advantage that they forget to just go ahead and win?
I just recently build myself a deck that could be considered a Dave deck, and Fumiko is my commander.
Of course, it you're playing at the kitchen table, do what you want because nobody can stop you.
Firedrinker Satyr is almost always good when you're on the play - you get to smash in for 2 at least once, maybe two or three times.
Omenspeaker, should it see any play, is a pretty good answer to the Firedrinker, unless you spend one of your removal spells to get rid of it (which you really should). Otherwise, Omenspeaker trades with Firedrinker if you want to invest your mana to pump him, or just stops him if you have other things to do with your mana that turn (say, any two or three drop). Against UW control, Firedrinker is good. It represents a threat that can just sit around, and you don't take damage if it gets hit by Supreme Verdict.
The deck that really worries me when playing Firedrinker Sayr is GW aggro, because any of that deck's 1-drops trades with it (and hits you with free damage) and any of that deck's 2-drops either stops it cold or makes you take 4 damage to trade with it. GW aggro also has tools to protect it's creatures. If you try to trade with a 3/3 for 2 and they play Brave the Elements, you've taken 4 damage and lost your guy to their spell. Brave the elements is even the best case example; Selesnya Charm in that situation just kicks you in the gut. I think Firedrinkers get boarded out against GW aggro in favor of...something better. Probably Mizzium Mortars if you aren't already main decking those. GW aggro seems pretty good against RDW right now anyway, but no reason to help them out.
It's probably okay against GR monsters or whatever it called, at least on the play. It can go at planeswalkers just fine, and Sylvan Caryatid just steps in front of it without killing it. Once you opponent drops that 4/5 Ember Swallower on turn 3 though, the Firedrinker looks a lot like a liability if you can't close out the game right then and there.
I understand people's comments regarding not blocking with Firedrinker: just don't. There's no point to it. But at some point, attacking with it is the same as giving their creatures vigilance for a turn - they get to both block and hit you with some damage. And while I get the idea that life total doesn't matter, there are few situations where you should just swing in and take 6 damage - that's basically one turn's worth of damage and it signals to your opponent that the race is on, because who isn't going to start swinging in when your opponent domes himself for 5+ damage?
And take Firedrinker out in any matchup against Boros Reckoner, even if it's the mirror. IT's 7 damage to the face just to trade, or 3 to the face and lose another creature.
If you're on the play in the mirror, your opponent Lightning Strikes it or throw a Burning-Tree Emissary in front of it and it's like going on the play. (Just had a thought - Burning-Tree mana can go towards his pump if you don't have any other two-drops. That is a point in the Firedrinker's favor.) I honestly think that boarding out Firedrinker is best in the mirror because it stops your opponent's removal from being free face burn.
There are other archetypes we'll see where Firedrinker isn't the worst card. GB midrange I think is being underrated a bit right now, and Firedrinker is better there than in other matchups because none of the removal is damage based.
Those are my thoughts. Dissect them as you will.
My question is what's a good way to properly represent what the draft format was actually like? I know that I'll want to sort out packs beforehand of 10 commons, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare or mythic. I fugure each cube will have a stack of rares/mythics with one of each rare/mythic - but how should I handle the commons/uncommons? A pool of 2 of each uncommon and 3 of each common?
How can I strike a balance that really feels like the draft format I'm trying to preserve without making my cube a massive pile of cards?