I think the questions surrounding explaining hand size and milling and the fact that there is a "player" who is also a planeswalker is not how a movie should be approached. When we read the Official Fan Fiction, the story is not told as if each Planeswalker were a magical player who needs cards to make spells happen. The cards give us a representation of what it would be like if we were in that world. How much mana is accessible to use to cast a spell? Our lands plus other things that generate mana. For a Planeswalker like Jace, this is how much he can draw from the land around him, plus other resources. This is not hard to CGI for a movie. He would need to have some physical reaction to indicate he is "drawing" mana from the land around him. How much effort it requires (physically) and the resultant spell explains without words how much mana was available. Furthermore, if the result seems minimal for his capacity, he can even provide (while panting from exhaustion) that there just isn't enough mana he can use in the land around him. This can also then be contrasted by another Planeswalker (say Chandra) who can draw lots of mana from the land to cast a spell, because the land is mountainous and therefore in her "color." If a Pyromancer is surrounded by water, it's not hard to imagine why she can't conjure up a ball of flame. They can even pull an artifact out of their pocket to draw more mana from, with swirly magical lines leaving the artifact and combining with the swirly magical lines from the land that surround their body until it coalesces into whatever spell. Other than Planeswalkers and mana, what else is there really to explain? How do you explain that a creature without flying or reach cannot block a creature with flying? Have the creature with flying actually fly over the creature that cannot block it. Hexproof: have a spell fizzle at the caster (not deflect off the creature, because that makes it appear that you can target it). I would think that each keyword ability can be represented in some physical fashion with relative ease.
The look and feel of a Magic the Gathering movie will not be anything like the game if we want it to be a success. As I said earlier, I don't want to see Jace pull a card out that says "Divination" and then two more cards magically appear in his hand. That's not how the Fan Fiction is presented and that's not how a movie should be presented. The movie should have several central Planeswalkers that are the good guys, and possibly even several Planeswalkers that are the bad guys. This generates a conflict that is on a single dimension of complexity, because it only requires that one Planeswalker explain how his/her spark ignited and you can understand the premise behind Planeswalkers. Conflict resolution by the end of the movie, then tease the next conflict, which can be a step up in complexity. The challenge behind a Magic the Gathering movie, IMO, is that there is so much content, what do you limit it to? You cannot explain all the worlds in one movie. You develop one world, maybe two at the most, in a single movie. So do subsequent movies go back to that world or new worlds? Is each movie development of new worlds/Planeswalkers or do you always keep it limited to a few? Can the plot be boiled down to a few worlds instead of the vast majority as represented in the Fan Fiction? Maybe you pick the favorites and make movies around those, but since each world's plot line relative to Planeswalker development in the Fan Fiction is different from how it would be in the movie, you necessarily have to separate the Fan Fiction from the movies.
-
- DRay563
- Registered User
-
Member for 9 years, 5 months, and 18 days
Last active Wed, Aug, 5 2020 07:25:31
- 0 Followers
- 694 Total Posts
- 116 Thanks
Refer to MadMageQc's post for the answer to your question. This is for additional clarification. Clever Impersonator is a 0/0 creature. State-based actions tell us that any creature with a toughness of 0 or less is moved to the graveyard. Therefore, if Clever Imeprsonator exists as itself for any period of time, unless there is a continuous buff effect (e.g. Glorious Anthem), it will immediately move to the graveyard. Logically, it therefore must be the copy of whatever it is copying when entering (and not after) to avoid being immediately dead.
Note also that triggered abilities use words like "when," "whenever," and "at." Clever Impersonator does not use any of these words, so nothing "triggers" to make it a copy of the creature (a triggered ability would cause a delay between entering the battlefield and it becoming a copy). As MadMageQc said, its own wording states that it will enter the battlefield as the copy, meaning the change has taken place either before or in parallel with (and in this case, its in parallel with) entering the battlefield. As far as the game is concerned, an Eternal Witness enters the battlefield, not a Clever Impersonator.
Is Prowling Serpopard worth including in the 75 with the uptick of UB Control? They run very little maindeck removal, relying heavily on the counters, and Serpopard wrecks that strategy. It's less effective against the other control decks, but if UB Control is considered the premiere control deck, it might be worthy of inclusion. Or is it too cornercase and we stick with Duress and Negate instead?
Fetid Pools vs. Drowned Catacomb... and go!
No, which is why I run more than 4 removal spells. At SCG Dallas, I ran 3 Fatal Push, 2 Never // Return, and 2 Vraska's Contempt main with 1 Vraska's Contempt and 3 Doomfall in the side. However, Hostage Taker acts as removal if you can make it stick, which is why the Jessup brothers opted for only 4 Fatal Push main. Myself, I'm going down on the Nevers and adding the 4th Push back in, leaving me 6 maindeck removal spells and probably going with two Hostage Takers main as well.
I don't know how Hostage Taker lines up against Temur, but there was a lot of Temur Black at SCG Dallas. I beat it every time I played it and the Jessup brothers obviously did quite well against them too. I don't have the reps that the pros do, and Temur is obviously powerful and flexible, but I think Sultai Constrictor has a better than 50% match-up against it, with or without Hostage Taker. Their deck against our deck depends so heavily on Glorybringer and Chandra, Torch of Defiance, it's not even funny. Their typical snowball threats (Longtusk Cub and Bristling Hydra) don't get as big as ours do. Add in the facts that we have access to better removal, have an overall low curve, and are now maindecking combat tricks/protection (i.e. Blossoming Defense) and I think the match-up slants even more in our favor.
I agree with your assessment that #2 is the approach we should take. I like 2 main with some number of B. Defense and a reasonable sideboard plan against Control and maybe the mirror & token-style decks.
So here's the dilemma, as I see it. I feel like my particular build of the deck is competitive, at least in the meta that I played in on week 1. I didn't face any UB Control, but my experience against Control is 50/50 (bad against Approach, reasonable against other forms of Control). However, my two match-ups against the Hostage Taker iteration were horribly skewed in their favor. That's only 5 games, but 1/5 is not a great record. So if the Sultai energy build continues on its path without Hostage Taker, whatever that iteration looks like (with or without Blossoming Defense, with or without Bristling Hydra, 0 - 2 Rhonas, 0-2 Scarab God, etc), I think it's most likely vulnerable to Hostage Taker. That's because the tempo blow out is staggering, and our creatures play into the other deck's strategy, contributing to the tempo swing.
FWIW, I think Rhonas is a must going forward. If we don't have some form of evasion, Tokens.dec can just wreck us. Sure, we can put up huge bodies, but if they never get through, the tokens will overrun us. Rhonas is also difficult for UB Control, as they have to have Vraska's Contempt if he resolves (or manage to keep every other creature off the board). Me personally, I'm thinking of running two Hostage Taker main and 2-3 Blossoming Defense. It gives us the opportunity for the tempo blow out with defense up, but it's not the strategy of the deck. It doesn't take up as many slots in the 75 overall. Defense is a good card regardless, gets better with Hostage Taker, and will help in a lot of match-ups.
In terms of countermagic, I was originally running Jace's Defeat, but changed to Spell Pierce for SCG Dallas. I'm considering running Negate instead, but what about Supreme Will? I know it's not a hard counter, but it can stop everything we need it to stop (Fumigate, Settle the Wreckage, Torrential Gearhulk, etc.) and do double duty for card selection.
The Control player doesn't care so much about it T4 (which is when it's a Grizzly Bear that shocks then), but more late game when it comes down as a 3/3 or 4/4. At that point, we have the mana to make it grow (and probably little else in hand to do with our excess mana), and it becomes an extremely dangerous threat. In virtually every Control match-up I've played, I've watched them prioritize removal of Walking Ballista over other cards, even Winding Constrictor. I hear groans when I play it and they don't have a counterspell in hand. Ballista can not attack and win you the game, which can't be said of any other card in the deck. It represents points of damage if it resolves (like a burn spell) if they do have removal, which also can't be said of any other creature. That being said, it doesn't win the game near as quickly or overwhelm the opponent in card advantage as other threats in the deck do, so I usually side out 1-2 of them, but not all of them. And I'm not sure what my sideboarding plan will be going forward, as I've modified my sideboard since SCG Dallas. So who knows, maybe Ballista won't make the cut against Control!
Other thoughts on his version of the deck. I still don't like Rishkar. I mean, I understand that a T2 Constrictor into a T3 Rishkar is very strong, and the extra mana can make for additional broken plays, but I just think he's clunky. It's often just a 3/3 for 3 mana dork because the other creature got removed. I'm still a huge fan of Rhonas in the deck, as again, most other decks actively hate Rhonas. He's hard to remove and provides evasion to any other creature, which then turns him online as a huge beater. I also think it's a mistake to not have any Aethersphere Harvesters, as there are so many match-ups where that card was clutch. Blossoming Defense helps out, as it can save a creature from removal and/or stop the "can't block" effects that make the red match-up so rough. Deathgorge Scavenger also helps, but is only semi-repeatable (as it's dependent on the what's in the GY) and easier to remove. Lastly, there's no artifact/enchantment hate in the sideboard. Should there be, or is there insufficient meta evidence of artifact/enchantment relevant cards to have some kind of hate in the sideboard?
The potential for them to have 2+ Gods (one on board and more in hand) is pretty slim. I mean, it happens, but other than mono red, most people aren't running more than 2 of a type of God. Mono red typically pitches their extra Hazorets, so again, less likely for it to be a 2-for-1. And I would say that the extra life gain and the ability to hit PW is a pretty big upside. Chandra is a real threat and can be very hard to deal with. Vraska is popping up in some lists and is a solid finisher if unanswered. Tezzeret is somewhat of a nuisance in the Improvise decks, but IMO it's still worth having a direct answer for him. And the lifegain is more than incidental, as that's 10% of your starting life total and can make a huge difference in the mono red match-up. I would try to make your mana base BB capable if you can.
You're missing the second half of Hostage Taker which allows you to cast their creature while it's in exile. That double removal with Taker can represent two extra bodies on your side of the board if Taker survives long enough for you to cast both and is the "slow board wipe" here.
4 Longtusk Cub
4 Walking Ballista
4 Winding Constrictor
4 Rogue Refiner
2 Rhonas the Indomitable
2 Bristling Hydra
2 Ripjaw Raptor
2 Verdurous Gearhulk
1 The Scarab God
Non-creature Spells
2 Shapers' Sanctuary
3 Fatal Push
3 Attune with Aether
2 Aethersphere Harvester
2 Never // Return
2 Vraska's Contempt
4 Blooming Marsh
4 Botanical Sanctum
4 Aether Hub
2 Foul Orchard
3 Forest
3 Swamp
1 Island
1 Fetid Pools
1 Carnage Tyrannt
1 Vraska's Contempt
2 Lifecrafter's Bestiary
3 Spell Pierce
1 Ripjaw Raptor
3 Doomfall
2 Crook of Condemnation
2 Appetite for the Unnatural
Round 1: Abzan Tokens/Stockpile
Game 1 he got stuck on lands and it was over pretty quick. Game 2 he landed Legion's Landing early, and once he got Anointed Procession and Hidden Stockpile out, it got ugly quick. I scooped with about 10 minutes left on the clock and he had 63 life. Game 3 went to turns after I got him down really low. A timely Walking Ballista allowed me to control his board and swing for lethal on T2.
2-1
Round 2: Bant Control
I don't think his deck ever really performed. I asked him about his wincons because he sorta controlled the board, but I could always chip in for some damage here and there. He was a turbofog style control deck but I had too many threats.
2-0
Round 3: UR Control
He got stuck on one land game 1 and it was over very quickly. Game 2, he stalled he got controlled the board pretty well and was using Enigma Drake as his win con. He also was using Vizier of Many Faces to copy the Enigma Drake. His first his was for 8, then for 10 (technically swinging for 20, but I had revolt enabled and tried to fatal push both the Drake and the Vizier copy, but he countered one). He was down to 4 life and I topdecked a Walking Ballista with 8+ mana so...
2-0
Round 4: Temur Black Energy
I played Temur Black Energy several times the weekend and they all kinda blur together. I think my version of the deck is favored, because I won all the match-ups against it. I lost Game 2 due to land screw, but I won games 1 & 3 pretty handily.
2-1
Round 5: UW Approach
It's not even close. Settle the Wreckage is terrible to play against. My maindeck stands very little chance unless they just don't find the answers. My opponent sticks Search for Azcanta on T2 both games and I can never keep a large enough board presence to make a difference. I board in 3 Doomfall and 3 Spell Pierce to try to make a difference, but never draw the Doomfalls and Spell Pierce doesn't work when they have all the manas. For what it's worth, my opponent this round made 7th in the tourney.
0-2
Round 6: Temur Black Energy
See above about this match-up.
2-1
Round 7: Ramunap Red
The red match-up I think is slightly favored in our advantage. Game 1, Aethersphere Harvester was the MVP. He took me down to 3, but crewing Harvester and dropping all the Gearhulk counters on it to gain back a bunch of life works SUPER well in this matchup. I mean, sure, they can blow you out with Abrade, but if they don't have it right then, it's almost always game over. G2 I didn't put up much of a fight. G3 was close, as I got down to 4 before closing the game out.
2-1
Round 8: Sultai Snek Hostage Taker - Dan Jessup
Game 1 I managed to win. He didn't see a Hostage Taker, and without that card, my deck performs better than his. Game 2, he Hostage Taker's my Winding Constrictor on T5, holding up for Blossoming Defense. I attempt to Never on my turn, but Blossoming Defense eats my lunch. Snake into Rishkar and that's all she wrote. Game 3 followed a similar pattern. I would dominate turns 1-4, but turns 5-8 were all his after Hostage Taker with Defense turned the tide. It's a ugly two-card combo that's very hard to deal with.
1-2
Round 9: Mono Black Aggro
Game 1 goes to my opponent in a very weird way. He gets stuck on two lands - a swamp and an Aether Hub. He has a Glint-Sleeve Siphoner out. He beats face with Siphoner to gain an energy and then uses the energy to pay for a black to cast Walk the Plank. For 6 turns, he casts all four Planks and 2 Fatal Pushes. He 1-for-1s me and hits for 12 points without ever drawing another land. Finally he hits land three, I'm out of gas, and he lands another threat or two and closes the game. I easily take games 2 & 3 because the deck can weather early aggro, stabilize, and the crack back is really hard once that happens.
2-1, finish Day 1 with a 7-2 record
Round 10: Temur Black Energy
See above. Worth noting that opponent's T3 Bristling Hydra into T4 Bristling Hydra while on the play is hard to answer...
2-1
Round 11: Grixis Improvise
I really enjoyed this match-up. He'd land early artifacts and servo makers to power out improvise creatures like Herald of Anguish. He used Battle at the Bridge to kill Rhonas. In the end, though, The Scarab God proved too much, as did timely removal for his threats.
2-0
Round 12: Sultai Snek Hostage Taker - Andrew Jessup
See notes from round 8, as it was almost exactly the same except I didn't win game 1. He slaughtered me both games with all the answers, Hostage Taker when needed, and Blossoming Defense to blank all my removal. It was frustrating to feel like his draws were the perfect counters against my draws, but that's how it works sometimes!
0-2
Round 13: Ramunap Red
I closed out Game 1 without much difficulty. I think he got stuck on lands. Game 2 was the opposite, where he closed it out pretty quickly and I barely put up a fight. Game 3 was a much closer game, despite his life total never changing. The game ended with me having two Winding Constrictors that were 5/6s, an 8/8 Gearhulk, and Rhonas with 6 mana. He had enough of a board that I couldn't swing in with anything because the crack back would be lethal. I had to try to build a critical mass of creatures and grant trample with Rhonas to make it where he was forced to block to survive and not be able to attack back. He got to six mana and was able to Eternalize a Khenra, and between that, two Crashers, Hazoret, and Kari Zev, it was game over. The turning point was about turn 7 when I crewed Harvester to block and gain some life and he played Lightning Strike on it. Not so big a deal, except I had two Constrictors out and he had a Soul-Scar Mage. Next turn, I was gonna drop Gearhulk and counter it up, but it would've been a worse blow out (Strike in response to the counters).
1-2
Round 14: UW Approach
See above for how bad this match-up is. Game 2 was actually really funny, as he played Regal Caracal into Regal Caracal and beat face. He got me down to 1 and was up to 46 life, then Fumigated to clear away everything. I managed to crawl back up to 7 life from various life gain effects while also dropping him to 35, but the second sun made its way to victory.
0-2
Round 15: Mono Red Aggro
It wasn't the standard build of Ramunap Red, using some newer cards like Rampaging Ferocidon. The games were close, but Walking Ballista, life gain from Harvester, and even incidental gain from Vraska's Contempt make this a win-able match-up.
2-1, finishing Day 2 at 3-3 with a 10-5 record overall
Main thing I would change is to add back in the 4th Fatal Push (I needed it so often the weekend), remove Shapers' Sanctuary (I never really wanted it and it rarely drew me cards because the opponent's would just play around it), and possibly switch out the Never // Return with more Vraska's Contempt. Sideboard, I'd probably pull the Tyrant, as I'm not sure it was really needed, probably add in another Harvester (it was a serious MVP in so many match-ups), replace the Spell Pierces with Negates, and consider switching out Doomfall with Duress like the Jessup brothers have. I think Duress will overall be better against Approach, which was by far the worst match-up, and Negate being a hard counter against both Approach and Settle is a big deal. How to deal with the Hostage Taker version? Not sure yet, but I may have to consider some amount of Defense myself as a counter to the ability. I wouldn't play Taker myself unless I use their style build, as the whole game plan is to make a massive tempo swing with Taker and protect it with Defense.
Thanks! I'll hopefully be able to give my report tonight or tomorrow. I didn't take notes, but I have all the sheets I used for life totals to provide insight into each match-up. I played both Jessup brothers, losing to both. Hostage Taker is such a huge tempo swing, and they treated it like a 5-drop (holding up Blossoming Defense). They also almost always had the right card at the right time, which was extremely frustrating. It's one thing to be a good player with a good deck. But to always have Fatal Push, Blossoming Defense, and Hostage Taker at the right time to maximize the advantage? That's some good luck too!
This seems like a weird version of the deck. Kitesail Freebooter seems like a decent card, as it's evasion card advantage so long as it lives, and your opponent will feel bad using a removal spell on it... but I'm not convinced it's worth 4 main deck slots. I like the idea of swapping out Attunes with Ranging Raptors if you lose the energy package, but it seems a bad idea to drop energy due to its impressive synergy. I like Savage Stomp, but it's it's only good if you run enough dinos to get the discount. Otherwise, it's a bad pump/fight spell. Deathgorge Scavenger is not that good of a card IMO. If it added counters instead of temporary buffs, then it would be pretty good, especially in this deck. It's not horrible against Ramunap Red due to the life gain, but that's about it.
Hoser, you've given me some better insight on Sanctuary, as I wasn't thinking about do not block effects and how it could help in the aggro/midrange matchup. That's definitely worth considering. The reason I like Bestiary is because even on an empty board, it does something (scry 1). Also, it puts you in control of the draw effects, since it's your trigger, as opposed to letting your opponent be the one in charge of it. I like that Sanctuary is more resilient than Bestiary, but Abrade will be seeing less play due to Lightning Strike being reprinted. I like that Sanctuary comes down on T1, but it could literally do nothing the entire game whereas Bestiary will always do something. The biggest drawback to Bestiary is that it doesn't come down until T3, which can represent a decent tempo swing that you have to come back from.
So the next question becomes, is it worth having both in the SB? Maybe a 2/1 split or 1/1?
In the games where it matters, why Spell Pierce over Negate? How often will that 1 mana on your end make a difference, and how often will they "tap out" while you don't have the requisite mana open? If you're aggro, you don't hold up mana early game, so this is a later game counterspell. Or is the thought that this is a hold up against T4/T5 wrath where you can still have mana up for a creature post-combat?
__________________________________
Random poll for the group. Shapers' Sanctuary or Lifecrafter's Bestiary? And why?
Compare to Greater Sandwurm, a 7/7 for 7 with upside uncommon with cycling. I don't see it being outside the rarity convention for a 9/9 vanilla to cost 8 since it will be very difficult to remove it without a direct removal spell. Any upside to this card would have pushed it to uncommon, which also includes lower CMC.
Tribal vampire fun after a tribal vampire EDH deck release in a casual format that WOTC doesn't police and therefore can make profit from without ramifications to them? Seems pretty business savvy to me. This was undoubtedly planned to help maximize profits. Edgar sells like hotcakes on release, then Ixalan sells to further boost Edgar decks, and people who get spicy Ixalan vamps that didn't already have it buy Edgar decks. It's a circular loop of profit!
This will be interesting, but losing Sanctum of Ugin is going to hurt the resiliency of this deck. I'd rather counter the Colossus while having Revel in Riches out to auto-win on my next upkeep.