Do you have any more specifics for what your deck currently looks like, and what you're aiming to accomplish? The more details, the better the suggestions can become.
Absent much to go by, have you seen this thread? It likely contains a lot of the information you're looking for.
Ugh I went to build Hanna and just ended up building a Stax deck instead, that happens to have Hanna as a commander. Someone needs to stop letting me be efficient like this
I tend to think that "Casual" and "Competitive" aren't really at opposition with each other. By definition, if you're playing a game that has the potential to declare a winner, you're competing. By definition, if you're playing in a relaxed environment, it's casual.
I think that "Casual" and "Competitive" are two separate discussions.
Instead of "Casual," I think it's better to think in terms of personal budget. "Casual" implies a relaxed environment, and people place different values on relaxation. Thus, it really seems to boil down to personal opinions on the budget allotted to relaxation. Some people spend a lot on their luxury items, and some people don't.
Instead of "Competitive," I think that thinking in terms of "Non-Tournament" and "Tournament" play is more appropriate, and tends to more accurately describe the situation. One is prize oriented and one isn't. If you're playing in a tournament, there is a tangible prize. It seems reasonable to expect that in a tournament setting, everyone is playing for the prize. Thus, any legal means to gain an advantage should be fair game with no value judgments. In a non-tournament setting, there is no defined prize. Thus, sometimes added factors come into play, and people waste time arguing about the so called element of "fun." These added quirks and the vague notion of "fun" is why people sometimes use the word social to describe the non-tournament mindset, but I think social tends to infer a value judgment, incorrectly suggesting tournament play is somehow antisocial behavior when really it's just social play with a tangible prize. There's nothing wrong with having a mindset geared towards winning.
To be fair, Barry's land is more a domain issue, which adds complexity because of the goal. Either it messes with one of the fundamentals of the game, or it leads to a wordy card.
If all Sadgasm wants is a colorless land with the "A deck can have any number of cards named _____" text, there's always the Relentless Rats solution.
Yeah, this is basically what is happening to the OP. You see this everywhere, though. There are people in the casual rooms on MTGO that get pissed when your deck is good, and tell you to play in the tournament rooms. I don't understand why people build crappy decks, either. What's the point of that?
I don't really see the situation you describe as the same situation the OP describes. The strength of a deck can be adjusted based on the realism of who you're facing. A playgroup can understandably get upset if someone brings a gun to a knife fight. Then again, I don't really play on MTGO because I think the social aspect of the game is more of the fun than simply playing the game.
Basically, there's a huge difference between a tournament mentality and a social mentality. "Crappy" and "good" can mean different things depending on the context.
What Uril deck are you playing where you only need one enchantment on him?
What Uril deck are you playing where you'd advocate overextending and blindly slapping all the auras on him at once?
The point is the middle ground, where you can put multiple auras, and while cumulatively useful, you'd also want each individual aura to be individually useful as well because the circumstance often favors not overextending. Thus, look at synergy while maintaining individual value. Individual value is what Ancestral Mask lacks. It does nothing except make Uril bigger.
Is Rancor good individually and with other auras? Yes
Is Hyena Umbra? Yes
The list goes on and on.
Ancestral Mask doesn't make the cut because there are much better choices that do more than just make Uril big.
It's obvious at this point that you are either a troll with no intention of fostering productive debate, or you are incapable of recognizing hyperbole, possibly due to some kind of developmental disability. If that is the case I am truly sorry that the big, bad internet is wrong and that you feel responsible for correcting it, but otherwise I think you have made your case well enough and respectfully ask that you stop posting.
Pointing out a ridiculous statement is not trolling. It's identifying a flaw in your reasoning. But yes, you can make personal attacks if it makes you feel better.
No where did I say that. Way to put words in my mouth. I said it is not like lotus or a mox, where it would go in every deck it meets the colors for. There are better Tutors, and a lot of fast black decks dont even play Vampiric because it goes to the top, not hand.
Of course decks CAN be built to withstand it, I said that.
You also said MLD doesn't get reprinted anymore, which is blatantly false and I corrected you on it. You were not clear on whether you understood that decks can be built to withstand it. I wasn't sure how far your inaccurate beliefs went, so I wanted to help.
Enough people strongly dislike it in a social game it should be known at the start if people are playing it. The 'MLD is OK' most of the time is against that because they want to grief.
It's incredibly closed-minded to say that all people who think MLD is fine just want to grief.
I play with people to have fun. I have different decks at different power levels to allow players to experience different things. If one deck blindly stomps everyone's face in, obviously I'm going to switch to a lower powered deck. But that has noting to do with any particular strategy. It has nothing to do with MLD in and of itself.
It's funny how your group mentality seems to advocate alienating certain strategies and favors hindering mobility between groups. Same as house bans for social promotes antisocial behavior, alienating an entire strategy promotes antisocial atmospheres when playing a game.
So you are ok with someone resetting games in a format that is already very long just on the off chance the they might be able to survive. Sounds like a selfish d-bag move that makes for some extremely long boring games. Personally I like my games to be fun. Not that mass land d and fun can't mix. Just don't be a jerk about it.
The format itself is not long. The decks can be as competitive of as casual as you want. That's why it's a social game. It's not a "d-bag move" to play MLD in and of itself. It's not an "off change" to survive, as many MLD decks are designed to handle MLD. That's the whole point of playing it as a viable option.
Personally, I like my games to be fun. That's why I'm for inviting people to play, and enjoy different types of strategy. That's why I don't alienate an entire strategy and call people "jerks" for playing a game.
If you've built the deck correctly, then he probably has evasion from another enchantment on him. Not everything has to give him evasion, being able to make him absurdly big is a definite plus.
If you've built your deck "correctly," you shouldn't have to rely on the hope that you have another enchantment. I didn't say everything needs to give him evasion. Lack of evasion is just one example of why it's bad. Like I said earlier, other useful abilities are fine to. Just making him big doesn't make the cut when there are plenty of other better auras to choose from.
Absent much to go by, have you seen this thread? It likely contains a lot of the information you're looking for.
Hmm, WU? Build this.
I think that "Casual" and "Competitive" are two separate discussions.
Instead of "Casual," I think it's better to think in terms of personal budget. "Casual" implies a relaxed environment, and people place different values on relaxation. Thus, it really seems to boil down to personal opinions on the budget allotted to relaxation. Some people spend a lot on their luxury items, and some people don't.
Instead of "Competitive," I think that thinking in terms of "Non-Tournament" and "Tournament" play is more appropriate, and tends to more accurately describe the situation. One is prize oriented and one isn't. If you're playing in a tournament, there is a tangible prize. It seems reasonable to expect that in a tournament setting, everyone is playing for the prize. Thus, any legal means to gain an advantage should be fair game with no value judgments. In a non-tournament setting, there is no defined prize. Thus, sometimes added factors come into play, and people waste time arguing about the so called element of "fun." These added quirks and the vague notion of "fun" is why people sometimes use the word social to describe the non-tournament mindset, but I think social tends to infer a value judgment, incorrectly suggesting tournament play is somehow antisocial behavior when really it's just social play with a tangible prize. There's nothing wrong with having a mindset geared towards winning.
https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25
To be fair, Barry's land is more a domain issue, which adds complexity because of the goal. Either it messes with one of the fundamentals of the game, or it leads to a wordy card.
If all Sadgasm wants is a colorless land with the "A deck can have any number of cards named _____" text, there's always the Relentless Rats solution.
I don't really see the situation you describe as the same situation the OP describes. The strength of a deck can be adjusted based on the realism of who you're facing. A playgroup can understandably get upset if someone brings a gun to a knife fight. Then again, I don't really play on MTGO because I think the social aspect of the game is more of the fun than simply playing the game.
Basically, there's a huge difference between a tournament mentality and a social mentality. "Crappy" and "good" can mean different things depending on the context.
What Uril deck are you playing where you'd advocate overextending and blindly slapping all the auras on him at once?
The point is the middle ground, where you can put multiple auras, and while cumulatively useful, you'd also want each individual aura to be individually useful as well because the circumstance often favors not overextending. Thus, look at synergy while maintaining individual value. Individual value is what Ancestral Mask lacks. It does nothing except make Uril bigger.
Is Rancor good individually and with other auras? Yes
Is Hyena Umbra? Yes
The list goes on and on.
Ancestral Mask doesn't make the cut because there are much better choices that do more than just make Uril big.
Nah, the point was clear.
In related news, black supposedly has infinite tutors, and pointing out ridiculous arguments is trolling.
That thread is an endless source of amusement.
Pointing out a ridiculous statement is not trolling. It's identifying a flaw in your reasoning. But yes, you can make personal attacks if it makes you feel better.
You did not compare it to lotus or a mox. I quoted your entire post when I responded. Please don't lie.
Anyway, what you're saying is ridiculous. Competitive decks that have access to Seal play it.
Not that it matters anyway because my point was for unbanning the expensive cards, not for banning Seal.
Black has infinite tutors - you heard it here first, folks. . .
You also said MLD doesn't get reprinted anymore, which is blatantly false and I corrected you on it. You were not clear on whether you understood that decks can be built to withstand it. I wasn't sure how far your inaccurate beliefs went, so I wanted to help.
It's incredibly closed-minded to say that all people who think MLD is fine just want to grief.
I play with people to have fun. I have different decks at different power levels to allow players to experience different things. If one deck blindly stomps everyone's face in, obviously I'm going to switch to a lower powered deck. But that has noting to do with any particular strategy. It has nothing to do with MLD in and of itself.
It's funny how your group mentality seems to advocate alienating certain strategies and favors hindering mobility between groups. Same as house bans for social promotes antisocial behavior, alienating an entire strategy promotes antisocial atmospheres when playing a game.
The format itself is not long. The decks can be as competitive of as casual as you want. That's why it's a social game. It's not a "d-bag move" to play MLD in and of itself. It's not an "off change" to survive, as many MLD decks are designed to handle MLD. That's the whole point of playing it as a viable option.
Personally, I like my games to be fun. That's why I'm for inviting people to play, and enjoy different types of strategy. That's why I don't alienate an entire strategy and call people "jerks" for playing a game.
If you've built your deck "correctly," you shouldn't have to rely on the hope that you have another enchantment. I didn't say everything needs to give him evasion. Lack of evasion is just one example of why it's bad. Like I said earlier, other useful abilities are fine to. Just making him big doesn't make the cut when there are plenty of other better auras to choose from.