How someone can evaluate a card on this ItDiesToEverything thing is a bad approach. I mean if a table of 4 has a potential of ~10 various removal spells per player, you should be able to stick at least something good after baiting out some hate... Obviously if you just throw everything out any wich way, then maybe it is a better thing for you to stick to ETB/LTB, but there is no way that everthing you play will be blown away, no way...
I think this explains my thoughs as well. Yes, everything dies to some sort of removal, or to counters, or to grave hate, or to Urza knows what. The point is, unless almost everyone is playing control, the appropriate answer won't always be there inmediately.
You take a risk by playing a threat, just as another player takes a risk by answering it instead of saving their mana/cards. That's what Magic is about, after all. A game of poker. With dragons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander:GB Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord (list) - U Talrand, Sky Summoner - GRU Maelstrom Wanderer
I think this explains my thoughs as well. Yes, everything dies to some sort of removal, or to counters, or to grave hate, or to Urza knows what. The point is, unless almost everyone is playing control, the appropriate answer won't always be there inmediately.
You take a risk by playing a threat, just as another player takes a risk by answering it instead of saving their mana/cards. That's what Magic is about, after all. A game of poker. With dragons.
Good one. I think that we (players of EDH) all just don't see this. How many times have you threw out some crazy beater with evasion butwith no deffence, and nailed like two players before its removal? Games can not be maped out before resolution.
This whole thread is a giant reason whyy we should all be playing more Humility and Torpor Orb effects.
This got passed over and it's one of the most valid points ever. Lets face the fact: we all play ETB effects. They are just to damn good not to. These cards cut ETB effects right down. They are never dead.
On the beatstick front, I play sigarda as mine. Hexproof and edict protection is just to good.
I think this explains my thoughs as well. Yes, everything dies to some sort of removal, or to counters, or to grave hate, or to Urza knows what. The point is, unless almost everyone is playing control, the appropriate answer won't always be there inmediately.
You take a risk by playing a threat, just as another player takes a risk by answering it instead of saving their mana/cards. That's what Magic is about, after all. A game of poker. With dragons.
Sigging. But yeah. Either the creature is gonna live for a while, or no matter what it is, if you send it at the wrong player, it's gonna die.
I've seen Shoeldred survive till it's owner's upkeep a few times, just coz noone could answer it.
This got passed over and it's one of the most valid points ever. Lets face the fact: we all play ETB effects. They are just to damn good not to. These cards cut ETB effects right down. They are never dead.
On the beatstick front, I play sigarda as mine. Hexproof and edict protection is just to good.
I'll be honest, I don't have a single small utility creature, small cantrips, or any ETB effects at the moment in my Mayael deck. (Okay, I checked and I'm wrong. I have an Elderscale Wurm and Bogardian Hellkite in there. I guess 1 of the two count. No titans though, since I don't have inferno and primeval is kinda out of price range atm.
If anything, the deck is basically the antithesis to what the whole removal makes creatures bad argument. In a game of 4, I'll push forward the offence, backing up the smaller blue/more control decks a bit if I have to, then I'll just KILL them with combat.
Oh yeah, Avacyn and Akroma makes everything better. Everything. There's nothing more thrilling like peeling off an Avacyn on turn 5, then an Akroma on your opponent's turn since you have awakening.
A few years ago, Godsire would have scared people pants-less. It's still good. Hell, another thing to play is Mossbridge Troll. It can't die from normal removal, and is a beatstick on more beatsticks.
I realize that we all want to maximize the value of each card in a deck, and that makes ETB/LTB effects better, but let's take a breath here. I think the Titans (and let's add Consecrated Sphinx) have spoiled us badly.
It's very rare for a creature to have a great effect on the board AND be resilient to removal. Emrakul and Ulamog can do that. Kozilek has an effect, but is not resilient. The Triskelion/Mikaeus, the Unhallowed combination can happen at instant speed, so removal has to wait for that fine point where Trike's undying is on the stack.
Magister Sphinx? Dies to lots of removal. Recurring it will only piss off more people at the table.
I can't think of other creatures that are immediately relevant and are resistant to removal. Gaea's Revenge doesn't have trample. To listen to some posters in the Akroma thread, she only hits for 6, and that's not enough. (my WTF reaction is not relevant here)
So tell me, what creatures besides the Titans (which all die to removal, by the way) have enough immediate impact and last long enough to satisfy you people?
Planeswalkers can do that, but those tend to get hated.
As for the Memorial, someone better have a Disenchant, and most quickly. If you have even three/four creatures out when the Memorial lands, then the rest of the table will not have long to live.
My point is this: Playing spells that people have to answer is not a bad thing. We build in some recursion, add a Defy Death, get that seventh Plains for Emeria, the Sky Ruin.
You know who demands an answer? Intrepid Hero. Royal Assassin needs the creature to tap. The Hero kills anything big enough to be a problem.
You are mistaking the "dies to removal" argument for something it is not. It is not some strawman that says "herp derp can be killed no good".
Dies to removal means this: A high mana cost creature is killed by much cheaper CMC removal spells without achieving some conciliatory value, thus resulting in an unforgivable tempo swing - in other words, Serra Avatar is bad because it isn't getting through on its own anytime soon, and your consolation prize for playing it is you get to shuffle your library for when it runs into an Acidic slime or gets Terrored (I realize that no one would attack into a slime, but if it's sitting at home, that's terrible). You're down 6 mana and a card, as opposed to 2 and a card. When it comes into play, it sits around for a turn and doesn't do much.
Compare Primeval titan (one of the worst offenders of powerful ETB, but there are many others up and down the CMC scale [sup Trinket Mage]), who gets killed on sight - even if it dies, you're still up 2 non basic lands. You're down probably at least 4 mana, but you got what you want, and your opponent is down some cards.
These cards are too costly NOT to have some kind of impressive in play value, ala Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, or powerful come into play or leave play effect like the titans, Iona, Avenger, or Yosei, the Morning Star. You're down so much mana unless they're given multiple turns to do their thing, since their only thing without a good ETB/LTB trigger is damage, and that's pretty easily prevented (cue shrieking 1/1 creature). Akroma doesn't sit around. She gets there. Kudos. But some people have asked themselves "Is it really worth it to run Akroma as opposed to my alternatives at this CMC slot?" and come up with a definitive yet reluctant "No". Other creatures deal more damage faster (voltron support can make a derp beastly), swarm strategies are more resilient to removal (Avenger, Overrun), combo is a faster win that gets through high life totals and clogged boards. It's almost always better for every card to run support for every other card than it is to go shrieking straight into the red zone, since those support cards will reinforce each other at low CMC's and make fatties look like chumps. And that's why Akroma doesn't cut the mustard. She'll get there for 6, 12, maybe even 18 damage while the real game - the game of cards and resources and spells - flies on over her head, far away from the combat that she is very good at.
"Is it really worth it to run Akroma as opposed to my alternatives at this CMC slot?" and come up with a definitive yet reluctant "No". Other creatures deal more damage faster (voltron support can make a derp beastly), swarm strategies are more resilient to removal (Avenger, Overrun), combo is a faster win that gets through high life totals and clogged boards. It's almost always better for every card to run support for every other card than it is to go shrieking straight into the red zone, since those support cards will reinforce each other at low CMC's and make fatties look like chumps. And that's why Akroma doesn't cut the mustard. She'll get there for 6, 12, maybe even 18 damage while the real game - the game of cards and resources and spells - flies on over her head, far away from the combat that she is very good at.
I read, "So non-token, non-voltron decks that hope to win via combat damage should just pack up and go home, and even those decks should just stop it and play combo, 'cause that's what real men play." Am I doing this wrong?
I read, "So non-token, non-voltron decks that hope to win via combat damage should just pack up and go home, and even those decks should just stop it and play combo, 'cause that's what real men play." Am I doing this wrong?
I never said anything about real men doing this, that, or the other thing. My point is that certain strategies are more resilient than others, and Akroma doesn't fit comfortably into decks built around card advantage. Fatties.dec can put out a mean board presence, but many fatties don't play with other cards in your deck. Without those interactions (and the multiple paths to achieve victory they create), you're forced to rely on stand alone card quality to face down everything your opponents have - putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. And Magic is a game where if there's just one basket, you can sweep it with a removal spell.
It's about spreading risk and having a broadly strong team rather than relying on a handful of all stars to carry you to victory. Peyton might be the better QB, but Eli Manning went home with two Superbowl rings. The same principle applies here.
But in all seriousness, the argument is valid when you have to spend certain kinds of resources to get a creature that may get removed by something that didn't cost as much. I can attest this to trying to cast a Phyrexian Metalmorph while paying the 2 life and then getting it countered by a Cryptic Command. Basically you spent some sort of resources extra for this card and then your opponent answers it and comes out with more of a gain than you. This is more of a greater example, but as people have discussed a lot of it can come down to tempo in EDH, especially if you attempt to tap out for something huge with Haste and simply getting doom bladed.
He went back to the command zone. I think he had a turkey in the oven.
You wouldn't get the draw from the clamp if you sent him to command zone instead of GY (unless there was another step, like dies, goes to GY, someone attempts to exile with mimic vat, then you say no he'll go to command zone instead).
Humility is only 8 dollars so I don't think the dollar cost is prohibitive to how often it is played. I think a lot of players don't want to build a deck with a lot of tutors for humility and very few creatures. You have to build around it more than Torpor Orb. I wholeheartedly agree though that these effects should be more widespread.
You are mistaking the "dies to removal" argument for something it is not. It is not some strawman that says "herp derp can be killed no good".
Dies to removal means this: A high mana cost creature is killed by much cheaper CMC removal spells without achieving some conciliatory value, thus resulting in an unforgivable tempo swing - in other words, Serra Avatar is bad because it isn't getting through on its own anytime soon, and your consolation prize for playing it is you get to shuffle your library for when it runs into an Acidic slime or gets Terrored (I realize that no one would attack into a slime, but if it's sitting at home, that's terrible). You're down 6 mana and a card, as opposed to 2 and a card. When it comes into play, it sits around for a turn and doesn't do much.
Compare Primeval titan (one of the worst offenders of powerful ETB, but there are many others up and down the CMC scale [sup Trinket Mage]), who gets killed on sight - even if it dies, you're still up 2 non basic lands. You're down probably at least 4 mana, but you got what you want, and your opponent is down some cards.
These cards are too costly NOT to have some kind of impressive in play value, ala Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, or powerful come into play or leave play effect like the titans, Iona, Avenger, or Yosei, the Morning Star. You're down so much mana unless they're given multiple turns to do their thing, since their only thing without a good ETB/LTB trigger is damage, and that's pretty easily prevented (cue shrieking 1/1 creature). Akroma doesn't sit around. She gets there. Kudos. But some people have asked themselves "Is it really worth it to run Akroma as opposed to my alternatives at this CMC slot?" and come up with a definitive yet reluctant "No". Other creatures deal more damage faster (voltron support can make a derp beastly), swarm strategies are more resilient to removal (Avenger, Overrun), combo is a faster win that gets through high life totals and clogged boards. It's almost always better for every card to run support for every other card than it is to go shrieking straight into the red zone, since those support cards will reinforce each other at low CMC's and make fatties look like chumps. And that's why Akroma doesn't cut the mustard. She'll get there for 6, 12, maybe even 18 damage while the real game - the game of cards and resources and spells - flies on over her head, far away from the combat that she is very good at.
This is by far the best explanation about evaluating creatures for your EDH deck.
This is why I don't put either version of Akroma in my Kaalia deck. They don't play well with the rest of my deck nor do they work well in my meta. It is all about the context of your deck strategy and your meta. In some other meta and deck, Akroma is the right card.
If creatures are bad because they die to removal, than spells must be bad because they can be countered. And lands must be bad because they can be destroyed. And a hand is bad because you can discard from it. And a library and graveyard are both bad because they can be exiled. And the game is bad because you can lose. Maybe we should all stop playing Magic
If creatures are bad because they die to removal, than spells must be bad because they can be countered. And lands must be bad because they can be destroyed. And a hand is bad because you can discard from it. And a library and graveyard are both bad because they can be exiled. And the game is bad because you can lose. Maybe we should all stop playing Magic
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the slippery slope. Mind your feet.
I never said anything about real men doing this, that, or the other thing. My point is that certain strategies are more resilient than others, and Akroma doesn't fit comfortably into decks built around card advantage. Fatties.dec can put out a mean board presence, but many fatties don't play with other cards in your deck. Without those interactions (and the multiple paths to achieve victory they create), you're forced to rely on stand alone card quality to face down everything your opponents have - putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. And Magic is a game where if there's just one basket, you can sweep it with a removal spell.
It's about spreading risk and having a broadly strong team rather than relying on a handful of all stars to carry you to victory. Peyton might be the better QB, but Eli Manning went home with two Superbowl rings. The same principle applies here.
Peyton might have two rings if he hadn't called the same out-route pass play twice in three plays. Go Saints!
Your idea that cards (maybe not just creatures) are more powerful than their individual components when they synergize is valid, but playing only cards that synergize can become problematic if you are unable to utilize those synergies. Avenger + Overrun? Sweeper.
(I don't know that Avenger of Zendikar is a valid comparison--he REQUIRES a support card, or several turns of playing land with no board wipe)
I wouldn't say I rely on Akroma, but she is indeed a star.
I realize this is a semi-loaded question, but how is a deck geared around card advantage planning on winning, if not with creatures? Is it always going to be Mind Over Matter and Temple Bell?
That's not quite what I wanted to ask...let me try this instead: I'd like to see the decklist built around card advantage.
I have an Adun Oakenshield deck stuffed to the gills with utility creatures. Does this deck lose to Humility? Absolutely--the only noncreature spells in the deck are dedicated to helping creatures. (I have one out to Torpor Orb--Viridian Zealot) I'm not worried, though, because either someone else will kill the enchantment or we'll have a game that takes far too long, because one person wants to grind us out with card advantage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have 15 EDH decks...sorta kills the 'I only need one of a card' aspect of the format.
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
I realize this is a semi-loaded question, but how is a deck geared around card advantage planning on winning, if not with creatures? Is it always going to be Mind Over Matter and Temple Bell?
This is actually a relevant question and must be taken into consideration when building your deck. And yes, it another reason why blue-centric decks tend to just break into a combo to end the game. To be fair, the combat threats that a mono-blue deck can field are paltry and expensive compared to what other colors get.
Also relevant, I have a RUG deck (Maelstrom Wanderer) that is based almost entirely around the ETB value creatures. Everything from Wood Elves and Mulldrifter to Chancellor of the Spires and Terastodon, with Birthing Pod, Erratic Portal, and Wild Pair for even more value. Most of the time playing the deck is not spent threatening people but disrupting the big stuff and gaining resources. Many of its wins are not from killing my opponents but from either wiping out all their resources or setting up a soft lock. The wins I do have from damage tend to involve a massive Genesis Wave, Warp World, or Primal Surge.
On the other side of things, I have a deck which has Emeria, the Sky Ruin as its primary win condition and likes to kill people by attacking them with Baneslayer Angel a bunch of times. This deck may actually have the highest win percentage of all my decks.
Peyton might have two rings if he hadn't called the same out-route pass play twice in three plays. Go Saints!
That's true, but after New Orleans got all Katrina'ed up, the Saints needed the win they got more.
Your idea that cards (maybe not just creatures) are more powerful than their individual components when they synergize is valid, but playing only cards that synergize can become problematic if you are unable to utilize those synergies. Avenger + Overrun? Sweeper.
(I don't know that Avenger of Zendikar is a valid comparison--he REQUIRES a support card, or several turns of playing land with no board wipe)
Yes, Avenger is an army in a can - a rare creature that can create dominating board presence on its own and probably doesn't even deserve consideration because of how unusual it is. It works well with Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite and Overrun effects, of which there are multiple, as well as Gaea's Cradle. Those cards also work well with utility dorks like Uktabi Orangutan, Sakura Tribe Elder, and other assorted derps.
Not everything has to work with everything else, but the ability to play nice with the as much as the rest of the deck is a powerful incentive to play something. I got there for 8 damage a turn, 4 turns in a row, through 3 wraths, with a Reveillark, a Karmic Guide (PAYIN' DAT ECHO!), and an Aven Mindcensor.
I wouldn't say I rely on Akroma, but she is indeed a star.
I realize this is a semi-loaded question, but how is a deck geared around card advantage planning on winning, if not with creatures? Is it always going to be Mind Over Matter and Temple Bell?
You can still beat the tar out of somebody with dudes. It's just that the game isn't one about combat, but cards - drawing, recurring, and burying them. Yes, you can have combos in a primarily creature centric deck, but the focus of the deck is using creatures as a means to an end (grinding out card advantage, denying opponents card advantage, and using said warm bodies to crash into them. When I play Uktabi Orangutan and blow up an artifact, I'm +1 CA, and I've got a monkey. The body fuels cradle, blocks for me, swings, holds a sword like a champ, and gets threateningly large paired with Norn or an Overrun.
This isn't a loaded question, it's a legitimate one. Although if you're going U/B, you aren't exactly going to be fielding monstrous swarms of beaters, so killing someone by going infinite is waaaay easier than trying to beat a green deck at its own game.
That's not quite what I wanted to ask...let me try this instead: I'd like to see the decklist built around card advantage.
I have an Adun Oakenshield deck stuffed to the gills with utility creatures. Does this deck lose to Humility? Absolutely--the only noncreature spells in the deck are dedicated to helping creatures. (I have one out to Torpor Orb--Viridian Zealot) I'm not worried, though, because either someone else will kill the enchantment or we'll have a game that takes far too long, because one person wants to grind us out with card advantage.
You've got a deck dedicated to generating CA, it seems. And Humility and Torpor Orb are horribly overrated in EDH. Yeah, the effects are really powerful, but so are Stasis and Apocalypse. Doesn't mean you can slap them in any deck you want willy nilly, and if you're building around them, you *need* them (otherwise you're just hobbling yourself) and they don't have multiple functional reprints. They also have a habit of biting you in the arse when you need your own ETB abilities, and of making all/many non token creatures dead draws.
Not at all. What I'm trying to say is: This is how stupid this line of thinking is. Let me prove it by applying it to different parts of Magic.
Your argument isn't addressing the distinctions that are put forth in the complete "dies to removal" argument in favor of reducing a strawman to absurdity.
No one cares if a Tarmogoyf dies unless your opponent has one on the other side of the field. That's a problem. But at 1G, Goofy can afford to trade with 1-2 CMC removal because it's not a painful tempo loss. Similarly, if someone kills a Delver of Secrets, they would be hard pressed to spend less mana killing the damn thing than the Delver play did casting it. You're trading tempo, and frequently cards, 1 for 1. These are minor investments.
For major investments, you need some kind of insurance because you're taking a huge risk if your hulking monster doesn't get there in terms of time, mana, and mana curve. If I'm going to build a deck around playing hulking monsters, my hulking monsters had better be even better than 3 smaller creatures stapled together. If they aren't, there's no reason to play them. They don't need to be unstoppable killing machines (doesn't hurt), but you do need some guaranteed value.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this explains my thoughs as well. Yes, everything dies to some sort of removal, or to counters, or to grave hate, or to Urza knows what. The point is, unless almost everyone is playing control, the appropriate answer won't always be there inmediately.
You take a risk by playing a threat, just as another player takes a risk by answering it instead of saving their mana/cards. That's what Magic is about, after all. A game of poker. With dragons.
Pauper: UR some horrible homebrew izzet deck
Good one. I think that we (players of EDH) all just don't see this. How many times have you threw out some crazy beater with evasion butwith no deffence, and nailed like two players before its removal? Games can not be maped out before resolution.
This got passed over and it's one of the most valid points ever. Lets face the fact: we all play ETB effects. They are just to damn good not to. These cards cut ETB effects right down. They are never dead.
On the beatstick front, I play sigarda as mine. Hexproof and edict protection is just to good.
Sigging. But yeah. Either the creature is gonna live for a while, or no matter what it is, if you send it at the wrong player, it's gonna die.
I've seen Shoeldred survive till it's owner's upkeep a few times, just coz noone could answer it.
Probably the strongest effects in EDH atm. Actually, definitely.
I'll be honest, I don't have a single small utility creature, small cantrips, or any ETB effects at the moment in my Mayael deck. (Okay, I checked and I'm wrong. I have an Elderscale Wurm and Bogardian Hellkite in there. I guess 1 of the two count. No titans though, since I don't have inferno and primeval is kinda out of price range atm.
If anything, the deck is basically the antithesis to what the whole removal makes creatures bad argument. In a game of 4, I'll push forward the offence, backing up the smaller blue/more control decks a bit if I have to, then I'll just KILL them with combat.
Oh yeah, Avacyn and Akroma makes everything better. Everything. There's nothing more thrilling like peeling off an Avacyn on turn 5, then an Akroma on your opponent's turn since you have awakening.
A few years ago, Godsire would have scared people pants-less. It's still good. Hell, another thing to play is Mossbridge Troll. It can't die from normal removal, and is a beatstick on more beatsticks.
:symr::symb: I hate your deck(Kaervek the Merciless)
Wait, how do I even hide it as a name title?
Kemba, Kostume
Ka...Oh god that's not a good alliteration.Wait, how do I even hide it as a name title?
The most he's every cost for me was 3, and that's only because I skull clamped him.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
You are mistaking the "dies to removal" argument for something it is not. It is not some strawman that says "herp derp can be killed no good".
Dies to removal means this:
A high mana cost creature is killed by much cheaper CMC removal spells without achieving some conciliatory value, thus resulting in an unforgivable tempo swing - in other words, Serra Avatar is bad because it isn't getting through on its own anytime soon, and your consolation prize for playing it is you get to shuffle your library for when it runs into an Acidic slime or gets Terrored (I realize that no one would attack into a slime, but if it's sitting at home, that's terrible). You're down 6 mana and a card, as opposed to 2 and a card. When it comes into play, it sits around for a turn and doesn't do much.
Compare Primeval titan (one of the worst offenders of powerful ETB, but there are many others up and down the CMC scale [sup Trinket Mage]), who gets killed on sight - even if it dies, you're still up 2 non basic lands. You're down probably at least 4 mana, but you got what you want, and your opponent is down some cards.
These cards are too costly NOT to have some kind of impressive in play value, ala Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, or powerful come into play or leave play effect like the titans, Iona, Avenger, or Yosei, the Morning Star. You're down so much mana unless they're given multiple turns to do their thing, since their only thing without a good ETB/LTB trigger is damage, and that's pretty easily prevented (cue shrieking 1/1 creature). Akroma doesn't sit around. She gets there. Kudos. But some people have asked themselves "Is it really worth it to run Akroma as opposed to my alternatives at this CMC slot?" and come up with a definitive yet reluctant "No". Other creatures deal more damage faster (voltron support can make a derp beastly), swarm strategies are more resilient to removal (Avenger, Overrun), combo is a faster win that gets through high life totals and clogged boards. It's almost always better for every card to run support for every other card than it is to go shrieking straight into the red zone, since those support cards will reinforce each other at low CMC's and make fatties look like chumps. And that's why Akroma doesn't cut the mustard. She'll get there for 6, 12, maybe even 18 damage while the real game - the game of cards and resources and spells - flies on over her head, far away from the combat that she is very good at.
How'd you get him out of your graveyard?
He went back to the command zone. I think he had a turkey in the oven.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
I read, "So non-token, non-voltron decks that hope to win via combat damage should just pack up and go home, and even those decks should just stop it and play combo, 'cause that's what real men play." Am I doing this wrong?
R.I.P. Sundering Titan (6/20/12) and Braids, Cabal Minion (9/12/14)
I never said anything about real men doing this, that, or the other thing. My point is that certain strategies are more resilient than others, and Akroma doesn't fit comfortably into decks built around card advantage. Fatties.dec can put out a mean board presence, but many fatties don't play with other cards in your deck. Without those interactions (and the multiple paths to achieve victory they create), you're forced to rely on stand alone card quality to face down everything your opponents have - putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. And Magic is a game where if there's just one basket, you can sweep it with a removal spell.
It's about spreading risk and having a broadly strong team rather than relying on a handful of all stars to carry you to victory. Peyton might be the better QB, but Eli Manning went home with two Superbowl rings. The same principle applies here.
But in all seriousness, the argument is valid when you have to spend certain kinds of resources to get a creature that may get removed by something that didn't cost as much. I can attest this to trying to cast a Phyrexian Metalmorph while paying the 2 life and then getting it countered by a Cryptic Command. Basically you spent some sort of resources extra for this card and then your opponent answers it and comes out with more of a gain than you. This is more of a greater example, but as people have discussed a lot of it can come down to tempo in EDH, especially if you attempt to tap out for something huge with Haste and simply getting doom bladed.
Horobi, Death's Wail
You wouldn't get the draw from the clamp if you sent him to command zone instead of GY (unless there was another step, like dies, goes to GY, someone attempts to exile with mimic vat, then you say no he'll go to command zone instead).
Amen. You know how many creature decks put up here just roll over to Humility? It's unreal. It just isn't played enough because of the $$ cost.
Torpor Orb was a good start, but IMO a Humility reprint would work wonders for the variety of the format.
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
BRWC Mardu Shops - Tymna and Akiri Artifacts BRWC
This is by far the best explanation about evaluating creatures for your EDH deck.
This is why I don't put either version of Akroma in my Kaalia deck. They don't play well with the rest of my deck nor do they work well in my meta. It is all about the context of your deck strategy and your meta. In some other meta and deck, Akroma is the right card.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the slippery slope. Mind your feet.
Driving Stick with Isochron Scepter.
Trinkets and Treasure: An Artificer's Toolbox.
Proc Drops: Playing with One Drops.
Deck Primer: Toshiro Umezawa
Peyton might have two rings if he hadn't called the same out-route pass play twice in three plays. Go Saints!
Your idea that cards (maybe not just creatures) are more powerful than their individual components when they synergize is valid, but playing only cards that synergize can become problematic if you are unable to utilize those synergies. Avenger + Overrun? Sweeper.
(I don't know that Avenger of Zendikar is a valid comparison--he REQUIRES a support card, or several turns of playing land with no board wipe)
I wouldn't say I rely on Akroma, but she is indeed a star.
I realize this is a semi-loaded question, but how is a deck geared around card advantage planning on winning, if not with creatures? Is it always going to be Mind Over Matter and Temple Bell?
That's not quite what I wanted to ask...let me try this instead: I'd like to see the decklist built around card advantage.
I have an Adun Oakenshield deck stuffed to the gills with utility creatures. Does this deck lose to Humility? Absolutely--the only noncreature spells in the deck are dedicated to helping creatures. (I have one out to Torpor Orb--Viridian Zealot) I'm not worried, though, because either someone else will kill the enchantment or we'll have a game that takes far too long, because one person wants to grind us out with card advantage.
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
This is actually a relevant question and must be taken into consideration when building your deck. And yes, it another reason why blue-centric decks tend to just break into a combo to end the game. To be fair, the combat threats that a mono-blue deck can field are paltry and expensive compared to what other colors get.
Also relevant, I have a RUG deck (Maelstrom Wanderer) that is based almost entirely around the ETB value creatures. Everything from Wood Elves and Mulldrifter to Chancellor of the Spires and Terastodon, with Birthing Pod, Erratic Portal, and Wild Pair for even more value. Most of the time playing the deck is not spent threatening people but disrupting the big stuff and gaining resources. Many of its wins are not from killing my opponents but from either wiping out all their resources or setting up a soft lock. The wins I do have from damage tend to involve a massive Genesis Wave, Warp World, or Primal Surge.
On the other side of things, I have a deck which has Emeria, the Sky Ruin as its primary win condition and likes to kill people by attacking them with Baneslayer Angel a bunch of times. This deck may actually have the highest win percentage of all my decks.
That's true, but after New Orleans got all Katrina'ed up, the Saints needed the win they got more.
Yes, Avenger is an army in a can - a rare creature that can create dominating board presence on its own and probably doesn't even deserve consideration because of how unusual it is. It works well with Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite and Overrun effects, of which there are multiple, as well as Gaea's Cradle. Those cards also work well with utility dorks like Uktabi Orangutan, Sakura Tribe Elder, and other assorted derps.
Not everything has to work with everything else, but the ability to play nice with the as much as the rest of the deck is a powerful incentive to play something. I got there for 8 damage a turn, 4 turns in a row, through 3 wraths, with a Reveillark, a Karmic Guide (PAYIN' DAT ECHO!), and an Aven Mindcensor.
You can still beat the tar out of somebody with dudes. It's just that the game isn't one about combat, but cards - drawing, recurring, and burying them. Yes, you can have combos in a primarily creature centric deck, but the focus of the deck is using creatures as a means to an end (grinding out card advantage, denying opponents card advantage, and using said warm bodies to crash into them. When I play Uktabi Orangutan and blow up an artifact, I'm +1 CA, and I've got a monkey. The body fuels cradle, blocks for me, swings, holds a sword like a champ, and gets threateningly large paired with Norn or an Overrun.
This isn't a loaded question, it's a legitimate one. Although if you're going U/B, you aren't exactly going to be fielding monstrous swarms of beaters, so killing someone by going infinite is waaaay easier than trying to beat a green deck at its own game.
You've got a deck dedicated to generating CA, it seems. And Humility and Torpor Orb are horribly overrated in EDH. Yeah, the effects are really powerful, but so are Stasis and Apocalypse. Doesn't mean you can slap them in any deck you want willy nilly, and if you're building around them, you *need* them (otherwise you're just hobbling yourself) and they don't have multiple functional reprints. They also have a habit of biting you in the arse when you need your own ETB abilities, and of making all/many non token creatures dead draws.
Not at all. What I'm trying to say is: This is how stupid this line of thinking is. Let me prove it by applying it to different parts of Magic.
My Blog About It
Your argument isn't addressing the distinctions that are put forth in the complete "dies to removal" argument in favor of reducing a strawman to absurdity.
No one cares if a Tarmogoyf dies unless your opponent has one on the other side of the field. That's a problem. But at 1G, Goofy can afford to trade with 1-2 CMC removal because it's not a painful tempo loss. Similarly, if someone kills a Delver of Secrets, they would be hard pressed to spend less mana killing the damn thing than the Delver play did casting it. You're trading tempo, and frequently cards, 1 for 1. These are minor investments.
For major investments, you need some kind of insurance because you're taking a huge risk if your hulking monster doesn't get there in terms of time, mana, and mana curve. If I'm going to build a deck around playing hulking monsters, my hulking monsters had better be even better than 3 smaller creatures stapled together. If they aren't, there's no reason to play them. They don't need to be unstoppable killing machines (doesn't hurt), but you do need some guaranteed value.