Also, I've been thinking about the whole MTGO Clan/ Salvation clan thing and i think that i would like to join up with you all online as well. I would like to talk to my current captain and let him know.
I still feel like there are some deck combinations out there that have not been fully explored or fleshed out yet. I am not sure what, but I still feel like there is another tier one deck out there that just has not been refined.
I Finished First Today in Mini PDC. It was Alphabet week and i went with a :symr::symw: "S" Boros Build.
Also, I've been thinking about the whole MTGO Clan/ Salvation clan thing and i think that i would like to join up with you all online as well. I would like to talk to my current captain and let him know.
Way to go, Princes! Two wins in two events! Congrats, Buttons/Me5794/Richard on your first PDC win. We'll be glad to have you with the Disciples of the Common Way, if you choose to join :).
Buttons: wow, it's pretty incredible that Boros works so nicely with 'S' in Alphabet. I mean, you don't get Firebolt or Incinerate but you've got plenty of other goodies. No Skirk Marauder though... too slow? Anyway, congratulations on the victory!
If you're into joining DotCW, we'll let akmage know and he'll look you up on MTGO. How exciting!
Ruinedlaw, good to see you in these hallowed halls once again. Your projected 'Boros Blink' sounds pretty cool, especially if white gets some better CIP abilities on critters. Looking forward to Saturday?
I have a new idea for a deck that sort of mimics the "The Rock" deck that I saw a few pages back, but with a few other engines incorporated into the deck. Adding white to the deck allows you to get not only Castigate, which is incredible, but also Selesnya Evangel, which allows Deathspore Thallid to just go crazy.
I just like adding the Black Transmute cards in any deck, especially when the whole deck is based around one casting cost (two). If you can't beat other decks by making a crazy amount of 1/1s, then you can fetch up a Amarou Scout which is guaranteed to make an army by itself. I just wanted to add a ton of engine cards and guaranteed card advantage to a deck and see what happens.
Basically, it's a tricky manabase to maintain, but there is a lot of mana fixing.
Out of the board, I sort of wanted the ability to deal with evasive creatures with the ability to get a Transluminant engine going, some Last Gasps and some Errant Doomsayers to keep them locked down.
What do you guys think?
EDIT: What do you guys think about Errant Doomsayers in the place of Seekers? I know that Seekers are obviously good at getting around multiple blockers, but would Doomsayers be good at pinning down flying/shadow/etc. weenies? And if you need agressive creatures, you can just keep fetching Scouts. What do you guys think on this issue?
EDIT2: I'm also thinking this will be pretty weak against weenie aggro, because the engine might take too long to get working. I think Castigate should be cut in favour of something like Last Gasp or Thallid Shell-Dweller to stop the rushes. I'm leaning towards the Shell Dwellers, because they work better with the rest of the deck.
The Rock is a pet project of mine - I've been trying to make a workable version for about two threads now. I posted a detailed history of how the deck evolved, with the last post here regarding Rock Harvest v7. Since then I've made changes to it, progressing to Rock Harvest v9b1. I set it down a few weeks ago in favor of a Toolbox style deck inspired by BweeBwee...
Amusingly, versions 5 and 6 contained a Saproling-Herd Gnarr-Fists of Ironwood-Deathspore Thallid engine. When it worked, it was something to behold. When it failed... It was like setting fire to the paint on the digital cards.
Rock Harvest v9b1 Strengths: Flexibility, versitility, and inevitability. If the opponent stalls out, this deck can basically lock them out of the game. However, any deck with enough mana and a single Grim Harvest can do that. Any deck with mana, a Grim Harvest, and a single Thoughtpicker Witch can lock someone out.
Weaknesses: Its slow to set up and can be slow to recover from a bad hand, bad start, or an opponent's strong start. Evasion in the form of White Fear, Flying, Shadow, or any evasion with untargetability give this deck fits. Even in those games where I was doing well against Orzhov/Orzhov Blink, the games would just drag on and on until they got the cards they needed. Giving Orzhov time to topdeck is a terrible idea.
Overall: One of the main reasons I set this deck down was that it just kept losing and losing to O/OB. The second reason is that it just wasn't doing well enough against everything else. In fact, it was about this time that we started testing LD builds and I discovered that both O/OB and Rock Harvest just rolled over and died to LD. Some of the earlier versions of this deck saw me running ALL 2cc spells with the exception of 4x Shambling Shells, 3x Scatter the Seeds.
---
Constracting Rock and Toolbox:
Then I played a game against BweeBwee and a Mystical Teachings deck. It looked fun and I started to design a Toolbox style deck. Annnnnnnnnnnd the more I tinkered with it, the more it looked like The Rock. In fact, the first few turns were entirely indistinguishable.
Frankly, the main difference was in how I approached the deck, what I was willing to cut and not cut. When I was building The Rock, I cut out the Saproling-Herd Gnarr-Fists of Ironwood-Deathspore Thallid engine in favor of more deck versitility - becuase The Rock isn't about combo-ing out, its about being able to handle a variety of threats.
My approach in building a Toolbox deck versus a Rock style deck meant I could cut the "versitility" cards in favor of one-of's I could tutor for. When I started using MTeachings, I began by thinking about what the best instants/flash cards were. However, I realized that if they were THAT good, I really wanted to be running 4 of them - which made MT a little useless. So, if I'm going to spend 4 or 6 mana to get a spell, it better be damn good. Then I tried a slightly different tact. I used 4x House Guards (remember when I was putting House Guards in EVERY deck???) for extra defense/evasion offense/tutoring. That way I could tutor for a MT and get whatever instant I wanted. THEN the problem was that if I really needed a card, I might have to tutor for a tutor to get it. Which is fun, but ridiculous. So, I scrapped the Teachings altogether and came up with...
Besides the approach noted above, I also had a bias in constructing The Rock versus a Toolbox deck. A Rock deck is traditionally BGx or even BGxyz. However, this is not necessarily the case - it can be any colors so long as its goals and methods of getting there are the same. In any case, while working on the Rock it simply never occurred to me to cut green cards or even cut green out entirely. As my Toolbox evolved, I reduced green, and then cut all green cards from the maindeck. Jak commented that its now basically a Rakdos deck!
Notes:
After getting my ass handed to me several times, it was obvious the entire mana base had to be redone. More importantly than than that, devoting more of the deck meant I was no longer focusing on the early game as I did in the Rock. I wanted the Rock to do well early AND late and just spread it too thin. Here, I'm basically allowing the deck to just ramp up the mana for the first turn or two before moving the deck forward. Admittedly, 22 lands including 4 Karoos and 4 Signets on top of that is PROBABLY overdoing it. I could reasonably cut back two signets and add a little more to the deck.
I've come to a realization that there's a time and place for running Prismatic Lens, but this deck is not it. Prismatic Lens is NOT better than a signet in a three color deck. It only starts to shine when you've got 4 or 5 colors. The problem comes when you go to use that mana. The PL is normally a +1 colorless mana. When you need that extra color, its +0 net mana. A Signet, on the other hand is -1 to activate, and is +2 colored mana. At no point does the Signet net you less mana.
Adding red gave this deck a HUGE boost. All of a sudden, the deck could deal with a weenie horde by playing a Subterranean Shambler without using all of its removal spells. The Syphon-Mages meant I could almost keep up with Orzhov's life sapping. The House Guards meant I could sac anything without even paying mana. The maindeck Stinkys meant I wasn't as vulnerable to flying. The Petrahydrox gave me a chance to block a Guardian otG AND a nice hefty body no one wanted to waste a spell on. He even gave me a few combat tricks. In a game against Eegag? I blocked with a Saproling and a Petrahydrox, stacked damage, and sac'ed the Sap to give the Petra a -1/-1, thereby saving him and returning him to my hand.
The most novel of my inclusions is undoubtedly Disciple of Tevesh Szat. Giving -1/-1 counters every single turn is pretty brutal. Yeah, he's fragile, but he's also mean. He can swing for 3, take out a 4/4, or even kill a 9/9.
Moving the Deck Forward: I'm thinking of scrapping the Last Gasps in favor of 4x Strangling Soots. This deck will have the mana available AND of the proper color. I'm thinking of cutting two signets in favor of... another Shambler? and ???. I'd really appreciate Alfred's thoughts.
I'm also going to cut a little green from the mana base in favor of red. Probably -1 Forest, +1 Mountain or +1 Swamp.
Notes on prior Toolbox versions 1 - v2d4f:
First, YES, I really did name one of the variations v2d4f. I may have only shown this deck once, but I've got 16 different variations between 1 and 2d5 saved on my drive. Hell, they're only 1k each, so there's no reason not to keep track of what I've changed. That way I can always backtrack on my thought process, possibly even pick up from a point in the past and take the deck in a new direction (which I've done from time to time), OR go back to an earlier version where it WAS working and now isn't.
Second, some of the earlier versions ran 4 colors and at least one version ran all 5. My inclusions were Momentary Blink, Aven Cloudchaser, Mystical Teachings, Tolarian Sentinel, Gravedigger, Highway Robber, Scatter the Seeds, Wrecking Ball, and Icefall. For a while I had green as a major component of the deck - mostly for mana fixing while it was GBrwu. At that time I ran anywhere between 1 and 4 Penumbra Spiders. They're fun and lead to all sorts of great tricks with sacrifice outlets and blocking fear, but not exactly practical.
I'm verbose by nature, but this post is getting ridiculous. I think Alfred said a LOT of important things above, but I can't make this much longer than it already is. I've been meaning to post updates on my Rock and Toolbox for a while, and his post gives me an excuse. I'm going to focus on how his take on the Rock impacts my versions. I appologize in advance for cutting any of his... snip...
I have a new idea for a deck that sort of mimics the "The Rock" deck that I saw a few pages back, but with a few other engines incorporated into the deck. Adding white to the deck allows you to get not only Castigate, which is incredible, but also Selesnya Evangel, which allows Deathspore Thallid to just go crazy.
In my various versions, I've added and cut Ravenous Rats, Cry of Contrition, Mindstab, Delerium Skeins, and even the dreaded Shrieking Ghoul for discard in my versions. I'm not sure that discard ever got me a whole lot. I like Castigate, and its hurt when I've been hit with it on second turn, but coming up with BW on turn 2 is tough.
Of all the cards you mentioned, I like the idea of the Evangel the most. Being able to crank out 1/1's instead of having to wait three turns for one... get old. And, its a 1/2 (as Jak pointed out to me in IM) so he can block or even survive my own Subterranean Shambler. Of all the ideas in his deck, this is the one I'm most likely to steal.
I just like adding the Black Transmute cards in any deck, especially when the whole deck is based around one casting cost (two). If you can't beat other decks by making a crazy amount of 1/1s, then you can fetch up a Amarou Scout which is guaranteed to make an army by itself. I just wanted to add a ton of engine cards and guaranteed card advantage to a deck and see what happens.
I like the idea of focusing a deck around one casting cost, either 2 or 4 and being able to transmute for what you need. Hence, my recent Toolbox variations. Black is extremely lucky to get such high quality and versitile transmute cards in Shred Memory and Dimir House Guard. I tried a 2cc version of the Rock (Rock Harvest v4-v5, for those of you keeping score), as noted above, but never really had the need to transmute since I ran 4 of all the good 2cc cards.
However, I'm unsure about the Rebel plan. If you're going for the card advantage engine, Amrou Scout can only get you 7 cards (the 4 other rebels and the 3 other copies of the Scout) over 8 turns. I think you might be better off going with an Icatian Crier for two 1/1 soldier tokens.
Out of the board, I sort of wanted the ability to deal with evasive creatures with the ability to get a Transluminant engine going, some Last Gasps and some Errant Doomsayers to keep them locked down.
I think the biggest weakness for this deck is the evasion, as you've noted. Flying, shadow, fear, GotG, and Ledgewalker. Your deck would be unable to deal with a GotG (unless you race) or with a Ledgewalker (unless you bring a Transluminant from the SB). I've never been crazy about using a creature to tap down an opponent's threat. In any case, the Doomsayers are so situational you might be better using that old standby, Faith's Fetters.
EDIT2: I'm also thinking this will be pretty weak against weenie aggro, because the engine might take too long to get working. I think Castigate should be cut in favour of something like Last Gasp or Thallid Shell-Dweller to stop the rushes. I'm leaning towards the Shell Dwellers, because they work better with the rest of the deck.
I like the Last Gasp and Shell-Dweller plan, but then again, these cards have been damn near staples in every deck I've built in the last four months. If you've got the Fists of Ironwood, tons of ways to make tokens and search up guys, why not add a Gnarr or two? It gives your opponents a target for their removal above your more critical core creatures and it gives you the chance at comboing out.
It may be worth 'merging' the Gnarrly Beats and the control Rock decks for a "quicker" build, which is something Halo alluded to in that epic post of his. Alfred's instincts to incorporate white, namely Selesnya Evangel, seem to illustrate this idea as well. While the 1/5 Shell-Dweller can be felled by a late-game Skred, it evades other highly-played removal and certainly slows down aggro decks, especially WW which doesn't run (or have access to) many fliers.
Are there any spoils thusfar from Planar Chaos that will help strengthen the Rock?
I think that my version of the deck will add Shell-Dweller, because it should be good at slowing creature decks in the early turns and helps with the strategy of the deck. I like Castigate, but only against Orzhov, to take some of the bomby cards and interactions out of their hands. It's not great against anything else I find. Maybe Izzet, but haven't played that.
I would honestly try the Rebel plan out. The reason why Icatian Crier isn't as good is because it isn't card advantage really. Even if Scout has only 6 things to fetch, that's 6 for 1 card advantage, and you can easily find one with Shred Memory. It's incredible to be able to build up resources on the board with the only cost being mana. It's exactly what control decks want to do.
P.S. Thanks for the input Haloscope. It's interesting to see how you have evolved the deck.
The deck uses the card draw and land fetching abilities to increase the land and consistency of your mana draw. It also reduces the amount of lands that you will draw during the game increasing your chance of drawing cards that you need. It also features a number of large creatures.
One of the gems of this deck is running aurochs herd which can be combined with blink to fetch more creatures with trample.
I think it needs to be refined a bit and I think that I may have too many creatures...but I am not really sure what else to add at this time.
also, for jak, here is my version of the ponza pauper deck Alfred was playing. I just took a few innovations he had added and added them to the deck we were working on before time spiral.
The disciple is only in there because i wanted to test him to see what how he was in the deck, while I never really got to play him, I can see him being useful against some decks, but I dont think he should be mainboard.
BTW, I apologize to everyone for not being as involved as normal, as those of you who know me better, know, I have a certain event coming up that has been taking up most of my time. I will hopefully get to post more after the next two weeks, as this week and the next are going to be crazy for me.
If you all have deck ideas too, i'd be up to some suggestions. I have the cards to build anything and i tend to shy away from the standard builds. I'd rather win on the back of something creative as opposed to something cookie-cutter.
I managed to Make T4 with a WW build a few weeks ago, it was similar to my Standard build
Well i didn't do well last night i went 1-2 with a burn heavy boros/war cry build. But its ok i'm well qualified for worlds in TPDC, PDC Mini, and a good showing on Thurs i will be qualified for SPDC as well.
So what do you all think will be the prominent decks or decks on thursday?
Personally i think that Anti Weenie decks will be out in force. A number of people were impressed by Bwee's deck. This Coupled with the fact that weenie decks have had strong showings, (WW, WW/u, RB, Gnarly Beats) and people are just tired of playing orzhov.
I expect a lot of Decks with Red for either martyr's or shamblers.
So what would be a good deck to play?
My first guess would be Harvester. It does have weenies, but they are easily to bring back. I am not 100% sure on this though.
What do you all think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing
Pauper T2 BurntFish
Pauper Classic MBC
Pauper Classic Chilly Dog
Top Secret TSP Block Deck
Pauper FutEx Cogs
Winner Mini PDC 4.14,6.10 TPDC 5.09, 5.11, SPDC 2.10
If you think that there will be a lot of control, it may not be a bad idea to run a counter deck, maybe black and blue madness, as it has not really been fully explored and can catch some people off guard.
THURSDAY STANDARD PDC 1.15
Thursday, January 11, 2007
WHEN and WHERE
Registration will open at 8:30 p.m. EST (GMT: 01:30 Friday) in /join spdc. The first round will begin approximately thirty minutes later.
LEGAL CARDS and PROXIES
The format for this event will be Standard PDC. Cards printed as common in the following sets are legal: 9th Edition, Ravnica: City of Guilds, Guildpact, Dissension, Coldsnap, and Time Spiral. Cards printed as uncommon, rare, or timeshifted in these sets, though printed as common in an unlisted set, are not legal. The following legal commons have uncommon counterparts online which may be used as proxies:
Cremate (Invasion)
Foul Imp (7th Edition)
EVENT DETAILS and RULES
* There will be three rounds of play followed by a Top 4 playoff (Top 8 if there are more than 16 players).
* Matches will be played in the Casual Play > Anything Goes room.
* Matches must be timed for 60 minutes, must be watchable, and should have "Standard PDC" in the description. It is the responsibility of both players to ensure matches are set up correctly.
* If a player doesn't join their assigned match within 10 minutes of pairing announcements, their opponent will be awarded a game win. If a player doesn't join their assigned match within 20 minutes of pairing announcements, their opponent will be awarded a match win.
* The deck and sideboard used in the first round must be used for the entire event. Deviation from the deck used in the first round will result in disqualification.
* The use of illegal cards in the first round will result in a match loss and the opporunity to legalize the deck for the next round with disregard to the above rule. The use of illegal cards after the first round will result in disqualification.
* Please don't talk in other player's games unless both players agree that it is alright. Also, please don't use the tournament room for off-topic chat.
* Players in the Top 4 (or Top 8) should post their decklist in this thread, following the event, to encourage deck development.
* This is a PDC Ratings-enabled event. For more information on PDC Ratings, go to www.paupermagic.com and click on "Ratings."
Round one was a pretty easy win, 2-0 vs a bad boros build, round two I lose to Does 3 Damage playing Gnarrly Beats. I end game two with 2 shamblers in hand. Round three is vs. phen0m with...orzhov. Game one, I win fairly easily, no hitches. Game two, he draws three pillories. I die a turn or two away from victory. Game three? EXACT SAME THING. Jesus.
EDIT: Oh, I was playing a relatively new deck, UG with a tiny splash of red, one mountain maindeck and 4 shamblers sideboarded. Here's the list I played:
I think that my version of the deck will add Shell-Dweller, because it should be good at slowing creature decks in the early turns and helps with the strategy of the deck. I like Castigate, but only against Orzhov, to take some of the bomby cards and interactions out of their hands. It's not great against anything else I find. Maybe Izzet, but haven't played that.
Hmm. Would you move Castigate to the SB then, or keep it MD due to the meta?
I would honestly try the Rebel plan out. The reason why Icatian Crier isn't as good is because it isn't card advantage really.
I totally disagree with your assessment that the Crier is not really card advantage. Some have talked about virtual card advantage versus 'real' card advantage. However, this distinction is illusory. But, for now let's look at just the Icatian Crier.
Something is happening here. You pay mana, tap a card, and discard a card to get an effect.
You just lost a card, so it might be disadvantage. Consider that you just lost one card and got two tokens in exchange, so it might be card advantage. But, does the token advantage gained by the effect offset the card disadvantage?
What's going on might be a card quality question and it might be a card advantage question.
My point is that given that there's something happening with cards being lost and other things being gained, card advantage is being effected - we just need to determine whether it is effected positively or negatively.
Suppose the following:
Icatian Weeper - 2W
Creature - Human Spellshaper
1W, Discard a card, T: Search your collection for two Cowardly Citizan cards and put them into play. Each Cowardly Citizen is a white 1/1 creature. If Cowardly Citizen is placed in the graveyard, remove it from the game. If Cowardly Citizen leaves play, remove it from the game.
2/1
Icatian Weeper is functionally identical to Ication Crier, but it gives you pieces of cardboard in place of tokens. Would you call one version real card advantage, but not the other? If Icatian Weeper, a totally plausible card (just not at common), creates card advantage, then we should consider Icatian Crier to have created card advantage as well.
If you argue that the Cowardly Citizen tokens are still tokens since they are treated exactly like tokens, then you're missing the point. Skulking Fugitive, Skulking Ghost, and Skulking Knight very similar to tokens, but no one confuses them with tokens.
OR, to stretch the "virtual" card advantage argument to its logical extreme, wouldn't MTGO be entirely devoid of *real* card advantage and only involve virtual card advantage?
No matter which way you cut it, if you're getting the crap kicked out of you by a 6/6 wurm, it doesn't matter that it looks like a penny rather than a card.
Ultimately, what is card advantage? One definition is that it is a game state where you have access to more cards than your opponent OR where you create or take advantage of a disparity in access to cards. To delve deeper, what is a card except a resource? If you have more resources which ACT just like a card, why not call them cards?
He took game one on the backs of several Blind Hunters and an unchecked Shrieking Grotesque. I took game 2 with Harvest recurssion and Disciples. Game three was his - as he had 11 minutes to my 5. I think I would have taken him if I had more time, I had tons of mana, an active Harvest, and all the creatures I needed.
I won both games and dropped - I didn't have the time to play any more. He told me he didn't have many cards and had just thrown a deck together. He also described my deck as the exact opposite of his. Several of his creatures had a 4 toughness - which I dealt with by giving them a -1/-1 then using a Strangling Soot.
Overall, I'm very happy with my deck. It has a lot of tricks and is fun to play. I think I've got the mana just about right and good SB choices against Orzhov (all 2-drops out, all Petrahydrox and Shambling Shell in). I think if had I better idea of how to play my own deck, I would have done better against l_sauchelli's WBG Toolbox Orzhov and played faster. I haven't tried it against a regular Orzhov or Orzhov Blink, but I'd like to.
Nice posts, guys. Sorry I can't do the same, because I'm now starting on my student teaching and things are gonna be hella busy. I probably won't be able to do SPDC, so I may become more involved with Capture the Flag. But I'll have to pass it off to people once I win it.
Last night I ran an unedited SnowRos and played one match against GeoffreyHarlow who was running Orzhov Blink (and, I suspect, also participating in the TNT tourney simultaneously due to long lags between actions). I kept topdecking Taste For Mayhem, which was very frustrating. It was 1-1 and the 3rd game was going kinda long. I almost had him, and then he started gaining life. I conceded in frustration because I was (and still am) very, very tired.
I think I speak for more than myself when I say I won't miss the departure of Blind Hunter from the format.
Also, eegag is in France for the rest of this month.
Hmm. Would you move Castigate to the SB then, or keep it MD due to the meta?
I totally disagree with your assessment that the Crier is not really card advantage. Some have talked about virtual card advantage versus 'real' card advantage. However, this distinction is illusory. But, for now let's look at just the Icatian Crier.
Something is happening here. You pay mana, tap a card, and discard a card to get an effect.
You just lost a card, so it might be disadvantage. Consider that you just lost one card and got two tokens in exchange, so it might be card advantage. But, does the token advantage gained by the effect offset the card disadvantage?
What's going on might be a card quality question and it might be a card advantage question.
My point is that given that there's something happening with cards being lost and other things being gained, card advantage is being effected - we just need to determine whether it is effected positively or negatively.
Suppose the following:
Icatian Weeper - 2W
Creature - Human Spellshaper
1W, Discard a card, T: Search your collection for two Cowardly Citizan cards and put them into play. Each Cowardly Citizen is a white 1/1 creature. If Cowardly Citizen is placed in the graveyard, remove it from the game. If Cowardly Citizen leaves play, remove it from the game.
2/1
Icatian Weeper is functionally identical to Ication Crier, but it gives you pieces of cardboard in place of tokens. Would you call one version real card advantage, but not the other? If Icatian Weeper, a totally plausible card (just not at common), creates card advantage, then we should consider Icatian Crier to have created card advantage as well.
If you argue that the Cowardly Citizen tokens are still tokens since they are treated exactly like tokens, then you're missing the point. Skulking Fugitive, Skulking Ghost, and Skulking Knight very similar to tokens, but no one confuses them with tokens.
OR, to stretch the "virtual" card advantage argument to its logical extreme, wouldn't MTGO be entirely devoid of *real* card advantage and only involve virtual card advantage?
No matter which way you cut it, if you're getting the crap kicked out of you by a 6/6 wurm, it doesn't matter that it looks like a penny rather than a card.
Ultimately, what is card advantage? One definition is that it is a game state where you have access to more cards than your opponent OR where you create or take advantage of a disparity in access to cards. To delve deeper, what is a card except a resource? If you have more resources which ACT just like a card, why not call them cards?
It may not be card DISadvantage, but it really isn't card advantage, while rebels are most definately card advantage. Rebels are better because you don't have to expend your hand in order to build up resources on the board, where as Icatian Crier requires you to spend cards in your hand to create things on the board.
I know that they are "real" cards, in the same way that a Roar of the Wurm token is a "card". But it's not really card advantage because you're discarding a card every time you use Criers' ability.
The beautiful thing about rebels is that you can save up a fist full of removal, creatures, tutors, etc. to use if they find a way to stop your rebel chain. Whereas with Crier, you basically have the ability to change cards in your hand into Raise the Alarm. If you are using the Crier's ability every turn, in addition to making land drops and casting other spells, you will be shrinking your hand. This is not the case with Rebels, because they don't require any card investment from your hand, while still adding resources to the board.
Two 1/1s are basically a little better and a little worse than a 2/2. Better in that they can chump block twice or get around a single blocker, but worse in that they match up poorly to other 1 power creatures. I think that two 1/1s is a fair trade for 2 mana and a card, but I really think that 4 mana and 0 cards expended for a 2/2 (almost) unblockable is better. Especially seeing as though the initial investment (2 mana for a 2/1) is far, far better than 3 mana for a 1/1.
I'm of the belief that Icatian Crier isn't really card advantage. Rebels ARE though, and as a control deck I think that you want to build up card advantage over time so that you can win the game, rather than trade 1 for 1 a lot.
EDIT: Oh, and about Castigate, I would throw that into the baord, because it is a good thing to have against Orzhov.
We had Dimir, Rakdos, Selesnya, and Izzet make T4 this week, despite the prevalence of Orzhov in decks played against by Halo and me. To say that Orzhov is insurmountable is to concede early defeat against a challenging but not invincible foe.
SnowRos was giving me some sketchy draws, but I had already wondered about Taste for Mayhem maindeck. I saw it an insane number of times on Thursday. I might take it down to 1 and push the Gelid Shackles to 4, because those cards are always welcome.
Is it just me, or has GotG been less present of late? Because when Geoffrey brought it out against me G2, I didn't have much to do against it. Amrou Seekers can't evade it. This makes me think that WW/u may actually have an edge over SnowRos... in that matchup, at least.
If white gets some cheap new fliers, WW/r may be the way to go. I will not give up on Boros, but I may have to bring my own thinking to SnowRos. I've played it unedited long enough!
It may not be card DISadvantage, but it really isn't card advantage, while rebels are most definately card advantage. Rebels are better because you don't have to expend your hand in order to build up resources on the board, where as Icatian Crier requires you to spend cards in your hand to create things on the board.
Well, whether IC is better than the Rebel Plan is a different discussion. I do not dispute that the Rebel Plan is Card advantage.
I know that they are "real" cards, in the same way that a Roar of the Wurm token is a "card". But it's not really card advantage because you're discarding a card every time you use Criers' ability.
You cannot argue that something is not really card advantage because you discard. Otherwise, Inspiration would "not really" give you card advantage because you have to "discard" a card to use the spell.
Seriously, what's the difference between the IC's ability and this card?
The beautiful thing about rebels is that you can save up a fist full of removal, creatures, tutors, etc. to use if they find a way to stop your rebel chain. Whereas with Crier, you basically have the ability to change cards in your hand into Raise the Alarm. If you are using the Crier's ability every turn, in addition to making land drops and casting other spells, you will be shrinking your hand. This is not the case with Rebels, because they don't require any card investment from your hand, while still adding resources to the board.
Again, this is a question whether the IC is better than the Rebel Plan. The answer to that simply depends on the deck. In any case, this critique assumes that you use the IC/RP every turn - which also assumes you would discard the removal to the IC.
But, to discuss your critique on its merits, using the RP depletes your deck of creatures you would otherwise draw. It also gives you a very finite number of uses - the most would be 7 or 11 uses in a normal deck. AND a second or third rebel on the board doesn't increase your deck's card advantage at all - just the speed with which your card advantage can be realized.
An IC on the other hand turns every dead draw - a poor SB choice or your 11th land into a Raise Alarm. You can keep a fist full of removal, creatures, tutors, etc - just not land/useless cards. Yes, using the IC's ability uses cards - but ONLY useless cards or cards that are worse than getting two 1/1's.
Two 1/1s are basically a little better and a little worse than a 2/2. Better in that they can chump block twice or get around a single blocker, but worse in that they match up poorly to other 1 power creatures. I think that two 1/1s is a fair trade for 2 mana and a card, but I really think that 4 mana and 0 cards expended for a 2/2 (almost) unblockable is better. Especially seeing as though the initial investment (2 mana for a 2/1) is far, far better than 3 mana for a 1/1.
You're changing arguments on me again. You're arguing about which is better. Perhaps the RP is better in your deck - I would not dispute that. Perhaps IC is wrong for every deck that has ever been built or ever would be built - I might dispute that, but its irrelevant. The bottom line is that the IC's ability is indistinguishable from things no one would dispute could be real cards.
I'm of the belief that Icatian Crier isn't really card advantage. Rebels ARE though, and as a control deck I think that you want to build up card advantage over time so that you can win the game, rather than trade 1 for 1 a lot.
Well, you argued that getting tokens is not card advantage. Tokens are indistinguishable from real pieces of cardboard. I proposed the Icatian Weeper above. I don't see how it is distinguishable from the Icatian Crier. Does Raise the Alarm give you card advantage (2 for 1)? How about Scatter the Seeds (3 for 1)? Deranged Hermit (4 for 1)? One Dozen Eyes (5 for 1)?
You also argued that because the IC's ability requires a discard, it is not "real" card advantage. This would mean that Inspiration (2 for 1), Ancestral Recall (3 for 1), Tidings (4 for 1), and Promise of Power (5 for 1) are not "real" card advantage.
Perhaps you're considering the concept of card advantage too narrowly?
Card advantage is not about just cards in hand, its about comparative resources. The best example is where your opponent has an army of 2/2's and you play a Hideous Laughter. You played (or discarded) one card and killed an arbitrary number of 2/2's. Your one card, their 30. That is card advantage. If you don't count cards on the board as part of the card advantage equation, you cannot accurately determine card advantage.
You cannot argue that something is not really card advantage because you discard. Otherwise, Inspiration would "not really" give you card advantage because you have to "discard" a card to use the spell.
For Icatian Crier to be card advantage in the same way that Inspiration is card advantage, you must beleive that a 1/1 creature with no other abilities is worth a card. I do not. Do I think that two 1/1s are worth a card? Sure, it is worth a card in the same way that Raise the Alarm is a good card, it's worth the card you have to spend to get the effect, but it's about an equal trade. How about getting a 2/2 with evasion for 0 cards invested? That's even better!
Seriously, what's the difference between the IC's ability and this card?
Nothing is different. However, would you not admit that if that card had forcast at instant speed, it would even be better? Like, as in you could use that card and continue using it without ever having to invest anything other than mana, it would be a better card right? This is what it boils down to here, because both cards give you a similar effect, except when there is no card investment, it's card advantage, when there is a card investment and you get a fair (i.e. what a card is worth) return, it's card parity.
In this way, you aren't getting card advantage like Inspiration, because unless you value a single 1/1 as a card, you aren't doubling your investment. Two 1/1 creatures IMO is worth about a card, so for me, you are essentially putting one card in to get one card out. For Rebels you put in one card, time and mana and you can get seven times your investment. Rebels basically draw a card for you and cast it. That's friggin' crazy.
Again, this is a question whether the IC is better than the Rebel Plan. The answer to that simply depends on the deck. In any case, this critique assumes that you use the IC/RP every turn - which also assumes you would discard the removal to the IC.
I assume that you would want to use the card every turn if it was able to create card advantage, right?
But, to discuss your critique on its merits, using the RP depletes your deck of creatures you would otherwise draw. It also gives you a very finite number of uses - the most would be 7 or 11 uses in a normal deck. AND a second or third rebel on the board doesn't increase your deck's card advantage at all - just the speed with which your card advantage can be realized.
I don't understand how you think that a card tutoring creatures out of your deck, putting them in your hand and casting them could be seen as anything but advantageous. It's like saying in a control deck that it's bad to draw a counterspell because there are less in your deck for you to draw. Putting a creature in play is pretty much exactly where you would put it eventually, so it's nothing but pure card advantage. If you somehow manage to put every single one of your rebels into play, you just friggin septupled your investment!
An IC on the other hand turns every dead draw - a poor SB choice or your 11th land into a Raise Alarm. You can keep a fist full of removal, creatures, tutors, etc - just not land/useless cards. Yes, using the IC's ability uses cards - but ONLY useless cards or cards that are worse than getting two 1/1's.
Only useless cards? Sometimes you need lands! Not every land is going to be your eleventh useless one, and if you don't discard a land, what do you discard? It's going to be something at least useful if you built your deck correctly, made the correct SB choices, etc. If you find yourself with too many land cards in your hand, it's most likely because you have too many lands in your deck, or you got mana flooded.
For Icatian Crier to be useful, the effect of making two 1/1s has to outweight what is written on the card you are discarding. What I'm saying is that a lot of the time that's not the case. With Rebels, you don't have to choose between keeping the card or getting the dudes, you just get the dudes.
You're changing arguments on me again. You're arguing about which is better. Perhaps the RP is better in your deck - I would not dispute that. Perhaps IC is wrong for every deck that has ever been built or ever would be built - I might dispute that, but its irrelevant. The bottom line is that the IC's ability is indistinguishable from things no one would dispute could be real cards.
I think that I'm using Rebels as an example of a creature that produces creatures in a similar way to Icatian Crier. By comparing them, I think it's easier to explain why Icatian Crier isn't really card advantage. Thallids are also a good example of card advantage, because time is the only investment to make those creatures. That's what makes them good control creatures, because they require time to work, and produce card advantage.
Well, you argued that getting tokens is not card advantage. Tokens are indistinguishable from real pieces of cardboard. I proposed the Icatian Weeper above. I don't see how it is distinguishable from the Icatian Crier. Does Raise the Alarm give you card advantage (2 for 1)? How about Scatter the Seeds (3 for 1)? Deranged Hermit (4 for 1)? One Dozen Eyes (5 for 1)?
I value cards at what I think they are worth in terms of manacost and it's effect. I think that at 2 mana and a card, two 1/1 creatures is a fair return on that original investment, so no, I do not think that Raise the Alarm is card advantage. The other cards you mentioned are powerful because they put a lot of power and toughness onto the board. Deranged Hermit is basically a 9/9 creature for 5 mana with an upkeep of 5 that if not paid becomes a 4/4 creature. That's the reason it's played, because it is a powerful effect. I would call this card advantage because the effect far outstrips the cost, which is of course is 1 card, and 10 mana over two turns.
When looking at cards, I always weigh cost and effect as a balance, where the better cards always have the balance tipping towards effect. If you evaluate a card based on that, instead of trying to evaluate raw card advantage numbers, you will start to see what I mean.
Raise the Alarm is similar to Phantom Nomad. If Phantom Nomad is blocked by a creature, it becomes a 1/1, in sort of the same way as if one creature token was blocked. It can also chump block a larger creature twice, like two creature tokens. The only thing different, really is -1 on your opponent's life total. Phantom Nomad is worth a card. Raise the Alarm is worth a card. They aren't worth more than a single card, and thus do not create card advantage.
You also argued that because the IC's ability requires a discard, it is not "real" card advantage. This would mean that Inspiration (2 for 1), Ancestral Recall (3 for 1), Tidings (4 for 1), and Promise of Power (5 for 1) are not "real" card advantage.
This is an absurd argument. I never said that cards with card investments aren't card advantage. Inspiration, as a card is worth two cards, Recal three, Tidings 4. A 1/1 creature with no abilities isn't worth a card, which is why nobody plays 1/1 creatures with no abilities in any deck, it's just not worth it. It's also why Icatian Crier isn't an Inspiration every turn.
Perhaps you're considering the concept of card advantage too narrowly?
Card advantage is not about just cards in hand, its about comparative resources. The best example is where your opponent has an army of 2/2's and you play a Hideous Laughter. You played (or discarded) one card and killed an arbitrary number of 2/2's. Your one card, their 30. That is card advantage. If you don't count cards on the board as part of the card advantage equation, you cannot accurately determine card advantage.
-H
Hideous Laughter makes me think about Subteranian Shambler... Anyway, instead of 2/2s, what if they were 0/2s? Would a Hideous Laughter give you 30 to one card advantage? I would say it wouldn't. The card advantage is reaped before the Laughter because your opponent is playing cards that aren't worth anything except as blockers.
Is a Hideous Laughter wiping out a bunch of Saprolings created by a Thallid Shell-Dweller net card advantage? It's card disadvantage because no cards were spent to make them. If a Hideous Laughter killed 10 Icatian Crier tokens, it WOULD create net card advantage because it negated the 5 cards that you spent to make them.
I think all you need to think about is whether or not you would add a 1/1 creature with no abilities to a deck you created? Is a 1/1 worth a card? I would say no. I would say that 2 1/1s is an equal worth for a card, and is the reason why Icatian Crier creates card parity, rather than card advantage.
For Icatian Crier to be card advantage in the same way that Inspiration is card advantage, you must beleive that a 1/1 creature with no other abilities is worth a card. I do not.
When you talk about what a card is worth, you're talking about card quality, not card advantage. That's a different analysis.
When you cast an Inspiration and say it gives you +1 card advantage, you're not talking about what you draw. That's irrelevant. It could be a Sorrow's Path or a Pale Moon or a Merfolk of the Pearl Trident. The cards you draw don't enter into this calculation.
If you use one card and get two cards, you have +1 card advantage.
Do I think that two 1/1s are worth a card? Sure, it is worth a card in the same way that Raise the Alarm is a good card, it's worth the card you have to spend to get the effect, but it's about an equal trade. How about getting a 2/2 with evasion for 0 cards invested? That's even better!
But, again you're comparing these two cards. I'm only disputing one claim you've made - that IC's ability doesn't provide card advantage.
If nothing is different between the card I proposed and using IC's ability, then logically each use of IC's ability must provide just as much card advantage as a Increase Readiness.
However, would you not admit that if that card had forcast at instant speed, it would even be better? Like, as in you could use that card and continue using it without ever having to invest anything other than mana, it would be a better card right? This is what it boils down to here, because both cards give you a similar effect, except when there is no card investment, it's card advantage, when there is a card investment and you get a fair (i.e. what a card is worth) return, it's card parity.
Yes, it can be better. A card can always be better. None of this is relevant when discussing card advantage.
Look, my position is simply that IC gives you card advantage. Even if the tokens it created were Skulking Citizen tokens that were 0/1 creatures that can't attack, block, or use any abilities, it STILL is card advantage. Sure, the cards suck ass, but that's not the point.
In this way, you aren't getting card advantage like Inspiration, because unless you value a single 1/1 as a card, you aren't doubling your investment. Two 1/1 creatures IMO is worth about a card, so for me, you are essentially putting one card in to get one card out. For Rebels you put in one card, time and mana and you can get seven times your investment. Rebels basically draw a card for you and cast it. That's friggin' crazy.
Yes, Rebels have a wonderful ability. I've even stated that the IC may not be right for ANY deck - that doesn't mean they don't create card advantage.
I assume that you would want to use the card every turn if it was able to create card advantage, right?
Again, this is an argument about the quality of the card. That's simply irrelevant to a card advantage analysis.
No. Just because its a good ability doesn't mean you use it every turn. Perhaps you know somehow your opponent has a Mana Leak and you can't spend that 4 mana so you can cast your spells in safety. Perhaps you have a Rebel in hand and know there are two Rebels left in the deck and you know your opponent is going to wipe the board on their turn. There are circumstances when you won't use your Rebel ability every turn. If this is true for a Rebel, I don't see why it can't be true for an IC.
I don't understand how you think that a card tutoring creatures out of your deck, putting them in your hand and casting them could be seen as anything but advantageous.
Dude, I've stated over and over that I agree Rebels create card advantage. All I'm trying to convince you of is that the IC does too.
It's like saying in a control deck that it's bad to draw a counterspell because there are less in your deck for you to draw. Putting a creature in play is pretty much exactly where you would put it eventually, so it's nothing but pure card advantage. If you somehow manage to put every single one of your rebels into play, you just friggin septupled your investment!
And, sometimes you don't. Have you ever lost a game with a fist full of mana? I know I have - more than I care to count. Would even a SINGLE one of those games have been turned around by getting a Raise the Alarm instead of a single land? That's very possible.
Not every land is going to be your eleventh useless one, and if you don't discard a land, what do you discard? It's going to be something at least useful if you built your deck correctly, made the correct SB choices, etc. If you find yourself with too many land cards in your hand, it's most likely because you have too many lands in your deck, or you got mana flooded.
*shakes head* My point is that IF you draw a useless card (be it your 11th land or a poor SB choice), you can turn it into a useful card. I don't understand why you're focusing on one point and disregarding everything else I had to say. I suggested your 11th land or a poor SB choice. Perhaps its game one agasint a mono-B and you pack Terrors.
For Icatian Crier to be useful, the effect of making two 1/1s has to outweight what is written on the card you are discarding. What I'm saying is that a lot of the time that's not the case. With Rebels, you don't have to choose between keeping the card or getting the dudes, you just get the dudes.
Any time you use the word "useful" or "better," you're still talking about card quality. If you want to discuss card quality, let's first settle this point. You seem to be making great pains to argue that IC is not a good card because its ability makes crappy cards. You don't have to abandon that argument to agree with me that even crappy cards can create card advantage.
I think that I'm using Rebels as an example of a creature that produces creatures in a similar way to Icatian Crier. By comparing them, I think it's easier to explain why Icatian Crier isn't really card advantage. Thallids are also a good example of card advantage, because time is the only investment to make those creatures. That's what makes them good control creatures, because they require time to work, and produce card advantage.
Card advantage is a mathematical determination, not a comparative one. You use one card to make two cards. That's card advantage. There's no such thing as not "real" card advantage. There's card quality.
Do you remember Spiny Starfish? Am I dating myself with this one? Anyhow, it makes 0/1 blue starfish tokens when it regenerates. Is that not "real" card advantage? Sengir Autocrat and his 0/1 black serf tokens?
Perhaps Sengir Autocrat is the perfect example. Yeah, there are better 2/2's for 3B. There are worse too. This one gives you three 0/1's. Mathematically, this is card advantage. It may not be a good card, but that's not part of the equation.
I value cards at what I think they are worth in terms of manacost and it's effect. I think that at 2 mana and a card, two 1/1 creatures is a fair return on that original investment, so no, I do not think that Raise the Alarm is card advantage. The other cards you mentioned are powerful because they put a lot of power and toughness onto the board. Deranged Hermit is basically a 9/9 creature for 5 mana with an upkeep of 5 that if not paid becomes a 4/4 creature. That's the reason it's played, because it is a powerful effect. I would call this card advantage because the effect far outstrips the cost, which is of course is 1 card, and 10 mana over two turns.
Using words like Value, Worth, Better, Worse - none of those help with the math. If you're not talking about math, you're not talking about card advantage. If you want to use those words, you are talking about card quality.
Again, card quality is an important discussion. In fact, its at least as important, if not more than discussing card advantage. But, again, that's not my point. The only point I'm trying to make is that IC creates card advantage.
When looking at cards, I always weigh cost and effect as a balance, where the better cards always have the balance tipping towards effect. If you evaluate a card based on that, instead of trying to evaluate raw card advantage numbers, you will start to see what I mean.
When you evaluate a card based upon cost, balance, or "better" you're talking about card quality.
Raise the Alarm is similar to Phantom Nomad. If Phantom Nomad is blocked by a creature, it becomes a 1/1, in sort of the same way as if one creature token was blocked. It can also chump block a larger creature twice, like two creature tokens. The only thing different, really is -1 on your opponent's life total. Phantom Nomad is worth a card. Raise the Alarm is worth a card. They aren't worth more than a single card, and thus do not create card advantage.
It may not be card DISadvantage, but it really isn't card advantage, while rebels are most definately card advantage. Rebels are better because you don't have to expend your hand in order to build up resources on the board, where as Icatian Crier requires you to spend cards in your hand to create things on the board.
Here you argue that the IC "really isn't card advantage." You back up this claim by stating that IC "requires you to spend cards in your hand to create things on the board." I don't believe that's an unfair characterization.
Inspiration, as a card is worth two cards, Recal three, Tidings 4. A 1/1 creature with no abilities isn't worth a card, which is why nobody plays 1/1 creatures with no abilities in any deck, it's just not worth it. It's also why Icatian Crier isn't an Inspiration every turn.
I think I'm going to add the word "worth" to the list of words to use when discussing card quality.
Anyway, instead of 2/2s, what if they were 0/2s? Would a Hideous Laughter give you 30 to one card advantage? I would say it wouldn't. The card advantage is reaped before the Laughter because your opponent is playing cards that aren't worth anything except as blockers.
Is a Hideous Laughter wiping out a bunch of Saprolings created by a Thallid Shell-Dweller net card advantage? It's card disadvantage because no cards were spent to make them. If a Hideous Laughter killed 10 Icatian Crier tokens, it WOULD create net card advantage because it negated the 5 cards that you spent to make them.
I think all you need to think about is whether or not you would add a 1/1 creature with no abilities to a deck you created? Is a 1/1 worth a card? I would say no. I would say that 2 1/1s is an equal worth for a card, and is the reason why Icatian Crier creates card parity, rather than card advantage.
As I'm reading your post, I'm seeing myself use all caps now and then and you use a few exclamation points. I enjoy a lively debate, but not at the cost of hurt feelings on either side. As I haven't known you very long, I don't have a feel for how you might be reacting to what I say. Thus, I'm using this little aside to make sure we're cool.
Okay, I tell you what - it may SEEM like we're at an impase - but I think I may know of a way out. There is a way some mediators use to escape two people who are talking at cross purposes.
I'm going to make up two words and provide definitions.
VRANG - The change in the mathematical tabulation of all cards at a player's disposal. All potentially useable cards are counted when tabulating VRANG, whether they are in hand (instants, sorceries, or permanents), play (permanents), or cards in the graveyard (cards with Dredge or Flashback).
Useage: If you cast an Inspiration, you lose one VRANG for casting the spell and gain two VRANG for the two cards you drew. Your VRANG is +1.
GNARV - The relative playability of a card.
Usage: Sorrow's Path and Pale Moon are each examples of cards with extremely poor GNARV. Ancestral Recall, Deranged Hermit, and Umizawa's Jitte are examples of cards with extremely good GNARV. If you had two cards, one of which had all of the features and more of the other, you would say that the superior card had more GNARV than the other. Tinder Wall has more GNARV than Wall of Wood. Phyrexian Walker has more GNARV than Wall of Wood. Ashcoat Bear, Muscle Sliver, and Aquastrand Spider all have more GNARV than Grizley Bears.
1) JUST discussing the Icatian Crier for the moment, would you agree that its ability causes VRANG +1?
2) Considering JUST Amrou Scout, would you agree that its ability causes VRANG +1?
3) Given your position, would you agree that Amrou Scout has a fairly high level of GNARV?
4) Is it your position that Amrou Scout has more GNARV than Icatian Crier?
- H
PS - Wow, its like we're having the battle to see who can write a longer post.
Instant Counter target spell unless it's controller pays
White force spike? Will it see play? I think it will, in control builds with white it's useful for stopping the opponent from curving out for only a single mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signature by kingcobweb
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I Finished First Today in Mini PDC. It was Alphabet week and i went with a :symr::symw: "S" Boros Build.
5 Mountain
4 Plains
6 Snow-Covered Mountain
4 Snow-Covered Plains
2 Secluded Steppe
//Spells//
4 Shelter
4 Surging Flame
4 Seal of Fire
4 Shock
3 Squee's Embrace
4 Skyknight Legionnaire
4 Suntail Hawk
4 Suq'Ata Lancer
4 Sidewinder Sliver
4 Searing Spear Askari
4 Shatter
4 Soldier Replica
3 Standard Bearer
4 Subterranean Shambler
Also, I've been thinking about the whole MTGO Clan/ Salvation clan thing and i think that i would like to join up with you all online as well. I would like to talk to my current captain and let him know.
Pauper T2 BurntFish
Pauper Classic MBC
Pauper Classic Chilly Dog
Top Secret TSP Block Deck
Pauper FutEx Cogs
I still feel like there are some deck combinations out there that have not been fully explored or fleshed out yet. I am not sure what, but I still feel like there is another tier one deck out there that just has not been refined.
Congrats on the win Buttons.
http://magic.jwc4.com/blog/index.html
Way to go, Princes! Two wins in two events! Congrats, Buttons/Me5794/Richard on your first PDC win. We'll be glad to have you with the Disciples of the Common Way, if you choose to join :).
Prison Yard (Pauper Future Extended)
If you're into joining DotCW, we'll let akmage know and he'll look you up on MTGO. How exciting!
Ruinedlaw, good to see you in these hallowed halls once again. Your projected 'Boros Blink' sounds pretty cool, especially if white gets some better CIP abilities on critters. Looking forward to Saturday?
I just like adding the Black Transmute cards in any deck, especially when the whole deck is based around one casting cost (two). If you can't beat other decks by making a crazy amount of 1/1s, then you can fetch up a Amarou Scout which is guaranteed to make an army by itself. I just wanted to add a ton of engine cards and guaranteed card advantage to a deck and see what happens.
4x Selesnya Evangel
4x Elves of Deep Shadow
3x Amrou Seekers
4x Amrou Scout
4x Shambling Shell
4x Deathspore Thallid
Spells:
4x Fists of Ironwood
4x Castigate
4x Shred Memory
1x Grim Harvest
4x Terramorphic Expanse
6x Swamp
5x Plains
5x Forest
1x Selesnya Sanctuary
1x Orzhov Basilica
2x Golgari Rot Farm
2x Grim Harvest
3x Last Gasp
3x Transluminant
2x Errant Doomsayers
5x More cards
Basically, it's a tricky manabase to maintain, but there is a lot of mana fixing.
Out of the board, I sort of wanted the ability to deal with evasive creatures with the ability to get a Transluminant engine going, some Last Gasps and some Errant Doomsayers to keep them locked down.
What do you guys think?
EDIT: What do you guys think about Errant Doomsayers in the place of Seekers? I know that Seekers are obviously good at getting around multiple blockers, but would Doomsayers be good at pinning down flying/shadow/etc. weenies? And if you need agressive creatures, you can just keep fetching Scouts. What do you guys think on this issue?
EDIT2: I'm also thinking this will be pretty weak against weenie aggro, because the engine might take too long to get working. I think Castigate should be cut in favour of something like Last Gasp or Thallid Shell-Dweller to stop the rushes. I'm leaning towards the Shell Dwellers, because they work better with the rest of the deck.
The Rock is a pet project of mine - I've been trying to make a workable version for about two threads now. I posted a detailed history of how the deck evolved, with the last post here regarding Rock Harvest v7. Since then I've made changes to it, progressing to Rock Harvest v9b1. I set it down a few weeks ago in favor of a Toolbox style deck inspired by BweeBwee...
Amusingly, versions 5 and 6 contained a Saproling-Herd Gnarr-Fists of Ironwood-Deathspore Thallid engine. When it worked, it was something to behold. When it failed... It was like setting fire to the paint on the digital cards.
9x Forest
8x Swamp
4x Terramorphic Expanse
2x Golgari Rot Farm
//Dudes
4x Deathspore Thallid
4x Thallid Shell-Dweller
4x Aquastrand Spider
4x Pit Keeper
3x Gutless Ghoul
3x Thoughtpicker Witch
4x Ravenous Rats
4x Last Gasp
4x Scatter the Seeds
3x Grim Harvest
4x Disembowel
4x Shred Memory
4x Fists of Ironwood
3x Thallid Germinator
9x Forest
8x Swamp
4x Terramorphic Expanse
2x Rakdos Carnarium
1x Mountain
//Dudes
2x Martyr of Bones
3x Thoughtpicker Witch
4x Pit Keeper
4x Aquastrand Spider
4x Deathspore Thallid
3x Gutless Ghoul
3x Shambling Shell
4x Last Gasp
3x Scatter the Seeds
3x Grim Harvest
3x Strangling Soot
1x Shambling Shell
2x Shred Memory
1x Strangling Soot
3x Thallid Shell-Dweller
4x Urborg Syphon-Mage
4x Stinkweed Imp
Rock Harvest v9b1
Strengths: Flexibility, versitility, and inevitability. If the opponent stalls out, this deck can basically lock them out of the game. However, any deck with enough mana and a single Grim Harvest can do that. Any deck with mana, a Grim Harvest, and a single Thoughtpicker Witch can lock someone out.
Weaknesses: Its slow to set up and can be slow to recover from a bad hand, bad start, or an opponent's strong start. Evasion in the form of White Fear, Flying, Shadow, or any evasion with untargetability give this deck fits. Even in those games where I was doing well against Orzhov/Orzhov Blink, the games would just drag on and on until they got the cards they needed. Giving Orzhov time to topdeck is a terrible idea.
Overall: One of the main reasons I set this deck down was that it just kept losing and losing to O/OB. The second reason is that it just wasn't doing well enough against everything else. In fact, it was about this time that we started testing LD builds and I discovered that both O/OB and Rock Harvest just rolled over and died to LD. Some of the earlier versions of this deck saw me running ALL 2cc spells with the exception of 4x Shambling Shells, 3x Scatter the Seeds.
---
Constracting Rock and Toolbox:
Then I played a game against BweeBwee and a Mystical Teachings deck. It looked fun and I started to design a Toolbox style deck. Annnnnnnnnnnd the more I tinkered with it, the more it looked like The Rock. In fact, the first few turns were entirely indistinguishable.
Frankly, the main difference was in how I approached the deck, what I was willing to cut and not cut. When I was building The Rock, I cut out the Saproling-Herd Gnarr-Fists of Ironwood-Deathspore Thallid engine in favor of more deck versitility - becuase The Rock isn't about combo-ing out, its about being able to handle a variety of threats.
My approach in building a Toolbox deck versus a Rock style deck meant I could cut the "versitility" cards in favor of one-of's I could tutor for. When I started using MTeachings, I began by thinking about what the best instants/flash cards were. However, I realized that if they were THAT good, I really wanted to be running 4 of them - which made MT a little useless. So, if I'm going to spend 4 or 6 mana to get a spell, it better be damn good. Then I tried a slightly different tact. I used 4x House Guards (remember when I was putting House Guards in EVERY deck???) for extra defense/evasion offense/tutoring. That way I could tutor for a MT and get whatever instant I wanted. THEN the problem was that if I really needed a card, I might have to tutor for a tutor to get it. Which is fun, but ridiculous. So, I scrapped the Teachings altogether and came up with...
Besides the approach noted above, I also had a bias in constructing The Rock versus a Toolbox deck. A Rock deck is traditionally BGx or even BGxyz. However, this is not necessarily the case - it can be any colors so long as its goals and methods of getting there are the same. In any case, while working on the Rock it simply never occurred to me to cut green cards or even cut green out entirely. As my Toolbox evolved, I reduced green, and then cut all green cards from the maindeck. Jak commented that its now basically a Rakdos deck!
10 Swamp
4x Terramorphic Expanse
2x Forest
2x Mountain
3x Rakdos Carnarium
1x Golgari Rot Farm
//Stuff - 11
3x Rakdos Signet
1x Golgari Signet
4x Last Gasp
3x Grim Harvest
4x Pit Keeper
4x Deathspore Thallid
4x Stinkweed Imp
3x Urborg Syphon-Mage
4x Dimir House Guard
2x Petrahydrox
4x Disciple of Tevesh Szat
2x Subterranean Shambler
4x Cremate
3x Thoughtpicker Witch
4x Shambling Shell
4x Gutless Ghoul
Notes:
After getting my ass handed to me several times, it was obvious the entire mana base had to be redone. More importantly than than that, devoting more of the deck meant I was no longer focusing on the early game as I did in the Rock. I wanted the Rock to do well early AND late and just spread it too thin. Here, I'm basically allowing the deck to just ramp up the mana for the first turn or two before moving the deck forward. Admittedly, 22 lands including 4 Karoos and 4 Signets on top of that is PROBABLY overdoing it. I could reasonably cut back two signets and add a little more to the deck.
I've come to a realization that there's a time and place for running Prismatic Lens, but this deck is not it. Prismatic Lens is NOT better than a signet in a three color deck. It only starts to shine when you've got 4 or 5 colors. The problem comes when you go to use that mana. The PL is normally a +1 colorless mana. When you need that extra color, its +0 net mana. A Signet, on the other hand is -1 to activate, and is +2 colored mana. At no point does the Signet net you less mana.
Adding red gave this deck a HUGE boost. All of a sudden, the deck could deal with a weenie horde by playing a Subterranean Shambler without using all of its removal spells. The Syphon-Mages meant I could almost keep up with Orzhov's life sapping. The House Guards meant I could sac anything without even paying mana. The maindeck Stinkys meant I wasn't as vulnerable to flying. The Petrahydrox gave me a chance to block a Guardian otG AND a nice hefty body no one wanted to waste a spell on. He even gave me a few combat tricks. In a game against Eegag? I blocked with a Saproling and a Petrahydrox, stacked damage, and sac'ed the Sap to give the Petra a -1/-1, thereby saving him and returning him to my hand.
The most novel of my inclusions is undoubtedly Disciple of Tevesh Szat. Giving -1/-1 counters every single turn is pretty brutal. Yeah, he's fragile, but he's also mean. He can swing for 3, take out a 4/4, or even kill a 9/9.
Moving the Deck Forward: I'm thinking of scrapping the Last Gasps in favor of 4x Strangling Soots. This deck will have the mana available AND of the proper color. I'm thinking of cutting two signets in favor of... another Shambler? and ???. I'd really appreciate Alfred's thoughts.
I'm also going to cut a little green from the mana base in favor of red. Probably -1 Forest, +1 Mountain or +1 Swamp.
Notes on prior Toolbox versions 1 - v2d4f:
First, YES, I really did name one of the variations v2d4f. I may have only shown this deck once, but I've got 16 different variations between 1 and 2d5 saved on my drive. Hell, they're only 1k each, so there's no reason not to keep track of what I've changed. That way I can always backtrack on my thought process, possibly even pick up from a point in the past and take the deck in a new direction (which I've done from time to time), OR go back to an earlier version where it WAS working and now isn't.
Second, some of the earlier versions ran 4 colors and at least one version ran all 5. My inclusions were Momentary Blink, Aven Cloudchaser, Mystical Teachings, Tolarian Sentinel, Gravedigger, Highway Robber, Scatter the Seeds, Wrecking Ball, and Icefall. For a while I had green as a major component of the deck - mostly for mana fixing while it was GBrwu. At that time I ran anywhere between 1 and 4 Penumbra Spiders. They're fun and lead to all sorts of great tricks with sacrifice outlets and blocking fear, but not exactly practical.
I'm verbose by nature, but this post is getting ridiculous. I think Alfred said a LOT of important things above, but I can't make this much longer than it already is. I've been meaning to post updates on my Rock and Toolbox for a while, and his post gives me an excuse. I'm going to focus on how his take on the Rock impacts my versions. I appologize in advance for cutting any of his... snip...
In my various versions, I've added and cut Ravenous Rats, Cry of Contrition, Mindstab, Delerium Skeins, and even the dreaded Shrieking Ghoul for discard in my versions. I'm not sure that discard ever got me a whole lot. I like Castigate, and its hurt when I've been hit with it on second turn, but coming up with BW on turn 2 is tough.
Of all the cards you mentioned, I like the idea of the Evangel the most. Being able to crank out 1/1's instead of having to wait three turns for one... get old. And, its a 1/2 (as Jak pointed out to me in IM) so he can block or even survive my own Subterranean Shambler. Of all the ideas in his deck, this is the one I'm most likely to steal.
I like the idea of focusing a deck around one casting cost, either 2 or 4 and being able to transmute for what you need. Hence, my recent Toolbox variations. Black is extremely lucky to get such high quality and versitile transmute cards in Shred Memory and Dimir House Guard. I tried a 2cc version of the Rock (Rock Harvest v4-v5, for those of you keeping score), as noted above, but never really had the need to transmute since I ran 4 of all the good 2cc cards.
However, I'm unsure about the Rebel plan. If you're going for the card advantage engine, Amrou Scout can only get you 7 cards (the 4 other rebels and the 3 other copies of the Scout) over 8 turns. I think you might be better off going with an Icatian Crier for two 1/1 soldier tokens.
I think the biggest weakness for this deck is the evasion, as you've noted. Flying, shadow, fear, GotG, and Ledgewalker. Your deck would be unable to deal with a GotG (unless you race) or with a Ledgewalker (unless you bring a Transluminant from the SB). I've never been crazy about using a creature to tap down an opponent's threat. In any case, the Doomsayers are so situational you might be better using that old standby, Faith's Fetters.
I prefer the Seekers by far. Your deck needs to be able to put a little damage through while developing a Sap army.
I like the Last Gasp and Shell-Dweller plan, but then again, these cards have been damn near staples in every deck I've built in the last four months. If you've got the Fists of Ironwood, tons of ways to make tokens and search up guys, why not add a Gnarr or two? It gives your opponents a target for their removal above your more critical core creatures and it gives you the chance at comboing out.
- H
PoP Website
Magic Workstation
H/W list
OLD H/W list
GB Pauper T2 Rock Harvest v9b1
BR Pauper T2 Toolbox v2d5
Watcher of SPDC 1.07
Are there any spoils thusfar from Planar Chaos that will help strengthen the Rock?
I would honestly try the Rebel plan out. The reason why Icatian Crier isn't as good is because it isn't card advantage really. Even if Scout has only 6 things to fetch, that's 6 for 1 card advantage, and you can easily find one with Shred Memory. It's incredible to be able to build up resources on the board with the only cost being mana. It's exactly what control decks want to do.
P.S. Thanks for the input Haloscope. It's interesting to see how you have evolved the deck.
The basic jist is to use the comes into play effects to create card advantage.
4 Assault Zeppelid
4 Auroch Herd
4 Civic Wayfinder
4 Coiling Oracle
4 Errant Ephemeron
4 Minister of Impediments
4 Slihana Ledgewalker
4 Momentary Blink
4 Surging Might
4 Rune Snag
//Lands//
9 Forests
8 Islands
2 Plains
3 Terramorphic Expanse
One of the gems of this deck is running aurochs herd which can be combined with blink to fetch more creatures with trample.
I think it needs to be refined a bit and I think that I may have too many creatures...but I am not really sure what else to add at this time.
also, for jak, here is my version of the ponza pauper deck Alfred was playing. I just took a few innovations he had added and added them to the deck we were working on before time spiral.
3 Dimir House Guard
2 Disciple of Tevesh Szat
3 Gutless Ghoul
4 Martyr of Ashes
4 Mogg War Marshall
4 Stinkweed Imp
4 Wild Cantor
3 Grim Harvest
3 Icefall
4 Skred
4 Wrecking Ball
2 Rakdos Signet
12 Snow-covered Mountains
9 Snow-covered Swamp
1 Rakdos Carnarium
BTW, I apologize to everyone for not being as involved as normal, as those of you who know me better, know, I have a certain event coming up that has been taking up most of my time. I will hopefully get to post more after the next two weeks, as this week and the next are going to be crazy for me.
http://magic.jwc4.com/blog/index.html
I know that you all are standard enthusiasts, but i just want to give you all a heads up that TPDC is tonight. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11130854#post11130854 I'll be there.
If you all have deck ideas too, i'd be up to some suggestions. I have the cards to build anything and i tend to shy away from the standard builds. I'd rather win on the back of something creative as opposed to something cookie-cutter.
I managed to Make T4 with a WW build a few weeks ago, it was similar to my Standard build
2 Benalish Calvary
4 Sidewinder Sliver
4 Plated Sliver
4 Mtenda Herder
4 Lantern Kami
4 Suntail Hawk
4 tundra Wolf
4 Boros Recruit
4 Raise the alarm
4 Fortify
4 Kjeldoran War Cry
//Land//
18 Plains
I haven't decided if i want to try this again tonight or if i want to build something else.
Pauper T2 BurntFish
Pauper Classic MBC
Pauper Classic Chilly Dog
Top Secret TSP Block Deck
Pauper FutEx Cogs
Well i didn't do well last night i went 1-2 with a burn heavy boros/war cry build. But its ok i'm well qualified for worlds in TPDC, PDC Mini, and a good showing on Thurs i will be qualified for SPDC as well.
So what do you all think will be the prominent decks or decks on thursday?
Personally i think that Anti Weenie decks will be out in force. A number of people were impressed by Bwee's deck. This Coupled with the fact that weenie decks have had strong showings, (WW, WW/u, RB, Gnarly Beats) and people are just tired of playing orzhov.
I expect a lot of Decks with Red for either martyr's or shamblers.
So what would be a good deck to play?
My first guess would be Harvester. It does have weenies, but they are easily to bring back. I am not 100% sure on this though.
What do you all think?
Pauper T2 BurntFish
Pauper Classic MBC
Pauper Classic Chilly Dog
Top Secret TSP Block Deck
Pauper FutEx Cogs
Play what you love, and enjoy yourself.
http://magic.jwc4.com/blog/index.html
Registration begins at 8:30pm EST.
This is the 2nd last event before Worlds, so attend tonight and rake in those points!
Thread Here
Thursday, January 11, 2007
WHEN and WHERE
Registration will open at 8:30 p.m. EST (GMT: 01:30 Friday) in /join spdc. The first round will begin approximately thirty minutes later.
LEGAL CARDS and PROXIES
The format for this event will be Standard PDC. Cards printed as common in the following sets are legal: 9th Edition, Ravnica: City of Guilds, Guildpact, Dissension, Coldsnap, and Time Spiral. Cards printed as uncommon, rare, or timeshifted in these sets, though printed as common in an unlisted set, are not legal. The following legal commons have uncommon counterparts online which may be used as proxies:
Cremate (Invasion)
Foul Imp (7th Edition)
EVENT DETAILS and RULES
* There will be three rounds of play followed by a Top 4 playoff (Top 8 if there are more than 16 players).
* Matches will be played in the Casual Play > Anything Goes room.
* Matches must be timed for 60 minutes, must be watchable, and should have "Standard PDC" in the description. It is the responsibility of both players to ensure matches are set up correctly.
* If a player doesn't join their assigned match within 10 minutes of pairing announcements, their opponent will be awarded a game win. If a player doesn't join their assigned match within 20 minutes of pairing announcements, their opponent will be awarded a match win.
* The deck and sideboard used in the first round must be used for the entire event. Deviation from the deck used in the first round will result in disqualification.
* The use of illegal cards in the first round will result in a match loss and the opporunity to legalize the deck for the next round with disregard to the above rule. The use of illegal cards after the first round will result in disqualification.
* Please don't talk in other player's games unless both players agree that it is alright. Also, please don't use the tournament room for off-topic chat.
* Players in the Top 4 (or Top 8) should post their decklist in this thread, following the event, to encourage deck development.
* This is a PDC Ratings-enabled event. For more information on PDC Ratings, go to www.paupermagic.com and click on "Ratings."
THIS WEEK'S PRIZES
TBA
I went 1-2. A RIDICULOUSLY FRUSTRATING 1-2.
Round one was a pretty easy win, 2-0 vs a bad boros build, round two I lose to Does 3 Damage playing Gnarrly Beats. I end game two with 2 shamblers in hand. Round three is vs. phen0m with...orzhov. Game one, I win fairly easily, no hitches. Game two, he draws three pillories. I die a turn or two away from victory. Game three? EXACT SAME THING. Jesus.
EDIT: Oh, I was playing a relatively new deck, UG with a tiny splash of red, one mountain maindeck and 4 shamblers sideboarded. Here's the list I played:
4 Errant Ephemeron
4 Penumbra Spider
4 Coiling Oracle
4 Assault Zepplid
4 Snapback
4 Repeal
4 Compulsive Research
4 Search for Tomorrow
6 Island
1 Mountain
4 Terramorphic Expanse
4 Simic Growth Chamber
4 Subterranean Shambler
2 Petrahydrox
2 Remove Soul
3 Minister of Impediments
4 Cancel
Most of the sideboard was just thrown together.
Hmm. Would you move Castigate to the SB then, or keep it MD due to the meta?
I totally disagree with your assessment that the Crier is not really card advantage. Some have talked about virtual card advantage versus 'real' card advantage. However, this distinction is illusory. But, for now let's look at just the Icatian Crier.
Something is happening here. You pay mana, tap a card, and discard a card to get an effect.
You just lost a card, so it might be disadvantage. Consider that you just lost one card and got two tokens in exchange, so it might be card advantage. But, does the token advantage gained by the effect offset the card disadvantage?
What's going on might be a card quality question and it might be a card advantage question.
My point is that given that there's something happening with cards being lost and other things being gained, card advantage is being effected - we just need to determine whether it is effected positively or negatively.
Suppose the following:
Icatian Weeper - 2W
Creature - Human Spellshaper
1W, Discard a card, T: Search your collection for two Cowardly Citizan cards and put them into play. Each Cowardly Citizen is a white 1/1 creature. If Cowardly Citizen is placed in the graveyard, remove it from the game. If Cowardly Citizen leaves play, remove it from the game.
2/1
Icatian Weeper is functionally identical to Ication Crier, but it gives you pieces of cardboard in place of tokens. Would you call one version real card advantage, but not the other? If Icatian Weeper, a totally plausible card (just not at common), creates card advantage, then we should consider Icatian Crier to have created card advantage as well.
If you argue that the Cowardly Citizen tokens are still tokens since they are treated exactly like tokens, then you're missing the point. Skulking Fugitive, Skulking Ghost, and Skulking Knight very similar to tokens, but no one confuses them with tokens.
OR, to stretch the "virtual" card advantage argument to its logical extreme, wouldn't MTGO be entirely devoid of *real* card advantage and only involve virtual card advantage?
No matter which way you cut it, if you're getting the crap kicked out of you by a 6/6 wurm, it doesn't matter that it looks like a penny rather than a card.
Ultimately, what is card advantage? One definition is that it is a game state where you have access to more cards than your opponent OR where you create or take advantage of a disparity in access to cards. To delve deeper, what is a card except a resource? If you have more resources which ACT just like a card, why not call them cards?
Thanks. At Polyjak's cajoling I piloted it at tonight's PDC. I *barely* lost the first game to l_sauchelli's BGW toolbox style Orzhov deck.
10x Forests
5x Swamps
5x Plains
4x Terramorphic Expanse
//Stuff - 36
4x Gemhide Sliver
4x Rampant Growth
4x Dimir House Guard
4x Faith's Fetters
4x Blind Hunter
4x Shrieking Ghoul
4x Civic Wayfinder
4x Last Gasp
4x Assassinate
4x Wormwood Dryad
4x Pillory of the Sleepless
He took game one on the backs of several Blind Hunters and an unchecked Shrieking Grotesque. I took game 2 with Harvest recurssion and Disciples. Game three was his - as he had 11 minutes to my 5. I think I would have taken him if I had more time, I had tons of mana, an active Harvest, and all the creatures I needed.
10x Island
10x Swamp
4x Terramorphic Expanse
//Stuff - ??
4x Dimir Infiltrator
4x Errant Ephemeron
4x Deathspore Thallid (!!!)
4x Strands of Undeath
4x Tendrils of Corruption
4x Gorgon Recluse
4x Mana Skimmer
4x Flight of Fancy
4x Surveilling Sprite
4x Skulking Knight
I won both games and dropped - I didn't have the time to play any more. He told me he didn't have many cards and had just thrown a deck together. He also described my deck as the exact opposite of his. Several of his creatures had a 4 toughness - which I dealt with by giving them a -1/-1 then using a Strangling Soot.
Overall, I'm very happy with my deck. It has a lot of tricks and is fun to play. I think I've got the mana just about right and good SB choices against Orzhov (all 2-drops out, all Petrahydrox and Shambling Shell in). I think if had I better idea of how to play my own deck, I would have done better against l_sauchelli's WBG Toolbox Orzhov and played faster. I haven't tried it against a regular Orzhov or Orzhov Blink, but I'd like to.
- H
PoP Website
Magic Workstation
H/W list
OLD H/W list
GB Pauper T2 Rock Harvest v9b1
BR Pauper T2 Toolbox v2d5
Watcher of SPDC 1.07
Last night I ran an unedited SnowRos and played one match against GeoffreyHarlow who was running Orzhov Blink (and, I suspect, also participating in the TNT tourney simultaneously due to long lags between actions). I kept topdecking Taste For Mayhem, which was very frustrating. It was 1-1 and the 3rd game was going kinda long. I almost had him, and then he started gaining life. I conceded in frustration because I was (and still am) very, very tired.
I think I speak for more than myself when I say I won't miss the departure of Blind Hunter from the format.
Also, eegag is in France for the rest of this month.
It may not be card DISadvantage, but it really isn't card advantage, while rebels are most definately card advantage. Rebels are better because you don't have to expend your hand in order to build up resources on the board, where as Icatian Crier requires you to spend cards in your hand to create things on the board.
I know that they are "real" cards, in the same way that a Roar of the Wurm token is a "card". But it's not really card advantage because you're discarding a card every time you use Criers' ability.
The beautiful thing about rebels is that you can save up a fist full of removal, creatures, tutors, etc. to use if they find a way to stop your rebel chain. Whereas with Crier, you basically have the ability to change cards in your hand into Raise the Alarm. If you are using the Crier's ability every turn, in addition to making land drops and casting other spells, you will be shrinking your hand. This is not the case with Rebels, because they don't require any card investment from your hand, while still adding resources to the board.
Two 1/1s are basically a little better and a little worse than a 2/2. Better in that they can chump block twice or get around a single blocker, but worse in that they match up poorly to other 1 power creatures. I think that two 1/1s is a fair trade for 2 mana and a card, but I really think that 4 mana and 0 cards expended for a 2/2 (almost) unblockable is better. Especially seeing as though the initial investment (2 mana for a 2/1) is far, far better than 3 mana for a 1/1.
I'm of the belief that Icatian Crier isn't really card advantage. Rebels ARE though, and as a control deck I think that you want to build up card advantage over time so that you can win the game, rather than trade 1 for 1 a lot.
EDIT: Oh, and about Castigate, I would throw that into the baord, because it is a good thing to have against Orzhov.
Creature - Cat
Flash
When Whitemane Lion comes into play, return a creature you control to its owner's hand.
2/2
HELLO Orzhov Blink!
I'm done with Magic, I think.
EDIT: On 2nd thought, this is quite an amazing card. It's probably going to make a lot of stuff a whole lot cooler.
Apparently this is part of a cycle of "rescue" creatures, which undoubtably have flash and return a creature you control to its owner's hand.
We had Dimir, Rakdos, Selesnya, and Izzet make T4 this week, despite the prevalence of Orzhov in decks played against by Halo and me. To say that Orzhov is insurmountable is to concede early defeat against a challenging but not invincible foe.
SnowRos was giving me some sketchy draws, but I had already wondered about Taste for Mayhem maindeck. I saw it an insane number of times on Thursday. I might take it down to 1 and push the Gelid Shackles to 4, because those cards are always welcome.
Is it just me, or has GotG been less present of late? Because when Geoffrey brought it out against me G2, I didn't have much to do against it. Amrou Seekers can't evade it. This makes me think that WW/u may actually have an edge over SnowRos... in that matchup, at least.
If white gets some cheap new fliers, WW/r may be the way to go. I will not give up on Boros, but I may have to bring my own thinking to SnowRos. I've played it unedited long enough!
Well, whether IC is better than the Rebel Plan is a different discussion. I do not dispute that the Rebel Plan is Card advantage.
You cannot argue that something is not really card advantage because you discard. Otherwise, Inspiration would "not really" give you card advantage because you have to "discard" a card to use the spell.
Seriously, what's the difference between the IC's ability and this card?
Again, this is a question whether the IC is better than the Rebel Plan. The answer to that simply depends on the deck. In any case, this critique assumes that you use the IC/RP every turn - which also assumes you would discard the removal to the IC.
But, to discuss your critique on its merits, using the RP depletes your deck of creatures you would otherwise draw. It also gives you a very finite number of uses - the most would be 7 or 11 uses in a normal deck. AND a second or third rebel on the board doesn't increase your deck's card advantage at all - just the speed with which your card advantage can be realized.
An IC on the other hand turns every dead draw - a poor SB choice or your 11th land into a Raise Alarm. You can keep a fist full of removal, creatures, tutors, etc - just not land/useless cards. Yes, using the IC's ability uses cards - but ONLY useless cards or cards that are worse than getting two 1/1's.
You're changing arguments on me again. You're arguing about which is better. Perhaps the RP is better in your deck - I would not dispute that. Perhaps IC is wrong for every deck that has ever been built or ever would be built - I might dispute that, but its irrelevant. The bottom line is that the IC's ability is indistinguishable from things no one would dispute could be real cards.
Well, you argued that getting tokens is not card advantage. Tokens are indistinguishable from real pieces of cardboard. I proposed the Icatian Weeper above. I don't see how it is distinguishable from the Icatian Crier. Does Raise the Alarm give you card advantage (2 for 1)? How about Scatter the Seeds (3 for 1)? Deranged Hermit (4 for 1)? One Dozen Eyes (5 for 1)?
You also argued that because the IC's ability requires a discard, it is not "real" card advantage. This would mean that Inspiration (2 for 1), Ancestral Recall (3 for 1), Tidings (4 for 1), and Promise of Power (5 for 1) are not "real" card advantage.
Perhaps you're considering the concept of card advantage too narrowly?
Card advantage is not about just cards in hand, its about comparative resources. The best example is where your opponent has an army of 2/2's and you play a Hideous Laughter. You played (or discarded) one card and killed an arbitrary number of 2/2's. Your one card, their 30. That is card advantage. If you don't count cards on the board as part of the card advantage equation, you cannot accurately determine card advantage.
-H
PoP Website
Magic Workstation
H/W list
OLD H/W list
GB Pauper T2 Rock Harvest v9b1
BR Pauper T2 Toolbox v2d5
Watcher of SPDC 1.07
For Icatian Crier to be card advantage in the same way that Inspiration is card advantage, you must beleive that a 1/1 creature with no other abilities is worth a card. I do not. Do I think that two 1/1s are worth a card? Sure, it is worth a card in the same way that Raise the Alarm is a good card, it's worth the card you have to spend to get the effect, but it's about an equal trade. How about getting a 2/2 with evasion for 0 cards invested? That's even better!
Nothing is different. However, would you not admit that if that card had forcast at instant speed, it would even be better? Like, as in you could use that card and continue using it without ever having to invest anything other than mana, it would be a better card right? This is what it boils down to here, because both cards give you a similar effect, except when there is no card investment, it's card advantage, when there is a card investment and you get a fair (i.e. what a card is worth) return, it's card parity.
In this way, you aren't getting card advantage like Inspiration, because unless you value a single 1/1 as a card, you aren't doubling your investment. Two 1/1 creatures IMO is worth about a card, so for me, you are essentially putting one card in to get one card out. For Rebels you put in one card, time and mana and you can get seven times your investment. Rebels basically draw a card for you and cast it. That's friggin' crazy.
I assume that you would want to use the card every turn if it was able to create card advantage, right?
I don't understand how you think that a card tutoring creatures out of your deck, putting them in your hand and casting them could be seen as anything but advantageous. It's like saying in a control deck that it's bad to draw a counterspell because there are less in your deck for you to draw. Putting a creature in play is pretty much exactly where you would put it eventually, so it's nothing but pure card advantage. If you somehow manage to put every single one of your rebels into play, you just friggin septupled your investment!
Only useless cards? Sometimes you need lands! Not every land is going to be your eleventh useless one, and if you don't discard a land, what do you discard? It's going to be something at least useful if you built your deck correctly, made the correct SB choices, etc. If you find yourself with too many land cards in your hand, it's most likely because you have too many lands in your deck, or you got mana flooded.
For Icatian Crier to be useful, the effect of making two 1/1s has to outweight what is written on the card you are discarding. What I'm saying is that a lot of the time that's not the case. With Rebels, you don't have to choose between keeping the card or getting the dudes, you just get the dudes.
I think that I'm using Rebels as an example of a creature that produces creatures in a similar way to Icatian Crier. By comparing them, I think it's easier to explain why Icatian Crier isn't really card advantage. Thallids are also a good example of card advantage, because time is the only investment to make those creatures. That's what makes them good control creatures, because they require time to work, and produce card advantage.
I value cards at what I think they are worth in terms of manacost and it's effect. I think that at 2 mana and a card, two 1/1 creatures is a fair return on that original investment, so no, I do not think that Raise the Alarm is card advantage. The other cards you mentioned are powerful because they put a lot of power and toughness onto the board. Deranged Hermit is basically a 9/9 creature for 5 mana with an upkeep of 5 that if not paid becomes a 4/4 creature. That's the reason it's played, because it is a powerful effect. I would call this card advantage because the effect far outstrips the cost, which is of course is 1 card, and 10 mana over two turns.
When looking at cards, I always weigh cost and effect as a balance, where the better cards always have the balance tipping towards effect. If you evaluate a card based on that, instead of trying to evaluate raw card advantage numbers, you will start to see what I mean.
Raise the Alarm is similar to Phantom Nomad. If Phantom Nomad is blocked by a creature, it becomes a 1/1, in sort of the same way as if one creature token was blocked. It can also chump block a larger creature twice, like two creature tokens. The only thing different, really is -1 on your opponent's life total. Phantom Nomad is worth a card. Raise the Alarm is worth a card. They aren't worth more than a single card, and thus do not create card advantage.
This is an absurd argument. I never said that cards with card investments aren't card advantage. Inspiration, as a card is worth two cards, Recal three, Tidings 4. A 1/1 creature with no abilities isn't worth a card, which is why nobody plays 1/1 creatures with no abilities in any deck, it's just not worth it. It's also why Icatian Crier isn't an Inspiration every turn.
Hideous Laughter makes me think about Subteranian Shambler... Anyway, instead of 2/2s, what if they were 0/2s? Would a Hideous Laughter give you 30 to one card advantage? I would say it wouldn't. The card advantage is reaped before the Laughter because your opponent is playing cards that aren't worth anything except as blockers.
Is a Hideous Laughter wiping out a bunch of Saprolings created by a Thallid Shell-Dweller net card advantage? It's card disadvantage because no cards were spent to make them. If a Hideous Laughter killed 10 Icatian Crier tokens, it WOULD create net card advantage because it negated the 5 cards that you spent to make them.
I think all you need to think about is whether or not you would add a 1/1 creature with no abilities to a deck you created? Is a 1/1 worth a card? I would say no. I would say that 2 1/1s is an equal worth for a card, and is the reason why Icatian Crier creates card parity, rather than card advantage.
When you talk about what a card is worth, you're talking about card quality, not card advantage. That's a different analysis.
When you cast an Inspiration and say it gives you +1 card advantage, you're not talking about what you draw. That's irrelevant. It could be a Sorrow's Path or a Pale Moon or a Merfolk of the Pearl Trident. The cards you draw don't enter into this calculation.
If you use one card and get two cards, you have +1 card advantage.
But, again you're comparing these two cards. I'm only disputing one claim you've made - that IC's ability doesn't provide card advantage.
If nothing is different between the card I proposed and using IC's ability, then logically each use of IC's ability must provide just as much card advantage as a Increase Readiness.
Yes, it can be better. A card can always be better. None of this is relevant when discussing card advantage.
Look, my position is simply that IC gives you card advantage. Even if the tokens it created were Skulking Citizen tokens that were 0/1 creatures that can't attack, block, or use any abilities, it STILL is card advantage. Sure, the cards suck ass, but that's not the point.
Yes, Rebels have a wonderful ability. I've even stated that the IC may not be right for ANY deck - that doesn't mean they don't create card advantage.
Again, this is an argument about the quality of the card. That's simply irrelevant to a card advantage analysis.
No. Just because its a good ability doesn't mean you use it every turn. Perhaps you know somehow your opponent has a Mana Leak and you can't spend that 4 mana so you can cast your spells in safety. Perhaps you have a Rebel in hand and know there are two Rebels left in the deck and you know your opponent is going to wipe the board on their turn. There are circumstances when you won't use your Rebel ability every turn. If this is true for a Rebel, I don't see why it can't be true for an IC.
Dude, I've stated over and over that I agree Rebels create card advantage. All I'm trying to convince you of is that the IC does too.
Fine. I've never stated they're not a good card.
And, sometimes you don't. Have you ever lost a game with a fist full of mana? I know I have - more than I care to count. Would even a SINGLE one of those games have been turned around by getting a Raise the Alarm instead of a single land? That's very possible.
*shakes head* My point is that IF you draw a useless card (be it your 11th land or a poor SB choice), you can turn it into a useful card. I don't understand why you're focusing on one point and disregarding everything else I had to say. I suggested your 11th land or a poor SB choice. Perhaps its game one agasint a mono-B and you pack Terrors.
Any time you use the word "useful" or "better," you're still talking about card quality. If you want to discuss card quality, let's first settle this point. You seem to be making great pains to argue that IC is not a good card because its ability makes crappy cards. You don't have to abandon that argument to agree with me that even crappy cards can create card advantage.
Card advantage is a mathematical determination, not a comparative one. You use one card to make two cards. That's card advantage. There's no such thing as not "real" card advantage. There's card quality.
Do you remember Spiny Starfish? Am I dating myself with this one? Anyhow, it makes 0/1 blue starfish tokens when it regenerates. Is that not "real" card advantage? Sengir Autocrat and his 0/1 black serf tokens?
Perhaps Sengir Autocrat is the perfect example. Yeah, there are better 2/2's for 3B. There are worse too. This one gives you three 0/1's. Mathematically, this is card advantage. It may not be a good card, but that's not part of the equation.
Using words like Value, Worth, Better, Worse - none of those help with the math. If you're not talking about math, you're not talking about card advantage. If you want to use those words, you are talking about card quality.
Again, card quality is an important discussion. In fact, its at least as important, if not more than discussing card advantage. But, again, that's not my point. The only point I'm trying to make is that IC creates card advantage.
When you evaluate a card based upon cost, balance, or "better" you're talking about card quality.
See above.
Actually, you kind of did.
Here you argue that the IC "really isn't card advantage." You back up this claim by stating that IC "requires you to spend cards in your hand to create things on the board." I don't believe that's an unfair characterization.
I think I'm going to add the word "worth" to the list of words to use when discussing card quality.
I LOVED using HLaughter. Man, what a good card. I now play with 3 SShamblers maindeck, but I think I'm going to cut that back to 2.
As I'm reading your post, I'm seeing myself use all caps now and then and you use a few exclamation points. I enjoy a lively debate, but not at the cost of hurt feelings on either side. As I haven't known you very long, I don't have a feel for how you might be reacting to what I say. Thus, I'm using this little aside to make sure we're cool.
Okay, I tell you what - it may SEEM like we're at an impase - but I think I may know of a way out. There is a way some mediators use to escape two people who are talking at cross purposes.
I'm going to make up two words and provide definitions.
VRANG - The change in the mathematical tabulation of all cards at a player's disposal. All potentially useable cards are counted when tabulating VRANG, whether they are in hand (instants, sorceries, or permanents), play (permanents), or cards in the graveyard (cards with Dredge or Flashback).
Useage: If you cast an Inspiration, you lose one VRANG for casting the spell and gain two VRANG for the two cards you drew. Your VRANG is +1.
GNARV - The relative playability of a card.
Usage: Sorrow's Path and Pale Moon are each examples of cards with extremely poor GNARV. Ancestral Recall, Deranged Hermit, and Umizawa's Jitte are examples of cards with extremely good GNARV. If you had two cards, one of which had all of the features and more of the other, you would say that the superior card had more GNARV than the other. Tinder Wall has more GNARV than Wall of Wood. Phyrexian Walker has more GNARV than Wall of Wood. Ashcoat Bear, Muscle Sliver, and Aquastrand Spider all have more GNARV than Grizley Bears.
1) JUST discussing the Icatian Crier for the moment, would you agree that its ability causes VRANG +1?
2) Considering JUST Amrou Scout, would you agree that its ability causes VRANG +1?
3) Given your position, would you agree that Amrou Scout has a fairly high level of GNARV?
4) Is it your position that Amrou Scout has more GNARV than Icatian Crier?
- H
PS - Wow, its like we're having the battle to see who can write a longer post.
PoP Website
Magic Workstation
H/W list
OLD H/W list
GB Pauper T2 Rock Harvest v9b1
BR Pauper T2 Toolbox v2d5
Watcher of SPDC 1.07
Mana Tithe
Instant
Counter target spell unless it's controller pays
White force spike? Will it see play? I think it will, in control builds with white it's useful for stopping the opponent from curving out for only a single mana.