Am I the only one who thinks Azorious charm is awful with Voice being everywhere? Having a charm instead of an actual kill spell can be the difference between winning and losing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the MTGSalvation Standard Championships III & IV.
Am I the only one who thinks Azorious charm is awful with Voice being everywhere? Having a charm instead of an actual kill spell can be the difference between winning and losing.
I agree - against decks with voice and really with all the ETB, LTB, ect effects in standard Azorius Charm is a lot worse than it used to be. I think I am going to start favoring Think Twice, so I can make sure I don't miss land drops and hit my wraths/important spells, and removal over Azorius Charm.
However, when Azorius Charm is good its SO good, and the fact that it can cycle means you should probably be playing at least some in your deck, though I agree it probably isn't an auto-4-of anymore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing
UW Control :symu::symw:
UWr Control :symu::symw::symr:
I agree - against decks with voice and really with all the ETB, LTB, ect effects in standard Azorius Charm is a lot worse than it used to be. I think I am going to start favoring Think Twice, so I can make sure I don't miss land drops and hit my wraths/important spells, and removal over Azorius Charm.
However, when Azorius Charm is good its SO good, and the fact that it can cycle means you should probably be playing at least some in your deck, though I agree it probably isn't an auto-4-of anymore.
My package is
4 Azorius Charm
3 Think Twice
I went 2-1-1 at Thursday Night Standard with a list something like this
I agree - against decks with voice and really with all the ETB, LTB, ect effects in standard Azorius Charm is a lot worse than it used to be. I think I am going to start favoring Think Twice, so I can make sure I don't miss land drops and hit my wraths/important spells, and removal over Azorius Charm.
However, when Azorius Charm is good its SO good, and the fact that it can cycle means you should probably be playing at least some in your deck, though I agree it probably isn't an auto-4-of anymore.
I think azorious charm is still decent in a tempo list. As a pure control deck though, we can't take advantage of the tempo it provides, nor use it to race effectively - meaning it's main function is as a cantrip with limited versatility. Combine that with Voice blanking it hard and we have a card that probably doesn't deserve to be in the list at all right now. That's my take anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the MTGSalvation Standard Championships III & IV.
I think azorious charm is still decent in a tempo list. As a pure control deck though, we can't take advantage of the tempo it provides, nor use it to race effectively - meaning it's main function is as a cantrip with limited versatility. Combine that with Voice blanking it hard and we have a card that probably doesn't deserve to be in the list at all right now. That's my take anyway.
Yeah I agree, though it is pretty good against Naya and some of the random creatures in other decks and at the worst still cantrips. I'll probably run 4 think twice and maybe 2 azorius charm if i have room.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing
UW Control :symu::symw:
UWr Control :symu::symw::symr:
Now hear me out - I think Azorious charm is weak because voice is everywhere, and planeswalkers are bad right now imo. I want to be able to kill the turn 1, or 2 play against aggro everygame... and everything else. Aetherling is good. Deck has natural strengths against midrange and control on paper, and I'll diversify win-cons after boards. Need to figure that out. This is where I'm gonna start testing for my PTQ anyway, thoughts?
Also, I agree Curse of Death's Hold is well positioned. I think it should be a 3-of in the board.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the MTGSalvation Standard Championships III & IV.
Everyone has been really downgrading Esper in terms of it's tier and viability as a competitive deck in standard lately (except for what seems like a faithful few here), and I will admit, I was almost ready to become part of that crowd.
Well, almost ready. See, I'm fairly lazy, and Esper was already sleeved up tonight, so I decided it would be easier to make a couple of tweaks and run with it again versus putting together other decks I had been testing (UWR, Grixis, Junk Rites).
So, I made some changes to the deck, and it came out looking like this:
Well, the deck ended up running really well tonight, and I went 4-0 for a first place finish and a cool $50 in store credit.
Obviously, there are some changes I still want to make to the deck, but I really felt in control the whole tournament (save for game 1 in the finals).
Matchups:
R1: Rakdos Aggro (2-0, 1-0 overall)
Really was able to match his creatures with removal/sweepers in game 1. He did have me down to 4 life, but was not able to close out the game. Drownyard win. Game 2, a Crypt Incursion gained me ~30 life and gave me cushion to drown him out.
R2: G/B Zombies (2-0, 2-0 overall)
Game 1, he brought me down to 6 life, but a Crypt Incursion gained me over 30 life, followed by a rev for around 6. Drownyard finished him off here. Game 2, same story. Crypt incursion brought me out of lethal range (on the lethal swing). A Memory Adept and 2 live drownyards made quick work of the rest of his library. This game was a little tougher then I'm making it seem, as he brought in 11 hate cards against me (3x Deathrite, 4x Appetite, 4x Duress).
R3: Gruul Aggro/Midrange (2-0, 3-0 overall)
Game 1, I gained 42 life off of a crypt incursion, and drowned him out. This was on a 'lethal' swing by him as well. I missed an Obzedat trigger, which he was able to double mortar and remove. That almost cost me the game. Game 2, Angel of Serenity and Obzedat ended up winning the game, but again, a massive Crypt incursion that put my life total in the 50's saved the day.
R4: Grixis Control (2-1, 4-0 overall)
Game 1 of this match, I got absolutely destroyed. He was able to counter all of my relevant spells, and I did not get a single drownyard online. That turned out to be the difference. Game 2, he was very close to attacking me for lethal, but a topdecked (of justice- more on this later), Drownyard, won me the game. Game 3, I had 2 Drownyards live early, with a resolved Obzedat padding my life totals, and a nutty hand as backup (2x Jace, 1x AoS, 1x Az Charm, 2x D-Sphere, 1x Snapcaster). I baited out his counter with a D-Sphere, landed a Jace and proceeded to close out the game in short order. There was a play in game 2 that we had a disagreement about, but I feel I was right about (though I allowed the resolution he wanted, for the sake of time).
So, the issue I had in game 2 of the finals was as follows:
I was at 14 life, no creatures on the board, he had a Notion Thief and 2 Snapcaster Mages. Essentially I was on a 2 turn clock to his damage from those creatures. I then cast Detention Sphere. He looked at it, then asked me for the target. I replied Snapcaster Mage.
He said in response, Snapcaster Mage targeting Counterflux, counter the Detention Sphere. I told him that he could not counter the D-Sphere, since it had already resolved and he had asked for targets.
He said he could, because it was in response to me casting. We argued back and forth for a bit, and I eventually told him he could counter it, rather then wait for a judge to come over and rule (We were running short on time, and I needed this and 1 more game to win the match).
Was I right in this situation? I'm fairly casual, and if it was an earlier round I probably would have let it slide, but this was the finals, and the player was not new to magic.
The reason for this is because I have often found myself in board states where I have an Obzedat in play, and need to sweep away most of the opponent's creatures in order to live. In the earlier lists I ran, I only had 1 Obzedat, so he was hard to part with. Reckoning kind of skirts around that issue by allowing me to keep my Obzedat and still effectively sweep (in most cases, I should have spot removal available for their remaining creature). The fact that it has flashback and does not eat a snapcaster target is also an added bonus. Another small bonus is that it is a tiny bit easier on the mana base than Verdict. I think I will try out a 2/2 Verdict/Reckoning split next time around and see how they work out.
Well, thats all for now, as always, comments and questions are appreciated and encouraged.
I agree - against decks with voice and really with all the ETB, LTB, ect effects in standard Azorius Charm is a lot worse than it used to be. I think I am going to start favoring Think Twice, so I can make sure I don't miss land drops and hit my wraths/important spells, and removal over Azorius Charm.
However, when Azorius Charm is good its SO good, and the fact that it can cycle means you should probably be playing at least some in your deck, though I agree it probably isn't an auto-4-of anymore.
I moved from 4 to 3, in favour of a Detention Sphere, and I am happy with 3 in the deck.
The main reason I still like 3 is because charming with live drownyard is a nice form of removal. Also really helps to feed the Crypt Incursion engine.
I believe I placed second tonight with the same list a few pages back; if I have time I'll type a brief report. If I was to make any changes to my list it would probably be adding some more counters/duress somewhere in the 75.
I think I am going to take a step back toward the ben stark esper skeleton with restoration angel and augur of bolas in my environment. Moving the control style to something like the esper flash lists but with a bigger midrange game plan in sideboard and more removal than think twice due to augur digging. It seems like I play that style of deck better as it is in an aggro meta. The deck will pack a more aggressive win strategy than just drownyarding though
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
I was at 14 life, no creatures on the board, he had a Notion Thief and 2 Snapcaster Mages. Essentially I was on a 2 turn clock to his damage from those creatures. I then cast Detention Sphere. He looked at it, then asked me for the target. I replied Snapcaster Mage.
He said in response, Snapcaster Mage targeting Counterflux, counter the Detention Sphere. I told him that he could not counter the D-Sphere, since it had already resolved and he had asked for targets.
He said he could, because it was in response to me casting. We argued back and forth for a bit, and I eventually told him he could counter it, rather then wait for a judge to come over and rule (We were running short on time, and I needed this and 1 more game to win the match).
Was I right in this situation? I'm fairly casual, and if it was an earlier round I probably would have let it slide, but this was the finals, and the player was not new to magic.
That situation is going to depend on the judge most of the time. Asking "what is the d-sphere targeting" implies passing priority and resolution of the spell, but not all judges are hard line about that (however, asking "what will it target after it resolves" is far different as it implies the spell is on the stack and the player is fishing for information). Considering that you admitted you haven't played tournaments that often in the past while the other player has quite a bit of experience, it is fairly likely that he/she was trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge.
My advice is this: NEVER play the symantics game. In this case, when the player asked for a target, you should have asked him/her in return if the spell resolves. If he/she insisted you answer, then you could call a judge without having given away your strategy (forcing them to account for other targets based on what they guess is in your hand).
I think Azorius Charm is still very good. Even against Voice, you can go Verdict into Charm the token or you can just draw a card, so I wouldn't play less than 3 (I play 4 now and I like it)
I agree. Most of the time, voice isn't on the field, so charm is good. I only play 3 though to make room for another kill spell.
I was at 14 life, no creatures on the board, he had a Notion Thief and 2 Snapcaster Mages. Essentially I was on a 2 turn clock to his damage from those creatures. I then cast Detention Sphere. He looked at it, then asked me for the target. I replied Snapcaster Mage.
He said in response, Snapcaster Mage targeting Counterflux, counter the Detention Sphere. I told him that he could not counter the D-Sphere, since it had already resolved and he had asked for targets.
He said he could, because it was in response to me casting. We argued back and forth for a bit, and I eventually told him he could counter it, rather then wait for a judge to come over and rule (We were running short on time, and I needed this and 1 more game to win the match).
Was I right in this situation? I'm fairly casual, and if it was an earlier round I probably would have let it slide, but this was the finals, and the player was not new to magic.
Congrats on the decent result.
As for your question...I believe you are correct. With cards like O-ring and D-sphere, they target on resolution. Thus, if he asks for a target he has officially passed priority back to you and indicated that he is allowing them to resolve. Other spells, like Counterspell, target on casting and you have to select all targets as part of the announcement. I'm glad you won anyway. They guy was either wrong (a possibility) or a cheat (sadlt, also a possibility).
/M
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some people like to win MtG matches in the Red Zone. I prefer to win the way God intended: on the stack.
As for your question...I believe you are correct. With cards like O-ring and D-sphere, they target on resolution. Thus, if he asks for a target he has officially passed priority back to you and indicated that he is allowing them to resolve. Other spells, like Counterspell, target on casting and you have to select all targets as part of the announcement. I'm glad you won anyway. They guy was either wrong (a possibility) or a cheat (sadlt, also a possibility).
/M
Not quite, see while they don't target until resolution there is nothing stopping a player asking another player what it will target upon resolution, essentially fishing for information. It seems like its a more experienced player trying to take advantage of the situation but not being clear enough about the fact that he isn't allowing it to resolve just yet.
In this situation its totally dependant on the judge but as someone else said, you are safest just responding to a question like that by saying "does the spell resolve or not? I am not required to tell you its target until resolution."
Not quite, see while they don't target until resolution there is nothing stopping a player asking another player what it will target upon resolution, essentially fishing for information. It seems like its a more experienced player trying to take advantage of the situation but not being clear enough about the fact that he isn't allowing it to resolve just yet.
In this situation its totally dependant on the judge but as someone else said, you are safest just responding to a question like that by saying "does the spell resolve or not? I am not required to tell you its target until resolution."
You're right about the judge being a factor. I know when I used to be a certified judge running tournaments I would rule on a situation like this strictly and would expect that kind of ruling in a PTQ or higher lever event, as per the appropriate REL. To me this is black and white within the rules. You ask about resolution, ergo you have decided to allow the spell to resolve. Unfortunately when yu consider additional factors, such as the fact that most judges are going to be wimps -- especially in a small store level FNM-type event where they may not be certified or have a certified judge in the room to ask. They would rather avoid conflict and thus they'll err on the side of the least objection. It's easy to say it doesn't matter and just lety the game continue, especially when you have someone pleasing earnestly that they didn't know they were accepting resolution when they asked their question.
So, in answer to Fergy's original question -- he was 100% correct. How to avoind the situation in the future...simply countering the question with a question of your own, as you advise, ("So you are allowing it to resolve then?") is the best way to avoid a problem.
/A
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some people like to win MtG matches in the Red Zone. I prefer to win the way God intended: on the stack.
You're right about the judge being a factor. I know when I used to be a certified judge running tournaments I would rule on a situation like this strictly and would expect that kind of ruling in a PTQ or higher lever event, as per the appropriate REL. To me this is black and white within the rules. You ask about resolution, ergo you have decided to allow the spell to resolve. Unfortunately when yu consider additional factors, such as the fact that most judges are going to be wimps -- especially in a small store level FNM-type event where they may not be certified or have a certified judge in the room to ask. They would rather avoid conflict and thus they'll err on the side of the least objection. It's easy to say it doesn't matter and just lety the game continue, especially when you have someone pleasing earnestly that they didn't know they were accepting resolution when they asked their question.
So, in answer to Fergy's original question -- he was 100% correct. How to avoind the situation in the future...simply countering the question with a question of your own, as you advise, ("So you are allowing it to resolve then?") is the best way to avoid a problem.
/A
Aren't you required to name your target when the spell is cast?
You would be in most cases, but with cards like Detention Sphere and Oblivion Ring, they are ETB triggers, so they do not target until the spell has resolved and entered the battlefield.
I posted the question in the rulings section, and got this response, which made sense to me:
From section 4.2 of the Magic Tournament Rules, which apply to all DCI-sanctioned tournaments including FNM:
If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.
You would be in most cases, but with cards like Detention Sphere and Oblivion Ring, they are ETB triggers, so they do not target until the spell has resolved and entered the battlefield.
I posted the question in the rulings section, and got this response, which made sense to me:
Ah right, ETB. Okay, I can see why it's ruled that way
Has anyone tried Vampire Nighthawk over Augur of Bolas recently? I've been messing with it lately and find him to be absolutely amazing against an aggro meta. There's aggro decks out there like Naya Humans which simply can't beat a resolved Nighthawk.
The downsides are numerous. Double black on turn 3, you don't get a card 80% of the time like you do with Augur, and it comes down a turn later as a blocker, but the upside is evasive lifelink with a good sized body. The lifelink is a really big deal those couple points, along with the near guaranteed trade with whatever you're blocking take the wind out of aggros sails.
Has anyone tried Vampire Nighthawk over Augur of Bolas recently? I've been messing with it lately and find him to be absolutely amazing against an aggro meta. There's aggro decks out there like Naya Humans which simply can't beat a resolved Nighthawk.
The downsides are numerous. Double black on turn 3, you don't get a card 80% of the time like you do with Augur, and it comes down a turn later as a blocker, but the upside is evasive lifelink with a good sized body. The lifelink is a really big deal those couple points, along with the near guaranteed trade with whatever you're blocking take the wind out of aggros sails.
I've played 3 nighthawks in addition to augur. I don't want to give him up because he's great at fishing for answers (and is a 2 for 1 if he hits and they searing spear) while nighthawk comes down in time for their turn 4 if they're on the play (which they are at least half the time).
I'm considering adding nighthawk back in sideboard as there's been a rise in naya and RDW in my meta, but I'm not sure it's enough to warrant switching out something else. If there's a little more decrease in control decks, I'll remove a couple of control cards for the nighthawks (Esper is very dependent on the meta at the moment -- far more than any other deck I do believe).
drop an architect for a tamiyo (5 jace is probably too many). Drop a d-sphere (or at least swap one for an o-ring). A singleton lingering souls doesn't seem to be synergistic in the deck. Get a second win condition mainboard (such as a 1-of aetherling from SB). If the opponent plays a witchbane orb and can protect it, you just lose.
I'd either run nighthawk or souls, but not both -- you're not likely to be the aggro deck in a meta filled with midrange and aggro. A few kill cards would probably be better.
drop an architect for a tamiyo (5 jace is probably too many). Drop a d-sphere (or at least swap one for an o-ring). A singleton lingering souls doesn't seem to be synergistic in the deck. Get a second win condition mainboard (such as a 1-of aetherling from SB). If the opponent plays a witchbane orb and can protect it, you just lose.
I'd either run nighthawk or souls, but not both -- you're not likely to be the aggro deck in a meta filled with midrange and aggro. A few kill cards would probably be better.
I agree with pretty much everything here, except I would add the suggestion that you toss in a couple of alternate sweepers, like Terminus. It really sucks when your oppo responds to your Verdict with Boros Charm. I've had it happen so it's nice to be able to get rid of the bad guys. I might also swap out that Souls for a main deck Crypt Incursion, but I haven't tested it enough to be sure yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some people like to win MtG matches in the Red Zone. I prefer to win the way God intended: on the stack.
I agree with pretty much everything here, except I would add the suggestion that you toss in a couple of alternate sweepers, like Terminus. It really sucks when your oppo responds to your Verdict with Boros Charm. I've had it happen so it's nice to be able to get rid of the bad guys. I might also swap out that Souls for a main deck Crypt Incursion, but I haven't tested it enough to be sure yet.
He (or she) has terminus in sideboard and boros charm is currently sideboard material for most decks that run it. Game 2, he can side in the terminus as additional removal and deal with the boros charms that have just been sided in by his opponents (I don't know if that was his plan, but that would be my plan).
edit: I also agree with the crypt incursion, but it is slightly less necessary with 3 nighthawks, so I'd probably run just a singleton (alternately, you could run a second in SB against reanimator and remove a RIP).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Blood Baron is going to be tried out in griselbrand's place.
I had tried dimir charm... wasn't as good as I hoped. Planar cleansing used to be a one of... I think it may come back.
My DCI ELO Ratings - May they rest in peace :'(
I agree - against decks with voice and really with all the ETB, LTB, ect effects in standard Azorius Charm is a lot worse than it used to be. I think I am going to start favoring Think Twice, so I can make sure I don't miss land drops and hit my wraths/important spells, and removal over Azorius Charm.
However, when Azorius Charm is good its SO good, and the fact that it can cycle means you should probably be playing at least some in your deck, though I agree it probably isn't an auto-4-of anymore.
UW Control :symu::symw:
UWr Control :symu::symw::symr:
My package is
4 Azorius Charm
3 Think Twice
I went 2-1-1 at Thursday Night Standard with a list something like this
27 Land (3 of which were Drownyard)
4 Azorius Charm
3 Think Twice
1 Warped Physique
3 Far // Away
3 Detention Sphere
4 Supreme Verdict
3 Jace, Architect of Thought
4 Sphinx's Revelation
2 AEtherling
6 ??????
Match that drew was one turn away from victory, but our store uses 40minute matches, so that would probably be a win IRL.
M1 win vs. mono-black midrange
M2 draw vs Aristocrats Act 3
M3 win vs. Junk Tokens
M4 loss vs. Junk Reanimator
I just threw the deck together before tournament so I didn't have the RiPs for the board vs. Reanimator. That probably made me lose.
Sig by Ace of Spades studio at http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=451747
I'm a child playing an adult's card game.
Esper CONTROL: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=10441008&postcount=239
I'm a Rules Advisor. Woo-hoo.
Gamer's Armory in Raleigh, NC. Best bad store ever.
I think azorious charm is still decent in a tempo list. As a pure control deck though, we can't take advantage of the tempo it provides, nor use it to race effectively - meaning it's main function is as a cantrip with limited versatility. Combine that with Voice blanking it hard and we have a card that probably doesn't deserve to be in the list at all right now. That's my take anyway.
My DCI ELO Ratings - May they rest in peace :'(
Yeah I agree, though it is pretty good against Naya and some of the random creatures in other decks and at the worst still cantrips. I'll probably run 4 think twice and maybe 2 azorius charm if i have room.
UW Control :symu::symw:
UWr Control :symu::symw::symr:
My DCI ELO Ratings - May they rest in peace :'(
Everyone has been really downgrading Esper in terms of it's tier and viability as a competitive deck in standard lately (except for what seems like a faithful few here), and I will admit, I was almost ready to become part of that crowd.
Well, almost ready. See, I'm fairly lazy, and Esper was already sleeved up tonight, so I decided it would be easier to make a couple of tweaks and run with it again versus putting together other decks I had been testing (UWR, Grixis, Junk Rites).
So, I made some changes to the deck, and it came out looking like this:
4x Nephalia Drownyard
3x Watery Grave
4x Godless Shrine
4x Hallowed Fountain
4x Glacial Fortress
3x Isolated Chapel
4x Drowned Catacomb
Creatures (5)
3x Snapcaster Mage
2x Obzedat, Ghost Council
Enchantments (2)
2x Detention Sphere
Sorceries (6)
4x Supreme Verdict
2x Terminus
2x Syncopate
2x Dissipate
2x Far//Away
2x Warped Physique
3x Azorius Charm
1x Cyclonic Rift
3x Think Twice
1x Forbidden Alchemy
1x Crypt Incursion
3x Sphinx's Revelation
1x Dispel
2x Negate
1x Oblivion Ring
1x Devour Flesh
2x Riot Control
1x Crypt Incursion
1x Barter in Blood
1x Psychic Spiral
1x Jace, Memory Adept
2x Curse of Death's Hold
2x Angel of Serenity
Well, the deck ended up running really well tonight, and I went 4-0 for a first place finish and a cool $50 in store credit.
Obviously, there are some changes I still want to make to the deck, but I really felt in control the whole tournament (save for game 1 in the finals).
Matchups:
R1: Rakdos Aggro (2-0, 1-0 overall)
R2: G/B Zombies (2-0, 2-0 overall)
R3: Gruul Aggro/Midrange (2-0, 3-0 overall)
R4: Grixis Control (2-1, 4-0 overall)
So, the issue I had in game 2 of the finals was as follows:
I was at 14 life, no creatures on the board, he had a Notion Thief and 2 Snapcaster Mages. Essentially I was on a 2 turn clock to his damage from those creatures. I then cast Detention Sphere. He looked at it, then asked me for the target. I replied Snapcaster Mage.
He said in response, Snapcaster Mage targeting Counterflux, counter the Detention Sphere. I told him that he could not counter the D-Sphere, since it had already resolved and he had asked for targets.
He said he could, because it was in response to me casting. We argued back and forth for a bit, and I eventually told him he could counter it, rather then wait for a judge to come over and rule (We were running short on time, and I needed this and 1 more game to win the match).
Was I right in this situation? I'm fairly casual, and if it was an earlier round I probably would have let it slide, but this was the finals, and the player was not new to magic.
Anyways, back on topic.
Was not sad to have AoS in the 75.
Riot Control is coming out (Probably [card]
Evil Twin[/card] comes in).
Curse of Death's Hold may come out (2x Redirector Pithing Needle in maybe.
Crypt Incursion is my favourite Dragon's Maze card. Hands down.
One card that I wanted to put in the maindeck in place of 2 Supreme Verdicts was Divine Reckoning.
The reason for this is because I have often found myself in board states where I have an Obzedat in play, and need to sweep away most of the opponent's creatures in order to live. In the earlier lists I ran, I only had 1 Obzedat, so he was hard to part with. Reckoning kind of skirts around that issue by allowing me to keep my Obzedat and still effectively sweep (in most cases, I should have spot removal available for their remaining creature). The fact that it has flashback and does not eat a snapcaster target is also an added bonus. Another small bonus is that it is a tiny bit easier on the mana base than Verdict. I think I will try out a 2/2 Verdict/Reckoning split next time around and see how they work out.
Well, thats all for now, as always, comments and questions are appreciated and encouraged.
I moved from 4 to 3, in favour of a Detention Sphere, and I am happy with 3 in the deck.
The main reason I still like 3 is because charming with live drownyard is a nice form of removal. Also really helps to feed the Crypt Incursion engine.
Thanks to Hakai Studios for the awesome sig!
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
That situation is going to depend on the judge most of the time. Asking "what is the d-sphere targeting" implies passing priority and resolution of the spell, but not all judges are hard line about that (however, asking "what will it target after it resolves" is far different as it implies the spell is on the stack and the player is fishing for information). Considering that you admitted you haven't played tournaments that often in the past while the other player has quite a bit of experience, it is fairly likely that he/she was trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge.
My advice is this: NEVER play the symantics game. In this case, when the player asked for a target, you should have asked him/her in return if the spell resolves. If he/she insisted you answer, then you could call a judge without having given away your strategy (forcing them to account for other targets based on what they guess is in your hand).
I agree. Most of the time, voice isn't on the field, so charm is good. I only play 3 though to make room for another kill spell.
Congrats on the decent result.
As for your question...I believe you are correct. With cards like O-ring and D-sphere, they target on resolution. Thus, if he asks for a target he has officially passed priority back to you and indicated that he is allowing them to resolve. Other spells, like Counterspell, target on casting and you have to select all targets as part of the announcement. I'm glad you won anyway. They guy was either wrong (a possibility) or a cheat (sadlt, also a possibility).
/M
Not quite, see while they don't target until resolution there is nothing stopping a player asking another player what it will target upon resolution, essentially fishing for information. It seems like its a more experienced player trying to take advantage of the situation but not being clear enough about the fact that he isn't allowing it to resolve just yet.
In this situation its totally dependant on the judge but as someone else said, you are safest just responding to a question like that by saying "does the spell resolve or not? I am not required to tell you its target until resolution."
You're right about the judge being a factor. I know when I used to be a certified judge running tournaments I would rule on a situation like this strictly and would expect that kind of ruling in a PTQ or higher lever event, as per the appropriate REL. To me this is black and white within the rules. You ask about resolution, ergo you have decided to allow the spell to resolve. Unfortunately when yu consider additional factors, such as the fact that most judges are going to be wimps -- especially in a small store level FNM-type event where they may not be certified or have a certified judge in the room to ask. They would rather avoid conflict and thus they'll err on the side of the least objection. It's easy to say it doesn't matter and just lety the game continue, especially when you have someone pleasing earnestly that they didn't know they were accepting resolution when they asked their question.
So, in answer to Fergy's original question -- he was 100% correct. How to avoind the situation in the future...simply countering the question with a question of your own, as you advise, ("So you are allowing it to resolve then?") is the best way to avoid a problem.
/A
Aren't you required to name your target when the spell is cast?
TBD...
I posted the question in the rulings section, and got this response, which made sense to me:
Ah right, ETB. Okay, I can see why it's ruled that way
TBD...
The downsides are numerous. Double black on turn 3, you don't get a card 80% of the time like you do with Augur, and it comes down a turn later as a blocker, but the upside is evasive lifelink with a good sized body. The lifelink is a really big deal those couple points, along with the near guaranteed trade with whatever you're blocking take the wind out of aggros sails.
I've played 3 nighthawks in addition to augur. I don't want to give him up because he's great at fishing for answers (and is a 2 for 1 if he hits and they searing spear) while nighthawk comes down in time for their turn 4 if they're on the play (which they are at least half the time).
I'm considering adding nighthawk back in sideboard as there's been a rise in naya and RDW in my meta, but I'm not sure it's enough to warrant switching out something else. If there's a little more decrease in control decks, I'll remove a couple of control cards for the nighthawks (Esper is very dependent on the meta at the moment -- far more than any other deck I do believe).
3 Nephalia Drownyard
3 Jace, Architect of Thought
2 Jace, Memory Adept
4 Sphinx's Revelation
4 Supreme Verdict
2 Dissipate
3 Far // Away
3 Detention Sphere
3 Think Twice
3 Augur of Bolas
4 Azorius Charm
1 Warped Physique
1 Lingering Souls
3 Aetherling
3 Vampire Nighthawk
3 Terminus
3 Lingering Souls
3 Rest in Peace
Sig by Ace of Spades studio at http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=451747
I'm a child playing an adult's card game.
Esper CONTROL: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=10441008&postcount=239
I'm a Rules Advisor. Woo-hoo.
Gamer's Armory in Raleigh, NC. Best bad store ever.
drop an architect for a tamiyo (5 jace is probably too many). Drop a d-sphere (or at least swap one for an o-ring). A singleton lingering souls doesn't seem to be synergistic in the deck. Get a second win condition mainboard (such as a 1-of aetherling from SB). If the opponent plays a witchbane orb and can protect it, you just lose.
I'd either run nighthawk or souls, but not both -- you're not likely to be the aggro deck in a meta filled with midrange and aggro. A few kill cards would probably be better.
I agree with pretty much everything here, except I would add the suggestion that you toss in a couple of alternate sweepers, like Terminus. It really sucks when your oppo responds to your Verdict with Boros Charm. I've had it happen so it's nice to be able to get rid of the bad guys. I might also swap out that Souls for a main deck Crypt Incursion, but I haven't tested it enough to be sure yet.
The card is just the nuts. Puts you right back in games you have no bisiness being in.
I've had a couple auto scoops to crypt incursion. Something about gaining north of 40 life for 3 mana really turns the opponent off.
He (or she) has terminus in sideboard and boros charm is currently sideboard material for most decks that run it. Game 2, he can side in the terminus as additional removal and deal with the boros charms that have just been sided in by his opponents (I don't know if that was his plan, but that would be my plan).
edit: I also agree with the crypt incursion, but it is slightly less necessary with 3 nighthawks, so I'd probably run just a singleton (alternately, you could run a second in SB against reanimator and remove a RIP).