MTG Salvation

I say go Tymna and Tana. Rolls off the tongue. Here's a rough draft I abandoned because it was too similar to another deck of mine, hopefully it will give you some direction.

The argument "why not just play Aurelia or Gisela" is true, but a bad reason to call Boros bad. You could say the same thing about nearly every color combination. Why not just play Lyzolda? Why not just play Meren? There will always be the S tier Commanders but I assume we play different Commanders for diversity, yes? It seems most agree there is diversity, just that it sucks. So the complaint isn't power level, or diversity, but having power level distributed among the diversity. I don't disagree, I just think that's how Magic is. There will always be cards that are similar, different, weak, strong. Boros has interesting cards so pick a Commander and have fun with what Boros has to offer.

If I was in charge of printing a Boros legend, I would put Commune with Lava on a stick. Maybe it would read like Prossh, exile cards for the amount of mana spent to cast it. Exile card advantage will always be my favorite mechanic.

Quote from TheCrushinator »

Can't wait to read some gameplay for vial smasher and kydele, though it sounds like they'll just be for the colors after reading some of your first posts. Just curious. Do you think it'll even change the play of the deck?

Quote from Wildfire393 »

You might consider running Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder rather than Vial Smasher and Kydele. He gives you the same access to colors, but his ability is rather strong (without needing any other kind of investment) for the storm playstyle.

I've been asking myself the same question. What do Vial Smasher and Kydele bring besides the colors? To be fair, I probably won't cast them very often. Moxnix puts it best in his Jeleva storm thread: "The only time we would want to cast any general in these colors is if we ran out of gas".

Kydele provides gas in the form of mana, and she taps for a LOT in this deck. Yidris and Jeleva provide gas in the form of card advantage. As this deck is more wheel focused, it becomes easier for us to have cards than to have mana. She's slow, but so are Yidris and Jeleva. It will always be a sort of last resort.

Vial Smasher actually seems kind of useful. Storm is weird in that "going off" isn't usually infinite damage, it's just as-much-as-I-can damage with Tendrils of Agony. Sometimes that's not enough to kill the table so Vial Smasher adds a bit extra. He also seems slow because you can't get the bonus from him the turn he comes out, but we can with instants on our opponents turns. That said, I don't anticipate playing him too often.

Damn, I thought my idea was really original. To be fair, I made this deck a year ago (a whole cycle of 4c decks actually) in hopes that they'd print 4c Commanders so I'm pretty psyched about this set. I only posted two of those five last year so you're getting an exclusive here, lucky you ;D

Here's my current list. I call it 'Grave Encounters' because it's a counters matter deck, but also graveyard shenanigans. Main win conditions are Lord of Extinction, Triskelion, Ghave, and Sage of Hours. I've considered all the cards mentioned already except Varolz, I may find a place for him.

Kiora, Master of the Depths and Mulch are good at that.

How about any of the wheel effects? Windfall, Whispering Madness, Memory Jar, Dark Deal... Ill-Gotten Gains?

Quote from DementedKirby »

Lol, well you haven't anything bad. Have you seen Ludevic? If you haven't turn away and never lay eyes on it...

Ha! It's similar to Edric, and I like that it triggers from Purphoros or even my opponents pain lands

Quote from DigitalFire »

If they ban Sol Ring or print 4-color Legendary Creatures, I'll return. Until that day, goodbye forever!

Hello again. Prophet of Kruphix is now banned and I have new Commanders. Have I missed anything good?

Quote from Fenrir Rex »

Quote from DigitalFire »

Meanwhile, each game of Magic is a separate timeline in a vacuum. Losing one game doesn't affect the rest, you get to just shuffle up for another.

Going to call BS on this right here. That's a cool philosophy to have, but one that absolutely isn't shared in a multiplayer environment. How you played (or won) your last game will absolutely impact how your opponents will play against you in the next. You and your opponents "respawn" each time with the knowledge of previous events, and in some cases that means they will throw the nukes your way first.

Playing the political game, even to the point of scooping at the right time to keep some part of the table happy, is the only way to give you the advantage here.

You're correct, and I definitely misrepresented the point I wanted to make so thanks for calling this out. I should have clarified that it doesn't affect your win-lose record. When you're dead on board, scoop or not, it's a loss for you. More to your point, if someone scooped in that way I would definitely take it into account in all future games with that player if for some reason I chose to continue to play with him/her.

Quote from Onering »

Let me introduce you to the concept of second strike capability. A nation with second strike capability cannot win a nuclear war, but they can survive with enough resources to hit back at whoever hit them. The purpose of second strike capability is to discourage other countries from striking first by ensuring that the attacking nation will be worse off for having done so. If a nation attacks anyway, the second strike nation is doomed, but they will probably launch their nukes anyway. Just like a poison frogs toxin doesn't save the frog, it just kills the predator that ignores it's warning. Tactical scooping, when used correctly, works the same way.

Now, you use bribery as an example. What if the player let's it resolve, but then a turn later someone blows up all the lands and they quit because they don't want to play anymore? Are you going to whine about losing their creature?

I play a number of decks that can get hosed by spite scoops, or even I'm bored now scoops. Steal everything, hit you with mirror universe, voltron, edric, etc. If you can't handle a tactical scoops, that is entirely on you.

Jokes on you, I played competitive non-interactive combo decks exclusively for 6 years! I've actually never been the one affected by spite scooping, so there's no "whining" going on here. If someone takes their ball and goes home I'm not going to throw a tantrum, I'll just be less inclined to play with that person.

Anyway, I appreciate the serious answer about second strike. The difference is, well, there's a lot. Mainly that there are lives on the line. But more relevant I think is that the real events here on Earth are all one big timeline. Meanwhile, each game of Magic is a separate timeline in a vacuum. Losing one game doesn't affect the rest, you get to just shuffle up for another. Ain't no respawns irl.

All said and done, I agree entire with Droptimal that the golden rule of any game is that everyone is playing to win. If you disagree, that's entirely okay! But we're playing a different game and there's no longer a reason for me to be part of the discussion.

Quote from Onering »

How is the opponent who spite scoops a liability unless you are relying on getting triggers off of him/her when you kill them? Killing them early does NOTHING to mitigate any liability. At all. And did you really just compare a dude playing exactly like his friends told him with spite scooping? Yea, that's a liability, because he'll play kingmaker THE ENTIRE GAME. Tactical scooping only plays king maker if you are dumb enough to rely on the guy you are killing to help you win. At which point, their decision to let you have the triggers would also be playing kingmaker. How about if instead of scooping they doom blade your creature with the triggers, even though it won't save them? How about if you alpha strike them so even if they block you'll kill them? Should they not block if it will kill some of your attackers? What if they choose to block "suboptimally" (not blocking the most damage, but maximizing the number of attackers they take out) while dying? See where this is going?

No, I don't. Because all of those things you suggested still allow you to win the game. Scooping, by definition, does NOT allow you to win the game. Scooping to deny triggers is NOT motivated by in-game strategy, but motivated by outside game factors like spite, or as you mentioned, meta-gaming. Regardless of whether you believe scooping to be "outside of the game", the motives definitely are. And if I have lots of win conditions like Bribery or Insurrection, I rely on other players to win so they certainly are a liability and I won't rely on them. If you don't think players should rely on their opponents, we'd all just play non-interactive combo decks.

Quote from Kahno »

Scooping is supported in the rules only so that people can leave early for whatever reason without having to end the game. Abusing this rule, or abusing the mental state of someone via out-of-game bullying is very immature. This is very different from threatening a player in-game (I'll destroy your Craw Wurm if you attack me) because you stand something to gain within the game. Motive matters here. Like I said above, the goal is to win, so scooping is by definition fueled by something else (revenge, pettiness, spite, ???)

Citation needed. The comprehensive rules state that a player can concede at any time (104.3a). Why is it abusing the mental state when it's scooping, but when someone says "destroy that Torpor Orb, or I'll play Jokulhaups", it's supposed to be okay? You stand to lose or gain resources from both scenarios, and since most of you are arguing this issue from the perspective of the agressor and not the scooper (which says a lot), you are still firmly in the game in both scenarios. How is this out-of-game bullying? Also, how is this immature? I'm honestly feeling like this conversation is some kind of bizarro-world thought experiment. Only an immature person would throw a fit if someone was inconveniencing him with a move firmly withing the domain of the rules. Take a step back and re-evaluate your position.

To answer the first part of your question, I'll reiterate what I've just said. Threatening in-game actions allows you to influence within the game and still win the game. Conceding from the game does not allow you to win. So citations can be found in many places for that, here and here for example. The goal of the game is to win. When you scoop, you cannot win. When you are not playing to win, you are not playing as intended.

To answer the second part, mASTERsELF puts it best by saying you could take 10 minutes to play a land. There's nothing in the rules about slow play, it's just a judge call in tournaments. You can stay within the rules and still be unethical.

But as a serious question, what is this '???' that could possibly be a mature reason? Note: The answer cannot be to have an advantage in future games, because as many people have already written, smart opponents will take you out first from then on because you're a liability.

As I already said, the threat of scooping is a bargaining tool which can help a player stay in the game. I never said it is supposed to influence game beyond the one it takes place in.

So you threaten to scoop, and they attack anyway. What happens then? If you don't scoop, you've made an empty threat. If you do, you just lost. Seems like a lose-lose for you.

Quote from Taleran »

Quote from DigitalFire »

Quote from Taleran »

I don't agree that 2 mana for 1 mana is anywhere near on the level of pay life draw cards right away in a format in which you begin at 40 life, that can also be your commander.

I was more invalidating the argument than calling for a Griselbrand unban (despite loving Griselbrand! xD). They are incomparable cards.

Puzzling because this tactic is meaningless if the cards are as you say are incomparable.

I like to eat pizza because airplanes go fast is no better than I like to tango because airplanes go fast. Eating pizza and tango are two incomparable things that both have the same bad reason.

Riven is simply reiterating the most common reasons people want Sol Ring to stay in the format: it's fun/leads to splashy plays, and also how much damage can it do in battlecruiser Magic? I agree that those reasons are true, but I'm saying those same things can be said about most banned cards (obvious exceptions being Balance, etc.) so while many banned cards lead to splashy plays and aren't bad for battlecruiser Magic, they are banned anyway.

Quote from RivenVII »

See, I don't buy that the game spirals out of control from the early Sol Ring if the game doesn't end early. If it goes 10, 11, 12 turns, it was a good game. Sol Ring had little bearing on what your opponents could or could not answer in a game of that length.

I agree with this. But I also believe that by turn 12, most people have answers to Griselbrand, Gifts Ungiven, presumably Tooth and Nail...

Quote from Onering »

I think you misspelled stupid. What "mature" reason is there to gun for someone because they denied you a trigger last game? Revenge, spite, pettiness?

As mentioned by others, an opponent who spite scoops is a liability. If a player has earned their win with an Insurrection, they best be sure that players prone to that kind of behavior are out of the game at that point. Best to eliminate those liabilities early. I have experience with this, we had a couple frat guys in my college playgroup, and one of the pledges had to always play how the brothers asked him to. He apologized and said he didn't have a choice since he was a pledge, so I just eliminated him early to stop the 2HG in free-for-all.

Quote from Onering »

To seriously answer your question though, the threat of scooping to deny a trigger can keep you in the game. Actually doing it if they take you out anyway lets them know you aren't going to just make empty threats. Just like if you threaten to path their ulamog if they swing at you with it, even if it isn't going to help you win, you better path it if he does (unless you are bluffing).

I honestly appreciate the serious answer, and that answer is meta-gaming. As gilrad just pointed out, there is nothing wrong with a playgroup who is all on the same page with this. I also think there is nothing wrong with a playgroup who all agrees that throwing sand in each other's faces while playing is okay, because the entire group agrees about it. But the point of playing Magic, or really any game, is friendly competition. So losing games to establish rapport isn't really the spirit of competition, it's kind of just manipulation. To each his own.

Quote from Burntgerbil »

If you think about it, the most tactical play might be the one that just ends the game so you have zero downtime between games.[/b]

This is an interesting thought, and it goes back to motive. For example, I played Magic to learn and improve. I didn't care about winning, but about playing the best I could. That was fun to me! But others may play to maximize gametime for example, so they would want to kingmake games on their way out. That's quite a Machiavellian approach to playing games, but I can respect that. Again, to each his own.

Quote from Ruggley »

Not permitting "spite scooping" means that you're forcing players (allowed to scoop at any time) to stay in the game solely to benefit a player. Just because a player would benefit means nothing.

There are ways to leave the game to minimize disruption. No need to flip the Monopoly board when you get knocked out. I appreciate your open mind about it though.

Quote from Taleran »

I don't agree that 2 mana for 1 mana is anywhere near on the level of pay life draw cards right away in a format in which you begin at 40 life, that can also be your commander.

I was more invalidating the argument than calling for a Griselbrand unban (despite loving Griselbrand! xD). They are incomparable cards.

Quote from Impossible »

Quote from RivenVII »

Sol Ring is just a fun card. The meta that needs Mental Misstep for it or they possibly lose is the meta that is playing at a level which I don't believe the RC is concerned with.

And why is that? Because to me, that's the meta where Sol Ring is causing the least problems because they players are aware enough of it's power to run specific answers and have proper threat assessment against early acceleration.

I somewhat disagree with this. A competitive meta with Sol Ring is like the 100m dash in the Olympics, except sometimes one or two people get to start 20m ahead. Even Usain Bolt can't overcome that deficit.

Quote from Impossible »

Its the metas of Johnny Casual that ignore early Sol Rings then wonder why [insert generic powerful creature here] stomped them so hard despite coming out 3-4 turns earlier than normal that are most affected by Sol Ring, because they don't realize which card is the actual problem. It is especially prevalent with newer players who have never played through the more broken times in Magic's history and have never really seen or played with acceleration on the power level of Sol Ring. They end up misattributing the power to the card that physically killed them instead of the card that actually made the kill possible.

Now this, I completely agree with. I'd say 75% of people arguing to keep Sol Ring banned are simply misattributing its power. Then the other 25% just believe that we're all doing the 100m dash wrong, and the goal is to show up at the track and run around in circles, roll on the ground, or show off how high you can jump. To many people in this 100m dash, crossing the finish line is just how the game ends, not the point of playing.

Quote from darkeshrine »

Ok, by the same logic as your example where it is spiteful to one person for scooping and also spiteful against the others for not scooping, then why play removal? Even funnier question, what do you do when someone plays Mystic Remora or Rhystic Study? Is it spiteful to that player when you pay the 1 or is it spiteful to the other players to not pay the 1?

The goal of the game is to win. When you choose whether or not to allow someone to draw off of Rhystic Study, you're making a strategic decision about whether or not you can still beat them, regardless of the card advantage. When you scoop to prevent someone from drawing off Sword of Fire and Ice, this is NOT a strategic decision because you automatically lose. This means you're motivated by something outside of winning the game (revenge, pettiness, spite, ???). So for the record, I agree with your stance but not your logic.

Quote from Kahno »

It's not really important if punching someone is a smart decision; threatening to punch them is. And if you rationally come to the conclusion that attacking a person who might punch you is a bad idea, that person used the threat of physical violence very smartly in my opinion. I don't understand how you find this a difficult concept. It's the same as people saying "I'm not gonna attack you, unless you do something mean to me!".

FTFY. In both instances, this kind of threatening abuses the fact that there's a reality outside of the game. Scooping is supported in the rules only so that people can leave early for whatever reason without having to end the game. Abusing this rule, or abusing the mental state of someone via out-of-game bullying is very immature. This is very different from threatening a player in-game (I'll destroy your Craw Wurm if you attack me) because you stand something to gain within the game. Motive matters here. Like I said above, the goal is to win, so scooping is by definition fueled by something else (revenge, pettiness, spite, ???)

But as a serious question, what is this '???' that could possibly be a mature reason? Note: The answer cannot be to have an advantage in future games, because as many people have already written, smart opponents will take you out first from then on because you're a liability.