I think the questions surrounding explaining hand size and milling and the fact that there is a "player" who is also a planeswalker is not how a movie should be approached. When we read the Official Fan Fiction, the story is not told as if each Planeswalker were a magical player who needs cards to make spells happen. The cards give us a representation of what it would be like if we were in that world. How much mana is accessible to use to cast a spell? Our lands plus other things that generate mana. For a Planeswalker like Jace, this is how much he can draw from the land around him, plus other resources. This is not hard to CGI for a movie. He would need to have some physical reaction to indicate he is "drawing" mana from the land around him. How much effort it requires (physically) and the resultant spell explains without words how much mana was available. Furthermore, if the result seems minimal for his capacity, he can even provide (while panting from exhaustion) that there just isn't enough mana he can use in the land around him. This can also then be contrasted by another Planeswalker (say Chandra) who can draw lots of mana from the land to cast a spell, because the land is mountainous and therefore in her "color." If a Pyromancer is surrounded by water, it's not hard to imagine why she can't conjure up a ball of flame. They can even pull an artifact out of their pocket to draw more mana from, with swirly magical lines leaving the artifact and combining with the swirly magical lines from the land that surround their body until it coalesces into whatever spell. Other than Planeswalkers and mana, what else is there really to explain? How do you explain that a creature without flying or reach cannot block a creature with flying? Have the creature with flying actually fly over the creature that cannot block it. Hexproof: have a spell fizzle at the caster (not deflect off the creature, because that makes it appear that you can target it). I would think that each keyword ability can be represented in some physical fashion with relative ease.
The look and feel of a Magic the Gathering movie will not be anything like the game if we want it to be a success. As I said earlier, I don't want to see Jace pull a card out that says "Divination" and then two more cards magically appear in his hand. That's not how the Fan Fiction is presented and that's not how a movie should be presented. The movie should have several central Planeswalkers that are the good guys, and possibly even several Planeswalkers that are the bad guys. This generates a conflict that is on a single dimension of complexity, because it only requires that one Planeswalker explain how his/her spark ignited and you can understand the premise behind Planeswalkers. Conflict resolution by the end of the movie, then tease the next conflict, which can be a step up in complexity. The challenge behind a Magic the Gathering movie, IMO, is that there is so much content, what do you limit it to? You cannot explain all the worlds in one movie. You develop one world, maybe two at the most, in a single movie. So do subsequent movies go back to that world or new worlds? Is each movie development of new worlds/Planeswalkers or do you always keep it limited to a few? Can the plot be boiled down to a few worlds instead of the vast majority as represented in the Fan Fiction? Maybe you pick the favorites and make movies around those, but since each world's plot line relative to Planeswalker development in the Fan Fiction is different from how it would be in the movie, you necessarily have to separate the Fan Fiction from the movies.
-
- DRay563
- Registered User
-
Member for 9 years, 5 months, and 13 days
Last active Wed, Aug, 5 2020 07:25:31
- 0 Followers
- 694 Total Posts
- 116 Thanks
Zitrone, good report and thanks for sharing! Don't let the silence fool you. It's been quiet on the Standard front, so there's been little activity here. Feel free to jump into the discussion when this thread can freely discuss Rivals of Ixalan (after all spoilers are revealed) and how it will influence the deck and meta.
Hope everyone has a Merry Christmas!
I know the value of Rogue Refiner, but if you read about Seth Manfield and his sideboarding plan, he had been advised by his team that on certain match-ups, he was to board out all four. Why? While Refiner has a function in the deck, other cards can just be better in certain match-ups. This is not a discussion regarding the value of Refiner, but rather, the value of Refiner as compared to Deathgorge Scavenger in your specific meta (and to a degree the meta at large). Side by side comparison, Refiner provides more synergy and card advantage, but Scavenger provides better aggro, life gain, and helps mitigate certain strategies. If you're worried about GPG, you'd rather be packing 4 Scavengers over 4 Refiners. Same goes for virtually any aggro match-up, as the life gain can be huge. If you're going up against mid-range, they're both good, but Refiner is arguably better because of the synergy factor.
I have argued in the past, and it's still true, that this is a synergy deck. Scavenger is a SB card to me because its not synergistic. G1 should be all about our synergy. But, if your meta is full of certain match-ups where other cards (like Scavenger) significantly improve your G1 percent win, then by all means, find what you consider to be the weak link in your deck, synergy-wise, and replace it. You'll have to live with your changes, not me, so be sure to take my words with a grain of salt.
Being a 3-drop, you want to take out one of your lower end cards. You could consider cutting a Rogue Refiner, since it's a one-shot energy card. If you're less concerned about aggro, you could drop a Walking Ballista.
The article that hoser2 posted is definitely worth the read. I don't agree that 3C Temur stomps on Sultai, at least, my experience has been that I can typically beat 3C Temur. I usually drop a game, but I've won 75% or better of matches against Temur. It's possible some of those were 4C Temur and I just never saw the 4th color, but they played just like 3C Temur did if that was the case.
We actually are a jack of all trades, to a degree. It is also true that we don't have any terrible match-ups, except perhaps Approach of the Second Sun.dec, which is not unbeatable after sideboard, but definitely not the easiest match-up for us. We can be the aggressor, especially if we get Attune into Cub into Constrictor or something silly like that. We can be the more controlling deck, especially post-board, with Siphoner for card draw, Duress/Negate for disruption and control, Push and Contempt for removal, and Vraska/Scarab God for finishers. We can be a midrange deck playing value cards into bigger value cards. Temur is no different, though, which is why both of the decks are very strong decks in the meta right now.
We go under Temur by keeping aggressive hands. You don't want G3 to have no pressure on them, or you probably just lose. Sitting around and waiting for Chandra with thopter blockers or Glorybringer to stabilize the board for them is not what needs to happen. However, trying to get too aggressive can spell disaster as well, if they have multiple removal spells in hand. This is actually the reason why Blossoming Defense is so good. It is mana efficient disruption. It doesn't play as well into Temur's plan because their goal is to use their premier removal to clear the way. They have Lightning Strike, Abrade, and Harnessed Lightning at their disposal, not to mention Chandra and Glorybringer on the higher CMC side. They just don't need Blossoming Defense. In fact, they run Servant of the Conduit to accelerate into Chandra/Glorybringer because of how strong those cards are. Notice, every card listed is a red card, and therefore outside our game plan. On the flip side, we have cards like Fatal Push and Vraska's Contempt. Sure, we can play a card like Walk the Plank if we need additional removal in the deck, but line our removal up against Temur's removal, and it pales in comparison. Fatal Push is obviously good, but we can only get 4. All their removal is 2 CMC. Contempt is 4 CMC, so we don't want 4 of that. Plank is sorcery speed and color intensive, bleh. We need instant speed to combat instant speed, thus Blossoming Defense.
I think the definition of "flex slot" is dependent on if you're running a Hostage Taker build or not. I'm making the assumption that you're running Sultai instead of some of the other variations or even straight GB, since Sultai is the list that has posted result in the meta. Here's my iteration of the deck as compared to Seth Manfield's pro tour decklist:
4 Longtusk Cub
4 Walking Ballista
4 Winding Constrictor
4 Glint-Sleeve Siphoner
4 Rogue Refiner
2 Rhonas the Indomitable
2 Bristling Hydra
2 Hostage Taker
1 The Scarab God
Non-Creature Spells (13)
4 Fatal Push
4 Attune with Aether
2 Vraska's Contempt
3 Blossoming Defense
4 Blooming Marsh
4 Botanical Sanctum
4 Aether Hub
3 Forest
3 Swamp
1 Island
2 Fetid Pools
3 Deathgorge Scavenger
1 Vraska's Contempt
3 Negate
3 Duress
2 Vraska, Relic Seeker
3 Aethersphere Harvester
4 Longtusk Cub
3 Walking Ballista
4 Winding Constrictor
4 Glint-Sleeve Siphoner
4 Rogue Refiner
2 Rishkar, Peema Renegade
3 Hostage Taker
1 The Scarab God
Non-Creature Spells (14)
4 Fatal Push
4 Attune with Aether
2 Vraska's Contempt
4 Blossoming Defense
4 Blooming Marsh
4 Botanical Sanctum
4 Aether Hub
4 Forest
2 Swamp
1 Island
2 Fetid Pools
3 Duress
2 Die Young
1 Essence Scatter
2 Negate
1 Nissa, Steward of Elements
1 Appetite for the Unnatural
3 Deathgorge Scavenger
1 The Scarab God
- One-drop slot - Some question the value of all 4 Fatal Pushes, but I don't see this as a flex spot so long as Ramunap Red is around. If you're running fewer Hostage Takers, you may not need all the Blossoming Defenses (notice my list runs 3 instead of 4). If you run more lands, you might be able to get away with one fewer Attune with Aether, but the energy synergy is important, so it probably shouldn't be less than 3.
- Two-drop slot - Most everyone runs 4 Walking Ballistas, 4 Winding Constrictors, 4 Glint-Sleeve Siphoners, and 4 Longtusk Cubs. Ballista is considered a flex slot by some if aggro is less prominent in the format.
- Three-drop slot - Most lists run Rishkar, Peema Renegade as a 2-of in their 3-drop slot as well as 4 Rogue Refiner. I personally dropped Rishkar a while back, so I don't consider him a core card, but the pros still run him.
- Four-drop slot - How many Hostage Takers? Seth chose 3, I choose 2, Andrew Jessup started with 4. I like Bristling Hydra, so I opted for one fewer Hostage Taker and one less Blossoming Defense to get the Hydras in.
- Five-drop slot - The Scarab God is the premiere finisher in the format and the primary reason to go black over red. The question is, 1 or 2 main deck?
- Lands - 21 seems to be the magic number that people run with 4 Attunes. If you drop your curve, you might get away with 20.
Based on the above, I could see the list of flex spots being:- 1 Fatal Push if you think aggro is not as likely to be present
- 1 Blossoming Defense if only play 2 or fewer Hostage Takers
- 1 Walking Ballista if you think aggro is not as likely to be present
- Rishkar for another 2/3 drop creature
- 2 Hostage Takers (I think minimum of 2 should be considered core at this point, so that leaves up 2 as flex)
Expecting heavy aggro? Probably only have 4-5 flex cards and virtually all of them are creature based. Expecting light aggro? This affords you an extra few slots, maybe 6-7 flex cards with some spells that can be brought in with creatures. Also worth noting is that if you decide to add higher CMC cards (like Gearhulk) without removing other cards (like Scarab God), then the land count will need to go to 22.I think it's fine to see if you can maindeck a disruption package, but you have to use the flex slots, and Constrictor shouldn't be considered a flex spot. I am curious how maindeck disruption affects other match-ups, but since Temur is the one to beat, you shouldn't destabilize the deck against the premier deck in the format to hedge against some other decks.
If you only think of Attune as a land grabber, then you're probably right. But in an energy deck, it's the best possible play T1. With Constrictor out, it nets us enough energy for an additional Hydra activation. This deck is built around Energy synergy, and Attune is a strong enabler. It makes the Cub a 3/3 2-drop on T2 (important for Magma Spray). It allows for a T3 card off Siphoner. It keeps Aether Hub a multi-color land for 3 turns instead of 1. It gives more lifelink potential to Harvester. It also thins the deck. By increasing the land count and dropping Attunes, you're making it more likely to flood out, less likely to have energy when desired, and diluting the focus of the deck with non-synergistic cards. Opt does not play into the strategy of the deck and neither does Censor. Your counts are also off, as you're playing 25 creatures and 12 non-creature, which is a minor discrepancy, but shows that you've dropped your creature count to accommodate weaker cards.
As an example, you said that Opt is a better topdeck than Attune. I think that's extremely board-state dependent. If you are in a Control match-up, digging two cards deep for the right card is definitely a good thing to do. Attune does seem a little anemic at that point. But what if you are 1 point away from lethal on board with no energy in the bank and a Cub on the field? All of a sudden, Attune wins you the game that turn, instead of letting your opponent topdeck the Fumigate that you know they will get because they do every time, amirite? What if the board is stalled and the extra energy allows you to push Cub or Hydra through for damage? What if it allows you to gain much needed life from Harvester? Allows you to play more aggressive because you know you have double hexproof activation on Hydra?
If you go back and watch Temur match-ups, you will see how Attune helps them get a jump start on the energy race so that when their energy sinks are online, they have plenty to work with. We're not different, although we don't have Virtuoso as an additional sink.
I know you said you like Gonti, but I consider him anemic in this deck. He is really powerful in a recursion deck where you can benefit from his card-stealing ability again and again, but in this deck, he's a non-synergistic card that will (most often) net you another non-synergistic card. You're often relying on the strength of your opponent's deck, which is not a great strategy. Compare him to having another Hydra, which would allow you to more often draw the Hydra... and is Gonti really worth the slot? Just my two cents for your consideration.
The article makes it sound like this deck durdled to the top after the meta has been shuffling, but it is literally, card for card, the same maindeck as Andrew Jessup's deck that won SCG Dallas on week 1 and only two different cards in the sideboard (-1 Deathgorge Scavenger, -1 Duress, +1 Essence Scatter, +1 Vizier of Many Faces). I mean, he literally says "and in the MOCS over the weekend this spicy little number rose from the basket"... seriously? This is not a new deck! But it's clearly still a good deck, especially considering how prominent Temur is.
I don't like Shapers' Sanctuary against Ramunap Red unless it comes down on T1. If you can't play it on T1, it puts you off your mana curve to play it or forces you to not hold up for Fatal Push (for example, T3 Cub and Sanctuary as opposed to Cub and hold up Push or Defense). If RR plays their aggressive game, where the "don't block" effects are typically used, the extra cards rarely matter. I dropped it early in a match-up against BR aggro, and I still died on T5 despite drawing something like 4 extra cards. If you can survive the early push, the extra cards then seem winmore, unless you have literally drawn into the cards you needed to be able to survive. I mean, I understand the extra value it provides. I'm just not sure it's worth more than another early blocker, a removal spell, or a land drop.
So, you might find this amusing. At SCG Dallas, I had one opponent who used Battle at the Bridge to kill Rhonas. It's unusual seeing him in the GY (as opposed to exile), but there he lay. A turn or two later, I topdeck the 2nd Rhonas and play it. My opponent's reaction? "Can I see your GY?" He was thinking I somehow flipped the Rhonas to the top of my library! He then commented that it was unusual to see two Rhonas in the deck. I dunno, to me, good card is good, amirite?
Anyway, I agree that Bristling Hydra is the only direct enabler (Scarab God aside), as in, doesn't need any help when it hits the board to turn him on. But every other creature in the deck (excluding Ballista for X=1) is but a single activation away from him being live. There are plenty of games where I sit back with a handful of board presence and use my mana to turn on Rhonas. Swinging in for 9 on T4 is nothing to sneeze at, so my opponent has to deal with the board at hand, allowing me to be able to hold up cards rather than playing into their strategy (e.g. Settle the Wreckage, Fumigate, etc). Granted, this is mana inefficient if I could swing in with Rhonas and further develop my board. I get that. But against control, it's actually really strong. He's also really good against other strategies that develop a strong board presence (Temur, Ramunap, tokens), allowing me to stall their attacks (5/5 Deathtouch is fantastic) as well as push through damage with the trample effect.
I'm curious your experience that made you struggle with him. Other than the games where Control was already winning and I couldn't keep a creature on board, he has been a powerhouse for me.
Also, why Shapers' Sanctuary? My experience with it was not great at SCG Dallas. I've even cut Lifecrafter's Bestiary from my side, which is also a great card, but I just find I need better proactive/reactive cards in the Control match-up as opposed to the slow, grindy card.
Honestly, the biggest thing I'm concerned about with the deck is cutting Gearhulk. There were games where I was losing that I flat out just won because of that card. Being able to activate Harvester, cast Gearhulk, and dump all the counters on it closes out a game fast and makes a huge difference in the race against aggro. It's why I've opted for so many life gain cards in the SB, since I cut Harvester from the main (which might also be a mistake). But to make room for Siphoners, Hostage Takers, and Defenses, something had to give.
4 Longtusk Cub
4 Walking Ballista
4 Winding Constrictor
4 Glint-Sleeve Siphoner
4 Rogue Refiner
2 Rhonas the Indomitable
2 Bristling Hydra
2 Hostage Taker
1 The Scarab God
Non-Creature Spells (13)
4 Fatal Push
4 Attune with Aether
2 Vraska's Contempt
3 Blossoming Defense
4 Blooming Marsh
4 Botanical Sanctum
4 Aether Hub
3 Forest
3 Swamp
1 Island
2 Fetid Pools
3 Deathgorge Scavenger
1 Vraska's Contempt
3 Negate
3 Duress
2 Vraska, Relic Seeker
3 Aethersphere Harvester
Thoughts?