Quote from MorrainTheCorruptorYou know the funny thing is after I posted this I looked at the card again, went crap I did read the rules wrong! I was thoughtless when I read this (ergo didn't realize complete rules of rituals). Oh well accidents happen! What are your thoughts on Tormented Soul?
It's an unplayable card. There's no 2 ways about it really. First of all, it's important not to think of this as something that you'll always draw on turn 1. Even if it were, at a 20 tun clock per player, it's not exactly impressive. Still, the card becomes exponentially worse for every turn that passes. Like, you draw this on turn 5 and you 100% ripped something worse than any land or any spell in your deck (castable or not). As a standalone spell it's just not powerful enough to significantly affect the board and that's why I would never field it myself.
Now, I get what it "can" do. If you throw a Loxodon Warhammer on it, hey, things are looking up! I get that, and I get that some % of the time you can make this card a "something." The problem is that the card is horrible in every instance where you can't beef it up. I have the choice of playing good creatures such as Vampire Nighthawk who I can beef up with good equipment to make it better. I'm fine with that because I know that my Nighthawk is still good even if it gets 0 support. What I don't like is pairing an extremely bad card with a few good ones. Even if you'll combo them together some % of the time, in every instance where you don't you're basically down a card for no good reason. Every card in your decks should matter, and this just isn't ever going to be one of those.
I do not like it and I would never recommend playing it.
Re-read Halls of Mist. It's a horrible card that doesn't come close to being as powerful as Glacial Chasm. I also dislike Crop Rotation with the Chasm because you wind up saccing 2 lands in the process. Cards like Expedition Map, Beseech the Queen, Syphon Mind, Demonic Tutor, etc. are just plain better. They're not restricted to tutoring for lands alone (except the map) and they don't force you to sac a land.
I don't get Pegasus Stampede either. Sacrifice a land? Really? In multiplayer? Overburden seems out of place too. It's not play creatures, it's "puts on the battlefield." Pretty sure the Drayds will force land bounces themselves. I really don't see how cards like these do anything other than set you way behind. After all, you want to play spells when your Dryads are out, not lose all of your lands.
So I'll ask again, what exactly are you looking for?
You need some actual protection in this deck. With all that tutor and draw, I'm thinking stuff like Web of Inertia + Planar Void/Leyline of the Void, Glacial Chasm + Eon Hub, things that will make you really hard to attack period.
The deck has a lot of small creatures, dunno what purpose they serve. Play bigger threats. You'll also need revival, so look at cards like Oversold Cemetery, Diabolic Servitude, Phyrexian Reclamation, Grim Harvest, Haunted Crossroads etc. I wouldn't suggest using the latter unless you also had some good draw though (Syphon Mind, Mind's Eye).
I wish the deck had more creatures like Taurean Mauler, Forgotten Ancient, Multani, Maro-Sorcerer, Verdant Force, War Elemental, Avatar of Fury, Avatar of Woe, Vulturous Zombie, Lord of Extinction, Magnivore, etc. and less small, dinky creatures,
Oh I wasn't just referring to just you. I've been posting on forums like these, the one on the wizards main site in particular, for many years. This is just a general observation. I find that, on average, most areas take a passive stance against control.
This part I don't really agree with. If there's a topic that I'm very stubborn about it's card advantage in multiplayer. Let's pretend we play in a 6 player FFA. For every card that I draw, 5 other players are also drawing one. Even if I play Annihilate I'm still never generating card advantage because I would have to account for all 5 of those other cards in order to "get ahead." Annihilate still gives card disadvantage in my mind, just less so than Terror.
Examples of cards that do provide card advantage, in my mind, are Syphon Mind and Rhystic Study. Using Syphon Mind, we can see that my one card not only draws me 5 cards, but also forces 5 discards (let's just say that everyone has something to discard for argument's sake). As such, this card puts me head because the card I drew accounted for the equivalent draw of each of my opponents AND THEN SOME. Mathematically that put me ahead of the field. Mass removal can often generate card advantage as well, especially if you lose nothing a few players sac more than one creature.
Some people don't agree with this point of view, but I've never been convinced that you can easily generate card "advantage" in multiplayer. As I've said earlier, advantage, in my mind, means you're mathematically ahead of the field. Cantrip effects don't put you ahead in my opinion, they just put you "less behind." I've yet to see an example of spot removal not causing insane card disadvantage in the early stages of a multiplayer game.
That is not my argument at all. I feel like you didn't even read my post because I've never said anything even close to that. I've made other posts in this thread that express my love for cards like Glacial Chasm and No Mercy that can easily protect control decks from creatures. I've also went on to list decks that with 90% of games in my meta as well. I know how to build control decks that win games, that was never the purpose of this discussion. The actual purpose of this thread isn't to help the control players, it's to showcase to aggro players how weak spot removal is as a deterrent to their attacks. What you're discussing is a properly built Parfait deck that is filled with global protection. This is the kind of deck I want people to play. I do have some issues with some of your card choices, but on the whole it's a very strong deck. I'm not saying that control decks can't handle creatures; they can. The problem is that they should have to work for it, and I feel like too many control decks are getting by with too little defense. This was never about spot removal vs global removal, or how to build a control deck. This post is trying to help newer players who do nothing but play creature and sit back until they lose. Attacking is such an underrated tactic in multiplayer magic, and I want more people to do it. Don't worry about cards like Terror, they don't actually protect the control players very well at all. That's what I'm trying to say.
I guess my problem is what exactly is the long-term plan? This isn't directed solely at you, but everyone who has that mindset. Those wraths are never going away. If the aggro players kill off each other and leave the control players for last, you better believe they're going to win. They still have 12 wraths after all. If you play a creature and attack them, they can either wrath or take it to the face. There's only so many times that they can wrath 1-2 creatures/ eat free attacks after all. When you ignore a player because he can kill a few creature you control, you give him free reign to dominate you all game. You'll never win the game by ignoring him, you just might come in 3rd instead of 5th. I don't know why anyone would aim for 3rd when they could aim for first. Force them to wrath early, often, and on as few creatures as possible. The longer you wait, the more likely you'll lose the game. At least the players in your area also field hard defense like Fog Bank. Cards like these provide them with some solid defense that doesn't disappear after 1 use. This is the kind of card they should be forced to play.
Not really, try playing a Contamination deck, a Limited Resources deck, a Balance deck, or a Pox deck. You'd be surprised how hard it is to win the game when players don't have access to mana. The key to winning multiplayer games is to stop other players from winning. That's very easy to do with certain colors like Black and White. It's not hard to lock people at 0-2 lands and win with... well anything really. Most decks can't win off of 2 mana, as long as yours can you're golden. I like the Mindcrank + Bloodchief Ascension combo because you don't need a lot of lands to fuel it, just 2. Like I said before, multiplayer has "tiers" like everything else. There are some decks that can win almost every game in the right meta. Some players might not want to play these decks, but that doesn't mean that you can't build a deck that will win almost every game. I mean just think about how brutal Limited Resources would be in a 6-8 player game. Most people wouldn't even have 2 lands! Not many decks can work off 1 mana. Just make sure the deck has Enlightened Tutor and maybe some other 1 mana tutors to ensure that you'l have it out by your second turn. Try it yourself and tell me how many games out of 10 that you win. I want to stress that I'm not suggesting that most decks and strategies are surefire wins. It's a very small subset of decks and strategies that are. Still, I'd be willing to wager that if you let me build your decks, I could make ones that would almost never lose. They'd all cheesy and annoying as Hell, and everyone would hate you for it, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't win.
Lol, so much for wanting to keep this civil... Funny how a person's attitude can change so quickly. Again, take a look at the posts in these forums. Take a look at mine in particular, I always tell players to ditch spot removal and always get "but it keeps me alive" thrown back at me. I had a reason for making this thread.
I never said that anywhere, the point of this thread was to promote the idea of attacking the control players who hide behind spot removal. I've said this many times and the original post has nothing to suggest otherwise. I am not debating the best removal to use in multiplayer; I never said that all control decks should rely on sorcery speed, global removal.
You've proven nothing. I've argued that I can handle big FFA games in creature-heavy metas with mass removal, Glacial Chasm, Contamination and Ensnaring Bridge. This is not a lot of cards, this is a tiny subset of cards that works in most cases. Magic is less situational thank you think, you do not need to use a lot of cards or consider a lot of options. You can win by sticking to a select few cards that are extremely effective at what they do. Every format has their dominant decks and archtypes. Multiplayer isn't some grand exception where everything is viable and there's no tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, etc. decks. I'm reasonably certain that I can build a "surefire" deck that will win most games. You can't win them all, but that's true for every deck in every format.
quote fixed the second time. editing after moderation infracted.
blut
As I said in my previous post, I do not rely on sorcery speed removal. I use cards like Ensnaring Bridge and Glacial Chasm to prevent the exact situations you've described while simultaneously preventing the attacks from every other player as well. There are a lot of cards that deal with creatures that don't disappear after 1 use. I feel like for whatever situation you name I can name a card that handles it. I don't use Path to Exile nor will I ever, and I handle creatures that "1 shot" me fine. I play Damnation in aggro metas and follow it up with Contamination to prevent them from playing other creatures. Since Black cant deal with enchantments, it's usually hard for them to come back from there. Eon Hub/Gibbering Descent + Glacial Chasm usually works too. Heck, I'll even pay the life since I'm winning with Exsanguinate anyways. I can easily keep it around while I burn everyone to death. In a 10 player meta an Exsanguinate for 5 is getting me 45 life, that's more than enough to draw my deck via Necropotence/Yawgmoth's Bargain while paying Glacial Chasm's cost. From there I just Exsanguinate every turn until I win. Easy money.
I understand why some people think Path to Exile is good, but I guarantee you that you don't need it to handle a pumped, hasted, evasive poisoner. Does it work? I guess, you'll stop one creature from 1 player. My way stops every creature from every player. I'll take that instead.
Look at every post I've ever made on this forum/other multiplayer magic forums. I always suggest that players removal their spot removal in favor of other cards. More often than not, they tell me that players don't attack them because they might have Terror in hand. People attack control players in my meta all the time, this is not a problem for me. It's every other meta that I'm worried about. If you think that control players get attacked in other metas, talk to the people on these boards. You'll get the same feedback I get. I am just as baffled as you, I cannot for the life of me understand how every control player gets away with murder.
This is completely true and a great way to punish control players. Trust me, this happens to me all the time lol.
Yes it does. One card kills creatures like Phantom Centaur and Giant Solifuge and one does not. One card also kills each creature from each other opponent should they have any. I feel like it's incredibly shortsighted to suggest that Terror will often times be equivalent to Damnation because 95% (or more) of the time that won't be the case. A lot of spot removal has restrictions in that they only do X damage, they don't kill creatures of X color(s)/artifacts, things of that nature. It's also mostly targeted, which makes it impossible for them to deal with Shroud and protections. Cards like Diabolic Edit crumble if they have any other creature, which doesn't make them much better. I would argue that Terror and Damnation are 2 completely different cards and will rarely, if ever, have the same functionality in a multiplayer setting. While this sort of thing is possible, I would say that situations like these are improbable to occur. As such, I do not agree with this assessment of the 2 cards. I would argue that what you've described in much more likely to occur in a duel, that is a 1v1 game, and almost never in a multiplayer setting.
And now the Terror is gone. This is my point. He's used it, it's gone, the other players can openly attack him now. Furthermore, if the aggro player has revival or draw, he'll gladly trade creatures for cards if the creatures come back for free. Terror that 3/3 made from Centaur Glade, another is coming at you next turn. You don't win this trade.
Fair enough. I guess I just don't consider the possibility of not building for multiplayer when playing in a multiplayer environment. It seems like a really good way to have some really long, boring games where everyone's chance of winning is 1/N where N is the number of players. At that point you may as well roll a die. It's almost the same thing and you can get way more games in over the course of the evening o.O.
If you can tell me why spot removal is good I'd like to hear it. I'm going to throw your logic right back at you. You said that we NEED (your words) a good balance of global and spot removal. Why? You're making laws but then go on to say that I can't? I'll say it again, you said that we NEED a balance. That's not open to interpretation, you're saying that we have to use both. Do you have anything to defend this argument or are you just making things up? I feel like, if nothing else, I'm trying to defend my claims based on the results of the hundreds of multiplayer magic games that I've played over my lifetime. You're just making a law and providing no explanation as to why you feel it should be mandatory that all decks field spot and global removal. I'll gladly discuss this with you, but only if you provide some arguments to debate. You can gladly refute my arguments and tell me where I went wrong, but you can't just say that I'm wrong without addressing anything that I said. Give me specific examples.
Moving on, I never said anything about rules or laws. I'm simply hinting that the next time someone tries to sit back behind spot removal, you pressure him with your creatures. When you let a control player control the game, you let him win. That's what his deck does. I'm suggesting (not commanding) that players should attack them instead, because my years of experience have taught me how vulnerable control/combo decks are to continuous pressure. I'm not saying you can't play spot removal, I'm just saying that creature-based decks shouldn't be afraid of it. They can destroy players who try to hide behind cards like Terror. People can still use spot removal if they want to lose, that's their call. Nevertheless, aggro players should, in my mind, stop letting them get away with murder. Every day I come these boards and everyone has 4 Terrors (just my standard example of spot removal, this can be anything from Lightning Bolt to Vindicate) as the only removal in their control-ish decks. That is nothing, that won't save you from the 3 and 4 drops and you should be dead by turn 6-7 every game. Aggro players should be aware of this and should try attacking for a change. I don't get the "sit back and wait" mindset that makes so many players lose the game.
It shouldn't work where anyone plays. I wish everyone who played multiplayer magic could read this post because it's the most important lesson I've ever learned and I feel like everyone could benefit from reading it. You have no idea how hard it is for me, as a combo/control player, to deal with being attacked by creatures. You don't need to wait until you have 15 power, send your 2 power at him. IT WORKS. I KNOW IT WORKS. I've lost to 2/2s and 3/3s more times than I can count. I lose to those creatures way more often than I lose to 26/26 tramplers. Spot removal is bad and you can easily punish people for using it. You should be punishing them too because once those players are gone you get that much closer to winning the game. It's basic tournament strategy to "cooperate" (not conspire) and take out players if you can. After all, it means that the players involved are that much closer to winning/ get a bigger share of the prizepool. Think about playing poker. If some guy is all-in in the big blind then (almost) everyone should call his all-in, check down to the river, and flip their hands over to take him out (you know what I'm trying to say, don't argue specifics about betting sets on the flop to avoid losing to flushes by the river). The same thing is true for control players. Attack him until he has no removal, then every other aggro player should attack him to take him out. With a player gone they are that much closer to winning, and so it's in their best interest to hit him when he's open like that.
Control players are not invincible, they are weak as all Hell most of the time.
I'm going to give you some insight as to why this simple little suggestion can dramatically improve your chances to win a multiplayer game. As I said earlier, I never touch aggro decks myself, and so I know a lot about what it takes to win while playing control decks. The key to winning the game is to dominate the psychic battle. If you play a Terror there's a chance that you'll have another one and so players will avoid you like the plague. After all, they don't want to lose their precious creatures. So this is exactly what I did for about the first 2 years of my magic career, and I pretty much took every mutiplayer game we played. Yep, it felt great to be on top. Didn't matter what deck I used, what combo I tried, I always won because I could scare other players away with my spot removal. I was king of the castle and life was good.
After about 2 years I started making some magic friends who played competitively at FNMs, regional events, etc. My little circle of brothers and school friends soon grew into a massive sphere of real magic players. Like a lot of players, they really enjoy casual, multiplayer games. As such, they played FFAs, they cubed, they played EDH, etc. Inevitably I got into all of these new "formats" as well, and my new playgroup was formed.
Naturally I used the same tactics that I'd been using successfully for years. If it ain't broke don't fix it right? Well guess what, something changed. People, and you might to brace yourself for this, attacked with their creatures. I know that a lot of you reading this are gasping for air, so I'll give you some time to recover.
...
...
...
We all set? Good stuff. Anyways, the point is that if a player was open, creatures would be turned sideways without hesitation. Now, a lot of players are thinking "yeah but if I attack the control player then the other aggro players can attack me." That actually doesn't happen nearly as often as you might think. You see, aggro players are often playing creatures (almost) each turn which means they usually have a nice big blocker. After all, creatures tend to get bigger as time go on and as players get access to more and more mana. This means that previously played, smaller creatures can't exactly attack into the new, bigger threat. But guess who has no defense at all? The control player. He naturally becomes the best target to attack, and you want to be attacking as much as possible. Well, that was me. Suddenly I was being pressured every turn by almost every other player. Uh oh, the king was in trouble.
So here I am, in a new place with a new circle of players, and suddenly my world is shattered. Yeah, I Terror one 3/3. Guess what, it's gone (my Terror that is). My big reveal, my big secret, my big tip to all you aggro players out there: players have way less removal than you give them credit for. No one fills their decks with spot removal; you can't ever win a game playing like that. He'll probably have maybe 4-6 copies and beyond that it's normal cards. As such, if the control player uses his Terror he probably doesn't have many more and you want to be pressuring him as much as possible. When people use spot removal THEY ARE OPEN. Do not sit back, that is exactly how you lose the game. It's a green light to attack, not a red light to halt. Do not give in to the mental mind games!
Furthermore, it's actually not a bad idea to invest in some combo/control hosers, especially if your creature-based decks have a decent amount of revival and/or draw. A lot of people look at Blastoderm, Phantom Centaur, Calciderm, Giant Solifuge, etc. and see bad-mediocre cards. Do you know who ☺☺☺☺s their pants when these cards hit the field? Control players. If you have a 4ish power creature with Shroud, protection from Black, (often times) Haste, etc. you can KILL them most of the time. Not just hurt, kill. What it boils down to is that they need a card like Damnation or they're dead. Trust me, it is really freaking hard for a Black player to handle a Phantom Centaur, especially if you can revive him with Genesis or whatever. Cards like these aren't always the best way to win creature wars, but investing in single creatures to outright kill players isn't bad at all. Don't overlook creatures with Shroud or who have protection from Black/Red, they really screw over most control players.
I'm urging everyone to, for once in their lives, pressure the guy with spot removal with their creature-based aggro decks. It shattered my world and forced me to play real decks with real cards that could handle the pressure from so many players. I started hating spot removal because I realized just how useless it is if people actually attack instead of sitting back and doing nothing for 20 turns. Don't mass an army before you make a move, apply pressure continuously. It's such a good counter that it's almost like cheating. Dethrone the kings of your meta who sit back and win every game; punish them for manipulating you into not attacking them. Beat the people like me who use you like puppets to kill the other players. Play a creature and send it straight at the guy who can kill it. I guarantee you that the next one will get through. All you need is one turn, one opening, and then every aggro player can send their attackers at his direction. It's not conspiring, it's not teaming up, it's just the best play to make given the situation. Kill him off and make him hate those Terrors as I have. You won't regret it.
That's all I have to say.
censor evasion fixed and warned.
blut