MTG Salvation

Quote from MorrainTheCorruptor

You 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.

Quote from MorrainTheCorruptor

By the way look out at Lotus Blossum for the next thing. I went around using it recently, and people just don't like it! Which surprises me! They are saying Black Lotus is better, even though they do the exact same thing, only lotus blossom has suspend! Which makes it more flexible! I must be reading it wrong or something because they won't have any part in that card. Except for 1-3 other sane people I know

Suspend doesn't make it more flexible. A card that doesn't do anything for 3 turns after you first cast it is far from flexible. The problem with playing "rituals" (single-shot ramp effects) in fair decks is that speed doesn't overcome card disadvantage. Yes, you got your fatty out sooner, but you're also down a card. I could just as easily play Worn Powerstone on turn 3 and cast a Wurmcoil Engine on turn 4 and I still have that Powerstone for the rest of the game. Thran Dynamo? Same thing. Getting one card out faster doesn't mean much unless it wins the game on the spot. Multiplayer games tend to run long and so you'll probably have the chance to play all of your spells anyways. As such, wasting a card to play a spell that you could just played a few turns later is quite bad. You now have fewer cards to work with after all. That's why no one plays Lotus Bloom in anything, even constructed. It's just not a good, reliable, consistent card.

Quote from Indalecio

Yeah I have now gathered a bit of experience with Hunted Horror and I definitely agree he is not good in every environment. I play it in a creature-heavy mono-B deck currently as I have no other 2-drop anyway, but in every game (10-ish so far in the current iteration of the deck) it all comes down to giving the tokens to a player that you know won't attack you.

That's the only consideration to make in my mind. People have a bad habit of treating it like a "punisher" card in the sense that people can choose how good and/or bad it is. It shouldn't be. The only reason to play this card is if it will 100% positively affect you. Ok, once players start to die that won't be true, but I mean it should never be a bad turn 2 play. People have to accept the fact that some people aren't aggressive and like to play the political game. You can say "oh but you might eat 6 every turn" but that shouldn't be a legitimate concern when you do decide to field this card consistently. I play it all the time in mono-Black decks and it's always good for me. I get a big dude and a friend. Win-win. I could play safe and scarred if I really wanted to, but like, what other 2 drop gives me a legitimate threat and buys me an ally for the foreseeable future? Again, I realize that it won't work for everyone, but I don't believe that it can't work for anyone. I see 0 Hunted creatures played in MP and it bothers me to no end. They're undercosted creatures who buy you friends and I don't think for a second that no one but me can abuse them.

Quote from MorrainTheCorruptor

I agree completely with you, and I wish things were what they were worth overall. Momentary Blink is a card I have allways hated. I could use a Cloudshift and Tamiyo, the Moonsage final ability. Now we have something amazing. Demonic Rising I agree... Sort of.. Yes it is a decent card, but you truly need the right cards to make it work to it's potential. A card I love that works with wraiths is Blood Artist and Rage Thrower. That, a Day of Judgement, Fresh Meat and Faith's Reward is something that I truly need. I love it because I have used that combo in my human legacy. Full of Elite Vangaurds and Doomed Travelers

I really don't agree that the Rising needs a specific deck to work. You basically just need to be playing with creatures in general. I hate building around things because your deck always end up gimmicky and weak. As such, I basically never do it. That being said, I've never been unimpressed with the Rising.

I know that this is personal bias talking, but I basically can't think of a better answer to Wraths. I play in a removal-heavy meta and so you need to expect to lose your board every 3 turns or so. As such, you never want to commit a lot to the board, but you also can't ever have nothing. This card is the absolute nuts with respect to "doubling" all of your creatures. You play one guy and get your free 5/5 out of the deal. Next turn you can play something or nothing; it doesn't matter. Either way you have a solid defense and you can always start attacking if you want. People kill one of your dudes? You get another one. They don't? They just took like 8+ damage and you can always drop a body post-combat.

Everything thinks that the card is situational or hard to extract value from, but it really isn't. Just do your thing and play your spells and you'll be amazed at how much value it can provide you over the course of a game.

Your generic creature evaluation "algorithm" is completely useless in my mind. Virtually every creature fails it and it has almost no value in that respect. Evaluating drawbacks and upsides is completely subjective and meta/format dependent. You provide no evidence as to why Fauna's Shaman's upside or Wren's downside are acceptable and thus make the card playable. You provide an opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. If I could easily gather some form of evidence to base my opinion on, that might help me. What doesn't help me is the biased opinion of myself/some random stranger with unknown credibility. I'm not saying that you're wrong or right about how playable those cards are, but how does that help me exactly? Can't I simply argue that Wellwisher is acceptable because gaining life ruins burn-based strategies and makes racing creature-based decks much more safe and simple? Also, if the ultimate test is subjective and not objective, why am I even doing the math to begin with? What's the point if it has no real meaning at the end of the day? Your method is overly simplistic and doesn't represent a useful metric to use when evaluating a creature a huge % of the time. The printed text is typically much more important than the little numbers at the bottom right hand corner. You're dumbing the game down without actually providing people with useful advice in my opinion.

As for your table, it seems incredibly inaccurate at best. How many 1 mana spells destroy a creature at virtually no downside? 1? Swords to Plowshares? Unless we're throwing things like Ghastly Demise, Innocent Blood and PtE in there, basically no spell actually meets that criteria. What spell discards 3 cards for 3 mana exactly? Delirium Skeins certainly doesn't qualify, unless 3-for-4ing yourself is generically profitable all of the sudden. Other than Hymn, what does 2 for 2? MAYBE Wrench Mind? As for draw, where do you get 2 for 2 and 3 for 3? Are there ANY? Thirst for Knowledge and Compulsive Research certainly don't fit those criteria after all. Heck, where can I get 4 for 4 for that matter? Pray that my Fact or Fiction goes real deep every time? Most of your numbers seem completely off.

Quote from Priest of Stone

What makes Brainstorm a bad card? Could you talk about it and other legacy stables like Dark Confidant, STD, PtE, Noble Hierarch and Jitte. They get to see a lot of multiplayer time in my hoods and I think at least some of them are really overvalued!

Jitte is absolutely fine in multiplayer and I don't think that it's overvalued at all. The others I all agree with. I would answer this question here, but I think I'll just do a new entry for it sometime next week.

Quote from Indalecio

I was scrolling down your blog entry a bit like when you carefully look at the cards you just got out of a freshly opened booster... and I was expecting Hunted Horror in that list really

I briefly considered it but I haven't had enough time to test the card thoroughly. It's played well in my games thus far but that's hardly enough to say any definitive about it. It's also much more meta dependent then other cards. It could easily be a terrible card for some people to play. I play with enough people that it's not really a concern for me, but like the card might not do so well in a 3 player FFA for example.

Quote from Indalecio

Good job at not going the "broken cards list" way. These are all cards I play myself except Obliterator (although I just got my hands on a copy now so beware) and although I don't necessarly agree with the individual rankings I think they´re all more or less justified. A bit surprised about Bloodgift Demon on the list but I agree he´s good. Abyssal Persecutor is for me the nuts and would be in my own 10s I think, although his MP application could seem weaker than other cards, actually.

Bloodgift Demon was the card that I was most on the fence about. It was initially going to be Damnation but I don't think that Wraths are that good. There's tons of them out there and they all pretty much do the same thing. He made it on the list for being the only real playable Black 5 drop creature. He's the best durdle at the curve in my opinion so that's why he made the final cut. I will happily play 4 of them in any Black deck and I will always be excited to see him on turn 5. While he isn't the most powerful card, he's the best overall man for the job, and that versatility and generic power is what I'm looking for in my decks. Black does some decent 5 mana non-creature spells, Demonic Rising certainly comes to mind for example, but ultimately I struggle to find warm bodies for that slot.

With respect to Percy vs Oblit, I think that both cards are pretty insane. Oblit was made the frontman because he has no drawbacks outside of his cost so he's pretty much always going to make the cut in your heavy Black decks. Percy is fantastic but you do have to work a bit to make him a "safe" pick. I also think that having a strong defense is better than having a strong offense in the early-mid game, and the Oblit is typically a better wall. I basically just want to live long enough to start dropping Wurmcoils and Kokushos so that I can get to work reviving them once they die. I don't need my 4 drop to win me the game, I just want something that will ensure that I don't lose. Granted, I still want it to be a meaningful threat, but I'm not altogether concerned about how much damage it does on turns 5 and 6 for example.

About the rankings, I switched them up a bit. I really didn't pay much attention to that specific detail and more-or-less just posted 10 cards (or types of cards) that I really enjoy playing. The current ranking is based of how often I play the cards in question.

Quote from Indalecio

Please do Tarmogoyf next time. Have a feeling we share the same idea of the card given your input on Tombstalker.

Fully agree with the "Hidden" stuff, that I´ve been using during my whole Mtg career almost. Hidden Gibbons and Hidden Ancients count in my list. These are great ways to sneak in creatures into play.

Goyf is its own beast. At $100.00 a pop or whatever it's not exactly cropping up at kitchen tables everywhere, but I do know what you mean. It, much like Brainstorm and Sensei's Divining Top, is incredibly overrated in a casual setting. I'll probably touch on all of these cards at some point.

With respect to the hidden stuff, it's all good yes. It just depends on your meta obviously. I'm not a huge fan of situational, medium-sized vanilla dorks, but it's not like you'll pass up on a 2 mana 5/5 if there's going to be an enchantment played on turn 3-4 every game. I like the Spider because it hits on turn 1 and flying defense is typically tougher to come across than ground defense when you're Green. Still, I'll probably do a small write-up on the Hidden guys and when you should play them.

Quote from Indalecio

One other thing with this spell is that EVERYBODY has it or any of its fellows in his deck at my table, and like 8-12 of them whenever R or B are represented, which is almost every deck (they mostly play 2-3 colors decks). So that regardless of how bad the card is in MP (counting in the political game), your own creatures have to get through a barrage of Lightning Bolts, Galvanic Blasts, Incinerates, Terminates, Doom Blades, Electrostatic Bolts etc to make it. It's become a sub-game of who will be bolting this little dude first. People even bolt stuff during their main phase even though they don't need to. Bad? Yes. Do they care? No, their hand is full with other removal spells anyway. They´re also making a good deed for the table. So yeah that's where I come in as the main target for the table, and I basically go down because even if I stabilized at 10 life, buddy A has two Incinerates and Buddy B a Char and they all "made that secret agreement" (e.g. "just because they can", or "want to see my face when they do it") to cast all of it at me. That on top of every other Bolt cast at our creatures (not only mine), and crap like Yoke of the Damned as well, which is very popular in my meta.

My point being that I find nearly impossible to convince people that their removal is not as good as they think. It's just not what they experience. They think it's vital, even flexible. Above all, they think it's even the funniest thing in Magic. And since they all share that view, it's been living up to that idea, the more it's represented the more it has an impact on our games. The same can be said of any card in Magic really, but none has that "fun" stamp as removal. Heck, some guy asked me if he could borrow my Vindicates for his GR deck at a session, as he was just open at the idea of splashing 2 more colors just for the spell alone

Been there lol. This is why Wurmcoil Engine is a 4-of in all of my decks now. It's the best card in the world at making people look stupid for playing spot removal and burn. The card is completely absurd and it's very hard to lose once cast one or two of 'em. I also typically toss Vampire Nighthawk, Batterskull, Loxodon Warhammer and Exsanguinate into my lists as well. I like lifegain insofar as it's attached to powerful cards for reasons that you're highlighted. I never liked lifegain in the past since it always cost you mana and whatnot, but now you basically get it for free on absurdly overpowered card. It doesn't take long to be completely out of reach from their burn and to make their spot removal look pathetic. When I'm Skeleton Shard a WCE every turn, people can have all of the Bolts that they want.

Quote from Indalecio

That's a fair approach you are making and I think I could more or less describe my playgroup as a combination of those 4 only.

However I could even think of a fifth profile which would define something directly opposite to your description of "apprentice". It would be categorizing the pure jackass, the guy who knows enough of the game to build decks but always bows the rules to his own interpretation whenever they favor him. He is often loud, aggressive, judges people's plays and claims himself as a better player than he actually is, but makes many mistakes out of impatience and even panic. He absolutely hates to lose. He owns some decent cards but builds decks based on their fame rate to show off his collection, or (alt.) netdecks everything and claims the ownership.

As you see, it's a real negative profile few people want at their tables, however when you have friends of friends invited to a Magic session it may turn up into this sometimes. The reason why I think it deserves a category on its own is because the narrow-minded attitude makes it impossible to compete on a serious level regardless of the skills. At this game you need patience, foresight etc which you can't physically achieve if you´re full of bull****. It's the unability to learn that prevents you from being a better player, I´d say. All of your profiles, bar "casual" (which the above is miles away from) have a positive touch as for trying to scale up to a better level of playing Magic, whereas the above is the description of somebody stuck in his own misconceptions.

I've played in a lot of different playgroups for close to 11 years but I've legitimately never met someone who fit that description. While people can certainly be boisterous as times, I wouldn't deny that for a second, it's always well-intentioned and the table typically gets a good laugh out of it. Most people are determined to win, no one is throwing matches or anything, but we don't take ourselves too seriously in the process. I mean we're all hunting for the value rub-ins that come with taking home the W, but at the same time everyone is on the same page about the fact that we're playing for nothing of tangible significance and so there's no point in letting anything get you down. If people can't just sit down and enjoy a game magic with some good company then they have some very pressing concerns to address lol.

While I fully believe that not everyone can be as lucky as I've been, I'm not altogether convinced that this is a "new breed." I'd classify him as an up-and-comer since he clearly takes the game seriously but isn't quite on the level that he probably thinks he is. From the sounds of things he has an extremely volatile impact on the game, which sounds like the description that I gave for them. I understand that there's varying degrees of consistency and predictability within each type, and this just comes across as an outlier. He may be an extreme example of an up-and-comer, but he seems to fit the mold relatively well.

For what it's worth, I don't think that said player is necessarily "doomed." I was certainly stubborn and narrow-minded in my youth and I always wanted to play Mono-Black. I still do. That being said, I can now appreciate the fact that I need to play the best deck in the format if I want to win. What I like/want to play isn't going to cut it. People can and do change, even if you don't think they can. And like, you probably don't appreciate just how stubborn I am. When I find something that I like, I like it a lot. I've been listening to the same Dragonforce songs ever since their first album was released. No matter how many thousands of times I hear it I never get tired of them. I eat the same foods every time I go out to eat. When I played WoW I had 1 priest that I sunk 600 days of playtime (as in actual in-game playtime), no alts or twinks or anything. I've played Borderlands 10 or so times and played Siren every time using the same build and the same guns. Now I play Borderlands 2 and I'm playing as Maya (the Siren) and am doing the exact same thing. Anyways, the point is that even someone as ridiculously stubborn, boring, 1-dimensional, etc. as me can change. Whereas before I would only play mono-Black as a rule, I EVENTUALLY grew enough to realize that if I wanted more out of my Magic career that I would have to change my ways. I did. It's not impossible, no matter how hopeless it seems, for people to better themselves.

Quote from Indalecio

Fully agreed on Lightning Bolt and the likes (Galvanic Blast comes to mind), but I am constantly challenged in my conception every time we are having a session. Not that the card does incredible deeds or something, but one situation we constantly face is that guy at low life subject to die to a single bolt spell (or a combination of them). And you or somebody else really want that guy down as soon as possible. Now I think we both agree on the fact we don't want to be the player slamming this Bolt at this guy's face, we want somebody else to do it. But you may want to have this card in hand (I´ve been told anyway) because then you hold that power. The mistake would be to play it straight away, you want to hold it, let him attack or do whatever damage to your opponents, and then slam the card once he attempts a recovery or puts your own board at danger. It's instant, it costs R so you´re not exactly forced to pass your turn to keep that window open.

I would never include such a card in any of my decks, but as long as somebody else does in my playgroup then we will be having political situations of this kind. I don't know if I explained this well but this is a fact we often experience which I cannot deny. The card (and its likes) probably has another facet in MP. Of course, most of the players doing so don't see it, for them it's just a bolt and they often use it to kill creatures or PW anyway, which plain sucks as you explained already.

It's not really because it's "good" direct damage (it's not), or "it can kill somebody" (so what, 6 players remaining), it's more of a control thing. As we discussed earlier, you cannot easily qualify the impact of cards in a MP setting. Also, just letting people know about your hand or parts of it can be devastating in terms of how the game is played politically. Some people do that in my meta (I don't). About your example, as long as one player does play the card you will end up in a particular situation that may have great impact over the course of a game.

Oh believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about. I've definitely died to Bolt and I do not deny that it, much like most cards, can certainly have value if the cards break the right way. Still, a much more common scenario around here is that someone will be at 10 and they'll get Banefired out of nowhere. I don't hate DD or anything, I just prefer to use cards with more power and less versatility. The damage-to-mana ration on X spells is clearly abysmal, the cards are inefficient as Hell, but they still get the job done far more often than not. You can't hold up R and represent 3 damage or anything, I'll concede that, but you're going to get more kills with X spells than you will with efficient removal/burn. The point that I'm trying to make is that for every time that you killed a small creature/a player with Bolt, I'm betting that you could have done so much more if you had access to a good X spell instead.

I mean, Comet Storm can certainly threaten someone at 3 quite easily as well, but it can also do absurd things to end games even when the situation isn't nearly as bleak for the other players. The way I see it is that the guy at 3 is probably never going to win anyways, so having control over him is marginal at best.

Quote from Stellarman

I'm just wondering if there is some good replacement even for this kind of wall - flying with capability to prevent damage?
Thanks

Chronozoa, Conundrum Sphinx, Dungeon Geists, Fettergeist, Illusionary Servant (as long as people don't play pingers and whatnot), Mindshrieker and Phantasmal Dragon all seem like potential candidates. To consider. I would just get something in the air that figures to be as big (if not bigger) than what everyone else has.

Quote from Indalecio

I´m missing two creatures:

Lotleth Troll
BG - Zombie Troll
2/1 Trample
Discard a creature card: Put a +1/+1 counter on Lotleth Troll.
{B}: Regenerate Lotleth Troll.

Loxodon Smiter
1{G}{W} - Elephant Soldier
4/4 Loxodon Smiter can't be countered.
If a spell or ability an opponent controls causes you to discard Loxodon Smiter, put it onto the battlefield instead of putting it into your graveyard.

I think both are awesome.

Fair point. I actually ignored them because of their price tags but I probably should cover them anyways. I guess my issue with those kinds of cards is how little there is to say about them. Everyone in the world with half a brain has written an article about how good those kinds of cards are, but the reality is that it's abundantly clear to everyone why that is. They're well above the curve and it doesn't take a genius to appreciate it. The best thing that I can say is that "these cards are good" but that "you'll never play them because they'll all be $5-10.00." I suppose the Troll is a decent enabler in Madness and Graveyard decks, but really, no one is dropping $40.00 on a playset of these for their casual Golgari deck. The Smiter is a 4/4 for 3. Good, but like, there's not much to expand on. It's probably never getting countered or discarded anyways and it's not like you can do anything special with it. If you own them you'll play them but their competitive appeal will drive it's price higher than what most people are willing to pay for a glorified Leatherback Baloth.

Quote from Indalecio

However, the feeling of playing a creatureless deck is just soooo good sometimes... You can play your Innocent Bloods and Damnations as you please etc... Creatures slow you down to some extent. Your warm bodies often sit there waiting for 6+ players to play before you can use them, bar ETB effects. Also, not fielding any creature means most removal by your opponents are dead cards against you.

No disagreements here. Still, I'm finding it much harder to get away with it nowadays.

Quote from Indalecio

Concerning lands, you should probably make a mention of how many mana lands you are fielding. Because playing 24 basic lands is not quite the same thing as playing 20 mana lands and 4 spell lands (obviously depending on the type of spell land you are playing). What is your view about ETBT lands? Do they justify the inclusion of even more lands? I have my own view regarding this but it´d be interesting to get hold of yours =)

EDIT: ok I´m not sure whether I missed the "mana source" part of your article or if you edited it but it's clear now that you mean 24 mana sources minimum. I am guessing you are adding spell lands on top of that, unless you consider things like Mishra's Factory and the likes to be mana lands too (which wouldn't be too much of a wrong claim).

I don't play much in the way of "pure" spell lands, such as Maze of Ith, primarily because I don't own most of them. Library of Alexandria, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Dimond Valley are more are all extremely powerful, but I don't expect an average player to have them lol. I do own Maze, but eh, it's just not very good in MP if people are smart. The key is to just attack in to it. "Ok, you untapped my attacker, so now you're defenseless and I still have a blocker." It's just not nearly as good as it needs to be.

With respect to hybrid lands, I think that most decks can and should support some number of them. What it boils down to, for me, is how many colors your deck is. The more color intensive your list, the less you can get away with a greedy mana base. I'm a big fan of 1-2 color decks for that reason alone. Granted, I don't own true duals or shocks, so that could easily be influencing that decision. Anyways, I typically cap myself at 8 ETBT lands, but that usually means that my list has 26-28 lands in it to begin with. For example, I see very little reason not to run Raging Ravine, Kessig Wolf Run and Yavimaya Hollow in my GR ramp decks. They're better than most creatures and/or spells, and I want to rip my way into 6+ lands anyways, so why the Hell not? My deck isn't light on threats even if I am playing 27 lands, and I really love what they can do for your long-term gameplan.

As long as the card has legitimate value as a spell, I don't see it as a "Time Walk." You won't always be able to curve out perfectly, but you are "virtually" casting a spell on the turn that you stumble. I still don't like playing more than 8, since you're kinda asking for trouble if you do, but I mean I've played decks with pure spell mana bases and it's never gone that poorly. It was something like Dark Depths, Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Mishra's Factory, Bojuka Bog, Leechridden Swamp, Spawning Pool, Urza's Factory and maybe a Boseiju, Who Shelters All. Sure, I was always "behind" 1 turn, but it was kind of fun drawing nothing but gas (to some extent) all game long.

Winning multiplayer games is extremely difficult and requires a good bit of luck, but luck is little more than a combination of preparation and opportunity. When you prepare a deck that can be consistent, powerful, and relevant at every stage of the game, you can create your own luck. That often means playing more lands than what you would like to, to ensure that you never get those terrible draws that do nothing and lose, but drawing lands doesn't have to be a "bad" thing.

Quote from Indalecio

The problem I see however is that although having these kinds of cards in your deck may improve your odds at taking the game, you will always find cards that are just more swiss-knife, resilient, versatile, impactful, controllable, less random etc. As a deck builder, unless I want to try a specific card in a predefined build, I find hard to actually leave a spot for these "wild shots" because I´m always tight. Going normally from 80+ cards down to 60 doesn't leave much space for that. At the end of the day, focus is the factor number one in my mind. Freeing up one slot for a singleton is obviously possible in any deck, but wouldn't you reserve this for an Oblivion Stone or a Mind's Eye instead.

So yes, I also recommend the use of these cards to my playgroup, but I often see myself not using them much.

I agree with everything that you've said and so for simplicity's sake I'll just cut to the chase. I'm right there with you on the "I probably won't play them much myself" boat. I, too, strive for consistency in my decks. Still, I don't think what I was saying really pertains to people like us. I'm not winning 12.5% of our games. There was a time when it was closer to 100%, but that's dropped quite a bit over the past 7 years or so. Anyways, the point is that we are people who win more than our fair share of our games because we have the skill and know-how to do it. We don't need luck.

Again, my article was mostly theoretical in the sense that it's mostly directed towards the people on the losing end of the deal (who, ironically, will probably never read articles like this). If your budget is limited, your card pool sucks (relatively speaking of course), your magic skills are lacking, etc. does it not make sense for you to remove skill from the game and rely on luck? Even if Blood Tithe is reliable, isn't a free one that becomes a 6/6 flier later on much stronger when it works? I know that you're not disagreeing with me or anything, the point is that sometimes I think it's easy to forget what it's like to be a newer player. Flipping 3 heads with a Fiery Gambit a few times would be a great way for a complete newb to randomly stomp a group of pros, and that might represent a much higher change to win than what they normally would have.