At first glance I would say this is not good behavior. I had a kid that would circle the table "just watching" the game and then he'd announce that "I had (Card 1)" in my hand. To which I would call him out on it, for even though it is not cheating since he was not playing, he was influencing the game. He would then peek at the other player's hand and announce a card from over there all the while with me going "no, no, no, you are missing the point."
The point is that even an outsider should not influence the game. I care not whether it is in my favor. Yes, I do differentiate between "influencing" and "coaching". Coaching is acceptable.
Now as for your son: his heart MIGHT have been in the right place. This is only truly forgivable IF:
He knew the general contents of the other players' decks.
He shared this general information with his father.
The other players knew the general contents of each other's decks as well as the general contents of your son's.
This wasn't a brand new deck your husband had made and playtested against your son and/or you with your son as a witness.
Your son knew about the combo prior to interacting with your husband's deck via an earlier game he played, something online, essentially something that had nothing to do with the inception of your husband's deck nor your husband playing his deck. This includes conversation about building said deck or how it ran between your husband and anyone else other than JUST your son.
If ALL of these are true, I am of the opinion that your son did absolutely nothing wrong. If he broke one of them, it isn't like he broke a cardinal sin, because I assume in his eyes, he was trying to level the playing field (okay, he could have possibly seen the combo coming [from an accidently revealed card perhaps?]and just wanted to save his own butt and didn't have an answer at the time [which would be worse]; but let's assume he had the best intentions).
The main unspoken rule here is that it is only sporting to share information about the deck you are piloting during the game. If someone is attempting to choose a deck by borrowing from someone, it is acceptable to weigh in at this point, especially if you own the deck (though other's who have borrowed/experienced the deck may also way in, as long as they aren't ****s about it). Talking about people's decks post game or nowhere near game time is also acceptable.
Yeah, I would say this sums up the dilemma. It just depends on the situation of how your son got that information and how/when he revealed.
There's no actual rule, and as pointed out, this is no different than possibly bluffing or a previous opponent having known the combo from a different game. There's no guarantee that anyone would have believed your son.
While I could see why someone may get upset, it does make sense why your son would reveal it. He's the only one of the group who knew about it and I'll assume that combo would've won the game. He's trying not to lose.
However, I will say that it is a little...bad that your son helped his father build a deck and then started spilling the deck's secrets. It's not so much an issue of rules as it is trust. Your husband might not trust him to help out with another deck. So, really, your son needs to think about was it worth it to possibly alienate his dad for the better chance of winning the game.
My skeleton is very basic. Commander slot, 36 lands and the rest takes care of itself.
As you said, different deck types demand different things. As such, I don't set an exact number on any one type of card. When I make a deck and fill out my 62 card slots, I do research. I look for cards that would/could go with the deck and a start to form a selection on which I would deem 'must have' and those that I like. Once the deck is assembled, I play it and test it out over a period of time, usually a few weeks. If I've deemed the deck worth keeping, I begin to modify it based on my experiences. I take out the cards I found myself never using and replace them with cards I believe will be more useful. As I do that, I also begin to collect more cards for the deck so that I may continue to modify it over time.
As such, the number of cards I have for a specific type or function change, sometimes drastically. As such, I don't believe in really pinning down the number of cards I think I'll need. I just let my deck evolve organically through play and whatnot.
I find there are two types of etiquette: Internal and external.
Internal: Build a variety of decks. Do not let yourself get caught up in a particular power level. This will limit you in the long run. Find decks that you'll like to play that go up and down the scale. You're around more competitive people, bust out the more spikey decks. Around more casual? Bust out the slightly tweaked or unaltered precon. When you have a variety of options that you like or at least don't mind to choose from, adapting to the situations you find yourself in is so much easier and won't make you feel like you're giving up something just to play a game or two.
External: Always communicate. Always ask questions. See what kind of players you're dealing with. Once everyone is on the same page, things will go a lot smoothly. Or will allow you to make the judgement call if you think it's worth it to play at a certain table or with a particular group.
We have to be mindful of both our and other's fun. I find that if you don't do both of these things, you'll encounter some rough times. We, as individual players, have a right to have fun but we've got to open ourselves up to the possibilities out there to have as much fun as we can. But we also owe others a chance to have fun as well. We have to check if we can reach a compromise with others. We don't want to ruin the experience for others if we can help it. We also have to acknowledge that we may not be able to reach common ground with others all the time and may have to walk away. Sad, but true.
Why is making the move that wins the game toxic? Because you don't like the method?
Yes, that is exactly what it comes down to.
Honestly, your entire complaint boils down to the fact that your opponent did not win in a way you like, so therefore it must be toxic.
You act as if you uncovered some deeply hidden truth. But yeah, that is exactly what it comes down to: We do not like it. We do not want to play against that.
Sorry, if some of us don't see it like you do.
That is perfectly fine.
But that's no reason for you, or at least your side, to talk so condescending and insulting towards people that DO find it a toxic move.
Oh, so you get to call something a certain way and that's fine but when someone calls you on it, it's not?
You call it toxic but did you sit down and talk to this player before you all played? Did you let your feelings be known beforehand? Did they act like a jerk? Did they rub they're victory in your face?
There's no such thing as a toxic play. Just toxic behavior.
And it's about playing the game.
Which is why "stealing the win" is lame and toxic behaviour.
It shows your opponents that you don't care about having a good time, it shows that for you it's only about winning.
You might have a hard time believing it, but for some people that is exactly the reason why they hate combo.
And isn't that what this thread is all about: Talking about infinite combo's and the reason for liking or disliking them?
Your response, while just 5 words long, is quite destructive to the entire thread.
You cannot ask people if they like infinite combo, then respond with "It's a game, dude. Relax!" when they calmly explain why they hate it.
Do you want a discussion or not?
Why? Why is it a "steal"? Because you had lead in life points while mono-B while almost dead? I didn't know that the circumstances entitled you to a win.
Why is making the move that wins the game toxic? Because you don't like the method? Because the other player should have died instead of pulling off that combo? Why was the Magus allowed to stay on the field? Yeah, cuz the guy who produces more mana based on your # of swamps for in a mono-B deck? That could not possibly go wrong, right?
Honestly, your entire complaint boils down to the fact that your opponent did not win in a way you like, so therefore it must be toxic.
Also, funny how you complain about people only caring about winning when all you've done is try to downplay yourself losing that game, speak on the evils of combo and act like the other player is a bad person/player for winning with a combo.
You should feel sorry for yourself.
OG even specifically acknowledged his opponent won the match.
If you're cool with your opponents ignoring everything you've done all game long and just saying "I win, because i drew a tutor" that's fine. But calling other people childish and toxic for having another opinion is actually much more toxic.
The acknowledgement is worth ***** when in his words he "stole" the game and wasn't "better" than him and ipso facto didn't "beat" him.
Literally in the example given it's completely ignored that there's been a magus of the coffer sticking to the board. The topdeck wasn't the reason he won but because the magus didn't meet opposition and he lived long enough to have enough swamps to go off. All with a deck completely hamstrung by being mono coloured.
Nothing wrong with calling out a *****ty attitude
I've got to agree. The fact that there has to be a distinction of between being "beaten" vs a player who simply "won the match", rubs me wrong. It sounds like an excuse, almost, if I'm being honest.
A win is a win. A loss is a loss. Whether it happens by inches or miles. The fact is that Magus of the Coffers was allowed to sit on the field was the error. That error became a mistake when the mono-B assembled their combo and went off. It could have been stopped but it wasn't.
I don't try to downplay a threat, I try to keep my opponents aware of the entire board. Basically, I try to let their imaginations run away with them. My responses tend to go like:
"Yeah, I'm doing this. I just played <insert card here> but what about so-and-so and what they just played? Or them over there with that enchantment?"
Basically, I bank on the fact that my opponents are too intelligent to simply be lead by the nose into going after something else. Instead, I try to make them see threats everywhere. I let the information of the game overwhelm them a little and make them second guess or think. Thus their reactions can go one of three ways:
1. They go through and destroy/exile/get rid of my card. (However, I already thought they might do that, so I put that card down as feint so they won't be ready for my next plan)
2. They destroy someone else's threat. (Which still benefits me as I don't have to waste resources doing it myself and I get to keep a resource).
3. Finally, not knowing what to do with so many potential threats on the board, they do nothing and wait. (That gives me more time to think and changes the state of the game. It incriminates the person who's looking to get rid of something, so everyone else starts looking at them. It also makes everyone else aware of others' board states, thus forcing them to reconsider some things)
MtG is a complex game. There's no need to exaggerate or downplay things. The game will speak for itself and from there, the opponent will have to make a decision. Just be ready for whatever decision they make.
Combo is not bad, whatsoever. Like every other strategy, it has it's weaknesses.
1. Namely, that once people know how the combos work they become very easy to target and stop. The combo deck running a combo that the playgroup has never seen before is much more dangerous than the deck running a combo that is known in the meta. Thus, the effective time for a combo is the first time it's ever used in the meta.
2. Disruption/Removal is must. Personally, I believe that you should always run some in a deck based on the fact that your opponents can always have something to mess with your own plans. Playing an aggro token strategy? Well something like Urabrask or Authority of the Consuls would ruin your day until you get rid of them. There's also the fact that the deck that plays no disruption/removal is a sitting duck to the combo deck and just feeding into the combo strategy.
Animar, Soul of Elements: Has combos but also functions like tool-kit giving me multiple ways to win/gain advantage. Built for power, speed and flexibility.
Edgar Markov: Tribal focused. Built for aggro, token and fast style of play. Also includes cards for resiliency/redundancy if the game drags.
Gishath, Sun's Avatar: Tribal focused, again. Will be building for mana ramp, deck manipulation and hard hitting. Will include disruptive elements to help leverage advantage.
I've found tribal to be quite fun and have differing strategies. So while each is focused on tribal matters, they'll play differently and I won't get bored with them.
Okay, so we've got two new tribes alongside Vampires and Merfolk. As they're really new to the scene, we don't have a lot of them and we really only have 1 true commander for each tribe. But which of them got the better deal? We'll break them into two categories: Commander and Tribe.
So basically, vote and then speak of your reasoning of what you think of the commanders, their tribes and who you consider to be the best.
For me it goes like this.
The Commanders:
Gishath, Sun's Avatar: Gishath is a very direct and simple commander but he's perfectly equipped for that and his ability is pretty powerful. He a big dino who wants to smash in for tons of damage while getting more dinos out on the field. He's a 7/6 with Trample, Haste and Vigilance. He's in Naya colors, so he's got the resources to ramp up and is the right colors for such a creature focused strategy. He's very simple to get going on paper and everything you would put into a deck with him is just going to make him more and more dangerous. Not only does he get more dinos, he can easily rack up commander damage. Overall, I'd say he's a perfect fit to lead the dino tribe while also giving you a backup plan that doesn't really deviate from the main plan.
vs.
Admiral Beckett Brass: Brass has an interesting and flavorful ability while serving as a buffer of his tribe. Not bad. However, his ability is demanding in terms of conditions to be met. Simply put, three creatures connecting with one player every turn is not an ability that can be consistently done easily. You'll have to include cards to make that viable. Not too mention, the ability targets, so anything hexproof is safe. Then there's the fact that Brass's ability is only ever going to be as good as what's on the field.
Verdict: If it isn't obvious, I'll just say it: I think Gishath is the better commander for his tribe. He's just far easier to pull off and get good results. Also, even if you didn't get that much off his ability, you can still exploit the big dino to do tons of damage easily. He's a 7/6 with access to cards to give multiple combats steps and literally double his damage output. Brass's ability is unique and I can see the potential in it. But he's not as streamlined or as power as Gishath, sadly. Becket has access to some nice colors to help him out with a variety of things but they feel like they're picking up slack for him rather than adding on to his strategy, if you get what I mean.
Now that's looking at the Commanders as standalone leaders so let's think a little about their tribes:
Tribes
Dinosaurs: Overall, the dinos are big and bad. But they cost a lot of mana. However, Naya colors helps to ease that along with the other support cards that are in Ixalan. That's added on top of the common tribal support already available. The major problem is the the dinos don't have a lot of worthwhile creatures to add nor do they do a lot things. Their a straight forward tribe to whose trying to out muscle their opponents. They have a narrower focus with not a lot to throw at it.
Pirates: The pirates are a myriad of various effects but they follow similar lines. They want to be attacking and reward you for doing so. They use a lot of ETB effects which you can abuse for more advantages. They lack the sheer power of dinosaurs but are very versatile and are in colors to exploit their abilities. I mean, they ramp up mana, steal permanents, can bounce other permanents, etc. Not too mention that there is a good number more of them than dinosaurs.
Verdict: Pirates. They just seem to have more going for them overall at the moment and Rivals is just going to add more to that in their case. For the dinos, we might get more stuff but that will be making up for all the vanilla dinosaurs we got the first time around.
Overview: The dinos got the better general but are worse off in terms of everything else due to their limited pool of worthy creatures to help expand on their focus. Pirates don't have as clear cut focus and their general is not as powerful but he's still serviceable as he supports his tribe and still follows their mechanics while the rest of the tribe pick up for his slack.
Shapers' Sanctuary: More cards if someone starts targets our dinos or their support.
Iroas, God of Victory: Where Xenagod makes a dino bigger and gives it haste, Iroas will make all of the dinos harder to block and they don't take damage when attack. For 4 mana, that ain't bad.
When I first saw the card spoiled, I was pretty happy to see her and was immediatly thinking of making a deck with her. I've always been a fan of the Orzhov combination, but I felt other commanders like Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim, Athreos, God of Passage, Teysa, Orzhov Scion, and Daxos the Returned and especially Karlov of the Ghost Council are too specialized. Each of them has a deck, but that deck is very geared to doing things one way and one way only so as to make the commander work. Vona is much more generalist, which is good because she can be at the helm of any kind of deck; the draw back is she doesn't exactly tell you the best way to build her either.
This is a pretty good and fair assessment. One that I think really sums Vona up.
It also highlights, why I don't see her as a commander on her own. At least, for me. Because Vona is not nailed down to a particular stratagem, I feel like it would take too much experimentation for me to get her right. By that, I mean that I don't know what it would take for me to enjoy a deck built her. To get the deck just right so that it functions, it works and I enjoy how it plays. A commander with a clear strategy or at least, a clear leaning, always helps me to figure out the deck: it's limits, what I like to run, what I don't like to run, etc. It also provides more of a safety net. If I were to take the deck in a particular direction and it doesn't really work out, a commander with clear strategies/leanings always has those to fall back on and help realign the deck.
Vona to me, just seems better a lieutenant, not a commander but that's just me.
Yeah, I would say this sums up the dilemma. It just depends on the situation of how your son got that information and how/when he revealed.
While I could see why someone may get upset, it does make sense why your son would reveal it. He's the only one of the group who knew about it and I'll assume that combo would've won the game. He's trying not to lose.
However, I will say that it is a little...bad that your son helped his father build a deck and then started spilling the deck's secrets. It's not so much an issue of rules as it is trust. Your husband might not trust him to help out with another deck. So, really, your son needs to think about was it worth it to possibly alienate his dad for the better chance of winning the game.
As you said, different deck types demand different things. As such, I don't set an exact number on any one type of card. When I make a deck and fill out my 62 card slots, I do research. I look for cards that would/could go with the deck and a start to form a selection on which I would deem 'must have' and those that I like. Once the deck is assembled, I play it and test it out over a period of time, usually a few weeks. If I've deemed the deck worth keeping, I begin to modify it based on my experiences. I take out the cards I found myself never using and replace them with cards I believe will be more useful. As I do that, I also begin to collect more cards for the deck so that I may continue to modify it over time.
As such, the number of cards I have for a specific type or function change, sometimes drastically. As such, I don't believe in really pinning down the number of cards I think I'll need. I just let my deck evolve organically through play and whatnot.
Internal: Build a variety of decks. Do not let yourself get caught up in a particular power level. This will limit you in the long run. Find decks that you'll like to play that go up and down the scale. You're around more competitive people, bust out the more spikey decks. Around more casual? Bust out the slightly tweaked or unaltered precon. When you have a variety of options that you like or at least don't mind to choose from, adapting to the situations you find yourself in is so much easier and won't make you feel like you're giving up something just to play a game or two.
External: Always communicate. Always ask questions. See what kind of players you're dealing with. Once everyone is on the same page, things will go a lot smoothly. Or will allow you to make the judgement call if you think it's worth it to play at a certain table or with a particular group.
We have to be mindful of both our and other's fun. I find that if you don't do both of these things, you'll encounter some rough times. We, as individual players, have a right to have fun but we've got to open ourselves up to the possibilities out there to have as much fun as we can. But we also owe others a chance to have fun as well. We have to check if we can reach a compromise with others. We don't want to ruin the experience for others if we can help it. We also have to acknowledge that we may not be able to reach common ground with others all the time and may have to walk away. Sad, but true.
Oh, so you get to call something a certain way and that's fine but when someone calls you on it, it's not?
You call it toxic but did you sit down and talk to this player before you all played? Did you let your feelings be known beforehand? Did they act like a jerk? Did they rub they're victory in your face?
There's no such thing as a toxic play. Just toxic behavior.
Why? Why is it a "steal"? Because you had lead in life points while mono-B while almost dead? I didn't know that the circumstances entitled you to a win.
Why is making the move that wins the game toxic? Because you don't like the method? Because the other player should have died instead of pulling off that combo? Why was the Magus allowed to stay on the field? Yeah, cuz the guy who produces more mana based on your # of swamps for
Honestly, your entire complaint boils down to the fact that your opponent did not win in a way you like, so therefore it must be toxic.
Also, funny how you complain about people only caring about winning when all you've done is try to downplay yourself losing that game, speak on the evils of combo and act like the other player is a bad person/player for winning with a combo.
Sorry, if some of us don't see it like you do.
I've got to agree. The fact that there has to be a distinction of between being "beaten" vs a player who simply "won the match", rubs me wrong. It sounds like an excuse, almost, if I'm being honest.
A win is a win. A loss is a loss. Whether it happens by inches or miles. The fact is that Magus of the Coffers was allowed to sit on the field was the error. That error became a mistake when the mono-B assembled their combo and went off. It could have been stopped but it wasn't.
"Yeah, I'm doing this. I just played <insert card here> but what about so-and-so and what they just played? Or them over there with that enchantment?"
Basically, I bank on the fact that my opponents are too intelligent to simply be lead by the nose into going after something else. Instead, I try to make them see threats everywhere. I let the information of the game overwhelm them a little and make them second guess or think. Thus their reactions can go one of three ways:
1. They go through and destroy/exile/get rid of my card. (However, I already thought they might do that, so I put that card down as feint so they won't be ready for my next plan)
2. They destroy someone else's threat. (Which still benefits me as I don't have to waste resources doing it myself and I get to keep a resource).
3. Finally, not knowing what to do with so many potential threats on the board, they do nothing and wait. (That gives me more time to think and changes the state of the game. It incriminates the person who's looking to get rid of something, so everyone else starts looking at them. It also makes everyone else aware of others' board states, thus forcing them to reconsider some things)
MtG is a complex game. There's no need to exaggerate or downplay things. The game will speak for itself and from there, the opponent will have to make a decision. Just be ready for whatever decision they make.
1. Namely, that once people know how the combos work they become very easy to target and stop. The combo deck running a combo that the playgroup has never seen before is much more dangerous than the deck running a combo that is known in the meta. Thus, the effective time for a combo is the first time it's ever used in the meta.
2. Disruption/Removal is must. Personally, I believe that you should always run some in a deck based on the fact that your opponents can always have something to mess with your own plans. Playing an aggro token strategy? Well something like Urabrask or Authority of the Consuls would ruin your day until you get rid of them. There's also the fact that the deck that plays no disruption/removal is a sitting duck to the combo deck and just feeding into the combo strategy.
The fact is combo is a linear strategy that can become very predictable once you know how it functions. Deadeye Navigator in an Animar, Soul of Elements deck? Get rid of it. Disciple of the Vault with a Sharuum the Hegemon? It's gotta go! The examples go on and on...
Animar, Soul of Elements: Has combos but also functions like tool-kit giving me multiple ways to win/gain advantage. Built for power, speed and flexibility.
Edgar Markov: Tribal focused. Built for aggro, token and fast style of play. Also includes cards for resiliency/redundancy if the game drags.
Gishath, Sun's Avatar: Tribal focused, again. Will be building for mana ramp, deck manipulation and hard hitting. Will include disruptive elements to help leverage advantage.
Inalla, Archmage Ritualist: Tribal focused. Building for combo, card advantage and speed.
I've found tribal to be quite fun and have differing strategies. So while each is focused on tribal matters, they'll play differently and I won't get bored with them.
So basically, vote and then speak of your reasoning of what you think of the commanders, their tribes and who you consider to be the best.
For me it goes like this.
The Commanders:
Gishath, Sun's Avatar: Gishath is a very direct and simple commander but he's perfectly equipped for that and his ability is pretty powerful. He a big dino who wants to smash in for tons of damage while getting more dinos out on the field. He's a 7/6 with Trample, Haste and Vigilance. He's in Naya colors, so he's got the resources to ramp up and is the right colors for such a creature focused strategy. He's very simple to get going on paper and everything you would put into a deck with him is just going to make him more and more dangerous. Not only does he get more dinos, he can easily rack up commander damage. Overall, I'd say he's a perfect fit to lead the dino tribe while also giving you a backup plan that doesn't really deviate from the main plan.
vs.
Admiral Beckett Brass: Brass has an interesting and flavorful ability while serving as a buffer of his tribe. Not bad. However, his ability is demanding in terms of conditions to be met. Simply put, three creatures connecting with one player every turn is not an ability that can be consistently done easily. You'll have to include cards to make that viable. Not too mention, the ability targets, so anything hexproof is safe. Then there's the fact that Brass's ability is only ever going to be as good as what's on the field.
Verdict: If it isn't obvious, I'll just say it: I think Gishath is the better commander for his tribe. He's just far easier to pull off and get good results. Also, even if you didn't get that much off his ability, you can still exploit the big dino to do tons of damage easily. He's a 7/6 with access to cards to give multiple combats steps and literally double his damage output. Brass's ability is unique and I can see the potential in it. But he's not as streamlined or as power as Gishath, sadly. Becket has access to some nice colors to help him out with a variety of things but they feel like they're picking up slack for him rather than adding on to his strategy, if you get what I mean.
Now that's looking at the Commanders as standalone leaders so let's think a little about their tribes:
Tribes
Dinosaurs: Overall, the dinos are big and bad. But they cost a lot of mana. However, Naya colors helps to ease that along with the other support cards that are in Ixalan. That's added on top of the common tribal support already available. The major problem is the the dinos don't have a lot of worthwhile creatures to add nor do they do a lot things. Their a straight forward tribe to whose trying to out muscle their opponents. They have a narrower focus with not a lot to throw at it.
Pirates: The pirates are a myriad of various effects but they follow similar lines. They want to be attacking and reward you for doing so. They use a lot of ETB effects which you can abuse for more advantages. They lack the sheer power of dinosaurs but are very versatile and are in colors to exploit their abilities. I mean, they ramp up mana, steal permanents, can bounce other permanents, etc. Not too mention that there is a good number more of them than dinosaurs.
Verdict: Pirates. They just seem to have more going for them overall at the moment and Rivals is just going to add more to that in their case. For the dinos, we might get more stuff but that will be making up for all the vanilla dinosaurs we got the first time around.
Overview: The dinos got the better general but are worse off in terms of everything else due to their limited pool of worthy creatures to help expand on their focus. Pirates don't have as clear cut focus and their general is not as powerful but he's still serviceable as he supports his tribe and still follows their mechanics while the rest of the tribe pick up for his slack.
Here's a link to there full list here.
Shapers' Sanctuary: More cards if someone starts targets our dinos or their support.
Iroas, God of Victory: Where Xenagod makes a dino bigger and gives it haste, Iroas will make all of the dinos harder to block and they don't take damage when attack. For 4 mana, that ain't bad.
Vanquisher's Banner: Card draw and buffs for our dinos.
Tilonalli's Skinshifter: A card who gives us the ability to double up on an effective attacking creature.
This is a pretty good and fair assessment. One that I think really sums Vona up.
It also highlights, why I don't see her as a commander on her own. At least, for me. Because Vona is not nailed down to a particular stratagem, I feel like it would take too much experimentation for me to get her right. By that, I mean that I don't know what it would take for me to enjoy a deck built her. To get the deck just right so that it functions, it works and I enjoy how it plays. A commander with a clear strategy or at least, a clear leaning, always helps me to figure out the deck: it's limits, what I like to run, what I don't like to run, etc. It also provides more of a safety net. If I were to take the deck in a particular direction and it doesn't really work out, a commander with clear strategies/leanings always has those to fall back on and help realign the deck.
Vona to me, just seems better a lieutenant, not a commander but that's just me.
Considering our commander, deck manipulation is going to be a thing:
Sensei's Divining Top
Scroll Rack
Sylvan Library
Worldly Tutor
Sylvan Tutor
Congregation at Dawn
Ramp:
Mirari's Wake
Skyshroud Claim
Farseek
Pillar of Origins
Selvala, Heart of the Wilds
Xenagos, the Reveler
Birds of Paradise
Drover of the Mighty
Kodama's Reach
Cultivate
Growing Rites of Itlimoc/Itlimoc, Cradle of the Sun
Chromatic Lantern
Darksteel Ingot
Cost Reduction/Cheating:
Green Sun's Zenith
Quicksilver Amulet
Elvish Piper
Herald's Horn
Krosan Drover
Kinjalli's Caller
Lurking Predators
Otepec Huntmaster
Command Beacon
Other possible cards:
Asceticism: Gotta protect those dinos.
Warstorm Surge: To take advantage of all the dinos that will be hitting the battlefield.
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight: To really ramp up our damage.
Xenagos, God of Revels: MOAR DAMAGE!
Possible hate cards?? To slow our opponents down as we build ourselves up?