I'm not sure why I stumbled in here to read this some three months after you wrote it, but I certainly hope that your last comment is still the truth. Holding onto love you believe in is noble and just. Holding onto hopeless love is a fool's errand, and it seems that which this is has finally revealed itself to you.
May you find peace again.
-
- Shinjutsei
- Registered User
-
Member for 17 years, 9 months, and 3 days
Last active Fri, May, 2 2014 16:44:29
- 0 Followers
- 7,093 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
And the troll returns.
How many threads will this guy ruin with talk like this?
"a good vamps pilot will always stomp on the UW decl"
Please, PLEASE tell me that you're joking? You're honestly telling me that you believe this to be true? That your deck will "just win" because it's Vampires? Be reasonable. This deck has existed for days only, and you're making the claim that "we can't lose we're Vampires" based on zero data? Nice.
The difference here is that I actually played games, and I'll be damned if Vampires "couldn't lose" to the UW deck. You seem to all have ignored those Jaces in the UW deck, as they're really what makes literally any answer you have pretty useless. Jace keeps your threats off the table, your topdecks in check, and he finds you Iona.
Speaking of Iona, I won probably 20+ of the games with her alone. The one game I lost was the game where I was Tectonic Edged on nine mana when they knew I had just drawn Iona (with Treasure Hunt) and I couldn't survive the following turn in order to cast her. Had they not blown up my land, she would have been gg like she had been 19+ times before.
Here was what I said in my previous post: if you don't make changes to your deck, you're going to get smashed by this UW deck. That hasn't changed. Don't be ignorant and think that "a good vamps player will always beat a UW player," because that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Vampires had a moment in the spotlight because it had a positive match-up with Jace decks, but now that it gets wrecked by Jund and there's a Jace deck that doesn't just fold to it, you're fighting uphill now and if you don't see it now then you will very, very soon.
Metagaming is what I do. It's actually my job, and all I was trying to do was show that you can't go on believing that you're impervious to control strategies. I never said you couldn't beat the UW deck, but rather that it probably is favored against you. I mean, 34-1 vs you is impressive, an surprised even me. I suppose next time, though, I'll skip out on posting that information so as to avoid you all getting so defensive about it.
EDIT:
I actually just read some of the comments a bit closer, and one guy mentioned that the "only win condition" in the deck was Iona and the manlands, which are actually both Plan B. Jace is definitely the main win condition, but it's just far easier to cast an Iona against the mono-colored decks than it is to grind out Jace fateseals.
You've "never had problems" with a deck that has existed for only three days?
Anyway, this is the list I used for testing:
4 Marsh Flats
2 Tectonic Edge
4 Verdant Catacombs
14 Swamp
Creatures
4 Bloodghast
4 Gatekeeper Of Malakir
3 Malakir Bloodwitch
4 Vampire Hexmage
4 Vampire Nighthawk
4 Vampire Nocturnus
4 Tendrils Of Corruption
3 Urge To Feed
2 Mind Sludge
1 Grim Discovery
3 Sign In Blood
3 Quest For The Gravelord
3 Deathmark
1 Mind Rot
4 Duress
2 Marsh Casualties
2 Mind Sludge
My advice: squirm. Your best match-up (control) now smashes you into oblivion. Stop posting the same lists again and again and start making changes, because I promise that if you don't you're going to be bad versus the entire field. And, well....that's a bad thing. I bring these tidings as a means to not make the next thirty pages of this thread utterly useless to anyone who actually wants to win an FNM/5K/any Standard event ever.
Yep, I'm certainly convinced that you're an absolute troll at this point.
Luis Scott-Vargas:
1st – Nationals 2007
1st – GP San Francisco 2007
3rd/4th – GP Philadelphia 2008
1st – Pro Tour Berlin 2008
1st – GP Atlanta 2008
1st – GP Los Angeles 2009
2nd – Pro Tour Kyoto 2009
3rd/4th - Pro Tour San Diego 2010
Level 8, 17 PTs under his belt, 5 GP top 8s and 3 PT top 8s, a 17-1 record at the Pro Tour this weekend (which has never been done before), etc etc
Yes, he's actually just very lucky.
Hardly. The simple fact is, everytime someone says that Magic is all about luck, it's usually because they lose to "topdecks" and "bad draws" alot. In reality, however, those people don't know how to mulligan and also don't know how to put themselves in the best possible situation to enable game-winning topdecks. You see, what you see as a chance to dodge my statement is really just the truth, and I think most people will actually see that if they have any sense of how Magic is really played.
Because, obviously, LSV and company just get lucky everytime. Obviously.
Luck is part of the game, but it does not define performance.
That's because you're incorrect, obviously. Magic may have an element of luck in it, certainly, but the game is absolutely much more about skill and tuning your deck.
So players should only have to excel at one category of the game? Do you really think that that is how things should be? Mastery is not building a good deck for Standard and then being unable to pull out wins in Limited. Mastery is being able to do both, and that's why the Pro Tour is much healthier now than it was before. Limited is too large a part of the game to get only one Pro Tour a year, primarily because it is not just a different style of a format like Standard and Extended to Constructed, but rather an entirely different form of play. Those who take home the title of Pro Tour Champion certainly should need to excel in all categories in order to earn it. Yes, those who played the Jace decks didn't do as well in Limited. Yes, that's a shame in terms of results for the Standard metagame. But really, what does that matter? The Pro Tour is not intended to "set the meta" for the lazy people who go to FNMs who can't decide what deck to play. The Pro Tour is for the people who earned their spot on it, and that is all. That being said, split formatting the Pro Tour is the best move Wizards has made in a long, long while.
Except that never actually happens, which is my point.
I certainly like it better, yes. Mind Rot is still an okay card vs Jund, and I think it's still slightly better than Bloodhusk Ritualist based mostly on the idea that Ritualist is still very slow and at least Mind Rot is going to do the same thing but without slowing you down too much. I wouldn't play either vs Jund, though.
The issue isn't that making them pitch their hand isn't an advantage - the issue is that it isn't a big enough one to win you the game. I mean, honestly, how often is tapping out on turn five to make them discard one or two cards actually going to win you the game? You might as well just Mind Rot them and save some mana to do, like, other things. Your deck still can't beat a Sprouting Thrinax, and by tapping out for Mind Sludge you're not only keeping in a card that doesn't deal with the 3/3 but you're also NOT doing anything about it being in play.
I appreciate that.
Cedric Philips actually convinced me very quickly that Vampire Hexmage should probably stay MD. I'm currently sitting on zero Kalastria Highborns in my 75, though that number may change. Jace is a very real threat, and without Hexmage you're more or less a sitting duck. With more testing I found that I definitely wanted Hexmage more.
If it were me playing? I'd play less Mind Sludge.
Keep in mind that Urge to Feed is a hell of a lot better than Disfigure against Thrinax, and now we can actually run the Marsh Casualties plan vs Jund. I don't really endorse that idea, but it's pretty reasonable. When kicked it can kill most of their threats save Beast tokens and dragons, and that coupled with the usual suspects will often get the job done.
Whoa buddy, take it down a notch. I appreciate you making this personal and everything, but do I really need to explain why Mind Sludge isn't exceptional against Jund? Blightning and Mind Rot are fine in Jund mirrors because they're essentially free spells, but discard vs Jund in general is overall very weak given that Jund has the best topdecks in the format. If you Sludge a Broodmate Dragon, good job. However, if you tap out on turn five and Sludge them, you aren't doing ☺☺☺☺ to the board and you certainly aren't getting much value from your five mana. The myth that Mind Sludge is "stellar" vs Jund is largely why Vampires has such a weak MU with the deck - if people were to stop keeping in 4x Sludge against a deck with bigger, better creatures and a ton more card advantage, maybe they'd be winning more.
It's not that Mind Sludge is balls or anything, but rather the issue is that for every time that it's just the sickness it will be a worthless card, and most likely a trap that will make you tap out on turn five and probably get domed for 7+ more than you should have.
EDIT:
And as an aside, Person I Don't Know, I'd like to point to you that I hardly post here anymore for a reason. Wanna know why? Posts like yours. Every time I make a post somebody has to make it personal about me and that behavior just gets really old after like five minutes. So please, next time you mean to type "could you elaborate," could you do me a favor and just type that? Thanks.
"Good decks play 4-ofs"? For real, dude? I mean, are you honestly insinuating that if a deck isn't all 4-ofs that it's bad? You realize that 5cc played very few actual 4-ofs, right? I mean, certainly no real Grixis list at this point is skipping out on the fourth Bolt (I have no idea where the numbers you posted are coming from), but playing 2-ofs and 3-ofs is how Magic works, especially for control decks. Either you honestly just don't know what you're talking about or you're trolling and we're all out of the loop on this hee-haw-larious joke you've pulled on us here.