did any of you play against cascade?
it seems to me that we have almost no weapon against that deck... if we can mind sludge them, they just draw a spell with cascade and they are back online. Also with board control we kill 1 creature a turn and they can play 2...
or am I just seeing wrong? (I still have to play against cascade)
on Haunting Echoes: I played some games against mill and it seems that the only way I had to win was putting an archive trap (either by discard or by luring them by searching the library) into the graveyard and then playing Haunting Echoes... and still this play is not autowin... we also need to handle Jace and with our low creature count it seems difficult
I played a bit against mill and it seems to me that the game is almost impossible to win... you really need to resolve haunting echoes with archive trap in their graveyard and this is still not necessarily enough... especially when they are able to twincast it...
@powurz: I really think the problem with black knight is that we do not have enough space to run it maindeck... but I guess the presence of soldiers will decide if it should be played MD or SB...
but isn't 4 too much to reliably do a 2-for-1? if you play with 8 fetches, 1 gargoyle castle and not many creatures (6-10) it seems to me that early in the game they are simply dead cards that you do not want...
I guess it's still ok to just bring back a gatekeeper...
what I'm questioning is just the numbers you need to play 4 of them...
@guys playing Grim Discovery: is it really that strong? At the moment I found place to play 2 of them and I'm not sure if I want 4 in a deck that plays 4 Verdant Catacombs and 1 Gargoyle Castle as lands that get in the graveyard...
I'm also evaluating running 1 forest with the 4 fetches so that in SB I can run Maelstrom Pulse (especially for soldiers)
I know it sounds bad, and seems distastful, but has anyone thought to test crypt ripper as a finisher. It does a solid shade impression.
I'm not sure it's a solid win condition... it's a magnet for all the removals that the opponent had and could not play (especially if we only play gatekeeper and bloodwitch...)
also it costs 4 and it somehow negate the advantage of playing a shade with haste: even if you have 10 swamps in play it can "only" attack for 8, and this only if you tap out
even if they have no cards in hand they can still topdeck any removal and easily handle it
I think the best creature we have as finisher is the bloodwitch
regarding bloodghast: the real problem is that it can't block and thus against aggro is almost basically a dead card...
this deck has REAL problems as is game 1 because of lack of reach vs creatureless decks.
what about trying to run Liliana then? she helps against control (tutor and discard) and also gives gives another purpose to all these cycling guys in your graveyard...
8 fetches? Why? this isnt some kind of legacy sui black or goblins or anything else. If you dont play W or G splash I would remove them for normal swamps. But if you want to play fetches why you dont play 1 forest and maelstrom pulse?
judging by the land count they are probably there to fully exploit grim discovery more than deck thinning
is the bloodchief ascension really worth it? it seems to me that there are not enough cards to get it online reliably and when it does I often feel that the opponent is already losing because we have almost total control of the game...
did someone try Rebuff the Wicked? since the main use for a counter in this deck is to protect combo pieces and every one of them is permanent...
I'm also trying a couple of other 1-of like Gaddok Teeg (thanks to Murmuring Bosk)
if I attack with Kithkin Mourncaller and it gets killed in combat, can I draw a card?
I though it didn't trigger since it's not in play when it hits the graveyard but looking at scg.com, it seems that its ability triggers and thus that I can draw a card...
Quote from StarCityGames.com »
Q: If Kithkin Mourncaller attacks and dies during combat, do you draw a card for the Mourncaller?
A: Yes, Kithkin Mournacaller's ability will trigger when it is an attacking Elf that goes to the your graveyard.
my point with all this discussion is that even the Church does "evil" actions
in Europe during WWII the Allies and the Church didn't really do too much to stop Nazi's genocide not even by words of condemn until the end of 1942 and that is almost 10 years after the start of all of it (and it was only a condemn coming from the Allies)
I can't believe what you are saying. I remark that disliking abortions does not make one a bigot, and you respond by rattling on about the injustices of humanity. Completely tangential, and besides, it assumes that people who are anti-Roe v. Wade are not only hypocrites, but cannot be vegans, pacifists, donating or helping charities, or speaking out against despots.
what I'm saying is that if you use "pro-life" as a motivation against abortion then you have to be coherent and help people not to die of hunger, avoid eating animals, act as a pacifist and oppose acts that go against this principle
if I understood the Roe v. Wade thing, the it's the opposite of what you say, because it permits abortions up to a certain limit
I'm all for gay rights, and I respect the gays that I know as equals, so I know how frustrating it can be when people get in such an uproar over homosexuality, but you are not seriously trying to say that, because many religious people are not as tolerant, that they are brainwashed by some evil man in the pulpit, and the Mao, Stalin, Hitler-esque Church?
I'm not saying all religious people are that way, I'm just saying that many such acts are done under the banner of the Bible
this is also why I make distinction between the Church and the religion itself
Regarless, the Church has reformed A LOT in the past 800 or so years.
I used the crusades to show that as the leading power in the "world" changes, so does the vision of the facts happened and thus in the future we will see what we do now as a monstruosity and not as a fight for freedom and democracy as they try to picture it
and this in turn was an argomentation to show that the definitions of "good" and "bad" is not objective, it always depends on the context
what I wanted to say with my answer is that "Jack is objectively doing bad, though subjectively, he thinks he's doing good." is not sufficient for one to be acting in good faith, for the right cause
maybe what jack would need is just to ask a couple of questions before ending in that situation
many people tend to stay ignorant and use that as an excuse for their actions
sorry for not beeing clear, I hope now is more understandable
1. Since when has the church been "going against" other religions recently? I'm pretty sure that Pope Benedict did a huge meeting with Muslim religious leaders last year.
you don't notice it in "large" scale because nowadays image is everything
but there are many people that don't respect other beliefs
just around a month ago, in switzerland, there was such an episode (even if not violent)
a local man of the church wanted to visit a kids at a school during school time. Some people asked to do this after school because not everyone is of christian belief. But in the end the visit happened anyway...
this may be a small episode but it still shows that not everyone is openminded
"huge meeting" means nothing... it's the people that have to learn other's religions and culture
2. Being pro-life does not make a person intolerant. To think so is to improperly frame the issue.
pro-life? yeah... and then we kill people in the name of a nation or religion, we eat animals treated with no dignity,we let people die of hunger and we support dictatorships and oppression around the world
3.Being against "homosexual acts" does not make one a brazen violator of human rights, especially when is not even in a position to infringe on gay rights.
it is when you don't want to give them the rights to live together as a "normal" couple would and you don't treat them as equal in a respectful manner
a while ago they did a advertisment campaign where they depicted a gay couple that was going to kiss
many people (especially religious) moved against it because they were saying that it's an immoral thing, that kids and boys would get the wrong message and all those things
this to me doesn't look "tolerant" and respectful
but this is a problem of our society, a society where "bad" people are usually leading us, where intolerance and fear prevail
EDIT: Furor's article doesn't say that atrocities were not committed... it only says that they were not as big as they say about some and tries to justify some other
this still doesn't mean the Church wasn't doing it's own "business"
and also the fact that the Church was the most powerful organization in Europe at the time and did nothing to prevent monstruosities from beeing committed, even knowing they were happening means probably that they weren't against it...
it seems to me that we have almost no weapon against that deck... if we can mind sludge them, they just draw a spell with cascade and they are back online. Also with board control we kill 1 creature a turn and they can play 2...
or am I just seeing wrong? (I still have to play against cascade)
on Haunting Echoes: I played some games against mill and it seems that the only way I had to win was putting an archive trap (either by discard or by luring them by searching the library) into the graveyard and then playing Haunting Echoes... and still this play is not autowin... we also need to handle Jace and with our low creature count it seems difficult
@powurz: I really think the problem with black knight is that we do not have enough space to run it maindeck... but I guess the presence of soldiers will decide if it should be played MD or SB...
I guess it's still ok to just bring back a gatekeeper...
what I'm questioning is just the numbers you need to play 4 of them...
I'm also evaluating running 1 forest with the 4 fetches so that in SB I can run Maelstrom Pulse (especially for soldiers)
I'm not sure it's a solid win condition... it's a magnet for all the removals that the opponent had and could not play (especially if we only play gatekeeper and bloodwitch...)
also it costs 4 and it somehow negate the advantage of playing a shade with haste: even if you have 10 swamps in play it can "only" attack for 8, and this only if you tap out
even if they have no cards in hand they can still topdeck any removal and easily handle it
I think the best creature we have as finisher is the bloodwitch
regarding bloodghast: the real problem is that it can't block and thus against aggro is almost basically a dead card...
what about trying to run Liliana then? she helps against control (tutor and discard) and also gives gives another purpose to all these cycling guys in your graveyard...
judging by the land count they are probably there to fully exploit grim discovery more than deck thinning
- soul reap
- beckon apparition
why would you play red for?
I'm also trying a couple of other 1-of like Gaddok Teeg (thanks to Murmuring Bosk)
as in:
Skirk Drill Sergeant
Rotlung Reanimator
Dross Scorpion
Vengeful Dead
or similar effects as in:
Unblinking Bleb
Stormfront Riders
Noxious Ghoul
Goblin Assassin
or is the only difference then that if Kithkin Mourncaller stops beeing a Kithkin (because of Nameless Inversion for example) you don't get the card?
I though it didn't trigger since it's not in play when it hits the graveyard but looking at scg.com, it seems that its ability triggers and thus that I can draw a card...
in Europe during WWII the Allies and the Church didn't really do too much to stop Nazi's genocide not even by words of condemn until the end of 1942 and that is almost 10 years after the start of all of it (and it was only a condemn coming from the Allies)
what I'm saying is that if you use "pro-life" as a motivation against abortion then you have to be coherent and help people not to die of hunger, avoid eating animals, act as a pacifist and oppose acts that go against this principle
if I understood the Roe v. Wade thing, the it's the opposite of what you say, because it permits abortions up to a certain limit
I'm not saying all religious people are that way, I'm just saying that many such acts are done under the banner of the Bible
this is also why I make distinction between the Church and the religion itself
I used the crusades to show that as the leading power in the "world" changes, so does the vision of the facts happened and thus in the future we will see what we do now as a monstruosity and not as a fight for freedom and democracy as they try to picture it
and this in turn was an argomentation to show that the definitions of "good" and "bad" is not objective, it always depends on the context
maybe what jack would need is just to ask a couple of questions before ending in that situation
many people tend to stay ignorant and use that as an excuse for their actions
sorry for not beeing clear, I hope now is more understandable
you don't notice it in "large" scale because nowadays image is everything
but there are many people that don't respect other beliefs
just around a month ago, in switzerland, there was such an episode (even if not violent)
a local man of the church wanted to visit a kids at a school during school time. Some people asked to do this after school because not everyone is of christian belief. But in the end the visit happened anyway...
this may be a small episode but it still shows that not everyone is openminded
"huge meeting" means nothing... it's the people that have to learn other's religions and culture
pro-life? yeah... and then we kill people in the name of a nation or religion, we eat animals treated with no dignity,we let people die of hunger and we support dictatorships and oppression around the world
it is when you don't want to give them the rights to live together as a "normal" couple would and you don't treat them as equal in a respectful manner
a while ago they did a advertisment campaign where they depicted a gay couple that was going to kiss
many people (especially religious) moved against it because they were saying that it's an immoral thing, that kids and boys would get the wrong message and all those things
this to me doesn't look "tolerant" and respectful
but this is a problem of our society, a society where "bad" people are usually leading us, where intolerance and fear prevail
EDIT: Furor's article doesn't say that atrocities were not committed... it only says that they were not as big as they say about some and tries to justify some other
this still doesn't mean the Church wasn't doing it's own "business"
and also the fact that the Church was the most powerful organization in Europe at the time and did nothing to prevent monstruosities from beeing committed, even knowing they were happening means probably that they weren't against it...