The lock works well, but keep in mind that I only have two Unholy Grotto. That, and most people would stop playing me if I used that combo every game. My deck usually doesn't reach the point where it would run out of threats and Beacon of Unrest would matter. I would have either of won, or the Phyrexian Arenas would have killed me by that point.
Rotlung Reanimator is useful in the ways I already mentioned. Plus, the fact that he leaves behind a token means I get two creatures from one card, and something is still left after a wrath. Nonetheless, I will remove him for now and try what you suggested. I'll give Nezumi Graverobber a try and see how it works out.
I'm glad you like how my deck works. It is pretty fun to play. The sac effects scale well in multiplayer, and I usually have a lot of reanimation targets. I often end up making myself the number one target quickly, though.
No, Rotlung Reanimator is not there to sacrifice to Fleshbag Marauder. I want Fleshbag Marauder in my graveyard at all times. Rotlung Reanimator is there as a good defense, especially with Death Baron out. He also used to serve the purpose of being sac fodder when I ran four Barter in Blood, but that's not relevant anymore. I do manage to get multiple of him out more often than you'd think, though, and get two tokens when he dies, instead of one.
My main qualm with the Fleshbag Marauder/Unholy Grotto combo is that it seems a little too good for my meta. Most decks I play against don't stand a chance once I resolve it. I guess I'll leave it for now.
I suppose I could try removing the Rotlung Reanimators and run some Nezumi Graverobbers and perhaps something else. Ink-Eyes, Servant of Oni in particular seems like it would work quite well. This will weaken my defenses a fair bit though. Most of those cards you mentioned take a while to get active. Nezumi Graverobber can flip quickly if I can get him out early. Otherwise, he is almost useless late-game. Though if I do manage to flip him, that instant speed repeatable reanimation is quite nice. I would usually use the auras first since they are far cheaper, but the option to hold back on them while using Nighteyes's ability is very useful.
The lack of the Rotlung Reanimators will weaken Death Baron a bit, but he's still useful with the other tokens and helping Bone Dancer get through. Anything else you think I should remove or add?
Unlike most reanimator decks, this deck is designed to steal creatures from the opponent's graveyards. The multiple sac effects and Black Sun's Zenith help with this. This deck usually doesn't have that much trouble keeping creatures off the board, but usually has a lot of trouble dealing with tokens. The lone Barter in Blood is left over from when I used to run more, and will likely be replaced with another Black Sun's Zenith or something. I might replace Black Sun's Zenith with Damnation, which I own four copies of but switch between multiple decks. The interaction between Fleshbag Marauder and Unholy Grotto has been fairly broken and may be removed.
You're right. I probably misunderstood what Archangel was getting at, and I am still not sure I fully appreciate it. It is a given that in-game retribution is a fact of life in the acceptable political give-and-take of multiplayer, so I can see the similarity there. "Don't attack me or I'll Swords your guy" is not only common, but fundamental.
On the other hand, I think most of us would agree that retribution outside of the game to teach someone a lesson is probably just childish and unacceptable. To me, leveraging political power by making the transition between in-game and RL seems to fall between these two scenarios, so please understand why I am hesitant to accept it.
Like I said, under some circumstances, it could be fine. It just might be fine, period. However, there is a fine line between "aggressive scooping" and outright ragequitting, and it is vital to make sure you don't cross that line.
It is true that retribution outside of the game to teach someone a lesson is childish and unacceptable. Many people believe (and the rules say), however, that scooping is part of the game. I can see how you could consider it something different though. It really comes down to this: is it okay to always have an auto suicide button and to use it like this? It has happened plenty of times before where someone has on-board ways of killing themselves and uses them to prevent triggers in the same way scooping would. Is that okay? If so, then do you think it is necessary for people to run ways to kill themselves at instant speed in order to get the same effect as scooping, and that they shouldn't be allowed to do it for free? Or do you consider both methods more or less the same?
I do agree that there can be a fine line between "aggressive scooping" and rage quitting, though.
Some online games don't record the results of a game if it ends due to connectivity issues. Does that make it okay to just unplug your ethernet cable whenever someone is about to beat you? Maybe some would argue yes, but just screwing people out of any kind of earned reward or satisfaction simply because you do not like losing is difficult to justify as anything other than poor sportsmanship.
Conceding for the benefit of the entire table (like you described) is one thing, and I would not classify it as a douchescoop. As a matter of fact, as long as everyone is cool with it, then I can see it being a useful tactic to add to my repertoire for the fun of all parties invovled. However, if at any point you kill yourself with the sole intention to harm another player, or your concession leaves a bad taste in anyone's mouth, it is not cool IMO.
The spiteful scoop is no better than screwing people over with "Armageddon, peace!" Just so I can better understand your position on the subject, would you be okay with such a play?
The situation he is talking about and the one you are talking about aren't even comparable. If someone is about to kill you, then it is perfectly reasonable to let them get as little benefit out of it as possible. So long as you aren't breaking the rules or trying to wreck the game for everyone, it's fine. Unplugging while in the middle of the game, like you described, is the digital equivalent of upending the table. That is obviously unacceptable, but it is also something entirely different from what Boros Archangel and the rest of the people in this thread are talking about.
I see no problem with messing with the person about to kill you or the person who ruined your chances of winning right before you die. It's just simple consequences. Ruining the board position of someone who had left you alone instead of those who killed you would be douchey, however.
The "spiteful" scoop, as you call it, is far better than "Armageddon, peace!". "You don't get to untap your lands an extra time due to SoFaM" is nothing compared to "I'm going to wreck the board before I leave and ruin the game for everyone".
Unplugging or Geddon'ing and scooping are terrible, but scooping to prevent triggers is a perfectly legitimate move.
Anyways, yeah. Suicide-Tempo Sygg seems like it could be interesting. I'm currently forming a Sygg deck, but it's based around messing with other peoples things and beating them with their own stuff, while having relatively few win-cons of it's own
@Weebo:
Those are all great ideas. Remember though, Thrun can't be countered. The only "counterspell" they would need to worry about is Mindbreak Trap, which isn't played too often anyhow.
@BaconBehemoth:
Those are two of the very few ways to actually make Thrun killable, and both very bad ideas.
Karn, Silver Golem is the lulz if they have Mycosynth Lattice out. In that situation, Karn basically reads 1: Kill target land, even if it's indestructible. Karn is basically a silver bullet (pun intended) against the Mycosynth Lattice/Darksteel Forge combo, especially if you're packing sac effects. You can even go so far as to kill everything but their Lattice, and then kill everyone else's lands and stuff. Even if they don't have lattice out, Karn still makes killing their artifacts WAY easier.
If that is the case, then what about Transguild Courier? It only costs colorless, but its ability says it is all colors, in all zones. Is its color identity all 5 colors? If not, then having Elbrus count as black, scholar count as blue-red, Garruk count as green-black, etc. doesn't make sense.
@Sheldon: That really depends. For decks that rely heavily on the graveyard, that's usually game right there, but the same is true with Nihil Spellbomb, Tormod's crypt, Bojuka Bog, Relic of Progenitus and several other cards. If you play a deck that likes to have 10+ cards in hand at a time, that can also be devastating. Of course, those decks can often refill their hand by the time their next turn comes around through something like Consecrated Sphinx, Recurring Insight, Rhystic Study, or whatever, and those players usually deserve to be knocked down a few notches anyhow.
On the other hand, you might run into a player with a mono red aggro deck, who if hit by Identity Crisis would just shrug, drop two cards, and keep playing. They also wouldn't care much about losing their graveyard since they would probably have, like, only three cards that interact with it at all in their entire deck.
"Let local groups decide" doesn't equal "let people in local groups force others to let them play banned cards." Playing exactly by the official rules is a viable local group choice. It's certainly easier, there isn't a bunch of negotiation or argument, and people don't feel like they have to go along just to not be the dissenting voice.
As far as players trying to "force" groups to let them use banned cards, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when someone new to commander shows up, and partway through the game they try to play a card that is banned. This rarely happens, but when it does they are almost always forced to remove the card immediately without waiting till the next game, even if they aren't using the card in a broken manner. This can be somewhat disruptive to games. As far as someone trying to get everyone to let them use a banned card, or a player who should know better sneaking one into their deck, that is never tolerated, and should never be.
That's just with regular banned list cards though. As far as unplayable generals go, as I said, they are more frowned upon than they should be in the relatively casual groups I play in. I myself have no problem with proxies or unplayable generals like Haakon. Most people seem to be fine with proxies of things like dual lands and other expensive staples. They dislike it, however, when people proxy expensive, broken cards like Moat. The general consensus being that one cannot play cards that broken unless they are willing to pay for them.
I admire the Rules Committee's view that the rules are more guidelines than laws, and that individual playgroups are free to tweak the rules as they see fit, whether to allow Haakon, proxies, or whatever. Unfortunately, it seems that most people treat the rules as the only right way to play the game. Of the groups I have played with, most allow the occasional unplayable commander or nephilim, but it is generally frowned upon and often allowed only because nobody wants to go through the trouble of starting an argument about it. Using banned cards is met with even more disdain. Most of the time the player is told that they may not use that card and have to remove it. That's just my experience though.
It's an interesting read.
Rotlung Reanimator is useful in the ways I already mentioned. Plus, the fact that he leaves behind a token means I get two creatures from one card, and something is still left after a wrath. Nonetheless, I will remove him for now and try what you suggested. I'll give Nezumi Graverobber a try and see how it works out.
I'm glad you like how my deck works. It is pretty fun to play. The sac effects scale well in multiplayer, and I usually have a lot of reanimation targets. I often end up making myself the number one target quickly, though.
My main qualm with the Fleshbag Marauder/Unholy Grotto combo is that it seems a little too good for my meta. Most decks I play against don't stand a chance once I resolve it. I guess I'll leave it for now.
I suppose I could try removing the Rotlung Reanimators and run some Nezumi Graverobbers and perhaps something else. Ink-Eyes, Servant of Oni in particular seems like it would work quite well. This will weaken my defenses a fair bit though. Most of those cards you mentioned take a while to get active. Nezumi Graverobber can flip quickly if I can get him out early. Otherwise, he is almost useless late-game. Though if I do manage to flip him, that instant speed repeatable reanimation is quite nice. I would usually use the auras first since they are far cheaper, but the option to hold back on them while using Nighteyes's ability is very useful.
The lack of the Rotlung Reanimators will weaken Death Baron a bit, but he's still useful with the other tokens and helping Bone Dancer get through. Anything else you think I should remove or add?
Unlike most reanimator decks, this deck is designed to steal creatures from the opponent's graveyards. The multiple sac effects and Black Sun's Zenith help with this. This deck usually doesn't have that much trouble keeping creatures off the board, but usually has a lot of trouble dealing with tokens. The lone Barter in Blood is left over from when I used to run more, and will likely be replaced with another Black Sun's Zenith or something. I might replace Black Sun's Zenith with Damnation, which I own four copies of but switch between multiple decks. The interaction between Fleshbag Marauder and Unholy Grotto has been fairly broken and may be removed.
Any suggestions for improvements?
It is true that retribution outside of the game to teach someone a lesson is childish and unacceptable. Many people believe (and the rules say), however, that scooping is part of the game. I can see how you could consider it something different though. It really comes down to this: is it okay to always have an auto suicide button and to use it like this? It has happened plenty of times before where someone has on-board ways of killing themselves and uses them to prevent triggers in the same way scooping would. Is that okay? If so, then do you think it is necessary for people to run ways to kill themselves at instant speed in order to get the same effect as scooping, and that they shouldn't be allowed to do it for free? Or do you consider both methods more or less the same?
I do agree that there can be a fine line between "aggressive scooping" and rage quitting, though.
The situation he is talking about and the one you are talking about aren't even comparable. If someone is about to kill you, then it is perfectly reasonable to let them get as little benefit out of it as possible. So long as you aren't breaking the rules or trying to wreck the game for everyone, it's fine. Unplugging while in the middle of the game, like you described, is the digital equivalent of upending the table. That is obviously unacceptable, but it is also something entirely different from what Boros Archangel and the rest of the people in this thread are talking about.
I see no problem with messing with the person about to kill you or the person who ruined your chances of winning right before you die. It's just simple consequences. Ruining the board position of someone who had left you alone instead of those who killed you would be douchey, however.
The "spiteful" scoop, as you call it, is far better than "Armageddon, peace!". "You don't get to untap your lands an extra time due to SoFaM" is nothing compared to "I'm going to wreck the board before I leave and ruin the game for everyone".
Unplugging or Geddon'ing and scooping are terrible, but scooping to prevent triggers is a perfectly legitimate move.
I see what you did there.
Anyways, yeah. Suicide-Tempo Sygg seems like it could be interesting. I'm currently forming a Sygg deck, but it's based around messing with other peoples things and beating them with their own stuff, while having relatively few win-cons of it's own
Those are all great ideas. Remember though, Thrun can't be countered. The only "counterspell" they would need to worry about is Mindbreak Trap, which isn't played too often anyhow.
@BaconBehemoth:
Those are two of the very few ways to actually make Thrun killable, and both very bad ideas.
On the other hand, you might run into a player with a mono red aggro deck, who if hit by Identity Crisis would just shrug, drop two cards, and keep playing. They also wouldn't care much about losing their graveyard since they would probably have, like, only three cards that interact with it at all in their entire deck.
As far as players trying to "force" groups to let them use banned cards, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when someone new to commander shows up, and partway through the game they try to play a card that is banned. This rarely happens, but when it does they are almost always forced to remove the card immediately without waiting till the next game, even if they aren't using the card in a broken manner. This can be somewhat disruptive to games. As far as someone trying to get everyone to let them use a banned card, or a player who should know better sneaking one into their deck, that is never tolerated, and should never be.
That's just with regular banned list cards though. As far as unplayable generals go, as I said, they are more frowned upon than they should be in the relatively casual groups I play in. I myself have no problem with proxies or unplayable generals like Haakon. Most people seem to be fine with proxies of things like dual lands and other expensive staples. They dislike it, however, when people proxy expensive, broken cards like Moat. The general consensus being that one cannot play cards that broken unless they are willing to pay for them.
Still hard to pull off and requires dedicated mono green, though...