I really don't get your fascination with all these mediocre 5 drop creatures. Not only do they completely destroy your mana curve - you also only have 4 creatures who benefits from the devotion.
I decided to remove the Oversold Cemetary because it pretty much needs Buried Alive to be useful. I'd much rather get extra Living Death to just flat out win me the game when I do draw the Buried Alive, or Phyrexian Reclamation to help during the first few turns and get me multiple cards a turn later on.
I just don't understand what you mean by "EDH cards". Do you mean cards that scale up with multiple players? Or very good cards seen in most formats? Or average cards only played in EDH?
A lot of EDH decks with B consider running Grave Titan for example... would that make it a EDH card?
Hey thanks Merudo, I like Rotlung reanimator. The only concern is that I have only one other cleric zombie. I seem to have a lot of zombie wizards for some reason.
I recently scrapped a LEDless dredge deck I owned, but decided to hold onto the ichorids, to either sell later or use in a casual deck. Before selling, I was hoping to pose a question to the community about how folks have used this card, in either casual, multiplayer, or outside of the dredge archetype?
Thanks!
I like Ichorid as a 1-of in a Birthing Pod deck. Once it is out, I can get a new five drop creature every turn.
I don't understand the reasoning for Growing Ranks. You are basically splashing a color for a card that only works when Endless Ranks of the Dead have been played - and it doesn't even help that much either.
Suppose a card is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, and this triggers both "exit the battlefield" and "put into a graveyard from the battlefield" effects.
Are both types of effects put simultaneously on the stack? Or are all "exit the battlefield" put on the stack first, and then "exit the battlefield" effects?
Also, at which point are the actual cards in the graveyard? Can those cards be targeted from the "exit the battlefield" effects?
Suppose Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker creates a token but then exits the battlefield for some reason. Will the token be sacrificed anyway at the beginning of the next end step?
In Magic, you usually don't earn a similar benefit from being the one destroying someone's board. So really, there is no benefits from eliminating someone (beside that person being eliminated).
Obviously. I was just making the point that taking someone's else chips and adding them to your own (Poker) is vastly different from just destroying the chips (Mtg).
Quote from Merudo »
- Significance of the threat to your game plan (immediate or future)
Which assumes that you have perfect information on their deck, hand and future draws. Since it's unrealistic to assume either it's safer to plan for the worst and hope for the best.
Chances are, that player who cast Festering Goblin and Doom Blade probably doesn't have a deck optimized for multiplayer and is therefore less of a threat.
Hell, just the colors of the deck can tell you if it is likely to fare good. As this very thread demonstrates, chances are, a mono black or BUG deck will fare better than, say, a WR deck that doesn't abuse a few well-known combos.
Quote from Merudo »
- Potential support against other foes if kept alive
It's usually a bad idea to rely on the person who had the free ride to help you down the road.
True enough. At the same time, if you play monoblack and the dominant player has a couple nasty enchantment, maybe it is worth it to keep that GW player with Aura Shards out alive a few more turns.
Which is the typical argument. "I just like doing nothing nothing while everyone else does all the work. Then I swoop in at the end and win." I cannot stand those kinds of statements because they only work if the people that you're playing with are struggling to beat bags of potatos in checkers.
I actually do believe the argument works, and is one of the reason FFA in general (and in MTG in particular) can result in boring standstills. Other games resolve this issues in a number of ways. One of the reason Poker is a good FFA game is that it avoid the standstill issues by rewarding "attacks" with extra chips. Strategy games usually allow you to take control of enemy resources or steal enemy structures. FFA in first-person shooter is often based on a Deathmatch format where people must earn as many kills as possible.
In MTG however, there is no such benefits. In my experience this often results in a bunch of players siting behind impenetrable defenses until a Wrath spell is cast.
My games are like big poker games. In poker you pick on the weak because they have very little room to outplay you and even when they get lucky it doesn't significantly hinder you. Magic is no different. The weakest guy is the person with a hand full of cards and nothing on the table. Even if he has removal he can't kill everything coming at him and his little mana dorks or whatever can't threaten to do much on their own. Rather than face person later on when they have mana and a hand full of spells it's better to team up against them. If nothing else it forces them to act which is better for everyone as time goes on. Best case scenario they crumble to the pressure, take a bunch of damage and die shortly after to a big flier hit + an X spell or something. Worst case scenario they what? Kill one of your attackers and get pummeled by everyone else's? It's the low-risk high-reward play to pressure the people who are trying to conserve resources. Insofar as players are actively trying to win they'll focus on those people and not the ones with big, established boards.
I don't quite understand the poker analogy.
In poker, you go after weaker players because you can add their chips to your stack - thus strengthening your board (in poker each chip you take away from someone is an extra chip for yourself)
In Magic, you usually don't earn a similar benefit from being the one destroying someone's board. So really, there is no benefits from eliminating someone (beside that person being eliminated).
I believe that rather than simply going after the weakest target, you should instead consider various factors :
- Vulnerability of the player at the moment
- Significance of the threat to your game plan (immediate or future)
- Benefits earned by attacking (Lifelink, Ninjutsu, etc. effects)
Moreover, other factors may discourage you from attacking someone,
- Odds of retaliation
- Potential support against other foes if the player is kept alive longer
- Future commitments other foes may make to take care of the player
I don't get the whole "fly under the radar" thing. When someone says that what it implies to me is that they're not doing anything significant and still winning. Do people actually ignore those decks?
"Flying under the radar" - in my book at least - means appearing roughly in the "middle of the pack" but being a few cards away from achieving board dominance. You don't want to play your strongest spells immediately (doing so would mark you as a threat), but you want to make significant plays (otherwise you would be vulnerable).
The player "flying under the radar" isn't the one with nothing but a mana dork and 7 cards in hand. It is the one with the 3th or 4th strongest board position waiting the perfect moment to play that game changing spell that will catapult him ahead.
Instead, I would try out something like
2 Bloodghast
4 Stinkweed Imp
3 Vampire Nighthawk
3 Phyrexian Obliterator
4 Gray Merchant of Asphodel
4 Demigod of Revenge
1 Vengeful Pharaoh
2 Phyrexian Reclamation
1 No Mercy
4 Phyrexian Arena
4 Buried Alive
2 Living Death
2 Exsanguinate
2 Cabal Coffers
4 Leechridden Swamp
18 Swamp
Buried Alive is always useful in this deck. Depending on what is in your hand, you should get:
Demigod of Revenge -> 3 more Demigod of Revenge
Living Death -> 3 Gray Merchant of Asphodel
Gray Merchant of Asphodel -> 2 Bloodghast + Stinkweed Imp, to help with the devotion
Phyrexian Reclamation -> 3 Demigod of Revenge, get one in your hand and play it as soon as possible
Nothing -> 1 Vengeful Pharaoh + 2 Stinkweed Imp for a powerful defense
I decided to remove the Oversold Cemetary because it pretty much needs Buried Alive to be useful. I'd much rather get extra Living Death to just flat out win me the game when I do draw the Buried Alive, or Phyrexian Reclamation to help during the first few turns and get me multiple cards a turn later on.
A lot of EDH decks with B consider running Grave Titan for example... would that make it a EDH card?
The Sorcery spells Midnight Ritual & Syphon Flesh may also be considered, although they are not that good.
I'm usually a big fan of having 1 Skaab Ruinator in my B/U zombie decks.
It's still very few, but I count 4: Shepherd of Rot, Boneknitter, Ragamuffyn and Mikaeus, the Unhallowed.
I like Ichorid as a 1-of in a Birthing Pod deck. Once it is out, I can get a new five drop creature every turn.
Colorless: Null Rod, Kill Switch
Red: Meltdown, Shatterstorm, Pulverize
White: Serenity, Stony Silence, Kataki, War's Wage, Fracturing Gust, Purify, Austere Command
Green: Seeds of Innocence, Creeping Corrosion, Fracturing Gust, Bane of Progress
Blue: Hurkyl's Recall, Rebuild, Reduce to Dreams, Energy Flux
G/W: Aura Shards
B/W: Merciless Eviction
If you want to make a zombie token deck then maybe you should consider cards like Quest for the Gravelord, Sarcomancy, Cemetery Reaper and Rotlung Reanimator.
Otherwise you should definitely drop green.
Are both types of effects put simultaneously on the stack? Or are all "exit the battlefield" put on the stack first, and then "exit the battlefield" effects?
Also, at which point are the actual cards in the graveyard? Can those cards be targeted from the "exit the battlefield" effects?
For example, if a Solemn Simulacrum and a Grizzly Bears kill each others in combat while Glissa, the Traitor is on the battlefield. Can you return the Simulacrum to your hand?
You will likely be able to cast it turn 2 for BB.
Beside the nice 6/5 body and destroy target creature ability, it also has evasion, which is otherwise absent from your deck.
Recurring Nightmare should definitely be in there.
I think Geralf's Messenger, Phyrexian Metamorph, Eternal Witness and Wurmcoil Engine are other cards worth considering.
Obviously. I was just making the point that taking someone's else chips and adding them to your own (Poker) is vastly different from just destroying the chips (Mtg).
Chances are, that player who cast Festering Goblin and Doom Blade probably doesn't have a deck optimized for multiplayer and is therefore less of a threat.
Hell, just the colors of the deck can tell you if it is likely to fare good. As this very thread demonstrates, chances are, a mono black or BUG deck will fare better than, say, a WR deck that doesn't abuse a few well-known combos.
True enough. At the same time, if you play monoblack and the dominant player has a couple nasty enchantment, maybe it is worth it to keep that GW player with Aura Shards out alive a few more turns.
I actually do believe the argument works, and is one of the reason FFA in general (and in MTG in particular) can result in boring standstills. Other games resolve this issues in a number of ways. One of the reason Poker is a good FFA game is that it avoid the standstill issues by rewarding "attacks" with extra chips. Strategy games usually allow you to take control of enemy resources or steal enemy structures. FFA in first-person shooter is often based on a Deathmatch format where people must earn as many kills as possible.
In MTG however, there is no such benefits. In my experience this often results in a bunch of players siting behind impenetrable defenses until a Wrath spell is cast.
I don't quite understand the poker analogy.
In poker, you go after weaker players because you can add their chips to your stack - thus strengthening your board (in poker each chip you take away from someone is an extra chip for yourself)
In Magic, you usually don't earn a similar benefit from being the one destroying someone's board. So really, there is no benefits from eliminating someone (beside that person being eliminated).
I believe that rather than simply going after the weakest target, you should instead consider various factors :
- Vulnerability of the player at the moment
- Significance of the threat to your game plan (immediate or future)
- Benefits earned by attacking (Lifelink, Ninjutsu, etc. effects)
Moreover, other factors may discourage you from attacking someone,
- Odds of retaliation
- Potential support against other foes if the player is kept alive longer
- Future commitments other foes may make to take care of the player
"Flying under the radar" - in my book at least - means appearing roughly in the "middle of the pack" but being a few cards away from achieving board dominance. You don't want to play your strongest spells immediately (doing so would mark you as a threat), but you want to make significant plays (otherwise you would be vulnerable).
The player "flying under the radar" isn't the one with nothing but a mana dork and 7 cards in hand. It is the one with the 3th or 4th strongest board position waiting the perfect moment to play that game changing spell that will catapult him ahead.