From my experience at standard FNM and Pre-release, almost 90% of the time when I see slow play it is used to gain advantage. Where I play there was 2 players who loved to slow play with rev decks, it was to the point that every match they played in a 5 round FNM never made it to game 3. This happened weeks on end. I play my turns fast, so this was never really an issue for me, but for newer players this is really annoying and for everyone else who as to wait an extra 15-20 minutes to start a new round because of players slow playing.
This game isn't hard to play, most turns shouldn't take over 20 seconds to play, if someone takes over a minute for a single turn without huge combat math, 99% of the time they are slow playing.
You are the ones making baseless claims, not me. I don't have to actually prove anything, US laws provides equal rights to both women and men, so it is 100% on you to proof that women are actually discriminated against. On the same note, if said claims are false, under law it is considered slander.
So more of, if women are not 51% of the US senate and Congress it is because sexist men are keeping them down.
Because you claim men have the power and you call said system they control is discriminatory. It is a baseless attack, and is on the same level as calling someone a racist with no proof.
Misogyny and discrimination mean the same thing in the conversation, because we are only talking about women. Discrimination is basically just a blanket term.
Yes, because if women are discouraged from going into a field, it must be sexist right? Discouraged isn't the same as forced out by the way.
"troubled nations" If a women could raise the GDP 6.9% in any western nation, trust me, they would be elected. The funny thing is that this study said in non heavily diverse nations choosing a female leader has no special benefit. This means that Americans will in fact gain nothing by electing a female leader. Proof isn't needed on my claim, if women where as good as men in the political sector, their numbers there would reflect it. Just like nursing is dominated by women, they are better at it than men. And again you go back to your baseless claims, " A greater proportion of women not considering politics as a career is a direct result of the lack of woman politicians, which comes back to discrimination", just because women are not picked doesn't prove discrimination.
Next time I have a job interview and don't get the job, I'll have my lawyer send them a lawsuit for discrimination.This is your exact logic. Pure insanity and extremely irrational in a grand attempt to paint women as victims.
The reason that women are not winning these positions is for two major reasons, the money barrier they need to break to actually pay to fund a campaign, and second is that voters simply don't vote for them.
If women are poorer than men, I'd be keen to hear how that's not somehow a result of gender discrimination. And women can't vote for women if those women don't break through the (higher) barriers to candidacy.
I also haven't claimed that US society is misogynistic. I've suggested that it's discriminatory. That's not the same thing.
And I'm not attacking men. I've pointed out that men dominate positions of political, economic and judicial power. That also isn't the same thing.
Please desist with the strawmen.
Men usually go into fields that pay more, because they are more demanding, while women go into fields that pay less. If you compare and men and women who work the same job, the wage difference is basically not existent.
In the context of this discussion they basically have the same meaning.
You are attacking men though, by making false claims that demonize them with no proof.
Please tell me how and why my argument is a strawman? I think my argument fits you perfectly. You are the person who is making the huge assumption that US society is discriminatory just because women are not 50% of the US senate and congress,
"Given the numbers I've already cited, it's pretty clear that men hold the power. Are you going to argue that 20% representation for women (and that's a record high) isn't "largely excluded"".
Even if women were 0% on the senate and congress, it still would not prove your insane discrimination claims, maybe women on average just don't want job, or maybe, just maybe, men are better at the job, which is why they are picked more often, even by female voters.
Take of your tinfoil hat please, there is no mass conspiracy by men to push women to the bottom of society.
But feel free to persuade me. Come up with an argument that explains why the US has never had a female president, and why the highest ever proportion of women in Senate/Congress is about 20%, but doesn't involve discrimination in the way the genders are treated.
The reason that women are not winning these positions is for two major reasons, the money barrier they need to break to actually pay to fund a campaign, and second is that voters simply don't vote for them.
The first is easily solved by having positions which big spending donators agree with or want pushed.
The second is solved by appealing to the biggest demographic of voters you can possibly appeal too, which ironically is female voters. The fact is female voters themselves are statistically one of the major reason that women are entering government at such low levels.
You have no basis to claim that US society is misogynistic, and calling it as such is just offensive.
Instead of attacking men for something that isn't their fault, reach out to women voters to help more women win elections for government positions.
Crippling Blight is trash. I know that stinks for some of you to hear, but unless you're playing in a mirror or against another aggro deck, it's simply not worth it.
lol.... did you actually read the card? Crippling Blight is at its very worst aggressive decks, they aren't blocking you there just swinging every turn. It for pushing through damage against decks with blockers. When the hell are aggressive decks ever blocking against us?
Its one of the most effective ways of guaranteeing damage to get through against decks with fatties, without a doubt one of the stars of a deck like this. Removal is simply to conditional or costly in the next format.
Crippling Blight is simply good vs everything in the post rotation meta.
It is still very strong vs aggro decks since it can be straight removal at times or can slow their clock, as well as turn off a blocker if they ever need to block with it for a trade.
Post rotation this is the best "removal" for MBA, nothing else is even close in my eyes.
hey bostonsteve or anyone else that could provide me with some input from what i been searching and reading your deck list looks pretty good. I have gotten my hand on most of the commons in your deck above but im missing a few key valuable cards at the moment. What would you suggest as a temporary fix (until i get the money lol) for not having ANY thoughtseize, hero's downfall. urborgs or mutavaults in my deck...
Downfall isn't needed for this deck, I run 0 and do just fine.
I wouldn't spend any money on Mutavault since it rotates in 5 weeks, without Mutavault Urborg isn't needed at all.
Cards like, Boon of Eerebos, Crippling Blight, and Ulcerate are decent/acceptable replacements for Thoughtseize
The only essential cards are Spiteful Returned, Herald of Torment, and Mogi's Marauder. These are the best cards in the deck are really should be ran as 4 of's.
You must have a really lame FNM then. My local is basically self sufficient in its trades, we pass around so many "mythic staples" every week its crazy.
This thread is just a butthurt player's haven. It's pretty silly.
Do you realize how much money you have to drop in packs to get mythics at a level to trade for competitive staple mythics?
My FNM is nearly all tier 1 decks, trading for these cards is nearly impossible.
I'm not actually butthurt, I already own all these staples
You need to realize not everyone can get lucky, not everyone opens jaces or other staples, and most players playing at FNM don't hand over mythic staples on a weekly basis.
You're actually wrong. This whole thread is people complaining how they can't invest smart into cardboard money. Remember when Pre-order Jace2's were $20? Why did not one in this thread jump on it? Was it really too expensive or something? I got a Jace2 from a pack of WWK, and I have acquired 8 Baneslayer Angels, traded away and gotten more and all that since M10 came out. On Friday, I traded into 2 Grave Titans and a Primeval and got another Primeval Titan from a pack of M11. I have gotten lots of dual lands and fetches, traded them and traded for them. I also don't seem to understand, from what I've actually had to do to get my collection of "heavy hitters", why people are complaining about the prices of these cards when if they REALLY wanted to get the card, they could WORK for it or get smarter with their money and decisions.
You dont NEED any of these cards either.Get creative. Sheesh.
This is just false.
Competitively most of these cards are needed.
Nearly every competitive deck with blue runs Jace 2.0
Nearly every competitive deck with white runs Elspeth and Gideon.
Etc.
But based on your logic all these overpriced aren't needed. I guess all these tournament winning players are just throwing money away?
These cards needed to win and are also absurdly expensive; And that's the problem.
Everyone doesn't want to drop $400+ just to play standard and not everyone can luck into trades like yourself.
elvish champion won't rotate out anytime soon. It was printed in 9th and tenth, so it's at least two years. that said, I suppose a higher end one could be more expensive, but you're looking at like 2.50 each on ebay, i believe.
I don't think that this is very consistent. You might want to limit yourself to a smaller base of creatures, but make them all 4 ofs. I don't see elvish archdruid as a perfect fit here. The +1/+1 can be provided by Imperious Perfect and elves are usually low costing anyway so his second ability is useless. The birds = Over budget unusefullness. i suggest cutting down some of your lower priority, and building a more consistent base.
I Disagree with Archdruid. If he hits the board turn 2 or 3 my opponent dies within 1-2 turn unless he answers. With Elvish Promenade I empty my hand turn 3 and turn 4 is always game.
I agree with the birds, they need to be replaced.
This game isn't hard to play, most turns shouldn't take over 20 seconds to play, if someone takes over a minute for a single turn without huge combat math, 99% of the time they are slow playing.
You are the ones making baseless claims, not me. I don't have to actually prove anything, US laws provides equal rights to both women and men, so it is 100% on you to proof that women are actually discriminated against. On the same note, if said claims are false, under law it is considered slander.
So more of, if women are not 51% of the US senate and Congress it is because sexist men are keeping them down.
Quote breaks when i quote you so they post may look weird.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html
http://qz.com/182977/there-is-no-gender-gap-in-tech-salaries/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
Because you claim men have the power and you call said system they control is discriminatory. It is a baseless attack, and is on the same level as calling someone a racist with no proof.
Misogyny and discrimination mean the same thing in the conversation, because we are only talking about women. Discrimination is basically just a blanket term.
Yes, because if women are discouraged from going into a field, it must be sexist right? Discouraged isn't the same as forced out by the way.
"troubled nations" If a women could raise the GDP 6.9% in any western nation, trust me, they would be elected. The funny thing is that this study said in non heavily diverse nations choosing a female leader has no special benefit. This means that Americans will in fact gain nothing by electing a female leader. Proof isn't needed on my claim, if women where as good as men in the political sector, their numbers there would reflect it. Just like nursing is dominated by women, they are better at it than men. And again you go back to your baseless claims, " A greater proportion of women not considering politics as a career is a direct result of the lack of woman politicians, which comes back to discrimination", just because women are not picked doesn't prove discrimination.
Next time I have a job interview and don't get the job, I'll have my lawyer send them a lawsuit for discrimination.This is your exact logic. Pure insanity and extremely irrational in a grand attempt to paint women as victims.
Men usually go into fields that pay more, because they are more demanding, while women go into fields that pay less. If you compare and men and women who work the same job, the wage difference is basically not existent.
In the context of this discussion they basically have the same meaning.
You are attacking men though, by making false claims that demonize them with no proof.
Please tell me how and why my argument is a strawman? I think my argument fits you perfectly. You are the person who is making the huge assumption that US society is discriminatory just because women are not 50% of the US senate and congress,
"Given the numbers I've already cited, it's pretty clear that men hold the power. Are you going to argue that 20% representation for women (and that's a record high) isn't "largely excluded"".
Even if women were 0% on the senate and congress, it still would not prove your insane discrimination claims, maybe women on average just don't want job, or maybe, just maybe, men are better at the job, which is why they are picked more often, even by female voters.
Take of your tinfoil hat please, there is no mass conspiracy by men to push women to the bottom of society.
The reason that women are not winning these positions is for two major reasons, the money barrier they need to break to actually pay to fund a campaign, and second is that voters simply don't vote for them.
The first is easily solved by having positions which big spending donators agree with or want pushed.
The second is solved by appealing to the biggest demographic of voters you can possibly appeal too, which ironically is female voters. The fact is female voters themselves are statistically one of the major reason that women are entering government at such low levels.
You have no basis to claim that US society is misogynistic, and calling it as such is just offensive.
Instead of attacking men for something that isn't their fault, reach out to women voters to help more women win elections for government positions.
Crippling Blight is simply good vs everything in the post rotation meta.
It is still very strong vs aggro decks since it can be straight removal at times or can slow their clock, as well as turn off a blocker if they ever need to block with it for a trade.
Post rotation this is the best "removal" for MBA, nothing else is even close in my eyes.
Downfall isn't needed for this deck, I run 0 and do just fine.
I wouldn't spend any money on Mutavault since it rotates in 5 weeks, without Mutavault Urborg isn't needed at all.
Cards like, Boon of Eerebos, Crippling Blight, and Ulcerate are decent/acceptable replacements for Thoughtseize
The only essential cards are Spiteful Returned, Herald of Torment, and Mogi's Marauder. These are the best cards in the deck are really should be ran as 4 of's.
Do you realize how much money you have to drop in packs to get mythics at a level to trade for competitive staple mythics?
My FNM is nearly all tier 1 decks, trading for these cards is nearly impossible.
I'm not actually butthurt, I already own all these staples
You need to realize not everyone can get lucky, not everyone opens jaces or other staples, and most players playing at FNM don't hand over mythic staples on a weekly basis.
This is just false.
Competitively most of these cards are needed.
Nearly every competitive deck with blue runs Jace 2.0
Nearly every competitive deck with white runs Elspeth and Gideon.
Etc.
But based on your logic all these overpriced aren't needed. I guess all these tournament winning players are just throwing money away?
These cards needed to win and are also absurdly expensive; And that's the problem.
Everyone doesn't want to drop $400+ just to play standard and not everyone can luck into trades like yourself.
And while Consume the Meek isn't a bad card, it's a card Jund probably doesn't need.
Oh.
I probably grab some then.
I Disagree with Archdruid. If he hits the board turn 2 or 3 my opponent dies within 1-2 turn unless he answers. With Elvish Promenade I empty my hand turn 3 and turn 4 is always game.
I agree with the birds, they need to be replaced.
It is a good idea, but i'm thinking on it due to it's price and getting close to be cycled out of extended.
A nice deck, but the lands put it far out of my budget.
1 Regal Force
2 Chameleon Colossus
2 Immaculate Magistrate
1 Oracle of Mul Daya
4 Elvish Archdruid
2 Imperious Perfect
2 Elvish Champion
2 Elvish Visionary
4 Silhana Ledgewalker
2 Birds of Paradise
2 Boreal Druid
4 Nettle Sentinel
4 Heritage Druid
4 Llanowar Elves
2 Elvish Promenade
2 Overrun
Lands
20 Forests
Want to know if there are ways to speed things up a bit
Input is appreciated.