LotR TCG Wiki → Card Sets:  All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 → Forums:  TLHH CC

 
Cobra Cards Player Community Forum Index
 Forum index » Magic: The Gathering » MTG Strategy Article Contest
Author Message
Rate this article!

5 (Best)  
18%
  [ 2 ]  18%
 
4  
9%
  [ 1 ]  9%
 
3  
18%
  [ 2 ]  18%
 
2  
27%
  [ 3 ]  27%
 
1 (Worst)  
27%
  [ 3 ]  27%
 

Total Votes : 11
La_Sin_Grail
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:21 pm
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 806 Location: Maryland
sorry, allow me to rephrase. I don’t really prefer either deck, I just think that dredge was a big fad about four months ago, and it’s a little late to be working on it.mortis is intended for kokushos, btw.

Um... right... not talking about deck anymore... um... I have no other comments Sad I usually like debating about my deck- keeps things interesting for me anyway.
Karl
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:04 pm
Joined: 07 Feb 2006 Posts: 2 Location:
Silver Sniper wrote:

So keep the comments coming, but I’d also like to hear fromanyone that is using other mechs besides sac to make dredge good. Cheers.


Creature tokens could be good, using Golgari Germination as a basis and Grave Pact to increase the hurt.
have you thought about Kuon Ogre Ascendent? Oni Possession could be good for a faster build. Maybe use it with Sekki, season’s guide.

And Plague Boiler can be a bomb.
Osion
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:10 am
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 Posts: 62 Location: MD
Um wasn’t sure if you misinterperted this or something

Quote:
No vigor mortis... that would have made this deck great.

Also, playsets as Osion suggested, are a MUST.



Thanks La Sin Grail, appreciate the comments. I PROMISE I will write up results once I’ve got them all.


playset = 4 of a card

I think you confused it with the word playtest
Silver Sniper
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:40 am
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location:
Osion wrote:


I think you confused it with the word playtest


Ah, yeah I did misread it, thanks Osion,
Its a good point. I’ve found that having a range of options works nicely with the dredge and draw mechanic. Greater good and dredge and the guildmage/thug combo are a great way to get hold of the exact card that you want.
Because of those card shuffling abilities in the deck, I am moving toward playsets of about 3 cards. Where I’ve only got 2 cards, its cos I don’t see any benefit in having more than one in play during the game.
inresponse
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:55 am
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 Posts: 162 Location:
I’m not really considering the dredge mechanic as a mechanic to build around. Instead, I use dredge cards to back up other decks. The most common ones I use are Moldervine cloak, due to it’s ridiculousness. Also Life from the Loam because it is also ridiculous.

It seems like it would be too much based on luck to build a deck around dredge.

I did try one out after Bennie Smith posted good results at States, but it never seemed to do well.
Silver Sniper
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:16 am
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location:
inresponse wrote:


I did try one out after Bennie Smith posted good results at States, but it never seemed to do well.


Yeah, I’ve taken a look at that deck, and in particular this article:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10708.html

Wow! nice to find someone else as amazed as I was when I started getting into dredge and finding out how good it could be. But I don’t like Bennie’s deck, for the same reasons i listed in my article. His is a ’full dredge’ deck and therefore lacks that killer punch that you get from combining dredge with another mechanic.
bungietech
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:07 am
Joined: 08 Feb 2006 Posts: 7 Location:
This deck is very diluted and inconsistent, and inferior to Bennie Smith’s decklist. You should playtest more and try and play more 4-ofs, for consistency and efficiency.
Silver Sniper
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:34 am
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location:
bungietech wrote:
This deck is very diluted and inconsistent, and inferior to Bennie Smith’s decklist. You should playtest more and try and play more 4-ofs, for consistency and efficiency.


Have a read of my previous responses in this thread and you’ll see that I’ve referred to the benefit of having a range of options in the deck. And that was before I even read Bennie’s article, he says:

Quote:
You’ll be deep into Dredge Zone now with a graveyard that stretches halfway across the table and tons of options. Maybe it’s just to Cloak up a dredge creature or two and beat down. Maybe you use Thug to fetch a non-dredge all-star critter like Ink-Eyes or Kokusho.


The consistency is acheived through cards that complement each other and collaborate to acheive the same effect. For e.g. there’s no point have four grave shell scarabs in the graveyard when you only have the mana to play one each turn and the other three just sit there unused all game.

As for Bennie’s deck, I’m surprised that you’ve said mine (Euthanasia) is inferior to Bennie’s deck - they aren’t different versions of the same deck. He states:

Quote:
My major wish was that I had come around to the realization that yes, I was going to be playing a friggin’ Dredge deck earlier and could have focused more time on tightening the deck


His is a full dredge deck, and the people that wrote in to discuss his deck were mainly focussed on using cards like the Troll and Svothgos in full dredge decks. They aren’t based on cycling creature removal like Euthanasia is.
La_Sin_Grail
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:50 pm
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 806 Location: Maryland
Okay... consistancy means having the ability to draw similar cards repeatedly. In other words, playsets. Remember, some cards are just plain better than others, so you might as well take out the chaff and put in only the best.
inresponse
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:55 pm
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 Posts: 162 Location:
how is it you plan on cycling creature removal? I just don’t see it.

Display posts from previous:  

 Forum index » Magic: The Gathering » MTG Strategy Article Contest
All times are UTC - 4
Page 2 of 4 [31 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
View previous topic   View next topic