| Author |
Message |
Rate this article!
| 5 (Best) |
| [ 2 ] 18% |
| |
| 4 |
| [ 1 ] 9% |
| |
| 3 |
| [ 2 ] 18% |
| |
| 2 |
| [ 3 ] 27% |
| |
| 1 (Worst) |
| [ 3 ] 27% |
| |
Total Votes : 11 |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
| I think he means darkblast... I mean hey! if it can kill a birds of paradise it can kil a rumbling slum, right? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Silver Sniper |
![]() Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:22 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 13
Location:
|
La_Sin_Grail wrote: I think he means darkblast... I mean hey! if it can kill a birds of paradise it can kil a rumbling slum, right?
Haha. No I meant Grave Pact, Savra and the awesome combination of the Woebringer Demon and Golgari Thug. ’Cycling’ in the sense that the cards you sacrifice are dredgeable and arrive back in your hand, meantime your opponent is losing creatures faster than he can play them. That is THE MAIN win condition of this deck, (and it probably needs to be tightened I have to admit) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:26 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
| See the thing you forget is that all good decks play something like naturalize, permanent steal of some sort, mortify, etc that will make you not have pact. If you had eight enchantments, all of which were vital, you could have a far better shot at keeping pact. The whole deck just seems a little slow to me.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inresponse |
![]() Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:46 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 162
Location:
|
| I think pact is reasonable becasue the decksit is good against don’t play that removal, the only problem is that to play effectively with pact you need way more sac outlets or to have a deck built aroundit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
| Agreed, pact is good against decks that don’t play removal... you’ll have to forgive me, I assume every deck is intended for tourneys unless it says it’s casual. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Silver Sniper |
![]() Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 13
Location:
|
Thanks In-response. Sac outlets are a must and its a difficult taks to balance them all out for TOURNAMENTS
La_Sin_Grail wrote: Agreed, pact is good against decks that don’t play removal... you’ll have to forgive me, I assume every deck is intended for tourneys unless it says it’s casual.
As for this!?!? That’s the most pretentious comment I’ve seen all week. Sorry for wasting your time La Sin Grail. I’ll sure you’d rather be discussing Greater Good/Gifts and every other deck that has already been built. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
Tournament decks have some sort of removal. I’m not sure how that’s pretentious- it wasn’t intended to be so. What my comment was meant to be was a reminder that you can’t test against fish- you need to test against the heavy hitters of standard- emminent domain, ghazi-glare, and URG wildfire- all the top decks. At a real tourney, decks have removal... so saying you won’t play removal is saying you won’t play in a tourney.
I don’t like netdecking. You’ll see my ideas in the genju deck (or my landkilling deck, or my tri-color weenie control deck which sucked out..). I’m not saying it’s perfect, but I’m saying I (and every other green deck) play naturalize, W/B plays mortify, and blue will play steal spells. There will be removal, and assuming there isn’t means insufficient playtesting or playtesting against the wrong things.
Also, expect there to be extra enchantment hate with ghazi glare right now- you need an answer to them blowing up your enchantments because if you face a good deck, it will be able to. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| T2_Fr33K |
![]() Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:16 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 32
Location:
|
| Wow, Grail was mean. Wow, no removal is oblivious. Just don’t get shocked at my four copies of naturalize in any deck ever that even thinks about being green. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inresponse |
![]() Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 162
Location:
|
| I do not think that word means what you think it means. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:04 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
You asked if switching out moldervine cloak for warhammer is a good idea against my deck. Now, think about it. My deck is based around removal, right? So you can make me kill something on demand with cloak- you can pick the target. If you use warhammer, you’ll be too slow. The other problem is if cloak resolves, I’m in a world of hurt. If the hammer equips, I’m more than happy to leave it alone until it becomes an issue. The toughness is what matters against a burn-based deck, and you won’t be getting any from hammer.
In general, moldervine cloak is incredible. It won me three games in a sealed tournament yesterday pretty much alone because you throw it on any creature and it’s instantly buffage.
To in response: Yeah... um Freek is the kind of guy who kicks my butt in smarts and I’m a junior in Calc C. Just throwing that out there. Maybe you need to read more closely. He said assuming no removal is oblivious, meaning the act of ignoring the necessity for removal would be. I think it does mean what he thinks it means. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum index » Magic: The Gathering » MTG Strategy Article Contest
