| Author |
Message |
Rate this article!
| 5 (Best) |
| [ 2 ] 28% |
| |
| 4 |
| [ 1 ] 14% |
| |
| 3 |
| [ 2 ] 28% |
| |
| 2 |
| [ 1 ] 14% |
| |
| 1 (Worst) |
| [ 1 ] 14% |
| |
Total Votes : 7 |
|
| T2_Fr33K |
![]() Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:07 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 32
Location:
|
Yea... actually you are both missing the term bear. It's really 1 for a 1/1 or 2 for a 2/2 or 3 for a 3/3 etc. It's X for an X/X with a predetermined X.
And you two need chill pills. Grail is a little harsh and then response is double that, grail is double that etc. Grail was trying to help, but needs to tone it down. Response needs to stop flaming him for giving the advice you asked for. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inresponse |
![]() Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:40 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 162
Location:
|
bear refers to a 2 power creature for 2 mana.
R/W control is not a deck currently played in the environment. Turn 4 wrath is painful, but it doesn't end the game. On turn four damage has already been dealt to the opponent, but you have not committed your entire hand to the board. Their wrath allows you to play 1 or 2 threats on the next turn and then beatdown a turn later. Wrath doesn't end your game. Also, they must draw a wrath early enough for it to save them.
R/W won't be an issue, however, because every other control and combo deck have great matchups against it. It is simply to easy to deal with their only recurring win condition, Firemane Angel. With a combo deck, the R/W player has little to no disruption to deal with either enduring ideal or heartbeat of spring.
Kodama in the main is an idea I tested , and decided was it is not feasible. There is only room for a few high mana cost beatdown creatures, and testing showed Arashi and Serow to be superior agaisnt an unknown meta. Arashi allows you to deal with Meloku and WW first game, and Serow is a turn faster and his ability can be randomly good against numerous archetypes. But Kodama main is definitely a possibility, it just depends on what you expect to face. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| T2_Fr33K |
![]() Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:48 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 32
Location:
|
I'm still quite sure bear is X for an X/X, not just two power. Bear was the term used a while back to describe the stereotypical agro creatures, made because they, like bears, simply mindlessly faught without abilities, and the bigger bear wins. Trained Armodon (3 for a 3/3) still counts as a bear- X for X/X, no abilities. Seriously, though, I think Grail meant that Zodiac Monkey still isn't as good as two for a 2/2 weather it's termed a bear or not. It still does die to a boros recruit, without killing it.
Also, remember you can't count out completely any deck-type from matchups, because the first three rounds of a tourney, you could still face one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ilvaldi |
![]() Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:00 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 59
Location:
|
holy $#!+ you guys have some problem?! (not u T2_Fr33k) Does it really matter on what is what? Bear is a Bear! MTG terminology is used so players can explain things easily. If you guys know what your refering to when someone says bear, don't argue about it. Its small...
Grail, you need to understand this: not everything runs on jitte--correction--jitte is not the answer to all aggro decks. Don't ask me why, it's just how it is. Jitte will sometimes be of a lag than a advantage. You don't have to tell people to put on a jitte or some very well known power card because we already know--were not idiots. And don't be so harsh.
Iresponse, you should calm down and realize that Grail was only trying to help (well, in a heavily criticized way). But he is right, the flaws he points out are correct. WOG, Card advantage, and the abscence of a reliable and consistent card such as jitte will get screwed over. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:07 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
| Where in the article does it say to be a little happy butterfly and help? I didn't see it... I merely told him what he needed to fix. As for you, Charles, you can talk to me in person- don't waste your time writing to me on blogs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inresponse |
![]() Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 3:17 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 162
Location:
|
yes, you can face decks with the difficult cards in them. THAT IS THE POINT OF DESIGNING MAGIC DECKS. Eeveryone buiilds decks to make the field suffer. However, the number of players playing R/W is soo small, it is not a factor. If I play one, then I am unlucky, and I still have a chance at winning because wrath and pyroclasm are probably both not in their maindeck and they probably aren't a great player anyways. A deck with wrath is not an unwinnable match up. It is just a good card versus any deck with creatures. the same argument could be made against any other deck based around creatures that has ever been in this contest. It seems like a strange point to bring up when it is no different for this deck than any other agro.
Bear is a 2 power for 2 mana. Mike Flores refers to Dark confidant in an article on Starcity games in this way:
"and if nothing else, he is still a at least a bear" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Flappo |
![]() Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:48 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 1
Location:
|
A Bear is a 2/2 creature for 2 mana. I.e Grizzly Bears, Balduvian Bears, Sell-Sword Brute...
In reference to 1/1 for 1, 2/2 for 2, 3/3 for 3... These are considered "Vanilla" creatures. Creatures with no abilities.
Hope this clears up some of the discussion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| r2d2quino |
![]() Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 49
Location:
|
I just found this article, and I think the author was under-voted for bad reasons, so I’m giving him some gold by awarding 5 stars to him (also because I liked the idea of going mono-colored when everyone else doesn’t, the reason I netdecked Mono-blue beats and beat my bro’ with it). Taking in consideration that only Ravnica: the city of Guilds was out when it was made, I won’t even bother suggesting Dryad Sophisticate over Zodiac Monkey.
@he not mentioning that Umezawa’s Jitte is bad: he clearly mentioned that it slows tempo, since almost every deck has answers for it. He didn’t mention it, but it could also be nice to throw a deck off-balance, since when you see an aggro deck, you usually side-board in card to destroy the Umezawa’s Jitte, even if he didn’t play it on game one. You’re actually stalling they’re decks.
@at Zodiac Monkey being bad: He mentioned that most of his meta was playing Forests, so you cannot "just block him" with any creature so that it dies, if you have a Forest. If you don’t have, he can simply wait and play Moldervine Cloak next turn.
@Pyroclasm killing it: He can save, say, 2 extra creatures, maybe not even accounted for when it was played, so that catches opponents off-balance. It is an answer, as good as it can be. Wrath of God is a different matter, though...
@the whole "bear discussion": I just read in an Article on the Wizards homepage: a bear is 2 mana for a 2/2 with no abilities. It has to have 2 power and 2 toughness.
@Kodama of the North Tree: This one was a good critic, he should be on the Main Deck.
@at Child of Thorns being bad: if you can cast Gather Courage, and that makes him kill a */2 and live, or trade with a */3, it served a good enough purpose, I think. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Felipe Musco |
![]() Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:04 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
When did this article show up? And how can it have so much posts?
EDIT: Never mind, I just figured out what happened. And I’m giving it a 5, too, for its originality. |
| I don't like YOU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:51 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
| Ratings don’t matter this late. Only the articles in the month matter. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum index » Magic: The Gathering » MTG Strategy Article Contest
