|
Chamale posted:I threw together a stupid Thought Lash deck using only cards I already own, and it's crushing people online. The sideboard is almost useless, I have no idea if I'm playing the right spells or not, but Thought Lash is astonishingly good in the current metagame and no one is playing it. It's like a Pact spell. 2UU: You gain 30 life, and lose the game in 5 turns. Here's my current unrefined list, I'd like to figure out the best way to build it: Counterbalance seems ok here with more Tops. I always wanted to Donate Thought Lash to someone. Play Donate for when they end up with 9 cards left in their deck. I'm assuming the age counters stay on it if it changes controllers? I guess at that point you might as well just play Trix, huh? Also, yeah; play Trix.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
L0cke17 posted:The combo is mountains and lightning bolts. This should be worked into a Chandra-quote flavor text.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Reading angry posts about burn decks not being real decks is a prime motivator towards playing the deck, or at the very least a great payoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Counterbalance seems ok here with more Tops. That's not how the current oracle text of Thought Lash works, the opponent will still have a full library and Thought Lash doesn't kill people quickly enough to be worth Donating. It's an underrated defensive tool, that's why I want to build a deck around it. The win condition will be casting Thought Lash, staying alive against whatever the opponent is doing, and then winning with some second half, but I'm not sure what that should be. Laboratory Maniac? Future Sight? Mirror of Fate? Shared Fate? Right now I'm leaning Laboratory Maniac. Chamale fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
There's a version on the source that plays Skill Borrower in the place of Future Sight. It doesn't have exactly the same functionality as future sight, but it does turn your thought lash into a repeatable demonic consultation, + gains utility with top and a miser's griselbrand. That version fucks around with Long-term Plans which seems kind of bad. Leaving the deck mostly as is, I would play some number of misdirections in case of an abrupt decay on your man
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:26
|
|
Deofuta posted:Reading angry posts about burn decks not being real decks is a prime motivator towards playing the deck, or at the very least a great payoff. *casually drops $250 dollars out of pants pocket* whoops, dropped my winnings earned by playing Burn in the biggest Legacy tournament ever   
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:19 and 0x Wasteland seems to be the industry standard. Though I've seen lists with 20-22. Almost all uwr delver lists play 4 wasteland, 3-4 tundra, 3 volc. I would strongly recommended not playing a three color delver deck with out all of the duals. If you're trying to play delver on a budget you should definitely just play UR delver. It can actually function on basics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:*casually drops $250 dollars out of pants pocket* whoops, dropped my winnings earned by playing Burn in the biggest Legacy tournament ever *casually comments on that being less than a day's pay* I'd hate burn a whole lot less if I ever played against a burn player who was at all competent WRT the deck, the rules, the game, etc. Every one I've played against has just been terrible but they counted to 20 faster than I did. And for the record, I'm not saying all burn players are bad at the game, just the ones I've played. If I can jam 4 spells through your Eidolon in one game, you are bad at this game. vvv Ask this guy about the burn player vs. Top fiasco. Partial Octopus posted:Almost all uwr delver lists play 4 wasteland, 3-4 tundra, 3 volc. I would strongly recommended not playing a three color delver deck with out all of the duals. If you're trying to play delver on a budget you should definitely just play UR delver. It can actually function on basics. Oh, I didn't see it was 'Murica Delver - I was thinking of Stoneblade. Yeah, Delver needs Wastelands and at least 3 of the blue duals. Also, 'Murica Delver is just really bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:*casually comments on that being less than a day's pay* I think the deck is fine, but I also don't really see a reason to play it over stoneblade. But I have to admit that Bob Huang's list from the GP with the counter top sb package was pretty spicy. And on the burn topic.. You guys wouldn't believe how many times people have cast smash to smithereens targeting untapped my top. I had one guy do it two turns in a row. Partial Octopus fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:12
|
|
suicidesteve posted:I'd hate burn a whole lot less if I ever played against a burn player who was at all competent WRT the deck, the rules, the game, etc. Every one I've played against has just been terrible but they counted to 20 faster than I did. And for the record, I'm not saying all burn players are bad at the game, just the ones I've played. If I can jam 4 spells through your Eidolon in one game, you are bad at this game. Well that's a different issue. As a burn player I AM saying most burn players are poo poo players. Burn as a deck certainly gets a bad rep because of it. Similar to hating on Miracles versus hating the players because most play too slow. Random tangent tip: if your opponent is trying to silent-play you into missing Eidolon triggers, and has a Circle of Protection: Red on the board, if they don't explicitly hold priority you should be able to wait for their awkward silence and then say "I guess you're not holding priority so the trigger resolves" and they will not be able to use the COP to prevent the damage.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Partial Octopus posted:I think the deck is fine, but I also don't really see a reason to play it over stoneblade. But I have to admit that Bob Huang's list from the GP with the counter top sb package was pretty spicy. Yeah, I was exaggerating about how bad it is. I'd never play it over Stoneblade, and you'll never convince me that Delver belongs in the same deck as Stoneforge or Swords. It's a fine enough deck if it's what you've got though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
quote:Random tangent tip: if your opponent is trying to silent-play you into missing Eidolon triggers, and has a Circle of Protection: Red on the board, if they don't explicitly hold priority you should be able to wait for their awkward silence and then say "I guess you're not holding priority so the trigger resolves" and they will not be able to use the COP to prevent the damage. Has this ever worked for you? I feel like if that happened the judge would rule in favor of the guy with the circle every time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:Well that's a different issue. As a burn player I AM saying most burn players are poo poo players. Burn as a deck certainly gets a bad rep because of it. Similar to hating on Miracles versus hating the players because most play too slow. It's so frustrating losing to someone who is clearly much worse than me (and I'm not all that good.) I've never lost to burn when I played a blue deck, but Jund basically needs a Thoughtseize double Hymn, Goyf, Lili hand, and even if I get that I can never find the 2nd black.  What do they need to hold priority for? You have to put the Eidolon trigger on the stack, at which point they can CoP it up. Unless I'm missing something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:24
|
|
Partial Octopus posted:Has this ever worked for you? I feel like if that happened the judge would rule in favor of the guy with the circle every time. To be specific, if they're playing a <=3cmc spell on their turn, yes. This is one of those cases where "they way it works on MODO" is actually relevant. suicidesteve posted:What do they need to hold priority for? You have to put the Eidolon trigger on the stack, at which point they can CoP it up. Unless I'm missing something? Sorry, I meant to say this is on the opponent's turn. e.g. If they are playing Swords to Plowshares on your turn then they can do the standard "I cast StP *AWKWARD PAUSE TO SEE IF YOU FORGET THE TRIGGER*" "trigger resolve?" "no I respond, activate COP" But on their turn, they have to explicitly hold priority to respond to the trigger, otherwise it's just resolving.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I threw together a stupid Thought Lash deck using only cards I already own, and it's crushing people online. The sideboard is almost useless, I have no idea if I'm playing the right spells or not, but Thought Lash is astonishingly good in the current metagame and no one is playing it. It's like a Pact spell. 2UU: You gain 30 life, and lose the game in 5 turns. Here's my current unrefined list, I'd like to figure out the best way to build it: Three questions I like to ask myself whenever I'm refining/tuning a deck idea: 1) What matchups/cards are difficult for the deck? 2) What can I do/how much does the deck have to change to shore up those matches? 3) How would those changes affect the good matches, and is it worth it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:To be specific, if they're playing a <=3cmc spell on their turn, yes. Ok so say you're the burn player. I have a circle in play. I cast ponder. If you don't acknowledge the trigger than I don't have to remind you. If you just say ok then the ponder resolves and you missed the trigger. I don't see any situation where I wouldn't have a chance to activate my circle. Partial Octopus fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:39
|
|
Partial Octopus posted:Ok so say you're the burn player. I have a circle in play. I cast ponder. If you don't acknowledge the trigger than I don't have to remind you. If you just say ok then the ponder resolves and you missed the trigger. I don't see any situation where I wouldn't have a chance to activate my circle. I definitely, definitely don't just say "okay". That is the worst thing one can do in a game of competitive REL Magic. The burn player waits after the Ponder is announced without holding priority, then says "I have no plays so the trigger resolves". If the Ponder player tries to say "I have effects" the burn player says "you didn't hold priority, and I passed back, so the trigger is resolving right now, please wait until it finishes before using priority". It's just a case where you can fight back against the current trigger responsibility rules. You don't have to remind the burn player, but if you want to respond you can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:I definitely, definitely don't just say "okay". That is the worst thing one can do in a game of competitive REL Magic. Yeah, this makes no sense. You can't just have your trigger resolve. It goes on the stack, at which point your opponent can activate the Circle. They cast Ponder, you put Eidolon on the stack, they activate CoP. Then your ability resolves and they take 0 damage from it. There's no need to ever hold priority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:*casually comments on that being less than a day's pay* The difference between Jeskai Stoneblade and Jeskai Delver is like 4 cards. I'm going to have to pick up my duals for it either way. Thinking of 3-3 Volc-Tundra Split
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The difference between Jeskai Stoneblade and Jeskai Delver is like 4 cards. I'm going to have to pick up my duals for it either way. Thinking of 3-3 Volc-Tundra Split It's quite a bit more than that; Stoneblade allows for a lot more variety in the threat suite, counters and lands. Namely, Stoneblade doesn't run Daze or Wasteland because it can't support the "flip a Delver, ride it to victory" plan. It needs its land in play for both Stoneforge and for all the expensive spells, so it can run a lot of stuff that the Delver build can't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:I definitely, definitely don't just say "okay". That is the worst thing one can do in a game of competitive REL Magic. You can't just say "the trigger resolves" you have to put it on the stack, then they get priority back before the trigger actually does resolve. The burn play waits, you acknowledge the trigger, they have priority to COP the trigger. There is no way you can add a trigger to the stack without your opponent having a chance to respond to it. When you acknowledge the trigger that doesn't mean it was on the stack and resolved, it means you add it to the stack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
PhyrexianLibrarian posted:It's quite a bit more than that; Stoneblade allows for a lot more variety in the threat suite, counters and lands. Namely, Stoneblade doesn't run Daze or Wasteland because it can't support the "flip a Delver, ride it to victory" plan. It needs its land in play for both Stoneforge and for all the expensive spells, so it can run a lot of stuff that the Delver build can't. What do you mean all the expensive spells? The most expensive spell you expect to hardcast is TNN... I really like the idea of a deck that can win the long game with Stoneforge and TNN but also have a chance at getting free wins with delver in the early game. Same reason why Tarmo-Twin is so good. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What do you mean all the expensive spells? The most expensive spell you expect to hardcast is TNN... He's right for the wrong reasons. Stoneblade is a control deck. It wants to make land drops and cast Stoneforge for Jitte on turn 2, True-Name on turn 3 and Jitte + equip on turn 4. It doesn't want to time walk itself with Daze or Wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:He's right for the wrong reasons. Stoneblade is a control deck. It wants to make land drops and cast Stoneforge for Jitte on turn 2, True-Name on turn 3 and Jitte + equip on turn 4. It doesn't want to time walk itself with Daze or Wasteland. You don't have to wasteland on T1 or 2... You're also taking out Daze on the draw and not playing a full playset anyway. Like I said above, the fact that the Deck can get cheap wins with a flipped T2 Delver that they have to answer while you're playing stoneforge is really strong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You don't have to wasteland on T1 or 2... You're also taking out Daze on the draw and not playing a full playset anyway. Like I said above, the fact that the Deck can get cheap wins with a flipped T2 Delver that they have to answer while you're playing stoneforge is really strong. My answer is usually abrupt decay. Seems effective on turn 2. Also saying Jeskai delver is grating to my ears I don't even link it with American delver in my head. That begin said RUG delver is best delver. Or canadian threshhold if you will. Stifling fetchlands makes it hard to keep the smug off your face. Errant Gin Monks fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
I traded for a tabernacle tonight. It was for EDH, but now I will play the best deck in legacy. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:I traded for a tabernacle tonight. It was for EDH, but now I will play the best deck in legacy. Lands?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I threw together a stupid Thought Lash deck using only cards I already own, and it's crushing people online. The sideboard is almost useless 15 Islands e: Errant Gin Monks posted:Not my fault. If they want to play buy some real cards. I loving hate aura hex proof. Just like I hate UW Heroic in standard right now. 
Four Score fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:45
|
|
suicidesteve posted:you put Eidolon on the stack jassi007 posted:you have to put it on the stack This is the interpretation I was given (I only asked one judge about this since it did occur in a game at GPNJ, but my opponent was not intending to pay the mana anyways): At this point the Burn player is already the one with priority. But since the tournament shortcut assumption is that Ponder was put onto the stack and priority was passed, the Burn player puts the trigger on the stack and given no further actions the Burn player passes, so both players have passed and the top of the stack resolves. I'm willing to believe that the combination of the comprehensive rules and tournament rules is up for different interpretation, since by the technical letter there are a ton of priority passes in this simple sequence making the intended effect for the Ponder/COP player straightforward. And I'm willing to admit bias since the judge ruled in my favor so I didn't investigate further (it was like Round 13 at that point), but I'll ask other judges about it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Lands? I'm going to be a gardener. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the judge is correct there. You're not required to point out your triggers when they go on the stack. Triggers only count as missed if you take an action past the point where they have a visible effect on the game state. If your opponent passes priority after casting a spell, you're not required to let them take that back after you point out the existence of the trigger. If your opponent casts a spell, you give them a second or two to hold priority (and supposing they don't), then you resolve your triggered ability and tell them they're taking 2. If they try to back up the game state to the point where they have priority you call a judge, because the rules are pretty clear that takesy-backsies aren't allowed and you have to stick with what you've announced once you've seen your opponent's response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Oldsrocket_27 posted:Three questions I like to ask myself whenever I'm refining/tuning a deck idea: 1) What matchups/cards are difficult for the deck? 2) What can I do/how much does the deck have to change to shore up those matches? 3) How would those changes affect the good matches, and is it worth it? The toughest matchups are combo and prison decks that don't win by damage, so I'll want some Spell Pierces against them. I suspect this build of the deck just isn't as good as it could be, but I haven't lost a match with it yet so I can't call it terribly weak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:This is the interpretation I was given (I only asked one judge about this since it did occur in a game at GPNJ, but my opponent was not intending to pay the mana anyways): At this point the Burn player is already the one with priority. But since the tournament shortcut assumption is that Ponder was put onto the stack and priority was passed, the Burn player puts the trigger on the stack and given no further actions the Burn player passes, so both players have passed and the top of the stack resolves. This is what you are missing. 116.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends. So he played a spell, you added a trigger, he sat there. He has to pass without taking any action, and so do you for that eidolon trigger to resolve. As long as the ponder play makes no indication he is passing priority back, he still has it after you put the eidolon trigger on the stack. Things the ponder play can do to gently caress up. 1. Reach for his cards to ponder. This indicates he is resolving the ponder, which means the trigger above it has resolved, and that he has passed. Basically when his hand touches the cards you say "so I have you at X life" He could also reach for a pen to adjust his life total, indicating he eidolon trigger has resolved. If he writes it down or says "so I'm at X" he is indicating that trigger resolved. Things that aren't the ponder player loving up. Sitting still not talking or motioning toward the eidolon or the ponder, indicating he has priority and is thinking. Also simply tapping mana to COP your eidolon trigger, or pointing to COP or announcing it in some way. From what you've said, if a judge ruled against someone, that judge hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:As long as the ponder play makes no indication he is passing priority back, he still has it after you put the eidolon trigger on the stack. This is incorrect. If you play a spell, and make no indication that you're holding priority, it's assumed that you've passed priority after putting the spell on the stack. Jabor fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Why does the burn player have to put the trigger on the stack? I would think the game puts it there after the ponder spell is announced/paid for. So P1: ponder, pass priority. Stack looks like Trigger Ponder P2 passes priority, says to p1 you take 2. It has to go P1: "gonna hold priority here, ponder paid for, then activate circle once", pass priority
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
"Burn sucks/takes no skill/is baby's first deck" is an excellent barometer for people being bad at the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Jabor posted:This is incorrect. If you play a spell, and make no indication that you're holding priority, it's assumed that you've passed priority after putting the spell on the stack. You are incorrect. Afer Player A, burn player puts eidolon on the stack, player B, ponder player then has priority unless the burn player indicates he is holding it. I am saying in my above example, player B gets priority after the burn player puts the Eidolon trigger on the stack, and as long as he just sits there thinking, he has priority. He hasn't taken the damage from the Eidolon, or started resolving his ponder, if he does nothing the stack is still unresolved. It is the exact same thing as when it is an active players main phrase, he doesn't have to do or say anything to have priority in his main phase. It is probably better if he makes some indication like "thinking" or "just a minute" but as long as Player B ponder player doesn't agree he's taken the 2 dmg from the Eidolon trigger and/or doesn't start resolving his Ponder, he has priority and the stack has not resolved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Chamale posted:That's not how the current oracle text of Thought Lash works, the opponent will still have a full library and Thought Lash doesn't kill people quickly enough to be worth Donating. It's an underrated defensive tool, that's why I want to build a deck around it. The win condition will be casting Thought Lash, staying alive against whatever the opponent is doing, and then winning with some second half, but I'm not sure what that should be. Laboratory Maniac? Future Sight? Mirror of Fate? Shared Fate? Right now I'm leaning Laboratory Maniac. How does the Future Sight win work? Just burn stuff you don't want until you get the win win?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:You are incorrect. Afer Player A, burn player puts eidolon on the stack, player B, ponder player then has priority unless the burn player indicates he is holding it. I am saying in my above example, player B gets priority after the burn player puts the Eidolon trigger on the stack, and as long as he just sits there thinking, he has priority. He hasn't taken the damage from the Eidolon, or started resolving his ponder, if he does nothing the stack is still unresolved. It is the exact same thing as when it is an active players main phrase, he doesn't have to do or say anything to have priority in his main phase. It is probably better if he makes some indication like "thinking" or "just a minute" but as long as Player B ponder player doesn't agree he's taken the 2 dmg from the Eidolon trigger and/or doesn't start resolving his Ponder, he has priority and the stack has not resolved. This is incorrect. The Eidolon player doesn't explicitly need to put the trigger on the stick - the MTR is quite clear that it only needs to be acknowledged when it causes a visible impact on the game (i.e., when it resolves). If you cast a spell, and you don't explicitly hold priority, it's assumed that you're passing priority to give your opponent a chance to respond. This is a fundamental tournament shortcut. The sequence of actions that happens is as follows: 1. Player A casts Ponder. The eidolon trigger goes on the stack. 2a. If Player A has indicated they held priority, player A has priority and can respond to either the Ponder or the Eidolon trigger. 2b. If Player A has not indicated that they have held priority, it is assumed they have passed in order for their spell to resolve. Player B now has priority. Once Player B has priority, they can pass back and resolve the Eidolon trigger, and Player A doesn't get to say "hang on, I have a response". You're not allowed to carry out fishing expeditions, once you've indicated a course of action you have to stick to it if your opponent doesn't respond.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Molybdenum posted:Why does the burn player have to put the trigger on the stack? I would think the game puts it there after the ponder spell is announced/paid for. Paper magic has no automated rules engine like modo.Someone has to remember triggered abilities. The rules over time have come to the current state which is this. You don't have to remind your opponent of his triggers. You can't "forget" your own detrimental triggers, you can forget your own beneficial triggers. If your opponent wants the trigger for eidolon to go on the stack, even though it is not a MAY clause, in paper magic he must indicate it in some way. In the above example when you cast ponder he could tap the eidolon, say eidolon, say take 2, write 2 damage on his life total tally, etc. As long as he is clearly acknowledging his trigger in some way it happens. Where you are wrong is P1 gets priority after P2 passes with the eidolon trigger on the stack. He doesn't have to do anything special to get priority. Nothing on the stack resolve until both players pass priority with nothing to do. quote:116.5. Each time a player would get priority, the game first performs all applicable state-based actions as a single event (see rule 704, "State-Based Actions"), then repeats this process until no state-based actions are performed. Then triggered abilities are put on the stack (see rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities"). These steps repeat in order until no further state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the player who would have received priority does so. Ok so I cast ponder. The trigger is put on the stack (rule 116.5). Then the player who would receive priority, burn player gets it. He passes priority back to player A because quote:116.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends. both players must pass without any action. Player A, ponder play took an action (casting ponder) then player B's trigger is added, he gets priority, he adds nothing else to the stack and passes. Player A has priority again, and the eidolon trigger doesn't resolve until he passes priority without taking any action (116.5). There is no way to gotcha him so he can't use COP: Red unless he does something stupid like acknowledge a life total change or start resolving the ponder by grabbing the cards from his library. In real terms he goes ponder, you go trigger, he goes COP. Thats it. jassi007 fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 14:37
|
|