|
Price used to be a pretty good way to talk about the valuation of a card in standard - the classic parable was what happened to Baneslayer Angel's cash value when the Titans were printed. I still remember my friend refusing to play the one he opened in his sealed pool. (Casual event, no sleeves - he was allowed to use a proxy.) But Wizards has been so good about jamming chase rares into supplemental products, price no longer measures demand the way it used to. We could also talk about Dies to Countermagic and the subtle difference between that and removal. The titans had to be so loving spicy that you'd play them around Mana Leak, not to mention having ETB triggers that shrug off the tempo hit from removal. mcmagic posted:Oh look. More completely uncalled for and unprovoked assholishness. Nice. You provoked him by being garbage. Stop being garbage.
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
The downside of 1CD in a mono-C deck is qualitative. If I'm in C, I have to move into D to support it. The downside of 1CC in a CD deck is quantitative. If I'm in CD, I can support 1CC, but I may not be able to do it efficiently. This leads us to perceive the downside of 1CD as less onerous, because we can just move into D - after which it's roughly as easy to cast as 2C or 2D. 1CC will always be difficult if we're not mono-C. The resources to splash D always exist, but the resources to splash D and efficiently maximize C are harder to come by. LordSaturn fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:But note that even this statement makes assumptions (which currently come naturally to us, certainly, but aren't inherently true) about the ease of moving into D. When there are literally 12+ lands in the format that will access D while also accessing C, so that you're never at a risk of getting screwed out of C, then yeah the splash is a no-brainer. And incidentally, a deck that's just splashing by making use of the aforementioned surfeit of dual lands won't mind 1CC either. It's when you're actually trying to spread yourself between 2 or 3 colors, the way a lot of decks now do, that the tension against 1CC comes up even when mana is off the hook. I edited my post about six times because I kept thinking about it, here's the last thing I said: LordSaturn posted:The resources to splash D always exist, but the resources to splash D and efficiently maximize C are harder to come by. Which, yeah, points out that the resources to splash D on top of C always exist. My real question is this: When, in what format, did those resources not exist? Is that scenario worth considering?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Attempting to carry this out of the Eternal thread, where it was causing problems:Emerson Cod posted:In a deck playing 3 Grim Lavamancers (which seems to be the current load-out), why not play 3-4 Sonic Seizures instead of Price of Progress? There is a risk - you may topdeck it without any cards you're willing to pitch. But how often do you have a "dead" card in hand that isn't going to help you on the board and can't be directed to your opponents face? Every single match, I've ended up with a dead card - whether it be a land that's not going to help me or a creature that can't get through. I bolded the question that he seems to be asking - why not play Sonic Seizure as a way to leverage dead cards? The short answer is that Burn should never have dead cards. Every single card goes right to the opponent's forehead, no questions asked. The two exceptions, as he pointed out, are creatures, and lands beyond the third. If you anticipate having extra lands, play Shard Volley. If you anticipate having extra creatures, play Collateral Damage. Compared to Seizure, they have the same downside - you have to know what you anticipate having too much of, and you have to actually make that thing, rather than holding it in hand. They also have the crucial upside of not requiring a random discard. You absolutely cannot afford to pitch a burn spell to Seizure, which will lead you to hold Seizure as long as possible, casting all your other gas cards first. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of the worst possible outcome - two Sonic Seizure in your hand at the same time. It also generally makes your sequencing decisions more complicated, and Burn already has a very narrow path it needs to walk.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Because you're 2-for-1ing yourself. Yeah, I never even got into the subject of "Legacy has a million Bolt alternatives that don't 2-for-1 you". I kind of like Collateral damage, since Fireblast already chews up your excess Mountains, but there's no way it's actually necessary in Legacy, Emerson Cod posted:At that point you're turning dead cards into momentum. This is a mistake I made while I was learning Magic strategy. I was playing Tempered Steel and I was desperate to stop losing grindy games where the opponent stabilized with removal or sweepers, and so I kept putting in more and more 2-for-1 recursion sorceries - Grim Discovery and Remember the Fallen. And it just made my games worse and worse. Equipping yourself to win a game gone bad is only relevant if your deck is made of cards that can swing a game by themselves. If they've gained 8 life from Batterskull swings, Burn is pretty much flat dead no matter what, because none of your cards say "erase their board presence and draw three more gas cards to put you back in this game". Those dead mountains in your hand didn't become dead when you failed to build your deck with a card that turns them into damage, they became dead when you drew into them by letting the game go to turn 6. The bad board state when you actually lose isn't the board state that caused you to lose, and it takes a while to learn to see that instinctively. And here's another way to slice it: Sonic Seizure's best case scenario, going down to two cards so you can pitch a dead mountain for three damage? If that Sonic Seizure was a Lightning Strike, you could play the mountain, and then cast the Lightning Strike. You could ALSO play the Lightning Strike with 4 mountains in play and 2 Fireblast in hand, which is not true of Sonic Seizure. Basically, Sonic Seizure is worse than Lightning Strike in Legacy burn.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
I was wondering about this; I went back and re-confirmed that you were talking about Sonic Seizure, and you definitely were, in your original post. Sonic Burst at least milks out an extra point of damage, but the downsides w.r.t. the random discard are still overwhelmingly important. You want the last card in your hand to be a Fireblast; Sonic Burst conflicts aggressively with that plan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:People play Flame Rift, which has a fairly large drawback that's amplified by decks also playing Eidolon of the Great Revel. Is 6 life worth a card? Those aren't the same thing, though. 6 life is way softer than a random discard, particularly for Burn against a slower deck. Emerson Cod posted:My point is that when random discard isn't truly random, the additional cost doesn't really matter that much. The problem is that it's always random, because you don't have the time/mana to spend crafting a situation where Sonic Burst is alone in your hand with an irrelevant card. Emerson Cod posted:If you're stuck with a Fireblast, Sonic Burst, and a land - just float the mana, sac the Mountains for Fireblast, and play Sonic Burst. What if you don't get the Mountain? What if you sandbag the Fireblast as your only card in hand (a common line of play), and topdeck into your Sonic Burst? How is that better than topdecking into another Mountain or a Barbarian Ring? Try it this way: 1) ~ is a dead card if you topdeck it from hellbent. 2) ~ is a dead card unless you're holding an irrelevant card. 3) ~ can only be cast after you work yourself down to two cards in hand, and the other one is irrelevant. No card in the regular burn list has these problems. 1) Topdecking from hellbent is a regular situation in burn decks. You will do this constantly. 2 & 3) Burn plays almost no cards that aren't relevant to every situation, because the situation is always "burn the poo poo out of their face" This isn't even counting all the times where you need to force them to put instant-speed lifegain on the stack so you can beat it with another burn spell. Sonic Burst's onerous cost makes it worse at that than Searing Spear, extra point of damage or not. If you really want to hedge against land flood, run Barbarian Ring/Shard Volley/Fireblast. If you want to hedge against board stall, run Collateral Damage. Sonic Burst doesn't fix either of those problems, it's just a bad topdeck that needs another bad topdeck to function.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Lands.dec? Or just land cards in general?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Once ever did we get a direct upgrade over basic lands - the original dual lands. Those still completely dominate every format they're legal in, hate or no hate, because they make it trivial to go to two colors. With fetchlands, they make it trivial to add a third color as well. So then we fall back to the various drawbacks. Life payments for color fixing are pretty universally recognized as the most powerful option, since your life total is easier to defend if you're casting more spells, which you can do if your mana's being fixed properly. Various taplands have been popular over time, but those depend strongly on their entire rules text - buddy lands, fast lands, scry lands, etc. Stays-tapped lands seem to very rarely be acceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Onmi posted:You did not mention the worst lands of all. The Homelands Lands I once physically removed a Koskun Keep from a child's EDH deck. I bought him a Shimmering Grotto to replace it. That was a fun overview, but it kind of lacks in evaluation. I think the historical, overarching theme of mana-producing lands is that tempo = life. In nearly every case, if a land would be strictly better than a basic for a player who has infinite life, that land gets played. Lands whose drawback is tapping still get played, but only if they have other abilities, or if the tapping is conditional. Shocklands have the neat effect of being either type, depending on the situation. Mainly, I'm curious what are the worst mana-producing lands to see serious competitive play.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Zoness posted:Also ravnica guild halls although only Vitu-Ghazi was really playable (unless we're not counting utility land cycles) also sunhome now and skarrg and maybe theres one more i can't think of. Nephalia Drownyard, aka I_can't_think_of_a_win_condition_for_this_deck.land
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 18:39
|
|