10/29/2010 LD: "Thing of Many Decks"

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Latest Developments, which goes live Friday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Does anyone else find it odd that Michael Svein's has Stoic Rebuttal but can't cast it at a discounted rate in the main deck? The only way that deck can cast it for two is with a ratchet bomb in play and two artifacts stolen with volition reins and that's if one is pulled in from the board. I mean, I guess it's still better that cancel since it can possibly be discounted, and it makes the opponent assume there are more artifacts in the deck then there are (and thus possibly board in hate) but it just seems odd to me.
There's no reason to play the strictly worse card, unless you think you can catch your opponent naming wrong on Memoricide, and who uses that card to take out Cancels anyway?  The one time in a million games it comes up costing 2 instead of 3, you'll get to feel happy that you chose the right card.  Much better than having it backwards and having the wrong card that one time in a million.
The end is always nigh.
While it wasn't a "centerpiece" to my deck, I found Bloodchief Ascension to be really useful in my Jund deck before Shards rotated out. 
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1205820039/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
We also discovered that to many players, there's not much difference between "When you sacrifice CARDNAME, ," and "Sacrifice CARDNAME: ,"


I weep.
This kind of bugs me cause it gives me the feeling that RnD doesnt actually know what they're doing or what makes something good in magic.  I see a lot of stuff like "yeah I was surprised to see zendikar would be that fast or that whatever is a real deck".  Yes there are a lot of people testing in the real world who break these kind of things, but RnD should be good enough at magic to be able to get closer to solving formats than they have been lately.
I'm going to be a teenage girl for a second, would be great if you could humour me.

Venser is so cute, like, squeeeeeeee levels of hotness.

Carry on. 
I would like to humbly suggest that the reason the Venser deck from the FFL is not seeing wider play is that it is a $600 deck. 
I would like to humbly suggest that the reason the Venser deck from the FFL is not seeing wider play is that it is a $600 deck. 



or because it's just terrible...
Did I just read it right that there was initially even more red stuff that had you sacrifice things? I thought there was a lot now.
Don't worry, Tom. I would've built the same deck you did.

...Except I'd use Sun Titan instead of Baneslayer. Have Vesner blink Sun Titan, Wrath, then use my Titan to get back the Oracle/Wall I killed with my own Wrath? AWESOME! Might even give me an excuse to run Old Jace over New Jace.
And for the no-prize award, the cards WOTC is the least surprised to see in all the decks: 






(imagine a drumroll here)





The rare dual lands! Yay!  
Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals "...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009. "While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013
This kind of bugs me cause it gives me the feeling that RnD doesnt actually know what they're doing or what makes something good in magic.  I see a lot of stuff like "yeah I was surprised to see zendikar would be that fast or that whatever is a real deck".  Yes there are a lot of people testing in the real world who break these kind of things, but RnD should be good enough at magic to be able to get closer to solving formats than they have been lately.

The fact that R&D isn't getting closer to solving formats tells me that they do know what they're doing.  R&D shouldn't be making formats that are easy to solve.  R&D should be making formats that are interesting and diverse, which seems to me to be exactly what they're doing.

For a deck with four Ornithopters and four Memnites, this deck has shocking amounts of play into the late game with Squadron Hawks and equipment found by Stoneforge Mystics.

Shocking amounts? That deck is cute with its synergies and all, but by experience, I can tell you that if it doesn't succesfully activate the quest in the first few turns, it just fails horribly against any deck with a decent amount of removal. It is grossly inconsistent and has very little late game even compared to most other aggro decks.

Does anyone else find it odd that Michael Svein's has Stoic Rebuttal but can't cast it at a discounted rate in the main deck? The only way that deck can cast it for two is with a ratchet bomb in play and two artifacts stolen with volition reins and that's if one is pulled in from the board. I mean, I guess it's still better that cancel since it can possibly be discounted, and it makes the opponent assume there are more artifacts in the deck then there are (and thus possibly board in hate) but it just seems odd to me.

There's no reason to play the strictly worse card, unless you think you can catch your opponent naming wrong on Memoricide, and who uses that card to take out Cancels anyway?  The one time in a million games it comes up costing 2 instead of 3, you'll get to feel happy that you chose the right card.  Much better than having it backwards and having the wrong card that one time in a million.

The most ingenious tech I've seen done so far with Cancel and Stoic Rebuttal is playing one of each. If your opponent sees both, there is a high chance that he will think you are playing 5 or more of these spells, and he will play accordingly whenever you represent their mana cost. Of course, if that tech becomes commonplace, it'll get to work a lot less often, but even then, it seems to me that that possibility makes playing some of both superior to playing just Rebuttal for the off chance of getting the discount (but it depends on your artifact count of course).

This kind of bugs me cause it gives me the feeling that RnD doesnt actually know what they're doing or what makes something good in magic.  I see a lot of stuff like "yeah I was surprised to see zendikar would be that fast or that whatever is a real deck".  Yes there are a lot of people testing in the real world who break these kind of things, but RnD should be good enough at magic to be able to get closer to solving formats than they have been lately.

The fact that R&D isn't getting closer to solving formats tells me that they do know what they're doing.  R&D shouldn't be making formats that are easy to solve.  R&D should be making formats that are interesting and diverse, which seems to me to be exactly what they're doing.

R&D are very good players in general and have a high understanding of the game. Development, in particular, has some of the best players of their era; as MaRo mentionned numerous times, having been a pro tour star is one of the strongest points for an applicant for a dev job. But even with all those great people in the team, R&D and the FFL are a very, very small group compared to the Magic Hive Mind. They cannot accurately predict the metagame that the Mind will produce, a metagame that naturally evolves upon itself as this or that strategy becomes more popular. The best thay can do is trying to balance threats and answers and avoid what is inherently degenerate based on prior knowledge and the testing they can do internally. Their balance failures have been reltively minor lately, so in my opinion, they do a great job. Standard has always been fine for me since the days of Affinity; even when Faeries and Jund dominated for a few months each, I managed to win with something else (something very red, in most cases).

Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
It's interesting that credit is being given to event winners rather than the actual deck architects.  The first pyromancer build and the URw control featuring Venser were both Chapin's ideas.  The second pyromancer build was a Flores creation.
There's no reason to play the strictly worse card, unless you think you can catch your opponent naming wrong on Memoricide, and who uses that card to take out Cancels anyway?  The one time in a million games it comes up costing 2 instead of 3, you'll get to feel happy that you chose the right card.  Much better than having it backwards and having the wrong card that one time in a million.



Doesn't that make the correct play to run 1 cancel and one stoic rebuttal so to avoid being hit with a memoricide all together? Needing to avoid a memoricide actually seems a little more likely than getting the discounted rate on stoic rebuttal and that being relivant.
Normally I'd look forward to the extended results, but the recent change makes extended boring. Hopefully there will be some interesting decks in Legacy, but it doesn't change much. Extended had found the perfect balance between lasting decks and room for growth, but then it was changed. Frown
There's no reason to play the strictly worse card, unless you think you can catch your opponent naming wrong on Memoricide, and who uses that card to take out Cancels anyway?  The one time in a million games it comes up costing 2 instead of 3, you'll get to feel happy that you chose the right card.  Much better than having it backwards and having the wrong card that one time in a million.



Doesn't that make the correct play to run 1 cancel and one stoic rebuttal so to avoid being hit with a memoricide all together? Needing to avoid a memoricide actually seems a little more likely than getting the discounted rate on stoic rebuttal and that being relivant.



If your deck is somewhat well made, your opponent is going to want to remove some other card then either Cancel or Stoic Rebuttal.  Cancel will always have a CMC of 3, Stoic Rebuttal will, on occasion, have a CMC of 2.  That is way better than Cancel.
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1205820039/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
There's no reason to play the strictly worse card, unless you think you can catch your opponent naming wrong on Memoricide, and who uses that card to take out Cancels anyway?  The one time in a million games it comes up costing 2 instead of 3, you'll get to feel happy that you chose the right card.  Much better than having it backwards and having the wrong card that one time in a million.



Doesn't that make the correct play to run 1 cancel and one stoic rebuttal so to avoid being hit with a memoricide all together? Needing to avoid a memoricide actually seems a little more likely than getting the discounted rate on stoic rebuttal and that being relivant.



If your deck is somewhat well made, your opponent is going to want to remove some other card then either Cancel or Stoic Rebuttal.  Cancel will always have a CMC of 3, Stoic Rebuttal will, on occasion, have a CMC of 2.  That is way better than Cancel.



Honestly, I can think of positions where I would want to memoricide for a cancel (mostly trying to ensure that a game winning spell won't get countered). To be honest, I'd think that would come up more often with this deck than ratchet bomb in play and unused, and double volition reins with one out of the board and both stealing artifacts. I mean, honestly both are long shots, but it seems to me that playing around the possibility of a memoricide is more likely that having three artifacts, and drawing the cancel instead of a stoic rebutal (if you have 1 of each) and that 1 mana actually being relivent. Either way the overall number of games this change would mean is pretty insignificant, but I still think that running one of each is technically correct.
If you say so.  Personally I would rather remove one of my opponent's game winning spells then a permission spell.  The only real time I would use it on permission is if my opponent has a lot of it and a game winning spell that I can typically counter without removing it with Memoricide.
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1205820039/Scorecards/Landscape.png)