Community

Jun 16, 2010 -- 12:26PM, JustTerrorIt wrote:

Jun 15, 2010 -- 9:14PM, faisjdas wrote:

Esper Charm is just too good to not run.  Not sure what I would take out though.

Prophetic Prism would come out. Definitely.
I don't recall people getting excited about Shimmering Grotto , much less paying 2 mana for it.

Prophetic Prism is an artifact that cantrips... thus it works really well with Master Transmuter... That is why Porphetic Prism is played... I disagree that Esper Charm should be in there somewhere, there is enough card draw and hand disruption in the deck already...

For anyone complaining about Master Transmuter, just compare it to Knight of the Relinquary.

The UW control opponent was an idiot.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 6:48PM, ScionofStyx wrote:

Jun 16, 2010 -- 4:06PM, GreenBuster wrote:

Jun 16, 2010 -- 3:27PM, ScionofStyx wrote:

For anyone complaining about Master Transmuter, just compare it to Knight of the Relinquary.

Master Transmuter is susceptible to pretty much every piece of removal in the game.  After a few lands are in the graveyard, Knight of the Reliquary is immune to most burn spells, though it is still highly susceptible to destroy effects (as most everything is).  Master Transmuter forms a core component of some decks and the deck does not work as well if Master Transmuter is destroyed.  Knight of the Reliquary is a powerful creature.  Powerful creatures tend to not be center pieces in decks.  It may be an important card but its loss would not cripple the deck.  Master Transmuter can allow you to put a high CMC artifact (creature) into play many turns before you could normally play it.  Knight of the Reliquary searches only for lands.

Comparing Master Transmuter to Knight of the Reliquary is not a good idea.  The two do not fill the same role.  Master Transmuter is a weak bodied creature that can do great things if it is on the field long enough.  Knight of the Reliquary is a beat-stick that can search for good lands.  They are not the same.

I'm sorry, but I do not seem to understand why Master Transmuter is much worse than Knight of the Reliquary.  This deck functions perfectly well without it, it is merely additional punishment for decks without much removal, such as mythic.  The Knight is able to grow to Epic Proportions after a few turns of deckthinning, and the Master Transmuter can put in a gigantinc artifact creature.  When you play it, you have 1 turn of vulnerability then it can blank a removal spell.  If you are worried about burn spells, the red player will simply aim them at your face, since you are already taking damage from the fetches that bonus your knight.  I will concede on the DIES TO REMOVAL point, since they can both be terminated once they are played.

It is important to realize that if the opponent uses a removal spell on your master transmuter, then it opens up your sphinxes to close the game.

I wasn't arguing that one is stronger than the other.  They are both strong creatures in their own way.  I was arguing that you are trying to compare two creatures with different roles.  I was also arguing that Master Transmuter is much more susceptible to removal than Knight of the Reliquary.  Knight of the Reliquary can hit you for more damage than any normal burn spell and it has much better value in combat.  I know that Master Transmuter can save itself when it comes online.  Problem is it doesn't usually survive long enough to come online.

I am sure that the deck can work fine without Master Transmuter.  However, it isn't easy to get 6 to 8 lands when you really need to play the cards.  Without the Transmuter, you have to wait until you get the necessary lands to play each creature.  You also can't do any nifty tricks such as searching for additional creatures by returning then playing Sphinx Summoner again, bringing artifacts back from the graveyard more than once by dealing with Sharuum, or removing a card in your opponent's hand from the game permanently with Tidehollow Sculler.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 8:21AM, iamsum1gr8 wrote:

I am going to agree with Ertai on this one...

Path and Wall are essential for playing standard, and any player who wanted to play competitively, budget or not, should have a play set of each somewhere... As for the rest of the cards I happen to have them all in my collection and i don't go out of my way to buy cards these days...

The only money I spend on magic is Prereleases, and one or two drafts a week. I only play IRL and for just about every deck that JVL writes about, I have yet to have had any issues getting the cards... Admittedly for a Johnny like me, he writes articles on cards that I have generally liked the look of and actively traded for anyway.

When looking at the price of a list, it is impractical to assess the cost of the whole list as most people should have all the uncommons and some of the rares anyway... The real cost in a list is the cards people are unlikely to have, and to be fair to all the people who have been dissing the mythics... all three are in heavily opened sets and none are more than $8 according to StarCityGames.com

Exactly why the number of rares in this deck is such a hurdle for budget players. We may own 2-4 of every uncommon in a set from drafts, or whatever but what takes up most of the "budget" is actually buying the cards that we don't have. Yes these rares are slightly more affordable but the sheer quantity is alarming for budget players. Even when you break down the cards by prices it breaks the budget. Not to mention the fact that JvL left marsh flats off the list in an attempt to budgetize it. I think the mana is ok in the deck with the borderposts and prophetic prism however, if you think that you're list is going to reliably beat the version of this deck that includes marsh flats and celestial colonnade / creeping tar pit then you're kidding yourself.

Also the one guy was basically saying that there isn't any "Building" in the articles anymore. While he talks about card choices he doesn't talk about the building process much. He just shows us the end result decklist without giving us a starting point and the trials and errors along the way. As many of us who are upset with the "budget" aspect there are quite a few who are upset with the "building" part of the name. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that he has nothing at stake in these articles. Maybe he should take one of these decks to FNM and put his rating on the line.