Community

This thread is for discussion of this week's Limited Information, which goes live Tuesday morning on magicthegathering.com.

Aug 1, 2011 -- 10:21PM, Fox_Murdoch wrote:

It's good having plan A plan B, but this only applies to those seeking b/r bloodthirst. what if you're hoping for u/w control and after a hot pack 1 you see u/w dry up for pack 2, tho u stayed on course and got rewarded with nothing better than Cancel.

 

I think Steve limited himself to talking of Bloodthirst as it is bloodthirst week, and because it's the most obvious "theme" for a deck to have in M12.

I was sad that he didn't mention the Green bloodthirsties at all... Is it worth playing Lurking Crocodile if you're UG or WG? It's still a decent creature without its bloodthirst enabled, but it's so much better when swinging for 3.

Also, I think everyone who's playing Limited online has a copy (or seven!) of Bloodlord of Vaasgoth by now. Is its ability worth anything? If one firstpicks it, how much more interesting do the Child of Night become? Does Bloodthirst 1/2 and 3 stack ( Bloodrage Vampire and Vampire Outcasts ).

Aug 2, 2011 -- 2:38AM, Jakusotsu wrote:

Aug 2, 2011 -- 2:01AM, Lobster667 wrote:

But it's a very one-dimensional approach, and one which could be shut down by cards as different as Day of Judgement and Circle of Flame .

Do you really want to bring Circle of Flame out of the sideboard against Blood.dec? It only shuts down Tormented Soul reliably, but a couple of turns too late, especially when on the draw. Not really worth it IMHO.

I've played Circle of Flame maindeck as my only red card and still found it useful. It requires a deck with a certain strategy, true, but it is a potentially devastating card for two mana.

True, I didn't play a bull-rush bloodthirst opponent... And yes, it only reliably works against Tormented Soul, but that's the only black enabler at 1-drop. On the play, a T2 Circle of Flames stops a bloodthirst who kept a hand with Tormented Soul as his enabling 1-drop completely dead in the tracks. His T2 Duskhunter Bat can take up its discussion with my Griffin Sentinel .

I'm not saying this always works (heck, not even often), I am just saying that there are cards that upset bloodthirst's applecart, as there should be, and if you plan on relying on bloodthirst to win, you need to consider these cards and have answers for them (at least in your sideboard) if possible.

Aug 1, 2011 -- 10:21PM, Fox_Murdoch wrote:

It's good having plan A plan B, but this only applies to those seeking b/r bloodthirst. what if you're hoping for u/w control and after a hot pack 1 you see u/w dry up for pack 2, tho u stayed on course and got rewarded with nothing better than Cancel.
 

I don't see why u/w control would be any different than bloodthirst in this case.  If you're going u/w control pack 1 and you notice that u/w dries up pack two, then start looking for a backup plan.  Start picking another color for instance (if you can, try to spot a color that you saw some decent cards pass in pack 1 so that you don't switch to a color only to end up getting that color cut in pack 3).

Aug 2, 2011 -- 1:42AM, Highwayman wrote:

Personally I would try not to overcommit to a bloodthirst strategy even when the cards are open simply because if my opponent blunts my assault , or puts me on defence, then I will be left pulling substandard creatures for the rest of the game.

I don't think DoJ is a very good exemple as it's a rare, but you have a good point.  If your enabler gets killed before you can start casting your bloodthirst dudes, you're gonna be in a pretty bad position.  That said, I've rarely seen a deck that could go all out bloodthirst simply because I've never seen a situation where you could pick enough bloodthirst guys to fill your deck.  You can manage a healthy balance of enablers, bloodthirst guys and and a couple of guys that are just solid.

I drafted a successful mono-red deck with just four bloodthirst creatures (two minotaurs, one ogre and one berserker) and four enablers (three fireslingers, one arsonist) but (a) I wasn't afraid to cast any of the bloodthirst creatures 'unbloodied', albeit the berserkers were the one I'd most likely hold back to get bloody and (b) it was an enhancement to my strategy rather than the strategy itself.

I also like to play them like that.  Bloodthirst guys are great when paired with blue or white evasive creatures for instance.  Blue and white evasive dudes are very good by themselves, but pure evasion decks have a tendancy to have trouble holding the ground because their creatures are smaller, so the bloodthirst guys go down to hold the fort or as a backup plan.  I disagree with Sadin that the bloodthirst creatures are only good when you enable them early.  They are in a dedicated bloodthirst deck, but outside of that, a 3/3 first striker for 3 will almost always be relevant in my experience.  A 5/5 for 4 even more so!

I was also packing two goblin grenade , a fireball , an incinerate and a shock , but rarely if ever used these direct damage spells to 'bloody' my creatures (an aspect of bloodthirst Steve doesn't go into).

I don't think burn to the head to activate bloodthirst is typically a good idea and probably why he didn't go into it.  Incinerate into the ogre means you paid 5 and 2 cards to get a 3/3 first striker.  Not a good deal.  You're much better off killing a creature and playing a 2/2 first striker.  Plus, you can often use the burn on a blocker to get damage through instead.  I'm not saying you should never do it.  Maybe if I was shocking my opponent to bloodthirst a berserker turn 3, knowing that there's a good change the berserker will then enable a minotaur or something like that, but those situations would be pretty rare.