Community

Nov 17, 2011 -- 9:19PM, Tich wrote:

I was talking about Chasms but it's the same idea. There's also no real point in doing big order lists. Just find a site that will ship cards uninsured or whatever, to avoid big shipping charges. It's not like you care if your $5.00 worth of cards gets lost (not that it ever happens). It's much easier to just re-order it than to pay $20.00 after all.

Unless, of course, you're paying $10 to ship anything like me.
(Sometimes, being in the most isolated city on the planet sucks!)

I'm back - thanks for the PM!
At first blink, I'd say four Glacial Chasm s are probably overkill - about 90% of the time, it's the upkeep that sees them leave the field, and with this deck, you'll have hopefully killed everyone by that stage.
Three, I think, might be a fair number, though.
I'm tempted to suggest Pyromancer Ascension , too, just for giggles.

I run 2 in my decks but I also pack them with as much tutors and/or draw as possible. 3 is still infinitely better than 4 though. It's not a card that you want to see early, and you don't exactly want to see a lot of them either.

I don't like the Swine in this deck. It's very slow and expensive, and most of your spells don't affect it. Soil, Sizzle, Rift are all "do nothings" as far as he's concerned. Spitfire may seem weaker, but it depends on the amount of removal being played. Let's be clear, it's a OHKO. If you Sizzle, swing, and land, that's a dead opponent. It can easily take everyone out long before a Swine would land.

Swine can also be weak in practice. In comes out late but has a MASSIVE target on its head. Like, it's very hard to untap with him in play. You obviously just win the game if you Earthquake with him out and pitch your Quest while dropping a Chasm, but that requires a lot to go right. The Spitfire is just solid. Your deck has infinity burn, making her "useful" isn't hard. Will she eat removal? Probably. Will she still be better on average? Probably. One of the most general rules in magic is that the cheaper spell is probably better all things considered. I would argue that to be the case in this instance. You don't need to build around her, you don't need things to go right for you and you're not setting up for one big play. She's just plain good.

I also want to point out the fact that you're playing with 19 lands and are even potentially Stone Rain ing yourself at times. A 6 drop feels like it would be utter suicide. I don't even think EQ is good in this deck. I would rather see you fill up on Acidic Soil s and Flame Rift s if only because of how good they are with Glacial Chasm + Quest for Pure Flame . What you want are a lot of cheap spells so that you can float a Red mana, drop a Chasm (sac the tapped mountain), sac a Quest/have a Servant in play and then Soil + Rift. That should be your endgame goal. You do not want 6 drops, you want to be able to play multiple spells to make your Quests that much better. I would easily run 4x Acidic Soilc and 4x Flame Rift in this deck before I touched any other burn spell. These are your game winners when paired with Quest and Chasm. Quest is actually a monster in that style of deck, I really like it. It's a relevant 1 drop that helps smooth your deck's draws and speeds up its clock considerably. Normally I hate 1-shot effects in multiplayer, especially if they need time to ramp up, but this one I'm fairly fond of. It's easily one of the stronger cards in your deck, MUCH better than Fire Servant .

The deck looks pretty solid otherwise. The only change that I would probably make (if I were making the deck myself/for a friend) is swap the Membranes into Taurean Mauler s. They're typically just as impossible to attack into, but are also crazy good beaters when needed. I don't like drawing "do nothings" in this style of deck and the Membrane is definitely a "do nothing." It's not an Ensnaring Bridge by any means, I wouldn't use it as a "poor-man's" version. Still, the deck seems solid once you take out the EQ and bump up the other burn. You just don't have the mana to support an X spell with a 19 land deck.

Just as a random rant, mana bases are a criminally overlooked aspect of multiplayer play. I really don't understand why people try to cut corners and play with as few lands as possible. I'll admit that I'm as guilty as anyone of doing the exact same thing back when I was new to the game, and there's plenty of evidence to support that. Still, I feel like the mana base is constantly glazed over/ignored on these (and similar) forums. I'm a massive proponent of playing land-heavy decks in multiplayer, especially if you have a strong late-game plan with tons of inevitability. I routinely play 26-27 lands in my slow, Control decks just because I know that if I hit my land drops I should win. I've witness countless losses to mana screws in my day but rarely have I ever seen someone flood out and lose. There's just so much that you can do with lands, especially if you include "spell" lands such as Urza's Factory and Leechridden Swamp that have powerful multiplayer effects. It's like always drawing into spells while still pushing towards your endgame goal. Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that a 6 drop really has no place at all in a 19 land deck that Stone Rain s itself, but everyone kinda ignores the mana base and assumes that everything is castable because "it's multiplayer." That's simply not the case. You cannot throw a bunch of 5 and 6 drops (EQ, Servant, Swine) into a 19 land deck and expect good things to happen. They won't. Don't povide any anecdotal evidence of playing 6 drops in 18 land decks and having this run smoothly either. Statistically speaking, they shouldn't. Yeah, some people get lucky and run good. That's fine, good for you if you're one of them. Still, I live in the real world where people can play 24 mana sources in their decks and commonly (or at least that's what it feels like >.<) not see 4 mana by turn 4 or look at keepable 7 card hands with 3-4 sources.