|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 4:01PM
#321
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
Hmm. Turning a token into an Air Elemental sized threat (with "haste") is nothing to sneeze at, but I always felt the token engine was a little slow to get up and running. At least when you're looking to reach a point where you can really take advantage of cards like Fallen Angel or Demonic Appetite to a powerful level. I figure since the main " engine  " costs so much, and most of the better non-token creatures are high toughness walls or lategame bombs, you're never really pumping out enough generators unless you're running generally "bad" cards like Bog Imp  . I'd much rather run the typical control cards and game ending bombs instead and use what tokens I have as a stall mechanism. I'm sure it works well given the right situations, but I wonder how often those come up and question if the card is actually decreasing the performance of the deck somewhere down the line. I'm a little worried the card eats your board away if it's not landing the killing blow when you don't have many tokens/creatures to spare. That's potentially hurting the effectiveness of a later drawn Fallen Angel or Woebringer as they'll have less bodies to interact with, but hopefully at the expense of 4+ damage/chump blocks I guess. I'm just not sure how I feel about opening up opportunities for the opponent to really swing an advantage out of Appetite's drawback.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 5:17PM
#322
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2012
|
It's true that it makes a later fallen angel/woebringer less effective, but we are talking about a group of only 4 cards, so drawing more than one is overall unlikely. And you do have a similar problem if you draw woebringer + fallen angel or 2 fallen angels, with the added hassle that they cost much more. Having a 1 mana cost card that has such a big immediate impact is really nice in a slow deck. But you may be right on the other objection, that the token production is actually kinda slow due to lack of cheap creatures. Traveler and cadaver imp, plus the walls and the gargoyle (but you probably want the enchantment on the gargoyle rather than sacrificing him), maybe if I wanted to really focus on the tokens I could actually add a couple of imps and see if they work O_o
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 7:35PM
#323
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
They all interact kind of awkwardly in my opinion. I've only ran two of any combination of those cards, which for the longest time was Woebringer Demon and a single Fallen Angel. I've since fallen away from that design, including cutting support of the token engine and going straight control as I find it just works better with the available cards. The thing is it's just not that just Woebringer Demon, Fallen Angel, or Demonic Appetite "contend" with each other for your board resources, it's also that the deck fights with itself in requiring you to draw the generators as well, typically a Field of Souls so you can sustain any number of these cards . Fallen Angel less so as the sacrifice effect is controlled, but a 3/3 flier for 5 barely makes it in this list, but that card offers other applications (Living Death, negative enchantment disruption). Anyways, once you have your engine, you need the fuel to make it work, so you need to draw creatures you want dead. For the most part, nothing in the deck really wants to die unless it's providing some sort of stalling effect in which any tokens you generate typically want to help continue the stall or you're hopefully dropping a real finisher of your own by now. This is pretty much how Demonic Appetite has to be approached in this situation as well. It's a "bomb", a finisher for the deck. It pushes out a lot of extra damage that can end games out of nowhere with that condensed cost (lategame Darklit Gargoyle pump for the win). However, it pretty much turns anything it's attached to into a "must answer" threat as in 4-5 swings the opponent is dead. Given the already discussed slow nature of the deck, having to hit for these full number of swings is pretty common because there isn't much of an early "aggro" component to the deck. Doomed Traveler and Darklit Gargoyle are about the only early beats in the deck, so feeding the Demonic Appetite are going to cut into potential chump block resources which can be painful against faster decks where falling behind is going to force you to juggle between stalling, feeding the Appetite, and trying to win. The more it strains your board and resources, the more advantage your opponent gets when he finally decides to strike down your enchanted beatdown device. Very similar to Woebringer Demon, but thankfully the sacrifice isn't as one-sided on him. I suppose one could do worse than just including Demonic Appetite into their list, as it's been pointed out it's situationally useful. I just think the overall deck structure isn't tuned into making sure it performs at it's optimal level. To really acheive that potential requires looking at some suboptimal cards like Bog Imp or Dusk Imp, just as a means to help fuel an early Field of Souls. It just when I see cards like that... yuck. Not sure if you should take the rest of the post from here too seriously in terms of the previous discussion. I think the control cards in the pool lead to a better list, but this is the kind of direction I'd see myself going if I were to try and make Demonic Appetite better. Spoiler:
Show
Goes with a lower curve to be more of a beatdown deck than control. Ditches mass removal because of this, although we keep Living Death. Pacifism-esque enchantments are still one of the major sources of spot removal plus Fallen Angel is still here to combo with. More 1-3 drops thanks to the Imps (groan), but this gives us a few plays until turn 4. At this point we lose a lot of creature drops, but make up for it with stuff like Faith's Fetters or Field of Souls. Kept the one wall because it deal damage back at the opponent, but it's probably terrible here. Or maybe so good we need the other wall that gains life too. Options! Typical bombs in the lategame, but we'll cut the curve at 5 (technically 6 with Obby). Trying to win as fast as possible so Seizen comes in to refuel our hand and deal damage to the enemy in the process. Great potential with Demonic Appetite here. With the lower curve, it could be possible to cut a Terramorphic Expanse, but there are still quite a few important spells we want to hit in the higher CMC costs, like Field of Souls that I'm not entirely sure I would support such a change. The Maybeboard also features a few things like the sweepers, but then the decks going back to the slow rolling mode, so we probably want to avoid that. Lightkeeper of Emeria as another bland four drop or a way to gain a wee bit of life in longer game, but probably not worth it. Desolation Angel most likely too expensive to want to cast. The best inclusions are probably Sunblast Angel or Woebringer Demon and maybe Damnation in case the deck is slower than I imagine. Remember this is completely untested of course, just where I think Demonic Appetite performs at its best.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 3:35AM
#324
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2012
|
Actually I made some experiments yesterday and came up with a pretty different list that tries to balance stalling and aggression. I took out the pillories and replaced them with the walls, reason being that they are indeed cheap creatures to feed the field of souls. Remember that pillory does not stop activated abilities, only prevents attacking, so functionally the walls are pretty similar (sort of). And in those matchups where thay are almost completely useless because the opponent comes from the air (Cloudburst, Grave Whispers, the mirror?) you can at least get something from them as sacrifices. Do the walls contradict the idea of making the deck faster and more aggressive? Well considering fallen angel is 5 mana and field of souls is 4, you still need some early defense to get there; plus, having the walls means that you can attack with all of your fliers without leaving blockers. I took out a terramorphic (the two sign in blood still provide some sort of land drawing so having 24 lands seems ok) and left all the mass removal in (if you have field of souls it will leave you with a nice board advantage. And you are always going to play your creatures more slowly than your opponent anyways). I didn't include the bad imps (I have the lightkeeper to keep the land count 11/11). And I left some expensive angels in (baneslayer, sunblast, desolation and despair) since I think the stalling potential of the deck is still very high. Basically, instead of deciding in advance "I'm going to be aggressive!" or "I'm going to stall!" I decide on the spot, based on what I have in my hand, if I want to use my tokens for defense or for feeding some powerful combo to end the game quickly. Overall it seems to work pretty well, if I don't draw the field of souls I'll still probably get at least a doomed traveler or midnight haunting (or cadaver imp!) so that the token eaters get something to do; viceversa if I don't draw the token eaters I'll probably draw some big creature and use the tokens for stalling. Of course not having the pillory means my opponent has more blockers and not having the imps means I have less attackers. But if I swap the pillory for mass removal and the imps for the walls, won't I be forced to just use the imps to block as soon as I realize that I didn't get my combo and my opponent is dealing more damage than me? Also your idea of using Seizan seems pretty brilliant, drawing more cards is always going to benefit the more combo-oriented deck. But I'm afraid thatif the opponent has removal he'll kill him during his turn and get a free card out of it; also, as a creature he might just get chump blocked by all the non-flying creatures that have nothing else to do because of the walls.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 17, 2012 - 2:33PM
#325
|
|
|
Hi! Kind of new to the forums but long time lurker and casual Magic player here. I wanted to add to the Demonic Appetite  discussion. Having your whole deck restructured just to fit a single card - which further competes with other hungry cards, yet isn't a finisher by itself - is stretching the love too much. Yes, it could work, definitely. Thing is, as others have mentioned, that it would reduce the whole potentiality of the deck without too much reason (other than taking an opponent by surprise for having it in your deck, and perhaps having swifter matches). You could totally go ahead and change some cards to include a card such as Angelic Destiny  , which is still a single card, but it really gives enough reason to do so and could never undermine your overall strategy. I think that any card (especially a single card, keeping you waiting for the top draw) that REQUIRES the deck to include subpar and mediocre cards (such as Bog Imp or Dusk Imp  ) for it to work, is just not worth it and a natural discard for your final list. Think about it, you need to worsen your deck with mediocre cards just to include a single card that isn't that impressive to begin with. Well, the beauty of it is you still can do it, but maybe it's only worth it for experimentation purposes. Your Demonic Appetite is less effective than a single of the two Fallen Angel  s (it can't sac other creatures in response to spells, it's not an instant), and more demanding AND less rewarding than your Woebringer Demon  . Just to keep it short, and now that I think about it, you really need to go a LONG way into creating a very specific scenario in which Demonic Appetite works really really well. If we could isolate cards like that and place them in their best possible outcome scenarios, we could bet on Craw Wurm  to be amazing and even have Aven Trooper  restructuring whole decks. It may not be worthy at all, although I have to admit I've had a lot of fun and it's been pretty interesting to read this whole thread  !
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 11:34AM
#326
|
Date Joined:
Jul 24, 2010
|
I took out the pillories and replaced them with the walls, reason being that they are indeed cheap creatures to feed the field of souls.
Remember that pillory does not stop activated abilities, only prevents attacking, so functionally the walls are pretty similar (sort of). And in those matchups where thay are almost completely useless because the opponent comes from the air (Cloudburst, Grave Whispers, the mirror?) you can at least get something from them as sacrifices.
I don't get this logic, sorry. Pillory is better in most situations, primarily for the reasons you stated. A wall isn't going to stop activated abilities either. They aren't functionally that similar because they can't be used to stop any creature with flying. They also lose a lot of effectiveness against anything with trample. That's not to say I don't think the walls don't serve a purpose in the deck, I have all 3 in the deck (though I've often considered removing the bbw one due to restrictive costs) but that's because my deck is built purely in the stall/control for the first 5 turns then start owning with bombs. Too many decks have too many flying creatures for me to rely on walls (ironically, Cloudburst is not one of them). Not only that, but pillory/faith's fetters are some of the few ways of dealing with a creature like Ulamog or anything being buffed by Knight Exemplar.
Do the walls contradict the idea of making the deck faster and more aggressive? Well considering fallen angel is 5 mana and field of souls is 4, you still need some early defense to get there; plus, having the walls means that you can attack with all of your fliers without leaving blockers.
This deck doesn't want to be fast and aggressive in any format I can conceive of editing it. It wants to be a stall/control and then blow away with beef. It's sort of the same vein as Ancient Depths to me but without the ramp in exchange for more control/effective "chump" creatures (Doomed Traveler, Darklit Gargoyle). Also, walls aren't going to really effect the speed of this deck since 2/3 of them are 2-drops when there aren't that many 2-drops in the deck to begin with. I think the only ones I have in mine besides the 2 walls are darklits and sign in blood, which is not always a 2-drop depending on who started the game (really don't like discarding a card for no reason this early unless I have a bomb creature and have/am hopeful of getting Living Death). Maybe this is because I don't like the token generation aspect of this deck. It's really based around relatively crappy 4-drop enchantments.
Of course not having the pillory means my opponent has more blockers and not having the imps means I have less attackers. But if I swap the pillory for mass removal and the imps for the walls, won't I be forced to just use the imps to block as soon as I realize that I didn't get my combo and my opponent is dealing more damage than me?
Also your idea of using Seizan seems pretty brilliant, drawing more cards is always going to benefit the more combo-oriented deck. But I'm afraid thatif the opponent has removal he'll kill him during his turn and get a free card out of it; also, as a creature he might just get chump blocked by all the non-flying creatures that have nothing else to do because of the walls.
I think we just see this game very differently, or at least this deck. As Brodo detailed the only real use of having something like a bog imp in this deck is to fuel tokens/sac engines. That is patently nuts. You'd put a 2 cmc 1/1 flier or a 3 cmc 2/1 flier in the deck just to use as a chump/sac fodder to get a ....1/1 flier or +3/+3 for one turn? No thanks.
As far as I can tell Demonic Appetite is one of those "It'd be nice to have in THIS situation" cards when you've got a 1/1 spirit from your doomer traveler, an enemy who will win next turn but no flying defense and 2-4 life....but really how often does that happen? In fact I can never think of a time that I really have thought "Damn I wish I had that Demonic Appetite now!" - same goes for the crappy imps. I have, however, often been in situations where I say "C'mon pillory/faith's fetters!" when drawing.
As far as your concerns about Seizan, I have a couple of response. First, if they use a spot removal to kill Seizan on their first turn after you play him, yes you've given them an extra two cards, but that's not free. They've taken 2 dmg (not much of a draw back for 2 cards but not free) AND they've just used one of their removal cards. And yes as a creature he may get chump blocked by 6/5 for 5 cmc is pretty darn good. Seizan is a bit of a risk and depending on the state of the game/your opponent's deck sometimes I just let him sit in my hand unplayed but I'd say 80% of the time my DH will benefit more from the card gain than my opponent as I'm digging for Living Death or something.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 4:36PM
#327
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2011
|
I've recently unlocked Dark Heavens and I was thinking how to edit the deck. From just vs AI play I have taken a liking to.. correcting the mana curve as much as possible. Also, I think the token/sweep mechanics are the themes of the deck and I did format my deck for that. Less direct tokens, more creatures to sweep and return. Hence, the Dusk Imp s. Cheap, expendable flyers not as bad as Bog Imps. Maybe. Must think about whether I can do without some removal. Don't want to feed the opponent's graveyard unless I sweep. I don't like uncontrolled sacrifice/discard, so Demonic Appetite is not for me. It would probably need controlled sacrifice to get rid of it when you want to. Also left Woebringer Demon out (never had the chance to see it in play) but I might put that in. Same with Fallen Angel . I know the mechanics seem (are) great, I just haven't had tokens go crazy enough and consistently enough to trust they'll be worth it for the CMC. Also, I hate the art :P . Angel of Despair  was dropped for the high CMC whereas I did pick Pestilence Demon  for the token and sweep-related ability it has. That could change depending on how it actually plays. I ended up not taking the Tormented Angel  s nor the Midnight Haunting  s.. but that might change as well. Proper Burial  I'm also iffy on although it's served me well so far. The walls don't necessarily fit into the token/sweep idea but I really like them and are probably necessary. Also, Sunblast Angel  is awesome. Love that card. 25 lands (incl. expanses), 17 creatures, 18 other cards: Spoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 7:21AM
#328
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2010
|
Think about one thing: How is Dusk Imp better than Midnight Haunting in any possible way?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 8:23AM
#329
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2012
|
Is this for the 2013Deck? will this be out tomorrow?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 8:46AM
#330
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2011
|
This is a 2012 deck. I agree with Gegliosch on the imps. Also, from my experience, I never found Field of Souls to be worth including. Try adding in Desolation Angel  (probably my favorite card from any duels game). Also, this deck has room for one more big finisher, as it's very easy to get to late game. I have also found Souls of the Faultless  to be difficult to cast early due to B,B casting cost. I like Tormented Angel better even though it costs more, it doesn't have the colored mana restriction and it's flying
|
|
|
