Yeah, what an outrage. I can't believe all the titans didn't cost four. What did creature decks ever to to deserve this affront!
You moron. Where did all you people come from all of a sudden? Gurfh durf, M13 kills green, Thundermaw Hellkite is overcosted, hrgh derfh derp. Right.
Yeah, what an outrage. I can't believe all the titans didn't cost four. What did creature decks ever to to deserve this affront! You moron. Where did all you people come from all of a sudden? Gurfh durf, M13 kills green, Thundermaw Hellkite
Herp derp I know everything so I'm gonna bash this guy because clearly he means its overcosted... did you ever think 2 stop and ask before you went ans bashed someones opinion?
Maybe he did mean overcosted and deserves it but really nobody knows that because he was way too vague in is OP
Herp derp I know everything so I'm gonna bash this guy because clearly he means its overcosted... did you ever think 2 stop and ask before you went ans bashed someones opinion? Maybe he did mean overcosted and deserves it but really nobody knows that
Thundermaw Hellkite costs 5 because he's exciting at 5, he's another exciting twist on Flametongue Kavu that opts for a bigger, flying body (a 'la dragon flavored), but a generally weaker ETB, accept than in a metagame full of angels and spirits, it's easily more backbreaking than the Kavu. It probably would have costed 6 a few years ago, but there's been a real effort on WotC's part to (outside of limited fodder) make 6, 7 and 8 drops feel like they are worth that amass of mana (doing exponential work as compared to their cheaper counterparts). There was actually a time when a mana cost of 5 nearly made a card unplayable and 6 or 7 was practically a death sentence- a time where much of R&D were competitive players.
That's the best way to explain it that I can think of.
Thundermaw Hellkite costs 5 because he's exciting at 5, he's another exciting twist on Flametongue Kavu that opts for a bigger, flying body (a 'la dragon flavored), but a generally w
Of course, now I'm afraid they'll just move the genre of patently stupid creatures down into the five cmc zone. Thragtusk, Hellkite, and even Sigarda are definitely pushing the envelope of bonkers quality for the cost. I daresay those cards would have cost 7 back in the era you're talking about, Wynzerman. I understand they're trying to make 5 drops the new 6 drop, but dang.
Of course, now I'm afraid they'll just move the genre of patently stupid creatures down into the five cmc zone. Thragtusk, Hellkite, and even Sigarda are definitely pushing the envelope of bonkers quality for the cost. I daresay those cards would h
Of course, now I'm afraid they'll just move the genre of patently stupid creatures down into the five cmc zone. Thragtusk, Hellkite, and even Sigarda are definitely pushing the envelope of bonkers quality for the cost. I daresay those cards would have cost 7 back in the era you're talking about, Wynzerman. I understand they're trying to make 5 drops the new 6 drop, but dang.
To be fair the only reason to be complacent (in my view) is that it seems that measures of dealing with these great 5 drop creatures are teetering up the CMC scale. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong in this regard and RtR is a bastion of a well costed removal spells and doomsday spells. I don't think, however that giving Flametongue-esque rates that scale with the higher costs is all that bad for the game, so long as the means of undermining them stick in full force. I like my Arctic Nishoba s more than the next guy, but you really do need more juice for higher mana costs to make the spells worth playing.
It seems quite funny to me that the scale seems to be trying to make 5 and 6 drops somewhere above Flametongue and somewhere below Titans.
To be fair the only reason to be complacent (in my view) is that it seems that measures of dealing with these great 5 drop creatures are teetering up the CMC scale. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong in this regard and RtR is a bastion of a well costed
Hellkite is a SB card anyway it's not Baneslayer 2.0 so really there's no problem with it at all.
Yeah, it's such a good sideboard card that I'm going to have it preboarded in every match.
Hahaha. Yes.
The card is insane. Lingering Souls and Timely have been a shutdown for red all this standard, and this card turns that on its head. This really is a flying man's format, which Hellkite literally tears a hole out of.
To me, it's not different than Baneslayer at all. It does a different thing for a different type of deck, but it fills the same roll in those decks that BSA did in its decks. It's the "okay guy, we've bandied spells for a while, now I'm gonna lock the game up" card. BSA equalled putting its controller's life total out of reach while being a huge blocker/finisher for decks that wanted to survive. Hellkite equals a huge chunk of damage that's insanely hard to kill, and the better part of a boardwipe against decks where it matters, for decks that just want to break things. Noooot a sideboard card.
Yeah, it's such a good sideboard card that I'm going to have it preboarded in every match.[/quote]Hahaha. Yes. The card is insane. Lingering Souls and Timely have been a shutdown for red all this standard, and this card turns that on its head. Th
Well, it's like r&d is just unbelievably stupid sometimes...
"I hear people like angels" - proceed to print baneslayer, restoration, gisela, and a bunch of powerl edh-oriented angels
"I hear people like green fat" - proceed to print prim...who can let you cast even more fat), avenger, new garruk, and a load of powerful green fatties
"Hey guys, dragons are a fantasy staple, casual staple, and generally awesome creature type" - "but they're red..." - "oh, right. Screw em"
Well, it's like r&d is just unbelievably stupid sometimes..."I hear people like angels" - proceed to print baneslayer, restoration, gisela, and a bunch of powerl edh-oriented angels"I hear people like green fat" - proceed to print prim...who can let
Its kind of a shame too, since I was really hoping Bloodgift Demon would actually do something while it was still in Standard. With the glut of awesome stuff at 5 though I just don't see it happening.
Simple answer.Because R&D thought Titans were too powerful (they were right) and 6 became the go to number for dropping fatties.Now that Titans are going bye-bye, well, apparently R&D thought it would be a good idea to make 5 the new 6. Thragtusk
Bloodgift never did anything because black was bad in standard and sphinx exists. That might change now. And thanks for the reminder... I need to grab a couple of those.
Bloodgift never did anything because black was bad in standard and sphinx exists. That might change now. And thanks for the reminder... I need to grab a couple of those.
Bloodgift never did anything because black was bad in standard and sphinx exists. That might change now. And thanks for the reminder... I need to grab a couple of those.
If you don't notice......Mono Black Control is going to be a WRECKING HOUSE coming into RTR......In other words, get your hands on some Bloodgifts and dig out your old Sign in Blood s. With the new Liliana, Murder , and Mutilate , well you know how the saying goes......once you go Black.....
....
You splash Blue. No but for real, Mono Black is gonna rock.
If you don't notice......Mono Black Control is going to be a WRECKING HOUSE coming into RTR......In other words, get your hands on some Bloodgifts and dig out your old Sign in Blood s. With the new Liliana, Mur
Everyone says this. Every time Mono-Black has any sort of tools. 95% of the time, nope.
Most formats are fairly forgiving to MBC fanatics :P But I agree that it's unlikely to become a real "thing" this time around either.
Also, welcome back S1AL, but what's so wrong about trying to make more of the cards they people enjoy to play? Honestly, formats full of 5/6-mana Flametongue Kavu rate creatures don't strike me as all that bad, as long as there are abundant answers.
Everyone says this. Every time Mono-Black has any sort of tools. 95% of the time, nope.[/quote]Most formats are fairly forgiving to MBC fanatics :P But I agree that it's unlikely to become a real "thing" this time around either.Also, welcome back S1A
My point was that they've been pushing these other popular creature types, but dragons have been sucking hardcore. I'm all for good staple creature types.
However, I wish wizards would stop trying to force me to play creatures in every deck.
My point was that they've been pushing these other popular creature types, but dragons have been sucking hardcore. I'm all for good staple creature types.However, I wish wizards would stop trying to force me to play creatures in every deck.
My point was that they've been pushing these other popular creature types, but dragons have been sucking hardcore. I'm all for good staple creature types. However, I wish wizards would stop trying to force me to play creatures in every deck.
Sadly its something you are probably gonna have to get used to, as much as it pains me to say it. R&D seem to think that Standard should be all about creatures crashing into each other. We already know they don't like Combo in Standard, but now it would seem they are trying to push Control out as well.
Its sad really.
Sadly its something you are probably gonna have to get used to, as much as it pains me to say it. R&D seem to think that Standard should be all about creatures crashing into each other. We already know they don't like Combo in Standard, but now it wo
It's more than that, though... look at all the star control cards. They're creatures. Control decks have become all about getting to their big creatures so they can outclass the aggro decks on the battlefield. I would love to play sorin's vengeance in a real standard deck, but sadly that seems impossible in an environment all about slamming hyper-powerful creatures.
It's more than that, though... look at all the star control cards. They're creatures. Control decks have become all about getting to their big creatures so they can outclass the aggro decks on the battlefield. I would love to play sorin's vengeance i
No one likes true combo in Standard (except for the person running it. and even they might not). No matter how small a part of the pool it may be, any viable combo deck forces other decks to hate it, beat it first, or lose to it.
No one likes true combo in Standard (except for the person running it. and even they might not). No matter how small a part of the pool it may be, any viable combo deck forces other decks to hate it, beat it first, or lose to it.
No one likes true combo in Standard (except for the person running it. and even they might not). No matter how small a part of the pool it may be, any viable combo deck forces other decks to hate it, beat it first, or lose to it.
First off, I would just like to say that, myself, as a Standard player, don't dislike Combo at all. As long as they are not consistently winning on T2 or something degenerate like that, I don't at all have an issue with playing against combo decks. Playing aggro? Try and race them and win before they get their combo pieces. Playing Control? Disrupt either their means of fetching their combo pieces, or the combo pieces themselves.....Doesn't exactly seem unfun to me, at least from a personal standpoint.
Also, your rendition of things is kind of silly. So Combo forces you to hate against it, beat them first, or lose to it. Are not those the exact same options you have against Control, Aggro, Midrange, and Ramp? I am somewhat puzzled by what you are trying to point out with your statement.
No one likes true combo in Standard (except for the person running it. and even they might not). No matter how small a part of the pool it may be, any viable combo deck forces other decks to hate it, beat it first, or lose to it.[/quote]First off, I
I have to agree with the above. Standard combo is generally highly interactive and enjoyable to play against. One of the most challenging matches I ever played was kred against pyro.
I have to agree with the above. Standard combo is generally highly interactive and enjoyable to play against. One of the most challenging matches I ever played was kred against pyro.
I have to agree with the above. Standard combo is generally highly interactive and enjoyable to play against. One of the most challenging matches I ever played was kred against pyro.
The difference between a competitively viable combo deck and Pyromancer's Ascension is that Pyromancer's Ascension (unless both my memory and Google are failing) was never competitively popular and was not a "combo deck". It was simply a deck that had combo-like elements. The last Standard combo deck that I remember (excluding some aggro variants that could be argued), and feel free to refresh my memory, was Dragonstorm.
The difference between a competitively viable combo deck and Pyromancer's Ascension is that Pyromancer's Ascension (unless both my memory and Google are failing) was never competitively popular and was not a "combo deck". It was simply a deck that ha
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW". It was a game that played out, and eventually you found both or eventually you found an alternate win con or eventually you lost. That is not a deck dedicated to a singular cause with minimal restraint.
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW". It was a game that played out, and eventual
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW". It was a game that played out, and eventually you found both or eventually you found an alternate win con or eventually you lost. That is not a deck dedicated to a singular cause with minimal restraint.
Dragonstorm could win by casting a Bogardan Hellkite and swinging with it a couple times. I guess it wasn't a combo deck either.
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW". It was a game that played out, and eventual
Dragonstorm could win by casting a Bogardan Hellkite and swinging with it a couple times. I guess it wasn't a combo deck either.
And TPS could win by hardcasting Tendrils. And Exarch Twin could win by attacking with the Exarch twenty times. Your point is?
"Possible way" != "The way"
Hardcasting a Bogardan Hellkite was more often than not a finishing move rather than the leading cause of death. Any deck that lost solely to a hardcasted Hellkite could've just as easily lost to a tech-less Ornithopter.
And TPS could win by hardcasting Tendrils. And Exarch Twin could win by attacking with the Exarch twenty times. Your point is?"Possible way" != "The way"Hardcasting a Bogardan Hellkite was more often than not a finishing move rather than the leading
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW". It was a game that played out, and eventually you found both or eventually you found an alternate win con or eventually you lost. That is not a deck dedicated to a singular cause with minimal restraint.
That's a bit of a semantic argument. Wizards wants people to play with combo decks, just not "combo decks" (the kind you are thinking of, and that I understand you meaning.)
The thing is that while combo decks are infamous for "win out of nowhere" grotesque displays of mechanical failure on development's part (such as High Tide), the combo archetype in it's most common form is relatively benign- infinite resource loops, spells that assemble conditions to win on the spot, or combination effects that create a solid win condition. For example, I remember having a few semantic arguments about where Solar Flare is a control deck with a combo shell or a combo deck with a control shell, and which model worked best when building variants. Combo potential certainly isn't what WotC wants to avoid, but they want said potential to be under control at all times (look at Omniscience and Rooftop Storm )
I don't think archetypal semantics are how you should make the point you want to make though. Rather, WotC doesn't want format warping combos a 'la GrimJar, even though they certainly don't want there to be a lack of Megrim decks. There is an extreme threshold where a combo deck leaves "broken" in it's dust.
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW". It was a game that played out, and eventual
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW". It was a game that played out, and eventually you found both or eventually you found an alternate win con or eventually you lost. That is not a deck dedicated to a singular cause with minimal restraint.
To quote someone, somewhere, "You could use a bumb in your learning curve". Especially before you call people morons.
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW". It was a game that played out, and eventual
Once again, that was not a "combo deck". It was be, again, a deck whos win condition happened to be highly synergistic. The entire deck was not "HOLY **** FIND EXARCH AND SPLINTER TWIN RIGHT NOOOOOOOOOOOW".
Yeah, this is ridiculous. That's EXACTLY what Exarch Twin wanted to do. "Highly synergistic"??? Like, so synergistic that when they *COMBO* the two cards together, they win? Yeah, that synergistic. The entire deck was exactly and nothing but "holy **** find exarch and splinter twin right nooooow." You were in left field there with that one.
Yeah, this is ridiculous. That's EXACTLY what Exarch Twin wanted to do. "Highly synergistic"??? Like, so synergistic that when they *COMBO* the two cards together, they win? Yeah, that synergistic. The entire deck was exactly and nothing but "ho
Yeah, this is ridiculous. That's EXACTLY what Exarch Twin wanted to do. "Highly synergistic"??? Like, so synergistic that when they *COMBO* the two cards together, they win? Yeah, that synergistic. The entire deck was exactly and nothing but "holy **** find exarch and splinter twin right nooooow." You were in left field there with that one.
DeckCheck.de may only be a shadow of its former self, but it's still accurate to a moderate degree. So are its kin sites. Find me placing Exarch Twin lists that were entirely dig. Beyond Preordains, few ran more dig. Many examples didn't even have Gitaxian Probe. Exarch+Twin was the win condition. Not the deck. Prove me wrong beyond just saying that I am.
To quote someone, somewhere, "You could use a bumb in your learning curve". Especially before you call people morons.
I have called you a moron in the past, but you are implying things within my post. That said, you spelled "bump" wrong, or your attempt at being hip or cute failed.
DeckCheck.de may only be a shadow of its former self, but it's still accurate to a moderate degree. So are its kin sites. Find me placing Exarch Twin lists that were entirely dig. Beyond Preordains, few ran more dig. Many examples didn't even have Gi
Donut, you're just wrong. Twin is archetypical combo. You get two cards on the table, and then you win against any life total or board presence (with certain distinct exceptions). It fits one of the 3 types of combo perfectly (assembled). The others are storm and control/gradual (what pyro was, and it was borderline-competitive for as long as it was in standard).
Donut, you're just wrong. Twin is archetypical combo. You get two cards on the table, and then you win against any life total or board presence (with certain distinct exceptions). It fits one of the 3 types of combo perfectly (assembled). The others
Yeah, this is ridiculous. That's EXACTLY what Exarch Twin wanted to do. "Highly synergistic"??? Like, so synergistic that when they *COMBO* the two cards together, they win? Yeah, that synergistic. The entire deck was exactly and nothing but "holy **** find exarch and splinter twin right nooooow." You were in left field there with that one.
DeckCheck.de may only be a shadow of its former self, but it's still accurate to a moderate degree. So are its kin sites. Find me placing Exarch Twin lists that were entirely dig. Beyond Preordains, few ran more dig. Many examples didn't even have Gitaxian Probe. Exarch+Twin was the win condition. Not the deck. Prove me wrong beyond just saying that I am.
1 Deprive 4 Into the Roil 4 Mana Leak 2 Spell Pierce
4 Jace, the Mind Sculptor 1 Jace Beleren 4 Preordain
10 Island 8 Mountain 4 Scalding Tarn 4 Tectonic Edge
Whoops. Count it with me: 12 dig spells. And if you're seriously going to argue that since the rest of the deck is a control deck instead of being incorporated as a means of protecting the combo/living until they fire off the combo, then you're totally misunderstanding what combo tries to do.
DeckCheck.de may only be a shadow of its former self, but it's still accurate to a moderate degree. So are its kin sites. Find me placing Exarch Twin lists that were entirely dig. Beyond Preordains, few ran more dig. Many examples didn't even have Gi
Donut, you're just wrong. Twin is archetypical combo. You get two cards on the table, and then you win against any life total or board presence (with certain distinct exceptions). It fits one of the 3 types of combo perfectly (assembled). The others are storm and control/gradual (what pyro was, and it was borderline-competitive for as long as it was in standard).
Does a hard casted Emrakul count as combo then? It wins the game when it hits the field. So do a lot of other things. Exarch Twin is a combination that wins the game, but it doesn't make the entire deck combo any more than a deck containing Wasteland makes it land destruction.
Does a hard casted Emrakul count as combo then? It wins the game when it hits the field. So do a lot of other things. Exarch Twin is a combination that wins the game, but it doesn't make the entire deck combo any more than a deck containing Wasteland
Whoops. Count it with me: 12 dig spells. And if you're seriously going to argue that since the rest of the deck is a control deck instead of being incorporated as a means of protecting the combo/living until they fire off the combo, then you're totally misunderstanding what combo tries to do.
That is exactly what I was going to argue. If it were truly a combo deck, at the very least, where's the Gitaxian Probe s? I'll cede that Modern Splinter Twin is combo, but I'd like to note the very vast differences. It has 8x of each of the necessary pieces. It has the perfect tutor in the form of Gifts Ungiven . It has the active dig to acquire each piece. The Standard lists, decidedly, do not. The "dig" present in that Standard list you presented does not vastly differ from any blue-centric list of that time, and at the very least is not noticably ahead in any respect.
That is exactly what I was going to argue. If it were truly a combo deck, at the very least, where's the Gitaxian Probe s? I'll cede that Modern Splinter Twin is combo, but I'd like to note the very vast differences
Donut, you're just wrong. Twin is archetypical combo. You get two cards on the table, and then you win against any life total or board presence (with certain distinct exceptions). It fits one of the 3 types of combo perfectly (assembled). The others are storm and control/gradual (what pyro was, and it was borderline-competitive for as long as it was in standard).
Does a hard casted Emrakul count as combo then? It wins the game when it hits the field. So do a lot of other things. Exarch Twin is a combination that wins the game, but it doesn't make the entire deck combo any more than a deck containing Wasteland makes it land destruction.
But it DOES constitute the deck being a combo deck because it spends the majority of it's resources creating a winning combo, and a few to make sure that it has a plan-B. A pure combo deck seldom, if ever exists, combo simply describes it's main way of winning.
Does a hard casted Emrakul count as combo then? It wins the game when it hits the field. So do a lot of other things. Exarch Twin is a combination that wins the game, but it doesn't make the entire deck combo any more than a deck containing Wasteland
Whoops. Count it with me: 12 dig spells. And if you're seriously going to argue that since the rest of the deck is a control deck instead of being incorporated as a means of protecting the combo/living until they fire off the combo, then you're totally misunderstanding what combo tries to do.
That is exactly what I was going to argue. If it were truly a combo deck, at the very least, where's the Gitaxian Probe s? I'll cede that Modern Splinter Twin is combo, but I'd like to note the very vast differences. It has 8x of each of the necessary pieces. It has the perfect tutor in the form of Gifts Ungiven . It has the active dig to acquire each piece. The Standard lists, decidedly, do not. The "dig" present in that Standard list you presented does not vastly differ from any blue-centric list of that time, and at the very least is not noticably ahead in any respect.
You are simply insane. Your definition of a combo deck is not only different to everyone else's, but also effectively non-functional; what you define as a combo deck (i.e. you ONLY have the combo, and the other 52 cards in your deck cannot be used for any purpose other than comboing off) is actually just a bad deck.
Splinter Twin in Modern is a BETTER version of the combo because you have more pieces available, but that doesn't mean that the Standard version isn't a combo deck. Every card in the Standard Splinter Twin deck was either part of the combo, helped find the combo, or helped the player stay alive to find the combo. It was in no sense a control deck just because it had 4 Mana Leak, any more than White Weenie is a Control or Aggro-Control deck just because it has 4 Mana Leak.
Combo decks need to have things to do other than comboing out simply as a secondary defense mechanism - running 1 or 2 Consecrated Sphinx in a Splinter Twin deck doesn't mean you're a Control deck, it just means you're not a BAD combo deck that loses the game because the opponent isn't a goldfish in a bowl.
That is exactly what I was going to argue. If it were truly a combo deck, at the very least, where's the Gitaxian Probe s? I'll cede that Modern Splinter Twin is combo, but I'd like to note the very vast differences
Emrakul doesn't necessarily win the game... I've beaten a summoning trap into emrakul at the end of my turn. However, that's not the point. Legacy storm lists generally run thoughtseize effects and protection for their combo. They don't cease to be combo as a result of this fact. Your definition of combo is just crazy talk.
Emrakul doesn't necessarily win the game... I've beaten a summoning trap into emrakul at the end of my turn. However, that's not the point. Legacy storm lists generally run thoughtseize effects and protection for their combo. They don't cease to be c
Whoops. Count it with me: 12 dig spells. And if you're seriously going to argue that since the rest of the deck is a control deck instead of being incorporated as a means of protecting the combo/living until they fire off the combo, then you're totally misunderstanding what combo tries to do.
That is exactly what I was going to argue. If it were truly a combo deck, at the very least, where's the Gitaxian Probe s? I'll cede that Modern Splinter Twin is combo, but I'd like to note the very vast differences. It has 8x of each of the necessary pieces. It has the perfect tutor in the form of Gifts Ungiven . It has the active dig to acquire each piece. The Standard lists, decidedly, do not. The "dig" present in that Standard list you presented does not vastly differ from any blue-centric list of that time, and at the very least is not noticably ahead in any respect.
Sorry to keep handing you the flak, but Indigo is right, you're making up your own definitions, and they aren't how things work.
Splinter Twin is a combo deck. Know how we can tell? It doesn't want to kill you fast with cheap dudes, so it's not aggro. It doesn't inherently care about stalling you out until its card advantage wins it the game, so it's not control. It's glaringly not tempo or midrange. All the deck wants to do is jam Splinter Twin onto Deceiver Exarch and kill you with six million dudes. Iiiiiiiit's a combo deck.
That is exactly what I was going to argue. If it were truly a combo deck, at the very least, where's the Gitaxian Probe s? I'll cede that Modern Splinter Twin is combo, but I'd like to note the very vast differences
Whoops. Count it with me: 12 dig spells. And if you're seriously going to argue that since the rest of the deck is a control deck instead of being incorporated as a means of protecting the combo/living until they fire off the combo, then you're totally misunderstanding what combo tries to do.
That is exactly what I was going to argue. If it were truly a combo deck, at the very least, where's the Gitaxian Probe s? I'll cede that Modern Splinter Twin is combo, but I'd like to note the very vast differences. It has 8x of each of the necessary pieces. It has the perfect tutor in the form of Gifts Ungiven . It has the active dig to acquire each piece. The Standard lists, decidedly, do not. The "dig" present in that Standard list you presented does not vastly differ from any blue-centric list of that time, and at the very least is not noticably ahead in any respect.
Sorry to keep handing you the flak, but Indigo is right, you're making up your own definitions, and they aren't how things work.
Splinter Twin is a combo deck. Know how we can tell? It doesn't want to kill you fast with cheap dudes, so it's not aggro. It doesn't inherently care about stalling you out until its card advantage wins it the game, so it's not control. It's glaringly not tempo or midrange. All the deck wants to do is jam Splinter Twin onto Deceiver Exarch and kill you with six million dudes. Iiiiiiiit's a combo deck.
Intriguing. How would you classify the current Heartless Summoning/Priest of Urabask/Perilous Myr combination that exists then? (legit question by the way) Also, is it possible to have hybrid builds of two or more styles, and could a style that combos to create lots of creatures be considered distinctly one or the other? I personally think there are various exceptions to the seemingly rigid definitions you guys are giving, but I'm no expert on the subject.
That is exactly what I was going to argue. If it were truly a combo deck, at the very least, where's the Gitaxian Probe s? I'll cede that Modern Splinter Twin is combo, but I'd like to note the very vast differences
There are definitely hybrids in the world of deckbuilding. Combo decks can have different "shells" that surround the combo. For example, the old Project X deck could easily be considered Aggro-Combo because it had two gameplans that it could alternate between. Either assemble its pieces and go off or beat down with bears. I forget exactly what the Splinter Twin combo decks look like, but I'm pretty sure they could be classified as having a "tempo shell".
There are no definitive lines in deckbuilding and two archetypes can easily blend with one another at their limits. Adrian Sullivan probably has the most material on the subject (and the best quality). There are four archetypes that are generally regarded as the bases in deckbuilding (Aggro, Control, Midrange, and Tempo aka Aggro-Control). You have decks like Caw-Blade which are situated between Midrange and Control. You have Delver, which is a true Aggro-Control (Tempo) deck. You have Faeries, which Sullivan claims is a "Hybrid Control", which is situated between Tempo and Control. Etc. Etc.
There are definitely hybrids in the world of deckbuilding. Combo decks can have different "shells" that surround the combo. For example, the old Project X deck could easily be considered Aggro-Combo because it had two gameplans that it could alternat
if you want to attempt to hybridize it or classify it minutely, then i guess it was a combo deck with control elements, because if it couldn't assemble the 1-2 punch, then it had enough cantrips, counters, and other stall tactics where it could then bust out one if its 1 or 2-of inferno titan or sphinxes.
otherwise, it was a combo deck. C-O-M-B-O
splinter twin was combo, simple.if you want to attempt to hybridize it or classify it minutely, then i guess it was a combo deck with control elements, because if it couldn't assemble the 1-2 punch, then it had enough cantrips, counters, and other st
There are definitely hybrids in the world of deckbuilding..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Deck archetypes are all conjecture and concept anyways, so there really is no such thing as a "hybrid" deck, since there is no longer 2 sole archetypes to gauge on a binary scale. There's no such thing as a "pure X" deck, but decks are archetyped according to their intention and relativity, not a pinpoint placement (which is why jelly was wrong).
Deck archetypes are all conjecture and concept anyways, so there really is no such thing as a "hybrid" deck, since there is no longer 2 sole archetypes to gauge on a binary scale. There's no such thing as a "pure X" deck, but decks are archetyped acc
Intriguing. How would you classify the current Heartless Summoning/Priest of Urabask/Perilous Myr combination that exists then? (legit question by the way) Also, is it possible to have hybrid builds of two or more styles, and could a style that combos to create lots of creatures be considered distinctly one or the other? I personally think there are various exceptions to the seemingly rigid definitions you guys are giving, but I'm no expert on the subject.
That's combo-aggro, or maybe super-synergy aggro.
The basic idea behind combo is that you are "breaking" the basic rules of progression by combining card effects. Storm combo works by using a combination of cards to create a one-time mass-copy effect. Assembly combo (like Twin) works by simply finding its two key pieces and geting them active simultaneously. Lockout combo (Pyro) uses its namesake piece(s) to create an easily-winnable game as soon as the piece(s) is/are "live."
Dredge could be classified in a variety of ways, though graveyard combo is usually treated as its own class, wherein the deck attempts to generate mana or card advantage through the use of the graveyard.
That's combo-aggro, or maybe super-synergy aggro. The basic idea behind combo is that you are "breaking" the basic rules of progression by combining card effects. Storm combo works by using a combination of cards to create a one-time mass-copy effect
Interesting. Standard seems like it'll be almost unplayable for Control players so I'm thinking of switching to extended or even modern. Are combo decks still viable in those formats?
Interesting. Standard seems like it'll be almost unplayable for Control players so I'm thinking of switching to extended or even modern. Are combo decks still viable in those formats?
Intriguing. How would you classify the current Heartless Summoning/Priest of Urabask/Perilous Myr combination that exists then? (legit question by the way) Also, is it possible to have hybrid builds of two or more styles, and could a style that combos to create lots of creatures be considered distinctly one or the other? I personally think there are various exceptions to the seemingly rigid definitions you guys are giving, but I'm no expert on the subject.
That's combo-aggro, or maybe super-synergy aggro.
The basic idea behind combo is that you are "breaking" the basic rules of progression by combining card effects. Storm combo works by using a combination of cards to create a one-time mass-copy effect. Assembly combo (like Twin) works by simply finding its two key pieces and geting them active simultaneously. Lockout combo (Pyro) uses its namesake piece(s) to create an easily-winnable game as soon as the piece(s) is/are "live."
Dredge could be classified in a variety of ways, though graveyard combo is usually treated as its own class, wherein the deck attempts to generate mana or card advantage through the use of the graveyard.
I don't think Pyromancer's Ascension is really a lockout deck; I think there is a useful category of combo decks that lock out, but Pyromancer Ascension is similar to Storm in that you just build up a collection of resources to make one big multiplier effect to one-hit kill.
Heartless Summoning I'd say is assembly combo (three pieces, when together you go infinite), they just have the alternate plan of Demons+Clones for cheap to vomit out a storm.
That's combo-aggro, or maybe super-synergy aggro. The basic idea behind combo is that you are "breaking" the basic rules of progression by combining card effects. Storm combo works by using a combination of cards to create a one-time mass-copy effect
Uh, islands, dredge is a combo deck... it has every distinguishing characteristic of combo
Not exactly.
Dredge is linear in that it is all-in on the graveyard as a resource. And it does so exceedingly well which is why its a G1 win vs. nearly any other deck. The reason it is still a deck is because it doesn't have to win via a combo from the graveyard. Plenty of games have been decided in a win without the use of Bridge. Sometimes it just grinds you down via Ichorid beats. Sometimes it just dread returns a 15/15 Grave Troll and turns it sideways. Sometimes it dread returns an Iona and you scoop. Occasional builds even vomit out alpha strikes with Ichorids and Bloodghasts (pretty awful, but I've seen it work).
It doesn't have to win in one turn (but it can very well) and it doesn't really cheat ahead on resources to create an advantage outside of GY as the resource. It's very fragile but very dominant.
You cannot really compare Dredge to Storm or High Tide.... it has a combo... but its just different.
TL;DR I agree with Islands in a verbose manner.
Not exactly.Dredge is linear in that it is all-in on the graveyard as a resource. And it does so exceedingly well which is why its a G1 win vs. nearly any other deck. The reason it is still a deck is because it doesn't have to win via a combo from th
Being linear doesn't prevent a deck from being combo... TES is far more linear than dredge. Dredge is actually a very consistent deck because it has a lot of ways to win (as you mentioned). However, it is still taking advantage of an abnormal resource to cheat creatures into play. Even ichorid/ghast beats still relies on getting lots of creatures onto the board without paying for them in the traditional manner.
Being linear doesn't prevent a deck from being combo... TES is far more linear than dredge. Dredge is actually a very consistent deck because it has a lot of ways to win (as you mentioned). However, it is still taking advantage of an abnormal resourc
Being linear doesn't prevent a deck from being combo... TES is far more linear than dredge. Dredge is actually a very consistent deck because it has a lot of ways to win (as you mentioned). However, it is still taking advantage of an abnormal resource to cheat creatures into play. Even ichorid/ghast beats still relies on getting lots of creatures onto the board without paying for them in the traditional manner.
Honestly, the point at which you distinguish a combo deck that has to protect itself from one it doesn't is an area of subdivision in which the archetypes are split for no real observational purpose than splitting them. Magic players just have the fun and snarky habit of trying to sound smart.
That said, the manaless version of dredge simply isn't a Magic deck, it's just a stack of Magic cards that fundamentally break the game by turning the deck upside down and creating a massive hand out of it's discard pile. There is no real archetype to describe Dredge because there is nothing else like it- it's a corruption of the game's fundamental design that creates the phenomena of a playable deck. While mana-versions of dredge are just self-mill combo decks, archetypally speaking.
Honestly, the point at which you distinguish a combo deck that has to protect itself from one it doesn't is an area of subdivision in which the archetypes are split for no real observational purpose than splitting them. Magic players just have the fu
What Wynzerman said. The deck operates on a 'Drawing 6 cards that require no mana to play every turn is a good idea' concept. And it is absurdly different from every other deck in the game. This is why it has a 90% G1... They oughta just ban every card with Dredge and issue an apology and buy the cards back.
What Wynzerman said. The deck operates on a 'Drawing 6 cards that require no mana to play every turn is a good idea' concept. And it is absurdly different from every other deck in the game. This is why it has a 90% G1... They oughta just ban every c
What Wynzerman said. The deck operates on a 'Drawing 6 cards that require no mana to play every turn is a good idea' concept. And it is absurdly different from every other deck in the game. This is why it has a 90% G1... They oughta just ban every card with Dredge and issue an apology and buy the cards back.
OK, so... being absurdly different from other decks is a BAD thing? I had a 100% g1 win percentage with K-red at a PTQ, but that doesn't mean the deck should be banned.
Also, ban Life from the Loam? LOL. Yeah, let's just kill variety so Niche can be happy. You got Mutilate back. Be happy.
OK, so... being absurdly different from other decks is a BAD thing? I had a 100% g1 win percentage with K-red at a PTQ, but that doesn't mean the deck should be banned.Also, ban Life from the Loam? LOL. Yeah, let's just kill variety so Niche can be h
What Wynzerman said. The deck operates on a 'Drawing 6 cards that require no mana to play every turn is a good idea' concept. And it is absurdly different from every other deck in the game. This is why it has a 90% G1... They oughta just ban every card with Dredge and issue an apology and buy the cards back.
As I recall, Bazaar of Baghdad is banned in Legacy, so Dredge has been reduced to just the Narcomoeba and Ichorid engine- which is why it doesn't place in every Legacy tournament, but still shows up because of it getting to do silly things. It also makes the deck have terrible mulliganing ability which can be key.
As I recall, Bazaar of Baghdad is banned in Legacy, so Dredge has been reduced to just the Narcomoeba and Ichorid engine- which is why it does
Wizards hates Dredge, a lot. I feel like the only reason it isn't banned in legacy (like it is in Modern) is because it has been unbanned for so long the backlash would be way too rough on their PR.
Wizards hates Dredge, a lot. I feel like the only reason it isn't banned in legacy (like it is in Modern) is because it has been unbanned for so long the backlash would be way too rough on their PR.
Wizards hates Dredge, a lot. I feel like the only reason it isn't banned in legacy (like it is in Modern) is because it has been unbanned for so long the backlash would be way too rough on their PR.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.
The above two people are correct. Someone actually wrote an article on SCG explaining why the lack of hate was the only reason that Dredge was able to win a big Vintage tourney. As for Legacy, well, there are plenty of ways to hate it out and some decks can even just beat it without hate.
The above two people are correct. Someone actually wrote an article on SCG explaining why the lack of hate was the only reason that Dredge was able to win a big Vintage tourney. As for Legacy, well, there are plenty of ways to hate it out and some de
Wizards hates Dredge, a lot. I feel like the only reason it isn't banned in legacy (like it is in Modern) is because it has been unbanned for so long the backlash would be way too rough on their PR.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.
Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if they knew they could get away with it.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.[/quote]Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if
Wizards hates Dredge, a lot. I feel like the only reason it isn't banned in legacy (like it is in Modern) is because it has been unbanned for so long the backlash would be way too rough on their PR.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.
Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if they knew they could get away with it.
I'm sure they'll meet to discuss that after the yearly mustache twirlling jambaree, and the baby eating festival. Can't be up to no-good if you don't have two or three infants to warm your belly.
For the serious though, they will ban it if it ruins the format with dominance- but they are more likely to take something off of the list than add more crap to it.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.[/quote]Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if
I don't think there is really all that much they can do about dredge anyway. There's no single card that puts it over the top, it's just a deck stuffed with all the synergy. They would have to ban 5 or 6 different cards to make the deck not work anymore, and none of those cards are broken on their own (or even good at all outside of that one deck).
I don't think there is really all that much they can do about dredge anyway. There's no single card that puts it over the top, it's just a deck stuffed with all the synergy. They would have to ban 5 or 6 different cards to make the deck not work an
Wizards hates Dredge, a lot. I feel like the only reason it isn't banned in legacy (like it is in Modern) is because it has been unbanned for so long the backlash would be way too rough on their PR.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.
Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if they knew they could get away with it.
I'm sure they'll meet to discuss that after the yearly mustache twirlling jambaree, and the baby eating festival. Can't be up to no-good if you don't have two or three infants to warm your belly.
For the serious though, they will ban it if it ruins the format with dominance- but they are more likely to take something off of the list than add more crap to it.
I understand there. The other day I was stealing robbing an old woman, and I just couldn't get into it because I'd only eaten a baby and a half for breakfast. And Modern provides a perfect example of how to get rid of Dredge: Golgari Grave-Troll, Dread Return and Bridge From Below. Sure, that's three cards, but they're the only cards that really create a problem.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.[/quote]Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if
Wizards hates Dredge, a lot. I feel like the only reason it isn't banned in legacy (like it is in Modern) is because it has been unbanned for so long the backlash would be way too rough on their PR.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.
Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if they knew they could get away with it.
I'm sure they'll meet to discuss that after the yearly mustache twirlling jambaree, and the baby eating festival. Can't be up to no-good if you don't have two or three infants to warm your belly.
For the serious though, they will ban it if it ruins the format with dominance- but they are more likely to take something off of the list than add more crap to it.
I understand there. The other day I was stealing robbing an old woman, and I just couldn't get into it because I'd only eaten a baby and a half for breakfast. And Modern provides a perfect example of how to get rid of Dredge: Golgari Grave-Troll, Dread Return and Bridge From Below. Sure, that's three cards, but they're the only cards that really create a problem.
The thing about that deck in particular is that Dredge itself (the mechanic from Ravnica) was never all that offensive, it was simply a self-mill mechanic and with cards like the Grave Troll and Dread Return it isn't all that bad. With cards like Narcomoeba , Bazaar of Baghdad , Bridge from Below and Cabal Therapy though it gets nastier than it was intended to be. Honestly, I wouldn't mind them taking Dread Return or Grave-Troll off of the Banlist to test the waters, it might actually make Modern interesting.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.[/quote]Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if
Wizards hates Dredge, a lot. I feel like the only reason it isn't banned in legacy (like it is in Modern) is because it has been unbanned for so long the backlash would be way too rough on their PR.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.
Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if they knew they could get away with it.
I'm sure they'll meet to discuss that after the yearly mustache twirlling jambaree, and the baby eating festival. Can't be up to no-good if you don't have two or three infants to warm your belly.
For the serious though, they will ban it if it ruins the format with dominance- but they are more likely to take something off of the list than add more crap to it.
I understand there. The other day I was stealing robbing an old woman, and I just couldn't get into it because I'd only eaten a baby and a half for breakfast. And Modern provides a perfect example of how to get rid of Dredge: Golgari Grave-Troll, Dread Return and Bridge From Below. Sure, that's three cards, but they're the only cards that really create a problem.
The thing about that deck in particular is that Dredge itself (the mechanic from Ravnica) was never all that offensive, it was simply a self-mill mechanic and with cards like the Grave Troll and Dread Return it isn't all that bad. With cards like Narcomoeba , Bazaar of Baghdad , Bridge from Below and Cabal Therapy though it gets nastier than it was intended to be. Honestly, I wouldn't mind them taking Dread Return or Grave-Troll off of the Banlist to test the waters, it might actually make Modern interesting.
There's enough combo in Modern for my liking, thank you. You might have never guessed from how I complain about creature decks, but one of my favorite decks of all time is the Greater Good deck from Rav-Kami standard.
Nah, the lack of Bazaar makes it less explosive, so Legacy can actually deal with Dredge.[/quote]Just because Legacy can handle it by having enough GY hate in sideboards doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't blink twice about banning dredge out of Legacy if
so I came here looking for info on Thundermaw, and all I got is a nerd war about combo decks... What does a beefy creature like Thundermaw have to do with combo...
so I came here looking for info on Thundermaw, and all I got is a nerd war about combo decks... What does a beefy creature like Thundermaw have to do with combo...
Thundermaw Hellkite costs 5 because he's exciting at 5, he's another exciting twist on Flametongue Kavu that opts for a bigger, flying body (a 'la dragon flavored), but a generally weaker ETB, accept than in a metagame full of angels and spirits, it's easily more backbreaking than the Kavu. It probably would have costed 6 a few years ago, but there's been a real effort on WotC's part to (outside of limited fodder) make 6, 7 and 8 drops feel like they are worth that amass of mana (doing exponential work as compared to their cheaper counterparts). There was actually a time when a mana cost of 5 nearly made a card unplayable and 6 or 7 was practically a death sentence- a time where much of R&D were competitive players.
That's the best way to explain it that I can think of.
if R&D were competitive players back then, why would they make cards that are useless in a competitive environment? I was under the strong impression Wotc was actually more competitive-savvy now. (hence also things like Event Decks)
if R&D were competitive players back then, why would they make cards that are useless in a competitive environment? I was under the strong impression Wotc was actually more competitive-savvy now. (hence also things like Event Decks)
Thundermaw Hellkite costs 5 because he's exciting at 5, he's another exciting twist on Flametongue Kavu that opts for a bigger, flying body (a 'la dragon flavored), but a generally weaker ETB, accept than in a metagame full of angels and spirits, it's easily more backbreaking than the Kavu. It probably would have costed 6 a few years ago, but there's been a real effort on WotC's part to (outside of limited fodder) make 6, 7 and 8 drops feel like they are worth that amass of mana (doing exponential work as compared to their cheaper counterparts). There was actually a time when a mana cost of 5 nearly made a card unplayable and 6 or 7 was practically a death sentence- a time where much of R&D were competitive players.
That's the best way to explain it that I can think of.
if R&D were competitive players back then, why would they make cards that are useless in a competitive environment? I was under the strong impression Wotc was actually more competitive-savvy now. (hence also things like Event Decks)
Go read some of MaRo's articles. He has talked about the need for making bad cards intentionally. Just because that vanilla 3/3 isn't good in your Standard deck, doesn't mean he isn't one of the top creatures in Limited. I'd explain it, but MaRo has a way with words that I don't.
if R&D were competitive players back then, why would they make cards that are useless in a competitive environment? I was under the strong impression Wotc was actually more competitive-savvy now. (hence also things like Event Decks)[/quote]Go read so
