|
12 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 1:02PM
#1
|
|
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Top Decks, which goes live Thursday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 1:59PM
#2
|
|
|
So there are four MORE aggressive dogs with new tricks because we were already shown four last week.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 9:46PM
#3
|
|
|
...and then, when you factor in Restoration Angel  ... Boo-yah! What's better than a Snapcaster Mage? The same Snapcaster Mage a second time! You can save creatures or get an extra 3/3 Golem, reset a Phantasmal Image (presumably to another enters-the-battlefield); whatever
Does this work? I don't think it does .
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 19, 2012 - 12:42AM
#4
|
- Warm, wet and squishy inside
|
...and then, when you factor in Restoration Angel ... Boo-yah! What's better than a Snapcaster Mage? The same Snapcaster Mage a second time! You can save creatures or get an extra 3/3 Golem, reset a Phantasmal Image (presumably to another enters-the-battlefield); whatever
Does this work? I don't think it does .
I'm pretty sure you're right. As soon as the Image gets targeted, it's trigger goes on top of the Angel's, killing it. I hesitate to be happy about Thragtusk because I'm expecting it to become a super-annoying card. Thragtusk seems like it pwns aggro decks in general (not just Delver), so unless they can kill quickly it's going to come down and end games. With Rancor in print, aggro might do just fine. Until we see what Ravnica has to offer I can't be too unhappy, but when a card immediately pops up in almost half the top 8, it makes me worried. The card is obviously powerful, and lends itself to abuse. I hope it doesn't replace Delver as the repetitively annoying victory condition of choice.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 19, 2012 - 1:15AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2005
|
Hey guys, remember that card from a set ago, Wolfir Silverheart  ? Remember when we thought that card was good? Yeah, nobody's playing that jank anymore, we have Thrangtusk! (Though I will applaud them on their colour wheel--they are at least giving green the best creatures).
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 19, 2012 - 4:55AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2012
|
I would say Thrag is gonna see major abuse, but it kind of already has. Has there ever been a format where serious lifegain was a thing that could actually happen?
I want to be Cultured. 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 19, 2012 - 5:54AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
Hmm. Primal Command  got played in lifegain mode from time to time. Soul Sisters was an occasional deck, and Spike Feeder  got played. Obviously there's Starlit Sanctum  and Illusions of Grandeur  , but those were more "win the game" than "serious lifegain".
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 19, 2012 - 8:04AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2008
|
I'm still pretty new to understanding tournament level deck building. Can someone help me out in understanding some of this high-level deck construction? I keep hearing the general mantra of not including 1-ofs unless you really wouldn't want more than one. So why, in Fritz's GW Aggro for example, would he have just one Ajani? Or in Kettle's Naya Humans, why have just one Odric? Or in Durward's Naya Pod having just one each of Bonfire and O-Ring?
It seems if these cards are key to the deck's function they should try to increase their presence? These decks can't count on an Ajani or Odric or O-Ring each game because I don't think they have any tutoring. Therefore, wouldn't it follow standard theory to cut something else to include two or more copies of another threat?
I guess I'm asking, "When is having one copy of something advisable?"
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 19, 2012 - 8:34AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2004
|
I'm still pretty new to understanding tournament level deck building. Can someone help me out in understanding some of this high-level deck construction? I keep hearing the general mantra of not including 1-ofs unless you really wouldn't want more than one. So why, in Fritz's GW Aggro for example, would he have just one Ajani? Or in Kettle's Naya Humans, why have just one Odric? Or in Durward's Naya Pod having just one each of Bonfire and O-Ring?
It seems if these cards are key to the deck's function they should try to increase their presence? These decks can't count on an Ajani or Odric or O-Ring each game because I don't think they have any tutoring. Therefore, wouldn't it follow standard theory to cut something else to include two or more copies of another threat?
I guess I'm asking, "When is having one copy of something advisable?"
This article has some really great information on that subject (skip to the section titled "Crunching Numbers"):
www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.a...
Also, keep in mind the legend rule for Odric and the planeswalker uniqueness rule for Ajani.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 19, 2012 - 1:45PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2012
|
The above link is really good, but I'll talk about the cards in specific.
Ajani and Odric allow the deck variance. They are both strong cards when you get them down, but if they were always there then your opponent could prepare. They allow you to draw one every so often, and suddenly change the face of the game. This is very potent for a deck to be able to do, because it makes you harder to predict without severely reducing the strength of the deck.
Bonfire and Oblivion Ring are in a Pod deck. Pod decks either run 1-ofs to be searched up with the Pod, or 3 or 4-ofs to be the basis for the Pod. There really wasn't much left to put in, except for a couple of excellent spells that could swing the game at the right time.
Two final things to consider are:
1. Price. People don't like spending money, and these cards (bar Oring) are expensive.
2. Uncertainty. SCG tourneys are not top of the line, and the decks that show up there are often pretty experimental. The builders could have just wanted to play a couple of M13 rares to see how they felt in a tournament setting.
|
|
|
