Community

Oct 2, 2012 -- 10:32AM, Melriken wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 11:47PM, Dragon_Bloodthirsty wrote:

I disagree about Rancor; it's a house.  It's fast damage, and it interacts with the Temple to make Populate happen (since chump-blocking the temple has the added benefit of "trading" with the token it would have produced).  Rancor plays more like an equipment than a normal enchantment.

I'm also skeptical of adding a six-mana enchantment to a deck that already has so much inevitability.  It would probably depend on the environment how well that plays out.  I think the +1/+1 effect is more affordable, and is better in an aggressive environment.  I can't deny that +3/+3 makes control cringe, if you can manage to get it on the table.

I'm surprised nobody considered splashing black too.

Couldn't agree with you more, I came over here to say the same thing.  Gavin is 100% wrong to put Collective Blessing in instead of Rancor.  Rancor gives the Temple trample, which not only wins 100% of the mirror matches, it gives a lot of power to the rest of the games you play too.

Rancor prevents you from getting into the bad situations that Blessing gets you out of.  I also like the idea of casting Sundering Growth on your own Rancor (when there isn't a better target)  Though Gavin didn't include Sundering Growth (and I am not sure I would have either).

Got to agree. Collective is scary to go against but rancor is far more persistant and the trample on the temples....

The one exception to the above is mana fixing. I know this will especially be a point of contention considering how sought after the Ravnica block dual lands are, but the bottom line is you're going to want to have access to these lands for the next two years of Standard. They're certainly worth trading for.

Thank you for including this. If you want to play Magic even semi-competetively, get the lands.
I love the combo deck, but seems like I'd be more happy playing WUR control with a ton of Wraths, some of which are one sided.

Oct 3, 2012 -- 12:15AM, MaxFAn wrote:

The one exception to the above is mana fixing. I know this will especially be a point of contention considering how sought after the Ravnica block dual lands are, but the bottom line is you're going to want to have access to these lands for the next two years of Standard. They're certainly worth trading for.

Thank you for including this. If you want to play Magic even semi-competetively, get the lands.
I love the combo deck, but seems like I'd be more happy playing WUR control with a ton of Wraths, some of which are one sided.

Why stop there? If they can get 80 dollars in lands they can certainly get 20 for trostanis and another 20 for some armada wurms and 40 for thragtusks etc.

Budget is budget. Not "budget except for this card". If you can't make a budget deck without 80 dollars in lands, then don't try.

Oct 3, 2012 -- 5:42AM, aliasisudonomo wrote:

Oct 3, 2012 -- 4:19AM, CarbonatedSoda wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Why stop there? If they can get 80 dollars in lands they can certainly get 20 for trostanis and another 20 for some armada wurms and 40 for thragtusks etc.

Budget is budget. Not "budget except for this card". If you can't make a budget deck without 80 dollars in lands, then don't try.

Lands are not other cards. Shocklands especially are not other cards. I guarantee if you buy a set of RtR dual lands, you will use them over, and over, and over until they leave Standard. And even then, you'll be in an excellent place to use them in every other format, since the shocklands are rather notable fixtures in basically every format that is not Legacy, and you sometimes see them even there!

It's right to not count them because you aren't spending 80 dollars on one deck, like if you were buying armada wurms, because armada wurms are only going to be useful for a limited number of decks. If you are playing a deck with the colors green and white in it, you will want Temple Garden if it is legal. Period.

They do count because they cost money. If you can afford 80 dollars for shocklands, you can afford 80 for snapcasters. People who make budget decks generally do it because they do not have the funds for a non-budget deck, not because they're looking for a building challenge.

And yes if you're running G/W you'll probably want temple gardens. Thus g/w is not a budget deck and trying to make it one is just an act in furstration unless you want to substitute for something else.

I also don't think the temple gardens are as necessary as some other decks. Would they improve the deck? Certainly. But the deck already has a lot of mana generation, and has sunpetal groves. I think (and in tests) it still runs well replacing the gardens with gates (and the collective blessings with rancors).