Community

Garruk for me, it is just play creature and attack. It has very few tricks.

GG...if it's highlighted play it. If it's on the field, attack.

I'd also vote for PI, but AS is up there as well.

All the decks mentioned already are good picks, but I'd put DP above them all. Seems like everytime I play against it (which is always, I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it all) the person just empties their hand as quick as possible, it's just too straight forward to do anything except play every card in your hand that's available...

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:31AM, Kangermu wrote:

GG...if it's highlighted play it. If it's on the field, attack.

I just knew that someone would come in here and show their ignorance by making that statement.


I would assume that the majority of people will say GG.  But honestly there's more to play around with in GG.  Monk's assessment of Pack Instinct is probably the most spot on.  There really isn't anything in that deck to do.  Play creature, attack.  Other than that you can Ramp, Grieves, Fight, and Pump.  And each of those, with the exception of Ramp only have a very limited amount of cards that allow you to do it.  There really isn't any deck that's as simple as PI.  Every other deck gives you choices you need to make.  Even GG. 

Without question, GG.  Kangermu described the GG tactics fairly accurately.  It is maybe slightly more complicated in that GG has removal, but the answer to the question "when do I play removal" is "whenever you see an opponent's creature" so...not really.  The difference between a good GG player and a bad one is the bad one will sometimes hard cast a Gempalm Incinerator.  Otherwise the bad player still wins against the majority of decks ... because the deck is on autopilot.

PI is a simple deck but because it has much more limited removal and pumps, you have to make actual decisions about when to use them.  It also has builds with meaningful differences.  There is considerably more player choice involved.  

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:58AM, dh50 wrote:

Without question, GG.  Kangermu described the GG tactics fairly accurately.  It is maybe slightly more complicated in that GG has removal, but the answer to the question "when do I play removal" is "whenever you see an opponent's creature" so...not really.  The difference between a good GG player and a bad one is the bad one will sometimes hard cast a Gempalm Incinerator.  Otherwise the bad player still wins against the majority of decks ... because the deck is on autopilot.

PI is a simple deck but because it has much more limited removal and pumps, you have to make actual decisions about when to use them.  It also has builds with meaningful differences.  There is considerably more player choice involved.  

ROFL

I think AS takes more strategy than what some people are giving it credit for. Sure, you can load up pumping auras on a hexproof creature, but what about the times when you don't have a hexproof creature? Which aura would you play first, out of those available? Would you risk playing a Daybreak Coronet on something with only 1 other aura, and risk getting 2-for-1'd by your opponent's Solemn Offering or Acidic Slime? If you play Three Dreams what 3 auras do you get to set up for the next couple of turns? Wait a minute, planning for the next couple of turns, that doesn't sound like auto-pilot to me.

In this game, I'd have to say GG is the most auto-pilot deck, though the experienced players can find more niche uses of cards, and make the more intricate plays when they come up, those with little experience can still win a lot just by slapping down goblins and turning them sideways.

If I could include D12, I'd say Beknighted is more auto-pilot, as there's much less intricate plays than what Goblins has.

Celestial Light could be played on autopilot since all it cares about is it's own life total. Play cards, gain life automatically, attack with Lifelinked things.
It's light on removal, it doesn't have to worry about buffing/protecting it's creatures since it really can't, and doesn't have to interact overly much with it's opponent. Just keep your life above 40 and your opponent will inevitably die before you.

Not saying it's the "most auto-piloted"/"least interactive" deck, but it could be played that way.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

All the decks mentioned already are good picks, but I'd put DP above them all. Seems like everytime I play against it (which is always, I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it all) the person just empties their hand as quick as possible, it's just too straight forward to do anything except play every card in your hand that's available...

Wow, completely disagree. Some of the hardest decisions I've made in this game have been with DP. When you have no creatures to defend your self every decision is a huge one. I'll admit that bad DP pilots might just empty their hand but that is a terrible way to approach the deck and leads to many losses.

I would have to vote for PI. Dont get me wrong I dont hate the deck but when I hear the term "auto pilot" I equate that to very few THOUGHT PROVOKING dicisions. Of all the decks I would say PI makes me stop and say "HMMMM is this the right move/ right now/ for this situation?" the least and therefore gets my vote.

Am I really the only one whose going to say Grinning Malice? How bad can you mess up that deck? Hard to make a bad choice with all the removal, direct damage, and beefy haste creatures. Oh hey, look, Demigod of Revenge combos well with Demigod of Revenge , which combos even better with a Demigod of Revenge . Excellent choice, Sherlock.

At least GG and PI require a lot of battle math and require you to think carefully about when to play defensively.

Maybe it's just because I only recently returned to this game, whereas you've all dealt with it, but every time I see it played I shake my head.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:05AM, DistilledPoison wrote:

Am I really the only one whose going to say Grinning Malice? How bad can you mess up that deck? Hard to make a bad choice with all the removal, direct damage, and beefy haste creatures. Oh hey, look, Demigod of Revenge combos well with Demigod of Revenge , which combos even better with a Demigod of Revenge . Excellent choice, Sherlock. At least GG and PI have battle match and require you to think carefully about when to play defensively. Maybe it's just because I only recently returned to this game, whereas you've all dealt with it, but every time I see it played I shake my head.

GM is a very close second to PI IMO, only because in 2hg the discard mechanics and who to target and when adds a little wrinkle. PIs flow on the other hand basicly remains unchanged no matter the format.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:05AM, dj_btrue wrote:

I would have to vote for PI. Dont get me wrong I dont hate the deck but when I hear the term "auto pilot" I equate that to very few THOUGHT PROVOKING dicisions. Of all the decks I would say PI makes me stop and say "HMMMM is this the right move/ right now/ for this situation?" the least and therefore gets my vote.

See, I would put Celestial Light in a similar... light (goddammit), but the difference is, Celestial light has less to lose. When your deck is designed to have 2-20x your starting life total, who cares if you lose 20 life to a bad play?

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:01AM, dj_btrue wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

All the decks mentioned already are good picks, but I'd put DP above them all. Seems like everytime I play against it (which is always, I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it all) the person just empties their hand as quick as possible, it's just too straight forward to do anything except play every card in your hand that's available...

Wow, completely disagree. Some of the hardest decisions I've made in this game have been with DP. When you have no creatures to defend your self every decision is a huge one. I'll admit that bad DP pilots might just empty their hand but that is a terrible way to approach the deck and leads to many losses.

Absolutely true. That's why I consider this deck much more elegant then CW.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:05AM, DistilledPoison wrote:

Am I really the only one whose going to say Grinning Malice?

 
I have to disagree. I see Bloodchief Ascension as the center of this deck. And with all this fragile units - it's really tricky sometimes (but really fun as well). To rely on Demigods (if you are not playing against mill, of course) - looks ike very risky strategy.

Mana Mastery, du'uh...

And I won't accept a reply saying "but you've got all these decisions to make each turn!". Yes, that's true, but each of your options is so good with that deck (if built properly of course) that a suboptimal decision is rarely going to be a game-changer. You can just spam (mass) removal since there's so much of in the deck + you can even get it back from your GY multiple times if you need to. Also, after you're done ramping, there's really no need think carefully about how you're going to spend your mana since there's enough of it anyway.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:34AM, falclon wrote:

I have to disagree. I see Bloodchief Ascension  as the center of this deck. And with all this fragile units - it's really tricky sometimes (but really fun as well). To rely on Demigods (if you are not playing against mill, of course) - looks ike very risky strategy.

My point is, there's no wrong way to play this deck, if you're even semi-competent at deck trimming. The cards have so many powerful effects that, again, so long as you're semi-competent, it's really really hard to play something wrong. The skill requirement to achieve a substantial effect is seriously disproportionate. Like Splat pointed out, you can mess up with CL and it not be a big deal because of its autopilot nature. The difference is it doesn't put out nearly as much damage or pressure as GM. At least against CL you don't have an empty hand and destroyed lands while looking at recurring fatties and lifegain and direct damage .

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:53AM, Higure wrote:

Mana Mastery, du'uh... And I won't accept a reply saying "but you've got all these decisions to make each turn!". Yes, that's true, but each of your options is so good with that deck (if built properly of course) that a suboptimal decision is rarely going to be a game-changer. You can just spam (mass) removal since there's so much of in the deck + you can even get it back from your GY multiple times if you need to. Also, after you're done ramping, there's really no need think carefully about how you're going to spend your mana since there's enough of it anyway.

Vindicate and Maelstrom Pulse target (most) any permanent and therefore require thought though...

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:01AM, dj_btrue wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

All the decks mentioned already are good picks, but I'd put DP above them all. Seems like everytime I play against it (which is always, I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it all) the person just empties their hand as quick as possible, it's just too straight forward to do anything except play every card in your hand that's available...

Wow, completely disagree. Some of the hardest decisions I've made in this game have been with DP. When you have no creatures to defend your self every decision is a huge one. I'll admit that bad DP pilots might just empty their hand but that is a terrible way to approach the deck and leads to many losses.

Your experiences still don't derive from the fact that the deck has 1 win con 95% of the time, just mill them ASAP and win, that's all it is almost every single match in 1v1, in 2HG it's obviously a bit different but in 1v1 it's all about that turbo-mill, which takes very little thought and interaction IMO.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:12AM, Selaphane wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:01AM, dj_btrue wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

All the decks mentioned already are good picks, but I'd put DP above them all. Seems like everytime I play against it (which is always, I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it all) the person just empties their hand as quick as possible, it's just too straight forward to do anything except play every card in your hand that's available...

Wow, completely disagree. Some of the hardest decisions I've made in this game have been with DP. When you have no creatures to defend your self every decision is a huge one. I'll admit that bad DP pilots might just empty their hand but that is a terrible way to approach the deck and leads to many losses.

Your experiences still don't derive from the fact that the deck has 1 win con 95% of the time, just mill them ASAP and win, that's all it is almost every single match in 1v1, in 2HG it's obviously a bit different but in 1v1 it's all about that turbo-mill, which takes very little thought and interaction IMO.

Counterspells and bounce would like to argue that the deck is a little more than just mill/mill/mill/mill.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:12AM, Selaphane wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:01AM, dj_btrue wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

All the decks mentioned already are good picks, but I'd put DP above them all. Seems like everytime I play against it (which is always, I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it all) the person just empties their hand as quick as possible, it's just too straight forward to do anything except play every card in your hand that's available...

Wow, completely disagree. Some of the hardest decisions I've made in this game have been with DP. When you have no creatures to defend your self every decision is a huge one. I'll admit that bad DP pilots might just empty their hand but that is a terrible way to approach the deck and leads to many losses.

Your experiences still don't derive from the fact that the deck has 1 win con 95% of the time, just mill them ASAP and win, that's all it is almost every single match in 1v1, in 2HG it's obviously a bit different but in 1v1 it's all about that turbo-mill, which takes very little thought and interaction IMO.

Never played turbo-mill and still got rather good results. It's consideraby more risky then with most decks, but there is also more fun)

Counterspells and bounce would like to argue that the deck is a little more than just mill/mill/mill/mill.

2 counters and 6 bounces (2 of which are creatures) total, all there for the same purpose. To delay the inevitable. Honestly, how often does this deck win with creatures? Unless you get a lucky Body Double or some Jace's Phantasm s to stick you're really just mill/mill/mill/mill all game.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:26AM, Selaphane wrote:

Counterspells and bounce would like to argue that the deck is a little more than just mill/mill/mill/mill.

2 counters and 6 bounces (2 of which are creatures) total, all there for the same purpose. To delay the inevitable. Honestly, how often does this deck win with creatures? Unless you get a lucky Body Double or some Jace's Phantasm s to stick you're really just mill/mill/mill/mill all game.

3 counters)

All my mill cards: 1 tome scour, 2 mind sculpt, 1 archive trap, 2 chancellors, 2 crabs. As a rule at least one of them is in initial hand with at least 1 fantom. So it's relatively easy to have 5/5 phantom at turn 4 (maximum). Main task - to defend it. Yes, it isn't simple. But - at least for me - proved to be effective.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:43AM, falclon wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:26AM, Selaphane wrote:

Counterspells and bounce would like to argue that the deck is a little more than just mill/mill/mill/mill.

2 counters and 6 bounces (2 of which are creatures) total, all there for the same purpose. To delay the inevitable. Honestly, how often does this deck win with creatures? Unless you get a lucky Body Double or some Jace's Phantasm s to stick you're really just mill/mill/mill/mill all game.

3 counters)

All my mill cards: 1 tome scour, 2 mind sculpt, 1 archive trap, 2 chancellors, 2 crabs. As a rule at least one of them is in initial hand with at least 1 fantom. So it's relatively easy to have 5/5 phantom at turn 4 (maximum). Main task - to defend it. Yes, it isn't simple. But - at least for me - proved to be effective.

That's still basing your entire strategy around 1 maybe 2 creatures all game, (3 or 4 if you're really lucky) which is hardly ever enough to outrace pretty much any deck in the damage race. I don't see how anything not mill would be remotely effective in 1v1, but I guess this discussion isn't about that. Basically as I see it, you just use every single mill card in your hand, then drop your 1 or 2 maybe 3 creatures and try to stall til you get enough to mill them out or miraculously damage them to death, not exactly difficult or brain flexing.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:43AM, falclon wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:26AM, Selaphane wrote:

Counterspells and bounce would like to argue that the deck is a little more than just mill/mill/mill/mill.

2 counters and 6 bounces (2 of which are creatures) total, all there for the same purpose. To delay the inevitable. Honestly, how often does this deck win with creatures? Unless you get a lucky Body Double or some Jace's Phantasm s to stick you're really just mill/mill/mill/mill all game.

3 counters)

All my mill cards: 1 tome scour, 2 mind sculpt, 1 archive trap, 2 chancellors, 2 crabs. As a rule at least one of them is in initial hand with at least 1 fantom. So it's relatively easy to have 5/5 phantom at turn 4 (maximum). Main task - to defend it. Yes, it isn't simple. But - at least for me - proved to be effective.

That's still basing your entire strategy around 1 maybe 2 creatures all game, (3 or 4 if you're really lucky) which is hardly ever enough to outrace pretty much any deck in the damage race. I don't see how anything not mill would be remotely effective in 1v1, but I guess this discussion isn't about that. Basically as I see it, you just use every single mill card in your hand, then drop your 1 or 2 maybe 3 creatures and try to stall til you get enough to mill them out or miraculously damage them to death, not exactly difficult or brain flexing.

I'd actually have to say this takes 2nd then, seeing as PI is really just play creature, attack, more creatures, attack. But I won't deny mill has the biggest luck draws going for it....

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:43AM, falclon wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:26AM, Selaphane wrote:

Counterspells and bounce would like to argue that the deck is a little more than just mill/mill/mill/mill.

2 counters and 6 bounces (2 of which are creatures) total, all there for the same purpose. To delay the inevitable. Honestly, how often does this deck win with creatures? Unless you get a lucky Body Double or some Jace's Phantasm s to stick you're really just mill/mill/mill/mill all game.

3 counters)

All my mill cards: 1 tome scour, 2 mind sculpt, 1 archive trap, 2 chancellors, 2 crabs. As a rule at least one of them is in initial hand with at least 1 fantom. So it's relatively easy to have 5/5 phantom at turn 4 (maximum). Main task - to defend it. Yes, it isn't simple. But - at least for me - proved to be effective.

I hope you run the Swords, which I don't see why they wouldn't be considered mill.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:12AM, Selaphane wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:01AM, dj_btrue wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

All the decks mentioned already are good picks, but I'd put DP above them all. Seems like everytime I play against it (which is always, I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it all) the person just empties their hand as quick as possible, it's just too straight forward to do anything except play every card in your hand that's available...

Wow, completely disagree. Some of the hardest decisions I've made in this game have been with DP. When you have no creatures to defend your self every decision is a huge one. I'll admit that bad DP pilots might just empty their hand but that is a terrible way to approach the deck and leads to many losses.

Your experiences still don't derive from the fact that the deck has 1 win con 95% of the time, just mill them ASAP and win, that's all it is almost every single match in 1v1, in 2HG it's obviously a bit different but in 1v1 it's all about that turbo-mill, which takes very little thought and interaction IMO.

Don't most of the decks have a win-con of damage 100% of the time? 

Why all the hate for DP? Several times people have outright quit because they think that DP is a "noob deck". I just don't understand it. A mill deck is just like a burn deck or an aggro deck except that instead of targeting your 20 hit point life total i'm targeting your library (which can be close to 80 cards sometimes). Mill isn't auto-pilot and certainly isn't a noob deck. 

Knowing when to counter, when to bounce, when to take the hit, when to chump, and even when to mill is not easy street. (several times i've managed to trick people into dying against my phantasm with an instant Thought Scour milling my 10th card.) Remember that every turn a mill deck is countering or bouncing they're not actually milling you. Those people you describe as just auto-emptying their hand sound ridiculous. A good blue deck and a good mill deck have to really time their plays right since they don't have the creatures of burn to waste. 

My theory on mill hate is that people hate to see good cards thrown away. Certainyly this can be frusting but no deck is built on only a couple cards. If you construct your deck correctly then mill isn't going to hurt you that much. Sure some of your good cards might be milled away but so might mana flood or some of your sub par cards. Many times the tubro-mill build will actually give you more cards then you normally would have. Many times I love playing against a mill deck since they often end up helping me more then themselves or their teammate.

For someone who rarely posts, I'd like to hear more of what this guy (Forehand0) has to say.  He sounds smart.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:38AM, Forehand0 wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:12AM, Selaphane wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:01AM, dj_btrue wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

All the decks mentioned already are good picks, but I'd put DP above them all. Seems like everytime I play against it (which is always, I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it all) the person just empties their hand as quick as possible, it's just too straight forward to do anything except play every card in your hand that's available...

Wow, completely disagree. Some of the hardest decisions I've made in this game have been with DP. When you have no creatures to defend your self every decision is a huge one. I'll admit that bad DP pilots might just empty their hand but that is a terrible way to approach the deck and leads to many losses.

Your experiences still don't derive from the fact that the deck has 1 win con 95% of the time, just mill them ASAP and win, that's all it is almost every single match in 1v1, in 2HG it's obviously a bit different but in 1v1 it's all about that turbo-mill, which takes very little thought and interaction IMO.

Don't most of the decks have a win-con of damage 100% of the time? 

Why all the hate for DP? Several times people have outright quit because they think that DP is a "noob deck". I just don't understand it. A mill deck is just like a burn deck or an aggro deck except that instead of targeting your 20 hit point life total i'm targeting your library (which can be close to 80 cards sometimes). Mill isn't auto-pilot and certainly isn't a noob deck. 

Knowing when to counter, when to bounce, when to take the hit, when to chump, and even when to mill is not easy street. (several times i've managed to trick people into dying against my phantasm with an instant Thought Scour milling my 10th card.) Remember that every turn a mill deck is countering or bouncing they're not actually milling you. Those people you describe as just auto-emptying their hand sound ridiculous. A good blue deck and a good mill deck have to really time their plays right since they don't have the creatures of burn to waste. 

My theory on mill hate is that people hate to see good cards thrown away. Certainyly this can be frusting but no deck is built on only a couple cards. If you construct your deck correctly then mill isn't going to hurt you that much. Sure some of your good cards might be milled away but so might mana flood or some of your sub par cards. Many times the tubro-mill build will actually give you more cards then you normally would have. Many times I love playing against a mill deck since they often end up helping me more then themselves or their teammate.

First of all, I'm the only person in this thread "hating" on mill, don't get your panties in a bunch. Second, I definitely don't quit out pretty much ever when I'm playing against it, honestly I think it's the worst deck in the game as far as 1v1 goes, I lose to it maybe 1 in 10 games. I just see the same thing almost every single time I play against. (Even 60 carders do this most of the time)

1. Use all mill cards asap
2. Drop your few creatures
3. Stall for a bit with the limited bounce/counters (sometimes this comes before step 2)
4. Quit out when your hand is empty and my library is still half-full and you have no creatures left

I mean I'm sure I'm simplifying some things a bit, but this is honestly what happens 90% of the time I play against it, which leads me to believe it's the most auto-pilotey deck in the game. Mill, creatures, stall, mill a bit more, quit. And even the 1/10 games that I do lose against it, it's usually because of a turn 5 (or 4) Traumatize followed by a couple more mill cards to finish me off. It just seems so straight-forward and too easy to pilot, hence the reason I can't stand playing with or against it, not because it's actually any good. (It's terrible)

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

 That's still basing your entire strategy around 1 maybe 2 creatures all game, (3 or 4 if you're really lucky) which is hardly ever enough to outrace pretty much any deck in the damage race.

Exactly. And that's why it's so exciting. Really unique style) The main idea of this deck (imho) - sabotage. With carefully planned counters, bounces and tappings (two manipulators, 3 chills and 1 sleep) you can do almost anything. If your planning is good, you really don't (in most cases) care what kind of monsters stare at you from other side.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

Basically as I see it, you just use every single mill card in your hand

 
usually only one is enough

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

then drop your 1 or 2 maybe 3 creatures

 
one phantasm is enough too

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

miraculously damage them to death

 
nothing miraclous about 5 for 4 turns

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

which is hardly ever enough to outrace pretty much any deck in the damage race.

 

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

not exactly difficult or brain flexing.

no offence, but I think that it's some contradiction here

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:57AM, falclon wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

 That's still basing your entire strategy around 1 maybe 2 creatures all game, (3 or 4 if you're really lucky) which is hardly ever enough to outrace pretty much any deck in the damage race.

Exactly. And that's why it's so exciting. Really unique style) The main idea of this deck (imho) - sabotage. With carefully planned counters, bounces and tappings (two manipulators, 3 chills and 1 sleep) you can do almost anything. If your planning is good, you really don't (in most cases) care what kind of monsters stare at you from other side.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

Basically as I see it, you just use every single mill card in your hand

 
usually only one is enough

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

then drop your 1 or 2 maybe 3 creatures

 
one phantasm is enough too

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

miraculously damage them to death

 
nothing miraclous about 5 for 4 turns

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

which is hardly ever enough to outrace pretty much any deck in the damage race.

 

Jan 31, 2013 -- 11:04AM, Selaphane wrote:

not exactly difficult or brain flexing.

no offence, but I think that it's some contradiction here

Good luck protecting 1 Phantasm against this meta, and having it swing for 4 turns straight? Good luck with that too. I can't remember the last time I lost to a single Phantasm, if ever?

Jan 31, 2013 -- 12:04PM, Selaphane wrote:

Good luck protecting 1 Phantasm against this meta, and having it swing for 4 turns straight? Good luck with that too. I can't remember the last time I lost to a single Phantasm, if ever?

So it isn't so easy after all) Sure it's hypothetical situation and Clones, Doubles, Control and (but not least) Sword are still there. Ah, whatever. I'm saying about my experience, you're saying about yours. I just'd like to point that "3. Stall for a bit with the limited bounce/counters (sometimes this comes before step 2)" requires very careful planning and rather good knowledge about your opponent's particular deck (that is partly provided by milled cards). It doesn't look like auto-play at all to me. But, as I said - it's only my expeience.

Hey!

What is the auto pilot deck?

poison, I must disagree. I never find myself in any kind of auto pilot mode when playing GM.

To all those who say in 1v1 you can auto pilot a DP deck to win I say work on improving the decks you lost with.

I can't believe this thread developed so much. There is no "auto-pilot", even one like PI or GG or even DP, heck not even ED.

The skill on this game comes from knowing what to play and when to play it, and also from building a good deck. So whoever says that 1 deck is played by casting w/e is highlighted like DP, or just attack with w/e you have like PI or GG, it's a complete idiot.

I play DP and I do not want to empty my hands sometimes, it could be cuz putting he muse might slow down my mill. Or when playing PI I might not want to attack cuz I rather block and primal growth to kill a big threat.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 12:40PM, thedevilwuster wrote:

poison, I must disagree. I never find myself in any kind of auto pilot mode when playing GM.

Care to elaborate on why? I've laid out a lot of reasons why GM is an auto pilot deck, and no one is refuting any of it, not even the first person to challenge my opinion. There's a lot of good discussion here. I assume since no one is providing logical reasons why what I've said isn't true, they agree with me.

I'll simplify my point again. The power and pressure of GM is not proportionate to its weaknesses or skill requirement. It requires no thought or planning to play and big mistakes don't severely hurt it. MM, GG, DP, and PI are hurt by their mistakes, and have many wrong ways to play. The closest another deck comes to this is CL, but it has nowhere near the pressure or damage output that GM has.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it

I think this statement pretty much invalidates your opinions of it. Put some time into it and you'll begin to see what we ALL are trying to tell you.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 2:58PM, dj_btrue wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:21AM, Selaphane wrote:

I refuse to use this deck ever again after unlocking it

I think this statement pretty much invalidates your opinions of it. Put some time into it and you'll begin to see what we ALL are trying to tell you.

I mean I've played it a handful of times after unlocking it with various different builds and I had absolutely no fun whatsoever using it because I felt kind of mindless playing it, the only time I felt like it took skill was when I took out practically all the mill and tried to just go for as much "control" as possible, I tested it in 2HG and it was just downright horrible, I never won a single match with that build. I've seen people play it probably more than any other deck in the game for some reason, my opinion still stands. It has a couple mechanics that require some thought (if you're skilled) but as far as I'm concerned there isn't much else to do besides mill/mill/mill if you want to actually get wins.

How this discussion is even occurring feels quite ridiculous; it has to be Goblin Gangland. I mean, any deck that can win often on the third turn, but usually on the fourth, obviously takes less decision making because there are so few turns involved.

GG wins on the third turn sometimes, on the fourth turn usually, and on the fifth turn sometimes. Not many games actually go beyond that, and they can still win a lot of 'lost' games by simply topdecking a Goblin Grenade , even though the other guy had stabilized and was poised to take over the game.

As for the PI argument, sometimes the PI player has to decide to either ramp or play a creature. GG has to decide to play a new creature or spend some removal; the difference is that bad decisions by GG players usually mean that they win a turn later than they should have. Bad decisions by PI players can lose them the game outright.

Agreed. It's GG. I honestly just quit when I play Goblins at this point.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 2:21PM, DistilledPoison wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 12:40PM, thedevilwuster wrote:

poison, I must disagree. I never find myself in any kind of auto pilot mode when playing GM.

Care to elaborate on why? I've laid out a lot of reasons why GM is an auto pilot deck, and no one is refuting any of it, not even the first person to challenge my opinion. There's a lot of good discussion here. I assume since no one is providing logical reasons why what I've said isn't true, they agree with me. I'll simplify my point again. The power and pressure of GM is not proportionate to its weaknesses or skill requirement. It requires no thought or planning to play and big mistakes don't severely hurt it. MM, GG, DP, and PI are hurt by their mistakes, and have many wrong ways to play. The closest another deck comes to this is CL, but it has nowhere near the pressure or damage output that GM has.

All right) A little off top of my head, but nevertheless

1. Most units are fragile (actually - perfect targets for MS). So this deck can't even begin to stall efficiently. So - it must attack.
2. When it attacks - wow, most units have also relatively low power! And only one cheap unit has trample. So - careless rush against most decks only leave me creatureless. And someone like mere PI only sneers at it. 
3. So - I have to carefully grow my rockslides and drakes, don't cast rats and ogres only to cast them and try to win the mini-game "place three counters on ascension"
4. And - are we talking only about creatures? This deck has so many wonderful tactical tools. Wonderful, but requiring a careful approach. For example - Shimmer - only 1 copy. Use it now on deathraiders or wait for liege? Or even - for smth from enemy?

So you can't defend and you can't just rush. And therefore you have to plan and plan fast.

And, btw, how can the deck where is Chaos warp be auto-pilot? This card actually begs you for thinking it's usage through.

P.S. And - yes - you obviously have Demigods (who even can't be counterd properly). But - every deck has relatively cheap bombs who can put you on edge. Again from the top of my head - Fire servant (yes, I consider him as such). If we are talking about non-mill situation (when there are no Demigods in graveyard already), so it's probably 6-7 mana. Flames of Blood hand + 2 Searing spears + lightning bolt = 20. And it's really isn't uncommon situation.
 

Jan 31, 2013 -- 2:21PM, DistilledPoison wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 12:40PM, thedevilwuster wrote:

poison, I must disagree. I never find myself in any kind of auto pilot mode when playing GM.

Care to elaborate on why? I've laid out a lot of reasons why GM is an auto pilot deck, and no one is refuting any of it, not even the first person to challenge my opinion. There's a lot of good discussion here. I assume since no one is providing logical reasons why what I've said isn't true, they agree with me. I'll simplify my point again. The power and pressure of GM is not proportionate to its weaknesses or skill requirement. It requires no thought or planning to play and big mistakes don't severely hurt it. MM, GG, DP, and PI are hurt by their mistakes, and have many wrong ways to play. The closest another deck comes to this is CL, but it has nowhere near the pressure or damage output that GM has.

Ok.
The Demigods are nice and yes I run all 4 of them, but they are subject to blockers and removal same as any other creature. Yes, it is a huge deal if you have some in the graveyard when you cast one from your hand. If anything I would consider them OP against DP, but if you're in a 2hg game and the opponent continues to mill me since he started on me as I only had a 60 card deck and I'm running GM, well that's his own stupid behavior and he deserves a spanking.
I love the interaction between Bloodchief, Magnification, Iguanar, Vexing and Reanimation.
It's all the opponents choice as to what to do with Vexing Devil , I just play it and Reanimate it and then it's his choice again as to what action to take.
Some people don't run the Devils. I don't run Lysol and the flyer that causes discard. I have my deck built in a way that suits me and I have to pilot it through the jungle to come up with a win many a time.
Hell, my favorite card in the whole deck is Malfegor . I even took out Kaervek to run it.
And let me let you in on a secret....shhhh
I'll discard the last of my Demigods from my hand to play Malfy if it means my opponent has to sac all his creatures.
Now that's fun.

It's your opinion and I understand why you think that way. Demigods can seem awfully cheap. But can you think of any other 5 cost creatures with kick ass abilities?

Join in the fun tonight and we can discuss it more. Heck, we've been playing rules (winner of the first 4ffa get to make a rule all must abide by the next game) and who knows, maybe one would be everyone must run GM.
That could be interesting eh?
So far we've four way mirrored CL, MM and CM.

Edit: Didn't mean to call you out without backing myself up. Conducting fireproofing testing today and didn't have many moments to post and anyway it's very tedious to post a dissertation on a Galaxy Precedent.

@falclon: Numbers one and two on your list perfectly describe GG. Except GM has more removal to clear blockers, land destruction if it needs to stall, and an excellent late game with tons of fatties. If anything, you're making a case against yourself.

@thedevilwuster- In hindsight, I guess my use of the phrase "autopilot" doesn't quite fit with the point of this thread and its use of the word "autopilot." The deck does have options for its play, and I guess that alone disqualifies it from this thread. My point has been more that GM is an overpowered mess and is autopilot less in its options and more in its ease of play and difficulty to mess up. In that way, I admit GM doesn't belong, but I retain the opinion that is overpowered and autopilot in a different way.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 4:18PM, DistilledPoison wrote:

@falclon: Numbers one and two on your list perfectly describe GG. Except GM has more removal to clear blockers, land destruction if it needs to stall, and an excellent late game with tons of fatties. If anything, you're making a case against yourself. @thedevilwuster- In hindsight, I guess my use of the phrase "autopilot" doesn't quite fit with the point of this thread and its use of the word "autopilot." The deck does have options for its play, and I guess that alone disqualifies it from this thread. My point has been more that GM is an overpowered mess and is autopilot less in its options and more in its ease of play and difficulty to mess up. In that way, I admit GM doesn't belong, but I retain the opinion that is overpowered and autopilot in a different way.

Never said that it wasn't overpowered. 

Which is why I acknowledged the credit of what you said and conceded that by the standards of this thread, you're correct, but continued to disagree with falclon.

Always meant to ask.

Is that John Lennon with a ball gag?

Jan 31, 2013 -- 4:18PM, DistilledPoison wrote:

@falclon: Numbers one and two on your list perfectly describe GG. Except GM has more removal to clear blockers, land destruction if it needs to stall, and an excellent late game with tons of fatties. If anything, you're making a case against yourself.

Not so much. Not even close. I think that GM can do nothing in first 3 turns that even resembles standart situation - berserker-insigator/piledriver-chief.

"Land destruction if it needs to stall" - it isn't so efficient most of the time. As a rule you can only make the screw (that already happened) slightly worse. Only real purpose (imho) - colour screw. But frankly it's relatively rare.

"GM is an overpowered mess and is autopilot less in its options and more in its ease of play and difficulty to mess up" - I agree with thedevilwuster - it is very strong. But wait - what about OD and SS (not to mention MM)? How hard to mess them up? Doesn't "more removal to clear blockers, land destruction if it needs to stall, and an excellent late game with tons of fatties" fit them perfectly as well?

it could be said all burn chandra and izzet is pretty autopilot as well.

Hell I even put autopilot rules on my talrand in 2hg where all i do is cast the lowest cost card as soon as its highlighted.  I know some people seem to think that cancel is the most thought provoking card in the game, but it is really just the best removal we got. So people say like with PI do I have enough mana to cast a big dude well cast it then is autopilot.  Well if I have enough land to counter your big dude then counter it is autopilot too!!

Its like omgdid you just say blue is autopilot? It says somewhere that blue is about thinking or something!! I am offend!!! O noes!! you gots cavern of soul I can't counter your thragtusk now!! omg blue got shafted!! all these autopilot critter decks are too strong for my real thinking mans counter decks!!

sorta just joking but this whole argument just goes around in circles and should probably just be "excuses why I lost to a player worse then me!!"

'He picked a deck that I find boring!! All he had to do is play whatever highlighted!!' wow what a goddraw!! etc.etc. 

I don't know if you're just trying to be contrary or what sixty, but what choices do you have to make with GG? When do I gempalm? When there's a creature out. What goblin do I play? It probably doesn't really matter, because you can probably play two and they'll probably have haste.  When do I use grenade? When they have less than 5 life and after attacking.

At least PI has to choose whether to ramp or play Companion, or when to actually use one of your few Prey Upons. Heck, even building the deck is wayyyy more complicated (in my mind)  than for GG (which is either win quick, or give yourself a challenge and try to win turn 6 or 7 instead)

EDIT: And for what it's worth, PI is an easy 2nd or 3rd (right alongside AS). But there is nothing more autopilot than GG. Heck, if I get the time, I'm gonna see how many games in a row I can win without mulliganing and always playing the first highlighted card. 

Jan 31, 2013 -- 4:44PM, Neofirefly wrote:

this whole argument just goes around in circles

Suppose so) I started this thread mostly because of my irritation about AS. I think that the others have their pet peeves as well.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 4:39PM, falclon wrote:

I think that GM can do nothing in first 3 turns that even resembles standart situation - berserker-insigator/piledriver-chief.

falcion,
Given the proper draw and your decisions, I can do 16 damage while only loosing 2 life by turn 4 only using 2 different cards.

Edit: Turn 3, twelve damage and one life loss.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 4:54PM, thedevilwuster wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 4:39PM, falclon wrote:

I think that GM can do nothing in first 3 turns that even resembles standart situation - berserker-insigator/piledriver-chief.

falcion,
Given the proper draw and your decisions, I can do 16 damage while only loosing 2 life by turn 4 only using 2 different cards.

Edit: Turn 3, twelve damage and one life loss.

Ok, I was to hasty. It's 5 am here and I'm little sleepy. But - 2 reanimates and 2 devils is the rare situation compared to standart (as I said in the mentioned post) GG situation. As I recall there was the whole thread dedicated to maximum damage at the begginig of the game. But all those situations were theoretical. Reanimate + Avatar of Slaughter? Why not?

Well, if it is Auto-Pilot you still need to use your mind to balance a PI deck and that is where the skill comes in.

Auto-Pilot to me is something like CW as you really don't have to worry about a whole hell of a lot in 2HG unless your deck is beyond awful. Sure, you have to make decisions but big whoop when all of those decisions are easy peasy for the most part if you have a competent partner.

I've actually been able to pull of that combo plenty of times. Heck I'll even tutor my Reanimate if the guy keeps sacing the Devil.

Just saying.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 5:07PM, thedevilwuster wrote:

I've actually been able to pull of that combo plenty of times. Heck I'll even tutor my Reanimate if the guy keeps sacing the Devil.

Just saying.

I agree, but even so - it is the one trick with two cards, not the main deck theme.

Just answering)

also i think people are confusing autopilot with having few instants.  Where sure you average Garruck deck usually has no choices of things he can do on the opponents turn this imo makes his sorcery speed choices doubly important.

Not really Neo.  His sorcery choices are; Should I ramp now? What creature do I fight with against? Do I need a bunch of 2/2 wolves? Should I gain life (if you run bountiful LOL)?  None of those questions are hard to answer.

Nobody is saying that PI requires some masterful grasp of the intricacies of Magic to play. They are saying that GG requires even less knowledge. Pretty much the only way to lose against 2/3 of the deck in this game while playing as GG is to hold back cards instead of just zerging.

but really can make that argument about any deck.  Here is a simple if/then autopilot guide to black..

Is the other guys dude big enough to block my dude or a threat to kill me? then i should murder him.  If not then play a dude. did i play/draw a land? if not play a shade.  will corrupt kill them? then play it!! Does he got more dudes then me? then mutilate...all easy questions to answer... OMG black is autopilot now! Could probably make some good 2hg partners with just a tactics/gambits option like in dragon age or FF12. O.o

again joking but kindof true too... this argument just goes in circles!!

people really seem to think murders/counters take more thought then creatures but IMO its all timing and choices need to be made by both. Maybe its even more difficult for creature decks cause they have to think about what unknown removals are in the opponents hand.  But then again the removal deck has to think about maybe he's got some better dudes in his hand... again I just made a circle!!

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:19PM, Neofirefly wrote:

IMO its all timing and choices need to be made by both

So the criteria of deck "auto-pilotness" can be formulated this way: "the level of care about timing to play the core cards of effective build in the particular match-up"?

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:39PM, falclon wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:19PM, Neofirefly wrote:

IMO its all timing and choices need to be made by both

So the criteria of deck "auto-pilotness" can be formulated this way: "the level of care about timing to play the core cards of effective build in the particular match-up"?

Auto-pilot is "how much do I care about what my opponent has/is doing".

The deck/s that care the least are the easiest to auto-pilot. You just play your cards and/or tap them and you win.

You can't win with PI just putting down random cards lol, not against good players. You do have to think in 2HG at least about what you are doing and what you are buffing. Same goes for just about any deck. This argument will go in circles.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:31AM, Khronikos wrote:

You can't win with PI just putting down random cards lol, not against good players. You do have to think in 2HG at least about what you are doing and what you are buffing. Same goes for just about any deck. This argument will go in circles.

JUst as an aside, I really doubt anyone here is talking about 2HG.

Mana Mastery is the most noob friendly deck. If you are smart enough to start with a forest or land fetch and then just lay the cards you have you will most likely win..

The most autopilot decks are PI and PK just lay your strongest creature and smash every turn. Sometimes I even lose to a 100 card noob with those decks just because it's hard to make any mistakes with those decks and the creatures are really powerfull and/or plentyfull.

GG however is also about timing. I'm not saying it's hard to play! But I see noobs playing Bushwaka turn one, Gempalm turn 3 grenade on a 2/2 creature etcetera. You have to at least combine the cards effects to make the deck work. Admittedly sometimes you don't have to think for that to happen.    

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:31PM, Splattercat wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:39PM, falclon wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:19PM, Neofirefly wrote:

IMO its all timing and choices need to be made by both

So the criteria of deck "auto-pilotness" can be formulated this way: "the level of care about timing to play the core cards of effective build in the particular match-up"?

Auto-pilot is "how much do I care about what my opponent has/is doing".

The deck/s that care the least are the easiest to auto-pilot. You just play your cards and/or tap them and you win.

By that definition; Every true Combo Deck is auto pilot.  I think that's far from true.  In any combo deck, if you make 1 mistake, it's game over.  But you aren't paying attention to your opponent at all.  All you worry about is getting to your combo pieces.

Here's my definition (which is the root of the cause of all the discussion, we all define "auto pilot" differently); An Auto-Pilot deck is a deck that provides little opportunty to make mistakes and little room to make spectacular plays.  Basically if you've never heard anyone tell an epic story about how they pulled a win out of nowhere when they were about to lose, then it's probably a pretty auto pilot deck. 

Khronikos, you seem to have a serious problem with Crosswinds.
As your lawyer, I advise you to seek help immediately.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:26AM, thedevilwuster wrote:

Khronikos, you seem to have a serious problem with Crosswinds. As your lawyer, I advise you to seek help immediately.

He probably plays a lot of 2HG... CW and DP should just be banned in that format.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 6:47AM, sixty4half wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:31PM, Splattercat wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:39PM, falclon wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:19PM, Neofirefly wrote:

IMO its all timing and choices need to be made by both

So the criteria of deck "auto-pilotness" can be formulated this way: "the level of care about timing to play the core cards of effective build in the particular match-up"?

Auto-pilot is "how much do I care about what my opponent has/is doing".

The deck/s that care the least are the easiest to auto-pilot. You just play your cards and/or tap them and you win.

By that definition; Every true Combo Deck is auto pilot.  I think that's far from true.  In any combo deck, if you make 1 mistake, it's game over.  But you aren't paying attention to your opponent at all.  All you worry about is getting to your combo pieces.

Here's my definition (which is the root of the cause of all the discussion, we all define "auto pilot" differently); An Auto-Pilot deck is a deck that provides little opportunty to make mistakes and little room to make spectacular plays.  Basically if you've never heard anyone tell an epic story about how they pulled a win out of nowhere when they were about to lose, then it's probably a pretty auto pilot deck. 

Celestial Light fits both our definitions then.

CL can use its first-striking lifelinkers to buff a Pridemate or activate an Ascendant mid-combat. There are other tactical options depending on the cards you run as well.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 10:21AM, Hakeem928 wrote:

CL can use its first-striking lifelinkers to buff a Pridemate or activate an Ascendant mid-combat. There are other tactical options depending on the cards you run as well.

What do First Striking Lifelinkers have to do with your opponent?
A Baneslayer Angel is your opponent's problem to deal with. There's nothing strategic about it.

Combat generally involves the opponent...

Knight of Meadowgrain can do the same thing. You attack with her and a 2/2 Pridemate, and the opponent blocks it with his 2/2 hoping to trade, but now the Pridemate is 3/3 and destroys the blocking creature.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 10:33AM, Hakeem928 wrote:

Combat generally involves the opponent...

Yeah, um.... Remember the part where this is coming down to GG or PI and which is the most "play creature - attack"?
That doesn't have any more to do with your oponent than this does, excep that now you're adding First Strike (everything-/= to it dies without loss) and lifelink (the creature gains you life even if it dies) which makes what your opponent has even less important...

Feb 1, 2013 -- 10:36AM, Hakeem928 wrote:

Knight of Meadowgrain can do the same thing. You attack with her and a 2/2 Pridemate, and the opponent blocks it with his 2/2 hoping to trade, but now the Pridemate is 3/3 and destroys the blocking creature.

That doesn't require thought, that's attacking with two creatures and hoping your opponent reacts in your favour.
You're not DOING anything interactive, you're sending two creatures over that you KNOW are going to net you an advantage. How is that strategic? 
"My creatures will kill my opponent's creatures. Attack." is completely auto-pilot.

Again, your OPPONENT has to stratergize a way around that, not you.

The element of skill in this game is recognizing and exploiting such interactions that your opponent doesn't see. Sure it seems obvious to forum regulars, but the truth is that a lot of players wouldn't make that play.

Let's put it this way in regards to auto-pilot... which deck would the mage-level AI have the greatest success with against a field of human opponents? I think we all know the answer there.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 10:42AM, Hakeem928 wrote:

The element of skill in this game is recognizing and exploiting such interactions that your opponent doesn't see. Sure it seems obvious to forum regulars, but the truth is that a lot of players wouldn't make that play.

You're going to have to come up with a FAR better example than "2/2 First Strike Lifelink + 2/2 that grows when the first strike/lifelink hits vs. vanilla 2/2" if you're going to convince me that Celestial Light requires more thought than the basic understanding of "my creatures are superior than my opponent's".

That's about as elementary as "I'll attack with my Baneslayer Angel when my opponent has a 4/4 and a 3/3 to double block with. When he double blocks, I'll First Strike his 4/4 and my Baneslayer will survive."

Not arguing that CL is complex... Just more complex than a few other possible choices like GG and PI. CL is definitely in the upper echelon of candidates, but it's not the most AP at all.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 10:51AM, Hakeem928 wrote:

Not arguing that CL is complex... Just more complex than a few other possible choices like GG and PI. CL is definitely in the upper echelon of candidates, but it's not the most AP at all.

but that's just it, Celestial Light's MO is "gain life" and that feature is added onto every card you play. So it's no different than PI running fatties or GG running haste-mob except that lifegain also reduces the risk of losing because it's MO keeps you alive longer.

In addition to being a fairly mindless deck, there's a far greater margin for error with CL. That's my point.
LIke I said, if GG loses 20 life, the game's over. If CL loses 20 life it should still have a starting life total or 3 left...

I don't get the 'CL is a fairly mindless deck' argument.  It has as at least as much strategy involved as any other deck:
--sweepers
--instant-speed recovery from sweepers
--combat tricks
--removal that requires an opponent to do something before it can be played, requiring you to leave mana open
--and finally - life gain management itself requires a fair amount of strategy to use it successfully.  5 cards depend upon your life total to create a benefit, which means you have to play in such a way that you gain life and control the amount of damage you take.  Serra Ascendent's ability can even be played as a combat trick (STP or Chastise your own creature to get to 30 life and pump your Ascendents at instant speed, or use an Elixer or a Beacon).   And 4 more cards get counters every time you gain life, so the life gain combat tricks heavily dictate strategy there as well.

Every deck has combat tricks and removal, so some of the above may not stand out.  However, CL's tricks and removal are both a little bit more complicated than every other deck, since both play into the life gain management strategy and because there are conditions and potential drawbacks to some of CL's removal.

A definition of autopilot that includes CL is so inclusive it would probably cover every other deck as well, except maybe AW or CW.

I agree with dh50.  There are a number of decisions you have to make with CL.  Especially if you run (or bluff) Chastise , White Sun's Zenith , Basilisk Collar .  I won a game by Chastising my own creature, to prevent the opponent's Bribe d Baneslayer Angel from getting him extra life on final turn.  Another time I was able to hold off 80+ power Ajani's Pridemate and a 100+ Serra Avatar by juggling Basilisk Collar , between my Knight of Meadowgrain s.

It's certainly no Crosswinds, but not Pack Instinct either when it comes to complexity.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:22PM, dh50 wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Every deck has combat tricks and removal, so some of the above may not stand out.  However, CL's tricks and removal are both a little bit more complicated than every other deck, since both play into the life gain management strategy and because there are conditions and potential drawbacks to some of CL's removal.

I guess that's where I see it diffrerently. I believe the more uses a card has the more complex the strategy is behind it.
For example, Murder can kill any creature, so you have a lot of choices to make as to which creatures you want to off.
Chastise can only kill an attacking creature, so your choices on when and what to use it on are severely limited by comparison.

If there's a 5/5 Jace's Phantasm and a Dreamborn Muse on the table and I have a Murder in my hand, I have to actually carefully choose which I'm going to kill.
If there's a 5/5 Jace's Phantasm and a Dreamborn Muse on the table and I have a Chastise in my hand, Chances are it's only got one target.

Kinda like the difference between how to use a Murder and how to use a Vindicate .
If you have a Murder you can can kill one of AS's uber-buff threatening creatures. But if you ahve a Vindicate you could use it to kill a creature, or you could use it to kill the Worship that's in play. Thus the tougher choice.

Absolutely but there are mistakes you van make in CL.  Popping WSZ at the wrong time is one that comes to mind.  Using the +1/+1 enchantment on turn 4 is another one.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 4:22PM, sixty4half wrote:

Absolutely but there are mistakes you van make in CL. Popping WSZ at the wrong time is one that comes to mind. Using the +1/+1 enchantment on turn 4 is another one.

Yes. You should wait until you have more mana than your opponents after they popped theirs.

                                            

                              

Ancient Depths is the most auto-pilot deck we've ever had.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:51PM, Brodo wrote:

Ancient Depths is the most auto-pilot deck we've ever had.

QFT

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:51PM, Brodo wrote:

Ancient Depths is the most auto-pilot deck we've ever had.

Exactly. You do what you do and your opponent dies as a result.
What's 2013's version of that?

(And no, it's not Mana Mastery. Mana Mastery actually has to look at it's opponent's side of the board now and then.)

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:03PM, Splattercat wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:51PM, Brodo wrote:

Ancient Depths is the most auto-pilot deck we've ever had.

Exactly. You do what you do and your opponent dies as a result.
What's 2013's version of that?

(And no, it's not Mana Mastery. Mana Mastery actually has to look at it's opponent's side of the board now and then.)

It's still auto-pilot if the only decision you have to make is "do I kill this or not?"

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:12PM, felbatista wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:03PM, Splattercat wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:51PM, Brodo wrote:

Ancient Depths is the most auto-pilot deck we've ever had.

Exactly. You do what you do and your opponent dies as a result.
What's 2013's version of that?

(And no, it's not Mana Mastery. Mana Mastery actually has to look at it's opponent's side of the board now and then.)

It's still auto-pilot if the only decision you have to make is "do I kill this or not?"

Mana mastery has to make a crucial decision of whether to ramp or wipe. That's more than GG or PI have to do.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:16PM, Splattercat wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:12PM, felbatista wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:03PM, Splattercat wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:51PM, Brodo wrote:

Ancient Depths is the most auto-pilot deck we've ever had.

Exactly. You do what you do and your opponent dies as a result.
What's 2013's version of that?

(And no, it's not Mana Mastery. Mana Mastery actually has to look at it's opponent's side of the board now and then.)

It's still auto-pilot if the only decision you have to make is "do I kill this or not?"

Mana mastery has to make a crucial decision of whether to ramp or wipe. That's more than GG or PI have to do.

Have you ever though about how many times you have to make this decision? You hardly can wipe without ramping first in MM, and when you do wipe, that's because you would be dead without it.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:51PM, Brodo wrote:

Ancient Depths is the most auto-pilot deck we've ever had.

I disagree with this entirely, does nobody remember Master of Shadows?

For "2013" it's Goblins folks.  Next topic.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:15PM, Selaphane wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:51PM, Brodo wrote:

Ancient Depths is the most auto-pilot deck we've ever had.

I disagree with this entirely, does nobody remember Master of Shadows?

That's riding off the deck's above average power in its own environment. Throw the deck against some actual competition like its few challenging match ups, and going "auto-pilot" is a sure way to lose. Much like Goblin Gangland. Yeah, maybe a few hands lead to dominating wins that you shouldn't lose, but get pitted against the decks that can actually challenge it turns auto-pilot into something you can't do.

I stand by my comment. Ancient Depths strategy was entirely one dimensional. Ramp into a land advantage and bank winning on enormous spells. It didn't matter what match up it was in, that's all it did making it one of the most simplistic decks to play in my opinion.

This whole thread is a joke anyways. Most people are trying to find some absolute when in reality I've gone auto-pilot with every deck many times. Part of it depends on your starting hand, what you draw, how your opponent interacts with you. Opponent plays slow as all heck? Yeah I'll autopilot my aggro decks (ALL of them). Creatures are usually pretty relavant in Duels, yeah? Then let me go on autopilot for my creature control decks. It's not hard to figure out what's a real threat or not.

Actually the most autopilot deck is Spiraling Mana

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:04PM, Brodo wrote:

I stand by my comment. Ancient Depths strategy was entirely one dimensional. Ramp into a land advantage and bank winning on enormous spells. It didn't matter what match up it was in, that's all it did making it one of the most simplistic decks to play in my opinion.

Even more hilarious is the fact that AD didn't even have to use it's removal ( Aether Mutation ) on the other guy's stuff to be effective.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:04PM, Brodo wrote:

This whole thread is a joke anyways. Most people are trying to find some absolute when in reality I've gone auto-pilot with every deck many times. Part of it depends on your starting hand, what you draw, how your opponent interacts with you. Opponent plays slow as all heck? Yeah I'll autopilot my aggro decks (ALL of them). Creatures are usually pretty relavant in Duels, yeah? Then let me go on autopilot for my creature control decks. It's not hard to figure out what's a real threat or not.

Pretty much yeah.
I don't find CL requires much, if any, thought to play; you want to gain life and EVERY card in the deck makes you gain life. At least in PI you have to decide what of your more crucial 5cmc critters ( Garruk's Packleader , Sentinel Spider , Indrik Stomphowler ) is needed first.

But yeah, it's whatever. AD will always be THE Auto-pilot deck. You could literally play it with no information of what's going on inthe game except your own life total and still win.

Mana Mastery is by no means an auto-pilot deck; in fact, I'd argue that it takes the most skill (both in making your build and playing it out) than any other deck in any DOTP installment to date.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 4:46PM, DroneOn wrote:

Mana Mastery is by no means an auto-pilot deck; in fact, I'd argue that it takes the most skill (both in making your build and playing it out) than any other deck in any DOTP installment to date.

While I agree with the first part, Mana Mastery is a helluva lot easier to build and play than Rogue's Gallery.

Mana Mastery actually plays well the first time you play it in fact.

Actually that's a fair point; the initial build of MM is actually better than the builds a lot of people are running.  Which is pretty funny.

The fact that you can remove EVERY SINGLE WIN CONDITION from this deck and still win based on rage quits alone says a lot of MM. It doesn't make it AP status, but it sure as hell isn't hard to build and it's hardly hard to play.

I don't think MM is hard to either build or play.  As long as you keep the ramp, draw and enough sweepers, the rest of the build can tolerate a lot of error.  As far as being hard to play...not in my experience.  I took a build online when it was released, played around 10 games, and didn't lose once (but notably I did not face any of the 4 decks that kill MM, or OD or SS, which I think kill it pretty easily).  I haven't played it online since; it's not a challenge and it's really boring.

Deck Pack 3 was a really bad deck pack, in retrospect.  MM is grossly imbalanced, and not a challenge to play it against most decks (and also not much of a challenge to beat if you use the right decks).  MM has also ruined 2HG for the foreseeable future, at least until 2014 is released.  RG is mostly terrible, still fun to play sometimes, but clearly the worst deck in the game by a pretty big margin.  I liked the first 2 deck packs and play all 4 of those decks all the time.  But this last one was a complete failure.

Goblins by far.

Put them down. Swing in, regardless of if they have creatures or not because you'll just be dropping more with haste next turn. Win on turn 3-5. Repeat.