MtG: Most Useless Card?
Dan Thompson
away (I know, nobody *actually* throws away cards) as soon as you get it? What
card above all others makes you groan with frustration when you see it in your
new pack?
In short, what is the most useless card out there?
My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
--
"Big Dan" Thompson | "What, you think soup's a biped?"
da...@austin.ibm.com | -- Crow T. Robot
Andy Young
<snip>
>My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
>that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
I have that one beat: JUMP. Why JUMP something when you can FLY it for the
same casting cost?
Regards,
Andy
Hewlett Packard - Vancouver Division "I may be bad, but I feel GOOD..."
P.O. Box 8906, Vancouver, WA 98668-8906 -Sheila, _Army of Darkness_
Scott Emery
In article <CIFxM...@austin.ibm.com>, da...@austin.ibm.com (Dan
Thompson) writes:
:OK, here's a perverse little survey: What cards
:would you just as soon throw away (I know, nobody
:*actually* throws away cards) as soon as you get it?
:What card above all others makes you groan with
frustration when you see it in your new pack?
:
:In short, what is the most useless card out there?
:
:My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7.
:I once put one in my deck, but that was just for kicks.
:Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
Sure: Put creature bond on *almost* anything and
-all of a sudden- your opponent doesn't want to
block or attack with it! Hey! you've effectively
reduced the opposition's defense/offense.
Think of it as kind of a "Psychic Venom for Creatures".
And if you do manage to kill the beastie, (with a
fireball or a disintegrate, for example) why the
damage dealt is an added bonus.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Emery | "I can't stand people who have no impatience!"
Sem...@tau.sim.es.com
Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Salt Lake City, Utah
"I think, therefore my company doesn't claim my opinions."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Seurer
|> away (I know, nobody *actually* throws away cards) as soon as you get it? What
|> card above all others makes you groan with frustration when you see it in your
|> new pack?
|>
|> In short, what is the most useless card out there?
|>
|> My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
|> that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
Huh? CBs are great to use just before something like a Disintigrate,
Fireball, etc. Instead of just killing the critter OR damaging your
foe you can do both at once!
The most useless cards are the ones specific to antes. I forget the names.
There was one in the original set and one in the Arabian Nights set. Why?
I know no one who antes.
As for what makes me groan the most: Land. I wish WotC sold boosters
sans land.
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
Timothy M. Schreyer
|> that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
Very useful in combination with a few other blue spells. Creature Bond
a bunch of the enemy's creatures. Twiddle them during the beginning of
your enemy's turn and then play a Siren's Call. The tapped, Bond'ed
creatures can't attack, are destroyed, and make your enemy feel it all the
way to the graveyard! :-)
I think I'll agree that Creature Bond's are useless is you don't have other
cards to back them up; they just aren't worth the extra damage they do
when you could have a more useful card that can happen RIGHT NOW.
Hmmm... how about Creature Bond on all a black opponent's creatures
when he has Lord of the Pit out...? ;-)
Tim
--
Timothy M. Schreyer sch...@vfl.paramax.com
Software Technology R&D (215) 648-2475
Unisys Government Systems Group FAX: (215) 648-2288
PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
Bill Seurer
|> Dan Thompson (da...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
|> <snip>
|> >My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
|> >that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
|>
|>
|> I have that one beat: JUMP. Why JUMP something when you can FLY it for the
|> same casting cost?
I have a Craw Wurm with regeneration and my wife smugly plays her Shivan
Dragon. Next turn she attacks thinking I can't block her.
Well kiddies, Jump is an Instant so I play it, eat her Dragon, and regen
my Wurm. If I had had a flight on it she wouldn't have attacked and
flight is NOT an instant either.
This also works when attacking. The defender chooses a bunch of blocks
and your card jumps over the blocker with the defender pulling out her
hair wondering why she didn't use her Giant Spider to block instead.
Ryan Moats
da...@austin.ibm.com (Dan Thompson) writes:
> OK, here's a perverse little survey: What cards would you just as soon throw
> away (I know, nobody *actually* throws away cards) as soon as you get it? What
> card above all others makes you groan with frustration when you see it in your
> new pack?
> In short, what is the most useless card out there?
> My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
> that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
and
sem...@tau.sim.es.com (Scott Emery) writes:
> Sure: Put creature bond on *almost* anything and
> -all of a sudden- your opponent doesn't want to
> block or attack with it! Hey! you've effectively
> reduced the opposition's defense/offense.
> Think of it as kind of a "Psychic Venom for Creatures".
> And if you do manage to kill the beastie, (with a
> fireball or a disintegrate, for example) why the
> damage dealt is an added bonus.
Well, you haven't thought it through yet. I have built a deck based on
creature bonds, and it wins a fair number of games. Further, it consists of
only common spells and 1 rare card (couldn't get away from that...)
ayo...@vcd.hp.com (Andy Young) writes:
>I have that one beat: JUMP. Why JUMP something when you can FLY it for the
>same casting cost?
Why cast that on your creatures? why not cast it on your opponents?
Think about it....
There are still some cards I haven't found a use for, but there aren't many :-).
Ryan Moats
jay...@cygni.att.com
or
jay...@cygni.ho.att.com
Paul Brinkley
>Dan Thompson (da...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
><snip>
>>My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
>>that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
Certainly. I cast Creature Bond on my opponent's 25-headed Rock Hydra
once when we were playing 3-player cutthroat. When he attacked my
other rival, I Berserked it. >:-)
>I have that one beat: JUMP. Why JUMP something when you can FLY it for the
>same casting cost?
Because you can surprise the guy with a Jump, since it's an Instant.
"Oh, so you block my 50-headed Rock Hydra with your Basilisk, eh?
Okay, I now cast Jump on my Hydra!"
I used to think Ironclaw Orcs were pretty useless, too, unless you're
playing against a guy who likes Regenerating Basilisks with Lure.
(They won't block it...)
It's gotten so hard to get my Hive into play due to mana problems,
that I often leave it out of my deck.
Other than petty problems like lack of mana, I've found uses for
pretty much every card.
Paul Brinkley
brin...@cs.utexas.edu
Philip Dutre
|> away (I know, nobody *actually* throws away cards) as soon as you get it? What
|> card above all others makes you groan with frustration when you see it in your
|> new pack?
|>
|> In short, what is the most useless card out there?
|>
Rod of Ruin: 4 mana to cast; use 3 mana to do 1 point of damage. Why would
anyone use them if there are Tims available?
--
| Phil Dutre Dept. Computer Wetenschappen |
| phi...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL)|
| Phone: (32) 16 201015 x3094/3552 Celestijnenlaan 200A |
| Fax: (32) 16 205308 B-3001 Heverlee, BELGIUM |
Badger
Dan Thompson <da...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>OK, here's a perverse little survey: What cards would you just as soon throw
>away (I know, nobody *actually* throws away cards) as soon as you get it? What
>card above all others makes you groan with frustration when you see it in your
>new pack?
>
>In short, what is the most useless card out there?
>
>My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
>that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
Creatur bond, most useless??? No way. Consider, put all 7 in your deck along
with a couple prodigal sorcerers(if your playing all blue).
If you manage to get both Sorcerers out, cast as many CB's on one of your
opponents 2/2 creatures as possible. Lets say you manage to have 3 of
them in hand. You cast all three on your opponents creature and than
poke him with your sorcerers. Not only do you eliminate a 2/2 critter,
you do 6 points of damage to your opponent!
Now, *MY* least favorite card is the Hurlorn Minotaur. I don't
like the picture and the summoning cost sucks. I like to play
with a mix of different colors. Compare the H.M. to the Hill Giant
and the Gray Ogre.
Hill Giant:
cost to summon: 1 red + 3 colorless
Strength: 3 Toughness: 3
Hurloon Minotaur: 2 red + 1 colorless
Strength: 2 Toughness: 3
Gray Ogre: 1 red + 2 colorless
Strength:2 Toughness: 2
Now, if I want a cheap casting cost creature, both the H.M. and the G.O.
have equal costs. The H.M. requires 2 red though, which many times
I just don't have. I'll only have one mountain so I can't summon him.
The only plus he has is the extra toughness, which is not worth the
chance of not being able to summon him to me!
On the other hand, if I want a slightly tougher creature than the G.O.,
I stick an H.G. in. Compared to the H.M. he is tougher and stronger.
Sure, he costs 1 more mana, but that is 1 of any color. I'm much more
likely to have the extra mana than I am to have 2 red mana, so the H.G. is
a better choice.
DEATH TO THE MINOTAUR!!!!!!!!!
[badger now hands the keyboard over to his S.O. so she can tell everyone how
she hates his favorite cards]
I have three most hated cards. The first and second, as you already heard,
were the cards that he likes most: the Black Vise and the Helm of Something
or Other. Why? He kills me with them over and over and over...
My third least favorite card we are fortunate enough to not have, but
we would be KIND and GENEROUS enough to relieve someone else of the torture
of owning (since we NEVER throw away cards, no matter how hated, right?!?)
Anyway, I would be willing to trade a hated Tome for a lovelt, easy to summon
Unicorn or Goblin. How's THAT for kindness?
Seriously, though, I can offer a Contract from Below for a Tome which
I would love... (This tome is the one that lets you draw more cards,
I've only seen it once and don't know the whole name...)
[Handing the keyboard back to Badger, king of Magic!]
-later
>--
> "Big Dan" Thompson | "What, you think soup's a biped?"
> da...@austin.ibm.com | -- Crow T. Robot
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Badger
><snip>
>>My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
>>that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
>
>
>I have that one beat: JUMP. Why JUMP something when you can FLY it for the
>same casting cost?
>
Because you can sucker your opponent into attacking with a flying
creature if he thinks you don't have any flying and than, before
declaring defense, cast jump on one of your big nasties and
gobble him up!
>
>Regards,
>
>Andy
>
>
>ayo...@vcd.hp.com
>
>Hewlett Packard - Vancouver Division "I may be bad, but I feel GOOD..."
>P.O. Box 8906, Vancouver, WA 98668-8906 -Sheila, _Army of Darkness_
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Owen Reynolds
>There was one in the original set and one in the Arabian Nights set. Why?
>I know no one who antes.
Demonic Attorney. I have two. Truly useless.
The text is close to: If opponent does not immediately concede the game,
each player must put an additional card into the anti.
Suppose you're losing. Not only does this card not help you win, but
leets you lose an additional card. Suppose you're winning. Your opponent
may concede, but you were probably going to win anyway. Suppose it's close.
The stakes are now doubled and you've wasted a card.
I suppose it's a "fun" card, but most people don't like to mix gambling
and fun, so it defeats the purpose.
Oh, and I also don't much like the picture. No offense.
Roger Books
: In article <CIFxM...@austin.ibm.com>, da...@austin.ibm.com (Dan Thompson) writes:
: |>
: |> In short, what is the most useless card out there?
: |>
: Rod of Ruin: 4 mana to cast; use 3 mana to do 1 point of damage. Why would
: anyone use them if there are Tims available?
You don't like Tim on a stick??? We use it expressly to take care of Tim.
It is very annoying when your opponent has 3 IoT (Incarnations of Tim, (tm))
and you can't even get a monster out. Tim on a stick quickly solves this
problem. Tim on a stick is also immune to pestilance and variants.
Roger
--
For e-mail use bo...@nucmar.physics.fsu.edu
/****************************************************************************
* All lies in jest till a man hears what he wants to hear *
* and disregards the rest. (The Boxer, Simon and Garfunkel) *
*****************************************************************************
Owen Reynolds
>Dragon. Next turn she attacks thinking I can't block her.
>Well kiddies, Jump is an Instant so I play it, eat her Dragon, and regen
>my Wurm. If I had had a flight on it she wouldn't have attacked and
>flight is NOT an instant either.
>This also works when attacking. The defender chooses a bunch of blocks
>and your card jumps over the blocker with the defender pulling out her
>hair wondering why she didn't use her Giant Spider to block instead.
The rules on attacking have one part that doesn't make a lot of sense.
It makes so little sense that I think a lot of people don't understand
how they actually work. Once a creature has been blocked, it stays blocked
no matter what, so if you jump your Fire-Breathing Orcs over a Wall of Ice,
the Orcs do not do any damage because they are blocked.
The rules aren't really clear on this other point, but the Orcs
are probably not even fighting the wall anymore (since the wall can't
legally block a flying creature.)
This bizzare rule gives us a new good use for jump: block a Craw Wurm
with anything not flying, and then Jump the Craw Wurm. Damn cute, isn't it?
Acts as Fog for a single battle, which is sometimes very handy if there
were some creatures you were going to block and kill.
This is explained in detail in the FAQ list, and is in one place in
the rules in the back of the section on attacks. It says something like:
Once a blocker has been assigned to an attacking creature, the attacking
creature is considered blocked for the rest of the attack phase.
Dan Thompson
have misunderstood.
Yes, there is a use for every card; given any card, I can describe a situation
where that card would be very good. That's not what I meant.
The question of "usefullness" (to me) is one of frequency. If all the
situations where card X is really good are extremely rare, then card X isn't
very useful, unless I can easily force that otherwise rare situation to
happen.
For example, workhorse cards (like Fireball and Giant Spider) are good in a
very wide range of situations. Others (like Chaoslace and Jump) require some
special setup to be valuable. Thus they are less useful.
The other thing that makes a card less useful is if you already have a million
of them. 1 Drudge Skeleton is nice; 100 are *not* 100 times nicer.
I'm not saying that you should only put cards in your deck that are "useful" by
this definition. Less useful cards are great for keeping your opponents on
their toes, and can be quite handy. But everybody has some cards that don't
get played very much because they're not flexible enough.
BTW: I do consider Jump to be a fairly useless card, but several people have
given me some neat ideas for Creature Bonds that I'm going to try!
Also, if you reply to this post, and you can think of a word that's better than
"useful" for what I'm trying to say, would you include it, please? Thanks,
David Van Cleef
>The most useless cards are the ones specific to antes. I forget the names.
>There was one in the original set and one in the Arabian Nights set. Why?
>I know no one who antes.
OR> Demonic Attorney. I have two. Truly useless.
OR> The text is close to: If opponent does not immediately concede the game,
OR> each player must put an additional card into the anti.
OR> Suppose you're losing. Not only does this card not help you win, but
OR> leets you lose an additional card. Suppose you're winning. Your opponent
OR> may concede, but you were probably going to win anyway. Suppose it's close.
OR> The stakes are now doubled and you've wasted a card.
OR> I suppose it's a "fun" card, but most people don't like to mix gambling
OR> and fun, so it defeats the purpose.
OR> Oh, and I also don't much like the picture. No offense.
I posted this deck-concept to gg-l the other day, but it hasn't made
it out yet (haven't gotten any digests since monday - #132):
Raiders of the Lost Deck
Inventory:
16 Swamps
16 Drain Lives
5 Demonic Tutors
2 Darkpacts
1 Demonic Attorney
Strategy:
Play lots of Swamps and Drain Lives. Feel free to drain your
opponent's creatures if they are starting to snowball. (I normally
recommend only hitting your opponent with damage causing spells, but
here your objective is not to kill your opponent but to stay alive
long enough to make your play.) Once you've gotten at least 3 rares
and uncommons in your hand (one of which needs to be a Demonic Tutor),
get the rest of the rares into your your hand via Tutors, and cascade
the remaining Tutors until all that's left in your deck are Swamps and
Drain Lives. Once this is accomplished, Demonic Attorney your
opponent, then take any cards that look interesting in both sides of
the ante with Darkpacts. You may then concede the game and walk away
from your opponent with any interesting rares that came up in his
ante, leaving him to revel in his capture of 2 Drain Life/Swamps.
*NOTE* Only try this deck against people you know really well or never
expect to see again.
--
David A. Van Cleef AT&T Bell Laboratories
internet: d...@eagle.hr.att.com 200 Laurel Ave, Middletown, NJ
+1 908 957 3816
Dan Thompson
>
>Rod of Ruin: 4 mana to cast; use 3 mana to do 1 point of damage. Why would
>anyone use them if there are Tims available?
Because Tim's a 1/1 wimp! Creatures are easy to get rid of (Lighning Bolt,
Fireball, Terror, another Tim, Pestilence, Nettling Imp, Royal Assasin, etc.,
etc. ), but artifacts aren't so easy. That's why there's an Animate Artifact
card in the first place. Now that I have my Guardian Monster (or whatever that
new Arabian Nights guy is), artifacts are even tougher!
I'll bring out a Rod of Ruin, and you bring out a Tim. We'll even let
everything be untapped at the same time, just to make it even. One round
later, I've still got my Rod of Ruin, but your Tim has gone to the graveyard.
A. Newman
>Rod of Ruin: 4 mana to cast; use 3 mana to do 1 point of damage. Why would
>anyone use them if there are Tims available?
>
>--
>| Phil Dutre Dept. Computer Wetenschappen |
1) Because there is no 'Circle of Protection: Artifact'
2) Because a Weakness will kill a Tim and not touch the Rod.
3) Because a Drain Life will kill a Tim and not touch the Rod.
4) Because a 2 mana Disentagrate will kill a Tim and not touch the
Rod.
5) Because a 2 mana Fireball will kill a Tim and not touch the Rod.
6) Because a Berserk will kill a Tim and not touch the Rod.
7) Because and Oubliette will kill a Tim and not touch the Rod.
8) Because a *Tim* will kill a Tim and not touch the Rod...
Charles Perez
[...]
>|> In short, what is the most useless card out there?
>Rod of Ruin: 4 mana to cast; use 3 mana to do 1 point of damage. Why would
>anyone use them if there are Tims available?
Because they're artifacts, not creatures. Can't be nailed by destruction.
What? You have over a dozen of them? You don't care?
Hello. Meet my Pestilence enchantment, White Knight (aka Typhoid Mary), and
a COP:Black to protect me. One black mana spent, scratch all Tims in play.
Game over, sayonara, so sorry. :-)
OBAlternate Name for Personal Incarnation: Terror-bait.
--
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.
Derek Mallory
>>The most useless cards are the ones specific to antes. I forget the names.
>>There was one in the original set and one in the Arabian Nights set. Why?
>>I know no one who antes.
>
> Demonic Attorney. I have two. Truly useless.
>
in this card....mass power if you play for cards. Nothing is more satisfying
than winning a game you should have lost because an opponent is afraid to
kick in another card that could be taken.
I was able to trade for many real cheap from people that don't play for cards.
And made up an excellent hustling deck for playing for cards. It contains
several Demonic Attorneys, Dark Pacts, and Contract from Belows. It is
a real fun deck to play against my friends who do play for cards. I have some
green in the deck for Natural Selections, and regrowths so I can keep getting
the cards I want back. I cast the Demonic Attorneys after I have looked
and rearrainged my cards (or my opponents) with a natural selection. Then
I use the Darkpact to take the best card I want and add it to my deck. Does
the deck win any or is it just cheese??? Believe it or not skeletons and
pestilance make for a really tough deck. I win 40% of the time but take an
opponents best ante card (or recover one of mine from the ante) nearly 95% of
the time. The deck is so feared that my opponents play tons of white knights
with the hope they can kill me before I scam anything good. I don't play it
all the time and sometimes not for several gaming sessions....but when I do
It usually results in 2-3 rare or uncommon cards won. Usually then I can
trade for something *I* lost and really want back....plus I like hearing my
friends whine about how cheesy the deck is. :) One disadvantage of the deck
is it loses multiple common cards per game that you do lose.
>
> I suppose it's a "fun" card, but most people don't like to mix gambling
>and fun, so it defeats the purpose.
I agree the usage has to be careful....some players I play with have been
offended saying I was only doing it to steal rare cards. That is bs...I have
been nuked on turn 4 by enough "laser beam" decks that were meant to kill
fast. I felt they were built to only win any ante cards as well. My scamming
deck does take several turns to set up and will be stuffed by many other
decks (esp. blue with counterspells). I try and always trade back fairly for
something I could use in one of my other theme decks...I don't enjoy ripping
people off...but more of watching them sweat for loading their decks with
rare cards and showing them that Demonic Attorneys are not wimpy cards. :)
>
> Oh, and I also don't much like the picture. No offense.
Agreed...it is kinda cartoonish.
Derek Mallory mal...@ee.rochester.edu
p.s. My best cards won in a set were 3 Lords of Atlantis and a Drain Power...
It was comical when I said "Do you concede your Lord of Atlantis or kick in
another card?"...He then flipped over another Lord of Atlantis.... I won
that game. The other two were scammed in losses. I traded back all the cards
and a Rod of Ruin for a Personal Incarnation since I didn't have one and
wanted a big bad white creature. :) He had 5 Lords in the deck, so I was
lucky in getting such good cuts since I used my Natural Selection to insure
I was only adding a land to the ante both times.
Andrew Brecher
>In short, what is the most useless card out there?
>
>My nomination: Creature Bond. I've got 7. I once put one in my deck, but
>that was just for kicks. Anybody got a use for this waste of pasteboard?
A friend of mine has used the Creature Bond-Nevinyrral's Disk combo quite well.
Force of Nature against him? No problem. Just slap on a creature bond and
use the Disk.
-Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) (insert disclaimer here)
Andrew Brecher
>
>I have that one beat: JUMP. Why JUMP something when you can FLY it for the
>same casting cost?
Becuase it's an instant. You get the element of surprise, and very often you
do damage that your opponent didn't expect.
Jennifer Schlickbernd
left after a Cyclopean Tomb shows up or a Demonic Hordes. It's just
not worth filling your deck up with this just in case.
--
*****************************************
Jennifer Schlickbernd (Lorini) Communication paths:
lor...@netcom.com jenn...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (least preferred)
72466...@compuserve.com Day phone 8-5 PST (818) 354-2241
Eu-Ming Lee
>I have to nominate Consecrate Land. So what if you have 1 lousy land
>left after a Cyclopean Tomb shows up or a Demonic Hordes. It's just
>not worth filling your deck up with this just in case.
Agreed. The only way these could be worthwhile is if they could
prevent [land]-walkers.
--
Eu-Ming Lee
mi...@interaccess.com
"and she found herself in bed alone
"spastically romantic and we look for something weirder." - Throwing Muses
Chris Martell
My vote for most useless card: Orcish Artillery. It's useful if you band,
and use strength/berserk etc., plus can always defend; but one use as attacker,
and it is destroyed.
As to use usefullness of creature bond, sure, lots. What you do is bond it
to an OPPONENT's creature. Try it on something of about strength 3-4, otherwise
you won't have a chance to kill the creature. Even better, play a black and
blue deck. Put the Creature bond on a strong creature (6+) then use pestilence
for that number of points. Thus you do double death to your opponent - once
for pestilence, then for the death of a bonded creature.
Chris Martell, netmail: ud...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
--
Chris Martell
Argument against JUMP as most useless card: what is your opponent has a land
army? You jump a creature to make an aerial attack, the spell ends, and the cad
can defend on land for your opponent's turn. A useful idea would be a GROUND
card. It would allow a flying creature to touch ground for one turn (a self
useful EARTHBIND w/o damage).
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>If you manage to get both Sorcerers out, cast as many CB's on one of your
>opponents 2/2 creatures as possible. Lets say you manage to have 3 of
>them in hand. You cast all three on your opponents creature and than
>poke him with your sorcerers. Not only do you eliminate a 2/2 critter,
>you do 6 points of damage to your opponent!
damage to your opponent? Think about that one a bit... 5 fireballs (another
color, yes) will do a much nicer job and are more flexible. Hey, let's stay
in blue... 5 Power Leak's will probably do him more damage in the long run.
How about 2 Power Leak's and 3 Psychic Venoms... or just 5 Psychic Venoms
while we're on that topic. Creature Bond is only useful if you haven't got
anything better to fill your deck out with.
>Now, *MY* least favorite card is the Hurlorn Minotaur. I don't
>like the picture and the summoning cost sucks. I like to play
them against my Meekstone deck... it's a 3 toughness creature that still
untaps when the Meekstone is out.
da Fuzz
Perhaps a Princess...
Bill Seurer <BillS...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
@In article <CIG0r...@vcd.hp.com>, ayo...@vcd.hp.com (Andy Young) writes:
@|> I have that one beat: JUMP. Why JUMP something when you can FLY it for the
@|> same casting cost?
@This also works when attacking. The defender chooses a bunch of blocks
@and your card jumps over the blocker with the defender pulling out her
@hair wondering why she didn't use her Giant Spider to block instead.
This was just discussed on the gg-l@ list, and jump doesn't work this way.
Unfortunately.
Once blockers have been declared, a creature is blocked, no matter what.
(except for if False Orders tells the creature not to block of course)
You can cast jump on the creature, but it still can't deal its damage.
Now, if your opponent has no way to block a flying creature,
you can Jump a creature before you declare your attack over
your opponent's creatures.
I like the Jumping to block unexpectedly better... I can't count
the number of times I ahd land creatures and my opponent's
killing me from the air.
--
Sarah E. Heacock sa...@eskimo.com
.sig dedicated to the memory of Gene Roddenberry "The Great Bird of the Galaxy"
Eric M. Aldrich I
Chris Martell <ud...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA> wrote:
>
> My vote for most useless card: Orcish Artillery. It's useful if you band,
>and use strength/berserk etc., plus can always defend; but one use as attacker,
>and it is destroyed.
>
annoying, but it sure is nastier than Tim or the Pirate Ship). Death by
Orcish Artillery is an embarrassing all too common way to go. All ya need are
a few of these things and a Circle of Protection:Red. Just love blasting the
bejezuzz out of all those Rat packs and White Weenie decks with these things
(Yes, the usual reaction is one of laughter when the first appears, howls when
the second appears, and curses as I dish out 4-6 points a turn to anything I
want thereafter . . . .)
Eric
--
***f**********n*****************o***********************r***********d*** ^ ***
* Eric M. Aldrich I * "And the Mayan panoramas / \
* eald...@polyslo.calpoly.edu * On my pyramid pajamas /<O>\
* eald...@trumpet.calpoly.edu * Haven't helped my little problem" /_____\
Timothy M. Schreyer
|>
|> Argument against JUMP as most useless card: what is your opponent has a land
|> army? You jump a creature to make an aerial attack, the spell ends, and the cad
|> can defend on land for your opponent's turn. A useful idea would be a GROUND
|> card. It would allow a flying creature to touch ground for one turn (a self
|> useful EARTHBIND w/o damage).
|>
block non-flyers. This Is Wrong! Flyers can block non-flyers, but not
the other way around! Wow, I'd like to see games where only non-flyers
can block non-flyers.
Also, If you jump to make an aerial attack, you'd be tapping the creature
when you declare the attack, so when the creature lands, it will be tapped
and will not be able to defend! (But that's what Twiddles and Instill
Energy are for. :-)
Scott Emery
In article <reynolds....@judy.cs.iastate.edu>,
reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) writes:
: The rules on attacking have one part that doesn't make
:a lot of sense. It makes so little sense that I think a lot of
:people don't understand how they actually work. Once a
:creature has been blocked, it stays blocked no matter what,
:so if you jump your Fire-Breathing Orcs over a Wall of Ice,
:the Orcs do not do any damage because they are blocked.
: The rules aren't really clear on this other point, but the Orcs
:are probably not even fighting the wall anymore (since the wall
:can't legally block a flying creature.)
: This bizzare rule gives us a new good use for jump: block a
:Craw Wurm with anything not flying, and then Jump the Craw
:Wurm. Damn cute, isn't it? Acts as Fog for a single battle,
:which is sometimes very handy if there were some creatures
:you were going to block and kill.
I *love* this!
You're right, the rule doesn't make sense and *is* bizarre.
When they remake the official rules, this is one area they
should really work over so that it becomes intuitive
*and* playable. I'm sure they can do it, they've done a
remarkably good job with the rest of it.
BUT, this just goes to show that even if the rules *are* a
bit messed up, they are still quite playable, with a lot of
possible variations.
Thanks for an excellent post.
(although the third paragraph below, also from the same post,
seems to kind of contradict the "no unblocking" rule you explain
so well above.
Am I missing something?)
:>I have a Craw Wurm with regeneration and my wife smugly
:>plays her Shivan Dragon. Next turn she attacks thinking I
:>can't block her.
:
:>Well kiddies, Jump is an Instant so I play it, eat her Dragon,
:>and regen my Wurm. If I had had a flight on it she wouldn't
:>have attacked and flight is NOT an instant either.
:
:>This also works when attacking. The defender chooses a
:>bunch of blocks and your card jumps over the blocker with
:>the defender pulling out her hair wondering why she didn't
:>use her Giant Spider to block instead.
------------
ALSO, many kudos to whoever started this thread. It has
turned into one of the *best* tactics tutorials I have ever seen,
and it's FUN to boot!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Emery | "I can't stand people who have no impatience!"
Sem...@tau.sim.es.com
Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Salt Lake City, Utah
"I think, therefore my company doesn't claim my opinions."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Emery
A friend of mine says that WotC has made an "Official"
ruling that "creatures stay blocked after they are assigned,
and even false orders doesn't change that."
Am I missing something?
The rule book says that "If a card contradicts the rules,
the card takes precedence". (p33, the *first* entry in
"About the Rules")
So, False Orders says:
"You decide WHETHER and HOW one defending creature
blocks, though you can't make a choice the defender
couldn't legally make. Play AFTER defender has chosen
defense but before damage is dealt" (emphasis mine)
So, giving the card it's due, you play this after your Opponent
has decided to block your Mamoth with a Craw Worm. You
use the ability of the card to tell the Traw Worm "Hey, you've
recieved orders *not* to block" So the worm thinks "Aaah,
my master knows something I don't, so I will not block" and
scrams out of the way of the piddling little mamoth that It would
normally eat for lunch.
Even worse, you tell it to instead block the 30 headed Hydra and
the Worm gets eaten.
Am I *missing* something? Why wouldn't it work this way?
...how could it *not*? (I mean, what would you *do* with a
false orders?)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Emery
Sem...@tau.sim.es.com
"Tag" is a game for *children*.
------------------------------------------------------------------
stu...@gvgadg.gvg.tek.com
I have the Demonic Attorney. We used to play with ante a lot, and even then it
was not often very useful. I play backgammon, too, and there is some good math
theory on when it is profitable to double (the situation is a little different
there, since when you double, you also cede the right of future doubles to the
opponent).
Basically, if you are way ahead, the opponent should decline the double of the
ante, so doing it is not good. If you are behind, it's of course a bad idea.
If you are somewhat ahead, then it may be a very good idea. Of course, another
point is that in MtG it is not always obvious who is ahead. Your opponent may
have some surprise cards in reserve.
"Sacrifice" is our local least favorite card. I have never had a situation
where I really wanted to sacrifice one of my characters for a few mana points.
I can imagine situations where it would be useful, but I have never actually
come across one in play. I still play with the card, just hoping that I will
be able to show my friends some day that it DOES have a good use!
+++
In terms of the other discussion about blocking - I frankly agree that the
rules modification that would allow fast effects to remove blockers or their
ability to block (earthbind, jump, ...) makes for a more interesting game. We
play by the official "once blocked, always blocked" rules, but even then we
figure that "False Orders", even if imprecisely written, *DOES* have the power
to unblock an attacker by re-assigning the blocker.
MtG is biased in many of its rules toward the defender. I believe this to be
the reason for the blocking rules.
Clayton Colwell
In article <loriniCI...@netcom.com>, lor...@netcom.com (Jennifer Schlickbernd) writes:
> I have to nominate Consecrate Land. So what if you have 1 lousy land
> left after a Cyclopean Tomb shows up or a Demonic Hordes. It's just
> not worth filling your deck up with this just in case.
But it's *extremely* useful combined with Armageddon. Also, it
helps defend against the Sinkhole/Stone Rain decks, as well as
the Phantasmal Terrainers (not to protect *all* your land, but
just the ones you *really* want to keep, like that special
multi-land, or the weaker color of your two-color deck).
And it also saves you from 3 Psychic Venoms stuck on one land.
And the gg-l list mentioned the indestructible 1/1 creature
you get with a Consecrated Land animated by a Kormus Bell or
Living Lands.
Don't sell Consecrate Land short!
--
Clay Colwell "If homosexuality is a disease, then let's all call
arch...@vnet.ibm.com in queer to work." - Robin Tyler
IBM Austin, TX Disclaimer: This is *Clay* talkin', not IBM.
Eu-Ming Lee
>And the gg-l list mentioned the indestructible 1/1 creature
>you get with a Consecrated Land animated by a Kormus Bell or
>Living Lands.
How is it indestructible? Can't Tim just poke it for 1?
Eu-Ming Lee
>In article <CIGyF...@suncad.camosun.bc.ca>,
>Chris Martell <ud...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA> wrote:
>>
>> My vote for most useless card: Orcish Artillery. It's useful if you band,
>>and use strength/berserk etc., plus can always defend; but one use as attacker,
>>and it is destroyed.
>>
>What!!???? The single most annoying card in the game? (ok, maybe not the most
>annoying, but it sure is nastier than Tim or the Pirate Ship). Death by
>Orcish Artillery is an embarrassing all too common way to go. All ya need are
Ahhh... this reminds me of a good story about the Orcish Artillery.
We were playing a four player game. It was getting pretty late, and some
of the players were drunk and/or stoned. One of them was plain asleep.
Well, the game reached a point where the three players who were conscious
were at 2, 5, and 3 life respectively.
Now, the ante up had some very good cards in it. One was a Target Gains
X Life (mine) and a Power Sink. The player on my left had two life left,
and it was his turn. Since he and I are regular players, he didn't want
to see those cards fall into my filthy grasp. Both me and the other
conscious guy had enough creatures to kill him without retribution once
it reached our turn. There was no card or politics which could save him
from certain doom.
So he cast disentegrate on the guy with 5 life and killed him. Then he
turned the Bog Wraith (Wade Boggs) on me. For me, it was certain death.
So my response was to tap the Orcish Artillery and kill both me (3 life)
and him (2 life). The guy who was unconscious (and starting to snore),
won the game!
Dan Thompson
>
>"Sacrifice" is our local least favorite card. I have never had a situation
>where I really wanted to sacrifice one of my characters for a few mana points.
>I can imagine situations where it would be useful, but I have never actually
>come across one in play. I still play with the card, just hoping that I will
>be able to show my friends some day that it DOES have a good use!
Yeah, Sacrifice is pretty smelly, but it's not horrible. They folks in my
group use it as a "make the best of a bad situation" card. You hold one in
your hand until one of your creatures is about to die (it blocked a Craw Wurm
or got Lightning Bolted or something), then you Sacrifice (an instant) that
creature. It's still dead, but it was going to die anyway, and this way you
get some mana for it.
Come to think of it, I've never seen it used to good advantage. Maybe it is
horrible. . . .
Perhaps we should come up with categories (like "rare," "uncommon," etc.) for
this. We could have "Great", "Useful," "Sorry," "Wretched," and "I Surrender."
;-)
Eu-Ming Lee
>"Sacrifice" is our local least favorite card. I have never had a situation
>where I really wanted to sacrifice one of my characters for a few mana points.
>I can imagine situations where it would be useful, but I have never actually
>come across one in play. I still play with the card, just hoping that I will
>be able to show my friends some day that it DOES have a good use!
Yep. I find this card pretty useless, too, although I can think of many
situations where it might be useful. But I also have a Dark Ritual which
gets me three black mana for one, so what's the point?
Anyway, those extra mana could come in handy when someone casts a powersink
on you. Or when you need just a few extra mana for that Guardian Angel.
Or maybe one of your creatures is draining your life away with Wanderlust
or Feedback. Sacrifice it and pump the mana into Target Gains X Life.
I've never actually had any of these situations come up, however.
Sacrifice is the second most useless card, after Consecrate Land.
Shaper
re: uses for creature bond.
Combine a few creature-bonded opponents' creatures with a few twiddles/icy
manipulator, and a siren's call. Bzap.
Ranks right up there with the psychic venoms and power sinks. Bzap.
My personal favorite has several variations. Here's one. Several power
leaks on his CoP Blue, Blue Ward, or whatever (I believe in poetic
justice). Power sink him, and play winter orb. Bzap.
Even better if he has something like Force of Nature out. Bzap. Crunch.
Psychic <Venoms also combine nicely for lots of these.
Feedback works too, but feedback is dull. It just does damage, no special
effects about it. What do you play blue for, if not for special
effects cards? :-)
Here's one use for creature bond that just came to mind. If you're
playing a black deck. He plays Lord of the Pit. So start bonding his fodder.
Damned if he do, damned if he don't. So to speak.
Oh... a trick I pulled last night. I was playing Blue/White vs. Black.
He played Gloom. I played Sleight of Mind on it. Hmm... what color do
you think I chose?
Next turn he got crushed by two Moorish Cavalry units on a Jyhad. :-)
Hi, Lee.
(Credit where credit's due, he crushed me the next four games or so. My
~33 % mana never showed up. In fact the only thing that did come up with
any consistency was the Island of Wak-Wak. That was usually about half my
mana allotment for the game.)
People have already covered Jump. Yeah, it makes a nasty surprise when
you're on defense. Those sea serpents can munch pretty much anything that
flies. They just have to get up there.
Other useless cards: That green ogre in Arabian Nights which is controlled
by whomever has the most life. I'm sure there's a devious use for it, but
it hasn't occured to me yet. Maybe you creature bond it, giant growth it,
and berserk it while your opponent has more life than you? He won't for long.
The Black Witches from AN... good timslayers, but the opponent gets a
final strike. Again, there must be a nasty vicious trick for them. I'll
have to think a while.
Hmm. I'll get back to you all on that one.
Has anyone ever Magical Hacked a Karma? I want to, badly. I wish I had
Magical Hack.
Xlace: good for turning artifacts into colors. Depending on what you're
playing you can then Elemental Blast them (Red/Blue or Blue w/Sleight of
Mind. Takes a bit more doing, though) or at least put up a CoP or a Ward
on a blocker.
Rukh Eggs make nice walls. You can also Firebreath them and send them to
attack. That's REAL fun. Burrow is a waste on them since you WANT the
opponent to kill it (at least, I do.).
The Bottle of Suleiman is my nomination for most useless card. If you're
lucky, you get a 5/5 djinn, which is good. But even odds you take 5
damage, which isn't. I prefer guaranteed effects, barring counterspells
and such. Also, the Serendib Djinn strikes me as particularly useless
except in the endgame, and even then if you're playing straight blue. You
must destroy one of your lands every turn, and if it's an island you take
3 damage. Not gonna be in MY deck! Finally, again AN, the Ogress and the
Raiders. I don't like anything tha tdoes damage to you, or that
requires regular maintenance. If you're going to spend mana on a creature
every turn it may as well be something to make the creature nastier:
Dragon, Hydra, Frozen Shade, etc.
All cards have their uses. You simply have to pick the ones whose uses
fit with your style, and get the rest out of your deck. I'm guessing some
people love Suliemans's bottle. I would only use it as a last resort, if
I was about to die anyway. Therefore, it isn't in my deck. However,
Thoughtlace IS in my deck, which draws strange looks on occasion. I
recently pulled the Hill Giants from my red deck to make room for more
Goblins. (I just got the Goblin King, too, and a Gauntlet of Might. Still.)
I anxiously await the day I can Jump Abu Ja far into the mouth of a Lord
of the Pit. I play for fun effects, but I still try to make a devastating
deck. Some tactics just don't work for my playing style, and those cards
are worthless to me. Others will disagree, and I look forward to your posts.
Shaper
PS: Have fun with some of these.
Owen Reynolds
>ruling that "creatures stay blocked after they are assigned,
>and even false orders doesn't change that."
>Am I missing something?
I'm sure they didn't make this ruling. What they probably said is
that False Orders is the only card which _can_ change that.
>So, False Orders says:
> "You decide WHETHER and HOW one defending creature
> blocks, though you can't make a choice the defender
> couldn't legally make. Play AFTER defender has chosen
> defense but before damage is dealt" (emphasis mine)
The way you want to use it is (I'm mostly sure) the way it
was supposed to be read. The problem is that some cards require
you to very carefully read what they say and to do exactly that
to get the right effect. If you aren't precise, it can make a big
difference. False Orders nowhere says it breaks the rule about
staying blocked (which is in the rules that come with the deck,)
so it doesn't, when it obviously should.
>So, giving the card it's due, you play this after your Opponent
>has decided to block your Mamoth with a Craw Worm. You
>use the ability of the card to tell the Traw Worm "Hey, you've
>recieved orders *not* to block" So the worm thinks "Aaah,
>my master knows something I don't, so I will not block" and
>scrams out of the way of the piddling little mamoth that It would
>normally eat for lunch.
>Even worse, you tell it to instead block the 30 headed Hydra and
>the Worm gets eaten.
>Am I *missing* something? Why wouldn't it work this way?
If you are going exactly by what the card says, the War Mammoth
is still blocked because the card doesn't say to break that rule.
It's just like the Wurm had been unsummoned or otherwise vanished.
It's no big deal, but I think it illustrates that the rule about
not becoming unblocked was a late addition.
Scott Emery
:>So, False Orders says:
:
:> "You decide WHETHER and HOW one defending creature
:> blocks, though you can't make a choice the defender
:> couldn't legally make. Play AFTER defender has chosen
:> defense but before damage is dealt" (emphasis mine)
(Deleted part describing the rule that says blocked
critters stay blocked even after fast effects.)
: If you are going exactly by what the card says, the War
:Mammoth is still blocked because the card doesn't say to
:break that rule.
:
:It's just like the Wurm had been unsummoned or otherwise
:vanished. It's no big deal, but I think it illustrates that the
:rule about not becoming unblocked was a late addition.
Sure, I understand, but the way I read the card, the WHETHER
part of the description bundled with the title of the card (False
Orders) and the timing written on the card (after defense is
chosen) all add up to one thing: IT IS RETROACTIVE.
i.e., You *think* you told your Craw Wurm to block, but my
False Orders told it NOT to block. The block doesn't stay
in place, because -due to the creatures orders- it was *never*
put into place.
Thus you have decided WHETHER the creature will block.
(nope, won't block).
This is more clearly illustrated with the HOW to block item.
If you can determine that Mr. Craw Wurm will block "El
Twenty Headed Hydra" it will be distroyed, right? But
If the Craw Wurm block was previously set up to block the
Merfolk then you get a paradox of one critter blocking two
critters at the same time. -With a LOT of associated
complications. <who does what damage, etc.>
The only way that it seems to make sense is if the original
blocking order *never happened* because the false orders
take precedence. No paradoxes at all.
Clayton Colwell
In article <ming.75...@interaccess.com>, mi...@interaccess.com (Eu-Ming Lee) writes:
> cla...@austin.ibm.com (Clayton Colwell) writes:
>
>
> >And the gg-l list mentioned the indestructible 1/1 creature
> >you get with a Consecrated Land animated by a Kormus Bell or
> >Living Lands.
>
> How is it indestructible? Can't Tim just poke it for 1?
Text of Consecrate Land: "...Land cannot be destroyed or further
enchanted until Consecrate Land has been destroyed." Even *if*
Time pokes for 1, as long as the CL stays on, the land is not
killed.
On another topic, I did use a Sacrifice for a good effect; it
powered my Drain Life to get rid of an annoying Lured Basilisk when
I was low on Swamps and had no handy Dark Rituals.
--
Clay Colwell "Debate on USENET too often is like
arch...@vnet.ibm.com shouting at graffiti." -- Me
cla...@austin.ibm.com Disclaimer: This is *Clay* talkin', not IBM.
Perhaps a Princess...
Scott Emery <sem...@tau.sim.es.com> wrote:
@--
@A friend of mine says that WotC has made an "Official"
@ruling that "creatures stay blocked after they are assigned,
@and even false orders doesn't change that."
Wrong.
This was even discussed in full view of WoTC on the
list, and the False Orders DOES change the rules of the game.
It was said several times and never counterdicted.
And... wait until the Player's Guide comes out.
I'm pretty sure (Hopefully!) there should be a False Orders example
in there.
And that will be something official tat doesn't rely on having
an internet account.
Know what would be cool?
I was just thinking, that you have all these Tips&Tricks for <blank>
books outt erhe... if someone was to get together ideas for cool
combinations for Magic, get permission from WoTC and publish it.
Cool card combinations you may not otherwise thing about, things like
that.
Perhaps with an Arabian Nights section to it as well.
Of course... with expansions still coming out the book
probably won't stay current for long, but it would still
be -some- use for quite a while.
@So, giving the card it's due, you play this after your Opponent
@has decided to block your Mamoth with a Craw Worm. You
@use the ability of the card to tell the Traw Worm "Hey, you've
@recieved orders *not* to block" So the worm thinks "Aaah,
@my master knows something I don't, so I will not block" and
@scrams out of the way of the piddling little mamoth that It would
@normally eat for lunch.
@Even worse, you tell it to instead block the 30 headed Hydra and
@the Worm gets eaten.
You would need a second false orders to do this.
The first false order tells the Craw Wurm not to block the Mammoth,
the second tells it to block the Hydra
(another good way to kill a Wurm, I found out last night... Block
it with two creatures. I used a Mammoth and a Warriors.. and the Mammoth
was regenerating)
Scott Emery
In article <CII97...@eskimo.com>, sa...@eskimo.com
(Perhaps a Princess...) writes:
:@So, giving the card it's due, you play this after your Opponent
:@has decided to block your Mamoth with a Craw Worm. You
:@use the ability of the card to tell the Traw Worm "Hey, you've
:@recieved orders *not* to block" So the worm thinks "Aaah,
:@my master knows something I don't, so I will not block" and
:@scrams out of the way of the piddling little mamoth that It would
:@normally eat for lunch.
:
:@Even worse, you tell it to instead block the 30 headed Hydra and
:@the Worm gets eaten.
:
:You would need a second false orders to do this.
:The first false order tells the Craw Wurm not to block the Mammoth,
:the second tells it to block the Hydra
Don't think so. Your false orders is just saying "Hey you,
get out there and block the big guy." You're not having to
"countermand the old orders once, then create new orders
to do something different." The old orders (from the creature's
controller) never reach it because of the false orders.
That's the HOW part of "Whether and How to block"
At least, that's how I read the card.
Richard Pieri
dant> In short, what is the most useless card out there?
Not a one. A good use can be found for every card in the deck. This is
why the guys at WotC mean when they say that you can't buy a killer deck.
Unless one deck is seriously overmatched (like the one- or two-turn
annihilation decks against a starte deck), strategy will defeat power.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> PGP 2.x Public Key Block available upon request
GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+
||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
Shape shift/Nose to the wind/Shape shift/Feeling I've been/Move swift/
All senses clean/Earth's gift/Back to the meaning of wolf and man
--Metallica, `Of Wolf and Man'
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
quoting, Delphi's programmers are building a new Usenet reader which I'm
helping beta test... they "improved" the program today and broke the
quoter. :)
Anyway... most useless card in the deck would just about be the Nether
Shadow, for me at least. (When three creatures have are above it in
the graveyard it comes back into play and can attack immediately.) I
mean, who ever built a deck with the INTENTION of having enough
creatures die to make this card useful.
Okay, I take that back... gotta be _really_ specialized, but it might
work out in a fast-small creature deck. Think about this... once
you've got 3 Shadows in the graveyard, every time another one dies, you
can always get one back for BB. (Unless the Shadow is removed from the
game and doesn't make it to the graveyard.)
But... who's got 4 of these RARE cards? I think they would have to be common
to be useful.
da Fuzz
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
> This also works when attacking. The defender chooses a bunch of blocks
> and your card jumps over the blocker with the defender pulling out her
> hair wondering why she didn't use her Giant Spider to block instead.
once blocked, always blocked, even if the blocker is REMOVED from play.
That may be what they MEANT with Jump, but it ain't how the rules work.
da Fuzz
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
> Not a one. A good use can be found for every card in the deck. This is
> why the guys at WotC mean when they say that you can't buy a killer
> deck. Unless one deck is seriously overmatched (like the one- or
> two-turn annihilation decks against a starte deck), strategy will defeat
> power.
just as common, cards. Now if you don't have the other cards, you play with
what you've got, but that doesn't make them equal to the better ones.
And about the not being able to buy killer decks? WotC is just blowing smoke...
you can get most of them to admit that a tuned deck built from a selection of
several hundred cards will easily beat the average deck built from a
selection of only 150 cards. (150 being the average number of cards they
expect the average player to own.)
That's the biggest flaw in this game... money is the key to winning. Once
you've got a huge selection of cards, PICKING the cards to put in your deck
comes next. The random factor comes after that, and play strategy comes
dead LAST. Sure, given equal decks, the experienced player will beat the
inexperienced player... but take a money-deck in the hands of a new player
and put it up against a highly-experienced player with only a hundred cards,
and the money deck will win most of the time.
(BTW: Hi, Rat... long time no see.)
da Fuzz
Andrew Brecher
said:
>@This also works when attacking. The defender chooses a bunch of blocks
>@and your card jumps over the blocker with the defender pulling out her
>@hair wondering why she didn't use her Giant Spider to block instead.
>
>This was just discussed on the gg-l@ list, and jump doesn't work this way.
>Unfortunately.
>
>Once blockers have been declared, a creature is blocked, no matter what.
Is this an official, specific ruling? (ie not just implied)
To me this seems like the intended use for the card, and I think that if that
is the official ruling it's a mistake, and I'd like to hear a rationale.
-Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) (insert disclaimer here)
Andrew Brecher
Cravens <DAF...@delphi.com> said:
>Richard Pieri says...
>> Not a one. A good use can be found for every card in the deck. This is
>> why the guys at WotC mean when they say that you can't buy a killer
>> deck. Unless one deck is seriously overmatched (like the one- or
>> two-turn annihilation decks against a starte deck), strategy will defeat
>> power.
>
>I have to disagree. There are many cards that aren't as good as other,
>just as common, cards. Now if you don't have the other cards, you play with
>what you've got, but that doesn't make them equal to the better ones.
True enough.
>And about the not being able to buy killer decks? WotC is just blowing
smoke...
>you can get most of them to admit that a tuned deck built from a selection of
>several hundred cards will easily beat the average deck built from a
>selection of only 150 cards. (150 being the average number of cards they
>expect the average player to own.)
Well, all things being equal, having more cards to choose from is better.
But, as the saying goes, all things are never equal. There is a bigger range
in deck-building ability than in good-cardsness.
>That's the biggest flaw in this game... money is the key to winning. Once
>you've got a huge selection of cards, PICKING the cards to put in your deck
>comes next. The random factor comes after that, and play strategy comes
>dead LAST. Sure, given equal decks, the experienced player will beat the
>inexperienced player... but take a money-deck in the hands of a new player
>and put it up against a highly-experienced player with only a hundred cards,
>and the money deck will win most of the time.
^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^
That, I'm afraid, is just plain wrong. Almost this exact situation happened
to me, and what you say did not happen. Not even close. To elaborate: I was
lucky enough so that my first deck that I bought was a 15-rare deck. And there
are a lot of good rares in there too. I filled it up with a little more land,
since the deck was a bit short. At about the same time a friend of mine bought
an all-common deck from an experience player, designed to be very playable.
And when we played each other, guess what? We each won about 50% of the time.
I agree that this isn't a direct analogy, but the similarities are there.
My friend had a deck that was made from a very small selection of cards (ie
just the commons, and balanced), like your "experienced player with only a
hundred cards", and I had a deck with a lot of rare, powerful cards but w/o any
knowledge or experience in building a good deck, and I did >not< win most of
the time. If anything, I lost more than I won, but it was pretty close to
50-50. And since we were both inexperienced players, this is good evidence
that experience is probably the biggest factor.
The Mad Dog
>I agree that this isn't a direct analogy, but the similarities are there.
>My friend had a deck that was made from a very small selection of cards (ie
>just the commons, and balanced), like your "experienced player with only a
>hundred cards", and I had a deck with a lot of rare, powerful cards but w/o any
>knowledge or experience in building a good deck, and I did >not< win most of
>the time. If anything, I lost more than I won, but it was pretty close to
>50-50. And since we were both inexperienced players, this is good evidence
>that experience is probably the biggest factor.
>
> -Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) (insert disclaimer here)
Luck...it's all in the luck of the draw.
I once played a game of Talisman.
I was the Astropath *insignificant*.
My first move I drew the Omnipotent Being.
I rolled a six.
I moved to the Crown of Command...instant win.
The same thing can be done in M:TG.
Say, for instance, that I draw the following hand:
Black Lotus
Channel
Fireball
Mountain
any other 3 cards.
well, I drop the Lotus and Mountain.
tap the lotus to channel 19 points of life for 19 mana.
Tap the mountain and cast Fireball backed with 1 left over mana from the
Lotus, and 19 channeled mana, thus dealing 20 points of unstoppable *to
my knowledge* damage.
It was lucky, and you'll notice that all but one is RARE!!!
If you had the money you could build a deck full of Demonic Tutors
to do this and perhaps throw in some DarkPacts, Demonic Attorneys
and such if you play for ante.
Trust me, I played someone tonite who spent $1,200 just to load his deck
with Combo land, Lord of the Pit, Shivan Dragons, and Time Twisters.
He won in a ten-player game, btw.
The other 8 players spent between $30-$250.
I have spent $175 now. I have some nice cards...but I cannot stand up against
more expensive decks, and I know it, because they are going to have more rare
cards than I. Guaranteed. Especially if the person playing it means it.
Play a person who spent $500+ a couple of matches for ante, see who wins.
I dare you.
TheMadDog.
Lisa Richardson
>It was lucky, and you'll notice that all but one is RARE!!!
Wait... Channel is Uncommon, Fireball is Common, Mountain is common land and
Black Lotus is the RARE card... Where did you get this idea that all but 1 is
rare?
>Trust me, I played someone tonite who spent $1,200 just to load his deck
>with Combo land, Lord of the Pit, Shivan Dragons, and Time Twisters.
>He won in a ten-player game, btw.
>The other 8 players spent between $30-$250.
>I have spent $175 now. I have some nice cards...but I cannot stand up against
>more expensive decks, and I know it, because they are going to have more rare
>cards than I. Guaranteed. Especially if the person playing it means it.
>Play a person who spent $500+ a couple of matches for ante, see who wins.
>I dare you.
First off, right off the bat, DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING. Just because a person
spent a bunch of money on Magic Cards, they are going to win. Want to know
why? Here is a piddly person who got shafted on 6 starter decks with nothing
but uncommon and common cards with a few decent uncommon artifacts and land.
This person played 2 people who had a SHOEBOX full of Magic cards that had RARE
cards. This person beat BOTH of them, despite the fact that the 2 people had
upwards of 360+ cards in their deck versus a deck of 60 with only common and
uncommon cards. I have played people with decks about the size and with good
cards in them. HOWEVER, a stacked deck means nothing if you CAN'T get them
out. I have even played against a person who constructed a mostly
common/uncommon deck while I was playing a few uncommon/rare/common cards. I
lost! Reason? Lack of lands to get those spells/creatures/artifacts out.
Also, just when I thought I had him... Bang, Disenchant, terror, shatter,
elemental blast, jump, CoP... All of which are COMMON items. One thing I have
learned... NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING. Just because you got the bitchiness Rare
cards... Think before you use. Half the time, you will shoot yourself in the
foot for it, or managed to do twiddle your fingers while your opponent has a
field day with you.
--
Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
Andrew Brecher
Dog) said:
>>I agree that this isn't a direct analogy, but the similarities are there.
>>My friend had a deck that was made from a very small selection of cards (ie
>>just the commons, and balanced), like your "experienced player with only a
>>hundred cards", and I had a deck with a lot of rare, powerful cards but w/o
any
>>knowledge or experience in building a good deck, and I did >not< win most of
>>the time. If anything, I lost more than I won, but it was pretty close to
>>50-50. And since we were both inexperienced players, this is good evidence
>>that experience is probably the biggest factor.
>
>I once played a game of Talisman.
In some games more than others.
>The same thing can be done in M:TG.
>Say, for instance, that I draw the following hand:
>
> Black Lotus
> Channel
> Fireball
> Mountain
> any other 3 cards.
>
>well, I drop the Lotus and Mountain.
>tap the lotus to channel 19 points of life for 19 mana.
>Tap the mountain and cast Fireball backed with 1 left over mana from the
>Lotus, and 19 channeled mana, thus dealing 20 points of unstoppable *to
>my knowledge* damage.
- If you're player two, it can be stopped by a blue elemental blast. But
that's a good reason why I like the minimum deck size rule- that way it becomes
nearly impossible for this to happen, and anyone who designs a edeck with this
in mind may find themselves with a poorly balanced deck for all but the 1 in a
million shot. And in a game where luck has enough of a factor, you need
balancing factors, which MtG has, like a) You choose the type of deck you play
with, and your opponents choose theirs, and b) you play multiple times a shot,
so luck tends to balance out.
>It was lucky, and you'll notice that all but one is RARE!!!
Good. That way having the 1st turn win is so improbable that it can be
considered impossible.
>If you had the money you could build a deck full of Demonic Tutors
>to do this and perhaps throw in some DarkPacts, Demonic Attorneys
>and such if you play for ante.
Perhaps, but if I do, no one's forcing you to play me...are you ever in a
position where you feel you >must< play for ante? If so then I'm sorry. I
don't think the game was intended to be like that. See below.
>Trust me, I played someone tonite who spent $1,200 just to load his deck
>with Combo land, Lord of the Pit, Shivan Dragons, and Time Twisters.
>He won in a ten-player game, btw.
Don't forget that the more you know about a deck, the better you'll be able
to counter it. Try an all-blue deck. A friend of mine, as an experiment, has
been playing with a deck he's spend >no< money on. He got two boosters as a
gift, and he's been trading up. He got some good deals, yes, but I think he
only has one rare left and one (maybe two) uncommons. He plays blue-green;
with all of the blue counter-type spells he's very powerful, much more than
you'd think.
I personally haven't decided if multi-player games are more luck or less luck.
Anyone out there have any thoughts?
>The other 8 players spent between $30-$250.
In a multiplayer game, if I were one of you I'd have encourage everyone else
to gang up on that one person.
>I have spent $175 now. I have some nice cards...but I cannot stand up against
>more expensive decks, and I know it, because they are going to have more rare
>cards than I. Guaranteed. Especially if the person playing it means it.
First of all, rare doesn't equal powerful. There's more to the game than
just rareness of the cards of your deck. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but
it looks like a) the person who spent the ton of money is a better player than
you, and b) you sound like you're whining that you lose to a better player.
There will never be a game where a better player won't beat a worse player
more than half the time. Especially in a multi-player game where it's so
easy to gang up on people.
>Play a person who spent $500+ a couple of matches for ante, see who wins.
>I dare you.
I think you've got the causality backward- usually the person who spends more
tends to be a better and more experienced player. I have played people who've
spent a ton (not for ante, since I rarely play for ante), and I don't think
I've ever been demolished consisently by anyone- most battles have been
very good, and even for the most part. Besides, (one of) the whole point(s)
of ante is to even out the odds- if you win only 1/3 of the time against
someone who has a ton of powerful/rare cards, chances are you'd still be
getting better cards than your opponent.
I'll make a counter-challenge: for a couple games, give the person you're
talking about your entire collection, and have him take yours. Create new
decks from your opponent's set, play him, and see who wins.
Even if you ignore/disagree with everything I say, keep in mind this: if,
in a circle of ten people, one person has done something which the rest of
you think is bad (eg spend 10x as much as anyone on the game), just refuse
to play with that person. That person will soon be willing to accept
constraints in order to be able to play. Kinda like playing chess with 'odds'.
"I dare you." If he's as cutthroat a player as you make him out to be, he'll
be very uncomfortable with no one being willing to play him.
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>My friend had a deck that was made from a very small selection of cards (ie
>just the commons, and balanced), like your "experienced player with only a
>hundred cards", and I had a deck with a lot of rare, powerful cards but w/o any
>knowledge or experience in building a good deck, and I did >not< win most of
>the time. If anything, I lost more than I won, but it was pretty close to
(Although if you had gotten the 15-rare deck _I_ got, you would have been
up a creek without a paddle... I got 15 of the most USELESS rares I could think
of. Two Elvish Archers (not bad, but there are better common creatures) and
two Dingus Eggs... Sunglasses of Urza, Wheel of Fortune, etc. Only nice card
I got was a Nightmare.)
Anyway... your experienced player didn't receive 100 RANDOM cards, which was
the intent of my situation, if I didn't actually state that. He received
a small number of cards that were selected from a much larger number.
Now, to give a better example: Give an experienced player a starter deck and
four boosters (120 cards) of normal distribution (no 15-rares) and let him
play against a MONEY player who doesn't know what he's doing. Rare powerful
cards aren't that important... my small-fast deck is made up of mostly commons.
Not a single artifact in the pile, one enchantment, and two instants
(Disenchant). Seven of each land and a BUNCH of cheap creatures. Only
uncommon creature in the pile is a pair of Serra Angels. Not a single rare
card. A MONEY deck isn't built with lots of nasty rares, it's built from
lots of nasty COMBINATIONS. Your 120 cards isn't going to net you 12 banding
creatures... mine does. Neither are you going to get 8 Llanowar Elves...
mine does. Before Arabian Nights, I had over 700 cards to choose from and
I'm only a _minor_ when it comes to money-decks.
True, someone just starting in the game is going to be poor at deck building
because he doesn't know anything about it..he might not see the use in making
twenty-percent of a deck banding creatures with a casting cost of one or two
mana. But if he's got 700 cards to choose from, he can easily build something
that'll hurt 120 RANDOM cards.
da Fuzz
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>"Sacrifice" is our local least favorite card. I have never had a situation
>where I really wanted to sacrifice one of my characters for a few mana points.
with things like Force of Nature or Lord of the Pit (and Arabian Nights has
even more neat help/hurt creatures), but want to be able to REMOVE them from
play when necessary. It's nice to actually get something GOOD out of removing
such a powerful creature.
I really don't like to play with the big creatures... would anyone look at me
funny if I said that Lord of the Pit and Force of Nature were fairly useless
cards? What happens when you draw the darn thing in your initial hand? You're
going to sit around for a MINIMUM of six or seven (whatever the casting cost
is) turns before you can even THINK of summoning them. (This statement
subject to the injection of non-land mana producers.) Once they get in play
it hurts like heck to keep them there. Especially LotP... but it also
hurts when your opponent drops Psychic Venom on a couple of your forests
needed to feed the Force, too.
da Fuzz
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>>And the gg-l list mentioned the indestructible 1/1 creature
>>you get with a Consecrated Land animated by a Kormus Bell or
>>Living Lands.
>
>How is it indestructible? Can't Tim just poke it for 1?
is on it. But since Living Lands and Kormus Bell do not target the land
DIRECTLY, they still affect it. Seems an extreme length to go for an
indestructible 1/1 creature, though.
da Fuzz
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>The rule book says that "If a card contradicts the rules,
>the card takes precedence". (p33, the *first* entry in
>"About the Rules")
False Orders doesn't contradict the rules... and by the rules, it doesn't
work at all. Play after blocking is declared, and then decide whether and
how the defender blocks, making no decisions that aren't legal. Well,
the declaration of blockers is over, and your opponent cannot legally change
his mind about any of his decisions... so False Orders HAS NO EFFECT the
way the card is written.
Heh. Okay, now we know (for the most part) what they really meant. They
MEANT that False Orders would allow you to alter your opponent's blocking
plans after you know what they are. But rule-wise, the card is quite unclear
about the deal... it doesn't contradict the rules at all, it just tells you
that you can make your opponent do a specific something, as long as it's legal
at the time, and that something is never legal... and the card doesn't
specifically tell you that it MAKES it legal in that instance.
I thik the whole thing over False Orders is silly. I read the mailing list
and have never seen anyone OFFICIAL give the word one way or the other.
Same with Jump... no official word. (Jump _is_ questionable as to their
intent.)
Generally, you should never worry about intent, but play the card exactly as
it is written... but some cards don't work at all as written.
da Fuzz
Kimbo Beattie
>I really don't like to play with the big creatures... would anyone look at me
>funny if I said that Lord of the Pit and Force of Nature were fairly useless
>cards? What happens when you draw the darn thing in your initial hand? You're
>going to sit around for a MINIMUM of six or seven (whatever the casting cost
>is) turns before you can even THINK of summoning them. (This statement
>subject to the injection of non-land mana producers.) Once they get in play
>it hurts like heck to keep them there. Especially LotP... but it also
>hurts when your opponent drops Psychic Venom on a couple of your forests
>needed to feed the Force, too.
>
> da Fuzz
I agree with you Fuzz. I think the Lord of the Pit and Force of Nature are
overrated. (I can't believe the price some people are willing to pay for
these practically "useless" cards.) My favorite "big gun" cards are
Nightmare and Shivan Dragon. They both still have the disadvantage of
requiring a lot of mana to cast, but once out, they don't bite you back.
(And I always put some mana-producing artifacts and cards in decks with
these guys, hoping to get them out early. (Well, at least the Shivan
Dragon. Getting the Nightmare out early is something of a mixed blessing.)
--Kimbo
Christopher Esko
it works very well in my Rukh Egg Deck.
I used to think Concecrate Land was pretty useless, too, until I saw all
the cool land types in Arabian Nights.
My personal vote on most useless card is Power Leak. Your opponent has
to have an enchantment out, and it doesn't get rid of it, it just makes
him tap mana. Feedback or Psychic Venom are much nastier.
And yes, I think Copper Tablets really suck, too.
Although, the Arabian Knights Ogre and Ogress are pretty useless as well.
Chris Esko
black...@CMU.EDU
ce...@andrew.cmu.edu
------------------------------------
"It's just a flesh wound!" -The Black Knight
Chris Martell
Power Leaks are very good in a power blue deck, especially if you have a
lot of mana. First drop a few Power Leaks on your opponents enchantment, thus
costing him/her a few mana per turn. Then wait until (s)he drops a bunch of
spells, tying up most (preferably 75% or more) of their mana. Then, invoking
nothing else yourself, drop a Stasis. Now, your opponent will be unable to use
mana for anything except upkeep. And when it's all gone, they start taking
damage. This is even more satisfying than Psychic Venom, since the Stasis would
have been useless if your opponent hadn't set themself up for it (by burning
mana).
Chris.
--
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
{ Chris Martell }
| netmail address: |
| |
A. Newman
>The same thing can be done in M:TG.
>Say, for instance, that I draw the following hand:
>
> Black Lotus
> Channel
> Fireball
> Mountain
> any other 3 cards.
>
>well, I drop the Lotus and Mountain.
>tap the lotus to channel 19 points of life for 19 mana.
>Tap the mountain and cast Fireball backed with 1 left over mana from the
>Lotus, and 19 channeled mana, thus dealing 20 points of unstoppable *to
>my knowledge* damage.
>
>It was lucky, and you'll notice that all but one is RARE!!!
>
>If you had the money you could build a deck full of Demonic Tutors
>to do this and perhaps throw in some DarkPacts, Demonic Attorneys
>and such if you play for ante.
Well...you'd have to be pretty lucky to draw all that in your opening
hand - but as long as you're being lucky...
I've got a Mox pearl and a healing salve in my opening hand. Now
you've got 1 life (you channeled away 19 of them) and I have
three...and it's my turn. Anyone remember the casting cost on
'Reverse Damage'? I don't have my decks here.
OR
I've got a Mox sapphire and an elemental blast in my hand. Now you've
got one life and I've got all of mine...and it's my turn.
--Alex
Paul Brinkley
Eu-Ming Lee <mi...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>stu...@gvgadg.gvg.tek.com writes:
>
>Sacrifice is the second most useless card, after Consecrate Land.
Many have already posted speaking about the uses of Sacrifice. As
for Consecrate Land....
1. Gets rid of multiple Cursed Lands.
2. Halts the Kudzu chain.
3. When a Blue decker Phantasmal Terrains one of your Plains into
an Island so his Sea Serpents can come swimming in, Consecrate
Land will change it back.
4. Blue deckers also like to put multiple Psychic Venoms on *one*
of your lands, then bring in their Icy Manipulator. If you
can't find your Disenchant, at least Consecrate Land will let
you breate easy for a while.
Now if only I could use Consecrate Land to protect my Farmstead...
Paul Brinkley
brin...@cs.utexas.edu
Paul Brinkley
I don't get it. Why not play with dual lands, namely white, and bring
a CoP: Black or CoP: Green into play? I agree, Nightmares and Shivan
Dragons are extremely useful, but not when your opponent has a
regenerating flyer and can block every single point of damage.
Lords of the Pit and Forces of Nature are useful, because they
Trample. If you want, throw a bunch of Holy Strengths on them.
Or Unholy Strength on the Lord, and Aspect of Wolf on the Force.
Paul Brinkley
brin...@cs.utexas.edu
Paul Brinkley
Yes. Well. You may not be able to enchant it, but you COULD cast
interrupts and instants on it, and do other sneaky things.
I can think of several things if you're playing black/white.
Consecrate a swamp, and then bring in the Kormus Bell. Now either
play Deathlace on it and bring in Bad Moons, or play Purelace on
it and bring in Crusades. (Castles are fun for tall tales afterward,
but unnecessary.) If you're weird, you might be playing red as
well; bring in Orcish Oriflammes.
It'd take a lot of cards, but you could have an indestructible
4/2 or 5/2 critter running around. Get a Guardian Beast into
play and you're in serious business.
Paul Brinkley
brin...@cs.utexas.edu
Paul Brinkley
>
>>[explanation of an instant kill with Black Lotus, Fireball, Channel,
>> and a mountain in the first draw]
>
>Well...you'd have to be pretty lucky to draw all that in your opening
>hand - but as long as you're being lucky...
Not too lucky, if that's the deck he likes to play with. Red and
green decks (affectionately known to myself as "Christmas decks")
are, of course, played by many people. Drawing a mountain is
nothing. A Fireball is common, and it's quite possible for
Christmas deckers to put in lots of Fireballs. Naturally, the
use of Channel to such a deck follows, since green magic tends to
earn you tons of life. Finally, Black Lotuses (Lotii??) are useful
in any color; it makes sense to have one in a deck, perhaps two.
It's not likely to come up, but with 8 cards drawn initially out
of a deck of, say, 75, you can count on it coming into your hand
in 1 out of 9 games, 2 out of 9 if you have two of them....
...he might get these four cards in 1 out of every 20 games he
plays. If he plays first, he's got you cold. Instant kill, with
absolutely no way to avoid it.
>I've got a Mox pearl and a healing salve in my opening hand. Now
>you've got 1 life (you channeled away 19 of them) and I have
>three...and it's my turn. Anyone remember the casting cost on
>'Reverse Damage'? I don't have my decks here.
(Reverse Damage costs 2 white and 1 colorless.)
>OR
>
>I've got a Mox sapphire and an elemental blast in my hand. Now you've
>got one life and I've got all of mine...and it's my turn.
It doesn't matter if you have a Mox or land; you can't
get it out until your turn. According to the rule book,
bringing an artifact into play is, by definition, "casting an
artifact spell" and cannot be done during his turn. You can
only play instants and interrupts then, and none of them can be
cast for a cost of 0, much less avoid a Fireball as well.
Certainly, he'll have to be wary of this trick after you've had
a turn, unless you had to discard. But if his deck is built
for it, he could get this magic combination and play it, perhaps
1 out of every 50 games. That's pretty darn good.
Paul Brinkley
brin...@cs.utexas.edu
Paul Brinkley
Timothy M. Schreyer <sch...@vfl.paramax.com> wrote:
> If I read this right, then you've been playing that flying creatures cannot
> block non-flyers. This Is Wrong! Flyers can block non-flyers, but not
> the other way around! Wow, I'd like to see games where only non-flyers
> can block non-flyers.
Perhaps so, but do you know how annoying it is to have a Cockatrice
with Regeneration and Lure? All dressed up and no one to block
him...
I suppose it would unbalance the game, but you'd think flying
creatures would be able to _land_ if they wanted to...
Most Stupid Situation I've Seen Involving Flying:
One of my favorite things to do is throw my Ross Perot (Uthden
Troll) up into the air with my Stone Giant. (Visualizing this
is one of the funniest things to be seen in Magic: The Gathering.
Sort of a Flying Walendas thing going on. Either incoming fliers
have really lousy maneuverability, or Stone Giants have _terrific_
aim. And the creature can block non-fliers as well! What's he
do, FALL on 'em on the way down??)
Anyway, I'm playing "pink" (red/white) against a green opponent,
and he just got his beloved Thicket Basilisk with Regeneration
and Lure into play. Naturally, he attacks. In a grand effort
to save as many critters as I could, I poked him for 2 with my
Orcish Artillery, tapped both my Samite Healers to avoid 2
damage, and tapped my Stone Giants to throw Ross Perot (who'd
live anyway).
That's the only time I had Ross die twice in a turn, with not a
single point of damage being dealt to him.
"Ah'm flyin', see? Tweet tweet!"
"Ah'm boshin' on the Basilisk, see? Oi, ah'm turnin' t'stone!
Well dat's jes sad!"
"Ah'm alive!! Uh oh, big suckin' sound comin' from below...
ah'm fallin', see? OOF!"
"Ah'm up again! Heh heh heh heh heh heh!! Ah am tenacious
witta cap'tal T!"
Paul Brinkley
brin...@cs.utexas.edu
(You know you've been playing too long when you start imagining
your cards can talk...)
Bill Seurer
The moxes can be TAPPED as interrupts but they can't be PLAYED as
interrupts. They are just normal artifacts that happen to have 0
casting cost.
Sorry, but yer dead!
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov
> Well...you'd have to be pretty lucky to draw all that in your opening
> hand - but as long as you're being lucky...
>
> I've got a Mox pearl and a healing salve in my opening hand. Now
> you've got 1 life (you channeled away 19 of them) and I have
> three...and it's my turn. Anyone remember the casting cost on
> 'Reverse Damage'? I don't have my decks here.
>
> OR
>
> I've got a Mox sapphire and an elemental blast in my hand. Now you've
> got one life and I've got all of mine...and it's my turn.
I seem to remember that only Instants and Interupts can be played
during your opponent's turn, so I don't think you could get any Mana
into play to be able to counter the Fireball. I don't think you
can play Moxes or Black Lotus out of turn.
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| BILL | |
| N | "Sometimes I like to go to the playground and watch |
| B G | the children yelling and jumping around. |
| bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov | They don't know I'm using blanks." |
| n A | |
| g M | -- Emo Phillips |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Scott Emery
In article <931225.03...@delphi.com>, Carl \da Fuzz and Karen
\Silver Cravens <DAF...@delphi.com> writes:
:Generally, you should never worry about intent, but play the card exactly as
:it is written... but some cards don't work at all as written.
Are you a lawyer?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Emery | "I *usually* worry about playability, not legaleese!"
Scott Emery
In article <0h7QlQW00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Christopher Esko
<black...@CMU.EDU> writes:
:Sacrifice is pretty bad, but now that Arabian Nights has hit the scene
:it works very well in my Rukh Egg Deck.
Maybe. Just today I used the AN version of sacrifice, the
"diamond valley" (I think that's it's name). It worked GREAT
at letting me stay in the game *much* longer than I should have.
What I did is put out a Castle, giving all of the critters on my
side (mostly 1/1 createures) +0/+2. Then when I sacrifices one
of them I got 3 (or more) hit points for each one. It would have
been even better if I had been able to get my second castle into
play. Then I would have been 5 points for a critter that cost one
to cast!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Emery | "I can't stand people who have no impatience!"
Andrew Brecher
Hmm, is placing an artifact with 0 cost an Instant/Interrupt? I wouldn't think
so, but if you can point out something that I'm missing, please do so.
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>I don't get it. Why not play with dual lands, namely white, and bring
>a CoP: Black or CoP: Green into play? I agree, Nightmares and Shivan
>Dragons are extremely useful, but not when your opponent has a
>regenerating flyer and can block every single point of damage.
creature. If you draw your Lord of the Pit in your first hand and your
CoP: Black's are twenty cards down... that's twenty turns of holding a
USELESS card in your hand until you get a CoP.
Two, whatcha gonna do when you get the LotP in play and your opponent
Disenchant's your CoP? You now have a rampaging LotP in your face,
unless you want to throw creatures away, or happen to have something to
take your own black creature out of play.
Thre, whatcha gonna do when your opponent plays one of those cards that
restricts the untapping of land... and you don't have enough mana to
pay the FoN and you have to burn your one land per turn just paying the
CoP?
Sure, the LotP and FoN are fun cards (ever see a Force with 3 Giant Growths
and a Berserk? Can you say "34/34 trampling creature"?) but they are often
of limited use. They can easily kill you as fast as they can kill your
opponent.
da Fuzz
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>Are you a lawyer?
Heh... no. I'm a math/logic freak. The rules of Magic are a pure game of
logic... that being _besides_ the normal game you play with the cards.
But, that's why I'm one of the new playtesters... I'm good at finding logic
holes. (And being an English minor, I can then try to fit the necesssary
wording into under 500 characters. Not my real job, but the development guys
always appreciate good advice... I just hope they don't take my advice when
it's not good.)
da Fuzz
Shaper
Scott Emery
In article <2fnd35$b...@ozona.cs.utexas.edu>, brin...@cs.utexas.edu
(Paul Brinkley) writes:
:> If I read this right, then you've been playing that flying
:creatures cannot
:> block non-flyers. This Is Wrong! Flyers can block non-flyers, but
:not
:> the other way around! Wow, I'd like to see games where only
:non-flyers
:> can block non-flyers.
:
:Perhaps so, but do you know how annoying it is to have a Cockatrice
:with Regeneration and Lure? All dressed up and no one to block
:him...
:
:I suppose it would unbalance the game, but you'd think flying
:creatures would be able to _land_ if they wanted to...
sorry, but you *seem* to still be reading this wrong.
Flying creatures CAN block ground creatures.
no problemo!
Scott Emery
In article <931227.71...@delphi.com>, Carl \da Fuzz and Karen
\Silver Cravens <DAF...@delphi.com> writes:
:
COOL! They need all the "logic hole finders" they can get, cause
the game *does* tend to lend itsself to logic holes.
BTW, Andrew Brecher came up with a really good argument
against the Time Vault/Instill Energy/Animate Artifact combo.
It's simple: the time vault has the word "Must" on it. I.e.,
"you >must< skip a turn to untap it. "
Wish the Basalt Monolith had a "must" on it too.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Emery | "I can't stand people who have no impatience!"
David Lavictoire
I'm a brand new MtG player, and have been reading this thread
with much interest (and not a little confusion! :) ). I do,
however, have a contribution to the 'Most Useless Card' File:
The Lich.
Now, this card *might* keep you in the game for a few more turns,
but it is a) hard to cast, and b) tough to play. You need a game
With lots of cards in play, AND have the thing in your hand
(which takes up space in the meantime). This card is neat with
the 'Healing Salve' card, or other life-giving cards, but it just
seems so limited in use that it hardly seems worth having in my
deck.
Now, I know, somebody is gonna post a message saying 'The Lich,
useless? Faugh! Just stack yer deck with Black, throw in a
Sacrifice card or two for the endgame, and lots of lifegiving
spells etc.' but my point still stands: if you're gonna stack,
you can stack with much more effective cards...
I'm sure y'all will let me know if I'm wrong. :)
-Dave
(BTW, I got this card in my very first Booster deck, and I'm
STILL short of Black mana, which might explain my bias.)
--
dulce et decorum est
pro patria mori
Benedikt Heinen
> to have an enchantment out, and it doesn't get rid of it, it just makes
> him tap mana. Feedback or Psychic Venom are much nastier.
Psychic Venom becomes totally useless when your opponent gets more and more
land that he can tap instead of the Psychiv Venom'd land.
On the other hand if you play a Power Leak on one (or more of his enchantments)
he loses mana every turn or gets damage...
Particularly I like playing two or more Power Leaks on my opponent and then
play an Armageddown right afterwards... It's always interesting to see where he
wants to get the Mana for the Power Leaks from ;)
bye,
Benedikt
signoff
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Benedikt Eric Heinen Matthiashofstr. 3, D52064 Aachen, Germany
Benedik...@p1.firemark.fido.de
FidoNet: 2:320/110.1 | 2:242/44.1
Bill Seurer
|> > My personal vote on most useless card is Power Leak. Your opponent has
|> > to have an enchantment out, and it doesn't get rid of it, it just makes
|> > him tap mana. Feedback or Psychic Venom are much nastier.
|> IMHO Psychic Venom is less useful than Power Leak...
|>
|> Psychic Venom becomes totally useless when your opponent gets more and more
|> land that he can tap instead of the Psychiv Venom'd land.
|>
|> On the other hand if you play a Power Leak on one (or more of his enchantments)
|> he loses mana every turn or gets damage...
|>
|> Particularly I like playing two or more Power Leaks on my opponent and then
|> play an Armageddown right afterwards... It's always interesting to see where he
|> wants to get the Mana for the Power Leaks from ;)
Psychic Venom is one of those cards that is great early on in a game but
useless later. It is especially effective when someone is playing mutiple
colors and only has a single land of one color out.
Of course right affer an Armageddon it is quite useful too.
Paul Brinkley
Scott Emery <sem...@tau.sim.es.com> wrote:
]--
]In article <2fnd35$b...@ozona.cs.utexas.edu>, brin...@cs.utexas.edu
](Paul Brinkley) writes:
]
]:> If I read this right, then you've been playing that flying
]:creatures cannot
]:> block non-flyers. This Is Wrong! Flyers can block non-flyers, but
]:not
]:> the other way around! Wow, I'd like to see games where only
]:non-flyers
]:> can block non-flyers.
]:
]:Perhaps so, but do you know how annoying it is to have a Cockatrice
]:with Regeneration and Lure? All dressed up and no one to block
]:him...
]:
]:I suppose it would unbalance the game, but you'd think flying
]:creatures would be able to _land_ if they wanted to...
]
]sorry, but you *seem* to still be reading this wrong.
]
]Flying creatures CAN block ground creatures.
Ahem. When I have a Cockatrice with _Lure_ on it, I want to _attack_
with it more than I want to defend.
And that's my point. I'd like it to stay on the ground and attack.
Which, if it were an actual creature, you would think it ought to
be able to do.
Paul Brinkley
brin...@cs.utexas.edu
Jennifer Schlickbernd
Okay, I'll take back what I said about Consecrate Land, particularly as it
was pointed out to me that with the AK lands, it'll be quite helpful.
However, I have a _new_ card to nominate, one I'm suprised no one else
has mentioned.
The Mana Vault
Has got to be the most useless card out there, since it's a worse version
of a Basalt Monolith. I've never seen one in play. I know people who have
them, including myself, but still....
BTW, this is not meant to be criticism, because as we've all seen, discussing
this helps everyone see what value there really are in cards that appear
to be "useless".
--
*****************************************
Jennifer Schlickbernd (Lorini) Communication paths:
lor...@netcom.com jenn...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (least preferred)
72466...@compuserve.com Day phone 8-5 PST (818) 354-2241
Bill Seurer
on the first turn, use it on the second, and summon something that needs 5
mana. True, there are other cards that will do this as well. But I don't
have them.
Getting a 5 str critter into play on the second turn and attacking with it
if it is an artifact more than makes up for the 1 damage/turn you take
until you can untap the vault. I have won several games because my foe
never managed to get something to stop me in time.
Shaper
re: mana vault as the msot useless card.
Basalt Monolith: Casting Cost 3, supplies three mana, costs three mana to
untap normally.
Mana Vault: Casting Cost 1, supplies three mana, costs four mana to untap
normally. If it is not untapped, controller takes 1 damage.
Mana Vault costs less inititally, but in the long run costs more. If
you're palying a blue deck with twiddles, or a blue/green with animate
artifact and instill energy, these both become very powerful. Mana vault
gives you a quick jolt of mana when you need it, and can be created
earlier than the Monolith, thus that jolt can come earlier in the game.
Get out that Elemental or Dragon a few turns earlier. You're gonna pay
for it, but it balances out. You may take a point of two of damage as you
struggle to get mana enough to untap it, but what's that Big Nasty you
just summoned gonna do to the other guy?
The down side is, MV is a Class One target for the Icy Manipulator. If I
have the opportunity to tie up FOUR mana for just one of my own, I'm gonna
need a REALLY neat reason not to (Four psychic venoms on one land? Hmmm.)
I'll say this right now... I don't use either of these cards, so they're
both pretty useless to me. I have to agree, BM is better than MV, but I
can imagine a situation or two when MV would be extremely helpful.
Most Useless Card Nomination: Jandor's Ring (from AN.) Castng Cost 6 mana,
spend two mana to discard the cad you just drew from your library and
draw a new one. Why it's the most useless: You're spending mana to
discard cards. A well-designed deck should not have any useless cards to
discard; each card you draw should be useful. There are certainly times
when you need to move through your library a bit faster to find a specific
card, but there are artifacts better-designed for that, and spells. The
Tome costs more per card, but you hacve the choice of which one to
discard, asuming you need to discard at all (i.e. if after using the tome
you have eight cards). If you don't need to discard, then it's that much
better. Brain geyser also give you the choice of which cards to hold
onto, as does Ancestral Recall, and they both cost far less per card.
Wheel of Fortune lets you draw seven new cards far more cheaply. I won't
even discuss Aladdin's Lamp. The only bonus of JR is that it can be used
multiple times, like the Tome, but that's only useful in a long, drawn-out,
stalemated game. IN that sort of game I'd rather be using all those useful
cards in my deck, not discarding them.
Let's start a new thread here: Creative uses of cards. I don't
mean things like "launch with ruber bands to create fun, legal high school
missile weapon." I mean things like "What devious things can you do with
<insert MtG card here>?" I'll start with my next post.
MB
Roberto Ullfig
This is really the -only- good use of a Mana Vault. You can get the same effect
with 2 Sol Rings though you of course need both cards to start, but you won't
take any damage from the rings. For fast mana I like Fastbond.
Roberto
The Toxic Wombat
Hooray! I finally found a purpose for the sacrifice (that for some reason
I had in my deck on the grounds that I might one day actualy have a reason
to use it)
The scenario: my black/green vs a friend's blue/white
I have my mighty 8/8 tramplebeastie Force of Nature (the "oh yeah now wattcha
gonna do card")
To which my mightily ingenious opponent chucked out an island sanctuary, a force
field, and a vetran bodyguard (not all in the same turn, but does it really
cosmically speaking matter?)
So what I now have is a situation where I need at least 5 seperate flying
creatures just to kill the bodyguard... ok, rite... and that mighty force
is a wooonderful blocker. (yeee-haw) sucking up it's 4 green upkeep per
turn, effectively reducing the immediate chances of the Geas leige in my
hand from coming out to...zero.
Then it dawns on me. I have a sacrifice... that thing I never, ever, ever
thought of a reason to own... and (here's the really good part) a drain
life...and a dark ritual...and bucketloads of black mana on the table.
"Excuse me, just exactly how much life do you have left? Oh? Really? How many
untapped plains do you have? One. Oh! Hmmm... well in that case I drain you
for...ummm A BILLION!"
Perhaps, I exaggerate a bit, but it made my whole day.
Rob Mayer
maye...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Dave Howell
smoke...
>you can get most of them to admit that a tuned deck built from a
selection of
>several hundred cards will easily beat the average deck built from
a
>selection of only 150 cards. (150 being the average number of cards
they
>expect the average player to own.)
That's not the point. The point is that you can TRADE into a killer
deck. You don't have to blow big bucks on it. I started with not much
more than a box of boosters (OK, that's a lot of cards) and I put all
the rares, and one of everything else I had at the time, into my
collection binder. That didn't leave me with much, but I still put
together a deck I regularly use to slam people into the ground. I
traded for 95% of the cards in it, and there's not a rare card in the
deck.
Yes, it's a lot more work. But you don't HAVE to spend money to have
a very competitive deck.
Dave Howell, aka Snark sn...@wizards.com
Cyberspace Liaison, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Keeper of the Magic FAQ
David H. Thornley
>OK, here's a perverse little survey: What cards would you just as soon throw
>away (I know, nobody *actually* throws away cards) as soon as you get it? What
>card above all others makes you groan with frustration when you see it in your
>new pack?
>
>In short, what is the most useless card out there?
>
I bought a few Arabian Nights packs yesterday, and found a nominee.
It's a Mountain.
As far as I can tell, there are only two differences between it and any
other Mountain: it cost a bit more, and it will go away if somebody plays
City in a Bottle.
If I were short of Mountains, I suppose it might be useful, but I'm not
and see no reason ever to put this card in a game deck.
DHT
Steven (Weebles) Santiago
have any islands in play, but it's the casting cost of 5+U. Most of my
games don't last long enough to get one into play...relative of course
to the fact that when you play BLUE or tint of BLUE, you need to save your
islands in play for those neat-o counterspells and sinks...
Steve
Charles J Poirier
>
>Most Useless Card Nomination: Jandor's Ring (from AN.) Castng Cost 6 mana,
>spend two mana to discard the cad you just drew from your library and
>draw a new one. Why it's the most useless: You're spending mana to
But it's not useless when you *already* had to discard the card you
just drew! For example, tap Sindbad, draw a spell. Discard it, but
pay Jandor's Ring for a new draw. My humble opinion is that the 2nd
draw is not even subject to Sindbad's forced discard rule.
>Let's start a new thread here: Creative [devious] uses of cards.
>MB
Was that one?
Just checking,
Charles Poirier
Scott Emery
In article <2fs8d1$i...@langtry.cs.utexas.edu>, brin...@cs.utexas.edu
(Paul Brinkley) writes:
:]Flying creatures CAN block ground creatures.
:
:Ahem. When I have a Cockatrice with _Lure_ on it, I want to _attack_
:with it more than I want to defend.
:
:And that's my point. I'd like it to stay on the ground and attack.
:Which, if it were an actual creature, you would think it ought to
:be able to do.
Arrgchglup. Now I see what you're getting at. yeah.
But aside from earthbind, you can't!
heh. makes for an interesting game, though, doesn't it?
Better to lure your ballisk than your cocatrice. (I don't
have either, so I really don't have to deal with it much.)
Maelstrom
Has anyone mentioned the Brass Man, or whatever? Sorry, I came in late.
aws
--
SigQuote: Gimme back my face. You're gettin' it ugly. -- NegaDuck to DarkWing
David Van Cleef
M> Has anyone mentioned the Brass Man, or whatever? Sorry, I came in late.
The Brass Man is actually quite useful in an all-artifact deck. All
the other Artifact Creatures cost at least 4 to bring out. Brass Men
allow you to block those annoying low-summoning-cost critters while
preparing to bring out your invisible Juggernauts...
--
David A. Van Cleef AT&T Bell Laboratories
internet: d...@eagle.hr.att.com 200 Laurel Ave, Middletown, NJ
+1 908 957 3816
Ruman Shane James
do is look at the top three cards of yours or the opponents deck and then
reshuffle if you want to. When playing against people who know how to make
decks shuffling is going to do almost nothing to them. To top it all off
this card is a rare, you think they could have come up with something more
powerful.
Shane
tom allison
>--
>In article <2fs8d1$i...@langtry.cs.utexas.edu>, brin...@cs.utexas.edu
>(Paul Brinkley) writes:
>
>:]Flying creatures CAN block ground creatures.
>:
>:Ahem. When I have a Cockatrice with _Lure_ on it, I want to _attack_
>:with it more than I want to defend.
>
>But aside from earthbind, you can't!
>
>heh. makes for an interesting game, though, doesn't it?
>
>Better to lure your ballisk than your cocatrice. (I don't
>have either, so I really don't have to deal with it much.)
>
can block everything that way...
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
tom allison
Natural Selection is great against Darkpact, it lets you choose the ante
from the top three cards, or it gives you a limited ability to stack your
deck for the next three rounds, or reshuffle if nothing useful is going to
come up...
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
David R. Paoletti {superuser regular}
: >I agree with you Fuzz. I think the Lord of the Pit and Force of Nature are
: >overrated. (I can't believe the price some people are willing to pay for
One good trick for the LotP (besides CoP:B) is to sacrifice
one of your cheap creatures to him and then have him go
berserk! I think a 14/7 flying trample is acceptable for
the loss of a 1/1 monster. Or better yet, let him eat
an Egg and release a Rukh!
Dave :)
David R. Paoletti {superuser regular}
: Perhaps so, but do you know how annoying it is to have a Cockatrice
: with Regeneration and Lure? All dressed up and no one to block
: him...
How about a Serra Angel with Regeneration and a Lance?!
That is not only annoying, it is sick and wrong, and
I love it!
Dave :)
Mr M J Cleaton
>
>>The rule book says that "If a card contradicts the rules,
>>the card takes precedence". (p33, the *first* entry in
>>"About the Rules")
>
>Interpreting the rules is a game of logic all its own.
>I thik the whole thing over False Orders is silly. I read the mailing list
>and have never seen anyone OFFICIAL give the word one way or the other.
>Same with Jump... no official word. (Jump _is_ questionable as to their
>intent.)
>
>Generally, you should never worry about intent, but play the card exactly as
>it is written... but some cards don't work at all as written.
Shrug. The rules do say "These rules are a framework from which to start." If
something is even a little bit unclear, make a house rule clarification, and
mentally add it to the list of house rules (if any) you already have to
mention to someone before you play. It doesn't really matter which way the
designers intended 'jump' to work, or what nice arguments the rules lawyors
come up with, _I_ play that it works and make sure my opponents know that and
agree to it before we play.
~Cookie
Dan Reynolds
I used to think so too until I made up my "hunting deck": Darkpact +
Natural Selection + Demonic Tutor + Regrowth [a deck of black and green].
If you play for ante, this is a low risk deck since it only has 2 rare and
2 Uncommon cards in it. If you can arrange to have the Natural Selection
and Darkpact in hand (which the Demonic Tutor and Regrowth facilitate),
use the Natural Selection to examine the top 3 cards of your library, pick
the most useless one, and now play your Darkpact. Since everything else in
the deck is common stuff, you'll probably lose 60-70% of the games but
since your object is to snarf up your opponent's rare antes, you don't
really care how many Swamp cards he/she wins :).
Cheers,
--
Dan Reynolds Internet: d...@chpc.utexas.edu
Systems Group Phonenet: (512) 471-2472
Center for High Performance Computing Snailnet: 10100 Burnet Road
The University of Texas System Austin, Texas 78758
spi...@pokvmcr3.vnet.ibm.com
dealing with the ANTE.
I never liked the idea when I originally learned the game and have
never played with this in effect (other than to eliminate a card from
play).
Fortunately I never received any of these types of cards until I opened
my Arabian Nights and obtained 7 jeweled birds.
Why waste any card, we just turned this baby into an artifact creature
that could attack and defend 1/1. Beats tossing it.
Trebor