JESTER'S CAP'S TURN TO BE RESTRICTED
Menin Alex 366428/IF
The reason? It's a bit too powerful, it's an artifact that
costs only 4, you sacrifice it (so it goes to the graveyard)
and removes from the game, and I underline that it removes
from the game, 3 cards at your's choice.
It then can be reused with: regenerate artifact, draphna's
restoration, feldon's cane, recall, regrowth and specially
with argivian archeologist.
Millstone decks seems ridicoulus if compared with a well done
Jester's Cap deck.
OK, everyone who is reading now is surely convinced that I
am right, even people that has built a deck onto a Jester's
Cap. So why is Jester's Cap still unrestricted?
I'm even convinced that restricting it is still too little,
it should be changed so it doesn't remove cards from game,
but simply make you discard them, so that people can still
save themselves by using a feldon's cane or better it should
remove itself from the game as well as the cards it eliminates.
I know that there are a lot of people that are reading and
thinking that I'm totally wrong: I don't know brown ophre (I
suppose I've mispelled it, but this is not the problem).
Sorry, but I know brown ophre, and I also know that it's a
little 1/1 creature and can be destroyed in many, many, many
ways. Rust? It stops the Cap just one time, and then?
SO LET'S RESTRICT JESTER'S CAP
---
Alex
Jason Seemann
Jason...PROUD owner of 2 caps..in the same deck:P
Gregory Olivera
: Jason Seemann (see...@proteon.inet-serv.com) wrote:
: : Or we could just cry about it
: : Jason...PROUD owner of 2 caps..in the same deck:P
: : >SO LET'S RESTRICT JESTER'S CAP
: It already is. That's why I have an Argivian Archiologist in my deck.
When did this happen? Last I heard the only IA card that was restricted
was the Zuran Orb. (have they restricted anything since Black Vise? I
don't think so...) where did you hear this?
--Skywize
: --
: ================================================================
: Lance "Singer" Druger | Ban...@slip.net
: ================================================================
: Lizzie Borden took an axe, and plunged it deep into the VAX.
: When she saw what she had done, she turned and hacked apart the Sun.
: -Anonymous
Lance Druger
: Or we could just cry about it
: Jason...PROUD owner of 2 caps..in the same deck:P
: >SO LET'S RESTRICT JESTER'S CAP
It already is. That's why I have an Argivian Archiologist in my deck.
Paul van Gool
>Jason Seemann (see...@proteon.inet-serv.com) wrote:
>: Or we could just cry about it
>: Jason...PROUD owner of 2 caps..in the same deck:P
>: >SO LET'S RESTRICT JESTER'S CAP
>It already is. That's why I have an Argivian Archiologist in my deck.
First. It is NOT restricted.
Second. It never should be restricted.
This card is not that great as a lot of you seem to think.
The only great thing I like about the Cap is the fact that so many
people are willing to give so (=to) much for it.
sj...@lehigh.edu
366428/IF) writes:
>Just a few words: Jester's Cap should be restricted to one.
>The reason? It's a bit too powerful, it's an artifact that
>costs only 4, you sacrifice it (so it goes to the graveyard)
>and removes from the game, and I underline that it removes
>from the game, 3 cards at your's choice.
I think we all know that... (it's only one of the most popular cards in the
game)
>It then can be reused with: regenerate artifact, draphna's
>restoration, feldon's cane, recall, regrowth and specially
>with argivian archeologist.
So what? They don't do you any good until a ways into the game anyway and all
of those can be stopped with either counterspells or anti creatue spells. I'm
hardly worried.
>Millstone decks seems ridicoulus if compared with a well done
>Jester's Cap deck.
>OK, everyone who is reading now is surely convinced that I
>am right, even people that has built a deck onto a Jester's
>Cap. So why is Jester's Cap still unrestricted?
Umm, no I think you are dead wrong. The Cap costs 6 to use (4 to cast and 2
to activate). Unless you want to risk leaving it on the table for a turn
which isn't usually smart. that means it is SLOW. If I cannot set up an
adequate defense in 5-6 turns, then I deserve to lose. Chances are you cannot
cap me more than two or three times with a really good draw before I kill you.
Furthermore, since you are depending on one card so heavily, what is to
prevent me from Capping you? Sorta blows your one card strategy all to hell
doesn't it?
[snip]
>Sorry, but I know brown ophre, and I also know that it's a
>little 1/1 creature and can be destroyed in many, many, many
>ways. Rust? It stops the Cap just one time, and then?
Forgot a few things did we? You neglected counterspells completely, and it
isn't as if people play don't use them. Plus there is nothing stoping me
from capping you. One cap and a cap deck is screwed. Sorry but the cap is a
powerful
but reasonably balanced card. It simply costs to much and isn't debilitating
enough to be restricted. Besides, when was the last time you saw a Cap deck
win a tournament? They just don't dominate which is THE major criteria for
restriction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it does not | Stacy John Behrens
mindfully keep guard, | *===)-------------
In the small mountain fields | sj...@lehigh.edu
the scarecrow | http://www.lehigh.edu/~sjb3/sjb3.html
does not stand in vain. (Bukkoku) | ft...@cleveland.freenet.edu
Rob Wiltbank
: First. It is NOT restricted.
: Second. It never should be restricted.
: This card is not that great as a lot of you seem to think.
: The only great thing I like about the Cap is the fact that so many
: people are willing to give so (=to) much for it.
Get 4 Jesters caps, 4 reconstructions, and 4 clone artifacts and other
various things that allows you to get cards from your graveyard.
I'm not for or against this argument, but someone did quite literally
remove all of my cards till I had none left to play using Jesters Cap..
Rob
Paul Barclay
>
> : First. It is NOT restricted.
> : Second. It never should be restricted.
> : This card is not that great as a lot of you seem to think.
> : The only great thing I like about the Cap is the fact that so many
> : people are willing to give so (=to) much for it.
>
> Get 4 Jesters caps, 4 reconstructions, and 4 clone artifacts and other
> various things that allows you to get cards from your graveyard.
Add 4 Transmute Artifact as well.
> I'm not for or against this argument, but someone did quite literally
> remove all of my cards till I had none left to play using Jesters Cap..
Jester's Cap and Mask are candidates for restriction for only one
reason: They let a player look through your entire library. This is a
very powerful ability. At the moment, however, the case for restriction
is not strong enough.
Paul Barclay.
the Muse
I think Adam Maysonet would argue that Cap decks don't win tournaments. His
Concede-or-Bleed deck seems to win just fine in the SE... But I still don't
think that the Cap is any more powerful than Stasis or Stormbind...
Kent
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Lin
you want to look like a fool (AGAIN).
Robert S. Hahn
: >but reasonably balanced card. It simply costs to much and isn't debilitating
: >enough to be restricted. Besides, when was the last time you saw a Cap deck
: >win a tournament? They just don't dominate which is THE major criteria for
: >restriction.
: I think Adam Maysonet would argue that Cap decks don't win tournaments. His
: Concede-or-Bleed deck seems to win just fine in the SE... But I still don't
: think that the Cap is any more powerful than Stasis or Stormbind...
I entered my first Type II tournament (NY Magic, which has a VERY strong
Type II field) yesterday using a combination Weissman/Maysonet deck -- for
those who follow Schools of Magic, I know that you're scratching your head
going, "Didn't he say those schools are impossible in Type II?"... well,
wait for SoM 5.0 for some revelations. My current feeling is that the Cap
may be a very strong candidate for restriction, at least in Type II, along
with Zur's Weirding.
The reason is that in Type II at least, running multiple colors --
particularly non-allied colors -- is extremely difficult. If you're
playing a R/G Ernham/Burn'em deck, you have no way of dealing with a Cap.
I beat the pants off of one of these decks with my U/W Weissman/Maysonet
because of two things -- a Disrupting Sceptre, which ensures the lock, and
the Jester's Cap, which removed all of the anti-artifact stuff in the
opponent's deck.
In Type I, it is entirely possible to play R/G/W or R/G/U to stop the Cap
and the Sceptre/Tome etc. In Type II, it becomes far trickier.
Most people know that I used to think that Type II is a speed-game and Type
I is a control-game. With the restriction of the Vise, I now think that
Type II is a control-game as well. The number of U/W or U/W/something else
decks which made it to the upper rounds of NY Magic were simply astonishing
to me and all of them were basically versions of the Weissman deck. The
best of those packed two Jester's Cap each. They guy who got off the first
Cap won 90% of those matches -- reminiscent of Mind Twist.
Of course, the high casting cost and the usage cost makes the Cap rather
reasonably balanced. Nonetheless, in the slower Type II environment, they
border on the degenerate -- one more mana downward (3 to cast, for example)
and I think the majority of players would want to see the Cap restricted.
Anyway, I have a further reports from the NY Magic tournament in another
thread.
Just wanted to add my 2 pfennigs.
-The Sophist
--
Robert S. Hahn rsh...@is.nyu.edu
NYU Law School, '97 http://pages.nyu.edu/~rsh9395/index.html
Politics, Pool, Magic, Shadowfist, Film, Literature, Poetry....
Who has time for work?
Ethereal
>Jester's Cap is NOT restricted. So quit spreading false information unless
>you want to look like a fool (AGAIN).
>
What about all those ppl pretending Alliances is out? Are they fools
too? Just curious.
Ethereal
sj...@lehigh.edu
s:
>Also sprach the Muse (tm...@mail.icon.net):
>
>: >but reasonably balanced card. It simply costs to much and isn't debilitatin
g
>: >enough to be restricted. Besides, when was the last time you saw a Cap deck
>: >win a tournament? They just don't dominate which is THE major criteria for
>: >restriction.
>
>: I think Adam Maysonet would argue that Cap decks don't win tournaments. His
>: Concede-or-Bleed deck seems to win just fine in the SE... But I still don't
>: think that the Cap is any more powerful than Stasis or Stormbind...
>
>I entered my first Type II tournament (NY Magic, which has a VERY strong
>Type II field) yesterday using a combination Weissman/Maysonet deck -- for
>those who follow Schools of Magic, I know that you're scratching your head
>going, "Didn't he say those schools are impossible in Type II?"... well,
>wait for SoM 5.0 for some revelations. My current feeling is that the Cap
>may be a very strong candidate for restriction, at least in Type II, along
>with Zur's Weirding.
Nah, I was at the same tournament. In fact if you are who I think you are,
you might have played one of my friends. Did you make the cut by beating a
R/W Weissman deck? (I screwed up and tried land destruction. Got
bounced by a guy who pulled a turn 3 shivan. Ouch.) Anyway it seemed that
B/W decks were the order of the day. Most of the winning decks seemed to be
those colors. The Caps didn't seem to be a huge factor other than letting the
person using it check out the other guy's deck. I don't think I saw a deck
with more than one all day. Seriously, like Zuran Orb it might be annoying
but no one really plays with more than 1 or 2 anyway. It just isn't really
all that abusable of a card. Against R/G decks it can be utterly useless.
(as I found out the hard way) Against Weissman decks it can be effective, BUT
that is one of the weaknesses of the deck. No deck is foolproof, plus with a
little countermagic (which is common in Weissman style decks) the threat can
be dealt with.
>
>The reason is that in Type II at least, running multiple colors --
>particularly non-allied colors -- is extremely difficult. If you're
>playing a R/G Ernham/Burn'em deck, you have no way of dealing with a Cap.
>I beat the pants off of one of these decks with my U/W Weissman/Maysonet
>because of two things -- a Disrupting Sceptre, which ensures the lock, and
>the Jester's Cap, which removed all of the anti-artifact stuff in the
>opponent's deck.
Now I'm almost sure you are who I think you are. You were fortunate and got a
guy locked down, which means your deck did its job. However, how many caps
did you use? I'd guess 1 and maybe recalled it? I'm sure you didn't use 4
since that is too slow and relatively narrow of a strategy. Does this mean it
needs restriction? I doubt it. Besides, maybe R/G needs a payback for all
those Channelball decks. :-) (I'M KIDDING)
>
>In Type I, it is entirely possible to play R/G/W or R/G/U to stop the Cap
>and the Sceptre/Tome etc. In Type II, it becomes far trickier.
>
>Most people know that I used to think that Type II is a speed-game and Type
>I is a control-game. With the restriction of the Vise, I now think that
>Type II is a control-game as well. The number of U/W or U/W/something else
>decks which made it to the upper rounds of NY Magic were simply astonishing
>to me and all of them were basically versions of the Weissman deck. The
>best of those packed two Jester's Cap each. They guy who got off the first
>Cap won 90% of those matches -- reminiscent of Mind Twist.
Actually one my aformentioned friend was playing one of those decks, and got
to the round of 8 in type 2 (one before the cut to play for the grand prize)
which means he was in the finals. He only had one cap and he lost because he
ran into a fellow (I'm guessing it was you) with a disrupting sceptre and
better counterspell abilities. He used the Cap and still lost. It does not
equate to an automatic win. (nor did mind twist for that matter)
>
>Of course, the high casting cost and the usage cost makes the Cap rather
>reasonably balanced. Nonetheless, in the slower Type II environment, they
>border on the degenerate -- one more mana downward (3 to cast, for example)
>and I think the majority of players would want to see the Cap restricted.
That is true. IF AND ONLY IF it was cheaper. However it is not, so the point
is moot. Personally I think it one of the best jobs of balancing casting cost
that WotC has done in a long time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin P. Gilbert
: thinking that I'm totally wrong: I don't know brown ophre (I
: suppose I've mispelled it, but this is not the problem).
: Sorry, but I know brown ophre, and I also know that it's a
: little 1/1 creature and can be destroyed in many, many, many
: ways. Rust? It stops the Cap just one time, and then?
If you think that the Brown Ouphe and Rust are the best ways to deal with
a Jester's Cap, then I can easily see why you believe it needs to be
restricted. However if you would try to think about the myriad of ways
to easily get rid of artifacts (especially slow ones: 4 mana for two
turn use, 6 mana for one turn use) then you might think differently:
Blue - counter it (counterspell, spell blast, power sink), steal it (steal
artifact, magus), starve the caster of mana (energy flux, mystic remora),
Unsummon it [followed by counter, discard, etc.](Time elemental,
boomerang, Hurkyl's recall) various more combos (animate and kill it,
animate and steal it),
Black - Destroy it (nev's disk [admittedly drastic]), animate it and kill
it (Xenic and Dark Banishing [drain life, etc.).
Green - Destroy it (Crumble, Scavenger Folk), Steal it (Scarwood
Bandits), Neutralize it (Titania's Song), again combos: Animate it and
kill it (Titania's song w/creature killer)
White - Destroy it (Disenchant, Divine Offering)
Red - Destroy it (Shatter, Shatterstorm, Artifact Blast)
Artifact - Steal it (Gauntlets of Chaos), Discard it before it
reaches play (Millstone), get targeted cards back (Ring of Maruf)
That's just off the top of my head and of course, other more esoteric
methods exist. But that is roughly 24 cards (not counting your favorites
of the Ouphe and Rust which would make 26), hardly a threat for something
that costs 4, with a 2 activation cost.
I'm not saying that it is not a _strong_ card, and in the right deck it
can really rock, but it is not a devastating nor unbalanced card (at the
least, I believe it makes a great sideboard card - against others
sideboards!)
Just some thoughts,
Kevin
RICHARD KENAN
: The reason? It's a bit too powerful, it's an artifact that
: costs only 4, you sacrifice it (so it goes to the graveyard)
: and removes from the game, and I underline that it removes
: from the game, 3 cards at your's choice.
So if I have 3 cards that I have to get at least one of in
order to win, it will kill me. Otherwise, it will, at the
very most, inconvenience me. It's lethal against Weissman
decks, and just barely reasonable against others, on its
own merit.
: It then can be reused with: regenerate artifact, draphna's
: restoration, feldon's cane, recall, regrowth and specially
: with argivian archeologist.
So? These make it better than it would otherwise be, but
not really worth restricting. The Archaeologist is just a
suicide waiting to happen, and the rest are one-shot deals,
which are nice but not awesome. Drafna's Restoration is
the only one up there that isn't restricted, and it costs
you a draw for each Cap you get. Besides, I'll just let
you cast any of these, and then counter your Cap, which
will cost you two cards for my one. Tormod's Crypt is also
a total hoser for any gravedigger deck, and with the eternal
Feldon's Cane combo out there, it is showing up constantly
these days.
: Millstone decks seems ridicoulus if compared with a well done
: Jester's Cap deck.
Not really. Millstones take a random two cards for two mana
and don't cost a card once they're cast. The Cap takes
three cards you select and costs a card each time you use
it. This isn't even as good a ratio as Hymn to Tourach vs.
Counterspell, and that debate is still running. Millstone
is a continual library reducer, the Cap is, essentially, a
one shot deal. Given card slot restraints, I'd far rather
have four Millstones in a waiting-game deck than four Caps.
You need too much support to run Caps in that capacity, and
most of it is useless except for supporting the Caps.
: OK, everyone who is reading now is surely convinced that I
: am right, even people that has built a deck onto a Jester's
: Cap. So why is Jester's Cap still unrestricted?
Actually, you haven't expressed anything meaningful that would
make me change my mind. I knew everything you wrote long ago,
and I didn't think Cap needed restriction then.
: I'm even convinced that restricting it is still too little,
: it should be changed so it doesn't remove cards from game,
: but simply make you discard them, so that people can still
: save themselves by using a feldon's cane or better it should
: remove itself from the game as well as the cards it eliminates.
: I know that there are a lot of people that are reading and
: thinking that I'm totally wrong: I don't know brown ophre (I
: suppose I've mispelled it, but this is not the problem).
: Sorry, but I know brown ophre, and I also know that it's a
: little 1/1 creature and can be destroyed in many, many, many
: ways. Rust? It stops the Cap just one time, and then?
Rust or the Ouphe will both kill a Cap. The Cap, after all,
sacrifices itself, which is a cost. Even if the effect of
using the Cap is countered, the sacrifice is still done. So
you're out a Cap. Oops. I guess you'll need one of those
gravedigger cards to get it back, unless I pop a Crypt on
you. Too bad.
: SO LET'S RESTRICT JESTER'S CAP
Better yet, let's not.
Just me.
--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
Brian Hauber
: Paul van Gool (pvg...@iaehv.nl) wrote:
:
: : First. It is NOT restricted.
: : Second. It never should be restricted.
: : The only great thing I like about the Cap is the fact that so many
: : people are willing to give so (=to) much for it.
:
: Get 4 Jesters caps, 4 reconstructions, and 4 clone artifacts and other
: various things that allows you to get cards from your graveyard.
Too bad both reconstruction & copy artifact are restricted and both are banned in type 2.
: I'm not for or against this argument, but someone did quite literally
: remove all of my cards till I had none left to play using Jesters Cap..
:
: Rob
:
Brian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hauber bha...@prismnet.com
College Station, TX http://prismnet.com/~bhauber
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is just a candle and your dreams must give it flame" - Neil Peart
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.Busby
> > : First. It is NOT restricted.
> > : Second. It never should be restricted.
>
> > : The only great thing I like about the Cap is the fact that so many
> > : people are willing to give so (=to) much for it.
Agreed.
> >
> > Get 4 Jesters caps, 4 reconstructions, and 4 clone artifacts and other
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Talking of restricted cards isn't Copy Artifact restricted anyhow?
> > various things that allows you to get cards from your graveyard.
>
> Add 4 Transmute Artifact as well.
>
> > I'm not for or against this argument, but someone did quite literally
> > remove all of my cards till I had none left to play using Jesters Cap..
But it doesn't strike me as a particularly fast way of playing the game. Try
using a quick R/G weenie horde against your opponent. No card in your deck is
individually that powerful. They'd have to reuse the Cap again and again to
get rid of all your creatures, Lightning etc. but how many times are they going
to be able to get away with that? Once, twice maybe before your horde/direct
damage has whittled them away to nothing.
>
> Jester's Cap and Mask are candidates for restriction for only one
> reason: They let a player look through your entire library. This is a
> very powerful ability. At the moment, however, the case for restriction
> is not strong enough.
If you get it out the Cap will screw up Weissman (Goodbye Serra x 2 and
Timetwister) but this really belongs in another debate.
I quite like the idea of looking through an opponent's library and seeing what
they have. It gives you a better chance when sideboarding. I'd like to see the
following card:
JESTER'S ROD 3 Mono Artifact
Tap: Sacrifice Rod to look through target opponents library. Draw a card
next upkeep.
--
__ ____ __ __
/_ \ /___ \ /_ | /_ | "For God so loved the world that he sent his
\ \ \/ _ \ \| ||/ / | only begotten Son, that whoever believes in
\ \/ / \ \ | |/ / / him shall not perish but have eternal life."
\ / / \ \| / /
\ / / \ / / Jesus Christ John 3:16
| | | | \ \ ________________________________________________
| | -----| \ \
Dennis F. Hefferman
|: Get 4 Jesters caps, 4 reconstructions, and 4 clone artifacts and other
|: various things that allows you to get cards from your graveyard.
|Too bad both reconstruction & copy artifact are restricted and both are banned in type 2.
Reconstruction has not been restricted for one day in its life.
It is out in Type II by virtue of not being in print, but that's it.
In fact, it is not in print because it was considered to be a _weak card_.
Unless maybe you think Raise Dead is restriction bait too....
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: Macavity heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I guess my work around here has all been done."
-- The Devil, in "The Garden of Allah", Don Henley
Robert S. Hahn
: Nah, I was at the same tournament. In fact if you are who I think you are,
: you might have played one of my friends. Did you make the cut by beating a
: R/W Weissman deck? (I screwed up and tried land destruction. Got
: bounced by a guy who pulled a turn 3 shivan. Ouch.) Anyway it seemed that
: B/W decks were the order of the day. Most of the winning decks seemed to be
: those colors. The Caps didn't seem to be a huge factor other than letting the
: person using it check out the other guy's deck. I don't think I saw a deck
: with more than one all day. Seriously, like Zuran Orb it might be annoying
: but no one really plays with more than 1 or 2 anyway. It just isn't really
: all that abusable of a card. Against R/G decks it can be utterly useless.
: (as I found out the hard way) Against Weissman decks it can be effective, BUT
: that is one of the weaknesses of the deck. No deck is foolproof, plus with a
: little countermagic (which is common in Weissman style decks) the threat can
: be dealt with.
I don't think I'm the guy you're thinking of. You're probably Josh
Randall's friend from Lehigh (he emailed me his account of it). That deck
was a U/W Blinking Spirits deck with 2 Caps. Those do not take maximum
advantage of the Caps. My current Type II deck is built to take maximum
advantage of them so that they are devastating early and useful later on.
People haven't yet figured out how to use the Caps properly, imho. I'm
only just learning how to use it, when to use it, and just how dangerous
it is. Everytime I use my second Cap on someone, they ask, "Damn, isn't
that thing restricted?"
Just a brief example -- people always comment on how devastating the Cap
would be against a Weissman deck. Has anyone thought how devastating it
would be IN a Weissman deck? "I have you under Sceptre lock, and I Cap
your remaining Disenchants." Or how about, "I Mana Drain your Tome. I
play a Cap, use it, remove your 2 remaining StP and the Balance. I play a
Serra." Or even, "I Cap your Twister, Feldon's Cane, and Recall. I play
Tormod's Crypt and use it. I twister."
Granted, all these take mana, but does anyone seriously doubt that a
Weissman-style deck will not be able to prolong a game to that point --
even in Type II?
Once people see the potential for abuse in this card in CERTAIN decks
(remember Balance?) I think a lot more people will be rethinking their
views on the Jester's Cap.
: >Most people know that I used to think that Type II is a speed-game and Type
: >I is a control-game. With the restriction of the Vise, I now think that
: >Type II is a control-game as well. The number of U/W or U/W/something else
: >decks which made it to the upper rounds of NY Magic were simply astonishing
: >to me and all of them were basically versions of the Weissman deck. The
: >best of those packed two Jester's Cap each. They guy who got off the first
: >Cap won 90% of those matches -- reminiscent of Mind Twist.
: Actually one my aformentioned friend was playing one of those decks, and got
: to the round of 8 in type 2 (one before the cut to play for the grand prize)
: which means he was in the finals. He only had one cap and he lost because he
: ran into a fellow (I'm guessing it was you) with a disrupting sceptre and
: better counterspell abilities. He used the Cap and still lost. It does not
: equate to an automatic win. (nor did mind twist for that matter)
As I said, using a Cap doesn't mean an automatic win -- and the Mind Twist
didn't mean an automatic win either. My point is simply that in the right
deck (U/W, in my opinion), the first person to Cap gains a huge advantage.
Josh wrote me a detailed play-by-play of the game in which he capped. I
think he made a poor decision personally. I don't know what he saw in the
U/W deck, but I would have certainly capped something other than 3
counterspells.
On the other hand, a R/W Blinking Spirit/blast deck is hardly the right
choice for multiple caps.
: That is true. IF AND ONLY IF it was cheaper. However it is not, so the point
: is moot. Personally I think it one of the best jobs of balancing casting cost
: that WotC has done in a long time.
As I wrote, I think the Cap "borders on the degenerate". Like Balance --
it's a well-balanced card in most decks since it just resets the game (lose
all your own creatures, have the same number of cards in hand, and equalize
the amount of land). But in a Balance-deck (see Adam Maysonet's MRB --
Maysonet Rack Balance -- deck for an excellent example), that card becomes
seriously abusive. I don't think the Cap is at that level _only because_
of the cost. But in a U/W control deck, the cost is really not the
problem, barring (as everyone should acknowledge about ANY deck) a poor
land-draw.
For example, here is my current Type II deck:
"War and Peace" -- A Type II Tournament Deck
--------------------------------------------
[A Weissman/Maysonet Clone for Type II play]
2 City of Brass
4 Adarkar Wastes
6 Islands
6 Plains
4 Strip Mines
4 Mishra's Factories
2 Felwars
24 mana -- 28 including Strip Mine
4 Counterspell
3 Powersink
4 Disenchant
4 StP
1 Balance
2 Serra Angels
1 Control Magic
3 Millstones
2 Good Books (Jayemdae)
2 Sceptres
3 Jester's Caps -- cap early and often is my motto. :)
1 Wrath of God
1 Feldon's Cane
1 Recall
1 Ivory Tower
61 cards -- I always like to play with 61 so I could possibly win via
outdrawing them.
Sideboard:
3 CoP: Red
2 Divine Offering
2 Serrated Arrows
2 Spirit Link
1 Control Magic
1 Serra Angel
1 Wrath of God
1 Land Tax
1 Zuran Orb
1 Power Sink
I have won just about every game (90% as I wrote -- the loss was to a white
weenie which already had a Lion and an Order on the table) in which I
Capped first. With three Caps, chances are that I will be the first to
Cap. Since I use Millstones as one path to victory, removing my opponent's
Cane and Recall have often won me MANY games. When the second Cap gets rid
of the remaining Disenchants, the better players saw the writing on the
wall and conceded.
If you don't believe me, build it and play it. I think you'll be
surprised at the result.
-The Sophist
PS -- by the way, I think Josh mentioned that his friend Stacey had come
all the way out to NYC for the tournament. I was the Asian guy hanging
with Andro and trading with Matt.
Robert S. Hahn
: But it doesn't strike me as a particularly fast way of playing the game. Try
: using a quick R/G weenie horde against your opponent. No card in your deck is
: individually that powerful. They'd have to reuse the Cap again and again to
: get rid of all your creatures, Lightning etc. but how many times are they going
: to be able to get away with that? Once, twice maybe before your horde/direct
: damage has whittled them away to nothing.
It isn't a fast strategy, but it is a devastating one. A R/G weenie horde
deck might win the first game, but if I get a chance to Cap you and look
through your deck, my sideboarding decision just got a lot easier. Then
they would die horribly to my multiple Wraths of God and Serrated Arrows
and 4 standard plowshares.
Really, if you doubt the power of the Cap, build the U/W Weissman-Maysonet
deck I posted and give it a whirl.
-The Sophist
sj...@lehigh.edu
s:
>Also sprach sj...@Lehigh.EDU:
[snip]
>Once people see the potential for abuse in this card in CERTAIN decks
>(remember Balance?) I think a lot more people will be rethinking their
>views on the Jester's Cap.
>
Here I agree with you. I think the card has the *potential* for abuse in the
right kind of deck. However, I'm not convinced that the deck type exists yet
for that to be the case. It's a marginal thing, but I'm comfortable with the
idea of more than one for the time being. It costs enough that there is a
reasonable chance to do something about it before it goes off, unlike Balance
which is just WAY too cheap for what it does.
[snip]
>PS -- by the way, I think Josh mentioned that his friend Stacey had come
>all the way out to NYC for the tournament. I was the Asian guy hanging
>with Andro and trading with Matt.
Yep, I was there. I got Josh's summary too. Now I think I have a picture of
who you are. I wasn't sure before. I'll probably go to another one in a
month or two, plus maybe the one in Jersey. Hope to meet you there, I'd like
to talk for a while sometime. I really should have done more trading while I
was there...
Dimension
bha...@prismnet.com (Brian Hauber) wrote:
>Rob Wiltbank (w4...@hopi.dtcc.edu) wrote:
>: Paul van Gool (pvg...@iaehv.nl) wrote:
>:
>: : Second. It never should be restricted.
>: : The only great thing I like about the Cap is the fact that so many
>: : people are willing to give so (=to) much for it.
>: various things that allows you to get cards from your graveyard.
>
>Too bad both reconstruction & copy artifact are restricted and both are banned
in type 2.
>
>: Rob
>:
>
>Brian
Reconstruction isn't and never was restricted.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Brian Hauber bha...@prismnet.com
>College Station, TX http://prismnet.com/~bhauber
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Life is just a candle and your dreams must give it flame" - Neil Peart
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|) |) [ -|-|- "No great genius has ever existed without some touch of
|) |\ [ | | madness." - Aristotle (De Tranquillitate Animi 17:10)
Brett Foster <foste...@osu.edu> http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bfoster
Alexander Shearer
> 61 cards -- I always like to play with 61 so I could possibly win via
> outdrawing them.
You realize that the Tome shoots this all to hell, right?
Actually, several of your cards make this pointless. After all, you
can cap 6+ times (...in fact, with a Disenchant you can cap their
entire deck away). Basically, this seems like unnecessary drag built
in just to go for a win during that game in which you...
1. Don't ever cap
2. Don't ever mill
3. Don't ever tome
4. Don't ever cane
5. Somehow manage to remain in the game despite all that
I don't know...seems sort of unlikely. :)
Alexander Shearer
ga...@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Cap, bolt, plow, disenchant, BALANCE.
Robert S. Hahn
: Here I agree with you. I think the card has the *potential* for abuse in the
: right kind of deck. However, I'm not convinced that the deck type exists yet
: for that to be the case. It's a marginal thing, but I'm comfortable with the
: idea of more than one for the time being. It costs enough that there is a
: reasonable chance to do something about it before it goes off, unlike Balance
: which is just WAY too cheap for what it does.
Play me next time you're at NY Magic and maybe i could get you to change
your mind. :) U/W control decks are the ones which benefit most from Caps
(remove 3 of 4 Disenchants -- now how are you going to get out from the
Sceptre lock?) and they're becoming awfully popular.
: Yep, I was there. I got Josh's summary too. Now I think I have a picture of
: who you are. I wasn't sure before. I'll probably go to another one in a
: month or two, plus maybe the one in Jersey. Hope to meet you there, I'd like
: to talk for a while sometime. I really should have done more trading while I
: was there...
When next you're in town, definitely look for me. Josh and Andro know who
I am now.
David J Low
>Everytime I use my second Cap on someone, they ask, "Damn, isn't
>that thing restricted?"
More fool them for letting you have the opportunity to Cap them twice
:-) "Cap me once, shame on you. Cap me twice, shame on me...."
>Granted, all these take mana, but does anyone seriously doubt that a
>Weissman-style deck will not be able to prolong a game to that point --
>even in Type II?
Nice lawyer-constructed statement, that :-) "Counsel is leading the
witness, Your Honour!"
No comment about Type I, but I do seriously doubt it in Type II. Not
fast enough. Casting cost too high. Too much time before set off after
casting. Too many resources required to protect it (if you don't hold a
counter for a Disenchant-like spell, you can't seriously expect it to
survive; if you do hold the counter, you're letting through
*everything* else they want to cast; if you hold on to more than one
counter, that's even more resources you have to build up before
casting!).
Regards,
David.
--
| David J. Low dl...@physics.adelaide.edu.au Oooo. |
| ( ) |
| WWW: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dlow ) / |
| "I'd rather be lost in the Darkness than blinded by the Light" (_/ |
Robert S. Hahn
: rsh...@is.nyu.edu (Robert S. Hahn) wrote:
: > 61 cards -- I always like to play with 61 so I could possibly win via
: > outdrawing them.
: You realize that the Tome shoots this all to hell, right?
Yes. I do. :)
: Actually, several of your cards make this pointless. After all, you
: can cap 6+ times (...in fact, with a Disenchant you can cap their
: entire deck away). Basically, this seems like unnecessary drag built
: in just to go for a win during that game in which you...
: 1. Don't ever cap
: 2. Don't ever mill
: 3. Don't ever tome
: 4. Don't ever cane
: 5. Somehow manage to remain in the game despite all that
It's possible and it came VERY close to happening in one memorable game
against a U/W deck. His one Cap came out first and he capped my three
Caps. Then I countered all 4 of his Millstones. He in turn countered all
three of mine. We both put out a Tome to have it Divine Offered by the
other guy, then the second time via Disenchant. My cane was spell blasted,
and he didn't draw his until maybe ten cards were left -- I showed him a
counterspell then told him I played with 61 cards standard. He conceded.
Yes, it happened just once, but the one extra card has not made an
appreciable difference in my experience.
-rsh
Robert S. Hahn
: >Granted, all these take mana, but does anyone seriously doubt that a
: >Weissman-style deck will not be able to prolong a game to that point --
: >even in Type II?
: Nice lawyer-constructed statement, that :-) "Counsel is leading the
: witness, Your Honour!"
Thank you! ;)
: No comment about Type I, but I do seriously doubt it in Type II. Not
: fast enough. Casting cost too high. Too much time before set off after
: casting. Too many resources required to protect it (if you don't hold a
: counter for a Disenchant-like spell, you can't seriously expect it to
: survive; if you do hold the counter, you're letting through
: *everything* else they want to cast; if you hold on to more than one
: counter, that's even more resources you have to build up before
: casting!).
This is where you're mistaken, imho. Type II is not a speed game anymore
after the restriction of the Vise. Even the fastest decks with the
lumberjacks and tinderwalls and what not can't kill you in three turns
reliably -- they could with multiple Vises.
As for needing to protect the Cap, why? I don't bring it out against any
deck with anti-artifact ability until I have six mana. I bring it out,
keeping two blue untapped. Then I'll cap them at the end of their turn if
they haven't done anything, or I'll use the Cap as a response to their
Disenchant. If they want to bring out something afterwards, that's their
business -- but three of their key cards just got removed from game.
That's usually fair.
-The Sophist
Craig Sivils
No, they know they are joking, the first post of the thread said it
was a joke. The only fools in that thread are 1. those that are
getting upset about the "contents" of alliances, and 2. those that are
getting upset because someone dared to post a joke.
Craig
James Grahame
Robert S. Hahn <rsh...@is.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Also sprach Alexander Shearer (ga...@uclink4.berkeley.edu):
>: rsh...@is.nyu.edu (Robert S. Hahn) wrote:
>
>: > outdrawing them.
>
>: You realize that the Tome shoots this all to hell, right?
>
>Yes. I do. :)
>
>: Actually, several of your cards make this pointless. After all, you
>: can cap 6+ times (...in fact, with a Disenchant you can cap their
>: entire deck away). Basically, this seems like unnecessary drag built
>: in just to go for a win during that game in which you...
>
>: 1. Don't ever cap
>: 2. Don't ever mill
>: 3. Don't ever tome
>: 4. Don't ever cane
>: 5. Somehow manage to remain in the game despite all that
>
>It's possible and it came VERY close to happening in one memorable game
>against a U/W deck. His one Cap came out first and he capped my three
>Caps. Then I countered all 4 of his Millstones. He in turn countered all
>three of mine. We both put out a Tome to have it Divine Offered by the
>other guy, then the second time via Disenchant. My cane was spell blasted,
>and he didn't draw his until maybe ten cards were left -- I showed him a
>counterspell then told him I played with 61 cards standard. He conceded.
But he Capped you. After that, it's as if you only had 58 cards
in your library to begin with....
Maybe this should go into the "fave bluffs" thread.
James
Steven Liu
: Also sprach David J Low (d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au):
:
: : >Granted, all these take mana, but does anyone seriously doubt that a
: : >Weissman-style deck will not be able to prolong a game to that point --
: : >even in Type II?
: : Nice lawyer-constructed statement, that :-) "Counsel is leading the
: : witness, Your Honour!"
:
: Thank you! ;)
:
: : No comment about Type I, but I do seriously doubt it in Type II. Not
: : fast enough. Casting cost too high. Too much time before set off after
: : casting. Too many resources required to protect it (if you don't hold a
: : counter for a Disenchant-like spell, you can't seriously expect it to
: : survive; if you do hold the counter, you're letting through
: : *everything* else they want to cast; if you hold on to more than one
: : counter, that's even more resources you have to build up before
: : casting!).
:
: This is where you're mistaken, imho. Type II is not a speed game anymore
: after the restriction of the Vise. Even the fastest decks with the
: lumberjacks and tinderwalls and what not can't kill you in three turns
: reliably -- they could with multiple Vises.
:
: As for needing to protect the Cap, why? I don't bring it out against any
: deck with anti-artifact ability until I have six mana. I bring it out,
: keeping two blue untapped. Then I'll cap them at the end of their turn if
: they haven't done anything, or I'll use the Cap as a response to their
: Disenchant. If they want to bring out something afterwards, that's their
: business -- but three of their key cards just got removed from game.
: That's usually fair.
:
: -The Sophist
:
:
: --
: Robert S. Hahn rsh...@is.nyu.edu
: NYU Law School, '97 http://pages.nyu.edu/~rsh9395/index.html
:
: Politics, Pool, Magic, Shadowfist, Film, Literature, Poetry....
: Who has time for work?
I'll just quickly add my point of view on this matter. Quite simply, at least
two Caps go into any of my serious Type I decks. And any of my serious Type
I decks can survive at least one Cap hit. I can't play a match these days
without getting seeing an opposing Cap at least once.
Getting Capped twice will pretty much finish any deck off if you're playing
against a lock deck. When a card becomes a wide-spred first concern for
deck construction, restriction usually isn't far away. The concern for
the Cap isn't wide-spred yet, but eventually it might be. I hope it won't
be restricted, though (I like the card, damn it!).
--
--Steve Internet: steve...@m.cc.utah.edu
Pinky1000
is restricted, but I don't know about the others. Besides, a well placed
Shatter, Divine Offering, Disenchant, Crumble, Rust, or Magus of the
Unseen can stop it.
David J Low
[Great - bloody net lag, I haven't seen Robert's response yet, but I do
see Steven's response to Robert. Sigh.]
>Robert S. Hahn (rsh...@is.nyu.edu) wrote:
>: Also sprach David J Low (d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au):
>: :
>: : [Regarding whether the Cap can be used in combination with things like
>: : Feldon's, Recall, etc... to get a Type-I-like cycling going, and hence
>: : go on to dominate the world... :-) ]
>: :
>: : No comment about Type I, but I do seriously doubt it in Type II. Not
>: : fast enough. Casting cost too high. Too much time before set off after
>: : casting. Too many resources required to protect it (if you don't hold a
>: : counter for a Disenchant-like spell, you can't seriously expect it to
>: : survive; if you do hold the counter, you're letting through
>: : *everything* else they want to cast; if you hold on to more than one
>: : counter, that's even more resources you have to build up before
>: : casting!).
>:
>: This is where you're mistaken, imho. Type II is not a speed game anymore
>: after the restriction of the Vise. Even the fastest decks with the
>: lumberjacks and tinderwalls and what not can't kill you in three turns
>: reliably -- they could with multiple Vises.
??? How the hell did Vise make for a quick *reliable* kill? It made
for a lucky help if it came out early, or for a bigger help in slower
decks where you could bring it out with Jokul, etc..., but *relying* on
Vises *early* is silly. Damage expectation is lower than a Lightning
Bolt :-) I never went through the "put four Vises in regardless"
stage, and neither did the other successful players here. Certainly
the newbies did, but the rest of us realised that without some sort of
*reason*, it was just a wasted slot. People might use it for
sideboarding against denial, or (obviously) in conjunction with LD or
other strategies that make use of keeping the opponent's hand large,
but there's no need to include it without reason. Note, BTW, that the
"metagame" implications (having to be prepared to deal with the Vise)
which sparked its Restriction still apply, since there is still a large
number of players using four regardless :-) Just because the good
players aren't using it doesn't mean you can ignore it! I think
someone else posted a while back that "this was the first time a card
had been restricted because a lot of people were using it, and it
*wasn't* overpowered" :-)
Now, as for the three-turn bit, I think that's just a slight
exaggeration :-) A quick Type II deck simply aims to achieve a winning
position in the first half-dozen turns or so (by reduction of life),
and keeping the threats coming through the early middle-game (which
is almost impossible to avoid in Type II, barring luck) to enforce a
win as threats outnumber the ways of dealing with them. WoG isn't that
handy if you *have* to use it to save your life *before* your opponent
has exhausted his on-hand critter-supply :-)
I believe that Type I is a contest between fast and slow, with
the mid-speed stuff *not* getting the best of both worlds. I believe
that the Type II fast decks are slower, but the slow decks are quicker
(!) since they can't make use of the recycle-locks reliably. The
difference between slow and fast in Type II is not as big as it is in
Type I.
>: As for needing to protect the Cap, why?
I'll take that as admission by omission of the other points :-) This
is a semi-facetious lawyer-reference, so don't feel obliged to pick
on it :-)
>: I don't bring it out against any
>: deck with anti-artifact ability until I have six mana. I bring it out,
>: keeping two blue untapped. Then I'll cap them at the end of their turn if
>: they haven't done anything, or I'll use the Cap as a response to their
>: Disenchant. If they want to bring out something afterwards, that's their
>: business -- but three of their key cards just got removed from game.
>: That's usually fair.
What's a "key card"? Non-land? In a non-lock deck, when someone Caps
me I tend to get the upper hand as they can't decide what to remove :-)
Nothing is key, all is useful, and the best they can do is increase my
chance of drawing land.... Sideboard stuff excluded from this, BTW,
but I'll generally rely on me getting and making use of my sideboard
stuff before the opponent gets four (or six, as Robert would have it)
mana on the table.
If you had a Cap plus UU, and I had a Disenchant and an Orgg, would I
trade the Disenchant for getting the Orgg into play? The question on
my part would be "Do I care about the Cap?" - the answer would be "No."
- the next question being "Would he set it off in response to a
Disenchant?" - the answer "If he does, I get Orgg; if he doesn't, I've
traded 1-1 and he still might not have a counter; worst case even, go
for it!" :-) If I were controlling the Cap, I'd let it get Disenchanted
and keep the UU for countering something useful...which tells me that I
shouldn't be playing the Cap in the first place.
>I'll just quickly add my point of view on this matter. Quite simply, at least
> two Caps go into any of my serious Type I decks. And any of my serious Type
> I decks can survive at least one Cap hit. I can't play a match these days
> without seeing an opposing Cap at least once.
If a deck can't survive a couple of Cap hits, it shouldn't be playing
Type II (Type I is a slightly different matter, of course, because of
recycling). Like a Millstone, just imagine that the cards Capped
didn't show (although the luck factor involved in the Mill removal
is somewhat reduced, generally!).
> Getting Capped twice will pretty much finish any deck off if you're playing
> against a lock deck. When a card becomes a wide-spred first concern for
> deck construction, restriction usually isn't far away. The concern for
> the Cap isn't wide-spred yet, but eventually it might be. I hope it won't
> be restricted, though (I like the card, damn it!).
If the lock-deck is using Caps, it's even slower in getting the lock
down. Although it helps the lock (by either removing future threats
to the lock, or removing the opponent's own lock-ability), the
tradeoff has to be considered. If I were playing lock decks, I'd want
Caps for that reason - get rid of the threats to the lock. If I'm
playing a lock deck against lock deck, it's a tradeoff as I remove
their (unseen) Caps, generally, for my (seen) Cap. Saying "all lock
decks need the Cap" is like saying "all LD decks need the Vise".
Saying "the Cap kills if you're not prepared to stop it" is *not* like
the same comment for the Vise - the Vise can kill you if you're
marginally unlucky, and turns a nasty situation (mana rorted) into a
lost one (mana rorted with a Vise down). The same goes for attempted
comparisons to Mind Twist - if anything, the Mask is closer to the
Twist than the Cap, and I don't see anyone arguing against the Mask!
I guess it depends how people think of lock-decks. I agree that the
Cap is a major concern when used against lock-decks....but then, u
Anarchy/Gloom are a major concern for W, Justice for R, etc, etc...
It's just that "lock deck" is a more general term - how about equating
Weakstone/Pyro for weenies, Vise for denial (!), Meekstone for juzam,
etc, etc...? Certainly they can "close down" the strategy, and must
be thought about in deck design, but if the Cap will *only* hurt lock
decks to a significant extent, should that be a concern? Only if you
play lock decks, I guess, or think that they are viable :-)
I should note at this point that I believe the Cap should be
tourney-Banned on the basis of it breaking the metarule of "never
handle an opponent's cards". However, I don't think it's a candidate
on a power basis. If you get hurt by a *single* Cap in TI or TII,
your deck is bad. If you get hurt by multiple Caps, you got unlucky in
Type II, and let your opponent live too long in Type I :-) A Cap in
TII isn't going to annoy me; seeing it in TI would be more cause for
concern, because of the recursion aspect (one, no problem; a good
chance of four, more of a problem).
Will the Cap become the answer to lock decks as a sideboard card, as
the Vise was the answer to denial (outside of strategies which made
use of the Vise in the *player's* deck)? Quite possibly. Will it
need to be Restricted, because it stops people playing lock-decks by
the very threat of its presence? Is this comparable to arguing
against Shatterstorm because it presents the same threat to artifact
decks (or any of the other example above)? I think it's just that the
other example work *after* the cards come into play, and hence have
had a chance to be effective, while the Cap can shut down the lock
decks before they get a chance to strut their stuff, so to speak.
It's just that the Cap accentuates a problem with lock decks (not
seeing part of the lock) which was already there. If you *rely* on
something in Magic, I think you deserve what you get :-)
Given the DCs past performance, if the Cap is deemed deserving of
Restriction in Type I, but not in Type II, do people think it will get
Restricted or not? My bet is that they'll leave it alone as long as
it has little effect on Type II. Just a feeling, since they don't
look like wanting to have different lists....
Jonathan Paxman
: I'll just quickly add my point of view on this matter. Quite simply, at least
: two Caps go into any of my serious Type I decks. And any of my serious Type
: I decks can survive at least one Cap hit. I can't play a match these days
: without getting seeing an opposing Cap at least once.
: Getting Capped twice will pretty much finish any deck off if you're playing
: against a lock deck. When a card becomes a wide-spred first concern for
: deck construction, restriction usually isn't far away. The concern for
: the Cap isn't wide-spred yet, but eventually it might be. I hope it won't
: be restricted, though (I like the card, damn it!).
Here's a question then:
Why aren't all the Weissman decks out there getting creamed every time
they play? If a single cap goes off against a Weissman deck: bye bye
Serras, bye bye braingeyser. Game over.
So presumably, "the deck" is successfully countering every cap that goes
off against it.
Does a card which is so difficult to get into play warrant restricting??
Jon P
--
==========================================================================
"And Saint Atila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'Oh, Lord,
bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to
tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and people did feast
upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutangs, and
breakfast cereals, and fruit bats..."
--The Book of Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One
(Monty Python and the Holy Grail)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Paxman | Mathematics and Electrical Engineering at
jpa...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au | The University of Western Australia
==========================================================================
Fletcher Goodwin
using 'infinate' caps.
Using the Argivian Archaeologist, my plan was to
run the person out of their good cards, so all they
had was stuff that couldn't harm me.
To stop damage I had to rely on anti creature spells,
It failed Miserably against fast creature decks.
Maybe with some work, Caps can be usefull in numbers,
but they are very slow to cast. When I get some Moxes
maybe Ill try it again.
Anyway - I dont think it should be restricted -
Have Fun,
Flec
Jeff Sternal
d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au (David J Low) wrote:
[Regarding Jester's Cap]
[snip]
> What's a "key card"? Non-land? In a non-lock deck,
> when someone Caps me I tend to get the upper hand as
> they can't decide what to remove :-)
[snip]
> If a deck can't survive a couple of Cap hits, it
> shouldn't be playing Type II (Type I is a slightly
> different matter, of course, because of recycling).
[snip]
> If you get hurt by a *single* Cap in TI or TII,
> your deck is bad.
[snip]
> Regards,
> David.
Okay, I used to think that Jester's Cap was
way overrated. But I don't think so anymore. Here's
why - the best way to use the Cap is not to dismantle
your opponent's strategy, but to remove their defenses
against yours. For example, the other night, I was
playing my type II U/W deck (heavy on Control Magic
& Artifacts - just the kind you love, Dave ;P) against
my friend's type II humongous creature deck (not an
eigth-grader deck - it amounts to a type II Djinn
deck). Mid-game, he caught me with my pants down
(no counterspells in hand), and brought out an
Autumn Willow. To make a long story short, I needed
to Control Magic several creatures of his to deal
with this, and then I Capped him - removing all his
Tranquilities. So I won.
Generally, with this deck, I remove
Disenchants & Tranquilities. Without them, my
opponent is next to powerless. Of course, if
they have a lock-deck of some sort, especially
if they're playing blue and white, I'll gladly
get rid of those first.
The usual objection to the Cap is that
people probably wouldn't see the cards anyway, but
in decks that favor long games (and this doesn't
just mean U/W in type II), this just isn't true.
So now, I'm a Cap convert.
Cheers,
Jeff
Robert S. Hahn
: > What's a "key card"? Non-land? In a non-lock deck,
: > when someone Caps me I tend to get the upper hand as
: > they can't decide what to remove :-)
I know it sucks to reply to someone on a reply to that person, but hey,
save bandwidth. :) David said the above.
My feeling is that against a deck like yours (I'm beginning to think it's a
R/W Orgg/Angel deck, but who knows) I start getting rid of Disenchants.
Yes, if you get out an Orgg (he wrote that he'd waste a Disenchant to force
me to use my 2 untapped blue so he can get out an Orgg) that's bad news.
But it isn't as if I don't have anti-critter defense cards.
: > If a deck can't survive a couple of Cap hits, it
: > shouldn't be playing Type II (Type I is a slightly
: > different matter, of course, because of recycling).
Also, David mentioned something about recycling. The point of the Caps is
that the cards are out of the game. Recycle means nothing. You're not
going to get those disenchants (or whatever else) back. It's just that
simple.
It seems to me that the skill of knowing what to Cap when is something
learned over time. I'm not perfect at it, but I'm getting better and it's
annoying a lot of opponents. :)
: > If you get hurt by a *single* Cap in TI or TII,
: > your deck is bad.
My feeling is that EVERY deck is hurt by a "single" Cap. It may not be
fatally wounded, but think about it -- how many useless cards are in your
tournament deck? Even if I remove 3 creatures, you can't say it's not
hurt.
There's another point as well. EVERY deck will be hurt if the opponent is
prepared EXACTLY for what's coming. The Cap's ability to look through
someone's deck pretty much nails things down for what's coming up. The
additional ability to then remove three cards is really a lot of power.
: Generally, with this deck, I remove
: Disenchants & Tranquilities. Without them, my
: opponent is next to powerless. Of course, if
: they have a lock-deck of some sort, especially
: if they're playing blue and white, I'll gladly
: get rid of those first.
This is precisely why I feel that a U/W control deck, which relies a great
deal on its artifacts and enchantments, benefit most from the Cap. Losing
3 of 4 Disenchants really just sucks big time when you're under the Sceptre
or being Milled to death. And it's not a loss that can be countered via
the Cane or Recall.
: The usual objection to the Cap is that
: people probably wouldn't see the cards anyway, but
: in decks that favor long games (and this doesn't
: just mean U/W in type II), this just isn't true.
: So now, I'm a Cap convert.
Hmm... how long before it gets restricted, I wonder. :)
The Sophist
Robert G. Kraychik
Jeff Sternal (jqst...@midway.uchicago.edu) writes:
> In article <4fsrit$6...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au (David J Low) wrote:
>
> [Regarding Jester's Cap]
>
> [snip]
>> when someone Caps me I tend to get the upper hand as
>> they can't decide what to remove :-)
>> If a deck can't survive a couple of Cap hits, it
>> shouldn't be playing Type II (Type I is a slightly
>> different matter, of course, because of recycling).
>> If you get hurt by a *single* Cap in TI or TII,
>> your deck is bad.
>> Regards,
>> David.
>
> Okay, I used to think that Jester's Cap was
> way overrated. But I don't think so anymore. Here's
> why - the best way to use the Cap is not to dismantle
> your opponent's strategy, but to remove their defenses
> against yours. For example, the other night, I was
> playing my type II U/W deck (heavy on Control Magic
> & Artifacts - just the kind you love, Dave ;P) against
> my friend's type II humongous creature deck (not an
> eigth-grader deck - it amounts to a type II Djinn
> deck). Mid-game, he caught me with my pants down
> (no counterspells in hand), and brought out an
> Autumn Willow. To make a long story short, I needed
> to Control Magic several creatures of his to deal
> with this, and then I Capped him - removing all his
> Tranquilities. So I won.
>
> Disenchants & Tranquilities. Without them, my
> opponent is next to powerless. Of course, if
> they have a lock-deck of some sort, especially
> if they're playing blue and white, I'll gladly
> get rid of those first.
>
> people probably wouldn't see the cards anyway, but
> in decks that favor long games (and this doesn't
> just mean U/W in type II), this just isn't true.
> So now, I'm a Cap convert.
>
>
> Jeff
>
But the Jester's Cap is great card for two reasons: a) It lets you see the
deck you're up against... if you didn't know what it was already. b)
Remove three cards from the game! That's great!
I don't think it should be restricted, though. Any half-decent deck should
be able to deal with artifacts in the first place...
--
SYSTEM ERROR <A>bort <R>etry <P>anic
Bill Stripp
>are still people writing about this serious problem.
Hardly a serious problem...
>I was, and am, in favor of the restriction of the Cap, since it's too powerful
>and destroies any type of deck-strategy.
No, it destroys decks that are focused on a small number of critical
hoser type cards. It does nothing to a fast big critter deck with 8-12
creatures. Yes it can remove a few, but so can WoG or STP.
>Of course, a lot of people wrote me saying that a white weenie deck
>often wins slow decks, and a Jester's Cap is considered slow.
>Well, OK, let's go... from now everyone MUST play with a white weenie deck,
>let's sell away our stasis, our winter orbs and all the stratgy stuff and
>let's buy some Armies of Allah, Morales and Crusade.
Oh come on, there are so many ways to stop artifacts that this
position is ludicrous. If you are not prepared to stop them then you
deserve to be capped. For that matter if your opponent wants to tap
out and spend the six mana to cap you then be ready to nail him for
it. You don't need a white weenie deck to stop a Cap, any deck that
is not reliant on 3-6 cards should win most of its games against a
cap deck.
>THIS WILL BE THE RUIN OF MAGIC, everyone playing the same type of deck!
>I like MtG because there are infinite possible decks, if everyone ends up
>playing white weenie decks there is no more place for strategy, only for luck.
Please stop posturing, first of all what you say is completely not true.
I have yet to see a cap deck dominate any tournament. In fact, I have
yet to see one place in the top three. If it can be done, bravo for
a new and interesting deck concept. (Yes I know there is a school of
magic dedicated to it)
>And then... who said that a Jester's Cap must be cast in turn 4 and used
>in turn 5? Let's forget moxen and Black Lotus, althought those are really
>good cards, did we all forget the Sol Ring? And what about Fellwar Stones?
>In my type II deck, I have got a Sol ring and 4 Fellwar Stones, and it's
>very common for me to start with both SR and a FS in first hand, giving me
>not 4, but even 5 mana points in second turn. If I'm lucky I can cast a
>Serra's Angel in second hand! Or a Sengir Vampire.
First of all, Sol ring is not Type II legal. Second of all, if you can
reliably get 6 mana by turn two in type II then more power too you. In
type I your cap will get countered/drained, disenchanted, or gotten rid
of if you play it on turn two or three.
>Oh, yeah, the Sengir Vampire... when I want to play for fun I play mono-black,
>with 4 Sengirs and 4 Dark Rituals. I don't say I can always cast a Sengir in
>first hand, but sometimes it happens. This means that I can have 5 manas.
>This also means that I can have 6 manas in second hand: 4 for the cap, 2 to
>use it. Do we want to get more into this? Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, Fastbond...
>Or better... Eureka... I cast 2/3 Caps and they can't be counterspelled, then
>since they costs 0 mana I've got my mana free to use them... et voila'.
Ok so? Another several card combo. I am not worried about this either.
Yes, it can come out and win the game. But so can sword of the ages,
leviathan, leviathan. Bang you're dead. If you cap me twice, I still
can play the game.
>And then who said that a weenie deck can always defeat a Jester's deck?
>Once I can cast the first one I remove 3 disenchants (or tranquillity) and
>then play a Island Sanctuary and a Gravity Sphere. Do you know where your
>white weenie deck can go after this joke is done? When I can use it a 2nd time,
>I remove the forth disenchant, if there is any, so to be sure the lock is done,
>and then begin to internally millstone my opponent's deck.
Fine and you win. Most of the time I drop 4-5 weenies and kill you before
you can get all of that in place. Or I have 2 blue and counter, or I use
the disenchant in my hand.
>I'm still convinced that the Cap must be RESTRICTED and CORRECTED (it must
>eliminate itself from the game to avoid cicling). According to me people
>that don't want the Cap to be restricted are not people that don't know
>the power of it, but people who play with 4 and want to continue to use
>4 of them in their Jester's Deck, isn't it true?
Oh yes, I use 4 caps in all of my decks... NOT. I usually place two in
my sideboard to use against mono focus decks or cap decks. However, of
the three cap decks (modeled on the Maysonet decks) I have played, I
killed them all. One used a Archologist, which was STP'd and the others
were countered. One got through, which hurt, but no more than a 10
point fireball. If your decks can be beaten by one or two caps, then
I say that your decks are poorly designed.
The cap is reasonably priced and a good addition to magic. If you are
that scared of it, make sure to make your decks cap proof. Add a
divine offering or something to insure that your disenchants can't all
be removed, or a tranquility. Just plan for them and they are not all
that bad.
The last thing we need is yet another restriction to the game.
Bill
Robert S. Hahn
: I personally see the cap as an extremely powerful card and it
: looks like something that will be restricted and eventually banned
: (anything half-way decent seems to be getting banned).... I think they
: are going ban and/or restrict crazy and for that reason i hope they
: stop.... seems like another card every month or so...
Well, I play a Jester's Cap deck in Type II, as many people know. I love
the card. But it is beginning to assume Zuran Orb-like proportions. I
played a tournament game the other day and in the first three rounds, i
did not lose a single game. In every single game, I Capped my opponent
first. In the fourth round, I won 2 out of 3. The game I lost, I was
Capped first. In the finals, I got swept all three games (Swiss style
play). In all three games, I was Capped first. Every single deck that was
in the top five sported at least two Caps -- if only in the sideboard.
These decks were as varied as my U/W, a U/W white weenie/counter deck, a
R/W Orgg/Angel/permanent destruction deck (which won), a G/W Blinkie/Autumn
deck, and another R/W anti-critter deck (with Sunstones and Glacial
Crevasse, a very interesting deck).
The point is that the card is beginning to show up in just about every deck
that is competitive in Type II. That doesn't merit restriction -- after
all, just about every deck competitive in Type II also sports 2-3 Strip
Mines. The Cap is just too expensive to cast and use to be abusive, yet.
What will determine its future, imho, is whether a deck type develops which
makes the Caps abusive. As Balance was restricted not because of its
inherent power but because of the Balance Deck, I feel that the Cap will
not be restricted unless a Cap deck comes along which is _so_ abusive and
impossible to beat that everyone will be forced to play a Cap deck to
compete. The Maysonet Deck in Type I or Type II is not that deck yet -- it
can be overrun in either format by weenies (particularly black knight
decks) and by other styles.
In conclusion, I would suggest that we watch the Cap carefully. I don't
believe it merits restriction just yet. It hasn't achieved Black Vise like
proliferation in Type II and I'm not certain that it will. The Cap deck
equal in power to the Balance Deck has not yet been developed. In that
environment, all I can say is that it is a powerful card that must be taken
into consideration when designing decks -- for example, it would be suicide
to play with only three ways to win. :)
My $.02
-The Sophist
Monica Severa
Not to mention the fact that it's incredibly weak.
-Matt
David J Low
>[Quoting someone else, without attribution:]
>>In my type II deck, I have got a Sol ring and 4 Fellwar Stones, and it's
60-card deck, 13% chance of the Ring, 44% chance of a Stone, for a
grand total of around about 4% chance to see both Ring and Stone.
Selective memory strikes again....
David J Low
>: > What's a "key card"? Non-land? In a non-lock deck,
>: > when someone Caps me I tend to get the upper hand as
>: > they can't decide what to remove :-)
>
>R/W Orgg/Angel deck, but who knows) I start getting rid of Disenchants.
>Yes, if you get out an Orgg (he wrote that he'd waste a Disenchant to force
>me to use my 2 untapped blue so he can get out an Orgg) that's bad news.
>But it isn't as if I don't have anti-critter defense cards.
The straw-man deck examples would be RG Orgg/Ernham/Bolt, and
RW weenie/bolt (the Orgg/Angel guess is close! They sometimes make an
appearance). You could add UW sleighted weenie/LD as well, I guess,
but that's more vulnerable to Capping.
You're going to have to use those "anti-critter defense cards" pretty
damn quickly if there's an Orgg on the table :-) If they haven't been
used on the earlier critters, of course. This is part of my argument
as to the reliability of "offense" versus "defense" - if you let that
Orgg hit you twice, you're pretty much toast (given earlier
critter/bolt damage, and siilarly later stuff).
>: > If a deck can't survive a couple of Cap hits, it
>: > shouldn't be playing Type II (Type I is a slightly
>: > different matter, of course, because of recycling).
>
>Also, David mentioned something about recycling. The point of the Caps is
>that the cards are out of the game. Recycle means nothing. You're not
>going to get those disenchants (or whatever else) back. It's just that
>simple.
Sorry, I was a bit unclear: a couple of Cap hits in Type II is well
within the bounds of possibility, but more than that really isn't.
Hence, you've got to think about it, but the *Cap* isn't going to be
recycling to the extent it is in Type I (note that: I was referring to
Cap-recycling, and associated counter-recycling, not *target*
recycling). In Type I, everyone's recycling (!) but it's likely that
any counter battle is in favour of whoever isn't trying to play the Cap
(mana-wise). I'd guess that you can defend yourself better against a
Cap in TI than TII. It's more a question of stopping the Cap than having
more targets - the TI should be able to get away with *less* targets if
it works its defense properly. You can't do that in TII, and hence
need a wider strategy than reliance on just three cards.
>It seems to me that the skill of knowing what to Cap when is something
>learned over time. I'm not perfect at it, but I'm getting better and it's
>annoying a lot of opponents. :)
I like to test decks by pre-Capping, actually. Take some (3-4) cards
out before the start of play, and see how much difference it makes.
It simulates those cards getting stuck out of play in the library, and
gives you an idea of how much you rely on seeing any particular card.
This was how the test originated, BTW - well before they invented the
Cap itself!
>: > If you get hurt by a *single* Cap in TI or TII,
>: > your deck is bad.
>:
>My feeling is that EVERY deck is hurt by a "single" Cap. It may not be
>fatally wounded, but think about it -- how many useless cards are in your
>tournament deck? Even if I remove 3 creatures, you can't say it's not
>hurt.
OK, I'm using "hurt" in the "no blood, no foul" sense. Ever seen Aussie
Rules footy? A broken nose or dislocated finger isn't "hurt" - a broken
leg might be, though :-)
Maybe if I used a word between "hurt" and "crippled" it would get the
idea across better :-) If you remove three critters, it's not hurt -
it's simply a little less likely to see a critter. If you remove ten
the critters, it's hurt. If you remove ten critters and ten spells, it's
crippled :-) That's why I mentioned multiple Cappings: one or two might
annoy you, but the chances of more than that in TII are minimal.
>There's another point as well. EVERY deck will be hurt if the opponent is
>prepared EXACTLY for what's coming. The Cap's ability to look through
>someone's deck pretty much nails things down for what's coming up. The
>additional ability to then remove three cards is really a lot of power.
That's another deck test, BTW - let them see exactly what you're
playing ("perfect knowledge opponent" case). It's the permanent
Glasses of Urza test :-)
Sometimes I think I should post something listing the sorts of deck
tests we employ, but then I guess that everyone else does the same
thing so there's really no point. How many people test decks in this
manner? Or do people just play normal games against other decks??
And the opponent doesn't know exactly what's coming - just what's
likely to show. In many ways, that can be as good for the other guy!
For example, you know I've got Angels/Stormbinds, and you've got one
counter in your hand. Do you get rid of the <fill in the blank> which
has the capability to annoy you, or save it for something you think is
worse?? If that "worse" thing doesn't show up....
Restriction, if it comes, should be on the time basis. Multiple Caps
can be an excuse for a lot of time wasting.
Steven Liu
: Steven Liu (sl7...@cc.utah.edu) wrote:
:
: : I'll just quickly add my point of view on this matter. Quite simply, at least
: : two Caps go into any of my serious Type I decks. And any of my serious Type
: : I decks can survive at least one Cap hit. I can't play a match these days
: : without getting seeing an opposing Cap at least once.
:
: : Getting Capped twice will pretty much finish any deck off if you're playing
: : against a lock deck. When a card becomes a wide-spred first concern for
: : deck construction, restriction usually isn't far away. The concern for
: : the Cap isn't wide-spred yet, but eventually it might be. I hope it won't
: : be restricted, though (I like the card, damn it!).
:
: Here's a question then:
:
: Why aren't all the Weissman decks out there getting creamed every time
: they play? If a single cap goes off against a Weissman deck: bye bye
: Serras, bye bye braingeyser. Game over.
That's because very few decks get creamed "every time they play," Mr. Paxman.
Even poorly constructed decks win sometimes, from the (opponent's bad) luck
of the draw.
: So presumably, "the deck" is successfully countering every cap that goes
: off against it.
I believe you have made a poor presumption there, Mr. Paxman. It's not hard
to get a 'Cap through against a deck with "poor" speed and "fine" counter
ability. Now if you were up against a deck with "good" speed and "near
mint" or "mint" counter ability, then you might have a problem getting a
'Cap in play. :)
: Does a card which is so difficult to get into play warrant restricting??
:
No, I don't believe that it's "necessary" to restrict Jester's Cap. However,
that's not to say that restricting Jester's Cap is necessarily a bad thing.
It's certainly powerful enough to be a serious deck-construction concern.
This is, of course, assuming that people you play against actually use the
Jester's Cap. If not, then you might just have to go out of your playing
circle to get your nose bloodied.
The primary concern I have for Jester's Cap is that it pushes decks to use
individually difficult-to-neutralize cards, thus limiting your selection
of tourney-viable cards (a lot of cards which are great "in combination"
but only decent by themselves will no longer be used as much). Another
concern is the necessity of counter ability in Type I. That problem is
getting worse with Jester's Cap on the loose.
: Jon P
:
: --
: ==========================================================================
:
: "And Saint Atila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'Oh, Lord,
: bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to
: tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and people did feast
: upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutangs, and
: breakfast cereals, and fruit bats..."
:
: --The Book of Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One
: (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Jonathan Paxman | Mathematics and Electrical Engineering at
: jpa...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au | The University of Western Australia
: ==========================================================================
:
--
--Steve Internet: steve...@m.cc.utah.edu
Alric
RESTRICTED>, 'me...@marina.dei.unipd.it (Menin Alex 366428/IF)' wrote:
>I'm still convinced that the Cap must be RESTRICTED and CORRECTED (it must
>eliminate itself from the game to avoid cicling). According to me people
>that don't want the Cap to be restricted are not people that don't know
>the power of it, but people who play with 4 and want to continue to use
>4 of them in their Jester's Deck, isn't it true?
Nope, that isn't true. I don't think restriction is necessary, but
rewording may be (I can't stand cycling either). Basically, I think that
when something says removed from the game, it should be removed from the
game regardless of any effects someone tries to use to keep it. The
Feldon's Cane/Disenchant trick comes to mind (and I have heard that WotC
themselves says this trick no longer works). Basically if someone plays
with four you lose 12 cards. I have lost more cards at once to a Mind
Twist free type II discard deck, so Jester's Cap is the least of my worries
usually.
Like I said before, it does need some rewording.
--
Rob Gerrets
al...@usa.pipeline.com
"Help! I am being held prisoner in this guy's computer and being forced to
write really stupid sig files!"
David J Low
> [ >>>, > = Jeff, >> = David ]
>
> But I'm *not* just talking about the sideboard.
>Most tournament-level decks have cards in them that
>will break any given strategy, or at least hamper
>it. These cards can be pre-empted with the cap.
If I've put in four of something to deal with you, and you've got four
Caps, then I'm just as likely to see at least one *in my hand* as you
are to see the Cap. Once it's in my hand, the Cap can't affect it. If
I need more than one of that particular something, I shouldn't be
relying on it anyway.
>> If his only defense against CM was a set of Tranqs,
>> he deserved what he got :-)
>
> Now wait a minute - is this really David "Focused
>Offense" Low? Did someone else grab your account? 8)
:-) Hey, not everyone plays what I do! My best defense against CM is
just to win before it's a problem :-)
>> If you're lucky enough to get multiple CMs (including
>> CM-like stuff, of course!), good on ya.
>
> There's very little luck involved - I've got Tomes,
>Land Tax, and defense to make the game go 15 turns or
>more (at least). I'll generally see 2 Control Magics
>in a game.
So as long as I make sure of the win (note that this doesn't mean
inflicting 20 damage, it just means getting to the point where you
can't stop me inflicting 20 damage), I'm fine. And two CM's are going
to be annoying, but aren't likely to cost me more than some combination
of a Bolt, random Stormbind-discard, or a Quake-type which was going to
go off anyway.
We really could argue this back and forwards for days, you know,
without getting anywhere :-)
>> CM me and I'll just shoot it if I have to, take it out in combat,
>
> Fine - two cards to my one.
Card advantage helps, but doesn't win games by itself. Reducing your
opponent's life wins games (ignoring those little things like library
exhaustion...!). If I'm prepared to Stormbind, I'm obviously prepared
to sacrifice cards for damage....
>> or ignore it and let *you* take it out in combat.
>
> I won't do this.
??? You won't block with it? Good man :-)
>>Or just kill you before it makes a difference :-)
>
> Fat chance. ;) (Just kidding - it's happened
>before, but it's fairly hard to do this).
Nya nya, says you :-)
> Anyway, my point was, and is, that in U/W the
>Cap reduces the number of "must counter" cards
>in your opponents deck, which makes your deck
>stronger. In other decks, it removes the
>"totally hoses my play" cards (like Wrath of
>God), and forces your opponent to play on your
>terms.
Let's just do a reality check here: I'm not saying the Cap is poor.
I'm saying that the Cap in Type II is not worthy of Restriction on a
power basis. Any card worth playing had better do something useful, and
the things Jeff lists are without doubt useful. But are they so
overpowered that the Cap has to be Restricted?? I just don't think
so.
Dennis F. Hefferman
|Oh come on, there are so many ways to stop artifacts that this
|position is ludicrous. If you are not prepared to stop them then you
There are _no_ ways to stop a Cap in Type II that are not either
permanents that have to be out first (and will therefore be removed first) or
countermagic. You need Rust or Artifact Blast, and you've got neither.
|First of all, Sol ring is not Type II legal. Second of all, if you can
|reliably get 6 mana by turn two in type II then more power too you. In
It's not hard.
|type I your cap will get countered/drained, disenchanted, or gotten rid
|of if you play it on turn two or three.
Disenchanting a Cap won't stop it, and even if it did that's one
Disenchant gone. You only get four; choose wisely.
|leviathan, leviathan. Bang you're dead. If you cap me twice, I still
|can play the game.
You can play the game; the odds are that you just can't win any more.
|The cap is reasonably priced and a good addition to magic. If you are
|that scared of it, make sure to make your decks cap proof. Add a
There is not one competetive deck that is "Cap Proof". Even just
getting to see what the other guy's got is too good for words. The fact is
that unless you're a colossal moron there aren't any cards in your deck you
don't need, so anything that removes three of them for only one card expended
is a no-brainer.
|divine offering or something to insure that your disenchants can't all
|be removed, or a tranquility. Just plan for them and they are not all
If I devote eight spaces to artifact removal, two Caps will still fry
most of it _AND_ I've lost space for real cards.
|The last thing we need is yet another restriction to the game.
No, what we need most is more restrictions. What we need least is yet
another over-the-top card.
--- BEGIN INDECENCY BLOCK ---
"You like doing this? I don't mean simply me; I mean the thing in
itself?"
"I adore it."
That above all was what he wanted to hear. Not merely the love of one
person, but the animal instinct, the simple undifferentiated desire: that
was the force that would tear the Party to pieces. He pressed her down
upon the grass, among the fallen bluebells. This time there was no
difficulty. Presently the rising and falling of their breasts slowed to
normal speed, and in a sort of pleasant helplessness they fell apart.
- George Orwell, _1984_
--- END INDECENCY BLOCK ---
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: Macavity heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I guess my work around here has all been done."
-- The Devil, in "The Garden of Allah", Don Henley
RICHARD KENAN
: On Feb 15, 1996 07:53:36 in article <Re: JESTER'S CAP'S TURN TO BE
: RESTRICTED>, 'me...@marina.dei.unipd.it (Menin Alex 366428/IF)' wrote:
:
: >I'm still convinced that the Cap must be RESTRICTED and CORRECTED (it must
: >eliminate itself from the game to avoid cicling). According to me people
: >that don't want the Cap to be restricted are not people that don't know
: >the power of it, but people who play with 4 and want to continue to use
: >4 of them in their Jester's Deck, isn't it true?
:
: Nope, that isn't true. I don't think restriction is necessary, but
: rewording may be (I can't stand cycling either). Basically, I think that
: when something says removed from the game, it should be removed from the
: game regardless of any effects someone tries to use to keep it. The
: Feldon's Cane/Disenchant trick comes to mind (and I have heard that WotC
: themselves says this trick no longer works).
This is mostly true. WotC says that Feldon's Cane doesn't *REALLY* say
(T): Reshuffle your graveyard with your Library. Remove Feldon's Cane
From the game.
It actually says
(0)(T): Sacrifice Feldon's Cane, but remove it from the game instead of
placing it in the graveyard, to reshuffle your graveyard with
your library.
If it said what it looks like it says when your read the card, then it
would work very nicely with Disenchant. I make a point of this because
many people seem to like to point to errata'd cards and say that this
is a reversal of the way the rules work in general, rather than a very
specific change in a particular card to make it work the way they
wanted it to without changing the way the rules work in general.
: Basically if someone plays
: with four you lose 12 cards. I have lost more cards at once to a Mind
: Twist free type II discard deck, so Jester's Cap is the least of my worries
: usually.
In type II, anyway, yes. There is very little recycling involved in
a type II deck anyway, so it isn't much of an issue. Type II decks
that lose to Jester's Cap deserve to lose, they're weak.
: Like I said before, it does need some rewording.
I wouldn't object to that, not in the slightest. The card would be
very useful for its normal purpose without recycling.
Just me.
--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
The Nomad
>==================================================
>THIS ARTICLE IS PRETTY LONG, BUT PLESE READ IT ALL
>==================================================
>I started this discussion some weeks ago, and I'm quite happy there
>are still people writing about this serious problem.
>I was, and am, in favor of the restriction of the Cap, since it's too powerful
>and destroies any type of deck-strategy.
>Of course, a lot of people wrote me saying that a white weenie deck
>often wins slow decks, and a Jester's Cap is considered slow.
>Well, OK, let's go... from now everyone MUST play with a white weenie deck,
>let's sell away our stasis, our winter orbs and all the stratgy stuff and
>let's buy some Armies of Allah, Morales and Crusade.
>THIS WILL BE THE RUIN OF MAGIC, everyone playing the same type of deck!
>I like MtG because there are infinite possible decks, if everyone ends up
>playing white weenie decks there is no more place for strategy, only for luck.
OK, how about G/R burn decks? Not to mention that any decent deck will
have a goodly chance of having its key cards in hand by the time the
Cap goes down...
Vise age decks have 4 WOs and 4 icys in them, most of the time. A good
one won`t need both out to win.
Any permission deck that allows a cap out is either unlucky or
stupid... It can be nasty there, though.
Black "unkillable critter" decks shoot down Cap decks, as they tend to
be U/W. Can`t get all the Orders out with one cap...
OK, I`m exaggerating. But, although the Cap can be devestating, it`s
no more devestating than an Armageddon/ Serra, for example.
>And then... who said that a Jester's Cap must be cast in turn 4 and used
>in turn 5? Let's forget moxen and Black Lotus, althought those are really
>good cards, did we all forget the Sol Ring? And what about Fellwar Stones?
>In my type II deck, I have got a Sol ring and 4 Fellwar Stones, and it's
>very common for me to start with both SR and a FS in first hand, giving me
>not 4, but even 5 mana points in second turn. If I'm lucky I can cast a
>Serra's Angel in second hand! Or a Sengir Vampire.
Sol Ring`s banned in T2. Just a point...
However, fast mana decks could get a bit evil with the Cap. Anyone for
4 caps in a BFC green deck?
>Oh, yeah, the Sengir Vampire... when I want to play for fun I play mono-black,
>with 4 Sengirs and 4 Dark Rituals. I don't say I can always cast a Sengir in
>first hand, but sometimes it happens. This means that I can have 5 manas.
>This also means that I can have 6 manas in second hand: 4 for the cap, 2 to
>use it. Do we want to get more into this? Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, Fastbond...
>Or better... Eureka... I cast 2/3 Caps and they can't be counterspelled, then
>since they costs 0 mana I've got my mana free to use them... et voila'.
Never seen a tourney-viable Eureka deck yet. Never even seen it cast
in a tourney, for that matter...
And even so, Counterspell still works, especially in a T1 deck.
>And then who said that a weenie deck can always defeat a Jester's deck?
>Once I can cast the first one I remove 3 disenchants (or tranquillity) and
>then play a Island Sanctuary and a Gravity Sphere. Do you know where your
>white weenie deck can go after this joke is done? When I can use it a 2nd time,
>I remove the forth disenchant, if there is any, so to be sure the lock is done,
>and then begin to internally millstone my opponent's deck.
If you`re playing T1, play a Moat instead. But if you`re playing T1,
I`d be a) surprised if you met a weenie deck and b) amazed if you got
all three out, kept them out, and didn`t die in the mean time.
Remeber, the T1 equivalent of a Weenie deck is a Djinn deck. 4th turn
kill?
>I'm still convinced that the Cap must be RESTRICTED and CORRECTED (it must
>eliminate itself from the game to avoid cicling). According to me people
>that don't want the Cap to be restricted are not people that don't know
>the power of it, but people who play with 4 and want to continue to use
>4 of them in their Jester's Deck, isn't it true?
Nope, I`m a Weissman-style player, with exactly one in my deck. I
personally would be considerably relieved if it was restricted, on a
personal basis, but I don`t think it would be deserved.
The Nomad
"My name was Mike. His name is Bob."
Menin Alex 366428/IF
Alric <al...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>Nope, that isn't true. I don't think restriction is necessary, but
>rewording may be (I can't stand cycling either). Basically, I think that
>when something says removed from the game, it should be removed from the
>game regardless of any effects someone tries to use to keep it. The
>Feldon's Cane/Disenchant trick comes to mind (and I have heard that WotC
>themselves says this trick no longer works). Basically if someone plays
>with four you lose 12 cards. I have lost more cards at once to a Mind
>Twist free type II discard deck, so Jester's Cap is the least of my worries
>usually.
>
>Like I said before, it does need some rewording.
>--
>Rob Gerrets
>
Mmm, according to me it must be restricted, too. I'm not for the banning
of any card, I think that Magic should be played with all cards, some in
4 copies and some restricted to one.
Using 4 caps eliminates 12 "selected" cards from your opponent's decks.
Let's say your opponent plays a R/W blast deck... let's eliminate all the
disenchants he has and then let's play a Cop:Red.
If he is playing white weenie deck, let's cast gravity sphere, moat and
then let's look for the disenchants he hasn't yet drawn.
Has he got few creatures in his deck? Let's eliminate creatures.
Is he playing some lock-type deck? The trick is done, let's eliminate from
the game all the stasis, winter globes and all the cards that create problems.
The fact that Jester's Cap eliminates only 3 cards is a sign that it must
be restricted, since you can have 4 copies of most cards in your deck,
and since 4 - 3 = 1 the capped deck still has a little, but also significant,
possibility to work.
---
Alex
sj...@lehigh.edu
>In article <4g3v6s$d...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>Alric <al...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>Mmm, according to me it must be restricted, too. I'm not for the banning
>of any card, I think that Magic should be played with all cards, some in
>4 copies and some restricted to one.
>Using 4 caps eliminates 12 "selected" cards from your opponent's decks.
Excuse me, when was the last time you got off 4 caps in a single game?
I HATE it when people assume that because you put 4 in a deck that you
are automatically going to see all 4. Chances are that even with all the
gravedigging stuff you aren't going to last long if all you are doing is
worrying about capping you. The Cap is EXPENSIVE and SLOW. It only
is a big threat in ONE kind of deck I've seen and even it doesn't use 4
of them. Yes the Cap is a powerful card. It also is a well balanced
card. Currently there is no reason to restrict the cap. It is not
dominating play styles anywhere (though it is arguably having an
influence) and only in rare cases is someone going to play with more
than one or two anyway. The Cap is a card to watch for *possible*
restriction someday, but it isn't necesary now or in the near future.
[rest of silly diatribe deleted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it does not | Stacy John Behrens
Mindfully keep guard, | *===)-----------
In the small mountain fields | sj...@lehigh.edu
the scarecrow | http://www.lehigh.edu/~sjb3/sjb3.html
does not stand in vain. (Bukkoku) | ft...@cleveland.freenet.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ravi Prashad
> Excuse me, when was the last time you got off 4 caps in a single game?
> I HATE it when people assume that because you put 4 in a deck that you
> are automatically going to see all 4. Chances are that even with all the
Let's consider a deck with 3 caps, 1 Feldon's and 1 recall: 9 caps are
possible. In a tournament yesterday that included revised, I was able to
cap my first opponent 3 times in game 1 (removing: Tutor, Balance, Disk,
Disk, Disk, Disenchant, Disenchant, Serra, Feldon's) and 6 times in game 2
(well actually only 3 times, because I copied a cap I brought out the
previous round, used both and cast a regrow on a cap<why not?>) when my
opponent conceded. Sorry, I was vaguely proud ofthat.
In normal type 2, it is entirely possible to cap someone twice. Most
of the cap decks that I have seen have large components of blue and white:
defense measures that allow the player to take control and thus play caps
with relative safety. Once you take control: e.g. the usual Sceptre/Counter
lock, you can Cap with impunity and thus know exactly what is worth
countering in there.
> of them. Yes the Cap is a powerful card. It also is a well balanced
> card. Currently there is no reason to restrict the cap. It is not
I feel it is not balanced because they made a serious error in
the text: it should come into play tapped. No one brings out a cap
without 6 mana <they may not use it right away, but still), and that
means that unless you play blue (or some cheezy green cards) you will get
capped. I don't think it should be restricted though.
[long sig deleted]
Ravi Prashad
sj...@lehigh.edu
>On 19 Feb 1996 sj...@lehigh.edu wrote:
>> Excuse me, when was the last time you got off 4 caps in a single game?
>> I HATE it when people assume that because you put 4 in a deck that you
>> are automatically going to see all 4. Chances are that even with all the
> That's a bad thing to say because you _know_ people will reply.
I suppose so. Everytime you mention something that is rarely true
someone always feels the need to pipe up with "I did it". I doubt
that you are incapable of understanding my point, namely that the
number of times that someone is going to get off 4+ caps a game
is fairly rare. Your isolated story really doesn't change my point
nor does it change the majority of cases. Your own statements
indicate that you understood what I was getting at, so why post
about an fairly isolated case?
[snip]
> In normal type 2, it is entirely possible to cap someone twice. Most
>of the cap decks that I have seen have large components of blue and white:
>defense measures that allow the player to take control and thus play caps
>with relative safety. Once you take control: e.g. the usual Sceptre/Counter
>lock, you can Cap with impunity and thus know exactly what is worth
>countering in there.
Once you take control. Of course, by that time you probably don't need the
Caps anyway. The caps are really just rubbing salt in the wounds by that
point. I've been playing with just such a deck so I know all about how
well it can work. The Caps generally end up being pointless after the
2nd or 3rd one. (depending on what deck you are playing against)
Counterspells, anti creature/artifact etc can usually handle the rest since
it can't come out very fast at that point.
>
>> of them. Yes the Cap is a powerful card. It also is a well balanced
>> card. Currently there is no reason to restrict the cap. It is not
> I feel it is not balanced because they made a serious error in
>the text: it should come into play tapped. No one brings out a cap
>without 6 mana <they may not use it right away, but still), and that
>means that unless you play blue (or some cheezy green cards) you will get
>capped. I don't think it should be restricted though.
I would agree that the Cap should have to come in to play tapped. Bad
choice. I suppose we could play with Kismet. :-) (Which actually
wouldn't be a totally rotten idea in a weissman style deck now that
I think about it...)
Menin Alex 366428/IF
In article <4gabjf$1o...@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>, <sj...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>Excuse me, when was the last time you got off 4 caps in a single game?
>I HATE it when people assume that because you put 4 in a deck that you
>are automatically going to see all 4.
And I hate people who don't read all my articles.
I don't mean that I'm going to draw 4 of them, one is sufficient to begin
a cycling with draphna's restorations, regenerate artifact or better
argivian archeoligist! In any case, when I first posted the article
JESTER'S CAP TURN TO BE RESTRICTED I received a lot of E-mails telling
me how a white weenie deck can reduce to dust a Cap deck by drawing in
first hand 4 Savannah Lions and a Crusade (and of course the right amount
of white mana). I'm sure this way of seeing Magic is stupid and ridiculus
and only an idiot can think of drawing 4 copies of the same card in
few hands. Of course it can be helped by putting in the deck some
transmute artifact and a demonic tutor. And also Necropotence,
Jayemdae tomes, Jalum Tomes, Braingeiser...
>Chances are that even with all the
>gravedigging stuff you aren't going to last long if all you are doing is
>worrying about capping you.
Again you didn't read all my article.
If I can cast moat and gravity sphere no creature deck can damage me.
If I can cast the right Cop you may have the fastest Red blast deck,
but until you draw a disenchant you can do nothing. And if I use the Cap
twice it's pretty sure you're not going to draw a disenchant until next game.
And a JESTER's CAP deck uses blu and first color and white as second,
so counterspells, mana drains (use the mana to cast JC) disenchants and
swords 2 plowshers.
Have you ever heard about "Weissman deck?"
> The Cap is EXPENSIVE and SLOW.
Read my article fully...
Dark rituals are CHEAP and FAST.
So are: Mishra Workshop, Mana Vault, Sol ring, Mana Flare...
> It only
>is a big threat in ONE kind of deck I've seen and even it doesn't use 4
>of them. Yes the Cap is a powerful card. It also is a well balanced
>card.
Yeah! It's a well balanced card! It ELIMINATES FROM THE GAME 3 SELECTED CARDS
and still IT GOES TO THE GRAVEYARD!
>Currently there is no reason to restrict the cap. It is not
>dominating play styles anywhere (though it is arguably having an
>influence) and only in rare cases is someone going to play with more
>than one or two anyway.
In Italy it is. In tounaments the first places are for people who
use Jester's Cap and gravedigging cards. The so called Internal Millstone
Decks.
>The Cap is a card to watch for *possible*
>restriction someday, but it isn't necesary now or in the near future.
Please don't post news at 3 in the morning, you are not fully using
your brain. I am italian and maybe I mispell some words... but you
can't write "necesary", English is supposed to be your first language!
In any case: what do you mean for: someday it *may* be restricted,
but not now or in the near future? If a card is powerful now it also
will be in the near future and vice versa.
I think I'm keeping you answer to my article, just to have fun when
I'm depressed.
---
JESTER'S CAP WILL RUIN THE GAME (someone said)
---
Alex
Mark Carde
have gotten off more than four. My hand was;
2-Jesters
1-Stone Calendar
1-Jayemdae Tome sp?
1-Urza Tower, Mine, Power Plant
My draw was a Sol ring
I don't remember the order of my next draws but the next 2
cards where an Island and Drafna's restoration.
I find that most players take it very personally when you Cap
them and it turns into a nasty game. I think that's more the reason
why people think it should be banned. It's their baby that you are ripping
through and removing the choice cards. I'm fairly new at the game and
usually do it to opponents who have cards I have never seen. I wouldn't
be playing CAPs but I bought four starter decks from different boxes and
three of them had CAPs, so I bought a fourth off the net.
I'm still tweaking this deck because I believe it could be faster.
Anyone to donate a couple Argivian Archeologists.
In article <4gabjf$1o...@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>, sj...@lehigh.edu writes:
|> In <4g99i7$6...@maya.dei.unipd.it>, me...@marina.dei.unipd.it (Menin Alex 366428/IF) writes:
|> >In article <4g3v6s$d...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>,
|> >Alric <al...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
|>
|> >[ Comment on Restricting CAP]
|>
|> Excuse me, when was the last time you got off 4 caps in a single game?
|> I HATE it when people assume that because you put 4 in a deck that you
|> are automatically going to see all 4. Chances are that even with all the
|> gravedigging stuff you aren't going to last long if all you are doing is
|> worrying about capping you. The Cap is EXPENSIVE and SLOW. It only
|> is a big threat in ONE kind of deck I've seen and even it doesn't use 4
|> of them. Yes the Cap is a powerful card. It also is a well balanced
|> card. Currently there is no reason to restrict the cap. It is not
|> dominating play styles anywhere (though it is arguably having an
|> influence) and only in rare cases is someone going to play with more
|> than one or two anyway. The Cap is a card to watch for *possible*
|> restriction someday, but it isn't necesary now or in the near future.
|>
|> [rest of silly diatribe deleted]
|>
Eric Taylor
: Why aren't all the Weissman decks out there getting creamed every time
: they play? If a single cap goes off against a Weissman deck: bye bye
: Serras, bye bye braingeyser. Game over.
Well, to be more exact, if you play blue/white and get capped, it only
matters if you have all the killers in your deck and no killers in
hand. If you play with 4 killers, serra, serra, braingeyser, feldon's
cane (run 'em out of cards, you know), then you have to be capped twice
to have no killers at all.
The question to a cap man is, can he afford to wait 6 turns to play out
6 lands necessary for cap and activation before he lays out the cap.
That's a total of 14 cards out of 60, and with 3 or 4 killers for
blue/white that's give you a nearly 80% chance that blue/white already
has a killer in hand. Not very good odds. On there other hand, if you
cap on the first turn turn you have only a 30-40% chance or so that
blue/white has the killer in hand. You don't have to counter the cap,
just have a killer in hand. If you cap early and often, say two times
before the 4th turn, you will beat a Weissman deck. If you have to
wait til turn 6 to cap him, it's just not going to do much good. Heck,
I usually don't bother countering a cap at this time if I have what I
need in my hand. I would be more afraid of a scryb sprite than a cap
if I already serra and two counters in hand.
--- edt (newly turned blue mage, now that they've banned and restricted
all the other colors to death)
Thomas Fagerlie Gundersen
>pink...@aol.com (Pinky1000) wrote:
>>Copy Artifact is restricted, Reconstruction is out of print, Feldon's cane
>>is restricted, but I don't know about the others. Besides, a well placed
>>Shatter, Divine Offering, Disenchant, Crumble, Rust, or Magus of the
>>Unseen can stop it.
>
>
>-Matt
>
Shatter, Disenchant, Crumble, Magus of the Unseen can NOT stop Jester's Cap
unless it is left on the table without the mana to use it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas F. Gundersen (tho...@stud.unit.no)
Homepage : http://www.stud.unit.no/~thomasg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Sivils
>4 caps in a BFC green deck?
I don't own 4 caps :( But if I did, I'd be VERY tempted to try for a
jester cap BFC deck. Green can get 6 mana easily on turn 3. And
Green also has one other abusive card for this deck. Forgotten Lore,
if a heavy green deck the cost just doesn't matter. Now instead of
just 4 caps, we are talking about 8 :) And that is without
considering adding blue for counters/recall. Or mentioning the cane.
Craig
George W. Bayles
: >However, fast mana decks could get a bit evil with the Cap. Anyone for
: >4 caps in a BFC green deck?
: I don't own 4 caps :( But if I did, I'd be VERY tempted to try for a
: jester cap BFC deck. Green can get 6 mana easily on turn 3. And
: Green also has one other abusive card for this deck. Forgotten Lore,
: if a heavy green deck the cost just doesn't matter. Now instead of
: just 4 caps, we are talking about 8 :) And that is without
: considering adding blue for counters/recall. Or mentioning the cane.
: Craig
Don't restrict Jester's Cap - BAN IT! Not because it's so powerful in itself,
because allowing some jerk to paw through your deck delays the game and reveals
just too much strategic information. Like Chaos Orb it should never have been
printed in the first place.
bbea...@adobe.com
>>Anyway - I dont think it should be restricted -
> I personally see the cap as an extremely powerful card and it
>looks like something that will be restricted and eventually banned
>(anything half-way decent seems to be getting banned).... I think they
>are going ban and/or restrict crazy and for that reason i hope they
>stop.... seems like another card every month or so...
If WoTC is going to ban all these cards...why did they bother printing
them in the first place. I have no problem with the restriction of a
card due to it's overpowering nature, or its no-brain nature (i.e.
Mind Twist.
I think that WoTC needs to put a little more time into play testing
than they have in the past. They should be recruiting some of the top
players in the country to see if they can abuse those cards since they
tend to be the first to really abuse them...or find new ways of
abusing them. WoTC really shouldn't have to ban any new cards due to
their overpowering nature if they do enough play testing/research.
Banning cards b/c they lengthen the game beyond reason (Sharazzad) is
OK. Banning cards b/c they require some type of physical skill to use
them (Chaos Orb, Falling Star) should be ok (even though I would love
to put a chaos orb into every deck I ever make just because they're
fun...Reprint them please!). But from here out WoTC should be able to
control the game to the point where further banning should not be
required. Restriction should be enough.
Now..actually talking about the Cap, I think the only thing they
should do to it is use it like the Mask or The Disk where it comes
into play tapped. I'm really surprised they didn't create it like
this. This forces the user of the Cap to utilize either another card
or another turn before they can use the Cap. They make it like this
and they will be fine.
-Lazlo...
>>Have Fun,
>The number one rule....
The number 2 rule is to remember it's only a game.
>>Flec
>>
> -Steve
-Lazlo...
Technowiz
> The point is that the card is beginning to show up in just about every deck
> that is competitive in Type II.
> My $.02
WHOA! Hold on there, Every deck that is competitive? In the league i play
competitive is killing your opponent in 5 turns, who has room for a cap?!
Understandably, IF you get it out, and IF you find something that you can
take out to cripple their deck, and IF they don't come back after it the
Jester's Cap is a very important card but let's look at those IF's.
IF you get it out. Com'n who really has time to get out 5 mana x 2
turns? Against weenies or Land destruction or Discard decks you will find
yourself seriously hurting to pull out 3 mana any type before half your life
is gone.
IF you find something that you can take out. What is there that is
so immensely powerful in any deck? Quick would you take out lightning bolt
or incinerate or perhaps chain lightning? Most decks are built around cards
that have 4 other cards that do the same thing. Even if you do take out the
KEY cards to his deck he will just come back and smack you with something
else.
The cap's casting cost and it's activation cost are limiting enough
without moving it to the restricted list. How many people out there really
lost because of a Jester's Cap? And how many people out there realize that
it is their own fault for basing their deck too harshly on 3 or four cards?
The one interesting use i've seen for a Cap is a Land
Destruction/Preemptive Land Destruction deck. Sound strange? Just think
they destroy your mana to allow for time to get Caps out and then Cap away
your lands, good luck drawing mana after that. This is the ONLY deck i've
seen where the cap was put to good use and in fours.
If you really want to restrict a card, try something that is powerful
enough to be put in almost every speed deck, is versitile enough to go
against creatures or opponents, and is good enough to take out a Fallen Angel
with one mana, It's our friend the Lightning bolt. Definitely a better
choice than a Jester's Cap.
-Technowiz
"Hey, i forgot to put the lands back in after last game!"
"That's ok, i won't disqualify you, just play it like it is,
(snicker snicker)"
Big_Blue
Well actually I feel the cap should be retricted, and yes I have gotten 4
caps off in a game before several times by reviving the card, I usually
play with 2 in the deck. So far in the final version of my millstone/cap
deck I have won and came in second in the last two tournaments Ive been
in. One of the was the Type I N.Y.C. Pro tournament. The only reason I
didnt get first was because they went strickly by Swiss Style Points.
The first place winner saw my deck and said he was glad he didnt have to
play me because "he" felt he would have lost. I have not lost a
tournament with this deck. At the very least I get a 50/50 ratio in
win/loss. I play with the cap deck because in one shot it can paralyze
an opponent. Even if I get capped I can still win. My friend Adam
Maysonet invented the deck and together weve improved it to the point I
will play against any deck and be confident. Thats the power of the
cap. I feel it needs to be restricted or banned. Even if my deck ran on
one cap I could still clobber people.
Al
stuart ford
>Robert S. Hahn wrote:
>
>> The point is that the card is beginning to show up in just about every deck
>> that is competitive in Type II.
>
>> My $.02
>
>
>WHOA! Hold on there, Every deck that is competitive? In the league i play
>competitive is killing your opponent in 5 turns, who has room for a cap?!
>
>
>so immensely powerful in any deck? Quick would you take out lightning bolt
>or incinerate or perhaps chain lightning? Most decks are built around cards
>that have 4 other cards that do the same thing. Even if you do take out the
>KEY cards to his deck he will just come back and smack you with something
>else.
>
you....and i dont know how the cap fares against land destruction
decks...but they are very dangerous and people do lose to them.
I think the main problem with the caps is not that they should be
restricted, but that they should go out of the game when used...last
night i saw a Type I deck with (i presume) four caps and four
reconstructions and drafna's restorations that managed to cap his
opponent five times by the fifth or sixth turn.
by the sixth or seventh turn he was able to tell his opponent that he had
removed every creature, every direct damage spell...and anything else
vaguely dangerous in his opponents deck...the loss of fifteen or twenty
cards in the first five or six turns will cripple almost any deck.
my personal belief is that the card should have an errata that causes it
to be removed from the game
Robert S. Hahn
: WHOA! Hold on there, Every deck that is competitive? In the league i play
: competitive is killing your opponent in 5 turns, who has room for a cap?!
I don't know about your league, but just about every indicator from major
tournaments I've been to, including the Pro Tourney, tells me that if five
turn kills are average, then something is wrong with the league. Doesn't
ANYONE play a good U/W defense deck?
Anyhow...
: IF you get it out. Com'n who really has time to get out 5 mana x 2
: turns? Against weenies or Land destruction or Discard decks you will find
: yourself seriously hurting to pull out 3 mana any type before half your life
: is gone.
First of all, it's six mana in one turn, or if you're the risky type, four
then use it the next turn. Not forbidding, even in Type II with slower
mana development.
Weenie decks will cause problems, yes, but hopefully you have some way of
dealing with hordes of creatures? If not, your deck is weak. Even my slow
as molasses U/W deck has eight ways to deal with creatures, of which three
are Wrath of God and two are Serrated Arrows. Red decks are bound to have
Pyroclasm. Black decks ought to have Dry Spell and Pestilence and Serrated
Arrows. Green decks eat weenies for lunch with Ernhams, Bears, etc.
Land destruction is annoying, but what else does it do besides destroy
land? I play with 29 sources of mana, ways to get mana (3 Land Tax), and
artifact mana (Felwars). If he's doing nothing but destroying my land,
then he's certainly not doing enough to hurt me.
So again, few Type II games I've seen are decided in the first ten turns.
That gives AMPLE time to cast and use a Jester's Cap.
: IF you find something that you can take out. What is there that is
: so immensely powerful in any deck? Quick would you take out lightning bolt
: or incinerate or perhaps chain lightning? Most decks are built around cards
: that have 4 other cards that do the same thing. Even if you do take out the
: KEY cards to his deck he will just come back and smack you with something
: else.
Against such a brainless deck, I pull out the Disenchants or Nev's Disks
since I'm probably sideboarding my CoP:Red. Now they cry.
There's never a lack of something to take out. If nothing else, I pull out
a Feldon's Cane, Recall, and a Disenchant out of habit. I'll pull out
three bolts anytime -- that's nine fewer damage I have to be concerned
about. Why is any of this bad?
: The cap's casting cost and it's activation cost are limiting enough
: without moving it to the restricted list. How many people out there really
: lost because of a Jester's Cap? And how many people out there realize that
: it is their own fault for basing their deck too harshly on 3 or four cards?
I haven't suggested that it be restricted. All that I have said is that it
is one of the cards out of IA that bears close watching -- along with
Necropotence and Zur's Weirding. The power of the Cap was proven time and
time again in the Pro Tourney.
: The one interesting use i've seen for a Cap is a Land
: Destruction/Preemptive Land Destruction deck. Sound strange? Just think
: they destroy your mana to allow for time to get Caps out and then Cap away
: your lands, good luck drawing mana after that. This is the ONLY deck i've
: seen where the cap was put to good use and in fours.
That's one interesting use. I'd be happy to play that deck with my U/W
anytime for ante. If you have a copy, and have IRC, I'd be happy to try it
out. I think it's weak, but hey, maybe it does work.
-rsh
Antti Parnanen
Stop whining about Cap. It's a good and fun card to play with. All this whining
and complaining will never end, you know. All this will lead into the situation
where we play with Gray Ogres and Pearled Unicorns. I don't want that and
neither do you. So bite the f..king bullet and play with the cards WotC has made.
If you can't stop playing Magic.
---
Antti Parnanen, Helsinki, Finland, E-mail: parn...@mcs.pp.fi
"lose - Microsoft Windows 3.1 starting ..."
mark balabon
: In <Pine.NXT.3.90.960219151117.8919B-100000@zeus>, Ravi Prashad <arprasha@zeus> writes:
: >On 19 Feb 1996 sj...@lehigh.edu wrote:
: >> I HATE it when people assume that because you put 4 in a deck that you
: >> are automatically going to see all 4. Chances are that even with all the
: I suppose so. Everytime you mention something that is rarely true
: someone always feels the need to pipe up with "I did it". I doubt
: that you are incapable of understanding my point, namely that the
: number of times that someone is going to get off 4+ caps a game
: is fairly rare. Your isolated story really doesn't change my point
: nor does it change the majority of cases. Your own statements
: indicate that you understood what I was getting at, so why post
: about an fairly isolated case?
I haven't really tried it in Type II, but I have a Type I cap deck that
regularly gets off at least 3 caps. In the last tournament I played in, I got
off a minimum of 5 caps per game (except for one game (out of 17 or so games)
where I was playing against a R/U DD deck - but only it only failed the first
game). With the amount of library/graveyard manipulation in Type I, I rarely
(if every) have difficulty capping multiple times in one game.
<Type II stuff snipped>
: Once you take control. Of course, by that time you probably don't need the
: Caps anyway. The caps are really just rubbing salt in the wounds by that
: point. I've been playing with just such a deck so I know all about how
: well it can work. The Caps generally end up being pointless after the
: 2nd or 3rd one. (depending on what deck you are playing against)
: Counterspells, anti creature/artifact etc can usually handle the rest since
: it can't come out very fast at that point.
It really depends on how your deck is designed. Mine is straight defense/card
manipulation - I have almost no way to kill my opponent other than running out
their library or capping away *everything* they could possibly use to win the
game (they generally concede). The _only_ time I have ever found a cap to be
useless was in a round I played against a guy that refused to concede, even
when the only thing left in his library was land. Everything else had been
removed from the game (either by cap or by Tormod's crypt). Then I just used
the cap to remove the top three cards until he ran out.
: >> of them. Yes the Cap is a powerful card. It also is a well balanced
: >> card. Currently there is no reason to restrict the cap. It is not
: > I feel it is not balanced because they made a serious error in
: >the text: it should come into play tapped. No one brings out a cap
: >without 6 mana <they may not use it right away, but still), and that
: >means that unless you play blue (or some cheezy green cards) you will get
: >capped. I don't think it should be restricted though.
: I would agree that the Cap should have to come in to play tapped. Bad
: choice. I suppose we could play with Kismet. :-) (Which actually
: wouldn't be a totally rotten idea in a weissman style deck now that
: I think about it...)
After playing my cap deck for a while, I have to agree. Being able to use it
on the turn it comes into play is just too good. Unless I have already capped
someone a couple of times and gotten rid of their anti-artifact stuff, I never
cast a cap unless I have the extra mana to use it. Which means unless you can
win a counter war, you will lose three cards. The cap just adds to the
readons to play blue in tournaments.
Bally
Ira Ham
<df...@orion.alaska.edu> wrote:
> WHOA! Hold on there, Every deck that is competitive? In the league i play
> competitive is killing your opponent in 5 turns, who has room for a cap?!
>
> Understandably, IF you get it out, and IF you find something that you can
> take out to cripple their deck, and IF they don't come back after it the
> Jester's Cap is a very important card but let's look at those IF's.
>
> IF you get it out. Com'n who really has time to get out 5 mana x 2
> turns? Against weenies or Land destruction or Discard decks you will find
> yourself seriously hurting to pull out 3 mana any type before half your life
> is gone.
>
> IF you find something that you can take out. What is there that is
> so immensely powerful in any deck? Quick would you take out lightning bolt
> or incinerate or perhaps chain lightning? Most decks are built around cards
> that have 4 other cards that do the same thing. Even if you do take out the
> KEY cards to his deck he will just come back and smack you with something
> else.
>
> The cap's casting cost and it's activation cost are limiting enough
> without moving it to the restricted list. How many people out there really
> lost because of a Jester's Cap? And how many people out there realize that
> it is their own fault for basing their deck too harshly on 3 or four cards?
>
>
> The one interesting use i've seen for a Cap is a Land
> Destruction/Preemptive Land Destruction deck. Sound strange? Just think
> they destroy your mana to allow for time to get Caps out and then Cap away
> your lands, good luck drawing mana after that. This is the ONLY deck i've
> seen where the cap was put to good use and in fours.
>
> If you really want to restrict a card, try something that is powerful
> enough to be put in almost every speed deck, is versitile enough to go
> against creatures or opponents, and is good enough to take out a Fallen Angel
> with one mana, It's our friend the Lightning bolt. Definitely a better
> choice than a Jester's Cap.
>
> -Technowiz
> "Hey, i forgot to put the lands back in after last game!"
> "That's ok, i won't disqualify you, just play it like it is,
> (snicker snicker)"
I have 4 Caps in my deck and they are not nessary however I find them
usefull to remove those problems before they show up but they have never
killed a person. Banning the thing is for those people who cant deal with
a artifact when it pops up. A good deck can deal with a little bit of
everything.
--
Mass
"You only go as far as your imagination"
Peter C Grauer
The cap does not need to be banned. This card has no place in my deck or
sideboard as I would rather deal with the cards in hand or in play than worry
about what has not even been drawn yet. Looking through my opponent's
deck is a bonus, but not worth the 6 mana + card.
Robert G. Kraychik
Anybody who loses because of one Cap deserves to lose! Maybe the Cap
should be restricted because of abusive recycling, but gimme a break! One
Cap will not even bring you CLOSE to winning a game...
--
SYSTEM ERROR <A>bort <R>etry <P>anic
David J Low
>The only reason I
>didnt get first was because they went strickly by Swiss Style Points.
>The first place winner saw my deck and said he was glad he didnt have to
>play me because "he" felt he would have lost.
It wasn't a very well-run "Swiss" tournament if eventual-1st didn't play
eventual-2nd at some stage through the event....
>I have not lost a tournament with this deck. At the very least I get a
>50/50 ratio in win/loss.
You must have an interesting definition of "lost" :-) Especially given
the first quoted passage above....
>Even if my deck ran on one cap I could still clobber people.
Of course you could.
Nicholas Benjamin Gold
In a previous article, rsh...@is.nyu.edu (Robert S. Hahn) says:
>Also sprach Technowiz (df...@orion.alaska.edu):
>
>: WHOA! Hold on there, Every deck that is competitive? In the league i play
>: competitive is killing your opponent in 5 turns, who has room for a cap?!
>
>I don't know about your league, but just about every indicator from major
>tournaments I've been to, including the Pro Tourney, tells me that if five
>turn kills are average, then something is wrong with the league. Doesn't
>ANYONE play a good U/W defense deck?
>
>Anyhow...
>
>: IF you get it out. Com'n who really has time to get out 5 mana x 2
>: turns? Against weenies or Land destruction or Discard decks you will find
>: yourself seriously hurting to pull out 3 mana any type before half your life
>: is gone.
>
>First of all, it's six mana in one turn, or if you're the risky type, four
>then use it the next turn. Not forbidding, even in Type II with slower
>mana development.
I agree. With Fellwar Stones or Birds/Elves mana usually not a problem for
the control decks using Caps.
>Weenie decks will cause problems, yes, but hopefully you have some way of
>dealing with hordes of creatures? If not, your deck is weak. Even my slow
>as molasses U/W deck has eight ways to deal with creatures, of which three
>are Wrath of God and two are Serrated Arrows. Red decks are bound to have
>Pyroclasm. Black decks ought to have Dry Spell and Pestilence and Serrated
>Arrows. Green decks eat weenies for lunch with Ernhams, Bears, etc.
I'm not too sure how a dry spell/pestilence would work in a black deck
w/knights, but the Serrated Arrows are the best thing the ever happened
to Black Weenie vs. White Weenie (or visa-versa).
>Land destruction is annoying, but what else does it do besides destroy
>land? I play with 29 sources of mana, ways to get mana (3 Land Tax), and
>artifact mana (Felwars). If he's doing nothing but destroying my land,
>then he's certainly not doing enough to hurt me.
I've constructed some amazing land and hand destruction decks that can eat
most W/U if they don't get the first turn tax, and even if you do, I'll just
empty your hand where all the land is.
>So again, few Type II games I've seen are decided in the first ten turns.
>That gives AMPLE time to cast and use a Jester's Cap.
I'm wondering if you have seen land destruction(hand too) decks that get out
an Autumn Willow or Ihsan's Shade when you have about 2 lands and cards in
hand.
>: IF you find something that you can take out. What is there that is
>: so immensely powerful in any deck? Quick would you take out lightning bolt
>: or incinerate or perhaps chain lightning? Most decks are built around cards
>: that have 4 other cards that do the same thing. Even if you do take out the
>: KEY cards to his deck he will just come back and smack you with something
>: else.
>
>Against such a brainless deck, I pull out the Disenchants or Nev's Disks
>since I'm probably sideboarding my CoP:Red. Now they cry.
>
>There's never a lack of something to take out. If nothing else, I pull out
>a Feldon's Cane, Recall, and a Disenchant out of habit. I'll pull out
>three bolts anytime -- that's nine fewer damage I have to be concerned
>about. Why is any of this bad?
>
>: The cap's casting cost and it's activation cost are limiting enough
>: without moving it to the restricted list. How many people out there really
>: lost because of a Jester's Cap? And how many people out there realize that
>: it is their own fault for basing their deck too harshly on 3 or four cards?
>
>I haven't suggested that it be restricted. All that I have said is that it
>is one of the cards out of IA that bears close watching -- along with
>Necropotence and Zur's Weirding. The power of the Cap was proven time and
>time again in the Pro Tourney.
>
>: The one interesting use i've seen for a Cap is a Land
>: Destruction/Preemptive Land Destruction deck. Sound strange? Just think
>: they destroy your mana to allow for time to get Caps out and then Cap away
>: your lands, good luck drawing mana after that. This is the ONLY deck i've
>: seen where the cap was put to good use and in fours.
I've seen a deck just like this w/4 Caps. If fact a friend of mine who had
the deck admitted that it was not consistent enough for tournament play.
Later, we added hand destruction and then, it started working perfectly.
JOSHUA
>That's one interesting use. I'd be happy to play that deck with my U/W
>anytime for ante. If you have a copy, and have IRC, I'd be happy to try it
>out. I think it's weak, but hey, maybe it does work.
>
>-rsh
>
>--
--
Nick Gold/pezboy PPPP L U U RRRR disclaimer:
OFFICIAL HUGGER P P L U U R R "I 'yam what I 'yam" --Popeye
aj...@yfn.ysu.edu PPPP L U U RRR
P LLLL UUUU R R
Paul van Gool
>I think the main problem with the caps is not that they should be
>restricted, but that they should go out of the game when used...last
>night i saw a Type I deck with (i presume) four caps and four
>reconstructions and drafna's restorations that managed to cap his
>opponent five times by the fifth or sixth turn.
Sorry to say. But this is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
First of all where did he get the mana to cast and use his cap 5 times
in 6 turns. Even in type I it is impossible to do this (except whit
cheating). You must get all you 5 Moxes, a land and a Cap in your
first hand to pull this off. You can get very lucky once. (make that
very, very, very lucky).
Second. What was he playing against. An idiot. Didn't he do anything.
Probably not. If that's the case you deserve to lose.
I agree. In some decks a Cap can be of great help. Also against some
(bad designed) decks the Cap can be usefull. But until I have seen a
deck that will win most of his games because of good use of the Cap
(and not because of luck or stupid opponents) I don't believe it
should be restricted.
mark balabon
: Jonathan Paxman (jpa...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
Since we're talking about the Weissman deck, we're talking about Type I. I am
currently playing a Type I cap deck, and I rarely (if ever) *have* to wait
until the 6th turn before playing a cap. In Type I there is enough speed mana
to be able to play a cap in the first two or three turns (earlier if you
really want to) - between mox, lotus, sol ring and mana drain (just to name
the common ones), mana is generally not a problem.
As far as the Weissman killers go, who cares about the serra or feldons. The
Weissman deck is premised on card superiority and getting a lock. Most cap
players I've seen play a U/W deck with lots of defense (substantially similar
to Weissman's deck). I don't really care about the serra - what I care about
are the cards that allow a Weissman deck to establish the lock in the first
place - amnesia (I'm assuming that's what he's using now that mind twist is
gone), disrupting scepter and jayemdae tome. If I can get those, he can't
establish the lock and it becomes a counter war. Because I still have my
jayemdae and scepter (assuming I haven't been capped), that is a battle I'll
win.
Bally
: --- edt (newly turned blue mage, now that they've banned and restricted
Craig Sivils
>Weissman deck is premised on card superiority and getting a lock. Most cap
>players I've seen play a U/W deck with lots of defense (substantially similar
>to Weissman's deck). I don't really care about the serra - what I care about
>are the cards that allow a Weissman deck to establish the lock in the first
>place - amnesia (I'm assuming that's what he's using now that mind twist is
>gone), disrupting scepter and jayemdae tome. If I can get those, he can't
>establish the lock and it becomes a counter war. Because I still have my
>jayemdae and scepter (assuming I haven't been capped), that is a battle I'll
>win.
Amnesia doesn't scare me anywhere as much as mind twist did, you can
keep some land which means that the sceptre lock following an amnesia
is not an absolute lock as it is with mind twist (not pleasant mind
you, just not an absolute lock). Although the sceptre/tomes are
viable candidates, I have had my best success going for the mana
drains. Quite often they are what power all of the above and if you
take away thier ability to use your mana it seems to take the teeth
out of their bite.
Craig
Henrik Clausen
>Monica Severa <mse...@madison.k12.wi.us> wrote:
>Shatter, Disenchant, Crumble, Magus of the Unseen can NOT stop Jester's Cap
>unless it is left on the table without the mana to use it.
Yes, they can. Use them right after the Cap's been constructed, before
it's activated - there's a time gap. You'll kill it if you're not
countered.
-Henrik
Esch van J
: stuart ford <s...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
: >I think the main problem with the caps is not that they should be
: >restricted, but that they should go out of the game when used...last
: >night i saw a Type I deck with (i presume) four caps and four
: >reconstructions and drafna's restorations that managed to cap his
: >opponent five times by the fifth or sixth turn.
: Sorry to say. But this is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
: First of all where did he get the mana to cast and use his cap 5 times
: in 6 turns. Even in type I it is impossible to do this (except whit
: cheating). You must get all you 5 Moxes, a land and a Cap in your
: first hand to pull this off. You can get very lucky once. (make that
: very, very, very lucky).
Maybe using mishra's workshop ?
turn 1 : play workshop, play sol ring, play mox -> cap
turn 2 : use cap with sol ring, play island : reconstruct and cast cap
... get the picture ?
Unlikely, but with 5 moxen, 4 caps, and 8 reconstructs/drafna's not
impossible either.
-Jeroen van Esch
Derek Owen
Ok... I know some of you all have said this before...
But here it is again. Jst because i play a deck thats W/U with counters
and the like doesn't mean i'm playing " The Deck ". One of the first
decks i ever played was W/U Counter/Defense type opf creation. The first
thing the man across form me said was and i peraphrase. " Not another Dam
" the deck" clone. I just looked at him and Said " A what? "
The point is he my have made the deck popular and 'Famous' but no deck
type has a single evolution. In most cases a multi-evolutionary trend
will occur with a number of people creating the same basic deck at a
number of differnt places at the same time. And who knows, maybe if i
lived in L.A and could play in scantioned tournments the style could be a
Owen clone instead.. :)
Just a thought....
I'm rambling as usual....
P.s: I've basically grown out of the slow permision type decks.... I will
make a Mono green deck work and win in type 1.... but not anytime soon :)
Derek
do...@plato.ucs.mun.ca
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
Bsch Geography/Earth science
AKA:
----
Alt.StarFleet.rpg Alt.Holoworld.rpg
----------------- -----------------
Lt./Dr. Glenn Avalon * Lt.Jg Randell OakTree * Ens. Robert Jacobs
CMO Uss Clark * CMO Uss Stonewall * CNS SB Omega
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ " Release your self from the darkness, +
+ come to know your true inner self . +
+ Then you shall be free of the bonds that +
+ hold you down " +
+ Falcon +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leanne M. Fornaca
: Shatter, Disenchant, Crumble, Magus of the Unseen can NOT stop Jester's Cap
: unless it is left on the table without the mana to use it.
Ooh, look! A reason to start playing with Artifact Blasts again.
Artifact Blast: R. Interrupt. Counters any artifact as it is being cast.
An Antiquities C4 that no one ever plays with. Hmm, that oughta cover it...
****************************************************************************
Leanne Fornaca kja...@spike.wellesley.edu
http://www.wellesley.edu/ITS/Lfornaca/personal.html
"Traveling through cyberspace ain't like dusting crops, boy!"
****************************************************************************
Walter Goodwin
on a "dream deck" that could do well against a wide variety of
opponents. It was basically a white/blue control deck that would lock
down the game then kill you with a spirit linked serendib or serra.
Our "dream version" was so close to "the deck" that I nearly fainted
when I saw the listing for the first time a short time ago. I mean
think about it, two bored guys in the midwest designed an almost
identical deck that someone else had made in the "magic melting pot"
which was considered one of the best ever. Just goes to show
that not all of us in Indiana are dumber than a box of rocks.
Jason Goodwin
jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
Dennis F. Hefferman
|Ooh, look! A reason to start playing with Artifact Blasts again.
|Artifact Blast: R. Interrupt. Counters any artifact as it is being cast.
|An Antiquities C4 that no one ever plays with. Hmm, that oughta cover it...
It will be great if they ever reprint it (which won't be this calendar
year in all probability). Until then, it's a Type I card, and utterly no use
in stopping the Caps in Type II.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: Macavity heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I guess my work around here has all been done."
-- The Devil, in "The Garden of Allah", Don Henley
Leanne M. Fornaca
: (of course not that restriction would matter much, most people I've
: seen only use one cap in their decks unless of course the deck was
: built around it.)
True. Also true is your point (which I accidentally erased, sorry!) that
the problem is indeed deck construction. If, for example, you're playing a
Stasis deck, and 3 of your Stases get capped out, well, you're handicapped.
If you're playing the Orcish Artillery deck and your COP:reds get capped,
again, you're handicapped. If you're playing Wombats, and your Wombats
get capped out, well, those are gonna be some pretty ugly looking Verduran
Enchantresses, since you gotta put those enchantments on *something*.
But, frankly put, if your deck can't handle losing a few cards, then you've
built your deck wrong. My Artillery deck can handle losing the COP:reds, for
example, because it also has Healing Salves, Lightning Bolts, and Serra
Angels, so that the Artillery are not my only way to cause damage.
Granted, recursive caps, or a deck built around the cap is a different matter.
But then again, you could say the same thing about nearly anything else --
Stases, Racks, Crusades ... get my point? It's just another deck style.
And frankly, taking out cards that create deck styles is a Bad Thing in my
opinion. I was angry that the Ivory Tower was restricted, angry that the
Vise got restricted, utterly furious about Channel and Mind Twist being
banned. *If you can't handle one variable, there's something wrong with
your deck.*
And, again, let me remind you that there are ways of counteracting the
Cap. Artifact Blast, any variety of blue counter thingies (not that I
ever play blue ... gack), Brown Ouphe, Relic Barrier... there ARE means.
Don't go around screaming about restriction when there are effective means
for dealing with the problem.
I'll also note (are you listening, WOTC?) that all of these things, and then
some, are just as capable for dealing with Ivory Towers and Black Vises...
why don't you UNRESTRICT THEM BOTH? There are WAYS to deal with these things!
Just because people aren't interested in changing their decks and are
mad that they're getting beat by certain strategies is NO reason to restrict
things. (Frankly, if my deck can't handle some Ivory Towers and Black Vises,
*I'm* doing something wrong, NOT WOTC.)
So, when it comes down to it, here's the bare bones of what I'm trying to
say: DON'T RESTRICT the Cap, and UNRESTRICT the Tower and Vise, at the
very least in Type II. It *is* possible to deal with them effectively (tho'
you might want to consider bringing Artifact Blast back in Chronicles 2).
==Leanne
The Nomad
Simltaneous evolution. It happens a lot in Magic: hence my guttedness
when I dreamed up a multi-player Hurricane deck and saw it on the `net
2 days afterward...
There are a few very good and fairly obvious concepts, of which the
Weissman deck is one, that many people will come to at one point or
another. That does nothing to denigrate the skill of the individual
player who thought it up.
The Nomad
"My name was MIke. His name is Bob."
Leanne M. Fornaca
: Say there is a card that said-
: If you have more life than opponent and you have a direct damage spell
: you win the game.
: ...probably needs to be banned too right? Now give that last spell a GG
: casting cost. Looks very similar to Channel right?
Say you have a card that says 'W: target gains 3 life.' Say you have a
card that says 'UU: Counter target spell.' Say you have a card that says
'RR: Creates an exact duplicate of target sorcery or instant just cast.
You may choose the target of this duplicate.' Say you have a card that says,
'R: deals 3 damage to any target.' Say you have a card that says, '1B:
All damage done to you so far this turn is instead retroactively applied to a
target creature you control. Further damage this turn is treated normally.'
I could go on, but you get my point. There are ways around the Channelball.
Healing Salve, Counterspell, Fork, Lightning Bolt, Simulacrum ... all of
those will either save you, or be a good chance of making it a mutual kill.
Channel is no big deal, except in a Type I environment where it *is*
possible to be Channelballed on turn 1. Otherwise, there is time to deal
with it.
: I'm not arguing either for or against restricting Cap (though I think it
: shouldn't be) but I disagreeing with the "there are effective ways to deal
: with it" philosophy...
I can see part of where you're coming from. I for one don't want to see
the Moxes and Lotus coming back ---- but wait, give me a chance to explain,
OK?
: Same thing here...don't agree with the "there are ways to deal with it"
: mentality. Also you don't cry for the unrestricting of any other artifact
: (Moxen, Lotus) even though the same thing that will deal with the Tower and
: Vise will deal with those too...why?
Nothing can counter a first-turn Lotus if person who starts the game is
the person who drops the Lotus. That's my argument for that.
As for the Moxes, the profound effect they have on the game is why I am
not for bringing them back. My reasoning is thus (and feel free to
disagree): a Mox is potentially far far more damaging than a Vise, out early.
Where a Vise can do at most 3 damage a turn early in the game, it operates
alone. A Mox, on the other hand, facilitates bringing out more things
to cause damage very quickly, and it is free. With a Mox, instead of doing
3 damage a turn, given the proper cards (let's say, a Dark Ritual and a
Swamp), you can have a Juggernaut on turn 1, and Unholy Strength him and
Giant Growth him on turn 2. That's 10 damage on turn 2, if I'm not mistaken,
and 7 more on turn 3. Please bear in mind: this is only an example. The
point I'm trying to make is that a Mox facilitates any deck, and makes it
run faster. A Vise is only truly effective (1) for about the first 3 turns
and/or (2) in a deck designed around it. With an early start, a Mox is
effective all game, because it jumpstarts your deck.
(and please, regarding my example, don't give me the excuse of say, putting
a Scryb Sprite in front of the Juggernaut. It's not a permanent solution
to the problem, whereas I am trying to come up with permanent solutions.
Besides, who's to say that there's a Juggernaut ... it could be any sorcery,
artifact, creature, whatever ... the point I'm trying to make is that it's
the *effect* of the Mox, not the Mox itself that is the problem. The Vise
is a direct problem, whereas the Mox is an indirect problem. Make sense?)
What I'm mainly trying to point out here is that there are effective ways
to deal with the Vise, Cap, Tower, etc etc given a couple of turns into the
game. They also do not make or break the game on the first turn. There's
no effective way to deal with a Mox or Lotus given a couple of turns. The
damage has already been done by then.
I do not object to banning cards for reasons like the ones I have stated
above regarding Moxes. I do object to banning cards that can be *effectively*
dealt with in many different ways. However, what we have now is not
effective on the longterm effects of Moxes or Loti. It is on the
long-term Tower and the Vise (though I still think they should bring back
Artifact Blast on the general principle of dealing with Caps and the now
unrestricted Feldon's Cane).
I hope I've made some sense.
Jonathan Paxman
: Leanne M. Fornaca <kja...@molly.wellesley.edu> wrote:
: >David Lin (dav...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: Say there is a card that said-
: >: If you have more life than opponent and you have a direct damage spell
: >: you win the game.
: >
: >: ...probably needs to be banned too right? Now give that last spell a GG
: >: casting cost. Looks very similar to Channel right?
: >
: >Say you have a card that says 'W: target gains 3 life.' Say you have a
: >card that says 'UU: Counter target spell.' Say you have a card that says
: >'RR: Creates an exact duplicate of target sorcery or instant just cast.
: >You may choose the target of this duplicate.' Say you have a card that says,
: >'R: deals 3 damage to any target.' Say you have a card that says, '1B:
: >All damage done to you so far this turn is instead retroactively applied to a
: >target creature you control. Further damage this turn is treated normally.'
: >
: >I could go on, but you get my point. There are ways around the Channelball.
: >Healing Salve, Counterspell, Fork, Lightning Bolt, Simulacrum ... all of
: >those will either save you, or be a good chance of making it a mutual kill.
: >Channel is no big deal, except in a Type I environment where it *is*
: >possible to be Channelballed on turn 1. Otherwise, there is time to deal
: >with it.
I tend to agree with this point. I believe the main reason channel was
banned in the first place, was that the first turn channelball kill was
coming up quite frequently. Instead of banning the TRUE source of the
problem: BLACK LOTUS, they banned channel..
Black Lotus has long been the the most broken card in the game, far more
powerful than Channel or Mindtwist.. The DC just doesn't have the guts
to risk alienating all those people who spent $200 on the lotus for
their type I tourney decks..
just my opinion,
Jon P
--
==========================================================================
"And Saint Atila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'Oh, Lord,
bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to
tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and people did feast
upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutangs, and
breakfast cereals, and fruit bats..."
--The Book of Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One
(Monty Python and the Holy Grail)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Paxman | Mathematics and Electrical Engineering at
jpa...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au | The University of Western Australia
==========================================================================
Paul Barclay
> : >Healing Salve, Counterspell, Fork, Lightning Bolt, Simulacrum ... all of
> : >those will either save you, or be a good chance of making it a mutual kill.
> : >Channel is no big deal, except in a Type I environment where it *is*
> : >possible to be Channelballed on turn 1. Otherwise, there is time to deal
> : >with it.
Sure, many ways to get round a Channelball. You have to be holding
one, with the mana to use it, at all times. This isn't as easy as it
seems.
> I tend to agree with this point. I believe the main reason channel was
> banned in the first place, was that the first turn channelball kill was
> coming up quite frequently. Instead of banning the TRUE source of the
> problem: BLACK LOTUS, they banned channel..
Ok. They ban Black Lotus. Somebody now plays Orcish Lumberjack and
does a turn 2 channelball. Problem gone away? I think not. So let's
ban the Orcish Lumberjack. Now, people will play Forests and Mountains,
nad do a turn 3 Channelball. Problem gone away? No. Ok, let's ban
the Forests. Get the point. Channelball isn't abusive because of the
Black Lotus. It's abusive because of Channel.
> Black Lotus has long been the the most broken card in the game, far more
> powerful than Channel or Mindtwist.. The DC just doesn't have the guts
> to risk alienating all those people who spent $200 on the lotus for
> their type I tourney decks..
Black Lotus isn't as good as Time Walk. It does give you a lot of
speed, but it can't compare to an extra turn in the right place.
Anyway, Time Vault was by far the most broken card in the game (it's
not any more).
Paul Barclay.