The oh-so-broken Rishadan Port!
Bennie Smith
Port has drawn the watchful eye of the
DCI and is on their banned "Watch List."
This means it could become banned at
any moment, so you may not want to
sell your sould to trade for them.
Now, I have to sit back and wonder
about that decision. I mean, I don't
hardly think the Port warrants banning.
It's extremely useful, and flexible,
yes that's true. But I don't think
it's warping the environment. Standard
right now is the most dynamic and
eclectic it's been in a long time.
People are playing a wide variety of
decks and winning tournaments. A lot
of the winning decks have Ports in
them, but the Port serves different
functions in different decks. While
taking the disadvantage of only
providing colorless mana, you get
the ability to tap troublesome lands,
or slow your opponent down; this is
also effectively tying up two of your
mana to negate (usually) one of your
opponent's mana. Useful, but not
hardly broken.
I played 4 Ports in the deck I won
States with, and they came in handy
but I'd hardly say they were overpowering.
What I liked about them was they gave
you options-- if you didn't have a
turn 2 play, instead of being punished
for it, you could use your Port to slow
your opponent, too. It also helps combat
counterspells, which I'm always for ;)
What's my point? I don't know if I have
one, really. I just think it's a little
silly to be banning a card like Port just
because everybody's trying them out. I'm
willing to bet after the initial blush
wears off, people are going to realize
that the Ports don't belong in *every*
deck; hopefully, we'll have the time
to come to that realization.
Bennie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jason Service
Air Ron <air...@alchemy.on.ca> wrote in message
news:s4ea6v...@corp.supernews.com...
> Bennie Smith <bens...@i-c.net> wrote:
>
> >What's my point? I don't know if I have
> >one, really. I just think it's a little
> >silly to be banning a card like Port just
> >because everybody's trying them out. I'm
> >willing to bet after the initial blush
> >wears off, people are going to realize
> >that the Ports don't belong in *every*
> >deck; hopefully, we'll have the time
> >to come to that realization.
> >
> that Ports are really, really good but not overpowering and then
> they'll find something new to complain about. =)
Just like cursed scroll? The card that defined the entire environment until
the environment became so broken with Urza's Saga that things like card
advantage and damage became irrelevent? I don't see the port as being
inherently as broken as the scroll (only real mistake they made was making
it a rare), but if it IS on the same level as the Scroll, ban it now, before
more people waste their money buying a (soon to be) useless rare.
Jason Service
Bennie Smith <bens...@i-c.net> wrote in message
news:8270ok$3kc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com..
I'm just guessing, because I'm the last person in the world that really
knows what the DCI is thinking half the time, but my GUESS (hope?) is not
that they think it's really broken, but rather that it unbalances standard
by the mere fact that it is rare, and useful in almost ANY deck. If they've
put it on the watch list because they honestly think it's too powerful, then
I can safely say I will never buy another WOTC product, do to the fact that
I no longer have any hope for their policies.
If it's been placed on the watch list (and soon, the banned list, I'll
guess) because it is a card which divides standard strictly into have/have
not, then I can support their decision. Although I really would have to
wonder where this sensibility was when it came to Cursed Scroll and
Recurring Nightmare. Which doesn't let R&D off the hook, but I'm not going
to go into another tirade on that subject; it's barely worth the effort
anymore.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
but it will get banned - you watch and see.
The reason? Well you said it yourself
> It also helps combat
> counterspells, which I'm always for ;)
>
Anything that upsets a counterspell must be banned!!
Randy Bueller will not be denied!
</sarcasm>
Why would they ban this and not the Claws????????
--
Nigel.
Do it. Do it well.
Do it differently.
Bennie Smith
Zaphod Beeblebrox <zaph...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> Its hardly the most broken card ever printed
> but it will get banned - you watch and see.
>
> The reason? Well you said it yourself
>
> > It also helps combat
> > counterspells, which I'm always for ;)
> >
>
> Anything that upsets a counterspell must be banned!!
> Randy Bueller will not be denied!
You're probably right; having Mr. Buehler join
the R&D team definitely proves the conspiracy
theory of a bunch of blue mages running the
show. I mean, sure green is doing well right
now, but that's purely because they had to
ban all the truly broken blue cards that
would have otherwise dominated the current
environment, and made green look like the
chump color it had been for so long. Thank
god the DCI saved us!
> </sarcasm>
<ditto>
> Why would they ban this and not the Claws????????
I assume you mean the Rings?
Well, the Rings can be counterspelled, of course!
Hopefully, the DCI won't overreact with the
Ports. If they do, well they're a bunch of
bloody Septics!!! ;)
Later,
Bennie
Air Ron
>What's my point? I don't know if I have
>one, really. I just think it's a little
>silly to be banning a card like Port just
>because everybody's trying them out. I'm
>willing to bet after the initial blush
>wears off, people are going to realize
>that the Ports don't belong in *every*
>deck; hopefully, we'll have the time
>to come to that realization.
>
Just like Cursed Scroll, after a month or two people will recognize
that Ports are really, really good but not overpowering and then
they'll find something new to complain about. =)
Air Ron
"An apprentice does not become a wizard, he is replaced by one."
Steven Merritt
>
> In case you haven't heard, the Rishadan
> Port has drawn the watchful eye of the
> DCI and is on their banned "Watch List."
You know how they can eliminate the whole problem of the Port? Ban
Masticore. Think about it. The Port just taps a land. Now unless
you're counting on your uberlands, always a risky strategy, you're
probably not going to be hurt too much by the slowdown of being out one
point of mana. Unless... If you run a multiple color deck with a lot of
lock elements and a very, very, very tight mana curve like last season's
Death decks, then Port can be a real problem. I don't see a Fish deck
being upset by losing one point of mana occasionally, especially since
it'd stunt their opponents too if they use it early and often, which is
fine by Fish, go ahead, spend two lands to tap one of mine, here, take a
Sandbar Merfolk up the... Hold a weenie deck in the early game
development stages and you'll really regret it, that's their strength.
The whole problem is Masticore. Weenie decks, which have a flexible
mana base(they don't have to have every point of every color available
at any given time to be effective) just aren't viable right now. Oh
sure, some people are playing massively accelerated token generating
decks, but their only real way of beating 'core is to race it. Or
(*COUGH*) Splinter. And guess what Port does to decks which have to use
their acceleration to win.
A deck with both Ports and Masticore is a fearsome thing. It can
dominate weenie decks via 'core and disrupt faster control decks or
pseudo-combo decks with Port or something like Arcane Lab. Control is
in folks. I don't really have a problem with control being viable, or
even popular, I'm personally a control player at heart, but I think the
environment suffers when two of the major archetypes, combo and
beatdown, both have such powerful foils in Port and 'core.
And if they don't do anything, they had damn well better change the
time limits on rounds again. Control being the dominant archeytpe does
not a fast game make.
> It also helps combat counterspells, which
> I'm always for ;)
I don't really see it as too terribly effective against countermagic.
Yes, it slows a control decks development to their flash point, but the
real "Counterspell" and most of the counters being played in top decks
just aren't that mana intensive. If it becomes a real problem, look for
Hoodwink to make an appearance, it can bounce the Port at end of your
turn so I can drop by a threat with Counter backup early enough to race
you.
People are just building the wrong kind of decks right now. The
tightly tuned, well oiled machines like Death just can't exist in an
environment with so many wrenches like Port which can get thrown into
the works. If people just start building more flexible decks, they'll
have less problems with Port and 'core which both really just hurt
certain strategies. Any deck which can't handle a speed bump like Port
or 'core just will have to phase out in favor of a more versatile and
flexible deck. I think if any beatdown deck can survive in the new Type
II it'll have to be WW. It handles the 'core best with good artifact
control, Muzzle, Afterlife, Arrest, etc. And it can use Port to give it
some extra time in the early game against control.
Steven
King of Casual Play
The One and Only Defender of Cards That Blow
> What's my point? I don't know if I have
> one, really. I just think it's a little
> silly to be banning a card like Port just
> because everybody's trying them out. I'm
> willing to bet after the initial blush
> wears off, people are going to realize
> that the Ports don't belong in *every*
> deck; hopefully, we'll have the time
> to come to that realization.
>
Zaphod Beeblebrox
> > Why would they ban this and not the Claws????????
>
> I assume you mean the Rings?
>
Doh you are right.
> Well, the Rings can be counterspelled, of course!
>
> Hopefully, the DCI won't overreact with the
> Ports. If they do, well they're a bunch of
> bloody Septics!!! ;)
>
Touche - I deserved that. ;-)
--
Nigel.
Do it. Do it well.
Do it differently.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
> People are just building the wrong kind of decks right now. The
> tightly tuned, well oiled machines like Death just can't exist in an
> environment with so many wrenches like Port which can get thrown into
> the works. If people just start building more flexible decks, they'll
> have less problems with Port and 'core which both really just hurt
> certain strategies. Any deck which can't handle a speed bump like
Port
> or 'core just will have to phase out in favor of a more versatile and
> flexible deck.
You know I think thats a really major point you made there and I think
its what Wizards really wanted people to do when they made MM.
However I disagree with you on the White Weenie - Green is still the
beatdown colour but as you said it has to be more flexible. Personally
I like Bennie's Blair Witch Green because there isn't anything it can't
handle (theoretically at least). That sort of flexibility and speed is
the way of the future in my feeble opinion.
Paul Miller
wrote:
>> > Why would they ban this and not the Claws????????
>>
>> I assume you mean the Rings?
>>
>
>Doh you are right.
Ring of Gix vs Rishadan Port is no comparison. Ring of Gix is 3 cc with echo
and 1,T activation. Rishadan Port is a land, and has an activation cost of 1,T.
You cannot even play Ring of Gix until turn 2 or 3, and even then you'll be
expending some major resources via the double mana depletion lands or have a
good draw playing green. If you play the Ring on turn 2 or 3, chances are it
will tie up all your mana the following turn, too.
Ring of Gix is balanced enough. It's not as good as Icy Manipulator, and the
Icy was never really a candidate for restriction or banning.
Steven Merritt
Blair Witch Green, while a great deck, has one major problem. It
RELIES on it's opponents not having a flexible deck. Look at it, Ports,
Plow Under, and Creeping Mold are really key in this deck. As with most
modern control decks, it runs agressive disruption to allow it the time
it needs to set up it's win mechanism. Against a deck which doesn't care
if you tap a land, or if you put a couple on the library, like WW, it'd
have real problems.
Bennie's deck, while fast, just isn't _that_ fast. It really does
count on being able to both accelerate it's own development while
slowing it's opponent. The differential, not the derivivative is the
important factor in BWG. In a matchup against a deck with a variable
"flashpoint" this is hard to do. WW can do many things on many levels.
It can drop cheap effective threats if it's limited to low mana, it can
drop midrange creatures and use some card advantage engines like the new
Rebels if it reaches a comfortable mana amount and it can go all out
control with it's phenomenal sideboard options. Cho-Manno's Blessing is
just the bomb, and I wouldn't be suprised to see a new version of
RancorWhite emerge to take advantage of this fantastic card. It is
basically a White Intervene. While Intervene isn't that great a card in
constructed, think about it in a creature heavy weenie deck which
invests in it's creatures with things like Rancor and you can soon see
it's strength. Added to the mix, WW's legendary first strike abilities
and Mother of Runes. Viable anti-Masticore options like Disenchant and
Afterlife, for the early and later game respectively. Combo breakers
can come in from the board and the deck can run disruption like Port
without hurting itself much.
In an environment which demands flexibility, due to wrecking balls for
certain strategies being common, I see White as the winner. It can't
beatdown like Green can, it can't disrupt like Black can or control as
well as Blue, but it can do all of these things whereas each of the
other colors, Red just isn't that good right now, all have glaring weak
spots, whereas White is solidly meodicre.
Off the top of my head, something like this.
4 Mother of Runes
4 Ramosian Sargeant
4 Rancor
3 Steadfast Gaurd
3 Ramosian Captain
2 Nightwind Glider
2 Thermal Glider
3 Afterlife
3 Disenchant
3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
3 Armageddon
3 Marble Diamond
3 Moss Diamond
4 Rishadan Port
4 Forest
12 Plains
This isn't the old power WW of the days gone by. It's a much more
controllish version. It plays its cards and depending on what you do,
reacts accordingly. If you accelerate like a fiend, it disrupts with
'Geddon and Port. If you try to disrupt, it plays nice and slow while
pounding you and taking a defensive stance behind creatures. If you're
facing a control deck, just go the rebel yell route to gain some card
advantage and hopefully overwhelm them.
Don't forget you can Bless someone else's creatures to make their
spells fizzle. It works against Treachery and if you run into a fat,
fast creature deck, well, they printed Crackdown for a reason, it
belongs in the sideboard if you expect fat.
I really think the strength of White right now is sideboard-oriented.
Build a flexible deck and round it out with the sideboard to up your
chances against any particular deck.
Archimede
Bennie Smith wrote in message <8270ok$3kc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In case you haven't heard, the Rishadan
>Port has drawn the watchful eye of the
>DCI and is on their banned "Watch List."
>any moment, so you may not want to
It was put on the Watch List? I'm truly shocked...
I never saw this coming lol ;-)
>
>Now, I have to sit back and wonder
>about that decision. I mean, I don't
>hardly think the Port warrants banning.
>It's extremely useful, and flexible,
>yes that's true. But I don't think
>it's warping the environment. Standard
>right now is the most dynamic and
>eclectic it's been in a long time.
>People are playing a wide variety of
>decks and winning tournaments. A lot
>of the winning decks have Ports in
>them, but the Port serves different
>functions in different decks.
Ports serve different functions in different decks?
I'm not sure I agree with that. Ports serve the
same functions in all decks. It's incredibly useful.
Here's why it is broken; I know you saw this on the list
a while ago Bennie, but I think that more people will
agree with me now than before.... ok so no-one agreed
with me before, but I think some will now =)
In the days when a broken card was not associated with a
degenerate combo, it had certain attributes.
#1 Undercost.
The Port definitely falls under that point.... it's a land. The toughest
permanent to get rid of, and uncounterable. The Port also adds
colorless mana, so it doesn't slow you down on your mana development;
you can screw an opponent turn 2-3, and still have 4 mana on turn 4 with
only
lands available.
#2 Overpowered.
This is probably the part where I have the most trouble making people
realize how
strong the Port's main ability is. In my not so humble opinion, the Port is
stronger
than Strip Mine was in t2. Why such a bold statement? Here's a situation.
Turn 1
I play a Land, opponent plays a land.
Turn 2
I play a Port, tap opponent's land during upkeep, he plays a land.
***I play a strip mine, kill opponent's land, he plays a land.***
Turn 3
I play a land, I have 3 Mana available, opponent only has one mana,
so I can play a 2-3 cc Spell *or*
I can play 1 cc spell, and use the port *again*!
***I play a land, I have 2 mana available, I can play a 1-2 cc spell...***
So in effect, the port steals a turn from the opponent. It's like a Time
Walk!
....that stays around! If you don't understand that logic, lemme try to
reword
it again, on my third turn, according to the common example aforementioned,
I have 3 Mana available. My opponent only has 1. So while I'm on my third
turn,
my opponent feels like he just had 1.
So that's the main ability. Other useful abilities, since broken cards tend
to have lots of them,
it taps for mana, it stops man lands, or other broken lands like cradle and
sanctum.
#3 Degenerate.
This third category is tough to explain. It's basically the rest of the
reasons. The Port is and will be
found in most of the top 8 decks in t2 until it's banned. The Port is even
stronger in multiples;
so while Mind over Matter was broken because of its ability, drawing a
second one was useless,
but a second, third, or fourth port is even more abusive. And the last
point I'll make, like Strip Mine,
like the Black Vise, the port thrives on mana screw.... and that's always
been enough to piss off enough
people to get it banned, for this reason more than any other, this is why
it's gonna get banned.
Any retorts?
Archimède
Jason Service
Archimede <Ast...@SPAMBLOCKworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:82e28i$c50$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> Ports serve different functions in different decks?
> I'm not sure I agree with that. Ports serve the
> same functions in all decks. It's incredibly useful.
> Here's why it is broken; I know you saw this on the list
> a while ago Bennie, but I think that more people will
> agree with me now than before.... ok so no-one agreed
> with me before, but I think some will now =)
Hmm, well, if you go back and read any of my posts froma round the time MM
came out, you'll see that I was preaching about how great the Port was. A
lot of people DID see the power and utility of the port back then (although,
to be fair, it really stood out in such a weak set).
Now if I can just get people to realize the awesome power and versatility of
Trade Routes, my job will be done.
>
> In the days when a broken card was not associated with a
> degenerate combo, it had certain attributes.
>
> #1 Undercost.
>
> The Port definitely falls under that point.... it's a land. The toughest
> permanent to get rid of, and uncounterable. The Port also adds
> colorless mana, so it doesn't slow you down on your mana development;
> you can screw an opponent turn 2-3, and still have 4 mana on turn 4 with
> only
> lands available.
Colorless is in itself a drawback. The fact that it generates mana? Well
if it DIDN't. it would be next to useless. Tapping a land, while good, is
not on the same level as stopping a creature, so I'm not sure a card like
this needs a "Maze of Ith" drawback.
It IS surprising to me, that WOTC felt the new storage and "double" lands
needed to come into play tapped, but that this was fine thw way it is. I've
always felt they're too liberal with "comes into play tapped" on otherwise
useful lands, so it doesn;t necessarily bother me, but it seems
inconsistent, since the Port is at least as strong as a storage land
(assuming they both come into play untapped), but that's all part of the R&D
tirade.
>
> #2 Overpowered.
>
> This is probably the part where I have the most trouble making people
> realize how
> strong the Port's main ability is. In my not so humble opinion, the Port
is
> stronger
> than Strip Mine was in t2. Why such a bold statement? Here's a situation.
I've snipped your example, to save space, but I'll say this. The port is
not going to effect your opponent on the first turn... it CAN hurt him on
the second turn, but where you're really going to be hurting him is on turn
3+, because that's when you're keeping him from reaching his mana
threshold... it's not the small stuff you're sweating (or if it is, the Port
really ISN'T going to save you!) it's the game-changing ones... which tend
to cost 3+. On turn 3 and after, strip mine is hurting your opponent more
in terms of mana levels, because it's not costing you 2 lands each turn,
it's costing you 1: the strip mine you already sacrificed.
> So in effect, the port steals a turn from the opponent. It's like a Time
> Walk!
A Time Walk allows you another turn to play cards AND another card.
Rishadan Port doesn;t give you an extra turn, or even steal one from your
opponent (he can still play spells, and attack.. he's just down one land for
that turn), and it doesn;t dig deeper into your deck for you. The Time-Walk
bogey man doesnt fit the Port.
> ....that stays around!
or to rephrase it, "... that you must continue to pay for..." Because if
you don't, your opoonent doesn;t stay a turn behind you, in terms of
mana-developement. And if you do, you're actually putting yourself behind
the opponent.
> If you don't understand that logic, lemme try to
> reword
> it again, on my third turn, according to the common example
aforementioned,
> I have 3 Mana available. My opponent only has 1. So while I'm on my
third
> turn,
> my opponent feels like he just had 1.
Because a) you apparently went first, so he'd always have been a turn behind
you and b) what he really "feels like" is that he just had two first turns.
>
> So that's the main ability. Other useful abilities, since broken cards
tend
> to have lots of them,
> it taps for mana, it stops man lands, or other broken lands like cradle
and
> sanctum.
Those being lands, yes, it does. The fact that it's so versatile and
powerful stems more from the fact that lands themselves are so versatile
(man-lands) and powerful (Cradle, Sanctum)
You'll be interested to know, I think, that Dust Bowl is pretty good at
neutralizing those threats too, and once they're neutralized, you can stop
worrying about them.
>
> #3 Degenerate.
>
> This third category is tough to explain. It's basically the rest of the
> reasons. The Port is and will be
> found in most of the top 8 decks in t2 until it's banned.
No argument there.
> The Port is even
> stronger in multiples;
Same thing with Grizzly Bears. Ban 'em!
> so while Mind over Matter was broken because of its ability, drawing a
> second one was useless,
Well, a free colorless or blue dark ritual effect is hardly worthless, but
no, they weren't cumulative.
> but a second, third, or fourth port is even more abusive.
The same could really be said for a lot of cards. Unless the cards have an
exponential effect, or allow multiple-step interractions that weren't
possible with just one, this really isn't saying a whole lot. Cards that
are good in multiples are the RULE, not the exception, which is why it's
considered a drawback when a good card is only good in single quantities
(Sylvan Library, Douse, War Tax, etc)
Nate Finch
>
>Bennie Smith wrote in message <8270ok$3kc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In case you haven't heard, the Rishadan
>>Port has drawn the watchful eye of the
>>DCI and is on their banned "Watch List."
>>This means it could become banned at
>>any moment, so you may not want to
>>sell your soul to trade for them.
>
>It was put on the Watch List? I'm truly shocked...
>I never saw this coming lol ;-)
>
>>
>>Now, I have to sit back and wonder
>>about that decision. I mean, I don't
>>hardly think the Port warrants banning.
>>It's extremely useful, and flexible,
>>yes that's true. But I don't think
>>it's warping the environment. Standard
>>right now is the most dynamic and
>>eclectic it's been in a long time.
>>People are playing a wide variety of
>>decks and winning tournaments. A lot
>>of the winning decks have Ports in
>>them, but the Port serves different
>>functions in different decks.
>
>Ports serve different functions in different decks?
>I'm not sure I agree with that. Ports serve the
>same functions in all decks. It's incredibly useful.
>Here's why it is broken; I know you saw this on the list
>a while ago Bennie, but I think that more people will
>agree with me now than before.... ok so no-one agreed
>with me before, but I think some will now =)
>
>In the days when a broken card was not associated with a
>degenerate combo, it had certain attributes.
>
>#1 Undercost.
>
>The Port definitely falls under that point.... it's a land. The
>toughest permanent to get rid of, and uncounterable. The Port also adds
>colorless mana, so it doesn't slow you down on your mana development;
>you can screw an opponent turn 2-3, and still have 4 mana on turn 4 with
>only lands available.
If, by saying that you will still have 4 mana available on turn 4, you are
designating that as "not slowing down your mana development", then it
doesn't slow down your opponent's mana development either. He'll still
have 4 lands on turn 4 too. Because it's a land, it's good. Otherwise it
would be crap. The very fact that it is a land is a slight
drawback. Imagine if it were a 1cc artifact. Then, you'd only be tying
up one of your lands for one of theirs. Because it's a land, it ties up
two of yours for 1 of theirs. Sounds pretty well balanced cost-wise to
me.
>#2 Overpowered.
>
>This is probably the part where I have the most trouble making people
>realize how strong the Port's main ability is. In my not so humble
>opinion, the Port is stronger than Strip Mine was in t2. Why such a
>bold statement? Here's a situation.
There's just no way it's stronger than Strip Mine, allow me to explain
below.
>Turn 1
>
>I play a Land, opponent plays a land.
>
>Turn 2
>
>I play a Port, tap opponent's land during upkeep, he plays a land.
>***I play a strip mine, kill opponent's land, he plays a land.***
With port: both your lands are used, you can't do anything except tap one
of his lands. He plays a land and can still cast something 1cc. That's
disadvantage, you just gave away your turn, and he still got use out of
his.
With Strip Mine: You both lose one land, but are both able to still cast
something 1cc. All you're trying to do is either a) rely on the fact your
deck recovers faster or b) destroy powerful non-basics/disrupt his land
color base. But you don't lose a whole turn doing it. With port, you do.
So far,
Port = -1 turn for you, -1/2 turn for opp.
Strip = -1/2 turn for you, -1/2 turn for opp.
>Turn 3
>
>I play a land, I have 3 Mana available, opponent only has one mana,
On your turn, yeah, he only has 1 mana. On his turn, he'll have 3 unless
you use your port.
>so I can play a 2-3 cc Spell *or* I can play 1 cc spell, and use the
>port *again*! ***I play a land, I have 2 mana available, I can play a
>1-2 cc spell...***
Port: You use port and cast 1cc spell. Your opponent plays a 1-2cc spell.
Sounds like your opponent is still ahead.
Yes, you can now opt not to use the port, but that still puts you
behind in the turn sequence, since you basically didn't get a second
turn.
Strip: Once again, things are equal, and you're just hoping your deck can
rely on a lower mana base than the opponents.
>So in effect, the port steals a turn from the opponent. It's like a Time
>Walk!
No no! It's like half a timewalk for your opponent. He gets half his
second turn, you get none of it. And that's if you stop using it after
turn 2. The longer you use the port, the more advantage you're giving
your opponent. If you hadn't noticed, using ports takes twice as much of
your resources as the opponent's! Sounds pretty fair to me.
>....that stays around! If you don't understand that logic, lemme try to
>reword it again,
Please do, so far, I'm not seeing any brokenness here.
>on my third turn, according to the common example aforementioned, I have
>3 Mana available. My opponent only has 1. So while I'm on my third
>turn, my opponent feels like he just had 1.
Yeah, because you went first and he hasn't had his turn yet! And he
doesn't feel like he's had one, he feels like he's had 2 first turns,
while you feel like you've only had one.
>So that's the main ability. Other useful abilities, since broken cards
>tend to have lots of them, it taps for mana,
If it didn't tap for mana it would completely suck. And like I said
above, if you make it an artifact, even one that costs 1 instead of 0, it
would STILL be better than it is as a land.
>it stops man lands, or other broken lands like cradle and sanctum.
Umm..... so it's powerful because there are other powerful lands that it
stops? So then splinter is powerful because it stops Masticore? So
counterspell is broken because it can stop Time Walk and Memory Jar? Come
on, that's worse than no reason at all.
>#3 Degenerate.
>
>This third category is tough to explain. It's basically the rest of the
>reasons. The Port is and will be
>found in most of the top 8 decks in t2 until it's banned.
Very true. This is the main reason it is on the watch list. However, I
seriously doubt they'll ban it. They didn't ban Yawgmoth's Will or
Bargain, because they weren't DOMINATING T2. Port doesn't dominate
anything, it just punishes people who play with a tight mana curve and/or
rely on not having their mana disrupted. And it doesn't even make the
game versus those decks. I've never had a port win me a
game. Masticore? Yeah, definitely. He's won many games for me... but
Port? No, it was just helpful.
>The Port is even stronger in multiples; so while Mind over Matter was
>broken because of its ability, drawing a second one was useless, but a
>second, third, or fourth port is even more abusive.
First... as someone else said, this applies to anything whose ability is
cumulative. Second, it's really not that much stronger in
multiples. Yeah, with 3 lands and 3 ports, I can ties down 3 of your
lands... Is that a lot? Hell yeah. But you know what? You should have 3
other lands yourself by then, so you still get to cast stuff. Do you know
how often I use port past turn 5 or so? Hardly ever. You know
why? Because after that it's screwing me a lot more than it screws the
opponent.
>And the last point I'll make, like Strip Mine, like the Black Vise, the
>port thrives on mana screw.... and that's always been enough to piss off
>enough people to get it banned, for this reason more than any other,
>this is why it's gonna get banned.
So should we ban all land destruction then? Yeah, if you're mana screwed,
port hurts you more. You know what the solution to that is? Don't get
mana screwed.
I play a green disruption deck similar to Bennie's, and you know what I
love more than getting a port out turn 2? The opponent getting a port out
turn 2. There's nothing I enjoy more than my opponent doing twice the
work of my port. Tap two of your lands for one of mine? Sure! You just
quadrupled the effectiveness of my port.
As someone said, soon enough, people will start to realize port doesn't
belong in some decks. In fact, port doesn't belong in a lot of decks.
The only reason it's in every deck now is because people aren't realizing
that the port is actually working to help their opponent. Any beatdown
deck should not run ports. A blue control deck should not run ports. A
black control deck may want ports, but I'm not sure if they're optimal.
You know why? Cause all these decks are hurt by ports more than they gain
from them. Beatdown decks need to maximize their mana each turn to race
the opponent... play more threats than the opponent can handle. Port
takes your mana curve and throws it out the window. Remember sligh?
Remember the mana curve?
Here's one sure fire way to test out if port is good for your deck. Take
your first turn normally. Ok, now take your second turn and throw it out
the window. Take the third turn and pretend you're mana screwed and still
only have one land... what does your deck do? If the answer is "it uses
the two 1 drops to maximum efficiency while setting up for a very powerful
4th turn" then use the port. If the answer is "it holds a bunch of stuff
in hand, and then generally has an uneventful 4th turn" you probably
shouldn't use ports.
Ports are good in control decks that use board and mana manipulation to
disrupt the opponent. Ports are good in decks that tend toward a slow
game with gradual build up of power. Ports are bad in any deck based on
speed and/or casting a lot of spells.
If port were truly good in every deck, and the person who got the port out
first generally won, then I'd agree that it is too strong. However, port
does not give you the game. And port is very bad in many decks.
Give people a chance to see what decks port really should go in, and I
think you'll find the number of them in winning decks going down.
Nate Finch
na...@wpi.edu
The Lorax
Bennie Smith
"Jason Service" <el...@sisna.com> wrote:
>
> Bennie Smith <bens...@i-c.net> wrote in message
> news:8270ok$3kc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com..
>
> I'm just guessing, because I'm the last person in the world that
really
> knows what the DCI is thinking half the time, but my GUESS (hope?) is
not
> that they think it's really broken, but rather that it unbalances
standard
> by the mere fact that it is rare, and useful in almost ANY deck. If
they've
> put it on the watch list because they honestly think it's too
powerful, then
> I can safely say I will never buy another WOTC product, do to the fact
that
> I no longer have any hope for their policies.
>
> If it's been placed on the watch list (and soon, the banned list, I'll
> guess) because it is a card which divides standard strictly into
have/have
Hmm. You know, I admire this sentiment, but I have
to come down on the other side of this. Rishadan
being a rare or not should really have no bearing
on whether it should be banned. I mean card rarity
as a way to balance the power of a card proved
to be silly way back in the days of Unlimited.
I'll agree that it's hardly "fair" to have a card
so popular be a hard-to-find rare, but Wizards
has been walking this road for several years;
I'll even be so bold as to put my finger on
the expansion that began this trend-- Tempest.
I mean, just look a little bit prior to Tempest
and you find power cards sprinkled liberally
in the common and uncommon slots. Visions
especially brought some great power cards to
all the rarity slots. Once the Tempest block
came out, you began to see the "power" decks
with higher and higher percentage of rares
making up the deck. Perhaps this makes more
business sense, but it's a kick in the teeth
to Magic fans who don't have the resources
to chase down the rares necessary to make a
competitive deck.
The DCI isn't (and shouldn't be) in the business
to determine whether a card is unfair because
of its rarity and popularity; they should be
in the business of trying to keep the Magic
tournament scene vibrant and diverse, and
to ban cards that threaten that. Banning of
cards like Time Spiral, Tolarian Academy,
and Fluctuator help accomplish that. I don't
see that the Port is unbalancing like those
cards were.
However, I do agree that Wizards needs to be
more considerate of the gamers who don't have
the unlimited resources to collect the huge
amount of rares to build competitive decks.
The forum to address that is more feedback
to Wizards; let them know you're getting tired
of so many tournament level cards lurking in
the rare slots, and so much dreck in the
common and uncommons lots. A true test of
skill should be in looking at an individual
card and determining it's worth as a tournament
level card, not looking at it's rarity.
Until then, I offer this advise to those
Magic players with limited funds to spend
on the game-- look to beatdown decks for
lower-costed competitive decks. Not too
long ago, a competitive Sligh deck could
be constructed at a fairly reasonable cost
without too many rares; currently, green
creature rush is much the same.
However, if you're a combo or control
player... well, you're SOL :)
Later,
Bennie
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Well the usefuleness of the Port drops off quite rapidly after turn 4 or
so until there is only one or two lands that would be worthy of the
effort of tapping whereas the Ring maintains its usefullness all through
the game.
However you are right re the Ring vs the Icy comment.
--
Nigel.
Do it. Do it well.
Do it differently.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
>
> Blair Witch Green, while a great deck, has one major problem.
It
> RELIES on it's opponents not having a flexible deck. Look at it,
Ports,
> Plow Under, and Creeping Mold are really key in this deck. As with
most
> modern control decks, it runs agressive disruption to allow it the
time
> it needs to set up it's win mechanism. Against a deck which doesn't
care
> if you tap a land, or if you put a couple on the library, like WW,
it'd
> have real problems.
>
I have to disagree with you there Steven, you are missing the speed
with which BWG plays its disruption. There's a hell of a difference
between Plowing on turn 7 and Plowing on turn 3 - even against a deck
with a handfull of 1 drops.
Having said that I think you are missing some of BWG's abilities -
it beat Wildfire - WW at the moment does not.
it beat Black beatdown - do you think WW will at the moment? I dont.
it beat Speed Green - WW at the moment will not.
it beat Blue control deck - WW *may* also (with Rebels).
So it has already beaten the best of Red, Black, Green and Blue (as
played by a Pro). Do you think it beat WW? In my opinion it would
beat WW very handily simply because it *is* a flexible deck. Bennie
played it to a 75% win ratio against a wide variety of decks which shows
that it certainly isn't a one-trick pony like WW (and a lot of other
decks) is/are.
It requires careful play and it requires thought regarding what to play
and when - but these are all hallmarks of a good flexible deck (ie it
has options). The fact that it can play these options very quickly is
the difference that makes it win.
Trevor Barrie
Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>If it didn't tap for mana it would completely suck. And like I said
>above, if you make it an artifact, even one that costs 1 instead of 0, it
>would STILL be better than it is as a land.
I assume you mean "if you made it an artifact and took away the mana
producing ability" (obviously, no one is going to dispute that turning
it into a Mox would make it stronger), and I'm not sure that that's
true. Yes, as an artifact it would let you slow down your opponent
while not slowing you down as much as the land version... but it
would also take up a spell slot in your deck. The Port does not, and
this is a _huge_ advantage. As it stands now, if a monocolour
deck would only find the Port's ability useful as little as one in
every four times it's drawn, it should still use Ports, as having
four of your lands produce colourless is going to hurt you
significantly less often than that. (And of course, most decks find
the Port's ability useful more often than that.) The artifact Port
would only be played in decks where its ability forms a significant
part of their strategy, which isn't many.
>>This third category is tough to explain. It's basically the rest of the
>>reasons. The Port is and will be found in most of the top 8 decks in t2
>>until it's banned.
>
>Very true. This is the main reason it is on the watch list. However, I
>seriously doubt they'll ban it. They didn't ban Yawgmoth's Will or
>Bargain, because they weren't DOMINATING T2. Port doesn't dominate
>anything, it just punishes people who play with a tight mana curve and/or
>rely on not having their mana disrupted. And it doesn't even make the
>game versus those decks. I've never had a port win me a
>game. Masticore? Yeah, definitely. He's won many games for me... but
>Port? No, it was just helpful.
Of course, Port will also generally not _lose_ the game for its
controller, as Masticore often does.
>As someone said, soon enough, people will start to realize port doesn't
>belong in some decks. In fact, port doesn't belong in a lot of decks.
>The only reason it's in every deck now is because people aren't realizing
>that the port is actually working to help their opponent. Any beatdown
>deck should not run ports.
Why not? It doesn't hurt them to include it, and delaying the opponent's
Wrath, Treachery, Masticore, whatever by one turn after you've dropped
your load on turns 1-3 will often win you a game.
>A blue control deck should not run ports.
A blue control deck should not double the number of answers it has
to the neomishras just by switching what lands it uses? Again, why not?
>A black control deck may want ports, but I'm not sure if they're optimal.
>You know why? Cause all these decks are hurt by ports more than they gain
>from them.
The only ways I can see Port actually _hurting_ a deck are:
A) The deck is so greedy for coloured mana that it can't afford to run
the 4 colourless lands. I don't see that any of the decks you've
listed fit this criterion.
B) The increased vulnerability to anti-nonbasic cards. With Wasteland
out of Type 2, I don't see this as a major issue.
Jason Service
> Hmm. You know, I admire this sentiment, but I have
> to come down on the other side of this. Rishadan
> being a rare or not should really have no bearing
> on whether it should be banned.
This may sound strange, but I agree 100%. it SHOULDN'T. But it shouldn't
become an issue, because R&D SHOULD have learned by now that it's a mistake
to make a power card colorless, and rare. Cursed scroll and Mox Diamond
should have been an indicator of that, and those were cards that didn;t work
in 95% of decks, the way that the Port will (to greater or lesser extent).
Wasteland should be the benchmark for non-color-specific lands, in that it
was an extremely powerful card, that was available to everyone.
> I mean card rarity
> as a way to balance the power of a card proved
> to be silly way back in the days of Unlimited.
In the sense that WOTC thought rarity would be a balancing factor for overly
powerful cards, yes.. the fact is that rarity makes a card MORE powerful for
those who can afford the cost of acquiring enough rare cards. Because not
everyone has access to the same resources, and not everyone has a chance to
play with or against certain rare decks/combinations.
I count myself as one of those players who has access to any cards that
they need and want (being an adult is wonderful, that way...), but it
doesn;t mean it's FUN paying 20 dollars a pop for a card, in order to be
competitive; and more importantly, I don't enjoy thr look of dejection on
some 12 year old kid's face as I crush him in a tournament because I can put
as many rares as I want in my deck, and he's just happy if he can get a
single cursed scroll. It's hard to feel good about being skilled, when
skill has nothing to do with it. And anybody is surprised that fewer and
fewer kids want to learn magic?
>
> I'll agree that it's hardly "fair" to have a card
> so popular be a hard-to-find rare, but Wizards
> has been walking this road for several years;
> I'll even be so bold as to put my finger on
> the expansion that began this trend-- Tempest.
> I mean, just look a little bit prior to Tempest
> and you find power cards sprinkled liberally
> in the common and uncommon slots. Visions
> especially brought some great power cards to
> all the rarity slots.
> Once the Tempest block
> came out, you began to see the "power" decks
> with higher and higher percentage of rares
> making up the deck.
A great example of this is a spell like Sarcomancy, which doesn't do
something totally game-changing or unusual (the old standard for what should
be rare), but it's a card that you definitely want in an aggressive black
deck. It's like making Black Knight rare.
> Perhaps this makes more
> business sense, but it's a kick in the teeth
> to Magic fans who don't have the resources
> to chase down the rares necessary to make a
> competitive deck.
Making powerful cards rare makes a lot of sense if your goal is to sell as
much of set X as possible. Where it makes less sense is in selling as much
of BRAND X as possible. Power-rares hurt tournament play... they hurt
innovation and variety, and THAT hurts Magic in the long run.
>
> The DCI isn't (and shouldn't be) in the business
> to determine whether a card is unfair because
> of its rarity and popularity; they should be
> in the business of trying to keep the Magic
> tournament scene vibrant and diverse, and
> to ban cards that threaten that.
Well I haven't read the DCI mission statement, but the banned and restricted
list (at least in Standard and Block constructed) revolves solely around
covering up for R&D's screwups, to the end of keeping the different formats
as vibrant as possible. (as you've pointed out)... There is a distinction
between banning overly powerful cards, and banning cards which are simply
difficult to get, but it's worth noting, for example, that Starter product
is not legal in Standard (and it was intended to be, from everything I've
read), because overseas markets don't have the same access that the US does
(this was the DCI's rationale, based on what I've read). This is a roughly
analogous example, but it makes it fairly clear that the DCI doesn't see its
mission solely as resolving in-game issues with its lists.
Banning of
> cards like Time Spiral, Tolarian Academy,
> and Fluctuator help accomplish that. I don't
> see that the Port is unbalancing like those
> cards were.
In the sense that you must play Deck X or else lose, you're right. In the
sense that you must play card X or stand a much greater chance losing, I
think it's comparable. the motivation to have Ports may be greater even
then the motivation to get Academies or Spirals, because they will work in
almost every deck you can dream up.
>
> However, I do agree that Wizards needs to be
> more considerate of the gamers who don't have
> the unlimited resources to collect the huge
> amount of rares to build competitive decks.
> The forum to address that is more feedback
> to Wizards; let them know you're getting tired
> of so many tournament level cards lurking in
> the rare slots, and so much dreck in the
> common and uncommons lots. A true test of
> skill should be in looking at an individual
> card and determining it's worth as a tournament
> level card, not looking at it's rarity.
As long as we're talking about a card that naturally restricts itself to a
certain kind of deck or does something fairly narrow (you know, the way
rares were originally supposed to be) I don't have a problem with it. It's
when it's a card that isn;t narrow, that anyone might want to play, and it's
made rare, that I have a problem. i.e.- to me it isn't the fact that a
powerful card has been made rare.. it's that a utility card has been made
rare.
>
> Until then, I offer this advise to those
> Magic players with limited funds to spend
> on the game-- look to beatdown decks for
> lower-costed competitive decks. Not too
> long ago, a competitive Sligh deck could
> be constructed at a fairly reasonable cost
> without too many rares; currently, green
> creature rush is much the same.
Of course, even a beatdown deck would gain a lot from Ports... also,
beatdown gets boring after awhile. It's the ability to throw in twists that
makes them really fun at all, for many of us.
Nate Finch
>In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.99120...@wpi.wpi.edu>,
>Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>
>>If it didn't tap for mana it would completely suck. And like I said
>>above, if you make it an artifact, even one that costs 1 instead of 0, it
>>would STILL be better than it is as a land.
>
>I assume you mean "if you made it an artifact and took away the mana
>producing ability"
Yes, thanks.
>(obviously, no one is going to dispute that turning
>it into a Mox would make it stronger), and I'm not sure that that's
>true. Yes, as an artifact it would let you slow down your opponent
>while not slowing you down as much as the land version... but it
>would also take up a spell slot in your deck. The Port does not, and
>this is a _huge_ advantage.
You do have a point. I was assuming it was put in a deck to be used
pretty consistantly through the beginning of the game.
Yes, if you put it in a deck that does not often want to use it, then it's
better as a land. But in a deck that does use it often, it would be
better as a 1cc artifact.
>As it stands now, if a monocolour deck would only find the Port's
>ability useful as little as one in every four times it's drawn, it
>should still use Ports, as having four of your lands produce colourless
>is going to hurt you significantly less often than that.
This is a very interesting thought, and not something I had really
considered. I guess you would have to weigh the drawback of it being
colorless against the occasional usefulness. You are right, in most
mono-colored decks, ports would not be a very big hindrance. This assumes
you don't have a lot of low cc spells with more than one colored mana in
their casting cost. WW for example, might not want to run ports because
lots of their spells cost WW (well.. this is from memory, and probably 5th
edition WW, so I could be completely wrong, but you know what I mean).
So if you don't have a lot of hard to splash cards, port might not be
bad. However, that is assuming you are only running ports as your
non-basics. If you're also running cradles, a couple yavimaya hollows,
and maybe a few treefolk villages... then adding in another 4 non-basics
could potentially hurt your deck's performance considerably.
So assume you know this, and take out some of the other non-basics for
the ports.. now you have to weigh whether the ports helped you more than
having those other non-basics would.
The equation is not so simple now, is it? I don't pretend to know
exactly which decks would benefit from port and which would not. But, my
point is, it's not always as simple as saying "yes, port will be good in
most mono-colored decks".
>(And of course, most decks find the Port's ability useful more often
>than that.)
I don't know about that. Many decks would hurt themselves more than
they'd hurt the opponent. For example, stompy vs. blue control. Without
port, stompy drops many creatures in the first couple turns, and the blue
player probably can only counter one. With port, the stompy player gets
to play far fewer spells, and the blue player simply sits back playing
lands, happy to have the game going slower.
>The artifact Port would only be played in decks where its ability forms
>a significant part of their strategy, which isn't many.
I think it's a significant part of many deck's strategies. Green control,
Wildfire, Ponza, all these decks destroy your lands, and being able to
slow the game down until the LD can be cast is very helpful.
Would all the decks that now play with Port play with the artifact
version? Definitely not. You're right there. But the ones that would,
would find it even more useful than they do now.
>>>This third category is tough to explain. It's basically the rest of the
>>>reasons. The Port is and will be found in most of the top 8 decks in t2
>>>until it's banned.
>>
>>Very true. This is the main reason it is on the watch list. However, I
>>seriously doubt they'll ban it. They didn't ban Yawgmoth's Will or
>>Bargain, because they weren't DOMINATING T2. Port doesn't dominate
>>anything, it just punishes people who play with a tight mana curve and/or
>>rely on not having their mana disrupted. And it doesn't even make the
>>game versus those decks. I've never had a port win me a
>>game. Masticore? Yeah, definitely. He's won many games for me... but
>>Port? No, it was just helpful.
>
>Of course, Port will also generally not _lose_ the game for its
>controller, as Masticore often does.
Usually, you're right. However, I have noticed the tendancy of people to
use ports even when they aren't helping, which can really hurt your
game. You're right that Masticore will lose you many more games, but port
isn't totally devoid of that possibility either.
I think an evolution similar to that which happened to Masticore players
will happen to Port players. They'll realize that just because it's in
your hand/in play, it's not always best to use the ability. Until that
happens, some people will lose games to their own Ports.
>>As someone said, soon enough, people will start to realize port doesn't
>>belong in some decks. In fact, port doesn't belong in a lot of decks.
>>The only reason it's in every deck now is because people aren't realizing
>>that the port is actually working to help their opponent. Any beatdown
>>deck should not run ports.
>
>Why not? It doesn't hurt them to include it, and delaying the opponent's
>Wrath, Treachery, Masticore, whatever by one turn after you've dropped
>your load on turns 1-3 will often win you a game.
Perhaps, but many control decks are now running mana acceleration to let
them drop those bombs earlier on. Plus, one of the biggest threats to
beatdown these days doesn't cost 4-5, it costs 2. I'm talking about
Powder Keg, of course.
>>A blue control deck should not run ports.
>
>A blue control deck should not double the number of answers it has
>to the neomishras just by switching what lands it uses? Again, why not?
Because while you are stopping their man-lands, they'll cast something
else, since you've just used up 2 mana to prevent them from attacking.
Again, it is possible that the benefit of the late game protection versus
animated lands is worth the drawback of not having that extra U early on,
it just seems to me that with a blue deck, if you make it to the late
game, you've probably won anyway.
>>A black control deck may want ports, but I'm not sure if they're optimal.
>>You know why? Cause all these decks are hurt by ports more than they gain
>>from them.
>
>The only ways I can see Port actually _hurting_ a deck are:
>A) The deck is so greedy for coloured mana that it can't afford to run
>the 4 colourless lands. I don't see that any of the decks you've
>listed fit this criterion.
>B) The increased vulnerability to anti-nonbasic cards. With Wasteland
>out of Type 2, I don't see this as a major issue.
Well, there seems to be a miscommunication here. I didn't mean decks were
hurt just because the Port was on their decklist, but that there are decks
that would be hurt if they used the Port. I can tell you that very few
people I have seen that play Ports fail to use them. And yes, you are
right, most decks won't be hurt just by including Port in the decklist,
however, for many decks it also won't help them, because they will very
often not use the Port at all. In which case it might as well be a basic
land, because at least then you can get colored mana out of it.
Bennie Smith
> As someone said, soon enough, people will start to realize port
doesn't
> belong in some decks. In fact, port doesn't belong in a lot of decks.
That someone would be me ;)
And thanks for so eloquently explaining what was
more of a gut feeling for me.
> The only reason it's in every deck now is because people aren't
realizing
> that the port is actually working to help their opponent. Any
beatdown
This is a pretty good thought. I often found
that me and my opponent were fighting "port wars"
to shut down each other's ports. The difference
in the fight, though, is that I had lots of cheap
mana producers, so while I could afford the extra
mana to dedicate to fighting the port wars, my
opponent often could not.
> <snip>
> Ports are good in control decks that use board and mana manipulation
to
> disrupt the opponent. Ports are good in decks that tend toward a slow
> game with gradual build up of power. Ports are bad in any deck based
on
> speed and/or casting a lot of spells.
>
> If port were truly good in every deck, and the person who got the port
out
> first generally won, then I'd agree that it is too strong. However,
port
> does not give you the game. And port is very bad in many decks.
>
> Give people a chance to see what decks port really should go in, and I
> think you'll find the number of them in winning decks going down.
Excellent points, Nate. I also think you
will find many folks stop playing Ports,
or playing around them, by loosening and
diversifying their mana supply. This pushes
the game towards a slower-developing environment,
which is something that's gonna feel like a
welcome breath of fresh air.
The port is a great card, no doubt. But,
like the Masticore feeding frenzy that eventually
slowed to a slow boil, people are going to realize
that, like Nate pointed out, the Port can hurt
some decks by being in them.
Bennie
> Nate Finch
> na...@wpi.edu
> The Lorax
>
>
Bennie Smith
Zaphod Beeblebrox <zaph...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Blair Witch Green, while a great deck, has one major problem.
> It
> > RELIES on it's opponents not having a flexible deck. Look at it,
> Ports,
Hmmm... I wouldn't say BWGreen "relies" on opponent's not
having a flexible deck, though it certainly pounces on those
decks with a vengence. I chose the Plows and Creeps because
they are never useless cards. Even if my opponent has 10
land on the board, a Plow Under is still useful by setting
my opponent back two draws. And what's your problem with
Creep? Destroy the land of a mana-screwed opponent, trash
a key enchantment or artifact. I mean, Creeps are just
fantastic! In the newest version of BWGreen, I've gone
back up to 4 Creeps. Plows and Creeps may not absolutely
wreck weenie decks like WW or Stompy, but they're useful.
Of course, I was running cards like Masticore, Dawnstrider,
Deranged Hermit and Child of Gaea to wreck those little
weenie decks :)
> > Plow Under, and Creeping Mold are really key in this deck. As with
> most
> > modern control decks, it runs agressive disruption to allow it the
> time
> > it needs to set up it's win mechanism. Against a deck which doesn't
> care
> > if you tap a land, or if you put a couple on the library, like WW,
> it'd
> > have real problems.
> >
>
> I have to disagree with you there Steven, you are missing the speed
> with which BWG plays its disruption. There's a hell of a difference
> between Plowing on turn 7 and Plowing on turn 3 - even against a deck
> with a handfull of 1 drops.
>
> Having said that I think you are missing some of BWG's abilities -
> it beat Wildfire - WW at the moment does not.
> it beat Black beatdown - do you think WW will at the moment? I dont.
Just a quick correction (sorry, Nigel), but I actually
beat a control black deck in the tournament; I ID'd with
the black beatdown deck, and never faced it in the top 8.
Black beatdown is a problem, but I haven't playtested
enough against it to come up with a solid solution.
Masticore can help. BWGreen has also got tons of card
advantage engines to dig deeper into the deck; black beatdown
does not. Sure, Negator Black can get the insane Ritual draws
that will crush me, but then it would crush just about any deck
with that kind of draw. You have to rely on the card advantage
engine to pull you through, by letting you draw your power cards
quicker than he does. Green's got some tools to help in the matchup.
> it beat Speed Green - WW at the moment will not.
> it beat Blue control deck - WW *may* also (with Rebels).
>
> So it has already beaten the best of Red, Black, Green and Blue (as
> played by a Pro). Do you think it beat WW? In my opinion it would
> beat WW very handily simply because it *is* a flexible deck. Bennie
> played it to a 75% win ratio against a wide variety of decks which
shows
> that it certainly isn't a one-trick pony like WW (and a lot of other
> decks) is/are.
The deck was surprisingly strong. It surprised me.
It is chock full of utility, card advantage, and the
potential for some explosive mana to drop multiple
bombs. I've tweaked the new version to drop the
2 Lyricists for 2 Llanowars to help with the early
mana development, and the sideboard is constantly
under flux, but if I had to play in a Type 2
tomorrow I'd play it without hesitation.
> It requires careful play and it requires thought regarding what to
play
> and when - but these are all hallmarks of a good flexible deck (ie it
> has options). The fact that it can play these options very quickly
is
> the difference that makes it win.
Thanks for the support of BWGreen, Nigel!
It's a great deck to play, and I wish Wizards
had posted the deck before the 3rd week of
States, so more people could have given
it a try. Don't buy into the Stompy hype!
It's a one trick pony, folks!
Later,
Bennie
Air Ron
<SNIP>
>
>4 Mother of Runes
>4 Ramosian Sargeant
>4 Rancor
>3 Steadfast Gaurd
>3 Ramosian Captain
>2 Nightwind Glider
>2 Thermal Glider
>3 Afterlife
>3 Disenchant
>3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
>3 Armageddon
>3 Marble Diamond
>3 Moss Diamond
>4 Rishadan Port
>4 Forest
>12 Plains
Why do people always forget about the Longbow Archers?
2/2, First Strike, Can block Fliers (Morphling) for only WW? Sounds
undercosted to me.
> This isn't the old power WW of the days gone by. It's a much more
Sadly, those days are gone.
Andrew Vance
Archimede wrote:
> #2 Overpowered.
>
> This is probably the part where I have the most trouble making people
> realize how
> strong the Port's main ability is. In my not so humble opinion, the Port is
> stronger
> than Strip Mine was in t2. Why such a bold statement? Here's a situation.
What a load of rubbish.
>
>
> Turn 1
>
> I play a Land, opponent plays a land.
>
You both make 1cc drops, probably.
>
> Turn 2
>
> I play a Port, tap opponent's land during upkeep, he plays a land.
> ***I play a strip mine, kill opponent's land, he plays a land.***
>
strip V. You both make 1cc drops.
Port V. You do nothing, saving mana to tap a land. Opponent makes 1cc drop - if
he has a 1cc instant, can cast it in response.
>
> Turn 3
>
> I play a land, I have 3 Mana available, opponent only has one mana,
> so I can play a 2-3 cc Spell *or*
> I can play 1 cc spell, and use the port *again*!
> ***I play a land, I have 2 mana available, I can play a 1-2 cc spell...***
>
Port: You cast either a 1 or 3cc spell. Opponent cast either a two or 3cc spell
(depending on use of port, obviously.)
Stripmine: Both cast 2cc spells.
>
> So in effect, the port steals a turn from the opponent. It's like a Time
> Walk!
> ....that stays around! If you don't understand that logic, lemme try to
> reword
> it again, on my third turn, according to the common example aforementioned,
> I have 3 Mana available. My opponent only has 1. So while I'm on my third
> turn,
> my opponent feels like he just had 1.
>
Crap. Lets add up those cards in you example
With strip
Both make 2 1cc drops, 1 2cc drop.
You have lost stripmine (planned)
Opponent has lost one land of your choice (unplanned)
With Port, not used t3
you - 1 1cc, 1 3cc.
opponent 2 1cc (possibly a 1cc instant) 1 3cc
net result? you are either 1 or 2 1cc spells down at this stage, with no
significant board advantage.
With port, port used t3
you - 2 1cc.
opponent 2 1cc(possibly 1cc istant) 12cc.
I hope you can see that this is causing you to be down a few drops. More to the
point - if you actually use it on the third turn, you are FURTHER behind, as you
just dropped a 1cc rather than a 2cc. Sure, you get to choose when to use it,
and against some decks they will have to few 1cc drops to take advantage of
these opportunities. But it is hardly better than stripmine. Against a lot of
decks, it seems hardly better than a basic land. Sure, you might be able to stop
blue from countering at will - if you can survive the (more or less) two point
powersink that is the rishidan port.
>
> So that's the main ability. Other useful abilities, since broken cards tend
> to have lots of them,
> it taps for mana, it stops man lands, or other broken lands like cradle and
> sanctum.
>
Oh no. Not tapping for mana as well? Gee, I suppose it should, given that it
costs two mana to use it.
>
> #3 Degenerate.
>
> This third category is tough to explain. It's basically the rest of the
> reasons. The Port is and will be
> found in most of the top 8 decks in t2 until it's banned.
Possibly; probably not. The current trend is towards a slower environment - if I
have ten turns before you can kill me, exactly how important is my second turn
drop (given you're not making one either)
> The Port is even
> stronger in multiples;
Great. So are 90% of the cards in magic. 2 bolts, 2 lotus's, 2 grizzlies, 2...
almost anything, are better than one. That's why there is a four card limit -
two much anything is abusable.
>
> so while Mind over Matter was broken because of its ability, drawing a
> second one was useless,
To the extent that an extra untap of your academy was useless.
>
> but a second, third, or fourth port is even more abusive.
Not so much. Lets see - it's the sixth turn. You have three basic land, and two
ports. You draw anotherone. Joyfully, you put it into play. Than you say
'yours'. Your opponent begins their turn, and you tap three of their land in
upkeep. They play another, and drop a three cc critter. Boy, are you trashing
them or what?
>
Leon Workman
Bennie Smith <bens...@i-c.net> wrote:
> In case you haven't heard, the Rishadan
> Port has drawn the watchful eye of the
> DCI and is on their banned "Watch List."
> This means it could become banned at
> any moment, so you may not want to
>
> about that decision. I mean, I don't
> hardly think the Port warrants banning.
> It's extremely useful, and flexible,
> yes that's true. But I don't think
> it's warping the environment. Standard
> right now is the most dynamic and
> eclectic it's been in a long time.
> People are playing a wide variety of
> decks and winning tournaments. A lot
> of the winning decks have Ports in
> them, but the Port serves different
> taking the disadvantage of only
> providing colorless mana, you get
> the ability to tap troublesome lands,
> or slow your opponent down; this is
> also effectively tying up two of your
> mana to negate (usually) one of your
> opponent's mana. Useful, but not
> hardly broken.
>
> I played 4 Ports in the deck I won
> States with, and they came in handy
> but I'd hardly say they were overpowering.
> What I liked about them was they gave
> you options-- if you didn't have a
> turn 2 play, instead of being punished
> for it, you could use your Port to slow
> counterspells, which I'm always for ;)
>
> one, really. I just think it's a little
> silly to be banning a card like Port just
> because everybody's trying them out. I'm
> willing to bet after the initial blush
> wears off, people are going to realize
> that the Ports don't belong in *every*
> deck; hopefully, we'll have the time
> to come to that realization.
>
Rishadan Port is right behind Opposition and Masticore in the broken
category. White and Blue cannot remove the Port. The port cannot be
countered. It wrecks the mana-curve of every deck, especially when it
is in a land destruction deck. It picks and chooses the best target to
use its ability on turn after turn. It is completely re-usable every
turn. It's only drawback is that it ties up one other land's and its
own mana-generation capabilities each turn. Only Red, Black, and Green
can destroy lands. Most of green's LD capabilities are too expensive
to cast with Port holding your mana back. The only way to beat Port is
by using the deck that Port is the most often used within: LD. It
forces the environment into land-heavy decks that don't include the big
spells that are usually used in decks with that high of land ratios.
It makes expensive spells unplayable, while making you put more land on
the table to play cheaper spells. It destroys the efficiency of multi-
colored decks leading to a blander monochrome playing environment (as
if this hasn't already happened). It's a rare that only the rich
fanatics can afford to have four of.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings if it was banned.
Leon Workman
check out www.killer-kards.com
sysadmin
>
> Steven Merritt <smer...@startrekmail.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> >4 Mother of Runes
> >4 Ramosian Sargeant
> >4 Rancor
> >3 Steadfast Gaurd
> >3 Ramosian Captain
> >2 Nightwind Glider
> >2 Thermal Glider
> >3 Afterlife
> >3 Disenchant
> >3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
> >3 Armageddon
> >3 Marble Diamond
> >3 Moss Diamond
> >4 Rishadan Port
> >4 Forest
> >12 Plains
>
> Why do people always forget about the Longbow Archers?
> 2/2, First Strike, Can block Fliers (Morphling) for only WW? Sounds
> undercosted to me.
About six minutes after I posted this, I thought, damn I forgot the
Archers! I'd lose the Steadfast Gaurd in favor of three Longbows
Nate Finch
>In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.99120...@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
> Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>> As someone said, soon enough, people will start to realize port doesn't
>> belong in some decks. In fact, port doesn't belong in a lot of decks.
>
>That someone would be me ;)
>
>And thanks for so eloquently explaining what was
>more of a gut feeling for me.
No problem. You and I seem to think alike often enough :)
[snip]
>Excellent points, Nate. I also think you
>will find many folks stop playing Ports,
>or playing around them, by loosening and
>diversifying their mana supply. This pushes
>the game towards a slower-developing environment,
>which is something that's gonna feel like a
>welcome breath of fresh air.
I can't wait for this :) Already I think we're seeing the effect port is
having on the game. Look at the post by Frank under this same subject,
2/3 of the decks in State Championships were control decks. And control
decks are mid to end game decks. People are playing with 5+ casting cost
cards in their decks.... remember when 3cc was iffy, because it was almost
too slow? This is great for the game. Is it all Port's doing? Nah...
but does it help? Sure.
sysadmin
>
> >
> > Blair Witch Green, while a great deck, has one major problem.
> It
> > RELIES on it's opponents not having a flexible deck. Look at it,
> Ports,
> most
> > modern control decks, it runs agressive disruption to allow it the
> time
> > it needs to set up it's win mechanism. Against a deck which doesn't
> care
> > if you tap a land, or if you put a couple on the library, like WW,
> it'd
> > have real problems.
> >
>
> I have to disagree with you there Steven, you are missing the speed
> with which BWG plays its disruption. There's a hell of a difference
> between Plowing on turn 7 and Plowing on turn 3 - even against a deck
> with a handfull of 1 drops.
I'm not saying all the deck does is disrupt. As with any control deck,
it just uses it's disruption effects to slow the game and stunt their
opponent's resources until it's in the late game where it's card
advantage engines can give it too many threats and so many control
elements to back those threats up that it just runs it's opponent over.
This is most effective against decks which have few to no options on how
they can play out their strategy. i.e. decks which nearly autolose if
they don't get cards XYZ and play them sucessfully before their opponent
get's their strategy developed.
> Having said that I think you are missing some of BWG's abilities -
> it beat Wildfire - WW at the moment does not.
> it beat Black beatdown - do you think WW will at the moment? I dont.
> it beat Speed Green - WW at the moment will not.
> it beat Blue control deck - WW *may* also (with Rebels).
I think people are playing WW wrong. Just like people play Green wrong
right now. As BWG proved, a control variation is often better in the
current environment than a pure beatdown version. I posted a W/g deck
with creatures which provide pressure, but the heart of the deck was
really the disruption. 'Geddon and Port along with the creature control
and Cho-Manno's Blessing it's more like a deck built around Bennies "Now
deal with THIS" school. Play out a few threats. If they try to
neutralize them, stop them if you can, eliminating blockers or
protecting your creatures from their stuff with Blessing, Disenchant War
Tax, etc. If you can't, either use the rebels to search for more
threats, or just drop another or two. Try to keep them in their early
game with 'Geddon and Port. Port's effect of limiting your own mana
resources is less of a burden on you because your deck can be productive
in the early game.
> So it has already beaten the best of Red, Black, Green and Blue (as
> played by a Pro). Do you think it beat WW? In my opinion it would
> beat WW very handily simply because it *is* a flexible deck. Bennie
> played it to a 75% win ratio against a wide variety of decks which shows
> that it certainly isn't a one-trick pony like WW (and a lot of other
> decks) is/are.
I'm not saying BWG is a bad deck! Sorry, I just had to say that. And
if you're trying to play WW as a pure beatdown deck, well you're going
to get beat like a red-headed stepchild. It doesn't have enough good
one-drops, sturdy creatures, protection creatures, cheap creature
pumpers(remember Empyrial Armor?) or evasion creatures, or
hard-to-remove creatures(like the en-Kor) to make that happen. What it
does have is enough versatility to get it to a 50/50 with most
archetypes when played as a control deck and the best sideboard options
in the game, at the moment, to up those figures in game two and possibly
three.
> It requires careful play and it requires thought regarding what to play
> and when - but these are all hallmarks of a good flexible deck (ie it
> has options). The fact that it can play these options very quickly is
> the difference that makes it win.
Do me a favor, before you repy to this post. Seriously, build the deck
I posted. Proxies, Apprentice, I don't care. Play it like a control
deck. Build a sideboard of things like Absolute Law/Grace Throw in a
couple more artifact control spells and another Afterlife. Put a couple
Masticore in the board against weenies, Cho-Arrim Legate is awesome
against turn 1 Ritual-Negator. Another Cho-Manno's Blessing allows you
to help negate black and red removal and doubles as a counterspell
against Rancor, Might of Oaks, Symbiosis, Giant Growth, Twisted
Experiment, or any number of creature enhancers/removal. It can also
provide you an evasion creature if you need one. Hell, throw in one of
each other rebel so you can go rebel madness against a control deck to
offset their card advantage engines. Expect Fat Green Beats?
Crackdown stops those pretty cold. First Strikers like Ramosian Captain
or the Archer I forgot to use instead of Steadfast Gaurd will really
stop an attacking creature cold if it has a Rancor on it. Hell, it'll
stop most cold anyway. If a negator has to take it before it can deal it
out, ouch. If you go with an enchantment heavy board, throw in a couple
of Enlightened Tutors too. Side out creatures if you want, the deck is
a control deck with creatures to be a clock, kind of like a necro deck
with only a couple of Skirges. You can even side in Devout Witness to
handle artifact heavy decks. The deck is certainly not a "one-trick
pony."
After you build and play it a little, if you're not too impressed with
it, remember, it's a control deck and it's real strength is it's
sideboard. It's a mediocre maindeck, but it's got awesome sideboard
material.
Once you've had some experience with the deck and have shifted your
paradigm of what WW is and how WW can do things, let me know what you
think of it, and what you'd reccommend as some changes. But when you
see a decklist, don't just think of it in terms of "What archetype is
this a permutation of" then assume the deck plays like that Archetype
generally does. This deck is certainly not your same old WW. If
anything, it's more like Jank.
sysadmin
> >
> > > Blair Witch Green, while a great deck, has one major problem.
> > It
> > > RELIES on it's opponents not having a flexible deck. Look at it,
> > Ports,
>
> having a flexible deck, though it certainly pounces on those
> decks with a vengence. I chose the Plows and Creeps because
> they are never useless cards. Even if my opponent has 10
> land on the board, a Plow Under is still useful by setting
> my opponent back two draws. And what's your problem with
> Creep? Destroy the land of a mana-screwed opponent, trash
> a key enchantment or artifact. I mean, Creeps are just
> fantastic! In the newest version of BWGreen, I've gone
> back up to 4 Creeps. Plows and Creeps may not absolutely
> wreck weenie decks like WW or Stompy, but they're useful.
> Of course, I was running cards like Masticore, Dawnstrider,
> Deranged Hermit and Child of Gaea to wreck those little
> weenie decks :)
Relies was probably too strong a word. Thrives might have been
better. Like I said in my reply to Nigel, I think BWG uses it's
disruption/delay tactics to slow the opponent's deck or deny them
resources while it uses it's advantage engines to build up too many
threats backed up by control elements to beat them. I have no problem
with Creeping Mold, I love that card to death. One of the most
versatile cards ever printed, I think it's recently been ousted from my
"favorite flexible card" list by Cho-Manno's Blessing, but hey, I don't
play Green much(but you better believe I got my four creeps and I ain't
tradin' 'em!)
Michael J. Winckler
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Jason Service wrote:
|Bennie Smith <bens...@i-c.net> wrote :
|
|> I mean card rarity
|> as a way to balance the power of a card proved
|> to be silly way back in the days of Unlimited.
|
Agreed!
|> I'll agree that it's hardly "fair" to have a card
|> so popular be a hard-to-find rare, but Wizards
|> has been walking this road for several years;
|
|> Once the Tempest block
|> came out, you began to see the "power" decks
|> with higher and higher percentage of rares
|> making up the deck.
|
|A great example of this is a spell like Sarcomancy, which doesn't do
|something totally game-changing or unusual (the old standard for what
|should be rare), but it's a card that you definitely want in an
|aggressive black deck. It's like making Black Knight rare.
[this contradicts some of your later thoughts. Sarcomancy
was very "narrow". Only a true Suicide-Black needed it.
It's totally different from the Port (in narrowness) and
it's more narrow than the Knight]
On the other hand we got Rancor in the Common slot and
the all-mighty Albino Troll. Putting Might of Oaks in
tha Rares department was the conclusion of a very good
decision about the Common/Uncommon/Rare subject.
They don't always get it wrong.
BTW: If the card in the rare slot is *not* powerful, people
start to complain about the set (cf. MM). Ask a player
about Common Cause if you want an answer. Its a very narrow
card and I don't think it has a real use. But it is so
unbroken (Read: cheap) that I could plaster my living room
with it.
|> Perhaps this makes more
|> business sense, but it's a kick in the teeth
|> to Magic fans who don't have the resources
|> to chase down the rares necessary to make a
|> competitive deck.
|
|Making powerful cards rare makes a lot of sense if your goal is to
|sell as much of set X as possible. Where it makes less sense is in
|selling as much of BRAND X as possible. Power-rares hurt tournament
|play... they hurt innovation and variety, and THAT hurts Magic in the
|long run.
** This starts to go into the 'rant-about-card-rarity' direction.
** WotC try to sell cards. It's their business. As long as they
** go with the Foil as ultra-rares I don't complain. It's a
** balanced way between rip-off and missing a market chance.
You can still play good decks with only a few Rares
in them (Mono-Green: 2 Might of Oaks, 2 Cradles and
a lot of commons and uncommons. Trade for a few more
Power-Cards to go from 98% to 100% tourney-worthy).
If you insist on playing Squirrel-Prison, however,
you have to dig deep into your pocket. That's the way it
is, folks.
|> The DCI isn't (and shouldn't be) in the business
|> to determine whether a card is unfair because
|> of its rarity and popularity; they should be
|> in the business of trying to keep the Magic
|> tournament scene vibrant and diverse, and
|> to ban cards that threaten that.
Yep!
| [e.g.] that Starter product is not legal in Standard (and it was
|intended to be, from everything I've read), because overseas markets
|don't have the same access that the US does (this was the DCI's
|rationale, based on what I've read). This is a roughly analogous
|example, but it makes it fairly clear that the DCI doesn't see its
|mission solely as resolving in-game issues with its lists.
But it's a ridiculous excuse to screw the Magic beginners again.
Some of my Guru buddies bought starter and now they blame me
for it: I still have no clue if they will get T2-legal; kids
invested in them and now have a bunch of cards which will not
form a basis for their (later) T2 carrer.
**And all of the Starter cards are reprints**, so you can trade
for the everywhere.
**And my dealer got Starter 3 days after I asked him for them**
(Germany is "overseas", isn't it ;-)
Getting on that Guru program was a huge mistake!
[end of sidenote]
| Banning of
|> cards like Time Spiral, Tolarian Academy,
|> and Fluctuator help accomplish that. I don't
|> see that the Port is unbalancing like those
|> cards were.
|
|In the sense that you must play Deck X or else lose, you're right.
|In the sense that you must play card X or stand a much greater chance
|losing, I think it's comparable. the motivation to have Ports may be
|greater even then the motivation to get Academies or Spirals, because
|they will work in almost every deck you can dream up.
But they didn't ban Msati (yet). And look how many deck have
at least 2 Mastis in them. Sometimes another phatty might
be a replacement. But in the end it's a sub-optimal variant
to play Thorny instead of Mastercard.
|> A true test of
|> skill should be in looking at an individual
|> card and determining it's worth as a tournament
|> level card, not looking at it's rarity.
Wrong approach. Wizards sell a *huge* amount of Boosters
from DCI/private draft. Putting a game-altering card in
the common slot destroys a lot of the appeal of drafting
(and will reduce their profits).
As a player playing *lots* of drafts I like most of the
rarity decisions that WotC makes. Why do you think is
Pestilence an Uncommon now and Fallen Angle a Rare??
If you are lucky and get *one* in a draft, you start
drafting that color, have *one* powerful card that
might win you 10% of your games **provided that the
rest of the color doesn't screw you up**.
|As long as we're talking about a card that naturally restricts itself
|to a certain kind of deck or does something fairly narrow (you know,
|the way rares were originally supposed to be) I don't have a problem
|with it. It's when it's a card that isn;t narrow, that anyone might
|want to play, and it's made rare, that I have a problem. i.e.- to me
|it isn't the fact that a powerful card has been made rare.. it's that
|a utility card has been made rare.
This might be a good test for rarity. Wizards always claim
that they base their rarity decision mainly on the "is-
it-game-altering?" question. "Is it a narrow or a broad
card?" might be a more reaonable question (example: again
Might of Oaks. It doesn't change the rules, but it
is restricted to a few beatdown decks. In these it is
a powerful weapon ... but you don't need 4 MoO to be
competitive).
|> Until then [...] look to beatdown decks for
|> lower-costed competitive decks
|> [...] currently, green creature rush
Than you! See above.
|Of course, even a beatdown deck would gain a lot from Ports... also,
|beatdown gets boring after awhile. It's the ability to throw in
|twists that makes them really fun at all, for many of us.
So go a different way. Look at the new Rares and trade
for 4 copies of a promising one. Go build a deck around
it. You will have a lot of fun (I had 2 Conspiracy after
the Prerelease and in the following week I bought my
son and daughter *one* booster each ... they traded
hard with Daddy!).
But if you want to win Tournaments on a regular basis,
you either have to be The Upcoming Magic Prophet [TM]
or invest in a lot of $$$-cards
My 4 Pfennig (will be about 2 Euro-cents in 2002),
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(o- Michael J. Winckler Michael....@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
//\ http://www.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de/%7EMichael.Winckler/
V_/_ Praktikumssprechzeiten: Dienstags,Freitags 11:oo-12:oo
"One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see" John 9:25
Nate Finch
>Rishadan Port is right behind Opposition and Masticore in the broken
>category.
Excuse me? You know why Opposition and Masticore are even close to being
broken? I play Opposition... oops, you lose. I play Masticore... oops,
you lose. Both of these can take a game you are losing horribly and turn
it around instantly. Can Port do that? Nope. Is Port really good?
Sure, but it's not game breaking.
>White and Blue cannot remove the Port.
Armageddon? Sure it removes everything, but it works. And you can't
argue that all lands are bad because blue can't get rid of them. By that
note, all artifacts are inherently bad because black and blue can't get
rid of them. Sure, lands are the toughest thing to get rid of, but that
doesn't make it overpowered.
>The port cannot be countered.
Oh my god no! UU isn't an instant lifesaver! :P Can you tell this line
of thought isn't working?
>It wrecks the mana-curve of every deck
Yeah, it kinda does. So it slows the game down a little... this is bad
why? And so people have to start loosening up their mana curves, damn,
it'll give the game a little variety. No more decks so tightly wound that
losing one land kills their whole strategy.
>especially when it is in a land destruction deck.
How many LD decks are around in T2 right now? 1? Port does what it does,
and yes it's better in a LD deck, but you could say counterspell is broken
in a mono blue control deck too.
>It picks and chooses the best target to use its ability on turn after
>turn. It is completely re-usable every turn. It's only drawback is
>that it ties up one other land's and its own mana-generation
>capabilities each turn.
It's only drawback is that when you use it, it does twice its effect to
you... hrm, yeah.
>Only Red, Black, and Green can destroy lands.
See above under counterspells etc.
>Most of green's LD capabilities are too expensive to cast with Port
>holding your mana back.
Ha! Green is like the LAST color that has to worry about Port. Tap one
of my lands? Fine, I guess I only have 6 mana on turn 3.
>The only way to beat Port is by using the deck that Port is the most
>often used within: LD.
No, you can get around it by diversifying your mana supply and interacting
with your opponent rather than assuming you're not going to get disrupted.
>It forces the environment into land-heavy decks that don't include the
>big spells that are usually used in decks with that high of land ratios.
Bah! Port slows down the environment so that you have more time to get
out the big spells. If you're already playing with weenies, you don't
care about one land a turn. If you're playing with big stuff, the early
slow down is a bonus that lets you lay lands for longer without worrying
about early spells. Will it slow you down a turn? Sure, but if the
opponent uses it every turn, he won't be casting the early drops that
usually threaten slow decks.
>It makes expensive spells unplayable,
No, once the game gets to the point where you can play expensive spells,
ie those that are 5+, ports become mostly useless then anyway, and they
stop getting used.
>while making you put more land on the table to play cheaper spells.
What, no more 10 land green? Yes, I know you can't play 18 mountains in a
sligh deck with Port playing against you, but that's not a bad
thing. Port means your mana isn't going to be perfect, so you can't rely
on a tight mana curve because *gasp* you might get disrupted.
Port = slow = good.
>It destroys the efficiency of multi- colored decks leading to a blander
>monochrome playing environment (as if this hasn't already happened).
You can still easily play two color decks with Port in the
environment. I've seen more, not less, two colored decks since Port came
out. But you are right, you can't just throw in 4 Cities and rely on
getting the mana you need. Port punishes unreliable decks, those that are
easily disrupted or work off an inflexible mana base.
>It's a rare that only the rich fanatics can afford to have four of.
Now this is a sentiment I agree with, though I don't know if you need to
be a fanatic. Rich helps though.
>It wouldn't hurt my feelings if it was banned.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings, but it would piss me off.
-Nate
Jason Service
Michael J. Winckler <mi...@susan.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.SGI.4.05.991207...@susan.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de...
> Hi Jason, hi all,
> |> Once the Tempest block
> |> came out, you began to see the "power" decks
> |> with higher and higher percentage of rares
> |> making up the deck.
> |
> |A great example of this is a spell like Sarcomancy, which doesn't do
> |something totally game-changing or unusual (the old standard for what
> |should be rare), but it's a card that you definitely want in an
> |aggressive black deck. It's like making Black Knight rare.
>
> [this contradicts some of your later thoughts. Sarcomancy
> was very "narrow". Only a true Suicide-Black needed it.
> It's totally different from the Port (in narrowness) and
> it's more narrow than the Knight]
Sarcomancy was USED in a very narrow selection of decks. It is not, however,
a naturally narrow card.
What it does is gives you a 2/2 creature, which does not in any way provide
a global effect, but which has a drawback which may or may not be
significant. Calling Sarcomany narrow is like calling Jackal Pup narrow.
Focused, yes, but narrow, no. It's no more narrow than any other small
black creature.
A card like Hatred, on the other hand, IS narrow, and as such I think they
made a good decision making it rare.
When I talk about narrow cards, I'm talking about things like Fluctuator,
Armageddon, Living Death, or Necropotence, which can be incredibly powerful
in a deck that's built specifically around them, but are not generally
useful otherwise.
The simplest way I can relate my definition of narrow is this: if you would
only draft it because it was your last choice, or to beat a specific
opponent, it's narrow, and it should be rare. If it provides the same
advantage or disadvantage to both players, or has a bizarre casting cost or
huge drawback, and is therefore only good in a deck built around it (Stasis,
Winter Orb, Wrath of God), it's narrow, and should be rare.
If you could reasonably play it in any deck with the right colored mana,
it's not narrow, and it should, for the most part, be common.
If it is a card that is so good it would make you want to play a color over
any other (Morphling), it's overpowered, and for purposes of drafting/sealed
deck, should probably be uncommon.
>
> On the other hand we got Rancor in the Common slot and
> the all-mighty Albino Troll. Putting Might of Oaks in
> tha Rares department was the conclusion of a very good
> decision about the Common/Uncommon/Rare subject.
>
I think the Might of Oaks decision stems more from draft/limited balance.
What it does is as vanilla as you can possibly get, it just does it on a
large scale. If they'd made it GG2 or something similar, I think they could
have safely made it uncommon.
> They don't always get it wrong.
>
> BTW: If the card in the rare slot is *not* powerful, people
> start to complain about the set (cf. MM).
As someone who dislikes MM intensely, I can tell you, it's not the fact that
the rares aren;t poweful (something I'd actually dispute, since in my
opinion, the power cards of the set are mainly all rares), it's the fact
that the mechanics are boring and the set as a whole is underpowered and
unoriginal. I'd be happy to go through the set card by card and explain
what I mean and what specific examples I could cite, but unless there's a
big outcry for my opinions on the set, that would have to be by e-mail.
Ask a player
> about Common Cause if you want an answer. Its a very narrow
> card and I don't think it has a real use. But it is so
> unbroken (Read: cheap) that I could plaster my living room
> with it.
IMHO, Common Cause is a perfect example of a card that ought to be rare.
Why inflict it upon me repeatedly?
People may complain, but that's simply because they've got a Pavlovian
expectation that all their rares will be power cards, and all their power
cards, rare. It's only an issue because so many other power cards are rare.
Desperate players buy box after box, despite having all the commons and
uncommons they will ever need, in the hope tnat they'll get that last Port,
or Scroll, or Mox, or [insert expensive, highly sought rare here]. If those
cards were uncommon, it wouldn't be an issue. Rare cards would still fetch
a decent price from those who needed them either to finish a set, or to go
in an off-beat deck (in these ways, rares would be like a foil "treacherous
link"), and not because they were both rare AND necessary to compete.
>
> |> Perhaps this makes more
> |> business sense, but it's a kick in the teeth
> |> to Magic fans who don't have the resources
> |> to chase down the rares necessary to make a
> |> competitive deck.
> |
> |Making powerful cards rare makes a lot of sense if your goal is to
> |sell as much of set X as possible. Where it makes less sense is in
> |selling as much of BRAND X as possible. Power-rares hurt tournament
> |play... they hurt innovation and variety, and THAT hurts Magic in the
> |long run.
>
> ** This starts to go into the 'rant-about-card-rarity' direction.
> ** WotC try to sell cards. It's their business. As long as they
> ** go with the Foil as ultra-rares I don't complain. It's a
> ** balanced way between rip-off and missing a market chance.
Foils as chase cards are fine by me, since foils do not afford any in-game
advantage. I think it's great that those who are willing to spend more have
some way to outlet that desire for status without hurting anyone else's
chances for an even match. Foils fill much the same niche that
black-bordered versions of cards available in the main set serve. The fact
that they help WOTC pad it's bottom line makes them a good thing for
everybody.
>
> You can still play good decks with only a few Rares
> in them (Mono-Green: 2 Might of Oaks, 2 Cradles and
> a lot of commons and uncommons. Trade for a few more
> Power-Cards to go from 98% to 100% tourney-worthy).
Deadguy Red. 4 Rares (cursed scroll). Easy to put together.
Congratulations, Magic "The game of a million possibilities" has now been
reduced to "The game of one possibility, unless you've got a lot of money to
burn". Of course, if you've got the money, you can play Tradewind-Geddon,
Living Death, or Anti-Red White Weenie and destroy Deadguy Red. The guy
without the money can then adjust by... leaving magic, because he can't
afford the cards he needs to put together a deck to beat yours.
I know I'm not necessarily representative of all magic players, but to me,
Magic is more fun, the more people that are playing. When I could walk into
any public place and find someone who had a deck in their pocket, Magic was
a blast. When I could go to my local gaming store and play Magic every
Thursday and Sunday night (albeit against the same 15 people all the time)
it was less fun, but tolerable, As fewer and fewer people play, because
fewer and fewer people can afford to, Magic is becoming less viable, and
less fun. This is after all, a game that involves two or more people
(unless you're playing combo, I guess)... take one of those away and it
ceases to be fun. When it ceases to be fun, it will cease to sell.
Do you see why magic players' best interests are also WOTC's best interests?
I have no doubt that making the power cards rare makes the most sense in
respects to IMMEDIATE profits. What is in doubt is what this attitude does
to long-term sales.
>
> If you insist on playing Squirrel-Prison, however,
> you have to dig deep into your pocket. That's the way it
> is, folks.
Yes, thank you for restating something that I think we'd all taken as a
given.
>
> |> The DCI isn't (and shouldn't be) in the business
> |> to determine whether a card is unfair because
> |> of its rarity and popularity; they should be
> |> in the business of trying to keep the Magic
> |> tournament scene vibrant and diverse, and
> |> to ban cards that threaten that.
>
> Yep!
>
> | [e.g.] that Starter product is not legal in Standard (and it was
> |intended to be, from everything I've read), because overseas markets
> |don't have the same access that the US does (this was the DCI's
> |rationale, based on what I've read). This is a roughly analogous
> |example, but it makes it fairly clear that the DCI doesn't see its
> |mission solely as resolving in-game issues with its lists.
>
> But it's a ridiculous excuse to screw the Magic beginners again.
> Some of my Guru buddies bought starter and now they blame me
> for it: I still have no clue if they will get T2-legal; kids
> invested in them and now have a bunch of cards which will not
> form a basis for their (later) T2 carrer.
I'm not saying it's a correct policy, I'm just saying that it sets a
precedent that the DCI does not deem the power of a card in-game to be the
only consideration when allowing or banning certain cards. So it would be
*consistent* with that policy to ban the Port for the same reasons alluded
to in their policy on Starter product.
> **And my dealer got Starter 3 days after I asked him for them**
> (Germany is "overseas", isn't it ;-)
>
> Getting on that Guru program was a huge mistake!
>
> [end of sidenote]
>
> | Banning of
> |> cards like Time Spiral, Tolarian Academy,
> |> and Fluctuator help accomplish that. I don't
> |> see that the Port is unbalancing like those
> |> cards were.
> |
> |In the sense that you must play Deck X or else lose, you're right.
> |In the sense that you must play card X or stand a much greater chance
> |losing, I think it's comparable. the motivation to have Ports may be
> |greater even then the motivation to get Academies or Spirals, because
> |they will work in almost every deck you can dream up.
>
> But they didn't ban Msati (yet). And look how many deck have
> at least 2 Mastis in them. Sometimes another phatty might
> be a replacement. But in the end it's a sub-optimal variant
> to play Thorny instead of Mastercard.
Masticore is a good example. It is roughly equivelent to the Port in terms
of being non-color specific, being versatile (beatdown, or creature elim)
and being rare. the only thing I can see about Masticore as compared to the
port is that it has a very concrete drawback to it (discarding a card).
It's also very easy to say "Well, you can deal with masticore by playing
discard, or large creatures, or counterspells, etc...". Whether these be
good solutions or not, they are concrete. Most colors don't have a concrete
solution to Rishadan Port, and the Port itself does not have a concrete
drawback (yes, it taps for colorless... which is a drawback as opposed to
having a color, but it doesn;t come into play tapped, cost you any life, a
card, or ANYTHING, really)
I do think you have a point however. Masticore could very easily be put at
approximately the same level as the Port.
>
> |> A true test of
> |> skill should be in looking at an individual
> |> card and determining it's worth as a tournament
> |> level card, not looking at it's rarity.
>
> Wrong approach. Wizards sell a *huge* amount of Boosters
> from DCI/private draft. Putting a game-altering card in
> the common slot destroys a lot of the appeal of drafting
> (and will reduce their profits).
Then Rancor should be rare.
>
> As a player playing *lots* of drafts I like most of the
> rarity decisions that WotC makes. Why do you think is
> Pestilence an Uncommon now and Fallen Angle a Rare??
Wasn't pestilence a common in Saga?
> If you are lucky and get *one* in a draft, you start
> drafting that color, have *one* powerful card that
> might win you 10% of your games **provided that the
> rest of the color doesn't screw you up**.
<snip>
> So go a different way. Look at the new Rares and trade
> for 4 copies of a promising one. Go build a deck around
> it. You will have a lot of fun (I had 2 Conspiracy after
> the Prerelease and in the following week I bought my
> son and daughter *one* booster each ... they traded
> hard with Daddy!).
>
> But if you want to win Tournaments on a regular basis,
> you either have to be The Upcoming Magic Prophet [TM]
> or invest in a lot of $$$-cards
Again, there's no dispute there... in fact, that's sort of my point.
Bennie Smith
> better. Like I said in my reply to Nigel, I think BWG uses it's
> disruption/delay tactics to slow the opponent's deck or deny them
> resources while it uses it's advantage engines to build up too many
> threats backed up by control elements to beat them. I have no problem
> with Creeping Mold, I love that card to death. One of the most
> versatile cards ever printed, I think it's recently been ousted from
my
> "favorite flexible card" list by Cho-Manno's Blessing, but hey, I
don't
> play Green much(but you better believe I got my four creeps and I
ain't
> tradin' 'em!)
I haven't had much opportunity to play the Blessing in
constructed, but I have been VERY impressed with them
in limited.
In your other post, you mentioned a G/w control deck...
I've been wondering why no one has decided to run
Cradles in a new WW deck (and you're right, the better
ones are much more like Jank and less like the ol'
WW beatdown). I mean, they're great to crank out
rebels via their gating ability, and can give the
acceleration to play that early 'geddon or
Masticore. Remember Schneider running Cradles
in his Sligh decks? Add Brushland and a few Thran
Quarries to the mix, and you could have a better Moa
Boa, and it would be much more like Jank. I'll have
to throw one together and see what it looks like.
Later,
Bennie Smith
Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Bennie Smith wrote:
>
> >In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.99120...@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
> > Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> wrote:
> >Excellent points, Nate. I also think you
> >will find many folks stop playing Ports,
> >or playing around them, by loosening and
> >diversifying their mana supply. This pushes
> >the game towards a slower-developing environment,
> >which is something that's gonna feel like a
> >welcome breath of fresh air.
>
> I can't wait for this :) Already I think we're seeing the effect port
is
> having on the game. Look at the post by Frank under this same
subject,
> 2/3 of the decks in State Championships were control decks. And
control
> decks are mid to end game decks. People are playing with 5+ casting
cost
> cards in their decks.... remember when 3cc was iffy, because it was
almost
> too slow? This is great for the game. Is it all Port's doing?
Nah...
> but does it help? Sure.
What's really great is that there's control decks
out there that aren't necessarily blue... black control,
green control, red control; you can play control now
without feeling dirty about playing counterspells.
I feel much better about breaking someone's back
with Plow Unders than buyback Forbid with an
Ouphidian breathing down your neck.
By the way, you freaked me out when I first looked
at this thread and saw "sysadmin" under my post.
I was like "uh-oh... didn't know this group was
monitored!!" :)
Zaphod Beeblebrox
>4 Mother of Runes
>4 Ramosian Sargeant
>4 Rancor
>3 Steadfast Gaurd
If you use LongBows you cant search for them.
>3 Ramosian Captain
I assume you mean Lieutenants in this deck
>2 Nightwind Glider
>2 Thermal Glider
>3 Afterlife
>3 Disenchant
>3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
>3 Armageddon
>3 Marble Diamond
>3 Moss Diamond
>4 Rishadan Port
>4 Forest
>12 Plains
> Do me a favor, before you repy to this post. Seriously, build the deck
> I posted. Proxies, Apprentice, I don't care.
Actually I have been playing with a Rebel deck for a few weeks now so I
can speak from some experience already. When I first looked at your
deck above I thought "He's never even played with Rebels" and I still
believe it.
Have *you* played with this?
OK on rereading what follows it may sound like a bit of a ripping.
Please accept it in the spirit of a "constructive" ripping and not a
flame :-). There are suggestions at the end.
You say to play it like a control deck - but how?
You have only 3 creature removal spells which cost 2W and they still
leave your opponent with a 1/1 flyer - which is still big enough to kill
your Gliders.
You have 3 disenchants and 3 Cho's Blessings (which require you to have
2 white mana untapped to be able to use it as an instant). That is not
nearly enough disruption to stop any deck with more than a single path
to victory.
This then leaves mana disruption. The main thing about Rebels is that
they are very mana intensive - it costs 4 mana to search for a 2/1
flying Glider for example.
So Ports and Armageddons are really bad combos with Rebels even with 6
diamonds in your deck (which come into play tapped).
I would not use Armageddon in a deck with Rebels. I prefer to use
Thran Turbines.
Having only 3 Armageddon is also not reliable enough - its either 4 or
none.
The deck that you posted is a good social deck but there is no way it
could go up against any of the existing solid T2 decks. They're all
either faster than yours or they have more control in them than you do
in yours and thus would disrupt you right out of the game.
That deck could not even beat Prophetline and everyone said that
Prophetline was too slow for viable Tournament play.
You said it belonged to the school of "Now deal with THIS!" however you
are lacking the "this" which refers to a threat big enough to put your
opponent on a short clock. Something like Weatherseed treefolk or Child
of Gaea etc. The only white creatures in T2 that could possibly fit
this description are the Avatar (without inate evasion) and Opal
Archangel. (The Queen at 4/7 is not big enough but maybe with Rancor).
So in my opinion this deck does not fit that school.
The problems with the deck above that I see are:
- no threats that have to be dealt with *soon* (like Morphling (blue),
Child of Gaea (green), Delraich (black) or any Dragon (red) or even
Masticore (colourless artifact) which all must be dealt with or you
lose real soon.
- all creatures are fragile (Engineered Plague, Wildfire, Masticore,
Pestillence, Hellkites etc).
- 40% of your mana producing lands do not produce white mana - the
potential for mana screw is huge.
- slow building deck (all over vs speed anything).
- limited disruption to the opponent's mana base at the expense
of similar disruption to your own. Your deck will not recover that
quickly.
- limited creature removal (ie just 3 inefficient spells).
To then say that you can afford to lose the first game and you will win
after you've sideboarded is fraught with too much danger. Your
sideboard is only 15 cards and your deck is 60. The deck has to stand
on its own. Your opponent is also sideboarding in too and there's
plenty of stuff in standard sideboards that will shut you right down.
Unfortunately White Weenie, despite how much I like it (and I do
really), is only for social hacks like me at the moment. I haven't
seen or heard anything that could reliably go into a T2 tournament.
White *may* still be viable but not White Weenie.
OK now for alterations and improvments. Here is how I would run the
deck which concentrates more on the aggression and less on the mana
disruption. It's pretty close to what I am playing with except I have
2 x Hand of Justice instead of the Masticores, a) because I dont care
about tournament legitimacy and b) the Hand is more efficient - not to
mention c) way cool:
4 Mother of Runes
2 Ramosian Sargeant
3 Steadfast Guard
3 Ramosian Lieutenant
3 Nightwind Glider
3 Thermal Glider
1 Ramosian Captain
2 Pious Warrior
2 Masticore
3 Crenellated Wall
4 Humble (or 3 + 1 Afterlife)
2 Disenchant
1 Devout Witness
3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
3 Thran Turbine
3 Forbidding Watchtowers
1 Drifting Meadow
17 Plains
You can also have fun with one or two Wishmongers in the deck in place
of one or more of the Blessings. The Wishmonger's main purpose is to
stop creatures blocking or being targetted by spells. Great vs Blue.
You could also drop the Captain and the Pious Warriors for Soul Wardens
too. This would give some good life gain and 1 drops at the expense of
a couple of so-so mid range creatures. Which is better is a matter of
personal preference.
--
Nigel.
Do it. Do it well.
Do it differently.
Leon Workman
Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Leon Workman wrote:
>
> >Rishadan Port is right behind Opposition and Masticore in the broken
> >category.
>
> Excuse me? You know why Opposition and Masticore are even close to
being
> broken? I play Opposition... oops, you lose. I play Masticore...
oops,
> you lose. Both of these can take a game you are losing horribly and
turn
> it around instantly. Can Port do that? Nope. Is Port really good?
> Sure, but it's not game breaking.
>
Yeah, Port is behind them in brokenness. I didn't say it was more
broken.
> >White and Blue cannot remove the Port.
>
> Armageddon? Sure it removes everything, but it works. And you can't
> argue that all lands are bad because blue can't get rid of them. By
that
> note, all artifacts are inherently bad because black and blue can't
get
> rid of them. Sure, lands are the toughest thing to get rid of, but
that
> doesn't make it overpowered.
>
Point taken. How many permanents are there that can totally crush one
color? Aditionally, how many of these permanents cannot be countered
or removed by that color? Aditionally, how many of these permanents
that are left are versatile enough to be put in any deck? Port does
this to Blue, especially against a two-colored Blue deck.
> >The port cannot be countered.
>
> Oh my god no! UU isn't an instant lifesaver! :P Can you tell this
line
> of thought isn't working?
>
I'm really not that big of a fan of blue, but I don't think that it
deserves the beatings that the Port can give it.
> >It wrecks the mana-curve of every deck
>
> Yeah, it kinda does. So it slows the game down a little... this is
bad
> why? And so people have to start loosening up their mana curves,
damn,
> it'll give the game a little variety. No more decks so tightly wound
that
> losing one land kills their whole strategy.
>
More land equals less of everything else in a deck. Less of everything
else leads to less variety. Oh, I drew another land, and another, and
another, and another. Cool, now I might be able to play something
besides land. This sounds like a fun game to me.
Guess what? Degenerate combo engines aren't dangerous to the
environment until everyone starts to play with the broken cards. A
player has to design a deck to take advantage of broken cards. The
same is true with the Port. It's broken because people are designing
decks to make it more broken than it should be. Add extra land and
mana-generation to feed the Port and still do the other stuff that you
want to (which is usually destroy the opponent's other lands)...
> >especially when it is in a land destruction deck.
>
> How many LD decks are around in T2 right now? 1? Port does what it
does,
> and yes it's better in a LD deck, but you could say counterspell is
broken
> in a mono blue control deck too.
OK. Obviously you're only looking at the tier one Red LD deck. Here's
a list of other LD decks:
Ponza/Red LD
Wildfire
Red/Green LD/Bad.dec
Black LD (Blight, Rain of Tears, Yawg's Will, Ports)
Green LD (Creeping Mold, Plow Under, Ports)
Creeping Pirates (U/G Creeping Mold, Plow Under, Ports, Pirates, Power
Sinks, Exhaustion)
Mishra's Helix can be added to many of these for even better control.
>
> >It picks and chooses the best target to use its ability on turn after
> >turn. It is completely re-usable every turn. It's only drawback is
> >that it ties up one other land's and its own mana-generation
> >capabilities each turn.
>
> It's only drawback is that when you use it, it does twice its effect
to
> you... hrm, yeah.
>
The key difference is that you are tapping out the lands that you want
to tap out to create this affect, while you are tapping out your
opponents lands that you also decide to tap out. The Port player makes
all of the decisions.
> >Only Red, Black, and Green can destroy lands.
>
> See above under counterspells etc.
>
> >Most of green's LD capabilities are too expensive to cast with Port
> >holding your mana back.
>
> Ha! Green is like the LAST color that has to worry about Port. Tap
one
> of my lands? Fine, I guess I only have 6 mana on turn 3.
Not if your lands are locked down early and the rest are outright
destroyed by Blight/Sandstone Needle-Stone Rain/Pillage/etc. How do
you plan to get this mana if you don't have the land to play any spells?
>
> >The only way to beat Port is by using the deck that Port is the most
> >often used within: LD.
>
> No, you can get around it by diversifying your mana supply and
interacting
> with your opponent rather than assuming you're not going to get
disrupted.
>
Red LD has ways to deal with most mana-diversification other than
enchantment sources of mana. Eladamri's Vineyards aren't in Type 2
anymore, and most other sources are more expensive. Other than that,
you can play Wild Growth on that Forest, but don't expect it to stick
around for very long.
> >It forces the environment into land-heavy decks that don't include
the
> >big spells that are usually used in decks with that high of land
ratios.
>
> Bah! Port slows down the environment so that you have more time to
get
> out the big spells. If you're already playing with weenies, you don't
> care about one land a turn. If you're playing with big stuff, the
early
> slow down is a bonus that lets you lay lands for longer without
worrying
> about early spells. Will it slow you down a turn? Sure, but if the
> opponent uses it every turn, he won't be casting the early drops that
> usually threaten slow decks.
>
Obviously, you've never been in a Mishra's Helix lock. Obviously,
you've never felt the true wrath of Red LD with Ports. Early
critter...OK...I have one left over for a Shock and enough to Port you
out still.
> >It makes expensive spells unplayable,
>
> No, once the game gets to the point where you can play expensive
spells,
> ie those that are 5+, ports become mostly useless then anyway, and
they
> stop getting used.
>
I doubt you'll ever make it to 5+ lands against an LD deck using
Ports. Sorry.
> >while making you put more land on the table to play cheaper spells.
>
> What, no more 10 land green? Yes, I know you can't play 18 mountains
in a
> sligh deck with Port playing against you, but that's not a bad
> thing. Port means your mana isn't going to be perfect, so you can't
rely
> on a tight mana curve because *gasp* you might get disrupted.
> Port = slow = good.
>
40 land decks = bad.
Land, Destroy it, Land, Port it, Land, Destroy it, Land, Port it = BAD
> >It destroys the efficiency of multi- colored decks leading to a
blander
> >monochrome playing environment (as if this hasn't already
happened).
>
> You can still easily play two color decks with Port in the
> environment. I've seen more, not less, two colored decks since Port
came
> out. But you are right, you can't just throw in 4 Cities and rely on
> getting the mana you need. Port punishes unreliable decks, those
that are
> easily disrupted or work off an inflexible mana base.
>
I agree with the more multi-colored decks statement. I think that this
has to do with the card pool right now, though. I think that the big
mono-chrome issue will be later in the season. How many first place
decks from States had more than one color in it? I remember one
Bargain deck from Ontario. If the players want to play the top decks,
then the environment will begin to shift back towards mono-colored
decks.
> >It's a rare that only the rich fanatics can afford to have four of.
>
> Now this is a sentiment I agree with, though I don't know if you need
to
> be a fanatic. Rich helps though.
>
> >It wouldn't hurt my feelings if it was banned.
>
> It wouldn't hurt my feelings, but it would piss me off.
>
> -Nate
I don't care one way or the other if it gets banned. I just have to
adjust all of my decks to deal with one card out of the entire
environment. Is that a good thing?
Leon Workman
Nate Finch
>What's really great is that there's control decks
>out there that aren't necessarily blue... black control,
>green control, red control; you can play control now
>without feeling dirty about playing counterspells.
>I feel much better about breaking someone's back
>with Plow Unders than buyback Forbid with an
>Ouphidian breathing down your neck.
I know what you mean. And it's so much more fun and interactive than
"counter that. counter that. counter that. let that through.
Treachery."
>By the way, you freaked me out when I first looked
>at this thread and saw "sysadmin" under my post.
>I was like "uh-oh... didn't know this group was
>monitored!!" :)
That would be someone else, but I know what you mean, it was kinda freaky
at first :)
earlier,
Nate
Eric Taylor
|> so popular be a hard-to-find rare, but Wizards
|> has been walking this road for several years;
|
|> Once the Tempest block
|> came out, you began to see the "power" decks
|> with higher and higher percentage of rares
|> making up the deck.
this is a direct consequence of WOTC getting BETTER at designing sets,
not them trying to milk your pocketbook.
One thing you have to do when you design a set is to make it work for
both limited and constructed. If you make a constructed card that is
very good or limited in application in limited, you just must make it a
rare. Otherwise you spoil the limited environment. Likewise, if you
have a great limited card, you just have to make it a common otherwise,
it adds too much luck to the game in the limited card pool.
So, yes when WOTC makes more and more of their constructed cards rares
this is generally a sign they are figuring out correctly which cards
are only useful in constructed (rishidan port) and which cards are only
useful in limited (charm peddler).
Cards which are good in limited and constructed should normally be
commons or uncommons.
They did screw up a lot of the commonalities/uncommonalities in this
set though, but not Rishidan Port, that one is deservedly a rare as it
serves no useful purpose in Limited.
I have no idea why Sand Squid is a rare instead of an uncommon. It's
definitely a limited-only card, and is not so esoteric or limited in
use that it requires a rare slot. Maybe they just thought "Oh Squids
should be rare!"
--- edt
Dingo
Armageddon, Phantasmal Terrain, Mystic Compass, Psychic Venom ... if you
can't handle Ports, you should sideboard Mystic Compass or something. With
a few exceptions, all colors have some kind of reaction to just about
everything, if you're willing to use an artifact or two.
> Only Red, Black, and Green can destroy lands.
Strip Mine
> It destroys the efficiency of multi-
> colored decks leading to a blander monochrome playing environment (as
> if this hasn't already happened).
Agreed!
The port is powerful, but it shouldn't be banned. And there many other ways
around it besides sideboarding land-disruption cards of your own: Use
artifact or creature mana; use 2-4 more lands in your deck; play type-1...
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just saying that prepping your
metagame is just part of Magic. Too many people these days see a powerful
card and instantly demand that it be banned. Stop the insanity! If
everyone in your town is running 4 Ports, and they're tearing you a new
a-hole with them, then build decks that can react to Ports. It's not hard.
Just my 2 cents.
Jason Service
Zaphod Beeblebrox <zaph...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:82lfjq$vm9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Unfortunately White Weenie, despite how much I like it (and I do
> really), is only for social hacks like me at the moment.
Maybe someone should tell the Illinois and North Dakota State Champs that.
They probably still think they beat just about one of everything with White
Weenie.
> I haven't
> seen or heard anything that could reliably go into a T2 tournament.
>
> White *may* still be viable but not White Weenie.
Again, see above.
If you haven't seen the deck that won in Illinois:
4 Ramosian Sergeant
4 Mother of Runes
4 Resistance Fighter
4 Steadfast Guard
4 Longbow Archer
4 Thermal Glider
4 Disenchant
4 Humble
4 Crusade
2 Glorious Anthem
2 Worship
16 Plains
2 Remote Farm
2 Forbidding Watchtower
SB:
3 Scour
3 Masticore
3 Waylay
3 Absolute Law
3 Absolute Grace
That's about as archetypical as White Weenie can be...
If you want the decklist from North Dakota (very similar) you can find it on
Wizards.com
Nate Finch
>In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.991207...@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
> Nate Finch <na...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Leon Workman wrote:
>>
>> >Rishadan Port is right behind Opposition and Masticore in the broken
>> >category.
>>
>> Excuse me? You know why Opposition and Masticore are even close to
>being
>> broken? I play Opposition... oops, you lose. I play Masticore...
>oops,
>> you lose. Both of these can take a game you are losing horribly and
>turn
>> it around instantly. Can Port do that? Nope. Is Port really good?
>> Sure, but it's not game breaking.
>>
>
>Yeah, Port is behind them in brokenness. I didn't say it was more
>broken.
Yeah, but I really don't think it's even in the same league. It seems
like it's a full step down from them. Still really good, but I think most
of the reason why it's so good is just because you can ignore it. The
greatest thing about Port is that you can play 4 in your deck and never
use them, and you generally won't lose anything from doing so. If you
suddenly need to use them, they're available. This is one of the things I
learned in the earlier part of this thread.
>> >White and Blue cannot remove the Port.
>>
>> Armageddon? Sure it removes everything, but it works. And you can't
>> argue that all lands are bad because blue can't get rid of them. By
>> that note, all artifacts are inherently bad because black and blue
>> can't get rid of them. Sure, lands are the toughest thing to get rid
>> of, but that doesn't make it overpowered.
>
>Point taken. How many permanents are there that can totally crush one
>color? Aditionally, how many of these permanents cannot be countered
>or removed by that color? Aditionally, how many of these permanents
>that are left are versatile enough to be put in any deck? Port does
>this to Blue, especially against a two-colored Blue deck.
Against mono blue it is a help, but it's not a complete lock. You'll do
quite a bit better in the early game with the port, but blue can deal with
it eventually. Against a two color blue deck... yes, it will stop you
from using those counterspells with UU in their casting cost. That's one
of the drawbacks of playing a two color deck with spells that cost more
than one colored mana to cast. That's the way it's always been.
>> >The port cannot be countered.
>>
>> Oh my god no! UU isn't an instant lifesaver! :P Can you tell this
>> line of thought isn't working?
>
>I'm really not that big of a fan of blue, but I don't think that it
>deserves the beatings that the Port can give it.
I've played Port versus blue, and it's a help, but generally there are
only a couple turns where Port is useful to maximum efficiency. And blue
has always had the problem that it has trouble dealing with stuff once it
gets in play.
>> >It wrecks the mana-curve of every deck
>>
>> Yeah, it kinda does. So it slows the game down a little... this is
>> bad why? And so people have to start loosening up their mana curves,
>> damn, it'll give the game a little variety. No more decks so tightly
>> wound that losing one land kills their whole strategy.
>
>More land equals less of everything else in a deck. Less of everything
>else leads to less variety. Oh, I drew another land, and another, and
>another, and another. Cool, now I might be able to play something
>besides land. This sounds like a fun game to me.
What this does is stop people from playing decks that aren't robust.
Will a green deck playing 18 lands and a bunch of weenies lose to a red LD
deck with plenty of critter removal? Oh hell yeah. Will a green deck
running 24 lands, vine trellises, and yavimaya elders have nearly as much
trouble? I don't think so. The difference is, the first green deck is
focused so fine that any disruption has catastrophic effects. The second
green deck is made to be flexible, so that a little disruption won't hurt
it nearly so much.
I used to play 20 lands standard in most of my decks, but then I noticed
a lot of mana screw and any kind of mana disruption just killed the deck.
Now I play 24 standard, modified based on the mana needs of the deck, and
I find that I almost never get mana screwed, and people playing land
destruction have a real hard time keeping me out of the game.
>Guess what? Degenerate combo engines aren't dangerous to the
>environment until everyone starts to play with the broken cards. A
>player has to design a deck to take advantage of broken cards. The
>same is true with the Port. It's broken because people are designing
>decks to make it more broken than it should be. Add extra land and
>mana-generation to feed the Port and still do the other stuff that you
>want to (which is usually destroy the opponent's other lands)...
I really haven't seen that many land destruction decks... and you
know? It wouldn't be bad to see some more come around... when was the
last time LD made it to tier 1? It's been a while.
>> >especially when it is in a land destruction deck.
>>
>> How many LD decks are around in T2 right now? 1? Port does what it
>> does, and yes it's better in a LD deck, but you could say counterspell
>> is broken in a mono blue control deck too.
>
>OK. Obviously you're only looking at the tier one Red LD deck. Here's
>a list of other LD decks:
>
>Ponza/Red LD
>Wildfire
These two use port very well... but that's what it was designed to do. I
really don't think the fact that Port works well in a land destruction
deck is a reason to ban it. Land destruction decks seem to be growing in
popularity. That's not a bad thing. The current environment is slowing
down, which gives LD a chance to rear it's head. It's a deck type that
hasn't been around in a long time, and I think it's an interesting
addition to the environment.
>Red/Green LD/Bad.dec
Could be good, haven't had a lot of experience with them.
>Black LD (Blight, Rain of Tears, Yawg's Will, Ports)
This just doesn't look good to me. Mono-black doesn't have enough land
destruction to make the deck work.
>Green LD (Creeping Mold, Plow Under, Ports)
I love this deck, though it's really less of a land destruction
deck and more of a disruption/control deck. Since creep and desert
twister are the only land destruction cards green has, it's not really set
up to destroy land after land.
>Creeping Pirates (U/G Creeping Mold, Plow Under, Ports, Pirates, Power
>Sinks, Exhaustion)
I'd have to see the deck in action to see if this were viable, though I'd
have to say that since a lot of the green spells require GG, you're asking
for mana screw.
>Mishra's Helix can be added to many of these for even better control.
Yup, I've been testing it out in my green control deck.
>> >It picks and chooses the best target to use its ability on turn after
>> >turn. It is completely re-usable every turn. It's only drawback is
>> >that it ties up one other land's and its own mana-generation
>> >capabilities each turn.
>>
>> It's only drawback is that when you use it, it does twice its effect
>> to you... hrm, yeah.
>>
>
>The key difference is that you are tapping out the lands that you want
>to tap out to create this affect, while you are tapping out your
>opponents lands that you also decide to tap out. The Port player makes
>all of the decisions.
Another key point is that you can use it on their turn and then have the
mana to cast whatever you want without disruption on your turn.
I agree it's good, I just don't agree it's over powered.
>> >Only Red, Black, and Green can destroy lands.
>>
>> See above under counterspells etc.
>>
>> >Most of green's LD capabilities are too expensive to cast with Port
>> >holding your mana back.
>>
>> Ha! Green is like the LAST color that has to worry about Port. Tap
>> one of my lands? Fine, I guess I only have 6 mana on turn 3.
>
>Not if your lands are locked down early and the rest are outright
>destroyed by Blight/Sandstone Needle-Stone Rain/Pillage/etc. How do
>you plan to get this mana if you don't have the land to play any spells?
You're still basing your argument on land destruction decks. Yes, land
destruction decks can keep you low on land. If you are playing a land
light deck that can even keep you from having any land at all. But not
all decks are crippled by only having a few lands. The key is to make a
deck that can use lots of lands if it has them, but can also run on only a
few lands.
>> >The only way to beat Port is by using the deck that Port is the most
>> >often used within: LD.
>>
>> No, you can get around it by diversifying your mana supply and
>> interacting with your opponent rather than assuming you're not going to
>> get disrupted.
>
>Red LD has ways to deal with most mana-diversification other than
>enchantment sources of mana. Eladamri's Vineyards aren't in Type 2
>anymore, and most other sources are more expensive. Other than that,
>you can play Wild Growth on that Forest, but don't expect it to stick
>around for very long.
I didn't really mean adding wierd mana producing things like Vineyards. I
rather meant that you have to plan on having your mana disrupted. Yes
this means you'll probably have to play 24 lands. And yes this means
your deck will be slightly slower because you'll draw lands more
often. However, the whole environment is slower these days, and you can
afford to trade a little speed for consistancy.
Another way to get around the extra lands is to have something to do
with them. Most colors have something they can do with spare cards in
their hand, even if it's something as simple as spellshapers.
>> >It forces the environment into land-heavy decks that don't include
>> >the big spells that are usually used in decks with that high of land
>> >ratios.
>>
>> Bah! Port slows down the environment so that you have more time to
>> get out the big spells. If you're already playing with weenies, you
>> don't care about one land a turn. If you're playing with big stuff,
>> the early slow down is a bonus that lets you lay lands for longer
>> without worrying about early spells. Will it slow you down a
>> turn? Sure, but if the opponent uses it every turn, he won't be
>> casting the early drops that usually threaten slow decks.
>
>Obviously, you've never been in a Mishra's Helix lock.
Uh, yeah I have. And yeah it's annoying as hell. But what does that have
to do with Port?
>Obviously, you've never felt the true wrath of Red LD with Ports.
>Early critter...OK...I have one left over for a Shock and enough to Port
>you out still.
Yes, you can shock my early stuff and port me. And you know what? I'll
still have 2 lands left over to play something. I'm not discounting red
land destruction decks, but that's not what makes port broken. Yes, red
LD decks are pretty good right now, they might even be really good.
However, I don't think they are going to ruin the environment.
>> >It makes expensive spells unplayable,
>>
>> No, once the game gets to the point where you can play expensive
>> spells, ie those that are 5+, ports become mostly useless then anyway,
>> and they stop getting used.
>>
>
>I doubt you'll ever make it to 5+ lands against an LD deck using
>Ports. Sorry.
You're still stuck on this LD deck kick. That's not why port was put on
the watch list. LD decks are only one type of deck, and they can be
worked around. The problem is, most people in this day and age have never
played against a land destruction deck, and their decks aren't built to
combat them. If you think these are bad, try imagining a red/black LD
deck with sink holes and moxen in it. Now there was a LD deck. Once
people start getting more experience playing against these land
destruction decks they'll do much better against them. It's the way it is
with all new decks, people just need to practice against them.
>> >while making you put more land on the table to play cheaper spells.
>>
>> What, no more 10 land green? Yes, I know you can't play 18 mountains
>> in a sligh deck with Port playing against you, but that's not a bad
>> thing. Port means your mana isn't going to be perfect, so you can't
>> rely on a tight mana curve because *gasp* you might get disrupted.
>> Port = slow = good.
>
>40 land decks = bad.
Nah, only need 24, which will help your deck stay consistant against
non-LD decks too. Try it.
>Land, Destroy it, Land, Port it, Land, Destroy it, Land, Port it = BAD
Yes...and that's what land destruction decks do. THat's the problem you
have to get around. Is that any worse than Counter, Counter, Counter, ok,
no counter... Treachery. ?
>> >It destroys the efficiency of multi- colored decks leading to a
>> >blander monochrome playing environment (as if this hasn't already
>> >happened).
>>
>> You can still easily play two color decks with Port in the
>> environment. I've seen more, not less, two colored decks since Port
>> came out. But you are right, you can't just throw in 4 Cities and rely
>> on getting the mana you need. Port punishes unreliable decks, those
>> that are easily disrupted or work off an inflexible mana base.
>
>I agree with the more multi-colored decks statement. I think that this
>has to do with the card pool right now, though. I think that the big
>mono-chrome issue will be later in the season. How many first place
>decks from States had more than one color in it? I remember one
>Bargain deck from Ontario. If the players want to play the top decks,
>then the environment will begin to shift back towards mono-colored
>decks.
Mono colored decks are inherently more consistant, that's why they're so
common right now. People just need to figure out how to make two color
decks more consistant. The problem is, people are used to playing stuff
like Jank, where you can just throw in some Thran Quarries and splash and
number of colors. You can still make consistant two color decks that can
deal with land disruption, it is just harder. It is very hard versus full
scale land destruction, but not impossible.
>> >It wouldn't hurt my feelings if it was banned.
>>
>> It wouldn't hurt my feelings, but it would piss me off.
>
>I don't care one way or the other if it gets banned. I just have to
>adjust all of my decks to deal with one card out of the entire
>environment. Is that a good thing?
Is it bad that you have to make your deck less susceptible to disruption?
For a while now, the only disruption that anyone has played with is
discard, and then that was basically a reaction to the combo decks. It is
not just Port that you are having a problem with, it's the whole concept
of disruption of your mana base. The old T2 environment just didn't have
the amount of disruption that today's type 2 does. More and more decks
are working control and/or disruption into their game plan. It's not just
port, it's a whole way of thinking because the game has slowed down.
I like that people need to think a little harder about how they build
their deck, and I certainly don't think Port is doing anything bad to the
environment. Look at the number of decks in States, the last count I had
was 20 different decks in top 8's and 10 different decks winning. That's
really good. That's more viable decks than ever before.
I really think you'll find that once you've adjusted your decks to deal
with disruption in general, you'll find that Port isn't nearly as bad as
you think.
-Nate
Frederick Scott
air...@alchemy.on.ca writes:
>Just like Cursed Scroll, after a month or two people will recognize
>that Ports are really, really good but not overpowering and then
>they'll find something new to complain about. =)
Um, actually, that's not what happened in the case of Cursed Scroll.
The first couple or three months Tempest was out, few people recognized
its importance. You could pick one up in December of '97 for a few
bucks. Then people started building red Sligh decks around them and
found their strengths impressive and the their weakness negligible in
the right kind of deck. *That's* when a lot of people started to
complain, particularly about how good they were in Rath block. That kind
of complaining has basically gone on unchecked ever since. Except now,
of course, Tempest has dropped out of standard and I guess there's too
many other things to worry about in the other formats.
Fred
tortoise
> Wishmonger may be the card my deck is missing. It'd certainly
> push the
> "Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want
> it to be
> useful to my opponent.
Just gonna jump in and say wishmonger may mess you up more than you'd
like. Your opponent would then be free to cause rancors to fizzle, make
your mothers less useful, and destroy cho-manno's. Not to mention that
covetous dragon no longer cares about your thermal glider when he has
proto white, nor does he care about your afterlife.
Of course with your armageddons and ports and such they may never have
the needed mana...
Seems to me those mongers have "may backfire" written all over them.
Matt
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
tortoise
Finch <na...@wpi.edu> wrote:
> Just a point, one that I missed the first time I saw Wishmonger
> too. It
> says "Target creature gains protection from a color of it's
> *controllers*
> choice." (emphasis mine) Note that you could target his
> creature, but
> he's the one that gets to choose the color, not you.
ahhhhh, ok. Pays to read cards closely. That changes everything. Hmmm,
now the wishmonger has more potential IMO.
Thanks for the heads up,
Steven Merritt
>
> >4 Mother of Runes
> >4 Ramosian Sargeant
> >4 Rancor
> >3 Steadfast Gaurd
>
> If you use LongBows you cant search for them.
That's not the point. The deck isn't a rebel deck. It's a control deck
which has Rebels as an option if it want's to go that route. Longbows are a
better defensive creature, that's what this deck does, defend itself then
Rancor up an evasion or Pro-color creature and take you down.
> >3 Ramosian Captain
>
> I assume you mean Lieutenants in this deck
No, actually, I mean Captain. I think the first strike is valuable
enough to warrant the extra point of mana.
> >2 Nightwind Glider
> >2 Thermal Glider
> >3 Afterlife
> >3 Disenchant
> >3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
> >3 Armageddon
> >3 Marble Diamond
> >3 Moss Diamond
> >4 Rishadan Port
> >4 Forest
> >12 Plains
>
> Actually I have been playing with a Rebel deck for a few weeks now so I
> can speak from some experience already. When I first looked at your
> deck above I thought "He's never even played with Rebels" and I still
> believe it.
Once more, with feeling this time. It's not a Rebel deck. It's a White
control deck which uses Rebels as one of it's card advantage methods.
> Have *you* played with this?
OUCH! Yes, I have. And judging from your comment above about your
experiences with Rebel decks having prepared you to critique this deck, you,
despite my request, still have not.
> OK on rereading what follows it may sound like a bit of a ripping.
> Please accept it in the spirit of a "constructive" ripping and not a
> flame :-). There are suggestions at the end.
Oh, I'll probably offend you at some point in this reply, please don't
take it personally.
> You say to play it like a control deck - but how?
> You have only 3 creature removal spells which cost 2W and they still
> leave your opponent with a 1/1 flyer - which is still big enough to kill
> your Gliders.
Use it's disruption, flexible creatures, with Mother and Blessing you'll
have flexible protection from color creatures to defend yourself with.
Afterlife is for their fatties, Pro-color first strikers are for their
attackers. The whole deck is based on the power of a creature with
protection from a color. Obviously this isn't good against decks with tons
of nontargeted, nondamaging removal, but those are fairly rare.
> You have 3 disenchants and 3 Cho's Blessings (which require you to have
> 2 white mana untapped to be able to use it as an instant). That is not
> nearly enough disruption to stop any deck with more than a single path
> to victory.
Flexible decks versus flexible decks have always been tough matchups.
Thats where the player has to be skilled.
> This then leaves mana disruption. The main thing about Rebels is that
> they are very mana intensive - it costs 4 mana to search for a 2/1
> flying Glider for example.
Gee, I didn't think I'd get to say this again. Not a Rebel deck!
Rebels are one option. This deck is based on the flexibility of it's
protection from a color effects. Perhaps not a viable backbone for a deck,
but certainly fun.
> So Ports and Armageddons are really bad combos with Rebels even with 6
> diamonds in your deck (which come into play tapped).
Port slows their development, then 'Geddon resets the mana. I don't
give a damn if I lose my port or never use my rebels. They're going to have
enough problems with an attacking force with some creatures with Rancor,
some with protection and a Mother or a Blessing which can modify the
situation at whim.
> I would not use Armageddon in a deck with Rebels. I prefer to use
> Thran Turbines.
Why? Do you use your Rebels during your upkeep? That's an interesting
choice. I'd think you'd want your mana and the rebel available through
their turn, then use them at the end of your opponent's turn. Have you
found the acceleration of the 2 for 1 nature of Turbine worth it?
> Having only 3 Armageddon is also not reliable enough - its either 4 or
> none.
Why did BWGreen only run 2 Dawnstriders? They're a good card, they
absolutely wreck some decks, but, as with many control decks, you'll have
the time to draw into one because all the rest of your machinery is geared
towards slowing the game. You don't want to 'geddon every time you get four
mana on the board, this isn't the old style WW.
> The deck that you posted is a good social deck but there is no way it
> could go up against any of the existing solid T2 decks. They're all
> either faster than yours or they have more control in them than you do
> in yours and thus would disrupt you right out of the game.
Well, that's probably true. Lucklily I happen to play socially. I'm
not saying this is the deck to beat, just that I happen to believe the game
is reverting back to a creature battlefield kind of thing. A deck which has
the flexibility of First Strike, Rebels if they want to, and tons and tons
of variable types of Protection effects, just might be the superior battle
machine. With a good strategist at the helm of course.
> That deck could not even beat Prophetline and everyone said that
> Prophetline was too slow for viable Tournament play.
I think I said it already, the deck has problems with untargeted removal
which doesn't deal damage. Prophetline would be it's absolute nightmare.
It'd have to hope for a lucky Disenchant whenever it needed it.
> You said it belonged to the school of "Now deal with THIS!" however you
> are lacking the "this" which refers to a threat big enough to put your
> opponent on a short clock. Something like Weatherseed treefolk or Child
> of Gaea etc. The only white creatures in T2 that could possibly fit
> this description are the Avatar (without inate evasion) and Opal
> Archangel. (The Queen at 4/7 is not big enough but maybe with Rancor).
> So in my opinion this deck does not fit that school.
This happens to be a "Make your own Threat" kind of deck. Do they have
few fliers? Put a Rancor on a Glider and go to town, back it up with Mom
and once they deal with it, simply put the Rancor on something else, maybe
something with a higher toughness or first strike. It doesn't rely on a
large threat to put them on a short clock. It has a wide variety of weapons
available and then when it needs to, it can make any one of those more
deadly by adding protection from a color or Rancor to it. Traditionally
these type of decks have been very weak. Usually you have too much invested
in any one card, due to enchantments/enhancements on it, and when it's dealt
with you lose serious card advantage. Well, with permachants you don't
really lose those cards. With Mom and Blessing backing her up, you can
sometimes net some advantage of your own. Say they try to Snuff Out your
attacker. Mom gives it pro-black in response, but they Vendetta Mom! Well,
Bless her and you've lost no cards, and you're in a better position because
now she's immune to almost all their Black removal.
> The problems with the deck above that I see are:
>
> - no threats that have to be dealt with *soon* (like Morphling (blue),
> Child of Gaea (green), Delraich (black) or any Dragon (red) or even
> Masticore (colourless artifact) which all must be dealt with or you
> lose real soon.
Rancor makes almost anything a threat. Maybe not on the magnitude that
Morphling or Jnr are, but still scary.
> - all creatures are fragile (Engineered Plague, Wildfire, Masticore,
> Pestillence, Hellkites etc).
The power of protection is on your side. Won't help against 'core, but
that's what the Afterlife and Disenchants are for. With a varied creature
base they can't really hurt you with plague, the worst they could do is kill
your Mom's Devout witness in the side as well as another Disenchant,
especially since you probably wouldnt' see Plague in game 1 anyway.
> - 40% of your mana producing lands do not produce white mana - the
> potential for mana screw is huge.
Nailed the decks biggest problem on the head with this one. Damn it's
hard to handle your mana. I'm not sure what to do about it. I could cut
some cards I guess, or do what Bennie suggested and add in some Uberlands
like Cradle or Sanctum. I'd rather not do that though.
> - slow building deck (all over vs speed anything).
Agreed, the major defense of this deck is based on creatures being able
to block and survive due to protection effects. Against certain decktypes
you may need to sideboard something like Crackdown to help in this.
> - limited disruption to the opponent's mana base at the expense
> of similar disruption to your own. Your deck will not recover that
> quickly.
That's what the Diamonds are for. Most of my tricks are either
activated creature abilities or fairly cheap, 3cc or less, spells. If I run
into a deck I don't need to disrupt, I'll just use all my mana to activate
Rebels and swarm.
> - limited creature removal (ie just 3 inefficient spells).
I'm not real worried about them having more creatures than me, even
Stampy doesn't run much more than 18. So I can afford to run a little light
on this. As long as I have superior troops, maybe not one-on-one, but as a
whole, I can prevail. I'm quite good at battlefield tactics.
> To then say that you can afford to lose the first game and you will win
> after you've sideboarded is fraught with too much danger. Your
> sideboard is only 15 cards and your deck is 60. The deck has to stand
> on its own. Your opponent is also sideboarding in too and there's
> plenty of stuff in standard sideboards that will shut you right down.
I don't see very many options against WW actually. Even less of them
routinely make sideboards.
> Unfortunately White Weenie, despite how much I like it (and I do
> really), is only for social hacks like me at the moment. I haven't
> seen or heard anything that could reliably go into a T2 tournament.
>
> White *may* still be viable but not White Weenie.
YEA! Now all I gotta do is what I seem to have failed to do in the
past posts, Convince you this is not a WW deck.
> OK now for alterations and improvments. Here is how I would run the
> deck which concentrates more on the aggression and less on the mana
> disruption. It's pretty close to what I am playing with except I have
> 2 x Hand of Justice instead of the Masticores, a) because I dont care
> about tournament legitimacy and b) the Hand is more efficient - not to
> mention c) way cool:
One of my favorite Magic related memories involves HoJ. It was just
after Fallen Empires came out, I played my "Justice League" deck, featuring
the Fabulous Hand of Justice x 4 and three Icatian Towns. I ran up against
a friends deck packing tons of acceleration and FOUR FAT FORCE OF NATURE!!
Hand of Justice rocks the house against FoN.
> 4 Mother of Runes
> 2 Ramosian Sargeant
> 3 Steadfast Guard
> 3 Ramosian Lieutenant
> 3 Nightwind Glider
> 3 Thermal Glider
> 1 Ramosian Captain
> 2 Pious Warrior
> 2 Masticore
> 3 Crenellated Wall
>
> 4 Humble (or 3 + 1 Afterlife)
> 2 Disenchant
> 1 Devout Witness
> 3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
>
> 3 Thran Turbine
> 3 Forbidding Watchtowers
> 1 Drifting Meadow
> 17 Plains
A very solid Rebel deck, I'd drop the Walls for another Disenchant,
Ramosian Captian(first strike rules) and another Cho-Manno's Blessing. Just
use your critters to block and have Mommy do a rune for them.
> You can also have fun with one or two Wishmongers in the deck in place
> of one or more of the Blessings. The Wishmonger's main purpose is to
> stop creatures blocking or being targetted by spells. Great vs Blue.
Wishmonger may be the card my deck is missing. It'd certainly push the
"Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want it to be
useful to my opponent. I'll have to test it. I just don't think giving
them the extra staying power which protection offers would be a good
thing(TM). That's my area damnit!
Leon Workman
kind of dialogue is sometimes hard to find. I think that you've proven
your point to me. The Port is only an above average card, but very
useful nonetheless.
I just have one more thing to comment on, though. Black LD is
very viable. It just has problems dealing with some of the early
creatures that gets thrown at it (since it has to concentrate on LD so
much). Four Ports, two Dustbowls, 4 Blights, 4 Dark Rituals, 4 Rain of
Tears, and 4 Yawgmoth's Will create the basis for a very strong LD
deck. The rest can be filled out with Discard, Spot Removal, and just
a few efficient creatures of its own. This would be based on very good
draws, but...
1. Swamp, Ritual, Rain of Tears
2. Swamp, Blight
3. Port, Tap you out during your upkeep
4. Swamp, Blight, Tap one out during your upkeep
5. Ritual, Ritual, Will, Ritual, Ritual, Blight, Blight, Skittering
Skirge
Destroy five lands in five turns and still have a Skirge on the table,
and a Port untapped and ready to use.
JeffhancockUSC
>You said it belonged to the school of "Now deal with THIS!" however you
>are lacking the "this" which refers to a threat big enough to put your
>opponent on a short clock. Something like Weatherseed treefolk or Child
>of Gaea etc. The only white creatures in T2 that could possibly fit
>this description are the Avatar (without inate evasion) and Opal
>Archangel. (The Queen at 4/7 is not big enough but maybe with Rancor).
>So in my opinion this deck does not fit that school.
Actually, the "Now Deal With This School," invented by none other then Bennie
Smith, began with a green deck that, while creature based, did not drop imense
amounts of creatures and try to swarm for the win. Instead it would drop one
or two threats, normally creatures with regeneration and then force your
opponent to deal with it. Then, once they remove your creature somehow, you
cast another threat and continue.
Bennie originally made the deck I believe because he got tired of having a
swarm deck lose to a disk or a perish. So he designed a green deck that was
not only relatively unharmed by a disk, but one that actually used them main
deck.
Therefore, the rebel WW deck actually does have some things in common, in that
it will get out a searcher, and then continue to pull threats out, forcing your
opponent to keep trying to find answers.
<snip new deck>
Nate Finch
>In article <GTD34.2639$uk3.2...@news.easynews.com>, "Steven Merritt"
>
>> Wishmonger may be the card my deck is missing. It'd certainly
>> push the
>> "Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want
>> it to be
>> useful to my opponent.
>
>Just gonna jump in and say wishmonger may mess you up more than you'd
>like. Your opponent would then be free to cause rancors to fizzle,
Just a point, one that I missed the first time I saw Wishmonger too. It
says "Target creature gains protection from a color of it's *controllers*
choice." (emphasis mine) Note that you could target his creature, but
he's the one that gets to choose the color, not you.
Nate Finch
na...@wpi.edu
The Lorax
David DeLaney
>"Steven Merritt"
>> Wishmonger may be the card my deck is missing. It'd certainly push the
>> "Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want it to be
>> useful to my opponent.
>
>your mothers less useful, and destroy cho-manno's.
?? Read it again. "from a color -of its controller's choice". Your opponent
can only use Wishmonger to -make- a Rancor fizzle if it's landing on
=their= creature; if they use Wishmonger on -your- creature, you choose
the color, not them. (And you smile and thank them.)
But yes, Wishmonger, as all the Mongers, is double-edged - he can give his
creatures protection from -your- color and just waltz on through, the same
as you can for his.
>Seems to me those mongers have "may backfire" written all over them.
Dave "with asterisks and underlining" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Laurent Cassaro
Steven Merritt <smer...@startrekmail.com> a écrit dans le
> Zaphod Beeblebrox <zaph...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
Hello !
Just a quick suggestion "en passant" :-))
> > You can also have fun with one or two Wishmongers in the deck in place
> > of one or more of the Blessings. The Wishmonger's main purpose is to
> > stop creatures blocking or being targetted by spells. Great vs Blue.
>
> Wishmonger may be the card my deck is missing. It'd certainly push
the
> "Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want it to
be
> useful to my opponent.
Maybe both of you could try some Reverent Mantras ?
They cost as much as a Wishmonger to play, can't backfire (!), and the fact
that they don't stick around (instant) like Wishmonger isn't a problem ...
as you mostly use it as a "counter", or a "finish him" card when facing a
monocolor deck (read : surprise value). A very versatile card that should be
put to good use, IMHO.
Laurent Cassaro
Zaphod Beeblebrox
tortoise <mgreerN...@artic.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <GTD34.2639$uk3.2...@news.easynews.com>, "Steven Merritt"
>
> > push the
> > "Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want
> > it to be
> > useful to my opponent.
>
> like. Your opponent would then be free to cause rancors to fizzle,
make
> covetous dragon no longer cares about your thermal glider when he has
> proto white, nor does he care about your afterlife.
>
> Of course with your armageddons and ports and such they may never have
> the needed mana...
>
>
They most certainly do have "may bite you really hard" written on them.
But remember my deck doesn't use Rancor and has a lot more creatures so
if you get to a situation where he'll help you get the damage through to
win *then* you drop him - otherwise just keep looking at him and
thinking real hard and fetching more rebels. One dud draw doesn't
really bother this deck.
But whether he would go in Steven's deck - well that's another question.
Personally I think not.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
"Laurent Cassaro" <laurent...@sescoi.fr> wrote:
>
> Steven Merritt <smer...@startrekmail.com> a écrit dans le
> Just a quick suggestion "en passant" :-))
>
> Maybe both of you could try some Reverent Mantras ?
>
> They cost as much as a Wishmonger to play, can't backfire (!), and the
fact
> that they don't stick around (instant) like Wishmonger isn't a problem
...
> as you mostly use it as a "counter", or a "finish him" card when
facing a
> monocolor deck (read : surprise value). A very versatile card that
should be
> put to good use, IMHO.
>
> Laurent Cassaro
>
>
Hi Laurent
(scratches head) dont know it but I'll look it up.
Thanks. I didnt know if anyone else was following this.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
jeffhan...@aol.com (JeffhancockUSC) wrote:
> <snip original deck>
>
> >You said it belonged to the school of "Now deal with THIS!" however
you
> >are lacking the "this" which refers to a threat big enough to put
your
> >opponent on a short clock. Something like Weatherseed treefolk or
Child
> >of Gaea etc. The only white creatures in T2 that could possibly fit
> >this description are the Avatar (without inate evasion) and Opal
> >Archangel. (The Queen at 4/7 is not big enough but maybe with
Rancor).
> >So in my opinion this deck does not fit that school.
>
Bennie
> Smith, began with a green deck that, while creature based, did not
drop imense
> amounts of creatures and try to swarm for the win. Instead it would
drop one
> or two threats, normally creatures with regeneration and then force
your
> opponent to deal with it. Then, once they remove your creature
somehow, you
> cast another threat and continue.
>
> Bennie originally made the deck I believe because he got tired of
having a
> swarm deck lose to a disk or a perish. So he designed a green deck
that was
> not only relatively unharmed by a disk, but one that actually used
them main
> deck.
>
Yes that was what I was trying to say. However the threat that you (or
Bennie - back me up here Bennie) drop must be big enough to force your
opponent to deal with otherwise they will ignore it and play a bigger
threat of their own. 2/2 is pretty easy to ignore.
Playing a Steadfast guard with protection will not bother your opponent
if he can play ....say a Weatherseed Treefolk or even bigger.
> Therefore, the rebel WW deck actually does have some things in common,
in that
> it will get out a searcher, and then continue to pull threats out,
forcing your
> opponent to keep trying to find answers.
>
But which threats exactly could he play that you *must* deal with
instead of ignoring and outracing?
Zaphod Beeblebrox
"Jason Service" <el...@sisna.com> wrote:
>
> Zaphod Beeblebrox <zaph...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > Unfortunately White Weenie, despite how much I like it (and I do
> > really), is only for social hacks like me at the moment.
>
that.
> They probably still think they beat just about one of everything with
White
> Weenie.
>
No I hadn't heard and its good to be proven wrong.
> > I haven't
> > seen or heard anything that could reliably go into a T2 tournament.
> >
> > White *may* still be viable but not White Weenie.
>
> Again, see above.
> If you haven't seen the deck that won in Illinois:
>
> 4 Ramosian Sergeant
> 4 Mother of Runes
> 4 Resistance Fighter
> 4 Steadfast Guard
> 4 Longbow Archer
> 4 Thermal Glider
> 4 Disenchant
> 4 Humble
> 4 Crusade
> 2 Glorious Anthem
> 2 Worship
> 16 Plains
> 2 Remote Farm
> 2 Forbidding Watchtower
>
> SB:
> 3 Scour
> 3 Masticore
> 3 Waylay
> 3 Absolute Law
> 3 Absolute Grace
>
> That's about as archetypical as White Weenie can be...
>
> If you want the decklist from North Dakota (very similar) you can find
it on
> Wizards.com
>
>
--
Jason Service
Eric Taylor <e...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:mUt34.699$b5.1...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> |> I'll agree that it's hardly "fair" to have a card
> |> so popular be a hard-to-find rare, but Wizards
> |> has been walking this road for several years;
> |
> |> Once the Tempest block
> |> came out, you began to see the "power" decks
> |> with higher and higher percentage of rares
> |> making up the deck.
>
> not them trying to milk your pocketbook.
Look at it this way: If designing better sets for draft meant selling fewer
cards, do you think they'd bother? A lot of people DO play Draft/Sealed
(Sealed only gets played because they insist on making it a PT qualifier
format, otherwise it would rarely see the light of day), but I'd wager that
more of their cards get sold to people playing constructed. If it was
simply about designing the card rarity in a way that benefitted(sp?) their
primary customers, it wouldn't be as crucial that power cards be rare.
Of course, by catering to draft, they kill two birds with one stone. They
balance a format that helps them sell cards they otherwise might not sell,
and they gain an excuse to make people buy more boxes for constructed.
It's Win-Win for WOTC and their draft customers... too bad the majority of
their customers pay the price (literally) for their policy.
As long as Magic is being sold as a collectable card game, and not "the
draftable card game", WOTC owes some consideration to those customers who
are collecting it and building decks. That consideration is generally
lacking, and looking into my crystal ball, I'm guessing it's because WOTC
has determined that the best product does not necessarily bring the best
sales.
>
> One thing you have to do when you design a set is to make it work for
> both limited and constructed. If you make a constructed card that is
> very good or limited in application in limited, you just must make it a
> rare. Otherwise you spoil the limited environment. Likewise, if you
> have a great limited card, you just have to make it a common otherwise,
> it adds too much luck to the game in the limited card pool.
>
> So, yes when WOTC makes more and more of their constructed cards rares
> this is generally a sign they are figuring out correctly which cards
> are only useful in constructed (rishidan port) and which cards are only
> useful in limited (charm peddler).
So Rishadan Port would be bad in Limited? Sorry... it's certainly not the
power card it is in constructed, but utility is ALWAYS good, maybe even
moreso in limited. As applied to the Port, that logic doesn't really hold.
As applied to RoP Lands, it does... but not to Port.
Of course RoP land is so narrow as to deserve the ultimate rarity.
Non-existence. Too bad they felt the need to inflict it upon us anyway.
>
> Cards which are good in limited and constructed should normally be
> commons or uncommons.
>
> They did screw up a lot of the commonalities/uncommonalities in this
> set though, but not Rishidan Port, that one is deservedly a rare as it
> serves no useful purpose in Limited.
None whatsoever? I'm not a huge limited player (try, not even rated!), but
I hear that mana is still required to play spells, even in draft... and mana
ratios can be even weaker (lack of special lands to balance colors)... but
the Port would be useless? I respect (and agree with) your viewpoint 95% of
the time, but that's BS.
David Chapman
news:82nnac$hh7$1...@penn.dii.utk.edu...
> tortoise <mgreerN...@artic.edu.invalid> writes:
> >"Steven Merritt"
the
> >> "Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want it
to be
> >> useful to my opponent.
> >
> >like. Your opponent would then be free to cause rancors to fizzle, make
> >your mothers less useful, and destroy cho-manno's.
>
opponent
> can only use Wishmonger to -make- a Rancor fizzle if it's landing on
> =their= creature; if they use Wishmonger on -your- creature, you choose
> the color, not them. (And you smile and thank them.)
>
> But yes, Wishmonger, as all the Mongers, is double-edged - he can give his
> creatures protection from -your- color and just waltz on through, the same
> as you can for his.
About what I think whenever I see Pishmonger. Why don't you try Reverent
Mantra instead? "OK, everyone's got pro-green. Attack for 23."
--
If we were perfect,
we'd be invisible, wouldn't we?
Karl Allen
writes:
>Look at it this way: If designing better sets for draft meant selling fewer
>cards, do you think they'd bother? A lot of people DO play Draft/Sealed
>(Sealed only gets played because they insist on making it a PT qualifier
>format, otherwise it would rarely see the light of day),
I don't know whether or not it'd get played much, but I seem to recall
sealed deck being played before it was a PTQ. I certainly like it, regardless
of whether it's a PTQ or not.
>but I'd wager that
>more of their cards get sold to people playing constructed.
My guess is that that's right (although in my case the cards I get in
sealed and draft are where my pool of Constructed cards comes from, so
it's hard to say "This card was sold for limited" or "This card was
sold for Constructed").
I remain ready to draft Rishadan Port 1st pick,
K
rue...@bellatlantic.net
wrote:
<snip reasonable theories on why WOTC might want to put out sets that
cater to Limited players>
>So Rishadan Port would be bad in Limited? Sorry... it's certainly not the
>power card it is in constructed, but utility is ALWAYS good, maybe even
>moreso in limited. As applied to the Port, that logic doesn't really hold.
>As applied to RoP Lands, it does... but not to Port.
>
>Of course RoP land is so narrow as to deserve the ultimate rarity.
>Non-existence. Too bad they felt the need to inflict it upon us anyway.
>
>>
>> Cards which are good in limited and constructed should normally be
>> commons or uncommons.
>>
>> They did screw up a lot of the commonalities/uncommonalities in this
>> set though, but not Rishidan Port, that one is deservedly a rare as it
>> serves no useful purpose in Limited.
>
>None whatsoever? I'm not a huge limited player (try, not even rated!), but
>I hear that mana is still required to play spells, even in draft... and mana
>ratios can be even weaker (lack of special lands to balance colors)... but
>the Port would be useless? I respect (and agree with) your viewpoint 95% of
>the time, but that's BS.
First, you say you're not a huge limited player and then you disparage
the opinion of one who probably is. While I don't pretend to be a
Limited expert (my Limited rating can vouch for that), I would never
run a Port over a basic land in a sealed or draft deck. Its ability
is not enough to justify getting the the mana ratios thrown off in a
two or even three-color deck.
Having said all that, I am also ready to rare-draft any and all Ports
that might come my way. :-D
Nazario Ruelan
DCI 9447
W_Nazgul on IRC
Jason Service
<rue...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:38501453...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> >None whatsoever? I'm not a huge limited player (try, not even rated!),
but
> >I hear that mana is still required to play spells, even in draft... and
mana
> >ratios can be even weaker (lack of special lands to balance colors)...
but
> >the Port would be useless? I respect (and agree with) your viewpoint 95%
of
> >the time, but that's BS.
>
> First, you say you're not a huge limited player and then you disparage
> the opinion of one who probably is.
As I said, I respect EDT a lot, because I think he brings a very intelligent
perspective to the game, rather than the "wannabe gangsta" crap you see from
some pros. I admit I'm not a huge limited player so that it's clear that I
don't feel I have the same experience that a lot of the other posters and
lurkers here have. It's a "take it for what it's worth" type of thing.
My main point was that I think Eric was underrating the card in order to
make a point. Past experience has shown that a non-traditional approach can
be EXACTLY the way to set oneself apart from the pack ("Hammer" Reignier
(sp?) and his strategy of drafting defensive cards and playing a 41 card
deck is the example that comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others.) the
Port might not fit the traditional tendncy toward aggression or creature
combat tricks in limited... but NOONE is going to build a deck expecting
mana to be tied down by a port. Therefore it can be the nail in the coffin
of someone who is borderline mana-hosed.
Yes, the port is going to screw your mana ratios in a small deck, if you're
playing it over a basic land.. but if your mana is already solid, or you're
playing it as "not a land" it could have a lot of value. I doubt it's going
to be a power-house, but "No value" is a strong statement, and I stand by
the asssertion that that's NOT true. I like and respect Eric a lot based on
what I read from him, but I'm not going to accept something that seems like
bunk, simply because a "name" uttered it. Sorry if that offends anyone's
sensibilities.
tortoise
<talking about mana screw in a primarly white deck with splashed green>
> Man, don't I know it! The worst thing is getting nothing but
> Forests!
> There's only FOUR IN THE WHOLE STINKIN DECK!
that's just a problem in general when splashing a small amount of one
color into a deck and try to handle it by splashing a few appropriate
basic lands as well.
Your deck list is long lost to the usenet gods, but I remember it being
almost all white and then some rancors? Maybe some other green?
Essentially your rancors and forests become a two card combo. But the
difference is they /absolutely/ require each other to work. Most combos
are set up in such a way that you can still at least get by with only
half the combo (a nether spirit is still useful even if you haven't
drawn your contamination yet, for example.) You're SOL until both
halves of your "combo" are in your hand.
In general I always try to splash colors with dual lands, birds of
paradise, city of brass, etc. Just replacing your four forests with the
T2 W/G pain land could help alot. Or if you are playing casually and
have the dough, four savannahs would help immensely with almost no
drawback at all.
Bennie Smith
Eric Taylor <e...@umich.edu> wrote:
> |> I'll agree that it's hardly "fair" to have a card
> |> so popular be a hard-to-find rare, but Wizards
> |> has been walking this road for several years;
> |
> |> Once the Tempest block
> |> came out, you began to see the "power" decks
> |> with higher and higher percentage of rares
> |> making up the deck.
>
> this is a direct consequence of WOTC getting BETTER at designing sets,
> not them trying to milk your pocketbook.
Hmm... good point. However, what they are trying to do, and what
the end up doing could be two entirely different things ;)
> One thing you have to do when you design a set is to make it work for
> both limited and constructed. If you make a constructed card that is
> very good or limited in application in limited, you just must make it
a
> rare. Otherwise you spoil the limited environment. Likewise, if you
> have a great limited card, you just have to make it a common
otherwise,
> it adds too much luck to the game in the limited card pool.
>
> So, yes when WOTC makes more and more of their constructed cards rares
> this is generally a sign they are figuring out correctly which cards
> are only useful in constructed (rishidan port) and which cards are
only
> useful in limited (charm peddler).
While this is true and makes sense designing a set with
constructed *and* limited cards in mind, it's net effect
is to make constructed decks much more expensive and/or
difficult to put together. Is this what Wizards wants?
I mean, while they're patting each other on their backs
congradulating themselves on making sets that are so
balanced for limited, the consequence is the forcing of
the semi-competitive player out of constructed tournaments
because of the rares arms race. This might partially
explain some of the rapidly dropping attendance levels
at many "big events" over the past year or so. This
bothers me because I enjoy new players coming into the
game and bringing new ideas; getting over that rare
card hump may prove to be too costly for a lot of
new players.
Luckily, there's still a viable deck that's not too
chock full of rares-- Stampy. But then you look at
Sneak, Control Green, Accelerated Blue, sheesh the
percentage of rares can be downright obscene.
> Cards which are good in limited and constructed should normally be
> commons or uncommons.
>
> They did screw up a lot of the commonalities/uncommonalities in this
> set though, but not Rishidan Port, that one is deservedly a rare as it
> serves no useful purpose in Limited.
This is true, and probably the best argument yet for
why this should be a rare.
> I have no idea why Sand Squid is a rare instead of an uncommon. It's
> definitely a limited-only card, and is not so esoteric or limited in
> use that it requires a rare slot. Maybe they just thought "Oh Squids
> should be rare!"
Heh, maybe it's one of those "skill testing" cards, to
keep the constructed players from getting lulled into a
"all rares are good constructed cards" stupor. Keep on
your toes, else you'll find your Sand Squid deck is not
up to snuff on the constructed circuit.
Bennie
Zaphod Beeblebrox
with all weenies and thought "White Weenie" and that formed
the basis of my reply. ;-)
> >
> > >4 Mother of Runes
> > >4 Ramosian Sargeant
> > >4 Rancor
> > >3 Steadfast Gaurd
> >
> > If you use LongBows you cant search for them.
>
> That's not the point. The deck isn't a rebel deck. It's a
control deck
> which has Rebels as an option if it want's to go that route. Longbows
are a
> better defensive creature, that's what this deck does, defend itself
then
> Rancor up an evasion or Pro-color creature and take you down.
>
> > >3 Ramosian Captain
> >
> > I assume you mean Lieutenants in this deck
>
> No, actually, I mean Captain. I think the first strike is
valuable
> enough to warrant the extra point of mana.
Fair enough - you are also giving up the searching synergy though.
>
> > >2 Nightwind Glider
> > >2 Thermal Glider
> > >3 Afterlife
> > >3 Disenchant
> > >3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
> > >3 Armageddon
> > >3 Marble Diamond
> > >3 Moss Diamond
> > >4 Rishadan Port
> > >4 Forest
> > >12 Plains
> >
> > Actually I have been playing with a Rebel deck for a few weeks now
so I
> > can speak from some experience already. When I first looked at your
> > deck above I thought "He's never even played with Rebels" and I
still
> > believe it.
> > Have *you* played with this?
>
> OUCH! Yes, I have. And judging from your comment above about
your
> experiences with Rebel decks having prepared you to critique this
deck, you,
> despite my request, still have not.
Ours are quite similar in design but not in the way that they are
played. I play control very badly because I tend to be
too aggressive with it. Consequently I haven't played yours
the way you say to.
How much success are you having and what against?
>
> > I would not use Armageddon in a deck with Rebels. I prefer to use
> > Thran Turbines.
>
> Why? Do you use your Rebels during your upkeep? That's an
interesting
> choice. I'd think you'd want your mana and the rebel available
through
> their turn, then use them at the end of your opponent's turn. Have
you
> found the acceleration of the 2 for 1 nature of Turbine worth it?
>
Yes - the speed boost in searching that the Turbines give is worth it
in my opinion. Bear in mind though that I like to be a lot more
agressive with my deck. It doesn't take long with a Turbine or two
that you can fetch/play 2 creatures a turn or fetch one while leaving
most of your lands untapped so you can cast a humble or blessing or
whatever (or fetch another as an instant).
Turbines also go well with Masticore and Wishmonger.
> > The deck that you posted is a good social deck but there is no way
it
> > could go up against any of the existing solid T2 decks. They're all
> > either faster than yours or they have more control in them than you
do
> > in yours and thus would disrupt you right out of the game.
>
> Well, that's probably true. Lucklily I happen to play socially.
I'm
> not saying this is the deck to beat, just that I happen to believe the
game
> is reverting back to a creature battlefield kind of thing. A deck
which has
> the flexibility of First Strike, Rebels if they want to, and tons and
tons
> of variable types of Protection effects, just might be the superior
battle
> machine. With a good strategist at the helm of course.
>
The game is definately slowing down and that's good. But in my defence
I thought this thread was for the T2 tournament scene and that
assumption was foremost in my reply.
> > That deck could not even beat Prophetline and everyone said that
> > Prophetline was too slow for viable Tournament play.
>
> I think I said it already, the deck has problems with untargeted
removal
> which doesn't deal damage. Prophetline would be it's absolute
nightmare.
> It'd have to hope for a lucky Disenchant whenever it needed it.
>
Untargetted removal is good. I'm considering putting False Prophet into
the deck. Keep a searcher in hand and you should recover faster (esp
with Turbines). He becomes the new Wrath (for a traditional Weenie deck
which as you say you are not playing).
> This happens to be a "Make your own Threat" kind of deck. Do they
have
> few fliers? Put a Rancor on a Glider and go to town, back it up with
Mom
> and once they deal with it, simply put the Rancor on something else,
maybe
> something with a higher toughness or first strike. It doesn't rely
on a
> large threat to put them on a short clock. It has a wide variety of
weapons
> available and then when it needs to, it can make any one of those more
> deadly by adding protection from a color or Rancor to it.
When you make your own threat based on a weenie you have to watch that
your opponent doesn't make his own that's bigger than yours. All
colours now have viable fatties that either fly or have trample or that
*you* cannot block. In the slower environment you can expect to see
more of them - esp the social scene.
> Say they try to Snuff Out your
> attacker. Mom gives it pro-black in response, but they Vendetta Mom!
Well,
> Bless her and you've lost no cards, and you're in a better position
because
> now she's immune to almost all their Black removal.
This is fine in theory but you have to keep the mana untapped while
still playing Port-Wars or after Armageddon-ing *and* have a Blessing in
hand. Of course if they were using a colourless source of actual damage
then you really are in the poo (Thran Lens).
> With a varied creature
> base they can't really hurt you with plague, the worst they could do
is kill
> your Mom's Devout witness in the side as well as another Disenchant,
> especially since you probably wouldnt' see Plague in game 1 anyway.
>
You can bet that in subsequent games the first EP is set to "Townsfolk".
It wouldn't be too hard to get one down with Mum on the board.
The second will be rebels if they get that far.
> > - 40% of your mana producing lands do not produce white mana - the
> > potential for mana screw is huge.
>
> Nailed the decks biggest problem on the head with this one. Damn
it's
> hard to handle your mana. I'm not sure what to do about it. I could
cut
> some cards I guess, or do what Bennie suggested and add in some
Uberlands
> like Cradle or Sanctum. I'd rather not do that though.
I'm not sure what to do either, based on what you said about how you
want to play it, but it looks like a big hole you *will*
fall into quite a few times.
>
> > 4 Mother of Runes
> > 2 Ramosian Sargeant
> > 3 Steadfast Guard
> > 3 Ramosian Lieutenant
> > 3 Nightwind Glider
> > 3 Thermal Glider
> > 1 Ramosian Captain
> > 2 Pious Warrior
> > 2 Masticore
> > 3 Crenellated Wall
> >
> > 4 Humble (or 3 + 1 Afterlife)
> > 2 Disenchant
> > 1 Devout Witness
> > 3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
> >
> > 3 Thran Turbine
> > 3 Forbidding Watchtowers
> > 1 Drifting Meadow
> > 17 Plains
>
> A very solid Rebel deck, I'd drop the Walls for another
Disenchant,
> Ramosian Captian(first strike rules) and another Cho-Manno's Blessing.
Just
> use your critters to block and have Mommy do a rune for them.
>
NO! - the Walls are awesome. They give anything +0/+4 instantly and
they block Jnr, Delraich or that 7/5 merc with inbuilt fear all day
long by making themselves 0/8. In fact they made Fear a permachant
(although it doesn't see actual tournament play) and that would really
ruin your day.
They also make Mum really hard for red to kill and Mum makes them hard
to kill in return.
I also dislike relying totally on one creature to save my neck - shit
does happen and Mums do die (or god forbid they get Eradicated).
+0/+4 can be often as good as having protection from a colour and is
actually better against colourless damage.
If you want to drop anything drop the Captain and Pious dudes.
> > You can also have fun with one or two Wishmongers in the deck in
place
> > of one or more of the Blessings. The Wishmonger's main purpose is
to
> > stop creatures blocking or being targetted by spells. Great vs
Blue.
>
> Wishmonger may be the card my deck is missing. It'd certainly
push the
> "Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want it
to be
> useful to my opponent. I'll have to test it. I just don't think
giving
> them the extra staying power which protection offers would be a good
> thing(TM). That's my area damnit!
>
Wishmonger may be a lot less useful in your deck than mine. In mine it
would be a lot like an Overrun - it gets the final damage through or it
stops targetted removal while I out race them. Turbines work well with
him.
--
Nigel.
Do it. Do it well.
Do it differently.
Steven Merritt
> OK let me start of by saying that I looked at a White deck
> with all weenies and thought "White Weenie" and that formed
> the basis of my reply. ;-)
I understand, I often do the same in my deck critiques. Just glance
over the list, say "oh, it's XXXX. But he's built it funky, well, he needs
to go more towards XXXX." Often enough to be disturbing, I end up just
remaking the deck into something very much like what's on the Dojo. I
really don't like doing that, even though if you believe the theory about
the "Local Maximum" of deck construction, I guess it's inevitable. But I
really don't like doing that.
> > > >3 Ramosian Captain
> > >
> > > I assume you mean Lieutenants in this deck
> >
> > No, actually, I mean Captain. I think the first strike is
> valuable
> > enough to warrant the extra point of mana.
>
> Fair enough - you are also giving up the searching synergy though.
Not really, I'm putting a hole in it. But not really giving it up
entirely, just partitioning it. I have some searchers which can find some
of the cards, and some searchers which can find others. I've given up one
of the Rebel's strongest abilities, the abiliy to search for a larger threat
all the way up the chain of command, soI don't have to include any
Searchers which aren't good on their own.
> > > Have *you* played with this?
> >
> > OUCH! Yes, I have. And judging from your comment above about
> your
> > experiences with Rebel decks having prepared you to critique this
> deck, you,
> > despite my request, still have not.
>
> Ours are quite similar in design but not in the way that they are
> played. I play control very badly because I tend to be
> too aggressive with it. Consequently I haven't played yours
> the way you say to.
>
> How much success are you having and what against?
<Sheepish Grin> Actually, I'm getting my @$$ handed to me by pretty
much everything I've tested against(especially WW!). Primarially due to
mana screw, but when it does work, man it's awesome. They try to attack, I
gang up on it, use a bunch of effects, and nothing I have dies, and their
stuff does. I attack, they try to block it, weird effects come out of
nowhere and my guy comes out unscathed. Rancor up a creature with pro-their
color and go to town.
> Yes - the speed boost in searching that the Turbines give is worth it
> in my opinion. Bear in mind though that I like to be a lot more
> agressive with my deck. It doesn't take long with a Turbine or two
> that you can fetch/play 2 creatures a turn or fetch one while leaving
> most of your lands untapped so you can cast a humble or blessing or
> whatever (or fetch another as an instant).
A great idea. I've played with different kinds of acceleration for my
deck, but being a control deck I can't really afford to use my mana and
resources on my turn, I need to be able to react to whatever they're doing.
> The game is definately slowing down and that's good. But in my defence
> I thought this thread was for the T2 tournament scene and that
> assumption was foremost in my reply.
I understand. It's the hallmark of a good deck critic if they can place
themselves in the shoes of the person they're doing the critique for. It
makes it much better. I'll try to make sure I follow the guidelines I've
suggested in the thread about updating the FAQ. By the way, the format is a
joke, and if you have any "Ammendments" feel free to add them, it's not
sacred or anything.
> When you make your own threat based on a weenie you have to watch that
> your opponent doesn't make his own that's bigger than yours. All
> colours now have viable fatties that either fly or have trample or that
> *you* cannot block. In the slower environment you can expect to see
> more of them - esp the social scene.
I've noticed this phenomenon in the limited testing I've done. I haven't
dedicated much time, I'm a graduating senior and I've got finals next week.
I should probably divirsify the creature base further and add the Lieutenant
so I can be sure of searching for the appropriate type of creature at the
appropriate time, fliers, fat blockers, etc. I've seriously considerd
Rapelling Scouts. Fat defenders and they have their own flexible protection
ability. Either increase the variety of blockers to deal with a variety of
attackers, or increase the amount of removal in the deck. Hmm, maybe Exile?
Could give a much needed life boost and take out recurring threats like
Weatherseed.
> > Say they try to Snuff Out your
> > attacker. Mom gives it pro-black in response, but they Vendetta Mom!
> Well,
> > Bless her and you've lost no cards, and you're in a better position
> because
> > now she's immune to almost all their Black removal.
>
> This is fine in theory but you have to keep the mana untapped while
> still playing Port-Wars or after Armageddon-ing *and* have a Blessing in
> hand. Of course if they were using a colourless source of actual damage
> then you really are in the poo (Thran Lens).
Port wars aren't really that important to me, (maybe I just havent'
tested it enough?) I may try to lock out a color, or slow a control deck
until I have my machinery in place, but against agressive decks like
Suicide, they just produce mana or tap man-lands. Still, since mana is my
largest problem at the moment, I'm not sure they're worth it.
> > With a varied creature
> > base they can't really hurt you with plague, the worst they could do
> is kill
> > your Mom's Devout witness in the side as well as another Disenchant,
> > especially since you probably wouldnt' see Plague in game 1 anyway.
> >
>
> You can bet that in subsequent games the first EP is set to "Townsfolk".
> It wouldn't be too hard to get one down with Mum on the board.
> The second will be rebels if they get that far.
A tech sideboard card against EP might be Ramosian Rally. It'd pump my
X/1's until end of turn and maybe I could play a Disenchant or something
before EOT. Then my critters don't die just because I can't counterspell,
only destroy once it's cast.
> > > - 40% of your mana producing lands do not produce white mana - the
> > > potential for mana screw is huge.
> >
> > Nailed the decks biggest problem on the head with this one. Damn
> it's
> > hard to handle your mana. I'm not sure what to do about it. I could
> cut
> > some cards I guess, or do what Bennie suggested and add in some
> Uberlands
> > like Cradle or Sanctum. I'd rather not do that though.
>
> I'm not sure what to do either, based on what you said about how you
> want to play it, but it looks like a big hole you *will*
> fall into quite a few times.
Man, don't I know it! The worst thing is getting nothing but Forests!
There's only FOUR IN THE WHOLE STINKIN DECK! Grr. Maybe if I decide to go
with another delay tactic, other than mana depravation via Port, I'd be able
to stabilize this. The whole problem is, what delay tactic works in the
deck?
<snip decklist>
> > A very solid Rebel deck, I'd drop the Walls for another
> Disenchant,
> > Ramosian Captian(first strike rules) and another Cho-Manno's Blessing.
> Just
> > use your critters to block and have Mommy do a rune for them.
> >
> NO! - the Walls are awesome. They give anything +0/+4 instantly and
> they block Jnr, Delraich or that 7/5 merc with inbuilt fear all day
> long by making themselves 0/8. In fact they made Fear a permachant
> (although it doesn't see actual tournament play) and that would really
> ruin your day.
Sorry, brain fart, thought those were the White "Samite Healer" walls.
The +0/+4 walls are good. As far as Sleepers Guile goes, yes that could be
evil, that's why I like the Blessing so much, I throw a blessing pro-black
on their stuff in response to the Guile, bam, it's gone for good. At the
moment Fear isn't that good an effect because there aren't that many decks
using creatures for defense.
> > Wishmonger may be the card my deck is missing. It'd certainly
> push the
> > "Protection from a creature" theme over the top, I just don't want it
> to be
> > useful to my opponent. I'll have to test it. I just don't think
> giving
> > them the extra staying power which protection offers would be a good
> > thing(TM). That's my area damnit!
> >
> Wishmonger may be a lot less useful in your deck than mine. In mine it
> would be a lot like an Overrun - it gets the final damage through or it
> stops targetted removal while I out race them. Turbines work well with
> him.
A couple of people suggested Reverent Mantra. While I have no problem
with this, it may hurt me more than it can help. If I go up against Green, a
very distinct possibility, I may end up killing my own Rancors at a critical
time to get the last points of damage through. Green is a nightmare matchup
because of Trample and the stinky new ruling on how it works against
protection ( :^p)
Anyway, I think sideboard options are fairly good there. Even with
Mold and Lyrist seeing wide use, I think Crackdown would work very nicely
against speed Green.
Steven Merritt
tortoise <mgreerN...@artic.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:034f2f50...@usw-ex0102-012.remarq.com...
> In article <sW044.178$nI2....@news.easynews.com>, "Steven Merritt"
>
> <talking about mana screw in a primarly white deck with splashed green>
>
> > Forests!
> > There's only FOUR IN THE WHOLE STINKIN DECK!
>
> color into a deck and try to handle it by splashing a few appropriate
> basic lands as well.
I've also got three Moss Diamonds. So that's three Moss Diamonds, and
four Forests to support the four Rancor.
> Your deck list is long lost to the usenet gods, but I remember it being
> almost all white and then some rancors? Maybe some other green?
> Essentially your rancors and forests become a two card combo. But the
> difference is they /absolutely/ require each other to work. Most combos
> are set up in such a way that you can still at least get by with only
> half the combo (a nether spirit is still useful even if you haven't
> drawn your contamination yet, for example.) You're SOL until both
> halves of your "combo" are in your hand.
>
> In general I always try to splash colors with dual lands, birds of
> paradise, city of brass, etc. Just replacing your four forests with the
> T2 W/G pain land could help alot. Or if you are playing casually and
> have the dough, four savannahs would help immensely with almost no
> drawback at all.
I've got Savannahs, I was trying to keep this in the boundries of T2,
it's hard to believe, but when I approach someone at a store asking for a
casual game, if all they have is T2 and I play them with a deck with a
Savannah in it, they raise the roof. "How do you expect T2 to be able to
handle the power cards of the older formats! No wonder I lost!"
Adarkar Wastes is a good choice. I'll look into it. To be honest I
didn't remember it being reprinted in 6th.
Steven
King of Casual Play
The One and Only Defender of Cards That Blow
As a quick refresher.
4 Mother of Runes
4 Ramosian Sargeant
4 Rancor
3 Longbow Archer
3 Ramosian Captain
2 Nightwind Glider
2 Thermal Glider
3 Afterlife
3 Disenchant
3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
3 Armageddon
3 Marble Diamond
3 Moss Diamond
4 Rishadan Port
4 Forest
12 Plains
I'm currently testing how well it works without port, and I'll sub the
Adarkar's for the Forests, that should make a difference.
tortoise
<smer...@startrekmail.com> wrote:
> Adarkar Wastes is a good choice. I'll look into it. To be
> honest I
> didn't remember it being reprinted in 6th.
I could be wrong but I believe sixth edition has all the "happy"
painlands. As in, all the dual lands that provide mana of colors that
aren't enemies to each other. Which hurts me, my B/W deck could REALLY
use B/W dual lands.
> 4 Mother of Runes
> 4 Ramosian Sargeant
> 4 Rancor
> 3 Longbow Archer
> 3 Ramosian Captain
> 2 Nightwind Glider
> 2 Thermal Glider
> 3 Afterlife
> 3 Disenchant
> 3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
> 3 Armageddon
> 3 Marble Diamond
> 3 Moss Diamond
> 4 Rishadan Port
> 4 Forest
> 12 Plains
How essential do you feel rancor to be? It has a bit of a bad synergy
with your protection theme (not a conflicting synergy, just a less than
ideal one.) To me, the main draw to rancor is trample. But if you are
giving your creatures proto and making them unblockable, the trample
benefit is lost. Or are you more interested in its bring back to hand
aspect? I could be wrong but I thought white had a +1/+1 enchant
creature that gets brought back to hand as well?
I'd say test the deck out against a lot of stuff and see how essential
the rancors end up being. If they're not so essential, going all white
would completely eliminate all mana problems.
Julian Lighton
tortoise <mgreerN...@artic.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <aza44.242$nI2....@news.easynews.com>, "Steven Merritt"
><smer...@startrekmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Adarkar Wastes is a good choice. I'll look into it. To be
>> honest I
>> didn't remember it being reprinted in 6th.
>
>I could be wrong but I believe sixth edition has all the "happy"
>painlands. As in, all the dual lands that provide mana of colors that
>aren't enemies to each other.
The Ice Age painlands are in there, though I don't think Adarkar
Wastes would be the best choice for the deck. :)
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"An object at rest cannot be stopped!!!!"
-- The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight, _The Tick_
Steven Merritt
Julian Lighton <jl...@nowhere.fragment.com> wrote in message
news:82sgts$nb$1...@nowhere.fragment.com...
> The Ice Age painlands are in there, though I don't think Adarkar
> Wastes would be the best choice for the deck. :)
Probably not, maybe Brushland? Any time I think of painlands, I think
of Adarkar, probably the best painland ever, in my opinion, becuase I play
tons and tons of W/U control.
Steven
King of Casual Play
The One and Only Defender of Cards That Blow
Sometimes Mistakes Brushland for Adakar Wastes
Steven Merritt
tortoise <mgreerN...@artic.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <aza44.242$nI2....@news.easynews.com>, "Steven Merritt"
> <smer...@startrekmail.com> wrote:
> > 4 Ramosian Sargeant
> > 4 Rancor
> > 3 Ramosian Captain
> > 2 Thermal Glider
> > 3 Afterlife
> > 3 Disenchant
> > 3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
> > 3 Armageddon
> > 3 Marble Diamond
> > 3 Moss Diamond
> > 4 Rishadan Port
> > 4 Forest
> > 12 Plains
>
> with your protection theme (not a conflicting synergy, just a less than
> ideal one.) To me, the main draw to rancor is trample. But if you are
> giving your creatures proto and making them unblockable, the trample
> benefit is lost. Or are you more interested in its bring back to hand
> aspect? I could be wrong but I thought white had a +1/+1 enchant
> creature that gets brought back to hand as well?
They really help speed my clock. They're really useful in many
situations and in a pinch, if I have to give something pro-green, they'll
fall off and come back to my hand to put on something else.
> I'd say test the deck out against a lot of stuff and see how essential
> the rancors end up being. If they're not so essential, going all white
> would completely eliminate all mana problems.
I love having creatures with both first strike and trample. That's
primarially why I use Rancor. Brilliant Halo may be a decent subs if I
can't get the mana problems ironed out.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
"Steven Merritt" <smer...@startrekmail.com> wrote:
>
> tortoise <mgreerN...@artic.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0f5b83e7...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...
> > In article <aza44.242$nI2....@news.easynews.com>, "Steven Merritt"
> > <smer...@startrekmail.com> wrote:
> > > 4 Ramosian Sargeant
> > > 4 Rancor
> > > 3 Ramosian Captain
> > > 2 Thermal Glider
> > > 3 Afterlife
> > > 3 Disenchant
> > > 3 Cho-Manno's Blessing
> > > 3 Armageddon
> > > 3 Marble Diamond
> > > 3 Moss Diamond
> > > 4 Rishadan Port
> > > 4 Forest
> > > 12 Plains
This deck has been bugging me over the last few days. So
atand by for another shakeup :-)
The more I look at this deck and matt's comments the more
I think he is really on the right track.
Consider - to support 4 copies of one off-colour card (Rancor)
you have used 4 slots and 7 more just to be able to cast
it. 11 cards -thats damn near 20% of your deck! You gain
trample and a lot of mana screw.
If you give up on the trample you can fix your mana screw
problems and free up 7 slots for good white cards.
While we are at it lets also look at the Sargeants in your deck.
As there is nothing in that deck that they can search for they are
in fact vanilla 1/1's so lets drop them too and free up
another 4 slots while we look for something else worthwhile.
I will also assume that we are going to keep this T2 legal
because there are too many possibilities outside of T2 to
contemplate.
Rebuilding the deck from the bottom up the 4 forests revert
back to plains:
16 Plains
4 Rishadan Ports
The 3 marble diamonds are next. Consider how they compare to
3 Drifting Meadows - both come into play tapped, both provide
W mana, Diamonds cost 3 mana to put into play, can be disenchanted
but help recover from an Armageddon IF they are already in play,
otherwise they slow down your recovery. The DM's cost nothing to
play, cannot be disenchanted, can be played straight after an
Armageddon and have cycling so are much less of a bad draw.
So I vote we drop the Marble Diamonds for Drifting Meadows.
Now we have;
16 Plains
4 Rishadan Ports
3 Drifting Meadows
3 Armageddon
4 Cho-Manno's Blessing (up from 3)
2 Disenchant (down from 3)
1 Devout Witness (added in place of a disenchant)
3 Afterlife - I really prefer Humble but.......
2 Nightwind Glider
2 Thermal Glider
3 Ramosian Captain
3 Longbow Archer
4 Mother of Runes
50 cards so far
2 Ramosian Lieutenants (2 drops who can fetch gliders)
2 Soul Wardens (good 1 drops)
54 cards and we've replaced the Sargeants with creatures
that are actually useful in this deck. 6x1 drops and 5x2 drops
looks ok.
The last 6 cards are wide open to personal preference. We have
19 small creatures so lets add 2 big ones. The ones that come to
mind are Opal Titan and Opal Archangel. One gives us a 4/4 with
hopefully protection from a colour and the other gives us a big
fat flyer that can take down any other flyer. The Titan while
"only" a 4/4 can really bother a lot of opponents who ofton stop
playing creatures while they hope to draw into something that
can get rid of it, or set it off with an "off' colour or so on.
Otherwise it becomes an unblockable 4/4 that wrecks mono coloured
opponents.
1 Opal Titan
1 Opal Archangel
Since you are into a control deck here is another thought:
Soul Sculptor - the one that turns creatures into enchantments
temporarily. Can stop any big fat creature by making it
"not a creature" and combos well with a Devout Witness (actually
it combos even better with a Soltari Visionary who would go
really really well in this deck but....... I'll leave it up
to you). It can also save your own creatures from destruction
- put the damage on the stack and change your creature.
All in all a good "control" creature.
1 Soul Sculptor
In the last 3 slots you can have any combination of:
1-3 More of something above.
1-3 Crenellated Walls (+0/+4 wall)
1-3 Humbles
1-3 False Prophets - Drop him and then Armageddon - it
will be a brave player (facing a WW deck) who blocks
and kills him.
1-3 Ticking Gnomes - you dont have any direct damage.
1-3 Archery Training - plenty of useful creatures to put this on.
1-2 Crack Downs
1-2 Masticore
1-3 Glorious Anthems - Simple and very effective.
More specialised things like Absolute Law/Grace belong
in a sideboard.
So by dropping the Rancor I think you can gain a hell of a lot more
consistency and control elements into your deck as well as avoiding
the "almost guaranteed" mana screws you were facing.
I know I made it - but this deck looks really interesting to
me.
Should this be on its own thread now?
Eric Taylor
: My main point was that I think Eric was underrating the card in order to
: make a point. Past experience has shown that a non-traditional approach can
: be EXACTLY the way to set oneself apart from the pack ("Hammer" Reignier
I'm not trying to underrate it to make a point. In my experience in
drafts where you don't keep the cards you drafted so rare drafting is
not an issue, the Rishidan Port is usually around a 13th or 14th pick.
I.e. a terrible limited card. In constructed it's obviously very
good.
Of course you could be right. It could be that Port is great or even
merely good in limited. And getting it 13th or 14th is equivalent to
getting a Shock Troop or Rishidan Airship 13th or 14th pick.
However, it seems that in limited, the port hurts you just as often as
it hurts your opponent. Sure you can screw him out of a color, but you
also can screw yourself, unless of course you play a monocolor deck in
limited which is very rarely possible. The Rishidan Port is really a
card for monocolor decks and as such it seems to me to be a constructed
only card, not something you want to draft even above a Ramosian
Sergeant or a Cloud Sprite.
Of course I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this card was
designed for constructed card play only not draft or limited play, and
thus correctly should go into a rare slot.
--- edt
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Looking through some cards I stumbled onto something
that would work so well in this deck:
Noetic Scales - duing upkeep return to hand each creature
with power > cards in hand.
Now your deck is primarily weenies and you should have no
trouble managing the scales. But an opponent might suddenly
find all/most of his creatures back in his hand and unable to
get rid of summoning sickness.
You could even do tricks with a Soul Sculptor before your
upkeep to turn an Opal Archangel into an enchantment. Then in
your main phase cast a creature to turn it (the archangel)
back into a creature without summoning sickness.
More good disruption and control for you.
Dave Sanders
the Port's power ever since the first "Port is Broken!" articles came out on
the Dojo. I figure that I must be missing SOMETHING, as it seems that most
of the Magic world disagrees with me, and Ports DO show up en masse in top
decks. Apparently, I just don't understand. I keep hearing the "early game
Port" argument, but it just doesn't quite add up to me. Archimede brings it
up again, and I'd like to address it:
Archimede <Ast...@SPAMBLOCKworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:82e28i$c50$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
<snip very good comments on brokenness>
Here begins the "Early Port" scenario. What I'd like to add is the
available mana to each player. I'll call it "AMP" for "Available Mana to
Port player" and "AMO" for "Available Mana to Opponent":
> #2 Overpowered.
>
> This is probably the part where I have the most trouble making people
> realize how
> strong the Port's main ability is. In my not so humble opinion, the Port
is
> stronger
> than Strip Mine was in t2. Why such a bold statement? Here's a situation.
>
> Turn 1
>
> I play a Land, opponent plays a land.
AMP: 1
AMO: 1
> Turn 2
>
> I play a Port, tap opponent's land during upkeep, he plays a land.
AMP: 0
AMO: 1
> ***I play a strip mine, kill opponent's land, he plays a land.***
***AMP: 1
***AMO: 1
> Turn 3
>
> I play a land, I have 3 Mana available, opponent only has one mana,
> so I can play a 2-3 cc Spell
AMP: 3
AMO: 1 (During YOUR TURN only; after opponent untaps for their turn, then
AMO = 3)
> *or*
> I can play 1 cc spell, and use the port *again*!
AMP: 1
AMO: 2
> ***I play a land, I have 2 mana available, I can play a 1-2 cc spell...***
***AMP: 2
***AMO: 2
It seems to me that in scenarios where you use the Port, you have less mana
than your opponent (which stands to reason; the Port "uses" 2 mana per use
to tie up one of the opponent's mana).
> So in effect, the port steals a turn from the opponent. It's like a Time
> Walk!
> ....that stays around!
I don't quite see this. First off, they get to draw a card, attack, play
instant-speed spells, etc., so "Time Walk" isn't quite accurate. I DO admit
that tying up their mana base for a whole turn IS very significant and can
be treated as a "Near-Time Walk". I've got that. The problem that I have
with this is, in order to "Time Walk" your opponent, YOU had to miss a whole
turn of mana, too. YOU had to miss 2 mana on Turn 2 (essentially missing
the entire mana portion of your Turn 2) while the opponent treats his Turn 2
like it's Turn 1.
Think of it this way: By tapping 2 lands to tap their one, it's almost like
your opponent "tapped" 2 of your lands using only their one. Granted, you
get to choose which of your opponent's lands gets tapped for this effect,
but you miss BOTH your mana on Turn 2, while your opponent only misses one.
It's like you gave that Island (or whatever) of theirs the ability: "TAP:
Tap two lands that opponent controls, of opponent's choice"'
And as for keeping it around, if you want to keep Porting, you have to keep
using 2 mana to tie up their 1. This seems disadvantageous to me.
Now, I see Ports being good vs. Uberlands or Creaturelands. I got that.
And I can see how the Port would ROCK if you didn't have to pay 1 additional
mana to use it (i.e., if it said "TAP: Tap target land" instead of "1, TAP:
Tap target land"). But I just don't get how tying up 2 mana of yours to tie
up 1 mana of your opponent's is all that strong, even _if_ YOU get to choose
the lands. Yeah, you may get to colorscrew an opponent here or there, but
what about vs the popular monocolor decks?
Like I said, I have this feeling that I MUST be wrong...I mean can THAT much
of the Magic community be THAT wrong? I can more easily see me
misunderstanding than the rest of the Magic community
misunderstanding...What am I missing here???
Dave Sanders
Archimede
I understand that people are having problems
seeing what the power of the Port is. I tried to give
an example, but no one actually looked at it the way I
presented it, and thus didn't see the power.
If I have 3 Mana available when my opponent only has one,
on my third turn, I find it very advantageous.
I can play a big critter without having to worry about the opponent
countering it, and I know that it won't be until his 6th land that he
gets to treachery it, since I have port, so if that big critter is a
Negator,
I've practically won the game.
If I'm playing Land Destruction, I get to my 3 mana flashpoint, before
opponent
gets 2 mana available! And I might also get to 5 mana before opponent gets
to 4, and that means I can plow under and really make an opponent hate the
port.
If I'm playing decent critters, but have a turn 3 "vanilla" point, I can
delay the opponent's
first Keg at least one turn, giving me that chance to get one more turn of
beatdown in.
If the opponent happens to be playing Man Lands, Cradle/Sanctum, or a Land
with Wild Growth/Fertile
Ground on it, I get to shut it down cheaply.
I'm sure I can come up with example #1000, and the people who won't be
convinced still won't be.
But in case some of you were really open-minded, I hope I've shed some light
on why having
3 Mana when opponent only has 1 is a really good thing, even if just for a
turn....
Archimède
Nate Finch
You bring up a good point. Let me bring up the second point why Port is
so good. It's something I didn't quite understand for a long time. The
best part about Port is that there's almost no reason not to put it in
your deck. If using it won't help you, then don't use it. You still have
a perfectly good land. Sure it doesn't produce colored mana, but how many
decks don't have plenty of spells with colorless mana in their casting
cost? That's the true power of the Port: Being able to *not* use it, and
not have it be a drawback the way a dead card in your hand would be.
-Nate
Andrew Vance
Archimede wrote:
> <Snip all sorts of stuff>
>
> I understand that people are having problems
> seeing what the power of the Port is. I tried to give
> an example, but no one actually looked at it the way I
> presented it, and thus didn't see the power.
>
> If I have 3 Mana available when my opponent only has one,
> on my third turn, I find it very advantageous.
>
Yes. This is advantageous. However, it is also costly.
To get in this situation, you must have tapped a land on his second turn.
Therefor, you do nothing on you second turn. This is a bad thing.
>
> I can play a big critter without having to worry about the opponent
> countering it, and I know that it won't be until his 6th land that he
> gets to treachery it, since I have port, so if that big critter is a
> Negator,
> I've practically won the game.
>
True. Port is great VS control. It doesn't go main in every deck, however. And
if your opponents only creature control is for treacheries, he probably isn't
going to have them anyway.
>
> If I'm playing Land Destruction, I get to my 3 mana flashpoint, before
> opponent
> gets 2 mana available! And I might also get to 5 mana before opponent gets
> to 4, and that means I can plow under and really make an opponent hate the
> port.
>
Not really. It means your opponent almost certainly has more creatures out at
this point.
>
> If I'm playing decent critters, but have a turn 3 "vanilla" point, I can
> delay the opponent's
> first Keg at least one turn, giving me that chance to get one more turn of
> beatdown in.
>
Well, sure. But - say - you already had two 1cc critters, would you tap a land
to delay the keg, or drop a 2 or 3 cc critter? It's not exactly a clear win
situation for the port - sure, you get you cheap stuff for a turn longer, but
are left with nothing.
>
> If the opponent happens to be playing Man Lands, Cradle/Sanctum, or a Land
> with Wild Growth/Fertile
> Ground on it, I get to shut it down cheaply.
>
> I'm sure I can come up with example #1000, and the people who won't be
> convinced still won't be.
> But in case some of you were really open-minded, I hope I've shed some light
> on why having
> 3 Mana when opponent only has 1 is a really good thing, even if just for a
> turn....
>
But you're missing the point - to get this, you have to give your opponent a
turn when they have 1 land and you have none. And hell, against a lot of decks,
them having only one mana in your turn is hardly going to phase them.
>
> Archimède
Kevin
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:16:49 +1100, Andrew Vance
<van...@interact.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>Archimede wrote:
>
>> <Snip all sorts of stuff>
>>
>> I understand that people are having problems
>> seeing what the power of the Port is. I tried to give
>> an example, but no one actually looked at it the way I
>> presented it, and thus didn't see the power.
>>
>> If I have 3 Mana available when my opponent only has one,
>> on my third turn, I find it very advantageous.
>>
>
>Yes. This is advantageous. However, it is also costly.
>To get in this situation, you must have tapped a land on his second turn.
>Therefor, you do nothing on you second turn. This is a bad thing.
>
But you get the choice of what to do....You don't HAVE to use the port
if you don't want to..It still produces colorless mana. You can delay
them a turn if you want (Somewhat similar to strip) AND have the mana
available for you the next turn. That's why it's so good..because
it's versatile..I don't think anyone would be complaining about it if
it didn't produce mana.
Also, something I haven't seen mentioned is, not only can you delay
people getting to their flashpoint by a turn, but you could be
delaying them for a lot longer than that if they don't happen to get
the necessary land. Two land draw, draw a 3rd, you need a 4th to get
going cause of port, you don't get land draw for 2 more turns..that's
a huge difference...And again, the port person doesn't even need to
use the port..that's the whole point..they can if they want and if the
situation doesn't call for it, they don't have to...But it gives them
that versatility to basically shut down a deck for multiple turns plus
just be a pain in the butt IF they want to or IF the situation calls
for it..
Kevin
>
>> The Port is even
>> stronger in multiples;
>
>Great. So are 90% of the cards in magic. 2 bolts, 2 lotus's, 2 grizzlies, 2...
>almost anything, are better than one. That's why there is a four card limit -
>two much anything is abusable.
>
>>
>> so while Mind over Matter was broken because of its ability, drawing a
>> second one was useless,
>
>To the extent that an extra untap of your academy was useless.
>
>>
>> but a second, third, or fourth port is even more abusive.
>
>Not so much. Lets see - it's the sixth turn. You have three basic land, and two
>ports. You draw anotherone. Joyfully, you put it into play. Than you say
>'yours'. Your opponent begins their turn, and you tap three of their land in
>upkeep. They play another, and drop a three cc critter. Boy, are you trashing
>them or what?
You're still looking at it in a VERY narrow sense. The point is, you
do NOT have to use the Port. You act as if you will use it at every
opportunity..which is not the case at all. Drawing the port isn't bad
because it WILL produce mana so you can use it as a land yet it can
stall your opponent for one or MORE turns. It CAN be used for that
but it doesn't mean it needs to be used. If someone gets a bad mana
draw, you can make it that much worse but if they don't, drawing it
isn't bad. If someone has a 3cc flashpoint and they have 3 lands,
they need to draw a 4th which maybe or may not be in the next few
draws. If someone has a 2 color deck, you can shut down a color until
they draw a card which may or may not be in the next few draws. All
this time you are drawing cards as well, getting your necessary
resources and you can choose to use or NOT use the port.
Again, you do NOT need to use the Port because it provides you
mana...you are never forced to use it but you can basically lock a
game very early on just in having it...and you don't really have a
disadvantage by having it and NOT using it.....The fact that having
Ports and your opponent not is a big advantage. You can basically
shut or slow them down early on if they have an ok draw...which will
probably give you a win. While drawing them isn't a bad thing and if
the situation doesn't call for using it, you don't have to use it.
Mr. the Hoople
The argument so far has ignored the fact that there are also so many
particular circumstances in which the port is really powerful. I play green a
lot and having your gaea's cradle or treetop village shut down for two mana
can be pretty annoying. Or what about someone playing two colour who has only
one source of one of the colours on table. Tap it during his upkeep and you
may stop him doing anything at all that turn for just two mana. I think the
reason why the port is so good is just that it is so versatile as part of a
control deck - even to the point that it is easily used as a single colourless
mana if necassary. I don't thik it's broken by any stretch of the imagination
- just very versatile and useful.
LC xxx
Stewart Potter
Mr. the Hoople <MTHo...@h.o.t.m.a.i.l.c/o/m.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in article
<1999Dec17.1...@leeds.ac.uk>...
: >>> <Snip all sorts of stuff>
:
: The argument so far has ignored the fact that there are also so many
: particular circumstances in which the port is really powerful. I play
green a
: lot and having your gaea's cradle or treetop village shut down for two
mana
: can be pretty annoying.
If you can't do anything with the Cradle mana, sure it's annoying. If, on
the other hand, you have Echo or some other fast effect for mana (Mishra's
Helix), than the Port is a waste.
: Or what about someone playing two colour who has only
: one source of one of the colours on table. Tap it during his upkeep and
you
: may stop him doing anything at all that turn for just two mana.
But of course, he has prevented you from using your two mana during your
turn. You know? the two mana you saved so you could tap one of his mana on
his turn? If your opponent is color screwed in land, than the Port has some
influence on the matter. But if your opponent's bi-colored deck is coming
up color screwed your probably winning anyway.
: I think the
: reason why the port is so good is just that it is so versatile as part of
a
: control deck - even to the point that it is easily used as a single
colourless
: mana if necassary. I don't thik it's broken by any stretch of the
imagination
: - just very versatile and useful.
I'd have to agree here. The Ports would simply be an uncounterable, limited
Icy if it weren't for the fact that they do supply you with mana. The
verstility only comes into play because it's not a lost draw if you can't
use them for their tap ability.
:
: LC xxx
:
-------
Stu
Chrondeath Dracion
>
<snip>
> I will also assume that we are going to keep this T2 legal
> because there are too many possibilities outside of T2 to
> contemplate.
> 2 Ramosian Lieutenants (2 drops who can fetch gliders)
> 2 Soul Wardens (good 1 drops)
Did I miss something in here?
+--+
|\/| -Chrondeath Dracion
|/\| chron...@home.com
+--+ Telekinesis: It's the thought that counts.
shimrod
The opionions here refer only to Type 2, not Extended or Type 1.
Port is a strong card in certain types of decks.
An example of a deck where port works well is in a
monoblue control deck. Using the port to slow down
my opponent's development allows me to develop my
own mana base. Since the critcal flashpoint for mono-blue
is 5 mana, porting my opponent for two or three
turns allows me to set up my own resources and reach
the mana level i need to cast treachery, morphling, or
some other card to wreck you.
Port allows blue to do something that hasn't been
too common in the past two years.. play an endgame.
Most players today are woefully unprepared to think
about what their deck will do past turn 7 or 8. Tempest
block speed promoted beatdown and combo over more
methodical, tactical style playing. The exit of strong
one drop and two drop plays like Jackal Pup, Oath of Druids,
Suvival, etc means that most important spells have a flashpoint
between two and three mana, instead of the one and two mana
of Tempest block. It is much easier to deny your opponent
2 and 3 mana spells than it is to deny them mana for
1 and 2 mana spells. This is where the Port shines;
using my port prevents you from developing your
game plan while allowing me to develop my own game plan.
I don't plan on starting to win the game until turn 6
or 7; while if I have reached turn 6 or 7 most likely
your deck has already lost the game. Port allows me
to reach turn 6 or 7 while effectivly preventing you
from playing your game from turns 2-3 to turns 6-7.
Another strong point of the port is the ability to suppress
man-lands. The port is also hard to remove before turn 4 or 5
unless you are playing against red land destruction.
Ports also hose anyone who is playing with more than one color.
Simon Westenra
><Snip all sorts of stuff>
>
>seeing what the power of the Port is. I tried to give
>an example, but no one actually looked at it the way I
>presented it, and thus didn't see the power.
>
>If I have 3 Mana available when my opponent only has one,
>on my third turn, I find it very advantageous.
><Snip all sorts of stuff>
>Archimède
I agree with the versatility of the Port, as you mentioned above.
But - Wouldn't that make a Llanowar Elf overly powerful (and versatile as
well ?)
(or for that Matter - Wild Growth/Burgeoning/Exploration/BirdOfParadise )
If I start the game, on my second turn I have 3 mana and they have one
Just as a Rishadan port gives me.
I also have the option to attack with it if I choose ..
The only real difference between a Llanowar and a Rishadan Port is that
the Elf is a creature and easily blown away.
( I won't get into the argument about
how *easy* it is to get creatures back from the graveyard
vs
how easy it is to get Lands back from the graveyard !!!
Or
creatures acting as blockers,
or creatures killing the opponent,
or creatures being powered up with Rancors etc.
If everybody just starts playing Green - then Rishadan Ports will be removed
from the watch list.
Thanx
Simon Westenra
[ just sour grapes really - because I don't have any Rishadan Ports yet
8-( ]
Monica Johnson
🔴ALL>Movies✅ 📺 📱 💻 ✅ALL>Movies🔴
✅▶️▶️ CLICK HERE Full HD✅720p✅1080p✅4K✅
WATCH ✅💻📺📱👉https://co.fastmovies.org
ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ ✅📺📱💻👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>HERE>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
✅WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>HERE>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>HERE>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>HERE>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴ALL>Movies>ALL>TIME>Save>LINK👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴ALL>Movies>ALL>TIME>Save>LINK👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📱ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📺ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📺ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org