Chess for Chimps: Why Monkeys are bad for Magic
eeyoo
Cursed Scroll seeming to be a good fit.
'It's a 6th ed. deck,' he says, as if that explains the lack of one of the
best cards in magic. I look questioningly at him, and he continues.
'Monkeys are coming back, and EVERYONE is going to be splashing them. I
hate giving them something to f*ck.'
Ah yes. The return of the Uktabi. The death of carefully constructed well
thought out decks emphasizing artifacts, because everyone is going to be
splashing them AGAIN.
Don't think so? Maybe you don't remember the tournament scene from a couple
years ago but I do. I well remember many consecutive tournaments walking
around and seeing that the only artifacts that people were playing was Disk,
all due to fear of Monkeys. Despite the fact that no one was using
artifacts, there were still 3-4 monkeys in almost every deck.
And that's what we have to look forward to again. Put all your cool
artifacts away, as every deck using artifacts other than 4 Cursed Scrolls
have just become tier 2 due to what will be a prevalence of decks with tons
of main deck artifact destruction. Tinker decks, already marginal due to
lack of consistency, will totally disappear.
Think I'm being reactionary? Think about what deck's YOU'VE been
considering for 6th. Have you come up with a bunch of cool, VIABLE decks
using artifacts, or have you come up with a bunch of decks with monkeys,
creeping mold, pillage, heretics, ad infinitum ad nauseaum.
I wonder why WotC bothered reprinting Howling mine. I really do. Maybe in
a year from now I'll take out my dusty box of artifacts and think about
playing with my Medallions or Portcullis or Tomes.
Don't count on it.
alan webster
putting my green cards on top of my artifacts to keep the dust off the cool
ones
sol t kim
>I'm looking at jamie's deck the other day, and I mention something about
>Cursed Scroll seeming to be a good fit.
i thought they didn't get reprinted in 6th. u sure it's even playable?
>Don't think so? Maybe you don't remember the tournament scene from a couple
>years ago but I do. I well remember many consecutive tournaments walking
>around and seeing that the only artifacts that people were playing was Disk,
>all due to fear of Monkeys. Despite the fact that no one was using
>artifacts, there were still 3-4 monkeys in almost every deck.
i still see virtually all blue decks playing with 4 counterspells. it's
been that way forever. anyone sick to their stomach yet?
>And that's what we have to look forward to again. Put all your cool
>artifacts away, as every deck using artifacts other than 4 Cursed Scrolls
>have just become tier 2 due to what will be a prevalence of decks with tons
>of main deck artifact destruction. Tinker decks, already marginal due to
>lack of consistency, will totally disappear.
oh wow. i'll be so sad because i won't be seeing second turn phrexian
processors. you?
big deal. you have to play green to play monkeys and green is seriously
weakened in 6th due to returning control magic and lack of color hosers. i
would be surprised to see dominating green anytime soon.
>putting my green cards on top of my artifacts to keep the dust off the cool
>ones
stop hating green. why aren't you upset because white has had disenchants?
damn that cool enchantment deck i was thinking aboutwould suck now, won't
it?
--
TQM359
>thought out decks emphasizing artifacts, because everyone is going to be
>splashing them AGAIN.
Splash, splash, splash away! Andything to killed to damned scrolls. Control
decks with counter spells should be able to handle them. If a deck's balence
is so delicate that it can't handle a monkey then prehaps the deck wasn't meant
to be. If we're more redundent. four Ensnaring Bridges instad of two for
example, then we can handle a little Monkey.
I can apreciate being reactionary, but don't be so negative. I hesitate to
build a Black-Red deck just because of one card: Superman. I put Serratted
Arrows in my land destruction deck instead of Earthquake, just do deal with
Superman. Kiss off S. Monkey, Superman limits decks more than that.
Don Quijote de la Mancha
David Chapman
news:FC7z4...@midway.uchicago.edu...
> In article <3748...@news.together.net>, eeyoo <ee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm looking at jamie's deck the other day, and I mention something about
> >Cursed Scroll seeming to be a good fit.
>
> i thought they didn't get reprinted in 6th. u sure it's even playable?
Once again: 6E does *not* rotate out the Tempest block. That won't happen
until November.
>
> >Don't think so? Maybe you don't remember the tournament scene from a
couple
> >years ago but I do. I well remember many consecutive tournaments walking
> >around and seeing that the only artifacts that people were playing was
Disk,
> >all due to fear of Monkeys. Despite the fact that no one was using
> >artifacts, there were still 3-4 monkeys in almost every deck.
>
> i still see virtually all blue decks playing with 4 counterspells. it's
> been that way forever. anyone sick to their stomach yet?
Yes. Lots of people. So they play hosers for blue.
>
> >And that's what we have to look forward to again. Put all your cool
> >artifacts away, as every deck using artifacts other than 4 Cursed Scrolls
> >have just become tier 2 due to what will be a prevalence of decks with
tons
> >of main deck artifact destruction. Tinker decks, already marginal due
to
> >lack of consistency, will totally disappear.
>
> oh wow. i'll be so sad because i won't be seeing second turn phrexian
> processors. you?
I will, yes. That said, the Tinker decks will just alter to have many more
threat cards, plus they already have Karn-Lifeline and Goblin Welder to
preserve those Colossi.
--
Restate my assumptions: 1. Mathematics is the language of nature.
2. Everything around us can be represented and understood by numbers.
3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge.
Therefore, there are patterns everywhere in nature.
sent...@globalnet.co.uk
RaeMowse
>In article <3748...@news.together.net>, eeyoo <ee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I'm looking at jamie's deck the other day, and I mention something about
>>Cursed Scroll seeming to be a good fit.
>
>i thought they didn't get reprinted in 6th. u sure it's even playable?
Yep, all the way up to November 1, 1999.
>>Don't think so? Maybe you don't remember the tournament scene from a couple
>>years ago but I do. I well remember many consecutive tournaments walking
>>around and seeing that the only artifacts that people were playing was Disk,
>>all due to fear of Monkeys. Despite the fact that no one was using
>>artifacts, there were still 3-4 monkeys in almost every deck.
>
>i still see virtually all blue decks playing with 4 counterspells. it's
>been that way forever. anyone sick to their stomach yet?
Well, it's typical for any deck that predominantly or mono blue. However,
Counterspell is pretty much limited to permission (due to the UU factor),
whereas Hot-n-Wild Monkey Lovin' is limited only by imagination of a deck.
Counterspell in itself can be handled; Monkeys in itself; which are splashed
about in any deck that can afford a little ping or two, becomes a bit harder to
do so, especially in the face of Survival/Death (dammit, why couldn't they have
reprinted Swords!)
>>And that's what we have to look forward to again. Put all your cool
>>artifacts away, as every deck using artifacts other than 4 Cursed Scrolls
>>have just become tier 2 due to what will be a prevalence of decks with tons
>>of main deck artifact destruction. Tinker decks, already marginal due to
>>lack of consistency, will totally disappear.
>
>oh wow. i'll be so sad because i won't be seeing second turn phrexian
>processors. you?
The monoblue variants will probably lose strength unless Argivian/Drafna's
Restoration is reprinted in some form or fashion in Destiny, but U/R Tinkerers
may fare better (Welders, you know...).
>big deal. you have to play green to play monkeys
No, all you have to be able to do is put four City of Brass into your deck.
Problem solved.
and green is seriously
>weakened in 6th due to returning control magic and lack of color hosers. i
Control Magic? Oh, Abduction...
>would be surprised to see dominating green anytime soon.
So would I, unless Destiny and Mercadian Masques is exceptionally good to green
as far as sideboards go.
>>putting my green cards on top of my artifacts to keep the dust off the cool
>>ones
>
>stop hating green. why aren't you upset because white has had disenchants?
Unlike Sex Monkeys, Disenchants have to be casted to work their magic. Any old
graveyard deck can suck up a Monkey when it damn well needs it.
>damn that cool enchantment deck i was thinking aboutwould suck now, won't
>it?
With permachants? You're kidding, right?
Rainman
I don't tell people what they can and can't do because I want to win; I tell
them in order to help them become better players. So if they beat me on level
ground, then I know I've done my job. That's what Magic should be all about.
eeyoo
When I'm talking, I tend to tell long rambling stories which eventually
include all the points I'm trying to make. Unfortunately when I write I
occasionally skip the part where I present the additional arguments to
support my case.
In this case, one of my significant arguments was the sheer amount of
quality artifact destruction available now. I'm a pretty good player, and I
consider part of this to be knowledge of the available cards. So I quizzed
myself to name all the legal (come 6th ed) artifact destruction.
Try it yourself. I missed 4 of the legal spells, which I feel is a lot.
But there is just SO much of it, and so much of it is viable that playing
artifacts is not practical.
alan webster
doesn't bang his head vs. walls
won't play artifacts this year
Catherine Renée Nicoloff
> I'm looking at jamie's deck the other day, and I mention something about
> Cursed Scroll seeming to be a good fit.
>
the
> best cards in magic. I look questioningly at him, and he continues.
> 'Monkeys are coming back, and EVERYONE is going to be splashing them. I
> hate giving them something to f*ck.'
>
well
> thought out decks emphasizing artifacts, because everyone is going to be
> splashing them AGAIN.
I think the recent round of Urza's Block constructed at PTNY got everyone
confused.
Artifacts are supposed to be very easy to destroy, at least in my opinion,
to balance out their very specialized effects and their ease of casting.
Urza's Block had far too little artifact removal, so everyone got hooked on
their Tinker and Fluctuator and Grim Monolith decks. Now it's harder to
play them because of all the quality artifact removal like Pillage and
Creeping Mold and Uktabi Orangutan.
If we didn't have such amazing artifact removal, I think we'd all get
pretty tired very quickly of Tinker, Grim Monolith, Ring of Gix, Ensnaring
Bridge, and all those other wonderful staples of lock-and-combo decks.
Artifacts are too powerful compared to many of their spell counterparts,
yet your average artifact removal in most sets has been limited to "Pay too
much: destroy target artifact." IMO, it's a good thing that artifact
destruction now comes combined with other flavors like getting to nuke a
land, an enchantment, or getting a monkey for free. Hell yes, we should be
able to splash Orangutan. You get to splash your artifacts!
- Cathy Nicoloff
Team Legion - http://legion.ccgnews.com/
Chris Byler
<c_nic...@usa.net> wrote:
>eeyoo <ee...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <3748...@news.together.net>...
>> I'm looking at jamie's deck the other day, and I mention something about
>> Cursed Scroll seeming to be a good fit.
>>
>> 'It's a 6th ed. deck,' he says, as if that explains the lack of one of
>the
>> best cards in magic. I look questioningly at him, and he continues.
>> 'Monkeys are coming back, and EVERYONE is going to be splashing them. I
>> hate giving them something to f*ck.'
>>
>> Ah yes. The return of the Uktabi. The death of carefully constructed
>well
>> thought out decks emphasizing artifacts, because everyone is going to be
>> splashing them AGAIN.
>
>I think the recent round of Urza's Block constructed at PTNY got everyone
>confused.
>
>Artifacts are supposed to be very easy to destroy, at least in my opinion,
>to balance out their very specialized effects and their ease of casting.
>
>Urza's Block had far too little artifact removal, so everyone got hooked on
>their Tinker and Fluctuator and Grim Monolith decks. Now it's harder to
>play them because of all the quality artifact removal like Pillage and
>Creeping Mold and Uktabi Orangutan.
Creeping Mold, quality artifact removal? It's a decent card, but only
because of its versatility. It's not that great just as artifact
removal - certainly not compared to Disenchant or Shattering Pulse,
which have been around for a while. (Disenchant - since Alpha, always
cheap and splashable, hits enchantments too - so why are you
complaining about Orangutans?)
>If we didn't have such amazing artifact removal, I think we'd all get
>pretty tired very quickly of Tinker, Grim Monolith, Ring of Gix, Ensnaring
>Bridge, and all those other wonderful staples of lock-and-combo decks.
>
>Artifacts are too powerful compared to many of their spell counterparts,
I don't agree with this. Artifacts tend to be fairly similar in
effect to an enchantment of similar CC (except for the horribly
undercosted ones like Scroll). Artifacts are far more splashable, of
course, but they're also generally more vulnerable.
>yet your average artifact removal in most sets has been limited to "Pay too
>much: destroy target artifact."
Some colors don't even get that. And this is much, much more true of
enchantments. I can quickly name all the red and black enchantment
removal: there isn't any. Blue is limited to bounce-and-counter.
OTOH, you might as well not even try to play enchantments if your
opponent is playing white. It makes the metagame overshadow the game.
>IMO, it's a good thing that artifact
>destruction now comes combined with other flavors like getting to nuke a
>land, an enchantment, or getting a monkey for free. Hell yes, we should be
>able to splash Orangutan. You get to splash your artifacts!
Considering that Disenchant is cheaper _and_ more versatile and just
as splashable, does it really matter that Orang comes with a free
grizzly bear? I just don't see it as having that big an effect on the
environment; if artifact decks are nasty and can be stopped by
orangutans, they are nasty and can be stopped by disenchants, too.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"Was that _it_?" -- Ertai, Wizard Adept
Catherine Renée Nicoloff
on
> >their Tinker and Fluctuator and Grim Monolith decks. Now it's harder to
> >play them because of all the quality artifact removal like Pillage and
> >Creeping Mold and Uktabi Orangutan.
>
> Creeping Mold, quality artifact removal? It's a decent card, but only
> because of its versatility. It's not that great just as artifact
> removal - certainly not compared to Disenchant or Shattering Pulse,
> which have been around for a while. (Disenchant - since Alpha, always
> cheap and splashable, hits enchantments too - so why are you
> complaining about Orangutans?)
Agreed that nothing is quite as amazing as Shattering Pulse for sheer
artifact removal.
My point was that it is GOOD that these cards are versatile. It is good
that such cards can destroy lands or produce creatures, for those occasions
where artifact removal is just as bad as missing a draw phase. I'd rather
have a Pillage versus Stompy than a Shattering Pulse, for sure. At least I
could nuke the Cradle or mess up some echo.
> >Artifacts are too powerful compared to many of their spell counterparts,
>
> I don't agree with this. Artifacts tend to be fairly similar in
> effect to an enchantment of similar CC (except for the horribly
> undercosted ones like Scroll). Artifacts are far more splashable, of
> course, but they're also generally more vulnerable.
They need to be more vulnerable. If you re-read what the original thread
said, it lamented that artifacts were too vulnerable compared to other
permanents. Without this vulnerability, artifacts would often be far too
strong. We saw that without natural enemies, artifacts were the ruling
kings of Urza's Block. Even bad artifacts. A spell like Rack and Ruin
just isn't so super when you don't draw it versus an artifact that will
kill you quickly. We saw that in Tempest, without enough artifact kill,
Scrolls would hit the board and kill despite 4 Disenchants in every deck.
The same problem with Fluctuator, and Academy decks and Tinker decks.
> >yet your average artifact removal in most sets has been limited to "Pay
too
> >much: destroy target artifact."
>
> Some colors don't even get that. And this is much, much more true of
> enchantments. I can quickly name all the red and black enchantment
> removal: there isn't any. Blue is limited to bounce-and-counter.
> OTOH, you might as well not even try to play enchantments if your
> opponent is playing white. It makes the metagame overshadow the game.
I agree. I just want to point out that this conversation is not about
fairness of enchantments or enchantment destruction.
> >IMO, it's a good thing that artifact
> >destruction now comes combined with other flavors like getting to nuke a
> >land, an enchantment, or getting a monkey for free. Hell yes, we should
be
> >able to splash Orangutan. You get to splash your artifacts!
>
> Considering that Disenchant is cheaper _and_ more versatile and just
> as splashable, does it really matter that Orang comes with a free
> grizzly bear? I just don't see it as having that big an effect on the
> environment; if artifact decks are nasty and can be stopped by
> orangutans, they are nasty and can be stopped by disenchants, too.
Of course it matters. If you play in a metagame where half the decks have
artifacts and half don't, it's better to have a creature than to have a
dead Disenchant. The versatility and the fact that it doubles as a kill
card or a blocker make it a no-brainer if a situation calls for artifact
removal.
Bennie Smith
about
> Cursed Scroll seeming to be a good fit.
>
> 'It's a 6th ed. deck,' he says, as if that explains the lack of one
of the
> best cards in magic. I look questioningly at him, and he continues.
> 'Monkeys are coming back, and EVERYONE is going to be splashing
them. I
> hate giving them something to f*ck.'
>
> Ah yes. The return of the Uktabi. The death of carefully
constructed well
> thought out decks emphasizing artifacts, because everyone is going to
be
> splashing them AGAIN.
I think you may be over-reacting a tad, Alan. I think
everyone was splashing Orangutan before because so
many of those decks just rolled over and *died* to
Disks. You had to have a built-in defense against
Disks, a very popular control card, to have a chance
against those decks. If you didn't need to blow up
an artifact, you still got a Grey Ogre out of the deal.
I've built a few 6th ed. legal decks and two of them
have Orangutans, but only one deck has him main--
the Survival deck. The other deck just doesn't
really need Orangutan except in the Sideboard.
To step back and think about it in another light...
just because everybody's packing 4 Wastelands,
do people stop playing special lands? I see
Cradles and Treetop Villages and Cities of
Brass all over the place. Sure, having it
Wasted sucks, but maybe they don't draw that
Wasteland before you can use it. Same with
artifacts... maybe your opponent doesn't draw
that Orangutan before you can make use of
the artifact. The exception here is Survival...
but that's a whole different ball of wax.
Another strategy is artifact overload... play
with 6 or 8 decent artifacts, and give your
opponent the opportunity to Sex up the wrong
one.
Bennie
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
eeyoo
Bennie Smith wrote in message <7ifru2$1cl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>I think you may be over-reacting a tad, Alan. I think
>everyone was splashing Orangutan before because so
>many of those decks just rolled over and *died* to
>Disks. You had to have a built-in defense against
>Disks, a very popular control card, to have a chance
>against those decks. If you didn't need to blow up
>an artifact, you still got a Grey Ogre out of the deal.
>
>
don't think it did a great job illustrating my position, but I'll try to do
better here.
There will always be some aspects and strategies in Magic that are weak.
Artifacts have always been powerful due to their splashability (is that a
word? It is in magicspeak anyway) and the effects they generate. Thus
artifact elimination has always been of great importance, and every color
has received spells at various times which produce that effect. There have
even been artifacts which function as artifact elimination.
So despite the power of artifacts they have never been dominant in
tournaments or 'tier 1' decks before PTNJ except for Type One or a few short
instances when a broken card like Memory Jar appeared. However, there have
always been artifacts making their appearance in tier 1 decks in supporting
roles. It is my prediction that with THE exception of Cursed Broken Scroll
that there will be NO main deck artifacts in the tier 1 decks of the next
4-6 months (when Scroll rotates out), and few in the sideboards.
Artifacts are SUPPOSED to be splashed. That is the point of colorless mana.
They are supposed to help balance out weaknesses and help support the
strengths of specific colors. If my prediction about the lack of artifacts
in tournament decks is true (which it is. Use the past to predict the
future), then it's obvious that WotC is totally screwing up their production
of decent artifacts. They print crap for artifacts expansion after
expansion, occasionally printing a broken one so that artifacts don't
completely disappear. And they print more and more artifact removal so that
the few decent ones don't get played.
I'm not complaining about this; I don't have some cool artifact deck which
has been screwed by this policy. I'm just a little irritated by it.
Ok, I am complaining.
alan webster
going to call the girl police
Lewis B. Himelhoch
> > >Urza's Block had far too little artifact removal, so everyone got hooked
> They need to be more vulnerable. If you re-read what the original thread
> said, it lamented that artifacts were too vulnerable compared to other
> permanents. Without this vulnerability, artifacts would often be far too
> strong. We saw that without natural enemies, artifacts were the ruling
> kings of Urza's Block. Even bad artifacts. A spell like Rack and Ruin
> just isn't so super when you don't draw it versus an artifact that will
> kill you quickly. We saw that in Tempest, without enough artifact kill,
> Scrolls would hit the board and kill despite 4 Disenchants in every deck.
> The same problem with Fluctuator, and Academy decks and Tinker decks.
One more thing, perhaps unrelated. Urza's Destiny would appear to be providing
Lobotomy type cards for every card type. If the monkeys are the only thing
messing up your nasty artifact deck, get rid of them. If the scrolls are the
only thing
messing up your weenie deck - get rid of them. All right, I am over
simplifying since
these spells are neither fast nor splashable but they are one possible answer.
Perhaps
the first time Magic has gotten anything resembling a "Magic Bullet".
L. Himelhoch
Lewis B. Himelhoch
> And they print more and more artifact removal so that
> the few decent ones don't get played.
>
People will still play with artifacts. They will still play Tinker decks. They
will, however, have to
play a bit more conservatively. Instead of Dropping Aturn 2 or 3 Colossus, they
may wait until
turn 4 or 5 for Counterspell Backup. Instead of Dropping an early Serpent
Basket or Processor,
again they will wait until they have the mana to get some use out of them.
Scroll becomes
somewhat less of an I win card. In short, the reappearance of everyone's
favorite monkey makes
people play smarter and actually less like chimps, at least if they still want
to win.
L. Himelhoch
John M. Shuler
: Bennie Smith wrote in message <7ifru2$1cl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
: I'm not complaining about this; I don't have some cool artifact deck which
: has been screwed by this policy. I'm just a little irritated by it.
: Ok, I am complaining.
: alan webster
: going to call the girl police
is grouchy old Alan Webster secretly an ANI DIFRANCO
FAN!?!?!!?!
--
John M. Shuler
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'll pay $3 for a glowstick that won't last half the night.
I'll pay $15 for a party that might be busted an hour later.
I'll pay $25 for a pill that could probably just be aspirin.
But I *WILL NOT* pay $2 for that big bottle of water!
- raver creed
-------------------------------------------------------------
eeyoo
John M. Shuler wrote in message
>>
>: alan webster
>: going to call the girl police
>
>
>is grouchy old Alan Webster secretly an ANI DIFRANCO
>FAN!?!?!!?!
>
>
He likes hot dogs, hanging out at home, despise travel and anything remotely
wierd which might upset his otherwise very stable and predictable life. And
of course, he likes lesbians.
I mean, what sensible guy doesn't? Sure, technically they're in competition
with us for desirable women, but darn it, I can forgive 'em for that as long
as I get to watch.
And lesbians love Ani Difranco.
Oh My God do they love her.
That isn't the reason I like her. Well, it isn't the whole reason. She's
brilliant and amazingly talented.
And lesbians love her.
alan webster
still waiting for the girl police
Glenn, thine Prophet of Chaos
(Snip, on lesbians)
>I mean, what sensible guy doesn't?
The gay ones.
(Please, no debates on how sensible gay men are; this is off-topic
enough as is.)
>Sure, technically they're in competition
>with us for desirable women, but darn it, I can forgive 'em for that as long
>as I get to watch.
I prefer bisexual polyamourous girls.
They're more likely to let me join in.
>And lesbians love Ani Difranco.
>
>Oh My God do they love her.
>
>That isn't the reason I like her. Well, it isn't the whole reason. She's
>brilliant and amazingly talented.
And finally, someone mentions music that I actually *like* on this
group.
Glenn, growing weary of the reincarnations of disco.
--
Thine Prophet of Kaos.
John M. Shuler
: On Mon, 31 May 1999 00:26:01 -0400, "eeyoo" <ee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >And lesbians love Ani Difranco.
: >That isn't the reason I like her. Well, it isn't the whole reason. She's
: >brilliant and amazingly talented.
: And finally, someone mentions music that I actually *like* on this
: group.
And then, there were three.